Now before everyone freaks out on me for not having all kind of scientific evidence to support my claim let me just state now that this is more of me thinking out loud than making a serious case.
But I have this idea based on the way human progression has come about in the last few thousand years. Religion was once the center point of society. Everyone was religious, everyone believed in the gods, everyone was just about forced to. Most ancient religions were polytheist. Fast forward to where we are today and you will see a completely different world. Science has revealed many of religions "facts" wrong (such as the creation of the earth, why certain natural actions happen ect.) and much of the earth population either isnt very religious or does not believe in a higher power of any sort. My theory is this progression in the right direction will continue throughout human history until eventually the mix of increased intelligence caused by better understanding of the universe and progressive evolution causes religion to disapear completely. Thoughts?

I agree completely. We're in a transitional phase, where we are starting to get rid of primitive traditions like religion.

I agree completely. We're in a transitional phase, where we are starting to get rid of primitive traditions like religion.

And government I hope :D

HAHA...

Are you you a libertarian socialist?

Now before everyone freaks out on me for not having all kind of scientific evidence to support my claim let me just state now that this is more of me thinking out loud than making a serious case.
But I have this idea based on the way human progression has come about in the last few thousand years. Religion was once the center point of society. Everyone was religious, everyone believed in the gods, everyone was just about forced to. Most ancient religions were polytheist. Fast forward to where we are today and you will see a completely different world. Science has revealed many of religions "facts" wrong (such as the creation of the earth, why certain natural actions happen ect.) and much of the earth population either isnt very religious or does not believe in a higher power of any sort. My theory is this progression in the right direction will continue throughout human history until eventually the mix of increased intelligence caused by better understanding of the universe and progressive evolution causes religion to disapear completely. Thoughts?

Religion doesn't die out. It simply takes back stage a while to give free range for base desire to be expressed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_yuga)

In relation to rulers

* Rulers will become unreasonable: they will levy taxes unfairly.
* Rulers will no longer see it as their duty to promote spirituality, or to protect their subjects: they will become a danger to the world.
* People will start migrating, seeking countries where wheat and barley form the staple food source.

[edit] In human relationships

* Avarice and wrath will be common. Humans will openly display animosity towards each other.
* Ignorance of dharma will occur.
* People will have thoughts of murder with no justification and will see nothing wrong in that.
* Lust will be viewed as socially acceptable and sexual intercourse will be seen as the central requirement of life.
* Sin will increase exponentially, whilst virtue will fade and cease to flourish.
* People will take vows and break them soon after.
* People will become addicted to intoxicating drinks and drugs.
* Men will find their jobs stressful and will go to retreats to escape their work.
* Gurus will no longer be respected and their students will attempt to injure them. Their teachings will be insulted, and followers of Kama will wrest control of the mind from all human beings. Brahmins will not be learned or honoured, Kshatriyas will not be brave, Vaishyas will not be just in their dealings and Shudras will not be honest and humble in their duties and to the other castes.

i think government and religion will become obsolete as communion with god is restored. being the fulfillment of the law, as christ is and as i understand it, means that the law is inherently within us. we won't need religions or governments to tell us what to do. the only reason those things exist now is because there's something wrong with us humans.

the only reason those things exist now is because there's something wrong with us humans.

You do know that when an individual thinks the rest of the world is at fault, it's often a sign of mental illness?

Religion IS a mental illness. And it's contagious.

You do know that when an individual thinks the rest of the world is at fault, it's often a sign of mental illness?

you mean everyone other than myself?

that's not what i think.

the only reason i know what's wrong with the world is because i know what's wrong with me.

Now before everyone freaks out on me for not having all kind of scientific evidence to support my claim let me just state now that this is more of me thinking out loud than making a serious case.
But I have this idea based on the way human progression has come about in the last few thousand years. Religion was once the center point of society. Everyone was religious, everyone believed in the gods, everyone was just about forced to. Most ancient religions were polytheist. Fast forward to where we are today and you will see a completely different world. Science has revealed many of religions "facts" wrong (such as the creation of the earth, why certain natural actions happen ect.) and much of the earth population either isnt very religious or does not believe in a higher power of any sort. My theory is this progression in the right direction will continue throughout human history until eventually the mix of increased intelligence caused by better understanding of the universe and progressive evolution causes religion to disapear completely. Thoughts?

For millenia, man caused very little harm to the environment, and was able to live on sustainable resources.

As we tend to live nowadays, we are more and more in a Mad Max scenario, except that this time, it is for real.

the only reason i know what's wrong with the world is because i know what's wrong with me.
I agree. Seeing and dealing with the problems in ourselves is the first step... actually, it's the only step we as individuals can take.

I agree. Seeing and dealing with the problems in ourselves is the first step... actually, it's the only step we as individuals can take.

exactly. i don't know if a lot of people want to be that accountable. i think they'd rather pass the buck to an institution.

Religion IS a mental illness. And it's contagious.
Its kind of funny how persons can talk about waking up to real life afforded by science and knowledge and at the same time make woo woo statements that are certainly not scientific.

get over it

the only reason i know what's wrong with the world is because i know what's wrong with me.

Then you simply have a lack of empathy and are projecting yourself into the lives of others.

We aren't all like you.

Then you simply have a lack of empathy and are projecting yourself into the lives of others.

We aren't all like you.

being able to identify with and relate to other people is the very definition of empathy.

get over it
will the irony never end?

being able to identify with and relate to other people is the very definition of empathy.

Yes, and you do no possess such a quality, as evidenced by your claim that somehow you are different and God speaks to you. You just can't see that the rest of us don't swallow that. That it is beyond reason.

Yes, and you do no possess such a quality, as evidenced by your claim that somehow you are different and God speaks to you. You just can't see that the rest of us don't swallow that. That it is beyond reason.

you're way off base regarding my empathy, and i don't care if "the rest of us" don't swallow that; apparently you're the one with the us and them mentality.

will the irony never end?


(1) Hallucinations - the person has invisible friends who (s)he insists are real, and to whom (s)he speaks daily, even though nobody can actually see or hear
these friends.

(2) Delusions - the patient believes that the invisible friends have magical powers to make them rich, cure cancer, bring about world peace, and will do so eventually if asked.

(3) Denial/Inability to learn - though the requests for world peace remain unanswered, even after hundreds of years, the patients persist with the praying behaviour, each time expecting different results.
BIG EGO: How to become famous?


(4) Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality - the beliefs are contingent upon ancient mythology being accepted as historical fact.

(5) Paranoia - the belief that anyone who does not share their supernatural concept of reality is "evil," "the devil," "an agent of Satan".

(6) Emotional abuse - * religious concepts such as sin, hell, cause feelings of guilt, shame, fear, and other types of emotional "baggage" which can scar the
psyche for life.
BIG EGO: How to become famous?


(7) Violence - many patients insist that others should share in their delusions, even to the extent of using violence.

http://www.thecheers.org/Opinion/article_3111_7-reasons-why-religion-is-a-form-of-mental-illness.html

and i don't care if "the rest of us" don't swallow that; apparently you're the one with the us and them mentality.

OK Lori, make a poll, and see who believes that you really do talk to God, for real.

Psychosis is real to the person suffering from it.

http://www.thecheers.org/Opinion/article_3111_7-reasons-why-religion-is-a-form-of-mental-illness.html
I guess in some people's books, "sweet tea" is an accomplished author and "the southern skeptic fairy" is high brow literature ...

OK Lori, make a poll, and see who believes that you really do talk to God, for real.

why would i do that when i just said i don't care?

Well it beats "Magic jewish zombie who is his own father"

But I have this idea based on the way human progression has come about in the last few thousand years. Religion was once the center point of society. Everyone was religious, everyone believed in the gods, everyone was just about forced to. Most ancient religions were polytheist.

An important thing to note about ancient intellectual life is that it wasn't really divided up into different disciplines, into distinct fields of study. Religion wasn't distinct from the rest of knowledge, thought and action. The ancients simply recognized what they would probably call 'wisdom'. It derived from and was justified by whatever their culture conceived as the highest principles, the gods or whatever. So it looks to us like religion, I guess. But it encompassed all the rest of life as well, from political organization to their understanding of the natural world. It was all one big seamless whole to them, all aspects of the same principles at work.


Fast forward to where we are today and you will see a completely different world. Science has revealed many of religions "facts" wrong (such as the creation of the earth, why certain natural actions happen ect.)

I think that historically, philosophy was the first to break away and, in Greece at least, to set out on a career of secularized intellectual inquiry. The new philosophical thought wasn't automatically based on and justified by whatever the traditional myths were about the highest powers in the universe. Greek philosophy originated in Ionian merchant circles that traveled the Mediterranean and the near east, and were aware of the wide variety of very different religious beliefs from place to place. So skepticism about the literal truth of myth in general started to appear. Thinkers were motivated to begin their inquiries anew, with their real life observations, and then try to ascend to what the highest principles truly were through use of their own intellects.

Science in turn originated as natural philosophy, the field of philosophy concerned with understanding the principles of the natural world. As natural philosophy grew, it gradually acquired its own vocabulary, concepts, problems, techniques, specialists and institutions. In the 17'th century it broke off from philosophy entirely and become a separate set of intellectual disciplines called 'science'.


and much of the earth population either isnt very religious or does not believe in a higher power of any sort.

I'm not sure that the changes have been that large among the general public. I mean, even the ancients were pretty secular. In a way at least. They were farmers, masons, blacksmiths, soldiers or kings. Most of their attention was directed to the pursuits of their daily lives and for many of them, attendence at temple festivals was kind of a formality. In ancient times weekends were unknown, people worked every day, and their only days off were "holy days" (holidays). So the religious festivals were often simultaneously feasts, carnivals, days of relaxation and good times for all. (Of course in another way, these ancients weren't secular at all, since all aspects of life were understood in at least semi-religious terms.)


My theory is this progression in the right direction will continue throughout human history until eventually the mix of increased intelligence caused by better understanding of the universe and progressive evolution causes religion to disapear completely. Thoughts?

I don't believe that cultural or biological evolution are really "progressive" in quite that way. History isn't an automatic progression from 'lower' to 'higher'. It's more a matter of adaptation to changing conditions and temporary states of homeostasis.

We often see examples of what I would consider retrogression in history. The collapse of ancient classical civilization was one such moment. The growing other-worldliness and virtual worship of ancient authors and texts that we see in late antiquity (both Pagan and Christian). The "dark ages" in the West and the rise of Islam which kind of froze some of this period's more primitive attitudes into cultural stone. India's decline and China's increasingly disfunctional cultured antiquarianism.

why would i do that when i just said i don't care?

To prove your assertion that I am


the one with the us and them mentality.

Nobody believes you Lori. I stand by that.

Well it beats "Magic jewish zombie who is his own father"
more woo woo
:o

Comment on the substance instead of disregarding the article because you don't like the author.

why would i do that when i just said i don't care? What many feel is your misguided thinking about talking to God is painful to them. A poll offers them some hope that you might be persauded to view things differently. Your refusal to do so tramples on their feelings. This demonstrates that, contrary to your claim, you lack empathy.

HAHA...

Are you you a libertarian socialist?

Indeed. I perfer the term anarchist or anarchist communist myself

I like the idea! So you're familiar with Noam Chomsky of course :)

I like the idea! So you're familiar with Noam Chomsky of course :)

Of course! His writtings are inspiring and so true

PM sent :)

Comment on the substance instead of disregarding the article because you don't like the author.
that's the point
you have no substance!!

If you want to suggest that to be religious is to have a mental disease do the hard yards and don't simply reference some other equally anonymous hot headed unfounded tripe.

To prove your assertion that I am



Nobody believes you Lori. I stand by that.

that you're what?

and some people do believe me, you're just not one of them, and i don't care. that isn't how it works anyway. the way it works is, god helps me, so i can help others. i don't have to say a thing about god, or god's communication with me. all i have to do is let power manifest, and it does.

that's the point
you have no substance!!

If you want to suggest that to be religious is to have a mental disease do the hard yards and don't simply reference some other equally anonymous hot headed unfounded tripe.



I will repeat my post then. There are 7 similarities that some nobody off a random webpage found between religion and mental illness. You seem to avoid commenting on it as if you're afraid you can't refute them. Instead you use argumentum ad hominem to dismiss these points. I guess that's the christian way :shrug:

Here are the seven similarities. If they are so easy to refute, I think you should give it a shot.


(1) Hallucinations - the person has invisible friends who (s)he insists are real, and to whom (s)he speaks daily, even though nobody can actually see or hear
these friends.

(2) Delusions - the patient believes that the invisible friends have magical powers to make them rich, cure cancer, bring about world peace, and will do so eventually if asked.

(3) Denial/Inability to learn - though the requests for world peace remain unanswered, even after hundreds of years, the patients persist with the praying behaviour, each time expecting different results.
BIG EGO: How to become famous?


(4) Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality - the beliefs are contingent upon ancient mythology being accepted as historical fact.

(5) Paranoia - the belief that anyone who does not share their supernatural concept of reality is "evil," "the devil," "an agent of Satan".

(6) Emotional abuse - * religious concepts such as sin, hell, cause feelings of guilt, shame, fear, and other types of emotional "baggage" which can scar the
psyche for life.


(7) Violence - many patients insist that others should share in their delusions, even to the extent of using violence.

What many feel is your misguided thinking about talking to God is painful to them. A poll offers them some hope that you might be persauded to view things differently. Your refusal to do so tramples on their feelings. This demonstrates that, contrary to your claim, you lack empathy.

painful to them how, and why?

how would my perspective be anymore painful for them than theirs is for me? which it's not painful for me btw.

and in regards to empathy, if god helps me understand myself (which god does) and that allows me to understand others, then my interaction with god fosters empathy.

also, how is problem solving with god anymore alienating than problem solving with a psychologist? if i had a problem, and consulted a psychologist, and with their help i solved that problem by learning about myself, understanding myself, and perhaps undergoing a new perspective or some positive conditioning, when i see someone else suffering from the same problem am i less empathetic or more empathetic? if i had already experienced the problem and worked to solve it by understanding it, i may understand more about what's going on with that person than they themselves do. that's why people go to psychologists! now i know that circumstances vary from person to person, but imo the root of people's problems isn't all that different.

"As a species we're fundamentally insane. Put more than two of us in a room, we pick sides and start dreaming up reasons to kill one another. Why do you think we invented politics and religion?"
— Stephen King

I will repeat my post then. There are 7 similarities that some nobody off a random webpage found between religion and mental illness. You seem to avoid commenting on it as if you're afraid you can't refute them. Instead you use argumentum ad hominem to dismiss these points. I guess that's the christian way :shrug:

Here are the seven similarities. If they are so easy to refute, I think you should give it a shot.
at worst, you are uninformed about what constitutes mental illness (ie you can't find a mental health or scientific professional who will spout such nonsense, even if they are atheist - that's why dawkins goes on about memes - which are also another type of nonsense, albeit one of a lesser standard) and at best you are begging the question (ie since god doesn't exist according to the atheistic value system, persons who attribute events to an interventionist god are insane") ... which gets back to the irony of you promoting the push towards so called rational though at the hands of so called science while getting all woo woo about religion.

Hence if you want to suggest that to be religious is to have a mental disease do the hard yards and don't simply reference some other equally anonymous hot headed unfounded tripe.

I'm not familiar with the term woo woo. It must be some high brow expression that I don't understand.

There is no such thing as an atheistic value system.

I will give you an example: Let's imagine that there was only one person in the whole wide world believed this:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6MAkREpM30E/S0xDBo5-KbI/AAAAAAAAAl8/0T-Rzcpg68s/s400/atheism,funny,jesus,poster,religion,stupid-3d5472d1118af053d3ca5b4f08464d1c_h.jpg

Do you think he would be considered sane or ill?

I'm not familiar with the term woo woo. It must be some high brow expression that I don't understand.
Its just hysterics at the hands of poorly thought out ideas.



There is no such thing as an atheistic value system.don't be daft
atheism requires the value of god not existing at the onset
If you are confused by this just examine any of your posts


I will give you an example: Let's imagine that there were only one person in the whole wide world believed this:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6MAkREpM30E/S0xDBo5-KbI/AAAAAAAAAl8/0T-Rzcpg68s/s400/atheism,funny,jesus,poster,religion,stupid-3d5472d1118af053d3ca5b4f08464d1c_h.jpg

Do you think he would be considered sane or ill?
As far as I can gather, the only people who believe that are a certain type of atheist who requires a dumbed down caricature of an argument to lend credibility to their claims .... I don't think however its a consequence of mental illness, but rather an a consequence of a poor fund of knowledge.

No, but religion is completely different, because it's a collective delusion.

You didn't answer the question.

You didn't answer the question.
I did.

The only people who believe that about christianity are atheists - and I said no, I don't think they are mentally ill, but rather poorly informed and victims of their value system.

Its just hysterics at the hands of poorly thought out ideas.


don't be daft
atheism requires the value of god not existing at the onset
If you are confused by this just examine any of your posts


As far as I can gather, the only people who believe that are a certain type of atheist who requires a dumbed down caricature of an argument to lend credibility to their claims .... I don't think however its a consequence of mental illness, but rather an a consequence of a poor fund of knowledge.

God not existing is hardly a value. Much less a value system.

Also why would you call it a dumbed down charicature? It's just a synopsis of something that was dumb to begin with.

And no you didn't answer my question. Would a person with imaginary friends be considered well or ill if he was the only one to believe such nonsense?

I did.

The only people who believe that about christianity are atheists - and I said no, I don't think they are mentally ill, but rather poorly informed and victims of their value system.


Agnostics too. Being open to the notion that cosmic entities might exist does not mean that many ideas proposed so far do not seem unlikely as to the point of outright fantasy. The Bible is so far off into fantasy territory as to be considered a slightly less inspired writing than Harry Potter. I've done my own research, including reading the Bible, and discussing it at length, many times, with clergymen, pastors, preachers, priests, and the faithful of many denominations. When confronted with contradictions, things that just flat out don't make sense, and things that now run counterintuitive to our current societal mores, I'm presented with "It was correct for the time", "The Bible says so, so it must be true" and "There's no proof he doesn't exist". Lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence of existence.

Time. And. Time. Again.

A couple half-baked arguments are clung to, and repeated as an unshakable mantra more focused than the Bhuddist Ohm, and yet millions hold fast to their metaphysical safety net, in hopes that they will get their "reward" for being good in the end.

I would propose that atheist living a good life is superior to a religious person doing the same, because the atheist does so without promise of a reward at the end, or threat of punishment for straying from "the path".

As far as I can gather, the only people who believe that are a certain type of atheist who requires a dumbed down caricature of an argument to lend credibility to their claims .... I don't think however its a consequence of mental illness, but rather an a consequence of a poor fund of knowledge.

The people who believe that are called Christians.

The people who believe that are called Christians.
Yet you can only find that summation of Christianity from atheist hate sites .... so go figure
:rolleyes:

That's because it's essentially a silly doctrine, and phrasing this way exposes that.

And no you didn't answer my question. Would a person with (???) imaginary (???)friends be considered well or ill if he was the only one to believe such nonsense?
The problem is that its only atheists who insist on god and his paraphernalia as being imaginary ... which brings us back to :

..... and at best you are begging the question (ie since god doesn't exist according to the atheistic value system, persons who attribute events to an interventionist god are insane") ... which gets back to the irony of you promoting the push towards so called rational though at the hands of so called science while getting all woo woo about religion.

:shrug:

That's because it's essentially a silly doctrine, and phrasing this way exposes that.

or more accurately, a certain type of atheist who requires a dumbed down caricature of an argument to lend credibility to their claims
:shrug:

Yet you can only find that summation of Christianity from atheist hate sites .... so go figure
:rolleyes:

Google search turns up tons of pictures to the same effect... And Google is the company that turned off their SearchHelper for the terms "Islam" and "Muslim". I'll send them an email to put Christianity on their "Do not suggest" list too though. Wouldn't want to offend anyone. They might do something irrational.

The argument caricatures itself. When was the last time anyone you know died and got up three days later. Or parted a sea, or turned sticks into snakes. I think Voldemort might have done that last one, but once again, we're off in the realm of fantasy, unless you can present a scientific explanation for the sudden transmutation of wood into living creatures.

Google search turns up tons of pictures to the same effect...
golly, I bet even sciforums is on the list too ...


And Google is the company that turned off their SearchHelper for the terms "Islam" and "Muslim".
Funny how being legally culpable automatically raises an ethical standard, huh?


I'll send them an email to put Christianity on their "Do not suggest" list too though. Wouldn't want to offend anyone. They might do something irrational.
If you didn't have the opportunity to offend christians it sounds like you wouldn't know what to do with yourself ...

The argument caricatures itself. When was the last time anyone you know died and got up three days later. Or parted a sea, or turned sticks into snakes. I think Voldemort might have done that last one, but once again, we're off in the realm of fantasy, unless you can present a scientific explanation for the sudden transmutation of wood into living creatures.
I think I missed the part where you established god cannot have recourse to omnipotence

I will repeat my post then. There are 7 similarities that some nobody off a random webpage found between religion and mental illness....

