Religions and their respective bubbles of delusion

Post Reply New Topic

I agree so far.


Or maybe you could admit that we really don't know. "God" is a lack of answer as it begs the question of where this bloke comes from. We have only seen intelligence arise through the gradual process of evolution, how would this "god" character form? Supergod, Superdupergod etcetera?

A lot of the time, people will answer with "God always existed.", and at that point you'll hate yourself for even trying.

Anyway,



Not touching on the complications like what created God and so forth, it is correct that everyone believes 100% in their own version of logic, but Christopher Hitchens said it quite well: Religion poisons everything - Once you have adopted religion, it will compromise your logical thinking in a very devious way - As was mentioned, compartmentalization. Slowly, that kind of thinking tends to spill over because we try to be consistent -- No-one wants to be a hypocrite. Also, with the reason you provided, you might as well be a Muslim of a Hindu. The reason you're a Christian is because Christianity is the dominant religion in your country, not because it is true or somehow better. Sure you believe that now, but that's because, and correct me if I'm wrong, you were raised Christian. In the cases of people who haven't been raised as anything suddenly turning to religion, it's easy to see how the logic they will now use to justify their religion is the same that opened the floodgates for religion to enter their heads in the first place, and at that point they have billions of other followers who think like them, embracing things like reversing the burden of proof, for example: "You can't DISPROVE my God", and now the vicious cycle is complete and will run like that for only Zeus, Or Yahwe, or Apollo, or Mot knows how long. Probably Mot, actually.

I'm assuming you're using the negative version of so-called here....why? Do you have some proofs to show that the physics world is wrong in their math? It's not just like someone made things up. It's what best fits our information and understanding of the world, universe, and reality around us. A lot of people have put in many lifetimes worth of work into getting us to our current understanding and are still getting new data and new understandings of how things happened. And they still remain with the big bang theory of the beginning so far. You're putting down a lot of people's very hard work (including people here who study physics and space sciences) with nothing more than your valuing your faith over methodical study and research.

I should think that if a physics teacher were about to demonstrate with an atomic bomb just how a big bang creates things, he would have a short career.

Agreed. You should think.

Where did that come from? Someone mentioned atomic bombs somewhere?

I used so called because I didn't want to offend anyone whose level of precision might demand I use a different term beyond the one I learned and recall, and because science is always advancing and further defining, and I may not be up on the latest version. Perhaps, "commonly called" would have been better?

Well, to rephrase... Jesus of Nazereth existed, and did things. What any one person actually did and what is alluded to them is lost in decades and centuries of translation, misappropriation and revision of bits of information. History does not bear Jesus as a messiah any more than any other individual or 'prophet'. Muhammad and Joseph Smith were both beings who existed; the records exist of their lives and their passage through. Nothing is proven beyond that for any of them.


M.

Then we must presume that either God was a big banger or the fuse lit spontaneously.

Yes, I might was well be a Muslim or Hindu. I think of Christianity as the faith family I was born into, and as such the one God has asked me to embrace and be true to. I wouldn't turn my back on it anymore than I would turn my back on my mother or father, but I also have the duty to think on my own and evaluate what I've been taught in that family with a critical eye. And, as with any family, much of what one does is tradition and culture more than necessity. Obviously I love my family, but I also know there are other wonderful families out there, and it is not for me to say whose family is the best. Such thinking is not totally outside of what many Christian churches teach, and it was interesting when I was a young adult in the 80's to hear what one of the visionaries in Medjagore (I forget the spelling) related. One of the visionaries had asked Mary (the vision) who in their village was the closest to God. She named a Muslim woman. This, to a Catholic visionary speaking to a very Catholic (as in who follows) vision of Mary. Mary's point, as relayed by the visionary, was that the religion was not as important as the faithful following of it. I'm not one for mystics, and I have always been skeptical of claims of visions of Mary, but the quote I read really struck me. The message was very timely, when you think of the history in that part of the world that followed it. And it affirmed something I had long believed.

My sister, btw, is married to a Hindu man, and their wedding involved both a Catholic ceremony and parts of the Hindu one (parts because the full thing would have been 3 days). The Hindu priest was invited to sit on the Catholic alter next to the two Catholic co-celebrants of that part of the wedding. Just to point out that there are parts of the religious heirarchy that have no problem embracing those from other faith traditions, despite all the arguing that makes the news. The wedding was the marriage of two families on many different levels. Really beautiful.

OK, I've got a giant work dealine in less than 3 weeks, a major school fundraiser this weekend that I am highly involved in, my daughter's birthday party tomorrow and much more. Point being, I just don't have time right now to address all the other points in this thread. Life comes first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

A 3 dimensional hologram projected from a 2 dimensional point in space.

Though I'm agnostic, if there would be a god, I'd imagine it as the entity of 1 dimensional space that gave way to 2 dimensional space which eventually reverberated into generating the modern 3 dimensional holographic reality that we exist in today.

I know it isn't as romantic as "In the beginning God created man" but I'm more interested in the whole picture rather than fru fru stories that don't help us progress and manipulate the world around us.

Religion is delusional , everyone who believes in either his own fantasies philosophies or guesses with a varying degree of influence has first to prove he
(or she) is right while the other superstitious types are wrong. that's the first step.
than once they all consolidate to one or two claims they can go about enforcing their dogmas to make children misdevelop and create 3rd world nations.

until than they should pay for their crimes to anyone who claims it (the demonstrations in iran etc)


but most people are going to be defensive of their religion for many reasons most of whom are positive.
don't go about confronting it too much actively ... we have enough opportunity when they get outraged over whatever.

By that I meant I don't see how the "Big Bang," the would-be-Mother-of-all Explosions, could have formed the entire universe and all living things, because explosions don't create things, they destroy them.

Please do yourself a favour and do a modicum of research before posting something like this.

here is a start

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyCkADmNdNo[/youtube]

If there's nothing but the material in the explosion, there's nothing to be destroyed and everything to be created. You're thinking in terms of there being something to be destroyed like as if the big bang happened on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

Do some reading and help better yourself.

The term "Big Bang" was invented by Fred Hoyle as a term of derision again Le Maitre's theory of the primordial atom from which the universe came. Hoyle was an advocate of the Steady State theory of the Cosmos (it was always pretty much the way we see it now). It turns out Hoyle was wrong. The discovery of the CMB radiation by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 gave Hoyle's Steady State theory the deep six.

So Big Bang started out as a jibe and a put down.

ruveyn