CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[JeepHammer]

Ok. Fair enough.

And of course, in this thread, please don't take any of my posts as confrontational. (At least not yet.)

The idea of "intelligent life" isn't quite what I was asking (that's a different thread).

A truly higher power. Something that operates on a level that we can only glimpse.

Now, we do know the relative size of the universe, within the limits of the light spectrum...
How much bigger are we talking?
Like a flea on a dog, that's the flea's universe.

*IF* (theoretically) something was large enough to control all that to the atom, how would we as humans be able to even glimpse that scale?

As you note, energy is never created nor lost.
Yet, there is evidence that our universe has not been around for an eternity.
Rather, the best scientific minds believe there was a staring point (temporally speaking).

Not my idea, but yes, it's the current belief energy is never created or lost, simply converted.
To the limits of what scientific sensors can detect, I agree with it.

Does that not suggest that something did something to something to start it? Maybe not even intentionally, but some natural event could have done it?

That's circular logic, which I don't subscribe to.
Absence of fact or data isn't 'Proof' of anything.

--------

As a thought experiment, consider this...
It's somewhat becoming popular with folks in the know, and it's so big I can barely grasp it since I don't have advanced education in physics.

Like gravity, DARK MATTER isn't visible, but by the effects we know it exists, and it's not 'Magic', 'Religion' or science fiction.

At first people denied dark matter, then grudgingly accepted dark matter, then figured out there was a whole lot more dark matter than matter.
These are just facts of science as we understand by the effects of dark matter.

Now, what *IF*...
Matter as we know it is (for lack of a better term) is 'Waste Material'.
We, and everything on the periodic table we know as 'Matter' is 'Afterbirth' of an actual dark matter universe.
That would make 'Matter', including humans and our 'Gods' nothing more than a mistake waste product of the creation of universe or multiverse?

Math/science can prove somewhere between 7 & 27 dimensions, with most agreeing there are at least 11.
What, if anything, 'Lives' in those higher dimensions?
Would something with an understanding of even a 4th dimension be considered a 'God' to humans?

Like I said before, I don't have any idea what's out there, or on a subatomic level.
What I do know is something written by man before the concept of proof through science and/or direct observation, when anything/everything could be blamed on 'God' or 'Gods' isn't something I put any stock in.

There is a simple acid test, all religions reunite, there is no discourse or objections, all 'God' has to do is show up.
Make an appearance, and that's it, proof positive, and since 'Man is made in his image' he will be instantly recognized, and I'll be a 'Believer'.

There is also the 'Vast, Unsympathetic & Dispassionate' entity, basically chaos theory with a deity.
This one is strange...
This entity simply sees a planet and sparks life just to see where it goes.
Sees naked apes and brings a desert preacher back to life just to see what happens.
Sees an angry failed painter and gives him the power of public speaking and we get Hitler, simply so the entity can see what happens.

Like I said, it's out there, but not any farther than an invisible Man that lives in the clouds and can monitor every thought you have, before you have it...

 

[Dead Duck]

OK....
I will pray for you to see more clearly......... tomorrow.

 

[T.Lex]

I'll apologize in advance for the length of this post. I had intended to focus on just a few points, but there are some really interesting ideas in here.

Now, we do know the relative size of the universe, within the limits of the light spectrum...
How much bigger are we talking?

I did not say "bigger." Not "higher" as in height; "higher" as in far more powerful.

*IF* (theoretically) something was large enough to control all that to the atom, how would we as humans be able to even glimpse that scale?

That's a great question.

How would we? Perhaps only at the limits of what we can "know." From the outer edges of our known universe to the basic building blocks of quantum energy? Both of which continue to provide both greater horizons and smaller units of measurement (to the point that we can't actually measure). Whenever we think we know either the large-scale maximum or the small-scale minimum, we find something else.

That's circular logic, which I don't subscribe to.

How is it circular? Science suggests, but has no proof, of an endpoint. But, accepting another scientific principle requires an acceptance that there was no endpoint. That is not circular, it is a paradox.