Here are the seven similarities. If they are so easy to refute, I think you should give it a shot.

Well, religion has occupied an important place in every known culture in every historical period. Even today in the modern West, where secularism is probably more widespread than ever before in human history, most people still have some form of personal religiosity.

So your assertion kind of reduces to the suggestion that the great majority of the human race have been and continue to be active psychotics. I find that impossible to believe.

The psychology of religion is obviously an important and fascinating subject. There are real questions about why religiosity arises, what forms it takes and about why it's so widespread. But trivializing these issues for rhetorical purposes doesn't really help us understand them.

Well, religion has occupied an important place in every known culture in every historical period. Even today in the modern West, where secularism is probably more widespread than ever before in human history, most people still have some form of personal religiosity.

So your assertion kind of reduces to the suggestion that the great majority of the human race have been and continue to be active psychotics. I find that impossible to believe.

Why is that impossible to believe?

I think I missed the part where you established god cannot have recourse to omnipotence

Please tell me where you find evidence to suggest that there is an omnipotent benevolent being. I will not accept "the Bible says so". Did a benevolent god create Lucifer/Satan? If so, for what purpose than to torment and damn the flawed beings he created. This does not sound like the actions of a benevolent creator. Did he not intend for Lucifer to turn his back and attempt to usurp his throne? This does not sound like the foresight of an omnipotent being. If he did intend it, he is not benevolent, and therefore not worthy of worship. If he did not intend it, he is not omnipotent, and therefore not worthy of worship. The very foundations of Christianity are sufficiently flawed that it's easy to chalk off as the bad writings of crazy men in the desert.

Also why would you call it a dumbed down charicature? It's just a synopsis of something that was dumb to begin with.

Anyone interested in serious discussion will give the other party the benefit of the doubt and make an effort to interpret their claims charitably.

also this

http://montaraventures.com/blog/wp-content/2009/02/motivational-atheists.jpg

golly, I bet even sciforums is on the list too ...

Yeah, those webspiders are pretty awesome. Just imagine if the church had continued to have such a hold on society that we'd never come to this level of technology...


Funny how being legally culpable automatically raises an ethical standard, huh?

Isn't it an incredible world we live in when a corporation in America is legally culpable for savages on the other side of the planet decapitating peaceful people for transgressions against their god. Amazing how powerful religion is, huh?



If you didn't have the opportunity to offend christians it sounds like you wouldn't know what to do with yourself ...

Pfft, I'm doing five or six other things as I type this. I'm also "debating". If my intent was to offend, I would be much less polite. Just sayin'.

Anyone interested in serious discussion will give the other party the benefit of the doubt and make an effort to interpret their claims charitably.

All I'm asking for is some physical proof of God's existence. A miracle or something. Is that too much to ask? I will praise God as my lord and saviour if i ever witness such. I promise. That's how open minded I am.

All I'm asking for is some physical proof of God's existence. A miracle or something. Is that too much to ask? I will praise God as my lord and saviour if i ever witness such. I promise. That's how open minded I am.

Why are you promising this?

to show my open mindedness.

to show my open mindedness.

Nonsense.

You apparently have no idea what you are promising. You can't promise something (in this case that you "will praise God as your lord and saviour if you ever witness a proof of God's existence") for which you don't know what it means.

I wouldn't promise anything of the sort. If there were a god I still wouldn't be a grovelling slave to him.

It does beg the question, why would a being of such power and wisdom have the need for cheerleaders?

He's a jealous god. Like the people who created him.

As to the OP, religious attendance has been dropping a lot in the once stable U.S. north east. No one gauges the U.S. west too much, as they are already far gone, as is Europe.

Nonsense.

You apparently have no idea what you are promising. You can't promise something (in this case that you "will praise God as your lord and saviour if you ever witness a proof of God's existence") for which you don't know what it means.

Well I will recognise that he exists at least if I see the proof. Unlike some people I don't ignore facts.

Why is that impossible to believe?
On the contrary its an extraordinary claim. If you want to suggest that a vast majority of the population are chronically insane and have been for quite a few thousand years I think you have to evidence it ... hence the rhetoric (or woo woo)

Yeah, those webspiders are pretty awesome. Just imagine if the church had continued to have such a hold on society that we'd never come to this level of technology...
This is another idiotic statement from atheists.

Censorship is a political issue and not a theological one. To say that there is a necessarily political slant to theism (or atheism) is simply douche-baggery (or do you forget that the country with the most vigilant of internet censorship issues is china, a country with a strong ideological history of atheism/anti-theism)




Isn't it an incredible world we live in when a corporation in America is legally culpable for savages on the other side of the planet decapitating peaceful people for transgressions against their god. Amazing how powerful religion is, huh?
This is another idiotic statement from atheists to white wash the obvious political issues that establish the conflicts within the middle east.

To suggest that the another country that has a history over 40 years of setting up puppet regimes in another and finally ups the ante to out right invasion (all in the name of securing non-renewable sources as opposed to anything intrinsically religious or even political) is behaving "peacefully" is simply BS from the onset.







Pfft, I'm doing five or six other things as I type this. I'm also "debating". If my intent was to offend, I would be much less polite. Just sayin'.
If you aspire to debate I think you need a bit of help to establish a coherent argument

It does beg the question, why would a being of such power and wisdom have the need for cheerleaders?
praise is a natural consequence to something that is greater than one's self ... in the absence of envy of course.

also this

http://montaraventures.com/blog/wp-content/2009/02/motivational-atheists.jpg

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1523442&postcount=1

anything else?

also this

http://montaraventures.com/blog/wp-content/2009/02/motivational-atheists.jpg

very wise

This is another idiotic statement from atheists.

Censorship is a political issue and not a theological one. To say that there is a necessarily political slant to theism (or atheism) is simply douche-baggery (or do you forget that the country with the most vigilant of internet censorship issues is china, a country with a strong ideological history of atheism/anti-theism)

When censorship is put into place voluntarily by a corporation fearing what the members of a certain religion's followers will do if they see what the world thinks about them, I'd say the fault lies on the lack of rational behavior on the part of that sects adherents. Learn your facts, firstly, second of all, stop tossing up strawmen and tangents to disguise your failure to present a counterargument.





This is another idiotic statement from atheists to white wash the obvious political issues that establish the conflicts within the middle east.

To suggest that the another country that has a history over 40 years of setting up puppet regimes in another and finally ups the ante to out right invasion (all in the name of securing non-renewable sources as opposed to anything intrinsically religious or even political) is behaving "peacefully" is simply BS from the onset.

Are you ignorant of the 2960 years before that people in the middle east have been hacking each other apart for ideological differences? Put down the Bible, and pick up a history book. Also, present proof to your claims. The current "reason" regardless of your opinion, is that we are there to quell tensions between Sunni and Shia forces, and prevent fundamental Muslim radicals from establishing a foothold. Both problems generated by religion. Now. If you're done implying that others are idiots, maybe we can get back to attempting a debate.







If you aspire to debate I think you need a bit of help to establish a coherent argument

Seriously? After those two rants... Seriously. You, my good sir, are an inspiration for birth control.

praise is a natural consequence to something that is greater than one's self ... in the absence of envy of course.

That does not answer my question. I asked "What does god get out of worship" You replied "YAY GOD!"

I ask again. What's in it for god.

That does not answer my question. I asked "What does god get out of worship" You replied "YAY GOD!"

I ask again. What's in it for god.
I already answered - the benefits are for the one acquiescing to the higher power ... and as further detail, its the natural state of things (in the absence of jealousy of course)

I fail to see where you find benefit in subservience. Would not the ultimate compliment be emulation, rather than kowtowing and needless sacrifice?

When censorship is put into place voluntarily by a corporation fearing what the members of a certain religion's followers will do if they see what the world thinks about them, I'd say the fault lies on the lack of rational behavior on the part of that sects adherents. Learn your facts, firstly, second of all, stop tossing up strawmen and tangents to disguise your failure to present a counterargument.
I'm not sure how this takes the question of censorship into a purely theological (as opposed to political) framework




Are you ignorant of the 2960 years before that people in the middle east have been hacking each other apart for ideological differences? Put down the Bible, and pick up a history book.
so any conflict in the region is automatically attributed to religion (as opposed to the standard plight for resources that has governed conflict for the past several thousand years anywhere in the world) simply because the residents are religious?
Hell even the contributors in the American civil war were religious .....

Also, present proof to your claims. The current "reason" regardless of your opinion, is that we are there to quell tensions between Sunni and Shia forces, and prevent fundamental Muslim radicals from establishing a foothold.
add in a vested interest of a foreign power in "trading" on the countries natural resources and you have a more complete geopolitical picture


Both problems generated by religion.
The causes for the problems there are complex, but your inability to weigh in America's fiddling with the national politics of the place certainly highlights your clear bias


Now. If you're done implying that others are idiots, maybe we can get back to attempting a debate.
If you think its valid to relegate any conflict that occurs on a religious minded backdrop as inherently a conflict of religion, I think you have to go back to the drawing board in your debating efforts

I fail to see where you find benefit in subservience.
You can't fathom a benefit to being subservient to road rules governing which side of the road to drive on?


Would not the ultimate compliment be emulation, rather than kowtowing and needless sacrifice?
Emulation is only a requirement for the envious

that you're what?

"the one with the us and them mentality."

Can't you read or something. I was quoting you. DOH.


and some people do believe me,

Really, or patronise you? 'There there Lori, I'm sure god did tell you to do that.'


you're just not one of them, and i don't care. that isn't how it works anyway. the way it works is, god helps me, so i can help others.

Except you don't actually talk to god, it's a mental aberration.


i don't have to say a thing about god, or god's communication with me. all i have to do is let power manifest, and it does.

Like fuck it does.

I'm not sure how this takes the question of censorship into a purely theological (as opposed to political) framework

Because if there weren't people ready to go rioting in the streets, applying machetes and pitchforks to people that don't share their beliefs, there'd be no reason for that censorship in the first place. This isn't a matter of government sanctioned political censorship, as you're trying to play it off as. It is, simply, religious people willing to KILL those who will not accept their view of things affecting the world around them through fear. Like, you know... savages.



so any conflict in the region is automatically attributed to religion (as opposed to the standard plight for resources that has governed conflict for the past several thousand years anywhere in the world) simply because the residents are religious?
Hell even the contributors in the American civil war were religious .....[/QUOTE]

So we're supposed to ignore a major contributing factor to worldwide unrest, because religion has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with people's behaviour? Seen Westboro Baptist Church lately? I'm sure they're quite reasonable people, really, and they don't even kill people.


add in a vested interest of a foreign power in "trading" on the countries natural resources and you have a more complete geopolitical picture

The causes for the problems there are complex, but your inability to weigh in America's fiddling with the national politics of the place certainly highlights your clear bias

If you think its valid to relegate any conflict that occurs on a religious minded backdrop as inherently a conflict of religion, I think you have to go back to the drawing board in your debating efforts

Well, since I'm clearly an idiot, why don't you explain to me how any of a dozen other things tenuously related to the discussion at hand bear repeating over and over while ignoring the part of the problem I pointed out... Continue holding your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALALALA.. I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" Deflection, misdirection, and finger-pointing to draw attention away from the complete and utter lack of credibility in your arguments. If you think it's valid to ignore religion as a stumbling block on the path to peace and prosperity, and the root of thousands of human-rights violations, not just today, but throughout history, then YOU, sir, do not understand that which you espouse.

Also, there is nothing to be gained from grovelling, you simpering twat. Stand on your own two feet. I don't need to have faith in a god, because I have faith in myself.

Emulation is only a requirement for the envious

There are some things I don't understand about envy toward God.

Nobody envies the British Queen. Because she is a category of her own.

One can envy those whom one can relate to, those who are similar enough to oneself - who had in roundabout the same abilities and opportunites, but who made more of them than oneself. This is why highschool reunions are such a hot spot for envy.

But how can one envy someone (in this case, God) who is in a completely different category than oneself, who has completely different abilities and opportunities?

I mean, one would somehow have to see oneself in the same category with the British Queen, or God, in order to envy them ... that would require some serious vanity and delusions of grandeur, would it not?

Because if there weren't people ready to go rioting in the streets, applying machetes and pitchforks to people that don't share their beliefs, there'd be no reason for that censorship in the first place. This isn't a matter of government sanctioned political censorship, as you're trying to play it off as. It is, simply, religious people willing to KILL those who will not accept their view of things affecting the world around them through fear. Like, you know... savages.

Here's the things:

You are basically saying that Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Pope Benedict XVI, your Christian neighbors, and all the nasty Talibans are all part of the same group.

This is strange, don't you think?

They are all part of the same group. And when religions have political power, they are called dictatorships. Religion is the source of dictatorship, as they postulate a higher power to which one must obey, without question, or even thought.

Not particularly. Great people are often insane in their own ways, be it through egomania, a delusion that guides them to a lofty goal, or what have you. I must agree with YoyoPapaya's earlier sentiment that belief in a magic man in the sky who will give you a cosmic spanking if you're not good seems pretty insane to me.

There's a thin line between those who do great things for their beliefs, and those who do terrible things for their beliefs.

Here's the things:

You are basically saying that Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Pope Benedict XVI, your Christian neighbors, and all the nasty Talibans are all part of the same group.

This is strange, don't you think?


one of the most enduring crackpots on this forum but never recognized as one. yes, your post is very strange.

Gandhi did not advocate violence. people who are resisting violence doesn't mean that they are advocating violence. what would you have people do? nothing? just sit back and let people do whatever they want to you?

please, no need to answer that as it is obvious to anyone sane.

Because if there weren't people ready to go rioting in the streets, applying machetes and pitchforks to people that don't share their beliefs, there'd be no reason for that censorship in the first place. This isn't a matter of government sanctioned political censorship, as you're trying to play it off as. It is, simply, religious people willing to KILL those who will not accept their view of things affecting the world around them through fear. Like, you know... savages.
Its difficult to indicate any ideology that people haven't killed or been willing to die for once it reaches the stage of national identity.
IOW its the nature of any political structure, once there is enough numbers behind it.



So we're supposed to ignore a major contributing factor to worldwide unrest, because religion has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with people's behaviour? Seen Westboro Baptist Church lately? I'm sure they're quite reasonable people, really, and they don't even kill people.
I think its more pertinent to ask why one ignores the obvious political issues that contribute to worldwide unrest ... unless you have some valid explanation how the Crochet class at 4pm at your local church hall on a Wednesday is a thinly veiled attempt to kill dissidents.




Well, since I'm clearly an idiot, why don't you explain to me how any of a dozen other things tenuously related to the discussion at hand bear repeating over and over while ignoring the part of the problem I pointed out... Continue holding your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALALALA.. I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" Deflection, misdirection, and finger-pointing to draw attention away from the complete and utter lack of credibility in your arguments. If you think it's valid to ignore religion as a stumbling block on the path to peace and prosperity, and the root of thousands of human-rights violations, not just today, but throughout history, then YOU, sir, do not understand that which you espouse.

Also, there is nothing to be gained from grovelling, you simpering twat. Stand on your own two feet. I don't need to have faith in a god, because I have faith in myself.
You're right.
Clearly you are an idiot.
:shrug:

They are all part of the same group. And when religions have political power, they are called dictatorships. Religion is the source of dictatorship, as they postulate a higher power to which one must obey, without question, or even thought.
What, pray tell, was the religious group that empowered Mao? Or Stalin? Or Polpot?

I think you answered your own question. We don't think of communism but these dictators who demanded the same kind of worship as the previous Czars or Emperors (and deliberately capitalized on that fact). It's not at all certain that other communists like Trotsky would have been so brutal. But the model of these dictators was that of a religious figures, they carried out crusades, they hunted heresy, they promised scientific miracles in agriculture and industrialization, and their will could not be questioned.

A bunch of rhetoric. I never said that the other causes weren't there, but that they were not a part of this discussion. You're not defending your stance, you're trying to deflect blame. Imagine how much better our current political structures could be without religious differences being one more thing to take into consideration. As the human population climbs, it's really an extraneous stretch to have to take into consideration what people think of others imaginary friends.

As for the 4pm knitting club, that's fine, that's great, let the old biddies knit their fingers off. Those aren't the people I'm talking about, and you know it. Once again, you're using non-arguments to try and deflect attention from the issue.

Also, A. Your sarcasm detector is broken. B. You are wrong.

I think you answered your own question. We don't think of communism but these dictators who demanded the same kind of worship as the previous Czars or Emperors (and deliberately capitalized on that fact). It's not at all certain that other communists like Trotsky would have been so brutal. But the model of these dictators was that of a religious figures, they carried out crusades, they hunted heresy, they promised scientific miracles in agriculture and industrialization, and their will could not be questioned.
so you are trying to say that religion is the basis of dictatorship because even when a dictator comes to power totally divorced (and in fact opposed) from any sort of religious support, its simply their attempt to follow in the footsteps of previous religious dictators?
:crazy:

There are some things I don't understand about envy toward God.

Nobody envies the British Queen. Because she is a category of her own.

One can envy those whom one can relate to, those who are similar enough to oneself - who had in roundabout the same abilities and opportunites, but who made more of them than oneself. This is why highschool reunions are such a hot spot for envy.

But how can one envy someone (in this case, God) who is in a completely different category than oneself, who has completely different abilities and opportunities?

I mean, one would somehow have to see oneself in the same category with the British Queen, or God, in order to envy them ... that would require some serious vanity and delusions of grandeur, would it not?

The standard categories for opulence in this world are fame, strength, beauty, intelligence, renunciation and wealth (combinations of these translate into what we might coin as "successful" or "influential" or "powerful").

Any one who has more of any of these than one's self is a potential candidate for envy (materially speaking) .
Since God not only out does anyone else but is the prime reservoir of how these attributes are defined , materially speaking he is a prime candidate for envy.

Hence, in one sense, its envy which is the number one binding force to this world.

The standard categories for opulence in this world are fame, strength, beauty, intelligence, renunciation and wealth (combinations of these translate into what we might coin as "successful" or "influential" or "powerful").

Any one who has more of any of these than one's self is a potential candidate for envy (materially speaking) .
Since God not only out does anyone else but is the prime reservoir of how these attributes are defined , materially speaking he is a prime candidate for envy.

Hence, in one sense, its envy which is the number one binding force to this world.

Perhaps I am missing something, but personally, I cannot relate to your explanation.
I am in no way saying that I am not envious, because I am envious, in subtle and gross ways.

It's just that people and other beings who seem really a lot more advanced or special than me in some way, I perceive as being in a completely separate category as myself, and as such, I do not think I could ever have what they have.
While envy implies that one thinks oneself capable of having what others have.


(Perhaps this explains this, though: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-success/201101/the-trouble-bright-girls:
She found that bright girls, when given something to learn that was particularly foreign or complex, were quick to give up - and the higher the girls' IQ, the more likely they were to throw in the towel. In fact, the straight-A girls showed the most helpless responses. Bright boys, on the other hand, saw the difficult material as a challenge, and found it energizing. They were more likely to redouble their efforts, rather than giving up.

Why does this happen? What makes smart girls more vulnerable, and less confident, when they should be the most confident kids in the room? At the 5th grade level, girls routinely outperform boys in every subject, including math and science. So there were no differences between these boys and girls in ability, nor in past history of success. The only difference was how bright boys and girls interpreted difficulty - what it meant to them when material seemed hard to learn. Bright girls were much quicker to doubt their ability, to lose confidence, and to become less effective learners as a result.

Researchers have uncovered the reason for this difference in how difficulty is interpreted, and it is simply this: more often than not, bright girls believe that their abilities are innate and unchangeable, while bright boys believe that they can develop ability through effort and practice.
)

You can't fathom a benefit to being subservient to road rules governing which side of the road to drive on?

That's a false argument. One need not be subservient to a false deity (they can't ALL be right) in order to have strong moral or legal codes.

~String

All he makes is false arguments. He's not once addressed an actual point.

Apparently.

~String

That's a false argument. One need not be subservient to a false deity (they can't ALL be right) in order to have strong moral or legal codes.

Only if one sees oneself as the highest authority on what is moral or legal, or if one takes for granted who that authority is.

That's a false argument. One need not be subservient to a false deity (they can't ALL be right) in order to have strong moral or legal codes.

~String
who's talking about (false) deities or moral codes?
I thought we were talking about how one can benefit from subservience?

They are all part of the same group. And when religions have political power, they are called dictatorships. Religion is the source of dictatorship, as they postulate a higher power to which one must obey, without question, or even thought.


Even if the postulate is human?


jan.

I never said that the other causes weren't there, but that they were not a part of this discussion. You're not defending your stance, you're trying to deflect blame. Imagine how much better our current political structures could be without religious differences being one more thing to take into consideration. As the human population climbs, it's really an extraneous stretch to have to take into consideration what people think of others imaginary friends.
You really haven't though this through.

Conflict (especially when it escalates to a national level) is built on appeal to social authority, of which religion certainly doesn't have a monopoly. Hopefully you are familiar with enough modern history to understand this basic point


As for the 4pm knitting club, that's fine, that's great, let the old biddies knit their fingers off. Those aren't the people I'm talking about, and you know it. Once again, you're using non-arguments to try and deflect attention from the issue.
Actually it is people like them who make up religious populations and not militant human bombs and what not.

I agree. Before science (and technology) religion provided answers. Now, people seem to look to science. However I also believe that there will once again be a revolution and religion will become more popular, even in the advent of science.

Those who believe that there exists two opposing sides to an issue must therefore also believe that the two must fluctuate in popularity over time, but those who believe that once an issue has been resolved then a completely new and distinct issue must rise in its place, appear to believe in an evolution rather than revolutions between the two opposing sides.

There is no qualitative opposition to science and religion, simply a quantitative opposition. They're both trying to answer the same types of questions, we're just at the point where science hasn't caught up with religion on the topic of morality because psychology and sociology are still quite young in their advances. Soon enough, when we understand the human brain as well as we understand the cosmos, religion will have nothing left to take claim to, and will acquiesce accordingly.

There is no qualitative opposition to science and religion, simply a quantitative opposition. They're both trying to answer the same types of questions, we're just at the point where science hasn't caught up with religion on the topic of morality because psychology and sociology are still quite young in their advances. Soon enough, when we understand the human brain as well as we understand the cosmos, religion will have nothing left to take claim to, and will acquiesce accordingly.

Science is not prescriptive though. It does not tell us how we should live, it provides no comfort and solace, it merely explains. Man's default is uncertainty and fear. Religion is successful because it whispers comforting things in the ears of those who have not reconciled themselves with their mortality and the indifference of the universe. Science, by its very nature can not do this.

A further point is that most people are ridiculously ignorant of science, the scientific method and critical thinking in general. The march of science actually doesn't affect people. Yes, their cellphones now store more video and they live a few years longer, but science has yet to stake out a presence in their mind and thoughts. Every Sunday they do not dress up in suits and fine attire to attend a chemistry lab or lecture theatre. They bloody well should, but in crass terms, it doesn't get them off.

My theory is that the construct of religion is immortal.

Science only proves the how (to an extent) not the why and the more we conduct science analysis the more information we can infer from to conclude we have an illusionary nature in perception. I suspect the more we learn the more well see the illustratration that are senses are exclusive in its relationship with material(contigent matter) orbiting this planet that coexist with sustainable external factors creating essentially a closed system in a open source code.

There is no reason for this to exist in a mechanical vaccum. Yet it does. The athiests position is that there is no reason. The theiests position insists that there is.

There might be a totally scientific explanation of god being a consequence of matter evolving due to it acceleration and the motion its constantly in creating anti-particles and partiles that neutralize and create different balances eventually creating a form of matter (will, intent, consciousness) that transcends itself. Who knows.

Science is not prescriptive though. It does not tell us how we should live, it provides no comfort and solace, it merely explains. Man's default is uncertainty and fear. Religion is successful because it whispers comforting things in the ears of those who have not reconciled themselves with their mortality and the indifference of the universe. Science, by its very nature can not do this.

A further point is that most people are ridiculously ignorant of science, the scientific method and critical thinking in general. The march of science actually doesn't affect people. Yes, their cellphones now store more video and they live a few years longer, but science has yet to stake out a presence in their mind and thoughts. Every Sunday they do not dress up in suits and fine attire to attend a chemistry lab or lecture theatre. They bloody well should, but in crass terms, it doesn't get them off.

I think you are wrong about that, science eases fear, since it can explain where natural phenomenon come from, especially things like disease.

Even if the postulate is human?


jan.

Especially so.

A further point is that most people are ridiculously ignorant of science, the scientific method and critical thinking in general. The march of science actually doesn't affect people. Yes, their cellphones now store more video and they live a few years longer, but science has yet to stake out a presence in their mind and thoughts. Every Sunday they do not dress up in suits and fine attire to attend a chemistry lab or lecture theatre. They bloody well should, but in crass terms, it doesn't get them off.

They use chemicals everyday, cell phones to capture their lives for you tube and homeade movies...and they don't get off to a chemistry lab, yes. And if they had other functions to attend that have been scientifically proven to get them off, say a debate about why they exist, or a mythology story telling session, they would do that too.

I propose that given the information necessary to appeal to humans social and truly tribal propensities I could scientifically manufacture an event that would gain the attention of The masses. The media does it already without really knowing how the same way man can gaze at the stars and planets without knowing relativity, gravitational theory or optics.

as I said, we're at a stage right now where we are not sure how to live because we just do it...with insight into human needs and desires one can live in a way that statistically satisfies the optimal amount of people. Science dictates our every move. Your actions are controlled by your brain...you can't outsmart it.

Your brain has proclivities and expedients and methodologies that are slowly but surely being understood. There was a time when we didn't understand germs, weather, or cosmological phenomena, how asinine and defeating would it have been to say we didn't understand it then so only the popular mythology of the day was worthwhile??

And thus we sit 200 years later predicting weather, eradicating germs, recreating the way stars produce light. Soon we will scientifically predict decisions, eradicate immorality and recreate happiness...and it scares most to think THEY are subject to science that their "individuality" can ever be manufactured...but it is everyday by nature...not by their own choice...the wonderful thing is people like me embrace the idea of understanding ourselves and the cosmos.

Most know and would agree that a starry night sky with the milky way visible, conditions permitting, is beautiful, but to understand the complexity behind it increase its majesty fourfold...the same would he for humanity. It's a shame we fear what we almost understand.

Now before everyone freaks out on me for not having all kind of scientific evidence to support my claim let me just state now that this is more of me thinking out loud than making a serious case.
But I have this idea based on the way human progression has come about in the last few thousand years. Religion was once the center point of society. Everyone was religious, everyone believed in the gods, everyone was just about forced to. Most ancient religions were polytheist. Fast forward to where we are today and you will see a completely different world. Science has revealed many of religions "facts" wrong (such as the creation of the earth, why certain natural actions happen ect.) and much of the earth population either isnt very religious or does not believe in a higher power of any sort. My theory is this progression in the right direction will continue throughout human history until eventually the mix of increased intelligence caused by better understanding of the universe and progressive evolution causes religion to disapear completely. Thoughts?

I totally agree. No thinking person can believe in religion, those who do are under delusion and science is slowly lifting that curtain of nonsensical personal beliefs. :)

Religion will die out soon, but skyhookery will prevail for much longer.
How much time do you think, it'll take?

I totally agree. No thinking person can believe in religion, those who do are under delusion and science is slowly lifting that curtain of nonsensical personal beliefs.Would you say Einstein's view of the deity did not consitute religion?
Or, phrased differently, when you say religion do you mean organised, fundamentalist style religion only?

Would you say Einstein's view of the deity did not consitute religion?
Or, phrased differently, when you say religion do you mean organised, fundamentalist style religion only?

Heavens no! As the Einsteinian religion falls completely under the laws of science, it makes sense but not the religions conceived during infancy of our species.

No thinking person can believe in religion

I think that's simply false. Some of the most intelligent, thoughtful, humane and compassionate people that I've ever met were religious in some fundamental sense. My thesis advisor in graduate school was a former Catholic priest with a Doctor of Sacred Theology from Georgetown. I might come close to being a "believer in religion" myself, according to some definitions at least. I'm agnostic (and effectively atheist) about gods, but I've been paying quite a bit of attention to Theravada Buddhism lately as a form of spiritual psychology.


those who do are under delusion and science is slowly lifting that curtain of nonsensical personal beliefs.

Science is very good at revealing the regularities in how physical events correlate with other physical events. But it's not as effective at accounting for the observed regularities and for being itself in the first place.

And as others have already noted, science provides us little help in making our individual lives and the universe around us seem meaningful. Science doesn't speak to the emotional side of human beings in the same way that religion does.


Religion will die out soon

I think that religion will be with us for the forseeable future. What we are likely to see are greater or lesser changes in the forms that religion takes, as it evolves, adapting itself to changed cultural conditions.

We will probably continue to see the emergence of new atheist religions.

Marxism is/was the most prominent example of that breed so far, wrapping itself in the prestige of science while still purporting to give history a broader eschatological meaning. Marxism was basically a reworking of apocalyptic Judaism, with God and the supernatural removed, but still offering humanity hope for a paradisical classless Kingdom at the end of time, with the proletariat and its vanguard party taking the place of the heavenly Messiah with his avenging revolutionary sword.

Politics in general has taken on increasingly strong religious overtones, with party adherence and hostility towards political opponents taking the place of the violent religious anagonisms of past centuries. It used to be Protestants vs Catholics, now it's Left vs Right, Blue vs Red.

The flying saucer faith still has potential, transforming heavenly visitations by supernatural angels and demons into heavenly visitations by ostensibly 'scientific' space aliens. And as the myth evolves in a conspiratorial direction, with alien influence over earthly governments and massive coverups, it has potential to give history entirely new meanings.

Psychology has clear religious overtones, providing modern men and women with newly secularized paths of contemplative inner self transformation. Fear, doubt and anxiety are reconceived as if they were medical diseases and the psychologist lines up alongside the physician promising to cure them. The white coat of the clinician replaces the Buddhist monk's ochre robe.

And on and on. It's everywhere. Religion isn't going away so much as its being redefined and reconfigured.

And on and on. It's everywhere. Religion isn't going away so much as its being redefined and reconfigured.

evolving as it should.

evolving as it should.

When all the parts of the whole Ship of Dogma have been replaced by Science then the old ship will have gone away completely and the new one will rule the seas.

I think that's simply false. Some of the most intelligent, thoughtful, humane and compassionate people that I've ever met were religious in some fundamental sense. My thesis advisor in graduate school was a former Catholic priest with a Doctor of Sacred Theology from Georgetown. I might come close to being a "believer in religion" myself, according to some definitions at least. I'm agnostic (and effectively atheist) about gods, but I've been paying quite a bit of attention to Theravada Buddhism lately as a form of spiritual psychology.

I've myself come across intellectuals who are either religious or think religion is here to stay. Though intrigued by them, I feel they are under delusion. And they don't want their comfort zone snatched away.


And as others have already noted, science provides us little help in making our individual lives and the universe around us seem meaningful. Science doesn't speak to the emotional side of human beings in the same way that religion does.

Well, we(life and matter, all that we see and observe) are significantly small amount of pollution in the vast indifferent universe. That is the truth and it's time we accept it.

Science can speak to the emotional side, read Stephan Hawking, his description of event horizon of a black hole, see the Hubble Deep Field images, that what we see when we look small space which seems black and empty are thousands of galaxies. You won't be moved by it? Entertaining the emotional aspect of humans doesn't mean that religion is true or that it is not evil.




I think that religion will be with us for the foreseeable future. What we are likely to see are greater or lesser changes in the forms that religion takes, as it evolves, adapting itself to changed cultural conditions.......
And on and on. It's everywhere. Religion isn't going away so much as its being redefined and reconfigured.

Same could have been said about witchcraft couple of centuries ago. Today, yes the wiccans remain, but the basic practice of evil intent or evil eye have been completely eradicated with exceptions in areas with low education and awareness.

Religion is on a path to fall.

Religion is on a path to fall.

By its nature, the dogma-godma cannot evolve, and, anyway, the dogma has already been run over by the karma.

By its nature, the dogma-godma cannot evolve, and, anyway, the dogma has already been run over by the karma.

Don't you think karma is watered down form of dogma?

I've myself come across intellectuals who are either religious or think religion is here to stay. Though intrigued by them, I feel they are under delusion. And they don't want their comfort zone snatched away.
its my world,i can choose to believe whatever i want..and what is wrong with not wanting your comfort zone taken away from you? that goes for everyone.


Well, we(life and matter, all that we see and observe) are significantly small amount of pollution in the vast indifferent universe. That is the truth and it's time we accept it.
i accept it..but that does not mean i have to be passive about it.


Science can speak to the emotional side,
read Stephan Hawking, his description of event horizon of a black hole, see the Hubble Deep Field images, that what we see when we look small space which seems black and empty are thousands of galaxies. You won't be moved by it? Entertaining the emotional aspect of humans doesn't mean that religion is true or that it is not evil.
science just makes the pictures..the emotions they invoke are our own..


Same could have been said about witchcraft couple of centuries ago. Today, yes the wiccans remain, but the basic practice of evil intent or evil eye have been completely eradicated with exceptions in areas with low education and awareness.
interesting..


Religion is on a path to fall.
to make that claim,there must be data..

Don't you think karma is watered down form of dogma?

Yes. Was just using it as a joke.

We make our own luck in life by how we are.

its my world,i can choose to believe whatever i want..and what is wrong with not wanting your comfort zone taken away from you? that goes for everyone.

That's fine, but it needs a real basis to get votes and support from others.

its my world,i can choose to believe whatever i want..and what is wrong with not wanting your comfort zone taken away from you? that goes for everyone.


Sure, but the fact you derive comfort from your beliefs don't make them true.


to make that claim,there must be data.

Just google it.
Here are couple of articles, you'll find more.

http://www.mndaily.com/2009/04/05/religion-decline-across-america

http://www.peoplesworld.org/scientists-suggest-reason-for-religion-s-decline/

I've myself come across intellectuals who are either religious or think religion is here to stay. Though intrigued by them, I feel they are under delusion. And they don't want their comfort zone snatched away.

Of course, you feel that anyone who disagrees with you is "under delusion", don't you?

I think that religiosity arises far deeper in the human psyche than you seem to recognize. Religion is about as close to a human cultural universal as one can find, this side of use of a spoken natural language. Every human culture known, anywhere in the world, at any point in history for which information exists, has displayed some sort of religious belief and sensibility. The forms that these manifestations take is almost infinitely various, but some variety of religiosity always seems to be there.

That's led many thinkers to hypothesize that there's something in the human cognitive and emotional processes that generates religiosity. And if that's so, then it's highly unlikely that religion is just going to suddenly dissappear.


Religion is on a path to fall.

I don't believe that.

Conventional religion has declined in Europe and the rest of the European-derived Western world over the last 500 years. Of course, Europe's produced several new faiths such as Marxism and Naziism during that same period, which isn't an unrelated development. In East Asia, the new Marxist faith has elbowed into traditionally Confucian territory on the state-religion level (both have strong social emphases), but it isn't clear how much underlying religiosity is changing at the family and individual levels.

Religiosity is fighting back against modernity in other parts of the world. The case of Islam is impossible to ignore. And there are regions of the planet, Africa for instance, where theistic religion of Christian, Islamic and local syncretistic sorts is growing rapidly today.

So I don't think that the evidence supports the conclusion that religion is declining in any uniform way or that it is anywhere near dissappearing. What we see instead is what history has always shown us -- religiosity and its cultural products changing, evolving and adapting to ever-changing conditions.

Of course, you feel that anyone who disagrees with you is "under delusion", don't you?

So I don't think that the evidence supports the conclusion that religion is declining in any uniform way or that it is anywhere near dissappearing. What we see instead is what history has always shown us -- religiosity and its cultural products changing, evolving and adapting to ever-changing conditions.

well said the whole post..

he hasn't shown any evidence of a decline, just his opinion..

Of course, you feel that anyone who disagrees with you is "under delusion", don't you?


No, the specific ones who don't let themselves contemplate that good can exist without the need to skyhook. They are deluded.


I think that religiosity arises far deeper in the human psyche than you seem to recognize. Religion is about as close to a human cultural universal as one can find, this side of use of a spoken natural language. Every human culture known, anywhere in the world, at any point in history for which information exists, has displayed some sort of religious belief and sensibility. The forms that these manifestations take is almost infinitely various, but some variety of religiosity always seems to be there.

Well said, and true. And I do know that. But the need for religiosity can be and should be replaced by science (IMO); cause religion(most of it) promotes stagnation and warrants people to do stuff that otherwise would be immoral(Fact).


I don't believe that.

Conventional religion has declined in Europe and the rest of the European-derived Western world over the last 500 years. Of course, Europe's produced several new faiths such as Marxism and Naziism during that same period, which isn't an unrelated development. In East Asia, the new Marxist faith has elbowed into traditionally Confucian territory on the state-religion level (both have strong social emphases), but it isn't clear how much underlying religiosity is changing at the family and individual levels.

Religiosity is fighting back against modernity in other parts of the world. The case of Islam is impossible to ignore. And there are regions of the planet, Africa for instance, where theistic religion of Christian, Islamic and local syncretistic sorts is growing rapidly today.

So I don't think that the evidence supports the conclusion that religion is declining in any uniform way or that it is anywhere near dissappearing. What we see instead is what history has always shown us -- religiosity and its cultural products changing, evolving and adapting to ever-changing conditions.

:)
I said on the path, it won't go away suddenly, but eventually. Your blatantly denying of clear evidence doesn't help your cause. 'No religion' people are on the rise. Look!

well said the whole post..

he hasn't shown any evidence of a decline, just his opinion..

:D
The opinion I made after I read the evidence for it and thinking about the possibilities for the future.

No evidence you say? Boy, I feel like an evolutionary biologist trying to make creationists 'see' the evidence...
Come On!!

'No religion' people are on the rise. Look!

Science is your religion.

:bugeye:

Science is your religion.

:bugeye:

Religions are about a being, a supernatural Being.

Science is not about a supernatural Being.

Religions are about a being, a supernatural Being.

Science is not about a supernatural Being.

From Wiki:

Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values.

Applied to science:

Science is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values.

- which is true.

:D
The opinion I made after I read the evidence for it and thinking about the possibilities for the future.

No evidence you say? Boy, I feel like an evolutionary biologist trying to make creationists 'see' the evidence...
Come On!!

after you read the evidence? where is the link to that evidence?
prove to me the scientific way,that religion is in a state of fall.

not just opinion but with numbers, backed up with links..

i am really not trying to disagree with you as i can believe it too..but there is opinion and there is fact. common opinion is not fact.
this is an area that there must be numbers involved to be able to claim religion is on the way out..

No, the specific ones who don't let themselves contemplate that good can exist without the need to skyhook. They are deluded.

There are many things that believers and non-believers agree upon. For example, both agree that friendship is good, and murder is bad.

The question is only which explanation (the one from the believers or the one from the non-believers) makes the most sense of the values and virtues that we all agree upon.

Can the non-believers really produce such a justification for moral behavior that would make the moral behavior obligatory and justify sanctions for transgressing it?

I wrote:


I think that religiosity arises far deeper in the human psyche than you seem to recognize. Religion is about as close to a human cultural universal as one can find, this side of use of a spoken natural language. Every human culture known, anywhere in the world, at any point in history for which information exists, has displayed some sort of religious belief and sensibility. The forms that these manifestations take is almost infinitely various, but some variety of religiosity always seems to be there.

Praty replies:


Well said, and true. And I do know that.

Unfortunately, you snipped out my next remarks in which I said this:


That's led many thinkers to hypothesize that there's something in the human cognitive and emotional processes that generates religiosity. And if that's so, then it's highly unlikely that religion is just going to suddenly dissappear.

These emerging theories from the cognitive science of religion appear to contradict your prediction that religion will soon fade away and dissappear. If they are true, then your prediction is unlikely to ever occur.


But the need for religiosity can be and should be replaced by science (IMO);

"Replaced by science"? How? In what social and psychological role? You seem to be proposing to turn science into a new religion, or religion-surrogate. But wouldn't that imply the distortion and perhaps even the denial of science's own unique virtues?

Presumably, what you admire about science are the things that make it different than religion. So is it really a good idea to dream of a future in which it becomes one?


cause religion(most of it) promotes stagnation and warrants people to do stuff that otherwise would be immoral(Fact).

And science gives them the physical means to do evil and does nothing to morally dissuade them.


I said on the path, it won't go away suddenly, but eventually. Your blatantly denying of clear evidence doesn't help your cause. 'No religion' people are on the rise. Look!

"No religion people are on the rise" where? Everywhere on earth uniformly? In particular countries and cultures? There are parts of the world (like Scandanavia) where theistic religion appears to be in real decline, but there are also parts of the world (like sub-Saharan Africa) where it appears to be strongly rising. It isn't entirely clear whether there's any overall global pattern, or if so what it is.

"No religion people are on the rise" defined and measured how? By lower rates of conventional church membership and participation? Or with lower rates of underlying religiosity?

In Europe (which seems inordinantly proud of its atheist credentials), church adherence and participation have indeed fallen dramatically in the last couple of centuries. But if researchers word their poll questions a little differently and ask Europeans if they believe in "a higher power" or some vague and generic religious idea like that, then positive responses tend to pop right back up.

And it must be said that Europeans have shown considerably more interest than Americans in new (and Europe-spawed) eschatological quasi-religious movements such as Marxism and Naziism. It probably isn't coincidental that conventional religious adherence hasn't fallen quite as dramatically in America as in Europe during that period, leaving Americans feeling less in need of utopian emotional substitutes.

It's still an open question whether the elimination of traditional religion would be a uniformly positive advance of empirical reason, turning everyone into intellectuals, or whether it might render broader populations psychologically volatile and unstable.

the only time religion is a problem is when ppl use it as an excuse to control others.