Absence of fact or data isn't 'Proof' of anything.

I didn't say "proof." I asked if it "suggested."

And, "absence of proof" is faith.

You have faith in science. Yet, science has its own paradoxes and inexplicable events.

Like gravity, DARK MATTER isn't visible, but by the effects we know it exists, and it's not 'Magic', 'Religion' or science fiction.

Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

At first people denied dark matter, then grudgingly accepted dark matter, then figured out there was a whole lot more dark matter than matter.
These are just facts of science as we understand by the effects of dark matter.

You expect too much. We know more about miraculous healings than we do about dark matter.

Now, what *IF*...
Matter as we know it is (for lack of a better term) is 'Waste Material'.
We, and everything on the periodic table we know as 'Matter' is 'Afterbirth' of an actual dark matter universe.
That would make 'Matter', including humans and our 'Gods' nothing more than a mistake waste product of the creation of universe or multiverse?

So, that's an interesting concept - that what we consider "reality" is the ether of some more massive reality.

It almost sounds like you're describing some different plane of existence, separated from us by an impenetrable curtain. A reality distinct from ours that is truly massive in terms of what we think of as "matter." Perhaps "big" enough to encompass several times our entire history's worth of reality.

That... almost... sounds... familiar.

What I do know is something written by man before the concept of proof through science and/or direct observation, when anything/everything could be blamed on 'God' or 'Gods' isn't something I put any stock in.

Do you think that the "scientific method" came into existence at the time the phrase was coined?

Evidence - actual evidence - suggests humans interacted with the world around them in advanced ways (including brewing of alcohol) pretty early. Whether they attributed the development to God (which would be fair) or their own ingenuity, why does that matter?

There is a simple acid test, all religions reunite, there is no discourse or objections, all 'God' has to do is show up.
Make an appearance, and that's it, proof positive, and since 'Man is made in his image' he will be instantly recognized, and I'll be a 'Believer'.

Interesting. Do you believe Plato existed?

There is also the 'Vast, Unsympathetic & Dispassionate' entity, basically chaos theory with a deity.
This one is strange...
This entity simply sees a planet and sparks life just to see where it goes.
Sees naked apes and brings a desert preacher back to life just to see what happens.
Sees an angry failed painter and gives him the power of public speaking and we get Hitler, simply so the entity can see what happens.

Like I said, it's out there, but not any farther than an invisible Man that lives in the clouds and can monitor every thought you have, before you have it...

I actually don't think that's "out there" at all.

 

[JeepHammer]

It was supposed to be a discussion on 'Religion', and there are about 3,000 active religions currently.
Since every human perceives things differently, that would be a different version of each religion by everyone that practices it.
That's going to cause confusion...

Then there are the ideas that haven't become 'Religions' yet, but have followers.
A 'Religion' in this country involves registering for a tax exemption...

I'm not going to dump on any, it's their time & effort to do with as they want, and as long as they don't break existing rule of law it's not my business.

 

[T.Lex]

It was supposed to be a discussion on 'Religion', and there are about 3,000 active religions currently.
Since every human perceives things differently, that would be a different version of each religion by everyone that practices it.
That's going to cause confusion...

Then there are the ideas that haven't become 'Religions' yet, but have followers.
A 'Religion' in this country involves registering for a tax exemption...

I'm not going to dump on any, it's their time & effort to do with as they want, and as long as they don't break existing rule of law it's not my business.

Agreed.

Render unto caesar and all that.

Perhaps further discussion would be better if accomplished with more brevity. That is, perhaps you might prefer to focus on individual ideas rather than "big picture"?

So for instance, would you agree that science requires that we accept certain precepts on faith?

 

[JeepHammer]

How would we? Perhaps only at the limits of what we can "know." From the outer edges of our known universe to the basic building blocks of quantum energy? Both of which continue to provide both greater horizons and smaller units of measurement (to the point that we can't actually measure). Whenever we think we know either the large-scale maximum or the small-scale minimum, we find something else.

Personal note: One of my pet peeves is when someone references "Quantum Leap" for something in the macro world...
Glad to see you know the difference!