I don't understand why people keep arguing about this, it is a very old rivalry that should end right now. Science is the new religion, but religion is the not-yet-fulfilled culmination of science. Religion has thousands of years on the make, while science is a baby in dipers.
By the way: reincarnation does not contradict evolution. On the contrary, evolution makes no sense without reincarnation.
Religion is incomplete, it will always be incomplete; but science is new and it will eventually be united with religion. Because it will eventually hit a not understandable wall for the minds of the moment, like someting beyond our minds that science cannot understand.
With evolution, we reach higher planes of perception from our original form. And so science evolves, religion evolves.

How is science a "new religion"?
What makes you think religion is the "culmination of science"?
Why do you think evolution makes no sense without reincarnation? What evidence do you have for reincarnation?
What do you mean by "higher planes of perception"?

Wisdom_Seeker, religion is about faith in the unknown, whereas science is about the known.

Religion had its dogma carved into stone thousands of years ago, unchangeable, by definition.

Religion had its dogma carved into stone thousands of years ago, unchangeable, by definition.

ironic that they expect you to change for them...

Wisdom_Seeker, religion is about faith in the unknown, whereas science is about the known.

Religion had its dogma carved into stone thousands of years ago, unchangeable, by definition.

Religion does not mean "Organized, dogmatic, traditional religion". While real religion is an attitude towards life, without the need of group enforcement.
Would you say that Jesus was not religious? But he wasn't an adept to any specific traditional religion. What about the Buddha, was he non-religious? While he was not affiliated to any pre-established religious group.
Same happens with any truly religious man, he is never afiliated to a religious sect or cult.

Religion needs to be separated from dogma in order to evolve.

How is science a "new religion"?

I mean with the evolution of science, much religious bullshit is contradicted. So organized religion cannot survive for the future man of science. Science will eventually destroy organized religion. And that is good.



What makes you think religion is the "culmination of science"?

Science can only get you so far, like in quantum mechanics, the terms used to described the behaviour of sub-atomic particles in relation to the observer can easily be related to the teachings of the founders of religions. Specially scientific mystics like Gautam the Buddha, who never encouraged people to believe in anything, on the contrary he always encouraged his followers to follow their own light, and to believe only what they had experienced for themselves.



Why do you think evolution makes no sense without reincarnation? What evidence do you have for reincarnation?

Do you think, that a man can be born from "nothing"? Is that scientific? Do you have evidence of where is the human being before conception? Or after death? Religion explains in methaphors and parables an existencial experience, what science cannot reach.
I have no evidence for reincarnation, obviously, there can be no physical evidence. I am neither telling you to believe in it. It is just the experience of many people.
I am just saying that reincarnation does not contradict evolution and viceversa. On the contrary it supports it, the soul is born in the lowest perception possible (non-living being), evolving to a plant and then animal, changing forms. According to the growth of the soul, it needs a different body to perceive what he has grown to perceive.
The soul evolves, and therefore bodies evolve as well in passing generations.



What do you mean by "higher planes of perception"?

I mean you have reached a higher plane of perception than a plant, or a dog. A plant has a certain perception of the world, but compared to our own it is very very limited.
And our perception is limited as well, we are not even close to be able to perceive the whole reality as it is, therefore science is also limited.

the terms used to described the behaviour of sub-atomic particles in relation to the observer can easily be related to the teachings of the founders of religions.
Rubbish. Examples please. (Unless you mean "related meaninglessly", of course).


Specially scientific mystics like Gautam the Buddha, who never encouraged people to believe in anything, on the contrary he always encouraged his followers to follow their own light, and to believe only what they had experienced for themselves.
Which has what to do with science?


Do you think, that a man can be born from "nothing"? Is that scientific? Do you have evidence of where is the human being before conception? Or after death?
What do you mean "from nothing"?
Why do you assume there's a human before being born or after dying?


Religion explains in methaphors and parables an existencial experience, what science cannot reach.
Incorrect. It tells stories: which have not been shown to be true. Therefore they're hardly "explanations".


I have no evidence for reincarnation, obviously, there can be no physical evidence. I am neither telling you to believe in it. It is just the experience of many people.
I am just saying that reincarnation does not contradict evolution and viceversa. On the contrary it supports it, the soul is born in the lowest perception possible (non-living being), evolving to a plant and then animal, changing forms. According to the growth of the soul, it needs a different body to perceive what he has grown to perceive.
The soul evolves, and therefore bodies evolve as well in passing generations.
This is more nonsense. You specifically stated

evolution makes no sense without reincarnation.
Why not?
And what is a "soul"?


I mean you have reached a higher plane of perception than a plant, or a dog. A plant has a certain perception of the world, but compared to our own it is very very limited.
And our perception is limited as well, we are not even close to be able to perceive the whole reality as it is, therefore science is also limited.
You mean we have senses that a plant doesn't? Correct. How do you know we have a "higher plane of perception" than a dog?
You're speculating wildly, without foundation.

Would you say that Jesus was not religious? But he wasn't an adept to any specific traditional religion. Are you seriously suggesting that he was not a Jew and did not promote Jewish values?

You mean we have senses that a plant doesn't? Correct. How do you know we have a "higher plane of perception" than a dog?

For example, a dog cannot appreciate music the way we do. The mind is the interpreter of the senses, and our mind is a bit more evolved than a dog's.

For example, a dog cannot appreciate music the way we do.
You assume.


The mind is the interpreter of the senses, and our mind is a bit more evolved than a dog's.
Then you're talking about mind rather than senses.

And ignoring all my other questions...

Are you seriously suggesting that he was not a Jew and did not promote Jewish values?

Yes.

I agree that he was born into a jewish family, with Jewish values; but he interpreted the Jewish scriptures in his own way, followed his own path, and critized traditional Jews.
He used jewish parables and teachings to explain his point of view, because he was speaking to a jewish audience; but most of Jesus teachings are blasphemy to orthodox Jews.
Just like Buddha used Hindu parables and teachings to explain his point of view to a Hindu audience, although he contradicted Hindu beliefs and he was not a Hindu himself (and he was born into a Hindu family).
And like Mohamad was raised as a pagan, but after his revelations he didn't preach paganism at all.
Etc, etc etc

You assume.


Then you're talking about mind rather than senses.

No, I'm talking about perception; the senses are just the "receptors" of certain energies, but without the mind the senses would be useless. The mind is needed to interpret and perceive the outer world.


And ignoring all my other questions...

Yes, 'cause it is useless to discuss some things. My intention is not to change your mind about things that require belief. To me belief is not a virtue but a confusing "self-hipnosis".
What I'm trying to state here is that religion does not necesarily contradict science. On the contrary, religion is thousands of years old, and it explains many things that Science is still unable to.

Science is the systematic process of discovering and explaining everything that is and occurs in nature.
The process of experimenting and experiencing without belief, is part of science, even if you cannot provide physical proof of your experience. It does not mean that it does not exists, it just means it hasn't been proved yet.

How is science a "new religion"?


I think that it can be.

Obviously for scientists themselves, science is quite distinct from religion. It's far more rational and evidence-based.

But the great majority of the population out there has little formal education in science. They have no easy facility in mathematics, no background in basic physics and chemistry, and limited ability to comprehend science's incredible complexities or understand why scientists say the things that they do.

So in real life, what we often see is people accepting science on faith.

Members of the public embrace science because of its cultural prestige or because all of the smarter people are supposed to believe in science. And that's not really a whole lot different than medieval people flocking to Christianity, for very similar reasons.

Street-level scientism takes on other characteristics of religion as well. There's a faith in progress and sometimes kind of a paradisical eschatology of a future scientistic Kingdom, when the forces of obscurantist darkness have finally been vanquished and everyone finally bends a knee. If we hope to improve society, then we need to reshape it in what is believed to be the scientific image. There's an implicit trust that science is capable of answering all questions and satisfying every conceivable human need.

No, I'm talking about perception; the senses are just the "receptors" of certain energies, but without the mind the senses would be useless. The mind is needed to interpret and perceive the outer world.
Double talk.


Yes, 'cause it is useless to discuss some things.
Yet you persist in stating these things as if they were fact.


What I'm trying to state here is that religion does not necesarily contradict science. On the contrary, religion is thousands of years old, and it explains many things that Science is still unable to.
Nonsense. Please give examples. Science has a history of contradicting religion. As you have acknowledged.


The process of experimenting and experiencing without belief, is part of science, even if you cannot provide physical proof of your experience. It does not mean that it does not exists, it just means it hasn't been proved yet.
It also doesn't mean that it does exist and is yet to be proved. This is where you appear to be confused.

But the great majority of the population out there has little formal education in science. They have no easy facility in mathematics, no background in basic physics and chemistry, and limited ability to comprehend science's incredible complexities or understand why scientists say the things that they do.

So in real life, what we often see is people accepting science on faith.
Then, strictly speaking, they aren't accepting science on faith so much as the results (what they are told science "says") of science (or, rather, the results as explained by newspapers, pop science books and TV programmes).
They are going on the word of those who promote/ propound science (often with little actual science knowledge/ background themselves)...

Edit: yes, I realise this is whole other argument. But still...

Nonsense. Please give examples. Science has a history of contradicting religion. As you have acknowledged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science


It also doesn't mean that it does exist and is yet to be proved. This is where you appear to be confused.

Have you ever been in love?
If the answer is yes: you cannot prove it, yet it does not mean love does not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science
Yes, unfounded claims and analogies. So what?


Have you ever been in love?
If the answer is yes: you cannot prove it
Arrant nonsense.

Yes, unfounded claims and analogies. So what
You cannot say that if you didn't even read it, the bibliography and related articles explain much about the subject as well; and you didn't read any of it.


Arrant nonsense.

Defense mechanism

You cannot say that if you didn't even read it, the bibliography and related articles explain much about the subject as well; and you didn't read any of it.
But I did.
I suggest that, on the contrary, it was you that didn't read it.

most scientists see a separation between the religious and metaphysical statements of Buddhism and the methodology of science.


Defense mechanism
Pardon?
You made a claim. Back it up.

But I did.
I suggest that, on the contrary, it was you that didn't read it.

In the same article,
See also

Relationship between religion and science
Buddhism and Evolution
Buddhism and psychology
Issues in Science and Religion
Quantum mysticism
Religious Science
--------------------------------
Buddhism, quantum physics and psychoanalysis have much in common as well. Better: Buddhism explains quantum mechanics.

However, I am not 100% for Buddhism, and not a Buddhist myselft; I'm just stating an example of a religion out of hundreds of religions. They don't necessarily contradict science.

But I consider it a clear example since Buddhism explained various aspects of quantum physics and psycology thousands of years before these sciences existed.


You made a claim. Back it up.
What i mean is that you cannot answer a question by attacking the questioner, that is an ad hominem argument. That is a defense mechanism, an old one.

It is as if:
Galileo: The Earth rotates around the Sun.
Pope: That is arrogant nonsense.

But you still can answer if you want, can you prove love? Can you prove embarrasment?

In the same article,
See also

Relationship between religion and science
Buddhism and Evolution
Buddhism and psychology
Issues in Science and Religion
Quantum mysticism
Religious Science
So what?
For example: Quantum Mysticism -

Many ideas associated with "quantum mysticism" have been criticized as either misinterpretations of quantum mechanics or as pseudoscience


Better: Buddhism explains quantum mechanics.
Um, no it doesn't. At all.


They don't necessarily contradict science.
But the occasions where science contradicts religion far outnumber the agreements.


But I consider it a clear example since Buddhism explained various aspects of quantum physics and psycology thousands of years before these sciences existed.
No. Please provide actual examples, as opposed to nebulous claims.


What i mean is that you cannot answer a question by attacking the questioner, that is an ad hominem argument. That is a defense mechanism, an old one.
There wasn't a question: you made a claim. A false one.


But you still can answer if you want, can you prove love? Can you prove embarrasment?
Certainly. Love is a measurable chemical imbalance (as was shown decades ago). Try Googling instead of making irrational claims.

The conversation is going in circles; peace, out!

The conversation is going in circles; peace, out!
In other words you can't back up a single one of your assertions.
Well done...

There are many things that believers and non-believers agree upon. For example, both agree that friendship is good, and murder is bad.

The question is only which explanation (the one from the believers or the one from the non-believers) makes the most sense of the values and virtues that we all agree upon.

Can the non-believers really produce such a justification for moral behavior that would make the moral behavior obligatory and justify sanctions for transgressing it?

Yes, many secular nations have laws that enforce moral standards. The problem with religious morality is that it's arbitrary. If the holy book tells you to mutilate the genitals of babies, you will do it. That's basically immoral and it disrespects the dignity and intelligence of human beings. Religion was invented by some self-righteous idiot in the first place.

In other words you can't back up a single one of your assertions.
Well done...

...

Ok here we go:


So what?
For example: Quantum Mysticism -
Um, no it doesn't. At all.

So, I don't mean actually explains all the details, but it reaches to understanding higher than what quantum physics have reached so far; Buddha did spoke much about the emptiness behind the form, about the illusion of matter behind the vibrational energy. Now in regards to quantum mechanics, scientists are able to measure and quantify subatomic particles behaviour and how these particles interact with each other in some sort of "emptiness", but they are still far from understanding how it all comes together. That is why so much "mysticism" has entered into science with quantum mechanics, because scientists are still at wonder about their findings not knowing what exactly is what they found and much is still to discover.


But the occasions where science contradicts religion far outnumber the agreements.
No. Please provide actual examples, as opposed to nebulous claims.

You may have heard about Hermes Emerald Tablet, where Hermes speaks about "everything is mind", and "how it is above it is below". Those are teachings from thousands of years ago, and science is still to find these things on their own.

The problem with the whole religion Vs science argument, is that scientists tend to be too literal. Like the whole garden of eden thing, if you take the parable literally, then you can contradict the whole thing with scientific arguments. But religious men from thousands of years ago did not speak literally and they were not concerned with how a man and a woman ate a an apple at the beggining of human history.
The garden of eden is a parable that explains, quite good in fact, how we create our own hell in this life by confroting what happens in reality with what we think it should happen according to our personal expectations.


Love is a measurable chemical imbalance (as was shown decades ago).

Love is measurable by current technology; but it was not measurable a hundred years ago. Does it mean a hundred years ago people didn't experience it? Science advances hand in hand with technology, and with better technology there will be more discoveries about this reality.

So you are betting that with this discoveries, science will keep contradicting religion. But I bet that quite the oppositve will happen, and as time passes, science will bring men closer and closer to real religion or spirituality.

Religion IS a mental illness. And it's contagious.
:thumbsup:


Religion is in the process of dieing away as we speak - with access to information and advancement in technology people no longer feel the need for religion. The speed at which superstition is collapsing is astounding and it will be very interesting to see how a truly secular public deals with superstition in the near future. That said, those religious paradigms that are able to adapt will probably grow. I'm thinking Christianity, which is extremely mailable, and more than likely Buddhism - which actually is value additive due to reflective practice.

But religious men from thousands of years ago did not speak literally and they were not concerned with how a man and a woman ate a an apple at the beggining of human history.I know you're not a "literal" kind if guy, but if you do a little research, you may find that the fruit in question was a fig not an apple.

Figuratively speaking, of course... :rolleyes:

Yes, many secular nations have laws that enforce moral standards. The problem with religious morality is that it's arbitrary. If the holy book tells you to mutilate the genitals of babies, you will do it. That's basically immoral and it disrespects the dignity and intelligence of human beings. Religion was invented by some self-righteous idiot in the first place.

"Dignity and intelligence of human beings" - according to what moral standard?

Not that I agree with every standard that is proposed by various religions.

It is that when we venture into the discussion on what is "arbitrary" and what is "natural" and what is "artificial," we are left to judging things by a moral standard which we cannot actually justify as absolute, and are thus left simply with one arbitrary moral standard fighting another arbitrary moral standard.

Unfortunately, you snipped out my next remarks in which I said this:

Of course I snipped cause I was addressing only to that part.



"No religion people are on the rise" where? Everywhere on earth uniformly? In particular countries and cultures? There are parts of the world (like Scandanavia) where theistic religion appears to be in real decline, but there are also parts of the world (like sub-Saharan Africa) where it appears to be strongly rising. It isn't entirely clear whether there's any overall global pattern, or if so what it is.

"No religion people are on the rise" defined and measured how? By lower rates of conventional church membership and participation? Or with lower rates of underlying religiosity?

In Europe (which seems inordinantly proud of its atheist credentials), church adherence and participation have indeed fallen dramatically in the last couple of centuries. But if researchers word their poll questions a little differently and ask Europeans if they believe in "a higher power" or some vague and generic religious idea like that, then positive responses tend to pop right back up.

And it must be said that Europeans have shown considerably more interest than Americans in new (and Europe-spawed) eschatological quasi-religious movements such as Marxism and Naziism. It probably isn't coincidental that conventional religious adherence hasn't fallen quite as dramatically in America as in Europe during that period, leaving Americans feeling less in need of utopian emotional substitutes.

It's still an open question whether the elimination of traditional religion would be a uniformly positive advance of empirical reason, turning everyone into intellectuals, or whether it might render broader populations psychologically volatile and unstable.

Your assumption that anything that has to decline, will decline uniformly is based on what?
The education standard of the Scandinavian countries is very high, that's the primary reason for sharp decline of supernatural beliefs. So, as the education* spreads among the masses, religion will decline, uniformly or non-uniformly.

*Quality education(scientific method and it's implications), not the basic.

Oops, only just saw this.

So, I don't mean actually explains all the details, but it reaches to understanding higher than what quantum physics have reached so far
No, it doesn't. You may claim it does though. Please show how it shows a "higher understanding".


That is why so much "mysticism" has entered into science with quantum mechanics, because scientists are still at wonder about their findings not knowing what exactly is what they found and much is still to discover.
This is incorrect. Mysticism has entered because of the fools that purport to explain it without knowing much about it.


You may have heard about Hermes Emerald Tablet, where Hermes speaks about "everything is mind", and "how it is above it is below". Those are teachings from thousands of years ago, and science is still to find these things on their own.
Another supposition. Please show that this "emerald tablet" has any validity.


The problem with the whole religion Vs science argument, is that scientists tend to be too literal.
Nope. The science vs. religion argument is that science tells us how things actually are (and checks, constantly) and religion tells us how things were believed to be (without substantiation).


Love is measurable by current technology; but it was not measurable a hundred years ago. Does it mean a hundred years ago people didn't experience it?
Huh? Please take a look at what you asked. And then re-read my reply.


But I bet that quite the oppositve will happen, and as time passes, science will bring men closer and closer to real religion or spirituality.
Except this has not been shown to be the case: quite the converse in fact.

@Dywyddyr: times like these I wonder if you post just for argument's sake but you wanna go, let's go :).


No, it doesn't. You may claim it does though. Please show how it shows a "higher understanding".

This is incorrect. Mysticism has entered because of the fools that purport to explain it without knowing much about it.
Physicists still don’t know the role that the observer plays in subatomic particles behavior, and that behavior constitutes the basis of what we call reality.
Buddhism explains thoroughly what the role of the observer in reality is. And the practical aspects are based on how the level of consciousness of the observer affects the world. It doesn’t explain much about the “ultimate reality” or reality without the observer, but mainly it teaches how to take your consciousness to higher levels so you yourself can experience this understanding.


Another supposition. Please show that this "emerald tablet" has any validity.
Nope. The science vs. religion argument is that science tells us how things actually are (and checks, constantly) and religion tells us how things were believed to be (without substantiation).
I cannot show you how the "emerald tablet” has any validity; it is just an example of how different traditions of religion or mysticism support each other in their most inner core teachings. The “emerald tablet” was allegedly written by “3 Initiates”, I mean even the authors are anonymous, how can validity be confirmed? It is just an example man, I can quote many other examples from other sources if you’d like.
Paradoxically, the greatest masters of history have been anonymous, because of their “surrender of the ego”. They just don’t care about their name being remembered, on the contrary, they don’t want to be followed, true masters have systematically told their disciples: “don’t follow me, come follow yourself”. But people don’t listen and always try to create their own phony organization.


Except this has not been shown to be the case: quite the converse in fact.
You are talking about organized religions; I’m talking about a new, honest religion. And science has played a major role in destroying these fake religion dogmas; it is all for the good of true religion!!! Jesus, Muhhamad, Buddha, etc. have all tried to destroy obsolete beliefs systems and organized religions, but people keep repeating the same mistakes, even against the teachings of the fathers of their own religion.

times like these I wonder if you post just for argument's sake but you wanna go, let's go
Then you can stop wondering. I "argue" because you persist in making false and/ or unsubstantiated claims.


Physicists still don’t know the role that the observer plays in subatomic particles behavior
Who says an observer does? That's one possible explanation. Try reading up on the subject.


Buddhism explains thoroughly what the role of the observer in reality is.
No, he makes claims. Which have yet to be substantiated.
BTW how can he "explain thoroughly" while at the same time not explaining the details? (Post #161).


but mainly it teaches how to take your consciousness to higher levels so you yourself can experience this understanding.
You mean it waffles about "higher levels" of consciousness so that you too can make claims.


I cannot show you how the "emerald tablet” has any validity; it is just an example of how different traditions of religion or mysticism support each other in their most inner core teachings.
Then it's not worth mentioning, is it? They may well supporteach other, but they do not support, nor are they supported by, science.