I agree, I just don't filter it through a specific 'Faith' filter.
The difference is I approach with a blank slate.

How is it circular? Science suggests, but has no proof, of an endpoint. But, accepting another scientific principle requires an acceptance that there was no endpoint. That is not circular, it is a paradox.

Example:
US citizens buy about 60 Billion in illegal drugs that come from central/south America a year. (Source DEA). Truth.
That money finances murder/terrorism. (Source CIA, DEA). Truth.
All undocumented immigrants are drug dealers & terrorists. (No proof). Outright Lie.

It's an old con man's trick...

Another example is the argument for 'Intelligent Design' of an eye,
The eye is an amazingly complex design. Truth.
The eye has the capability to convert reflected photons into electrical impulses. Truth.
Like loose pieces of a watch, the eye couldn't have possibly fallen into place randomly and work the way it does. Outright Lie.

Every stage of an eye is represented in current living animals, from fish/crustataceans that don't have eyes/eye spots on up through light sensitive cells, basic eyes, to advanced compound eyes.
It most certainly is evolutionary.

You see it everywhere, from trying to connect Clintons/Obama to child sex traffic to flat Earth BS.

When you do know about it, and you do recognize it, your BS detector goes off in overdrive and you know the presenter is lying to you.

I didn't say "proof." I asked if it "suggested."
And, "absence of proof" is faith.

NO!
Dead WRONG!
And I was trying to be polite... But since you commented...

Since a science experiment is designed to PROVE something, 'Absence Of Proof' is FAILURE.
The failure could be with the idea you had, you were simply wrong,
OR,
The experiment was set up wrong.
Either way it was without a doubt a FAILURE.

You have faith in science. Yet, science has its own paradoxes and inexplicable events.

Honestly, for the sake of (your) reputation, don't compare science & religion.
And I'm saying this to help you out, not to bash you.

Religion is based in non-advancing fixed dogma. Its the 'Rock' in the middle of the river.
Science is ever moving, ever advancing, filling in it's voids when a void is found. It IS the river.
The river always, 100% of the time, wins over the rock.
It's a scientific principal known as erosion...

Synthetic fabrics, Teflon, super glue and a million other things were surprises in science, but they were explainable by science, and REPRODUCIBLE by science.

Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Turned that around...
Doesn't make it true, even as a joke.

You expect too much. We know more about miraculous healings than we do about dark matter.

Not true.
When a bodies immune system recognizes a cancer and destroys it, it's not a miracle, it's biology.
Tagging cancer so the bodies immune system attacks the cancer is a field of research.
Same thing with getting the body to NOT attack healthy body parts in auto-immune disorders.

Keep in mind, in science, the human body is still a work in progress (evolution), not the top of the line invention by a 'Higher Power' that should have been able to see these issues coming and fixed the design...

So, that's an interesting concept - that what we consider "reality" is the ether of some more massive reality.

That's the thing about science, nothing is 'Forbidden'.
Humans aren't 'Devine', so they aren't 'Off Limits'.
No other life form destroys it's environment, no there life forms go to war over 'Religion', etc.

Many believe humans are a macro 'Virus', we consume EVERYTHING, we toxify our environment, we spend much of our time working against our best interests...

Now, keep in mind that from a purely anthropology stand point, 50% of us shouldn't be here.
Before modern science produced vaccines & anti-biotics appx. 50% didn't make it to reproduction age...
And again, that entered a 100% increase in population that were 'Defective' to reproduce even more 'Defective' people...
Weaker immune systems, weaker bodies, lower IQs, etc.

It almost sounds like you're describing some different plane of existence, separated from us by an impenetrable curtain. A reality distinct from ours that is truly massive in terms of what we think of as "matter." Perhaps "big" enough to encompass several times our entire history's worth of reality.

That... almost... sounds... familiar.

Not even close...
Religion says we don't have to ask questions, it's all part of 'Gods Plan'.

Science chips away at one small part at a time to unravel things, ever moving forward, ever progressing...