The “emerald tablet” was allegedly written by “3 Initiates”
Oops...

It claims to be the work of Hermes Trismegistus ("Hermes the Thrice-Greatest")
Or even:

12 - Hence I am called Hermes Trismegist (From the thing itself).
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Tablet). Any other source?


I mean even the authors are anonymous, how can validity be confirmed?
Forgive me. I wasn't aware this was the "Random Speculation" sub-forum.


You are talking about organized religions; I’m talking about a new, honest religion. And science has played a major role in destroying these fake religion dogmas; it is all for the good of true religion!!!
Oh, okay. WTF is a "true religion"?
Science will not support one, unless you want to redefine what "religion" means.

Dude, the emerald tables was authored by three initiates in the beginning of 20th century, and they claimed it was the essence of the teachings of Hermes Trismegistus; Hermes on the other hand, was “Thoth” the Egyptian (it is said that Thoth was an Atlantean Priest-King, who founded a colony in ancient Egypt after the sinking of his mother country), from several thousands of years ago and then the name was translated to Hermes the “Thrice Greatest” by the ancient Greeks. Myth says he was an immortal being who had conquered death.
His scriptures were lost in the great burning of the Alexandrian library.

Off course, I cannot back this up either with physical proof, but I'm just pointing out your lack of knowledge on the subject :p

Funny how all comes into pieces with different religions, like the "Trinity" in Christianity, or the three bodies of buddhism (Trikaya).

Anyway, back on the thread. Science will probably kill organized religions, I agree with that; but religion itself will not die.

A good definition of religion:
Religion, as distinguished from theology, is subjective, designating the feelings and acts of men which relate to God; while theology is objective, and denotes those ideas which man entertains respecting the God whom he worships, especially his systematized views of God. As distinguished from morality, religion denotes the influences and motives to human duty which are found in the character and will of God, while morality describes the duties to man, to which true religion always influences. As distinguished from piety, religion is a high sense of moral obligation and spirit of reverence or worship which affect the heart of man with respect to the Deity, while piety, which first expressed the feelings of a child toward a parent, is used for that filial sentiment of veneration and love which we owe to the Father of all. As distinguished from sanctity, religion is the means by which sanctity is achieved, sanctity denoting primarily that purity of heart and life which results from habitual communion with God, and a sense of his continual presence. [1913 Webster]

Note: we are not talking about "organized religion", "dogma", or "theology"; we are discussing religion here, therefore the emergence of a true religion, out of the removal of the hypocrisy of current dogmas triggered by science, is not at all impossible, and it is a highly likely outcome of this process.

Dude, the emerald tables was authored by three initiates in the beginning of 20th century
Source please, since my link disagrees with that. If it was "authored in the 20th Century" how come Newton (1643 – 1727) did a translation?
How come there's references to it going back to at least 650 AD?


Off course, I cannot back this up either with physical proof, but I'm just pointing out your lack of knowledge on the subject :p
Right. :rolleyes:
Keep trying.
I think you need a new definition of "knowledge".


A good definition of religion:
Religion, as distinguished from theology, is subjective, designating the feelings and acts of men which relate to God
That's enough.
What makes you think science will validate god?

Source please, since my link disagrees with that. If it was "authored in the 20th Century" how come Newton (1643 – 1727) did a translation?
How come there's references to it going back to at least 650 AD?

Right. :rolleyes:
Keep trying.
I think you need a new definition of "knowledge".

Shit man you are right, I was talking about the "Kybalion", great book by the way. Burn to me. Pardon my arrogance, thank you for making me notice it.


That's enough.
What makes you think science will validate god?
I don’t know if it will ever “validate” god, but religion will not die. Religion is for the people who know that man’s brain is so limited and it will never understand the totality of his surroundings; with this knowing comes search, and with this search comes inner-transformation.
I do think that as science will someday “accept” religion (without all the BS off course) once an evolved religion is established. Because due to the nature of reality, science will hit with walls that are almost impossible to cross through scientific method. That is why I pointed quantum physics, because it has remained stuck for many years (no major breakthroughs) and many scientists have adopted “non-scientific” explanations for what is going on there, therefore I believe more and more scientists will be accepting religion in the future. And even more if religion becomes more natural.

But what I do know for sure is that religion will not be eliminated by science.

Shit man you are right, I was talking about the "Kybalion", great book by the way.
Another piece of specious unfounded crap.


I don’t know if it will ever “validate” god
Then how will "science will bring men closer and closer to real religion"?


Because due to the nature of reality, science will hit with walls that are almost impossible to cross through scientific method.
Supposition.


That is why I pointed quantum physics, because it has remained stuck for many years (no major breakthroughs)
It's a relatively new branch. Rome wasn't built in a day, as the saying goes.


many scientists have adopted “non-scientific” explanations for what is going on there
Really? Link please. Or are you just taking the word the idiots that publish the "quantum theory and telepathy" type rubbish?


But what I do know for sure is that religion will not be eliminated by science.
You mean you believe that to be the case.

But what I do know for sure is that religion will not be eliminated by science.

Religion has been full of "for sure's" that have long since fallen. The epic battle is still on, and all the more. I have enjoined myself in it.

Of course some forms of religion will survive, such as the peaceful ones.

Another piece of specious unfounded crap.
Have you actually read it?


Then how will "science will bring men closer and closer to real religion"?
From my understanding, a curious agnostic is more religious than a catholic priest. In that sense, destroying the lies and deceptions of old dogmas is bringing people closer to a real religion.


You mean you believe that to be the case
Nah, people need a purpose in life that science will never be able to supply.

For the original question of the thread we have 2 likely outcomes in the future:
1. Technology will become so advanced, that science will reach a point where it has all the answers of the nature of the Universe (or multiverse). Ergo religion will die.
2. Science will come to find things that religions have been saying (some things in parables, and others literal) for millennia, and therefore creating the basis of a new understanding of religion.

And I just don't think the first one is a possible outcome. The fathers of religions spoke from their experience, and I believe most true teachings will be validated by science in the future.

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv6/austintorn/Austin%20Art/a01572.jpg

Have you actually read it?
Flicked through it. Spent too much time laughing at its ridiculous claims.


From my understanding, a curious agnostic is more religious than a catholic priest.
Doesn't answer the question. Science is currently showing that religion is largely wrong when explaining the world. You've also said that you don't think science will validate god. Therefore I ask again: how will science bring men closer and closer to real religion?


Nah, people need a purpose in life that science will never be able to supply.
And you think religion is the only other option?


For the original question of the thread we have 2 likely outcomes in the future:
1. Technology will become so advanced, that science will reach a point where it has all the answers of the nature of the Universe (or multiverse). Ergo religion will die.
Possible.


2. Science will come to find things that religions have been saying (some things in parables, and others literal) for millennia, and therefore creating the basis of a new understanding of religion.
You're supposing that religion had the actual answers. Wow! How'd it get them? What things do you mean?

How about
3: something you haven't thought of.


And I just don't think the first one is a possible outcome. The fathers of religions spoke from their experience, and I believe most true teachings will be validated by science in the future.
Sorry.
:roflmao:
What "true teachings"?

You're supposing that religion had the actual answers. Wow! How'd it get them? What things do you mean?
I’m not supposing that, I know religion has many answers as to the nature of this reality. I know now you will ask for examples so I think these are just out of the top of my mind a few truths that I think science will eventually bump into (or are already in the scope of science):
1) Meditation techniques and practices. (Vigyan Bhairav Tantra (http://www.meditationiseasy.com/mCorner/techniques/Vigyan_bhairav_tantra.htm), Zen)
2) Yoga.
3) Reincarnation and evolution.
4) Subtle body Chakras.
5) The power of mind over matter.
6) The illusionary quality of reality (our limited perception).

"For that which we cannot see, feel, smell, touch, or understand, we do not believe. For this, we are merely fools walking on the grounds of great potential with no comprehension of what is." - Buddhist monk quotation.


How about
3: something you haven't thought of.
I thought that was obvious, but in order to provide an answer to the OP I could only post what I could think of. But everybody is welcome to post other possible scenarios.


Sorry.
:roflmao:
What "true teachings"?
The true teachings are those of the sages, those that throw you into a quest to know yourself instead of looking for answers outside.

1) Meditation techniques and practices.

Meditation—the state of which is "not what you think"

Calming one’s mind by removing all thoughts, via meditation, results in a pervading neurological sensory feeling, yes, but it is still a felt sensation. Kind like like floating, and then even that is gone, but the ‘you are’ quale remains. Some might arbitrarily equate this to “God” or the “All”, yet, it is only a feeling induced by meditation. Simply pronouncing it to be something else is to fool one’s self, for, a sensory feeling is yet a sensory feeling.

Lab testing of Buddhist monks indicates that certain neurological areas of the brain indeed go quiet and stop reporting about the self identification and its bodily boundaries. I have had the same feelings through healthful meditation that others have had, but, I do not claim the ‘sure things’ that I am floating in outer space, have become one with the cosmos, or going to other spiritual realms, even though it feels like it, nor do I claim that I have merged with the chair, the room, the world, or the universe, even though it feels like it.

Nor any claims of “God”, nor “All”, nor merging with the cosmos. It is just a neurological feeling that’s especially induced by the quieting of brain areas for the self ID and the body’s boundaries. The feeling comes from one’s own brain; it is not an external signal sent so we can touch God, know God, or peek into God’s realm, for this is all just wishful thinking.

Here is more: Humans have become suckers for many weird beliefs. They have even been encouraged by brain systems that evolved for other things. For example, as in meditation, a bundle of neurons in the superior parietal lobe, a region toward the top and rear of the brain, distinguishes where your body ends and the rest of the world begins, this being quite a useful feature. Without it, we would bump into everything. However, brain areas send “turn off” signals to this area when we are falling asleep, having sex, praying, chanting, or meditating deeply. One then feels part of something larger than one’s self; however, one is not.

When the brain is unable to find the dividing line between self and world, the brain adapts by experiencing a sense of holism and connectedness that then may promote other beliefs which bring a further sense of connection. The quietus of these brain areas lead some to figure that they have become one with the cosmos or with God during meditation; but, alas, it is only that induced floating feeling of oneness, still a felt sensation in the ‘state of being’ that ever resides atop the mind’s unreachable chemical-electrical state beneath.

Who then, upon recalling, or during a state of meditation, or just by living, can use experience of doubtful analysis by the mere state of being to say anything further about the true nature, why, source, how, and wherefore of reality and the conscious awareness of felt sensation without any consideration of the electrochemical states beneath?

There are those who feel they really have to say, based on introspection alone, and those who do not, for science informs us of the states beneath.

I’m not supposing that
Yet your next sentence shows that you in fact are.


I know religion has many answers as to the nature of this reality
Believe is the word you keep missing out.


1) Meditation techniques and practices.
2) Yoga.
And?


3) Reincarnation and evolution.
Evolution? Which religion? Reincarnation? Supposition. And zero evidence.


4) Subtle body Chakras.
Supposition. And zero evidence for claims made, if not actually contradicted.


5) The power of mind over matter.
Supposition. Zero evidence where not directly contradicted.


6) The illusionary quality of reality (our limited perception).
Huh?
Depends what you mean by "illusionary".


The true teachings are those of the sages, those that throw you into a quest to know yourself instead of looking for answers outside.
I meant "what are these "true teachings"?". Is it yet another supposition of yours that they are true?

Still zero evidence for evolution. We are still just as stupid as our predecessors. Generationally speaking of corse.

Still zero evidence for evolution.
Are you really that dumb?


We are still just as stupid as our predecessors
Well at least one of us is.

3) Reincarnation and evolution.

The fossils, including our forebears, match the junk DNA of current creatures which also matches their changes in the womb as embryos, this making a triple conjunction of closure. Evolution is fact. Its methods are ever under study. No immutability of species. The 'divinely inspired' Bible got it wrong.

Dude, the emerald tables was authored by three initiates in the beginning of 20th century, and they claimed it was the essence of the teachings of Hermes Trismegistus; Hermes on the other hand, was “Thoth” the Egyptian (it is said that Thoth was an Atlantean Priest-King, who founded a colony in ancient Egypt after the sinking of his mother country), from several thousands of years ago and then the name was translated to Hermes the “Thrice Greatest” by the ancient Greeks. Myth says he was an immortal being who had conquered death.
His scriptures were lost in the great burning of the Alexandrian library.

Off course, I cannot back this up either with physical proof, but I'm just pointing out your lack of knowledge on the subject :pThe fact you can just make stuff up and not justify it doesn't mean you are not lacking in knowledge yourself.


I don’t know if it will ever “validate” god, but religion will not die. Religion is for the people who know that man’s brain is so limited and it will never understand the totality of his surroundings; with this knowing comes search, and with this search comes inner-transformation.In my experience those who accept the limits of Man the most are scientists. We don't just to "Oh God is tunnelling information into my brain, I am his voice!" or "God did it" as answers, we continuously work to expand our understanding, with the full knowledge we'll never finish.

This whole "Religious belief humbles a person" thing is nonsense. It's staggering arrogance dressed up as being humble. Your god is the god and thus your belief makes you special. He/She/It talks to you and guides you, listens to you muttering to yourself and gives a shit who you sleep with. Whether or not you think Man's brain is limited you think you're sufficiently special that the entity you think created the entire universe gives a rats ass about you, one of his chosen. Hardly humble.


I do think that as science will someday “accept” religion (without all the BS off course) once an evolved religion is established. Religion has been evolving for the entirety of human history and it's becoming ever more implausible and laughable.


Because due to the nature of reality, science will hit with walls that are almost impossible to cross through scientific method.But that doesn't mean we throw the scientific method, which has got us so far, in the bin and just start making shit up. If you don't know the answer to a question the honest reply is "I don't know", not "Hang on, I'll look in this unjustified, falsified book written in the Bronze Age, use my own interpretation and then just make up an answer to your question". Religion gives useless answers. It'd be infinitely more honest if it just admitted when it doesn't know but of course how can you claim to be speaking for an all knowing entity and yet not have answers?


That is why I pointed quantum physics, because it has remained stuck for many years (no major breakthroughs)Speaking as someone with a doctorate in theoretical physics that is bullshit. You clearly don't know how the scientific method works and now you're demonstrating you're willing to just make things up. But then I guess that's the attitude your religion teaches, rather than being honest and keeping your trap shut when you don't know something.


and many scientists have adopted “non-scientific” explanations for what is going on there, therefore I believe more and more scientists will be accepting religion in the future.Quantum mechanics is almost a century old and in that century the religious belief of scientists has plummeted.

The fact some aspects of quantum mechanics are counter intuitive doesn't lead people to religion. Part of being a good scientist is saying "I presently do not understand this but I won't jump to a conclusion, I'll continue collecting data". I've been dealing with quantum mechanics for the better part of a decade and never has it made me think about anything religious. Likewise with all the people I've worked with.

You might be used to saying "I don't understand this, therefore God" but that's not intellectually honest, it's not the way science is done.


But what I do know for sure is that religion will not be eliminated by science.Because stupidity and ignorance are hard wired into us, not because 'science leads you to religion'.

A real religion should not have the "belief in god" as a premise; in fact god is just a word, and not at all a reality. The reality of god is subject to each person's interpretation of the word.
If I think that god is love and creativity, I could drop the word god and use "love and creativity" instead, but it would lose its religious connotation. I do not believe in god as a being, but as a consequence of looking at reality without the dualist perception of the mind.

And about meditation, I posted a link previously to a 5000 year old scripture (Vigyan Bhairav Tantra), which I think is the most complete book for meditation practices ever written and it is not at all unscientific.
It starts with many questions:
Devi Asks: O Shiva, what is your reality?
What is this wonder-filled universe?
What constitutes seed?
Who centers the universal wheel?
What is this life beyond form pervading forms?
How may we enter it fully, above space and time, names and
descriptions?
Let my doubts be cleared!?
Shiva replies with 112 methods of meditation, and no philosophical answer whatsoever. This is science, Shiva was not interested in engaging in philosophical arguments with his beloved, he wanted her to experience this for herself, so the answers will come to her out of her experience.

It is like a person Y asking to person Z. Y: What is the taste of an apple? And Z, without answering with words grabs an apple and gives it to Y asking him to taste it. Scientifically, can you respond to such a question? It would be impossible to elaborate an accurate answer I think, but not at all impossible to experience.

PS: I know I posted a few lines out of arrogance in previous posts directed to Dywyddyr, and I apologize for that, honestly. Sometimes one gets carried away by the old habits of the mind.

And most of you guys are telling me I'm posting out of supposition. We are talking about the future man, everybody here is supposing stuff.
Some suppose religion will die away with science, I don't.

I'm saying science will eventually validate many practices and methodologies of religion, as it is doing right now. Yoga and meditation have actual scientific evidence for their many contributions to health; but this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Let’s say in the future there would be a “scientific religion” only based on Yoga and Meditation, even if it would be based on science and not presupposes an existence of god or any philosophical arguments, it would still be a religion because of the unmeasured future outcome.

A real religion should not have the "belief in god" as a premise
Make your mind up:
Me: WTF is a "true religion"?
You: A good definition of religion:
Religion, as distinguished from theology, is subjective, designating the feelings and acts of men which relate to God.


And about meditation ... snip ... and it is not at all unscientific.
You think?

It starts with many questions:
[I]Devi Asks: O Shiva, what is your reality?
What is this wonder-filled universe?

Shiva replies with 112 methods of meditation
Hardly an answer to question 2 for one thing, is it?


This is science
Maybe you should look up the definition of science. It would help you in future.


And most of you guys are telling me I'm posting out of supposition
You are.


We are talking about the future man, everybody here is supposing stuff.
And most of us can provide some basis for our suppositions. You haven't.


I'm saying science will eventually validate many practices and methodologies of religion, as it is doing right now.
Yet you haven't replied to post #179 (which was questioning what is unsupported supposition for the most part).


Let’s say in the future there would be a “scientific religion” only based on Yoga and Meditation, even if it would be based on science and not presupposes an existence of god or any philosophical arguments, it would still be a religion because of the unmeasured future outcome.
Then, one more time: what is your definition of religion? And why are you redefining the word?
Is it because you actually want to forget about god, learn science but somehow maintain your conviction you are "religious" for some obscure reason?

Dywyddyr: Would you say Buddhism is not a religion?
It is a non-theistic religion, meaning that the nature of God is not pertinent to Buddhist teachings.
I know Buddhism has many believes, but god is not one of them. Also, these believes only serve as a motive for practice and meditation. If your motive for meditation is merely scientific, it will not affect the outcome.


And most of us can provide some basis for our suppositions. You haven't.
And what would the basis of the supposition that “religion will die away with science and evolution” be?


Is it because you actually want to forget about god, learn science but somehow maintain your conviction you are "religious" for some obscure reason?
I never said I want to forget about the possibility of god, but I don't take the belief of god as a motive for my actions.

Dywyddyr: Would you say Buddhism is not a religion?
Nope.

I know Buddhism has many believes, but god is not one of them.
No?

Devas including Brahmas: variously translated as gods, deities, spirits, angels, or left untranslated
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism) (of course).


And what would the basis of the supposition that “religion will die away with science and evolution” be?
With "evolution"? Not a clue, you'll have to ask whoever said it. But science is gradually reducing the places god can "hide". Eventually he'll be reduced to a true non-entity. Much like Osiris, Thor et al.


I never said I want to forget about the possibility of god, but I don't take the belief of god as a motive for my actions.
Er, so what's the value (or point) in believing in god?

I'm sorry, I seem to be unable to see the rest of your answers (specifically the replies to my post #179). Did you use an invisible font, or is my computer playing silly buggers?

Nope.
If you don’t think that Buddhism is a religion, from that standpoint I agree with almost everything you have said here. But I do think that Buddhism is a religion, one of the most important ones. And it is non-theistic.


No?

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism) (of course).
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism) :
The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator.



With "evolution"? Eventually he'll be reduced to a true non-entity. Much like Osiris, Thor et al.
That is a supposition.


Er, so what's the value (or point) in believing in god?
I don’t see any point in believing in god, I see it (most of the times) as a hypocritical superstition. Because you cannot “trust” something you do not know, and if you say you are certain about the existence of god with doubt in your heart then you would be lying. And with blind belief, doubt follows inevitably.


I'm sorry, I seem to be unable to see the rest of your answers (specifically the replies to my post #179). Did you use an invisible font, or is my computer playing silly buggers?
I never said science has proven those things, I just said I believe (there, I said the word you wanted) that science will someday validate them.
True teachings are those teachings that are not lies. In the religious scriptures there is much truth, and there are also a bunch of lies added by hidden agendas of politicians (including religious figures such as Pope, priests, etc.).

If you don’t think that Buddhism is a religion, from that standpoint I agree with almost everything you have said here. But I do think that Buddhism is a religion, one of the most important ones. And it is non-theistic.
Er,
You: Would you say Buddhism is not a religion?
Me: Nope.
Note the denial of a negative...


The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator.
And now you're redefining gods.


That is a supposition.
It's an extrapolation of an observed, continuing trend.