Do you think that the "scientific method" came into existence at the time the phrase was coined?

Of course not, religion obscured science in all ways except one... Greed.
The country rulers (crowns & emperor's) AND the church directly employed, or allowed independent 'Alchemists' devoted to one thing, converting base metals & materials into GOLD...
These were the earliest versions of chemest, carefully purifying, measuring, mixing and observing results.

The earliest astronomy observation we know about that conclusively proved the planets orbited the sun was Brahe & Copernicus, and both were denounced by the church, which continued on until 2006... (Stubborn church!)

I'm not a science historian, but the first reference I know about of 'Scientific Methods' was in the 1700s...
It laid out the difference between repeatable and provable science & doctrine/dogma, and required provable, repeatable results.

Evidence - actual evidence - suggests humans interacted with the world around them in advanced ways (including brewing of alcohol) pretty early. Whether they attributed the development to God (which would be fair) or their own ingenuity, why does that matter?

The new dig in Turkey found beer being made by stone age hunter-gather society.
Quite unique since existing 'Belief' said that hunter-gather society was always nomads and couldn't support a city/central civilization.
That's advance of science in motion eroding dogma of the past...

Beer is simply wet grain that yeast (ubiquitous fungus, it's everywhere all the time) got into creating fermentation.
No 'Miracle' in simple fermentation, fruit ferments on the ground, wet grain ferments in the field...
Vegetation ferments in a swamp on a massive scale.
Where do you think coal, oil & natural gas comes from? Billions of years of fermented vegetation collapsing in swaps, then erosion buries it under layers of dirt that become rock...
Nature sequestered the carbon that allowed the environment to change supporting mammals, which allowed humans to evolve...
Then humans release that carbon to screw up the atmosphere for humans, killing the host (environment) is a trait of a virus.

Interesting. Do you believe Plato existed?

Don't know, might be a compilation of people published under one name, might be someone published under a writers name.
Never met the man, so can't call it.
I do know someone published under the name, or was given credit for publishing ideas under 'Plato' name.

I actually don't think that's "out there" at all.

*IF* the 'Vast Intelligence' is unsympathetic, and simply doing 'What If..' experimentation to see where it goes (what we call 'Pure Science'), then the idea of a sympathetic 'God' is dead wrong.
Much the way we introduce toxins, minerals, heavy metals or other biologics to bacteria colonies.

That *ASSUMES* there is an intelligence, and not just random... Like the random mutation of a virus, or mutation of mitochondria in cells from exposure to everything it contacts.

 

[JettaKnight]

Personal note: One of my pet peeves is when someone references "Quantum Leap" for something in the macro world...

I'm happy we've found some common ground!

Another example is the argument for 'Intelligent Design' of an eye,
The eye is an amazingly complex design. Truth.
The eye has the capability to convert reflected photons into electrical impulses. Truth.
Like loose pieces of a watch, the eye couldn't have possibly fallen into place randomly and work the way it does. Outright Lie.

Every stage of an eye is represented in current living animals, from fish/crustataceans that don't have eyes/eye spots on up through light sensitive cells, basic eyes, to advanced compound eyes.
It most certainly is evolutionary.

I really don't like how evolution v. creationism is presented in Sunday School because of exactly those things. It's oversimplification and false reasoning.

But...

In the same vein, you can't just say, "look here's a every stage of the eye in all these different creatures, therefore each one is a step in macro-eveolution!"

When you do know about it, and you do recognize it, your BS detector goes off in overdrive and you know the presenter is lying to you.

Yup.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, I think this will ultimately be more productive if we break this down into smaller chunks.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Honestly, for the sake of (your) reputation, don't compare science & religion.
And I'm saying this to help you out...

 

[JeepHammer]

Agreed.

Render unto caesar and all that.

Perhaps further discussion would be better if accomplished with more brevity. That is, perhaps you might prefer to focus on individual ideas rather than "big picture"?

So for instance, would you agree that science requires that we accept certain precepts on faith?