I don’t see any point in believing in god, I see it (most of the times) as a hypocritical superstition. Because you cannot “trust” something you do not know, and if you say you are certain about the existence of god with doubt in your heart then you would be lying. And with blind belief, doubt follows inevitably.
Then what's religion in your equation for? And you stil haven't given any definition (no matter how spurious) of "religion" that doesn't include god.


I never said science has proven those things
No, but you DID say:

I know religion has many answers as to the nature of this reality
And gave examples.


True teachings are those teachings that are not lies.
And once again you avoid the real question to state tautologies. What ARE these "true teachings"?

And most of you guys are telling me I'm posting out of supposition. We are talking about the future man, everybody here is supposing stuff.There's a difference between interpolating from current data points and just making stuff up. I believe, based on past experience and physical models, the Sun will rise tomorrow. This is supposition but it is well founded in reality. Someone who says "Tomorrow the Sun will be replaced by a giant squirrel" is not making a well founded supposition.

The evidence is that religious belief in the Western world is on the decrease. The evidence is that religious belief goes down with education, particularly education in science.


I'm saying science will eventually validate many practices and methodologies of religion, as it is doing right now. You have no evidence for that. In fact you have to ignore evidence to the contrary!


Yoga and meditation have actual scientific evidence for their many contributions to health; but this is just the tip of the iceberg.Being relaxed and healthy is a good thing, that isn't rocket science. Eating well and exercising has always been known to be good for you. It's practically tautological!

Besides, neither of those are religious, they are just life styles.


In the religious scriptures there is much truth, and there are also a bunch of lies added by hidden agendas of politicians (including religious figures such as Pope, priests, etc.).The Bible is the big book of multiple choice. You can find a passage to justify almost anything, including slavery, genocide and incest. When something is disprove or falls out of favour you pick another verse. A book which can say anything says nothing.

Besides, neither of those are religious, they are just life styles.
Why do you think they are not religious? They were certainly born out of religions.


The Bible is the big book of multiple choice. You can find a passage to justify almost anything, including slavery, genocide and incest. When something is disprove or falls out of favour you pick another verse. A book which can say anything says nothing.

Agreed, but bible is just one of many scriptures.

Wisdom_Seeker neglected my posts on meditation and evolution, his strong beliefs probably causing this.

Wisdom_Seeker neglected my posts on meditation and evolution, his strong beliefs probably causing this.

My sincere apologies SciWriter, I did not neglected your posts, I read them carefully; and the picture of the graveyard was LOL 4 me.

The reason why I didn't answer is that I agree with what you said. But let me elaborate:


Religion has been full of "for sure's" that have long since fallen. The epic battle is still on, and all the more. I have enjoined myself in it..
Agreed, for me it is good that you have “joined the battle”. It is in fact because of people like you that fake blind beliefs are being destroyed, for me this is nothing but good.


Of course some forms of religion will survive, such as the peaceful ones.
That is exactly my point man, so you have the same answer to the OP as I am trying to state.


Are you seriously suggesting that he was not a Jew and did not promote Jewish values?
I am dead serious about that man; he was born in a Jewish environment alright. But he was condemned and killed by the Jewish establishment of the moment, because of his statements.
He was not against Judaism, but he gave the Jewish teachings his interpretations according to his own understanding, he was not at all an orthodox Jew (if Jew is a title that can be credited to such a free man). He never compromised his consciousness for something that is written.
Fragment from the Gospel of Thomas, that states when disciples were trying to “fit” Jesus’ teachings into a Jewish background:
“the disciples say to Jesus, "Twenty-four prophets spoke in Israel, and all of them spoke in you." To which Jesus replies: "You have omitted the one living in your presence and have spoken (only) of the dead.".
Jesus even discredited all commandments of the Old Testament, therefore in despair his disciples asked him what commandments he teaches to what Jesus replied:
“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” (John 13:34)

Another Jesus statement against orthodox Jews (Synagogue goers):
Matthew 23:25-28 saying, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26 You blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”


The fossils, including our forebears, match the junk DNA of current creatures which also matches their changes in the womb as embryos, this making a triple conjunction of closure. Evolution is fact. Its methods are ever under study. No immutability of species. The 'divinely inspired' Bible got it wrong.
Completely agree, but my point is that science is still to prove the relationship between what we know of evolution and the theory of reincarnation.
Reincarnation is not discredited by the findings of evolutionists. I know that reincarnation is still speculation and not science, because science has not yet found a being that is behind the body, not driving the body (mind) but the observer of the mind.


Meditation—the state of which is "not what you think"
I understand your point in your whole statement of post #178. And I agree with you.
The thing is, meditation is beyond all that, it is against false assumptions and one should never jump into conclusions for our own experiences on meditation; meditation has nothing to do with god, but it does with religion. The Buddha is the grand master of meditation, giving birth later to Zen, which is the heart of Buddhism:
• “In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true..”
• “Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.”
• “Look within, thou art the Buddha.”
• “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings -- that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.”

Patanjali’s Yoga sutras are a great resource of yoga and meditation:
“All impressions and reactions are known as 'mental fluctuations' or 'thought-waves', and yoga is the control of thought-waves in the mind.”
Patanjali

Milarepa (Zen Master):
“My religion is to live and die without regret.”
“All meditation must begin with arousing deep compassion.
Whatever one does must emerge from an attitude of love and benefitting others.”

Nagarjuna (Zen Master):
“All philosophies are mental fabrications.
There has never been a single doctrine by which one could enter the true essence of things.”

Even Jesus was try9ing to teach meditation to traditional Jews using their own religious language:

Jesus was once asked when the kingdom of God would come. The kingdom of God, Jesus replied, is not something people will be able to see and point to. Then came these striking words: “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21)

My sincere apologies SciWriter, I did not neglected your posts, I read them carefully; and the picture of the graveyard was LOL 4 me.

OK, but reincarnation and Luke saying things about "within" are just suppositions and so they carry no weight.

Personal subjective belief is one thing, but putting it on others as fact and truth is another thing.

Originally Posted by Wisdom_Seeker
But what I do know for sure is that religion will not be eliminated by science.
You mean you believe that to be the case.
science is for those who want to think
religion is for those who want to feel,
Science is for those who want to know,
Religion is for those who want to believe

(i had a point somewhere...)


img

what about all the non-religious idols sci?
i think money would be a thing that ppl worship..maybe Barney, definitely Doctor Who..


Someone who says "Tomorrow the Sun will be replaced by a giant squirrel"

And you will all worship me..
not because i want you to, but because i'm so giant..wheres my flyswatter?..

(couldn't resist..)



Personal subjective belief is one thing, but putting it on others as fact and truth is another thing.
true.

but
one usually thinks of ones personal subjective beliefs as true and factual,
whether theist or atheist..
case in point, the atheist desire to convince believers that 'there is no God' even though they admit there can be no proof either way..

science is for those who want to think
religion is for those who want to feel,
Science is for those who want to know,
Religion is for those who want to believe
I can go with that.


(i had a point somewhere...)
I must find my diary and make a note of this momentous occasion! :p


And you will all worship me..
Pfft, don't be so modest. We already do.


case in point, the atheist desire to convince believers that 'there is no God' even though they admit there can be no proof either way..
Not quite the whole truth. Some atheists simply "don't believe" and are either asking what proof there is or pointing out that there's no proof on the theist's side either.

I can go with that.
which is why religion won't die.
and why science and religion need each other..they are a set.


Not quite the whole truth. Some atheists simply "don't believe" and are either asking what proof there is or pointing out that there's no proof on the theist's side either.

that would be good and well, IF atheist would quite making it about how wrong theist are. those two points you made gets lost in the attack.

which is why religion won't die.
and why science and religion need each other..they are a set.
I'm not sure about that.
Religion may well die (as in "belief in god") due to fewer gaps for him. But the "need for belief" may well survive (probably will, it seems to part of what makes us human) and stay on as something "more rational". Maybe a belief in humanity...


that would be good and well, IF atheist would quite making it about how wrong theist are. those two points you made gets lost in the attack.
Okay. "We"'ll stop making it about how wrong theists are when they stop making unsupportable claims about god. :p

Why do you think they are not religious? They were certainly born out of religions.Explain how they are religious, in that they promote a belief in a deity or deities or spiritual realm of any kind.


Agreed, but bible is just one of many scriptures.The same seems to apply to any holy book. The Torah is basically the Old Testament and so the 'Big Book of Multiple Choice' applies to it trivially. There's plenty of examples of Koran quotes about how Islam is a religion of peace but you should kill apostates or anyone who tries to lead you from the big invisible guy in the sky. I used the Bible example because the majority of people on this forum are, at least it seems to me, to be Western and thus have more familiarity with the Bible. I personally have more familiarity with the Bible than the Quran but when it comes to my views on them it's much the same for each, fiction masquerading as wisdom and truth.

And you once again avoid responding to the points I raise. I've said repeatedly that science isn't leading people to religion. This is backed up with evidence, in that the most irreligious groups within any given country, including the US, are those with the highest levels of education, especially in the sciences. In general the level of religious belief goes down as social liberalism and scientific knowledge go up. I also speak from personal experience as a PhD in physics and a professional mathematician/physicist. Neither I nor anyone I have or do work with has been lead to religious by science. In fact I can't think of anyone I've worked with who was or is a believer and I've specifically asked those various groups at one time or another.

Where is the evidence of your claims? You clearly don't understand the scientific method, the developmental history of science, the recent (ie last 100 years) history of science, the plummeting of belief in scientists in that time and the profound lack of belief in scientists now. You seem to be basing your claims on your ignorant view of how you think science is developing. Quantum mechanics doesn't lead scientists to religious, the only people who get spiritual justification from quantum mechanics are those who don't understand it, ie the hacks like the makers of "What the Bleep Do We Know?".

Rather than avoiding my retorts of your claims why don't you respond? Or are you trying to bury your head in the sand for fear you might find out you're wrong? The truth has nothing to fear from open discussion, you shouldn't have any reason not to respond. Assuming, of course, you have evidence to back up your claims.

I'm not sure about that.
Religion may well die (as in "belief in god") due to fewer gaps for him. But the "need for belief" may well survive (probably will, it seems to part of what makes us human) and stay on as something "more rational". Maybe a belief in humanity...
didn't say it can't be redefined, but it won't loose God, there needs to be a focus other than self.



Okay. "We"'ll stop making it about how wrong theists are when they stop making unsupportable claims about god. :p
ask for evidence not proof.
understand testimonies are evidence..
but i will agree that most theist do not understand what a testimony is..it is not a script.i would join the chorus if a theist logged on and started spouting script.(IE, Did you know that jesus died on the cross for you?..etc..)
its supposed to be personal, not some predefined state of existence.

didn't say it can't be redefined, but it won't loose God, there needs to be a focus other than self.
Um, to my simple atheist mind humanity is something other than self. It's, er, others, ya'know.


ask for evidence not proof.
Do I (at least) not?


understand testimonies are evidence.
Are they? I mean really? Aren't they simply eyewitness reports? (Just to reference that other thread where we're arguing).

Um, to my simple atheist mind humanity is something other than self. It's, er, others, ya'know.
just cause you don't understand what i am talking about does not mean i don't..


Do I (at least) not?
relentless..


Are they? I mean really? Aren't they simply eyewitness reports? (Just to reference that other thread where we're arguing).
yea and how objectivity comes with a multitude of ppl seeing the same thing.:p

just cause you don't understand what i am talking about does not mean i don't.
I think I do. Which is why I suggested "humanity" rather than "god" as a possible substitute.


relentless..
You have no idea. And believe me, it's harder on me than it is you. You only get me here. I have to live with me 24/7.


yea and how objectivity comes with a multitude of ppl seeing the same thing.:p
And actually agreeing on what they see. Down to the last detail. (Besides, of course, providing something to show it's not a mass delusion or even possible collusion).

I think I do. Which is why I suggested "humanity" rather than "god" as a possible substitute.
all well and good till we get our humanity into it..


You have no idea. And believe me, it's harder on me than it is you. You only get me here. I have to live with me 24/7.
sounds like something i would say..lol


And actually agreeing on what they see. Down to the last detail.
"but i wasn't looking at that part"
the more ppl you ask the better the picture..


(Besides, of course, providing something to show it's not a mass delusion or even possible collusion).
where were you in the 60's ?

yea and how objectivity comes with a multitude of ppl seeing the same thing.:pLarge groups of Hindus or Muslims or whatever have experienced/seen things together which they equate to proving their religion true. They sincerely believe it and in the case of suicide bombers believe it so much they'll cut short their lives, thinking they'll go onto another place and get a reward. Do you simultaneously believe all of them?

What abou alien abdunctions? Unlike the questionable authorship of the bible you can go, today, to meet people who claim to have had 'encounters'. Many of them will give similar, if not near identical, stories, despite having not talked to one another. They'll be able to go into detail about many things. There are even groups who claim they've all been taken together or in smaller groups by the same set of aliens over a period of time. Their stories all 'corroborate' one another and they truly believe what they say.

By any measure their claims are more viable than the Bible. They are (supposed) eye witnesses you can talk to now about recent events. We cannot talk to the authors of the Bible and we don't even know who they were. Adducties across large geographical areas provide similar detailed stories, without talking to one another. The Bible can't even give a consistent story of Genesis! The existence of aliens is a plausible notion, consistent with science. The existence of a god is entirely outside anything in science.

So based on the evidence alien encounters are much more believable than the Bible. Likewise sightings of Big-foot. Or other crypto-zoological creatures. Do you think we should accept all of those claims? I doubt it. Without corroborating evidence eye witness accounts, even groups, must be taken with a pinch of salt. Particularly when you're dealing with accounts from 2000+ years ago when the account is not an eye witness and no one understood science and was massively superstitious and there's a complete lack of any 3rd party accounts. Why didn't anyone note how zombies supposedly went into Jerusalem when Jesus was killed? You'd have thought it would have made it into someone's records? Yet despite these hundreds, even thousands, of eye witnesses and all these supposed converts no one else made a note of such events?

Why, it almost sounds like the claims are just fabrications...... :shrug:

"but i wasn't looking at that part"
the more ppl you ask the better the picture.
Ideally.


where were you in the 60's ?
School. In the UK.

And now you're redefining gods.
No, here:
The refutation[1] of the notion of a supreme God or a prime mover is seen as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions. In, Buddhism the sole aim is spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara.
Source (Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism)).

To clarify:
Samsara is the “wheel of reincarnations”, or if you don’t believe in reincarnation because science has not yet proven it, you may want to call it: this reality of suffering. This is normally viewed by people not familiar to Buddhism as a negative view of life, but is not.
The suffering of life is bound to three components of the nature of life: disease, old age, and death. These are the key factors that normally motivate a person to become interested in religion, because of the futility of personal goals in this temporary existence.


And once again you avoid the real question to state tautologies. What ARE these "true teachings"?
Because the true teachings I am talking about, are literally true. The main example is this basic fundamental teaching, and the core of almost every religion: meditate (look within yourself), to find the answer of who/what you truly are (not your ego-personality), and not by the answers provided by others, but a true revelation of your reality.


Then what's religion in your equation for? And you stil haven't given any definition (no matter how spurious) of "religion" that doesn't include god.
I know that if you look for the word religion in the dictionary, it includes the belief in deities. But it doesn’t have to be that way. For me, the belief in deities (or god as an entity) is one of the things that science is going to disprove for sure, and it is good for the evolution of a real religion.

For all it’s worth, I can give you my definition of religion: The science of the inner world for getting to know one’s own self, and that includes a communion with the reality of the present moment.

No, here:
The refutation[1] of the notion of a supreme God or a prime mover is seen as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions. In, Buddhism the sole aim is spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara.
Which does nothing to invalidate my point, nor support yours: you claimed buddhism is non-theistic.

So what's in the book that isn't "already known"?
My own point? Please show me exactly where I have said, or even implied, that the book is at all valid.
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism).
My quote, and your own link show that they in fact do have a belief in gods. Supreme or not wasn't the point.


Because the true teachings I am talking about, are literally true.
:rolleyes:
I'll try again. What, specifically, are these "teachings". I.e. List them.


The main example is this basic fundamental teaching, and the core of almost every religion: meditate (look within yourself), to find the answer of who/what you truly are (not your ego-personality), and not by the answers provided by others, but a true revelation of your reality.
This is "literally true"? Show me how you know. Because your claim that "looking within oneself" is "the core of almost every religion" appears to be false with regard to, for example, mainstream Christianity where a faith in god is primary.


I know that if you look for the word religion in the dictionary, it includes the belief in deities. But it doesn’t have to be that way. For me, the belief in deities (or god as an entity) is one of the things that science is going to disprove for sure, and it is good for the evolution of a real religion.
Except that the definition YOU gave (post #169), DID include "god".


For all it’s worth, I can give you my definition of religion
Tell me, are you to keep giving definitions (that vary) until you find one I agree with?


The science of the inner world for getting to know one’s own self, and that includes a communion with the reality of the present moment.
Oh dear. What "science of the inner world"?

Explain how they are religious, in that they promote a belief in a deity or deities or spiritual realm of any kind.
It doesn’t have to include belief.
The spiritual realm you are talking about is nothing but this same reality we are experiencing, looked at from a different angle, but the belief itself is not a premise to starting the path of getting to know one self. The motive does not have to be belief, but a fierce curiosity of getting to know who you truly are, and why are you here. Or it could just as well be a search to the relief of mental anxiety.


The same seems to apply to any holy book. The Torah is basically the Old Testament and so the 'Big Book of Multiple Choice' applies to it trivially.
Why aren’t you taking in consideration all the scriptures of all religions? To name a few scriptures which don’t require or promote belief: Tao Te Ching, Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, Bhagavad Gita, Dhammapada, Patanjali Yoga Sutras, etc.


And you once again avoid responding to the points I raise. I've said repeatedly that science isn't leading people to religion.
Yes it is in the sense that science is disproving the beliefs in organized religion f things that are untrue, so people will be more and more familiar with the teachings of religion that are not, or cannot be disproved; therefore leading to a real religion (with the characteristics that are not disproved by science, or even promoted by it).


Where is the evidence of your claims?
What claims? That religion will not be discarded or killed by science? I cannot provide evidence to a future prediction of human behavior.
And what about your claims:

You clearly don't understand the scientific method, the developmental history of science, the recent (ie last 100 years) history of science, the plummeting of belief in scientists.
You think that just because this has been the pattern in the last 100 years it will remain so, but this is also a claim that cannot be proved; science can in fact make discoveries that destroys old patterns of behavior (like the belief in a chauvinistic and cynic god that gives you rules of action) and therefore change the course of a society. So why can’t it be the case that it takes a turn in favor to a more natural religion than those organized dogmas that exist in the name of religion? It is a possibility; I’m clearly not stating it as a fact.
You say I don’t understand the scientific method because of my predictions based on my understanding of religion and science; it’s what I can do for this specific question. As I understand, this thread is a discussion on the predictions of the future of science and religion. But can you really provide evidence examined by the scientific method that can lead to a definite answer to the OP question?


Rather than avoiding my retorts of your claims why don't you respond? Or are you trying to bury your head in the sand for fear you might find out you're wrong? The truth has nothing to fear from open discussion, you shouldn't have any reason not to respond. Assuming, of course, you have evidence to back up your claims.
If I don’t respond is not because of fear, why would I fear an open discussion? I can accept when I’m wrong, but as far as I know this discussion has not yet arrived to any conclusions; and all claims that have been made so far in favor of science, lack the due knowledge of religion. Please state which of my claims are you referring to, and why do you think they are not true so I can gladly respond.

And I’m not against science, on the contrary, I’m all for it. But current science is objective and external, while religion is subjective and internal. So there can be a conciliation of the two in the future, but I don’t think there will be any winner or loser in the battle. In any case there could be a merging of the two, but not a defeat.

Which does nothing to invalidate my point, nor support yours: you claimed buddhism is non-theistic.
My quote, and your own link show that they in fact do have a belief in gods. Supreme or not wasn't the point.
You wouldn’t be pointing this out if you had studied Buddhism a bit, you would realize that the most basic teaching of Buddhism is not to believe anything (let alone fictional gods), and Buddha was silent about the existence of god or the soul or other things that reason cannot understand. There are many branches of Buddhism, and I hope that someday people will be able to eradicate all phony beliefs with scientific proof leaving just the real parts


This is "literally true"? Show me how you know. Because your claim that "looking within oneself" is "the core of almost every religion" appears to be false with regard to, for example, mainstream Christianity where a faith in god is primary.
That part of Christianity can be disproved by science in the future, and I hope science is up for the challenge. And I really don’t care if science disproves it, because I don’t even think dogmatic Christianity has any validity, science can disprove the whole of it for the better. What I do like are the teachings of Jesus, specifically the ones that are in common in all available Gospels and scriptures.
But also I don’t like those teachings more than those of the Buddha, or other great masters.

"Looking within oneself" is the core of religion, let me back it up:
I can’t even begin to quote the Buddhist and Zen references of this, because it is extensively documented (I would if asked although easily googled), but here are the original Gautama Buddha sample statements:
“Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without”.
“Look within, thou art the Buddha.”