No 'Faith' involved in science, the two are diametrically opposed by definition.
Science requires defined practices & principals, repeatable results, and takes NOTHING on faith.
Everything in science is up for revision & rewrite as new information comes in.

Religion is carved in stone dogma, never changing, and requires 'Faith' in the written dogma since questioning is 'Heresy', crimes against the church.

If we took science on 'Faith' we would still believe water & dirt mixed together produce frogs...
A fine example of 'Christian Science' written circa 1350.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, this may actually be an effective place to begin.

Honestly, for the sake of (your) reputation, don't compare science & religion.
And I'm saying this to help you out, not to bash you.

Religion is based in non-advancing fixed dogma. Its the 'Rock' in the middle of the river.
Science is ever moving, ever advancing, filling in it's voids when a void is found. It IS the river.
The river always, 100% of the time, wins over the rock.
It's a scientific principal known as erosion...

]

So, I'm curious why you think religion is static. Bedrock of a religion should remain constant. Its nature ought not change.

But the nature of science hasn't really changed since man first started trying to domesticate crops and animals or smelt metal.

The way science is practiced certainly has changed. Same with religion. Particularly if you look comparatively at religions and the rise of monotheism.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

 

[JettaKnight]

No 'Faith' involved in science, the two are diametrically opposed by definition.
Science requires defined practices & principals, repeatable results, and takes NOTHING on faith.
Everything in science is up for revision & rewrite as new information comes in.

Religion is carved in stone dogma, never changing, and requires 'Faith' in the written dogma since questioning is 'Heresy', crimes against the church.

If we took science on 'Faith' we would still believe water & dirt mixed together produce frogs...
A fine example of 'Christian Science' written circa 1350.

It seems like you've made the determination that there is no God, despite not actually proving it. It seems you're not even open to the possibility, as anytime you mention a god, you describe him more as a "tinker" rather than omniscient.

That seems like a bit of faith.


As to this "never changing", would that be the extension of a perfect God? If God is perfection, then how could he, or by extension his laws, ever change?


The river and rock change and move, but the physical laws governing their interaction don't.

 

[T.Lex]

No 'Faith' involved in science, the two are diametrically opposed by definition.
Science requires defined practices & principals, repeatable results, and takes NOTHING on faith.
Everything in science is up for revision & rewrite as new information comes in.

Religion is carved in stone dogma, never changing, and requires 'Faith' in the written dogma since questioning is 'Heresy', crimes against the church.

If we took science on 'Faith' we would still believe water & dirt mixed together produce frogs...
A fine example of 'Christian Science' written circa 1350.

Ok, maybe we can have 2 narrow tracks.

First, full disclosure: I unrepentantly disagree that faith and science are mutually exclusive.

Second, are you sure science takes nothing on faith? You describe experimental science, but appear to leave theoretical pursuits as "not science."

 

[JeepHammer]

Yeah, I think this will ultimately be more productive if we break this down into smaller chunks.

OK with me as I have time...

FINALLY a debate instead of an argument! I'm SO happy!
You know you are about 1 in a thousand or so for me.
After being screamed at by about a thousand people for asking questions, I kind of gave up.

So the guy with the meme missed the point...
Science & Religion can NEVER mix, two entirely different disciplines, diametrically opposed.
Anyone that thinks science & religion mix doesn't know enough about one or the other...

Religion deals with the INTANGIBLE, 'Faith'.

Science deals with the tangible, what the 5 senses can detect & the mind comprehend.

Confusing religion 'Faith' and hard science is a mistake that reduces credibality, that's why I threw up the red flag when the conversation came close, not to start something.

It's like calling evolution a 'Theory',
In the 1920s there were gaps in the fossil record between apes & men, the religious used as 'Missing Links' they said didn't exist.
In 2019 more fossils have been found, closing all gaps in the fossil record, and still they persist in saying there is a 'Missing Link'...

Another example is hybrid everything in agriculture, crops to livestock, selective breeding produces a directed evolution movement and they practice/use/take advantage of evolution while denying the existence of evolution.

Mixing religion & science is a mistake...
The 'Faithful' need to stick to faith so the scientific types, and the rest of us, can try to understand.
Keep in mind it's human nature to FEAR what we don't understand, and that often manifests as violence.
I would rather understand that lash out blindly... Even if I don't have the 'Faith'.

Yes, it's complicated, help me understand instead of insult or try to convert...

 

[JeepHammer]

So explain to me why the 'Faithful' have a compulsion to convert, subvert or kill 'Non-Believers'?

Both sides 'Have Faith' they are doing the work of their deity(s), that 'God(s)' are on their side, they are doing the 'Right' thing...
With equal conviction.

 

[JettaKnight]

It's like calling evolution a 'Theory',

Every hear of the "theory of gravity"? Nomenclature has meaning, but must be understood.

In the 1920s there were gaps in the fossil record between apes & men, the religious used as 'Missing Links' they said didn't exist.
In 2019 more fossils have been found, closing all gaps in the fossil record, and still they persist in saying there is a 'Missing Link'...

Closed all the gaps?

Another example is hybrid everything in agriculture, crops to livestock, selective breeding produces a directed evolution movement and they practice/use/take advantage of evolution while denying the existence of evolution.

I've yet to see something extremely basic, like turning wheat into barley. Corn is still corn. A cow is still a cow.

I stand unconvinced.

Mixing religion & science is a mistake...
The 'Faithful' need to stick to faith so the scientific types, and the rest of us, can try to understand.

I think this smacks of enlightenment and elitism. In other words, "Go play in you church and worship you gods, and let the adults run world and determine what's best."

Keep in mind it's human nature to FEAR what we don't understand, and that often manifests as violence.
I would rather understand that lash out blindly... Even if I don't have the 'Faith'.

Fear? As in fear the thought of an actual deity?


I'm not trying to be difficult, or argumentative, but you seem to be laying out these basic assertions that are either unconvincing (e.g. Hybrids prove evolution isn't just a theory) or just plain wrong (e.g. No one circa 33AD wrote about Jesus).

 

[Dead Duck]

 

[JettaKnight]

So explain to me why the 'Faithful' have a compulsion to convert, subvert or kill 'Non-Believers'?

Both sides 'Have Faith' they are doing the work of their deity(s), that 'God(s)' are on their side, they are doing the 'Right' thing...
With equal conviction.

If, you are standing on the train platform and see a mass of people mulling around on the tracks of an approaching train, would you not tell them of their impending doom?




Let's flip it: Why do the enlightened have a compulsion to kill and covert the "un-washed"?

i.e. eugenics and political correctness?

 

[T.Lex]

So, my starting point is that faith and science complement each other. Pen and ink. Science allows us to discover the wonderousness of what God has provided to us.

I am a practicing Catholic, but at various times studied the other major religions, and will try to keep this discussion, in this thread, more generally related to generic "religion" than Catholicism or even Christianity.

So explain to me why the 'Faithful' have a compulsion to convert, subvert or kill 'Non-Believers'?

Both sides 'Have Faith' they are doing the work of their deity(s), that 'God(s)' are on their side, they are doing the 'Right' thing...
With equal conviction.

As to your first point, society has evolved. In modern times, most of the world views people with different beliefs as still being human. That certainly is not always true, but is generally the operative principle.

Historically, of course, people thought nothing of killing or forcefully "converting" people who held different beliefs. (Islamofascist extremists like AQ and Daesh are the exceptions, not the rule.)

If we can acknowledge that, then we can focus on your mention of the compulsion to convert. That is not limited to religions. Atheist scientists can be equal zealots in their compulsion to convert the religious away from their faith.

Not all, just like not all religious people zealously seek to convert people who disagree. My point is that on that note, I'm not sure there's that much difference between religious people and non-religious when it comes to proselytizing.

But there is another human characteristic at work. If we believe we have the truth of something, and it is awesome, we want to share it. Most people want others to share in happiness and peace. (We all know people that like to share misery and heartache, too.)

So, whether it is science or religion, I think it is human nature to want to share it and get others on board with it. To "convert" them toward the same satisfaction.