Jesus (Father of Christianity):
“Being asked by the Pharisees(A) when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God(B)is not coming with signs to be observed, 21nor(C) will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Mohammad (Father of Islam):
“He who knoweth his own self, knoweth God.”

The whole hindu “Vigyan bhairav tantra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigyan_Bhairav_Tantra)” (Attributed to Shiva) is dedicated to techniques to look within one self, and it is also the core of the science of Tantra.

Zarathustra (Father of Zoroastrianism or Persian religion):
“But he has discovered himself who says: This is my good and evil: he has silenced thereby the mole and dwarf who says: "Good fod all, evil for all".

Lao Tzu (Father of Taoism):
~ Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength, mastering yourself is true power. ~

(Greek Philosophy such as Socrates or Pythagoras, should be considered in a true religion; as it was actually part of “ancient Greek religion”).
“I sought to persuade every man among you that he must look to himself, and seek virtue and wisdom before he looks to his private interests, and look to the state before he looks to the interests of the state; and that this should be the order which he observes in all his actions. (Socrates, as written by Plato in The Apology)”

“Know Thyself” - The Oracle of Delphi

Know thyself, and thou shalt know the Universe and God. - Pythagoras

Albert Einstein (Father of... well you know):
The true value of a human being can be found in the degree to which he has attained liberation from the self.



Except that the definition YOU gave (post #169), DID include "god".
Tell me, are you to keep giving definitions (that vary) until you find one I agree with?
No, I have just given you 1 definition that is my own understanding, but it can change of course, is not definite (it is only my current understanding). And the first definition was not my own, it was the best definition Ii found from a dictionary, although I don’t agree with it completely.


Oh dear. What "science of the inner world"?
Meditation, Tantra, Zen, Yoga, religion. Teachings I think will reach the scope of science. Today science can validate the superficial effects of yoga and meditation, but I think that in the future it will also be able to validate the experience that true religion can bring.

* edit: deleted repeated entry.

You wouldn’t be pointing this out if you had studied Buddhism a bit, you would realize that the most basic teaching of Buddhism is not to believe anything (let alone fictional gods)
So Wiki is totally wrong? Including the page you linked? Okay. I'm gullible enough to not bother asking you to prove it.
Oh, wait...


That part of Christianity can be disproved by science in the future, and I hope science is up for the challenge.
This is not addressing the question I asked.


"Looking within oneself" is the core of religion, let me back it up:
Jesus (Father of Christianity):
“Being asked by the Pharisees(A) when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God(B)is not coming with signs to be observed, 21nor(C) will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Mohammad (Father of Islam):
“He who knoweth his own self, knoweth God.”
Ah, so you're claiming that a couple of sentences, taken out of context, define the religion? And not, for example, the Commandments (for Christianity at least). See my previous comment on my gullibility.


and it is also the core of the science of Tantra.
Just for the record: Tantra is not a science. You have constant difficulty with using the word "science" correctly and in context.


Know thyself, and thou shalt know the Universe and God. - Pythagoras

Albert Einstein (Father of... well you know):
The true value of a human being can be found in the degree to which he has attained liberation from the self.
So there's a Pythagorean and an Einsteinian religion too? Wow!


No, I have just given you 1 definition that is my own understanding, but it can change of course, is not definite (it is only my current understanding). And the first definition was not my own, it was the best definition Ii found from a dictionary, although I don’t agree with it completely.
Hmm, better write to all of the dictionaries in the world. If you tell them you don't agree I'm sure they'll change the definition. And then the rest of the world population will follow. Easily solved.


Meditation, Tantra, Zen, Yoga, religion.
Um, not one single one of those is a science.

So Wiki is totally wrong? Including the page you linked? Okay. I'm gullible enough to not bother asking you to prove it.
Oh, wait...
Wiki is not wrong; Buddha said many things to many different people during his 40 years of teachings and in an ample range of contexts. But if you would really go into Buddhism, you will see that “any belief” is discredited; “belief” is a dirty word for Buddhism. Therefore saying that you should belief in god (or gods) to be a Buddhist is an oxymoron.


Ah, so you're claiming that a couple of sentences, taken out of context, define the religion? And not, for example, the Commandments (for Christianity at least). See my previous comment on my gullibility.
Not taken out of context at all, all masters have said that, and in many, many different ways. Jesus systematically argued that the Kingdom of God is within each and every one of us, including the so called sinners. But we do not have “eyes” to see it. I wouldn’t discuss the OT, just the NT, because the OT is so full of lies and corruption; but I would truly include gnostic gospels in the NT, because we should consider all scriptures available to have a better understanding of Jesus teachings.
The whole Buddhist/Zen religion revolves around “looking within”, and so is Tantra and Yoga. Also you are not considering the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, which are 112 meditation techniques.


Just for the record: Tantra is not a science. You have constant difficulty with using the word "science" correctly and in context.
It is not considered science today. But please tell me, what is science?


So there's a Pythagorean and an Einsteinian religion too? Wow!
Pythagoras was a mystic, with many disciples and profound teachings, in the same height as Jesus. His scriptures and disciples were condemned by the Greek establishment and therefore just a few words remain from his teachings. He was a religious seeker per excellence, he went to esoteric schools of Greece, Egypt and the East; and finally went back to Greece to form his own religious school.
I quoted Einstein because he was kind of a smart man of science, and I thought it was pertinent for this thread.


Hmm, better write to all of the dictionaries in the world. If you tell them you don't agree I'm sure they'll change the definition. And then the rest of the world population will follow. Easily solved.
What I couldn’t find is a definition of religion that does not include belief in god. And I do think this is wrong in many levels.
The belief in god is superstition, and religion should not be about superstition; on the contrary, superstition is a hindrance to religion, and that’s why I say that science will be able to redefine religion when all the phony stuff is removed.

OK, but reincarnation and Luke saying things about "within" are just suppositions and so they carry no weight.
Personal subjective belief is one thing, but putting it on others as fact and truth is another thing.
“Look within, to know yourself” is not a supposition, is it supported by reason. How else are you going to know yourself? You cannot ask somebody: “hey could tell me who I am”, nobody can know you better than you know yourself. At the most you can ask a psychoanalyst to help you understand yourself better, but the psychoanalyst will only help you to look within to find the reasons of your repressions and robot-like behavior. The psychoanalyst is like a crutch, but in the end only you can know yourself.
And the truth of the matter is, very few people truly know themselves. This is also not a supposition; it is a statement from my own observation.

You are right about reincarnation; it is not a fact in the sense that they have not been validated by mainstream science. But I never said it was a fact, I just said that I think it will someday will be validated by science, I know that is a supposition, and I have stated that many times; but saying that reincarnation will be proven wrong by science is an unfounded supposition.
If you really investigate reincarnation, it truly makes sense and most of all in relation with the evolution of species. Also much research has been done about children remembering past lives, this is not unscientific; specially the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson who systematically documented thousands of these cases.

Now before everyone freaks out on me for not having all kind of scientific evidence to support my claim let me just state now that this is more of me thinking out loud than making a serious case.
But I have this idea based on the way human progression has come about in the last few thousand years. Religion was once the center point of society. Everyone was religious, everyone believed in the gods, everyone was just about forced to. Most ancient religions were polytheist. Fast forward to where we are today and you will see a completely different world. Science has revealed many of religions "facts" wrong (such as the creation of the earth, why certain natural actions happen ect.) and much of the earth population either isnt very religious or does not believe in a higher power of any sort. My theory is this progression in the right direction will continue throughout human history until eventually the mix of increased intelligence caused by better understanding of the universe and progressive evolution causes religion to disapear completely. Thoughts?

Religion has and will continue to move its beliefs into the realm of metaphor, symbolism, analogy. All that will be left once Science has dissected a lot of it will be the belief. Look at the threads that run through here. They are symbolic of the scientific/religious cleansing.

Belief will continue to be available to people so they will choose to use it.

The ONLY thing that can finish belief in god is to prove that god DOESN'T exist. This is something impossible to do because there can always be something bigger.

The pure atheists are in the weaker position because theoretically god COULD be proved to exist. But God can NEVER be proved to not exist.

It is the NATURE of this god which is of interest. Is it a god of ALL (infinity)? Or a god of one predetermined area/universe.

This nature of god possibly determines the possibility of proving its existence. A bigger scale god will take longer (or to the ends of infinity) to find. A smaller scale god could be discovered much sooner.

Maybe a god of ALL/infinity will be impossible to find. But to believe in that god's existence before it IS discovered is insanity (lack of proof).

So for god to not be proved to not exist it must be the creator of infinity. AND, for THIS god to be proved to exist one must do the difficult and find evidence/proof of this god (Very hard if god is ALL and hidden).

What is the answer to this conundrum? The god must show itself. But even IF it did the experience would be purely subjective and not definite. Even if the god proved it existed it could never prove it was the god of ALL/infinity because that would be impossible to prove because the edge of infinity is impossible to reach. And how can we believe it?

Does any of this excuse belief in god or threaten the scientific method?
No. Because it is all philosophical conjecture.

Does anyone have any really workable theories of how god could exist? Something that can't be torn down in 5 minutes by the frequenters of this forum?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2753874

Wiki is not wrong - snip -Therefore saying that you should belief in god (or gods) to be a Buddhist is an oxymoron.
Yet Wiki states that Buddhists believe there are gods. :shrug:


Not taken out of context at all
Taken out of context in that, AFAIK, those quotes are not representative of the core teaching. Which is what you said.


It is not considered science today. But please tell me, what is science?
Science. Which does not include metaphysics...
And I note that you haven't answered this question when I asked it of you.


Pythagoras was a mystic - snip -
I quoted Einstein because he was kind of a smart man of science, and I thought it was pertinent for this thread.
Er, the discussion is about what religions teach (or don't).


What I couldn’t find is a definition of religion that does not include belief in god. And I do think this is wrong in many levels.
See my previous answer. The rest of the world disagrees with you. Get over it.


“Look within, to know yourself” is not a supposition, is it supported by reason.
Um, fail.
Knowing oneself, no matter how hard you look, does not supply answers about the universe or how it works.


You are right about reincarnation; it is not a fact in the sense that they have not been validated by mainstream science.
It's not a fact at all.


But I never said it was a fact, I just said that I think it will someday will be validated by science
One example of your claims:

or if you don’t believe in reincarnation because science has not yet proven it
If you expect it to be proven don't believe it's real and just waiting to be proven?


but saying that reincarnation will be proven wrong by science is an unfounded supposition.
Where have I said it will be proven wrong? On the other hand, there is no evidence that supports it is real. therefore it becomes a question of probabilities. Zero evidence despite claims and searching leads one to suppose that there's no substance to those claims.


If you really investigate reincarnation, it truly makes sense
To some people maybe.


and most of all in relation with the evolution of species
How so?


Also much research has been done about children remembering past lives, this is not unscientific
Claiming (or, in some cases, having claims made on their behalf) to remember past lives.


specially the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson who systematically documented thousands of these cases.
Ah, yes. The crank. Try reading the opposing views of his "work".

The spiritual realm you are talking about is nothing but this same reality we are experiencing, looked at from a different angle,Since there is no evidence for the spiritual realm to claim it is part of this reality we are experiencing is to believe it exists without evidence. That's a belief.


but the belief itself is not a premise to starting the path of getting to know one self. The motive does not have to be belief, but a fierce curiosity of getting to know who you truly are, and why are you here. Or it could just as well be a search to the relief of mental anxiety.Doesn't seem like you can really make the case they are religions then and thus irrelevant to the point you were trying to make.


Why aren’t you taking in consideration all the scriptures of all religions? To name a few scriptures which don’t require or promote belief: Tao Te Ching, Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, Bhagavad Gita, Dhammapada, Patanjali Yoga Sutras, etc.That was precisely my point, you can do this with any religious book. They are all vague, lengthy and generally poorly written in terms of coherence.


Yes it is in the sense that science is disproving the beliefs in organized religion f things that are untrue, so people will be more and more familiar with the teachings of religion that are not, or cannot be disproved; therefore leading to a real religion (with the characteristics that are not disproved by science, or even promoted by it).Someone following the scientific method and using rational scepticism cannot be lead to a religion if that religion in any way involves believing things which cannot be demonstrated.

If something cannot be proven or tested then the rational view is to say "I do not believe it". This is not the same as saying it is false. You reject a claim until it is justified. If a religion requires you to have 'faith' then you have, by definition, no evidence or rational reason to believe that religion and thus the default position is to say "I do not believe what you are claiming". This is why I'm an atheist, I do not believe the claims religions make about gods. This is distinct from the position "I believe no gods exist".

Yes, science can strip away the 'false religions', in that it can disprove certain claims they make like the Earth being 6000 years old or Man having been created in his current form. Any religion putting such claims forth are wrong on those areas. But religions are more than just lists of facts about the universe, they involve other things.
Suppose a particular religion makes a bunch of statements about the universe and another bunch of statements which cannot be proven true or false. Science can evaluate the statements about the universe but even if all those statements turn out to be true science doesn't lead you to that religion, it doesn't say its 'true'. The facts about the universe are believed not because the religion says it but because evidence says it. The statements which cannot be assessed are necessarily rejected as "I do not believe them" and thus there is always a part of the religion which science says "You shouldn't be accepting this".

Thus unless you think a religion can be nothing more than a list of statements about the universe which can be assessed by science science cannot lead you to religion, it can only tell you which religions are certainly false.


What claims? That religion will not be discarded or killed by science? I cannot provide evidence to a future prediction of human behavior.You said things like quantum mechanics have been stuck for a considerable length of time and is leading people to religion. I wanted you to justify that claim. That is nothing to do with the future, you've made a claim about the present and the past.


And what about your claims:

You think that just because this has been the pattern in the last 100 years it will remain so, but this is also a claim that cannot be proved; science can in fact make discoveries that destroys old patterns of behavior (like the belief in a chauvinistic and cynic god that gives you rules of action) and therefore change the course of a society. So why can’t it be the case that it takes a turn in favor to a more natural religion than those organized dogmas that exist in the name of religion? It is a possibility; I’m clearly not stating it as a fact.Except that, as I just explained, the scientific method cannot lead you to a religion which has anything to say about anything other than the demonstrably real. If some positive claim (like "X is true") cannot, even hypothetically, be tested then the scientific method demands you say "I do not accept this positive claim on the grounds of it having no evidence at all".

Science has knocked over much of the superstitious nonsense of religions because in the past religions made claims about how the universe worked, like how the Earth formed and Man came about. These are testable things and religion almost invariably gets it wrong. Such evaluation cannot prove a religion, only disprove it. Science 'measures' facts, it can prove a fact like "Mice can't breath underwater" or "Time passes slower near strong gravitational fields". It cannot prove the model of gravity (say general relativity) we have developed to explain that fact about gravity. It can, however, disprove it by showing one of the models other predictions are incorrect. Religions are just another 'model' of the universe but unlike viable scientific models they explicitly violate Occam's Razor and throw in unprovable, untestable, unjustifiable claims. Science cannot lead you to such things precisely because of such things as Occam's Razor.


You say I don’t understand the scientific method because of my predictions based on my understanding of religion and scienceGiven your comments I don't see any evidence you understand the scientific method. Not only that you've provided evidence you don't understand the scientific method.

Do you understand the subtle difference between those two conclusions?


it’s what I can do for this specific question. As I understand, this thread is a discussion on the predictions of the future of science and religion. But can you really provide evidence examined by the scientific method that can lead to a definite answer to the OP question?Increased understanding of science has two effects relevant to the OP. Firstly it serves to disprove some of the specific claims religions make about the nature of the universe. It demonstrates that things like storms aren't dragons fighting in the sky but the outcome of large complex dynamical systems which are behaving in a manner which we can understand.

Secondly it leads to an increased standard of living and with that the use of religion as a crutch for society and an 'opiate of the masses' falls away. In those countries in Europe with the highest standards of living, best health care, best education systems, there are lower rates of crime, sexual diseases, etc. Basically there's a correlation between reduced religious belief and increase societal health. In places like Denmark most people are irreligious, often because they simply haven't even thought about the question much, it's just not in their culture any more. When you don't need to keep praying to god to put food on your table, a doctor in your local hospital and a book in your classroom religion seems to drop away. The US is pretty much the only 1st world industrialised nation with significant religious belief (but then if the UK had the health care system of the US I'd probably be praying too!).

With improved standards of living issues like high birth rates, infant mortality, disease etc all go get partly resolved. And when people have no reason to fear god's going to be a vindictive dick and kill their next child during labour he seems to slip from people's minds a little more easily.


and all claims that have been made so far in favor of science, lack the due knowledge of religion.And which 'due knowledge of religion' isn't being taken into account?

All the evidence shows that over the last 400 years, since the Enlightenment, religious belief has declined. It has done so particularly in the last century, in line with the ever increasing pace of scientific development. We're now seeing countries become irreligious not because it's been dictated by the ruling government (as say in China) but because people stop being constantly afraid of the invisible jackass in the sky and then they realise there's no reason to believe any of it.

How many people remain religious due to a fear of hell they've had drilled into them since birth? A fair few, they feel it is an actual danger, even if its only at a semi-subconscious level. For those of us who've never believed it holds no power at all, we can rationally evaluate the claims without this "OMG, what if I'm wrong?!" issue hanging over us. When a society becomes free of some of the problems which drive people to religion then they can evaluate religion more rationally and see it for a farce it is.


And I’m not against science, on the contrary, I’m all for it. But current science is objective and external, while religion is subjective and internal.And since science can never be subjective and internal by its very definition it can never lead people to religion.


So there can be a conciliation of the two in the future, but I don’t think there will be any winner or loser in the battle. In any case there could be a merging of the two, but not a defeat.They are diametrically opposite. They cannot merge without throwing out the values which define them. If you are doing science which isn't objective and external then you're simply not doing science.

Yet Wiki states that Buddhists believe there are gods. :shrug:
Some forms of Buddhism acknowledge the “devas (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html)”, but these “beings” can hardly be called gods, Buddha says they are living is some sort of “parallel universes” or different “realms of existence”; and that they are not “higher” in any way than human beings. It is pointless to debate on whether these realms are real or just elaborated metaphors, as they are just ways to explain how our actions accumulate as karma and how is this karma fulfilled. And not meant to worship or try to contact these beings in any way. It is important to notice that none of the realms explained by the Buddha were eternal or timeless, but all temporary just as this reality we are living in.
Buddha explicitly denies the belief in any god or gods is necessary, and explicitly denies the belief in a soul, and declares again and again statements like:
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own commonsense”.
Through the centuries, Buddhist philosophers have formulated detailed arguments refuting the doctrine of a creator god.
Buddhism has sometimes been called an atheistic teaching, either in an approving sense by freethinkers and rationalists, or in a derogatory sense by people of theistic persuasion. Only in one way can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal, omnipotent God or godhead who is the creator and ordainer of the world. The word "atheism," however, like the word "godless," frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications, which in no way apply to the Buddha's teaching.
Those who use the word "atheism" often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it can bestow. Buddhism is nothing of that sort. In this respect it agrees with the teachings of other religions, that true lasting happiness cannot be found in this world; nor, the Buddha adds, can it be found on any higher plane of existence, conceived as a heavenly or divine world, since all planes of existence are impermanent and thus incapable of giving lasting bliss. The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed, not towards a new life in some higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the world, namely, Nirvana. In making this statement, however, we must point out that Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute separation between the beyond and the here and now.
Source (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html).

“Not far from here do you need to look!
Highest existence — what can it avail?
Here in this present aggregate,
In your own body overcome the world!” – Gautam Buddha

Similar to Jesus statement huh? If not exactly the same, and neither of those taken “out of context”. Here is another example of the last one I posted, but this time from what I understand to be a better source (Thomas Gospel)”
“...the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty.”


Taken out of context in that, AFAIK, those quotes are not representative of the core teaching. Which is what you said.
Yes it is representative of the core teaching, and if someone would study philosophies such as Buddhism/Zen or Tantra and then re-reads Christian scriptures with this understanding of religion it can easily understand many parables and statements of Jesus that declare this very point. That otherwise have no sense whatsoever and orthodox Christians try to defend this parables and teachings in an ugly, memorized way, instead of explaining these things through their own insight.


ScienceWhich does not include metaphysics...
And I note that you haven't answered this question when I asked it of you.
Science: “A set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.”
Well that is what the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra is, and no tantra method has been disproved by science, in fact many studies have been made of meditation giving measurable results (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=meditation-on-demand). It is absolutely testable and supported with evidence.
Still much to be discovered though, this is just the beginning.


Er, the discussion is about what religions teach (or don't).
Also if science will ever validate religious teachings, I would think Einstein is a valid scientist to quote, even more if his statements are in harmony with the teachings of many religions.


See my previous answer. The rest of the world disagrees with you. Get over it.
I don’t think I’m alone, even skeptics have a problem with defining religion as something to do with the belief in god; cause this definition discredit non-theistic religions, religion as a subjective way of life or contradictory religions. There have been many arguments of the complexity on defining religion for legal purposes (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/gunn.shtml), and others argue the same as me ( that religion doesn’t necessarily include the belief in the supernatural (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2939402)).
Many times definitions of the dictionary have been redefined, and religion is a very likely word to be redefined in the future.


Um, fail.
Knowing oneself, no matter how hard you look, does not supply answers about the universe or how it works.
How do you know that? Do you truly know yourself?


It's not a fact at all.
One example of your claims:
If you expect it to be proven don't believe it's real and just waiting to be proven?
I don’t “believe” in reincarnation, I just think it is the most likely “afterlife” outcome; and it also explains many things.
Also, you can’t tell a person who has experienced past lives that reincarnation is not a fact; I think someday science will be able to read people’s thoughts accurately, and true scientific evidence will come up.


Where have I said it will be proven wrong? On the other hand, there is no evidence that supports it is real. therefore it becomes a question of probabilities. Zero evidence despite claims and searching leads one to suppose that there's no substance to those claims.
You are claiming that science will kill religion, no?
‘Cause before religion disappears, important religious teachings such as reincarnation must be discarded by science; because if science proves reincarnation, it will validate the experiences of the sages who have described the process accurately, gaining much credibility from scientist.


To some people maybe.
How so?
The gradual changes we see from one species to another, both among current living beings and in fossils, can be explained by reincarnation: a gradual subtle change of the consciousness (evolving through the experiences of each life) of individual beings, reflected in the form of their bodies.
It is like saying “the memory remains”, I’m not including a soul in this equation, just something that remains that has the accumulated memory of our experiences.


Claiming (or, in some cases, having claims made on their behalf) to remember past lives.
Ah, yes. The crank. Try reading the opposing views of his "work".
I have nothing really has been proven or disproven scientifically, but you are right from a scientific standpoint it is not yet a fact. My point is that in the future there can be, and I really think that will be the case (merely based on logic).

Some forms of Buddhism acknowledge the “devas (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html)”, but these “beings” can hardly be called gods
Er,

Devas including Brahmas: variously translated as gods, deities, spirits, angels, or left untranslated
As quoted from Wiki on the previous page.


Yes it is representative of the core teaching, and if someone would study philosophies such as Buddhism/Zen or Tantra and then re-reads Christian scriptures with this understanding of religion it can easily understand many parables and statements of Jesus that declare this very point.
Can't you see the problem YOU are having here? When you read Christianity and apply a Buddhist perspective don't you think it's likely to accord with with the pre-existing perspective to an extent?


Science: “A set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation."
Well that is what the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra is
If you don't use the entire definition then you might as well not bother.
If, as Wiki states, Tantra "deals primarily with spiritual practices" then how does one apply science?


Also if science will ever validate religious teachings, I would think Einstein is a valid scientist to quote, even more if his statements are in harmony with the teachings of many religions.
If you cherry pick...


I don’t think I’m alone, even skeptics have a problem with defining religion as something to do with the belief in god; cause this definition discredit non-theistic religions, religion as a subjective way of life or contradictory religions.
Then we need to agree exactly what a religion is.


How do you know that? Do you truly know yourself?
Ah right. So there's no point conducting science because all the answers are right here inside me. What's 114.5? No need to work it out, just examine my inner nature.:rolleyes:


I don’t “believe” in reincarnation, I just think it is the most likely “afterlife” outcome; and it also explains many things.
Why and what?


Also, you can’t tell a person who has experienced past lives that reincarnation is not a fact
Don't be ridiculous.


I think someday science will be able to read people’s thoughts accurately, and true scientific evidence will come up.
Another wild supposition.


You are claiming that science will kill religion, no?
It is doing so. As has been noted previously.


‘Cause before religion disappears, important religious teachings such as reincarnation must be discarded by science
Do you actually read any science books?


because if science proves reincarnation it will validate the experiences of the sages who have described the process accurately, gaining much credibility from scientist.
How do you know they've described it accurately if reincarnation hasn't been shown to actually exist? Get a grip.


The gradual changes we see from one species to another, both among current living beings and in fossils, can be explained by reincarnation: a gradual subtle change of the consciousness (evolving through the experiences of each life) of individual beings, reflected in the form of their bodies.
What is the mechanism for this change? How does a form alter because of a "change in consciousness"?


It is like saying “the memory remains”, I’m not including a soul in this equation, just something that remains that has the accumulated memory of our experiences.
What's the difference between a "soul" and this disembodied consciousness?


I have nothing really has been proven or disproven scientifically, but you are right from a scientific standpoint it is not yet a fact.
Nothing has been disproven from a scientific standpoint? Then you haven't actually read the contrary views have you?


My point is that in the future there can be, and I really think that will be the case (merely based on logic).
Faulty logic, possibly.

Since there is no evidence for the spiritual realm to claim it is part of this reality we are experiencing is to believe it exists without evidence. That's a belief.
What makes you think that the spiritual realm is something you don’t already know in firsthand? Everybody and every living being experiences reality in his own way.


Doesn't seem like you can really make the case they are religions then and thus irrelevant to the point you were trying to make.
Meditation (Tantra) and Yoga are religious in the sense that the whole art was documented by Fathers of religions, who knew about them from their own experience. It is the core practice of true religion, and they don’t require you to believe in anything for you to practice.
This may seem a contradiction of what I previously stated, about the “core essence” of all religions, I previously said the essence was “look within”, but I’m saying the same thing. Looking within is meditation, and yoga are the physical and mental exercises that prepare you for meditation.


That was precisely my point, you can do this with any religious book. They are all vague, lengthy and generally poorly written in terms of coherence.
No man, not all religious books; if you look at the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, the Dhammapada and the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (to name a few) you will notice they are not at all incoherent.


Someone following the scientific method and using rational scepticism cannot be lead to a religion if that religion in any way involves believing things which cannot be demonstrated.

If something cannot be proven or tested then the rational view is to say "I do not believe it". This is not the same as saying it is false. You reject a claim until it is justified. If a religion requires you to have 'faith' then you have, by definition, no evidence or rational reason to believe that religion and thus the default position is to say "I do not believe what you are claiming". This is why I'm an atheist, I do not believe the claims religions make about gods. This is distinct from the position "I believe no gods exist".
I don’t believe the claim that some religions make about god either; that is why I think Buddhism/Zen and Tantra are so important, as they don’t actually describe any god.


Yes, science can strip away the 'false religions', in that it can disprove certain claims they make like the Earth being 6000 years old or Man having been created in his current form. Any religion putting such claims forth are wrong on those areas. But religions are more than just lists of facts about the universe, they involve other things.
Suppose a particular religion makes a bunch of statements about the universe and another bunch of statements which cannot be proven true or false. Science can evaluate the statements about the universe but even if all those statements turn out to be true science doesn't lead you to that religion, it doesn't say its 'true'. The facts about the universe are believed not because the religion says it but because evidence says it. The statements which cannot be assessed are necessarily rejected as "I do not believe them" and thus there is always a part of the religion which science says "You shouldn't be accepting this".

Thus unless you think a religion can be nothing more than a list of statements about the universe which can be assessed by science science cannot lead you to religion, it can only tell you which religions are certainly false.
Exactly my point, by destroying false beliefs science will help people who are stuck on those beliefs to set free from them; this will gradually lead to the general acceptance of the religions that cannot be discredited (if not proven) by science.



You said things like quantum mechanics have been stuck for a considerable length of time and is leading people to religion. I wanted you to justify that claim. That is nothing to do with the future, you've made a claim about the present and the past.
For example:
“What you "see" as a star, is actually the result of a quantum interaction between the local field and the retina of your eye. Energy is being absorbed from the field by your eye, and the local field is being modified as a result
In this scheme, no observation can be made without first perturbing the system. The observation is never one of the system "at rest," but of the system perturbed (by the mere observation).:
Source. ( http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/observer.htm)

According to Buddhism (interdependence), all the properties that we attribute to the phenomenal world are not necessarily intrinsic to the object itself, but are conceived by our mind and filtered through our perceptions. Thus the same reality may appear differently to different minds.
So the “inner world” and the “outer world” are interdependent, since the outer world is conditioned by the conditionings of the inner world of the observer.
So the objective quality of science, is limited by the subjective quality of the perception of the scientist, science is supposed to be objective, but the human mind cannot observe reality in an objective manner. Off course science relies on the agreement of what has been perceived by several individuals, and therefore generally accepted; but this only means that the people who were in agreement have similar perception of reality.


Given your comments I don't see any evidence you understand the scientific method. Not only that you've provided evidence you don't understand the scientific method.

Do you understand the subtle difference between those two conclusions?
But what is your evidence?


Increased understanding of science has two effects relevant to the OP. Firstly it serves to disprove some of the specific claims religions make about the nature of the universe. It demonstrates that things like storms aren't dragons fighting in the sky but the outcome of large complex dynamical systems which are behaving in a manner which we can understand.

Secondly it leads to an increased standard of living and with that the use of religion as a crutch for society and an 'opiate of the masses' falls away. In those countries in Europe with the highest standards of living, best health care, best education systems, there are lower rates of crime, sexual diseases, etc. Basically there's a correlation between reduced religious belief and increase societal health. In places like Denmark most people are irreligious, often because they simply haven't even thought about the question much, it's just not in their culture any more. When you don't need to keep praying to god to put food on your table, a doctor in your local hospital and a book in your classroom religion seems to drop away. The US is pretty much the only 1st world industrialised nation with significant religious belief (but then if the UK had the health care system of the US I'd probably be praying too!).

With improved standards of living issues like high birth rates, infant mortality, disease etc all go get partly resolved. And when people have no reason to fear god's going to be a vindictive dick and kill their next child during labour he seems to slip from people's minds a little more easily.
You are right, the lower the quality of life of a culture, the higher the religious they become; and science does tend to improve the quality of life. But science will never conquer disease, old age and death; only the denial of these inevitable outcomes of life can lead you to a comfort zone in your state of mind.
Take a look at the people with the greatest “quality of life” in the world; those are the ones with the biggest personal issues, since they have everything the world has to offer, and yet they are not in peace.


And which 'due knowledge of religion' isn't being taken into account?

All the evidence shows that over the last 400 years, since the Enlightenment, religious belief has declined. It has done so particularly in the last century, in line with the ever increasing pace of scientific development. We're now seeing countries become irreligious not because it's been dictated by the ruling government (as say in China) but because people stop being constantly afraid of the invisible jackass in the sky and then they realise there's no reason to believe any of it.

How many people remain religious due to a fear of hell they've had drilled into them since birth? A fair few, they feel it is an actual danger, even if its only at a semi-subconscious level. For those of us who've never believed it holds no power at all, we can rationally evaluate the claims without this "OMG, what if I'm wrong?!" issue hanging over us. When a society becomes free of some of the problems which drive people to religion then they can evaluate religion more rationally and see it for a farce it is.
The lack of knowledge of religion that I’m pointing at is that you guys seem to be discrediting only the “Abrahamic religions”; that by the way, are the easiest to discredit by mere logic.


And since science can never be subjective and internal by its very definition it can never lead people to religion.

They are diametrically opposite. They cannot merge without throwing out the values which define them. If you are doing science which isn't objective and external then you're simply not doing science.
I understand that science can never be subjective and internal; but science can objectively validate an inner subjective experience, such as high levels of meditation and concentration. And therefore there can be a merge in the future.
Since science can validate the positive effects of the practice of meditation for example, it can lead to scientist practicing themselves. This would surely be a turn of events.

Er,

As quoted from Wiki on the previous page.
I was skeptic about the Wiki reference, so I went to the root of where does Wiki get this information (References), and read carefully the articles they pointed at that was the link I provided in the answer I gave you. The devas are not “gods” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism)), although generally translated into that stigmatic word; and besides, Buddhists pay special attention (not worship) to the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, considered even higher beings that the devas.
You don’t need to believe in the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas as something supernatural, but they were people.

Can't you see the problem YOU are having here? When you read Christianity and apply a Buddhist perspective don't you think it's likely to accord with with the pre-existing perspective to an extent?
I was familiar with Christianity before any other religion, but it didn’t make sense to me. After studying Buddhism, specially Zen, Christianity made incredible sense; I consider Jesus as a Zen Master. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Jesus had contact with Buddhist Masters during his visit to India.
But Jesus was talking to a very traditional Jewish audience, and he only lasted 3 years after he opened his mouth. Imagine if he would say that god doesn’t exist, he wouldn’t even last 1 day.


If you don't use the entire definition then you might as well not bother.
If, as Wiki states, Tantra "deals primarily with spiritual practices" then how does one apply science?
I have mentioned the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra many times for that very reason. I’m not talking about the tradition of Tantra. “Tantra“means technique, method, and it is a whole art dedicated to the methods of meditation. It is focused on the use of the human body, to achieve different perspectives of reality.
And I do think that the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra can hold scientific scrutiny. Although it would take a long time and effort since the methods are not designed for immediate results, but as a constant, gradual practice. And not all 112 methods are for everybody, it is said that out of those 112 methods, only a few are designed for 1 specific individual.


If you cherry pick...
Yes I cherry picked Einstein quote to make the point of science Vs religion; but I see no point in discussing the theory of relativity here.


Then we need to agree exactly what a religion is.
Yes please; why don’t you start with the definition I gave you (the last one, not the one from the dictionary), and modify it with your understanding of religion, until we reach an agreement. Or what do you propose we do about this?
I could also elaborate my definition more.


Ah right. So there's no point conducting science because all the answers are right here inside me. What's 114.5? No need to work it out, just examine my inner nature.:rolleyes:
I am just saying that looking within is the only way to get to know yourself; no need for metaphors.


It is doing so. As has been noted previously.
No, it is killing organized religion, not religion itself; there is a difference.


Do you actually read any science books?
I guess your question was born because you think that reincarnation was discarded by science, but I do not think that is the case. From a scientific perspective, evolution is both a theory and a fact, while reincarnation is just a theory; but a theory nonetheless.


How do you know they've described it accurately if reincarnation hasn't been shown to actually exist? Get a grip.
I apologize; from a scientific standpoint the correct word would be “thoroughly”.


Another wild supposition.
Why don’t you think is possible that science will someday be able to read thoughts? Sort of an evolved MRI scan; it is a known fact that thoughts trigger the function of brain activity, if it’s measurable why can’t it be perfected?


What's the difference between a "soul" and this disembodied consciousness?
Ok so let’s say “soul” is this disembodied consciousness that remains through reincarnations.


What is the mechanism for this change? How does a form alter because of a "change in consciousness"?
When one soul enters the body in the human life:
Once the sperm has implanted the egg, the soul enters as a “growing embryo”. During week 1 this embryo is composed of Stem cells multiplied by mitosis.
This embryo, by absorbing nutrients from the environment grows in a highly accelerated rate into a fetus, and then a baby.
We “evolve” from a few stem cells, to a complex organism in a few months; during our life the body is constantly changing with every breath and by absorbing nutrients from our environment. With the body/mind, our ego/personality keeps “evolving” through our whole lives, and therefore constantly changing as well. So if you say that you are the body/mind, then you are never ever the same as the next moment; and if you say that you are your personality, then the same logic applies (as it has the same ever-changing quality).
From a religious perspective, it is the soul (or “the observer”) that knows (by memory) of how to grow as an organism; from stem cells to a fully grown human being.

In the theory of reincarnation, when the soul is separated from the “universal consciousness” (or god), it is first born in this world as some sort of amoeba and learns mitosis and the absorption of nutrients from the environment; after many lives the soul knows how to grow as a plant, and therefore learns more and more advanced methods of absorbing elements from the environment to manifest more and more advanced forms of life. When it reaches the form of a human being, the soul knows how to grow from a multicellular simple organism, into the most complex living creature of this planet (in just 1 lifetime).


Nothing has been disproven from a scientific standpoint? Then you haven't actually read the contrary views have you?
I mean in the sense for example that the human was “created from dust” in the current form, which has been disproven by the findings of paleontology.

I was skeptic about the Wiki reference
Yup, this is why I kept asking if the Wiki was acceptable. On the other hand you constantly refer to Buddhism as a religion. The lack of gods could, be one reason why it's also referred to as a philosophy rather than religion.


I was familiar with Christianity before any other religion, but it didn’t make sense to me.
Doesn't alter the fact that are looking at Christianity through Buddhist glasses.


And I wouldn’t be surprised if Jesus had contact with Buddhist Masters during his visit to India.
I agree. I wouldn't be surprised at who a fictional character is supposed to have been in contact with.


I have mentioned the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra many times for that very reason. I’m not talking about the tradition of Tantra.
Oh, okay. We'll forget about these "primarily spritual practices" and just stick the equally hypothetical chakra thingies then.


Yes please; why don’t you start with the definition I gave you (the last one, not the one from the dictionary), and modify it with your understanding of religion, until we reach an agreement. Or what do you propose we do about this?
I could also elaborate my definition more.
The point is that "god" is central to the the definition of religion vs. a philosophy. Why alter the definition for everyone as opposed to YOU choosing a different word to describe what you're talking about? Why do YOU want to call it a religion (your new "True religion") instead of promoting it as a philosophy?


I am just saying that looking within is the only way to get to know yourself; no need for metaphors.
Ah, you've narrowed it down slightly then. And contradicted your previous claim for it.


No, it is killing organized religion, not religion itself; there is a difference.
Science is still reducing the hiding places for god.


I guess your question was born because you think that reincarnation was discarded by science, but I do not think that is the case.
I do. I've read the books.


From a scientific perspective, evolution is both a theory and a fact, while reincarnation is just a theory; but a theory nonetheless.
No, reincarnation is a claim, not a theory. Unless you're using the word in the scientific sense for evolution and the popular sense for reincarnation.


Why don’t you think is possible that science will someday be able to read thoughts?
I should have been clearer. The SECOND part of your sentence claimed that "reading our thoughts" scientifically would provide "true evidence for reincarnation". It was the latter claim that is speculation. MRI etc is progressing along the lines of mapping/ reading thoughts and we may get there one day.


Ok so let’s say “soul” is this disembodied consciousness that remains through reincarnations.
Um, okay. No evidence for it, regardless.


When one soul enters the body in the human life
And we come back to lack of evidence for the soul...


I mean in the sense for example that the human was “created from dust” in the current form, which has been disproven by the findings of paleontology.
I thought your reference was to the particular sub-topic under discussion in the paragraphs leading up to that statement: reincarnation. :shrug:

The point is that "god" is central to the the definition of religion vs. a philosophy. Why alter the definition for everyone as opposed to YOU choosing a different word to describe what you're talking about? Why do YOU want to call it a religion (your new "True religion") instead of promoting it as a philosophy?

Because this "philosophy" of "knowing oneself" is the core of most religious scriptures.

Would you say then, that Buddha was not a religious man?

From my perspective, Buddha was one of the most religious men in history.

I cannot agree that Buddhism is not a religion; and I don't think I'm alone in this one, if we cannot agree on that, the discussion is useless (with the premise that the discussion was not useless in the first place).

And also, the concept of a "god" as the central point of religion is weird, considering the non-theistic religions. But if you say there is no such thing as non-theistic religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions), then many people may disagree with you.

Because this "philosophy" of "knowing oneself" is the core of most religious scriptures.
Um, nope. Again.


Would you say then, that Buddha was not a religious man?
Did he believe in god? No?
Then he wasn't, by definition religious.


I cannot agree that Buddhism is not a religion; and I don't think I'm alone in this one, if we cannot agree on that, the discussion is useless (with the premise that the discussion was not useless in the first place).


It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being."
Buddhism in a nutshell (http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm).


It's not a religion, they insisted, the very word "Buddhism" was invented in the 19th century by westerners who were trying to force it into a Christian model. The Buddha never intended to found a religion, he was deeply critical of the Brahminic rituals of his time. What he proposed was a set of strategies to question experience and live ethically.
Quoted from somewhere else (http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-buddhism-religion.html).

And lots of dispute (http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism8.htm).

So we are looking at a paradox: there is no way to universally define the word "religion", and there is no way of agreeing on whether non-theistic religions are religions or philosophies. If the very word “religion” is extremely susceptible for redefinition; then how do you expect for religion to die?

then how do you expect for religion to die?
Well one possible clue is that I have constantly been using the generally accepted one that includes a belief in god/ deity. Or didn't you notice the number of times I stated this?

Well one possible clue is that I have constantly been using the generally accepted one that includes a belief in god/ deity. Or didn't you notice the number of times I stated this?

So you are operating under the assumption that religion will always be defined as in centered to the belief in god?

So you are operating under the assumption that religion will always be defined as in centered to the belief in god?
So you've evidently missed, ignored or forgotten the number of times I have specifically suggested using a different word for your meaning? Because the current word includes "god" as part of the definition.

I have consistently throughout this thread maintained and explained as such my use of "religion" including "god", even when you have attempted to redefine it as not. You, on the other hand, have, despite claiming there will always be religion, at no point suggested that the definition would alter in common usage. :rolleyes:

Now before everyone freaks out on me for not having all kind of scientific evidence to support my claim let me just state now that this is more of me thinking out loud than making a serious case.
But I have this idea based on the way human progression has come about in the last few thousand years. Religion was once the center point of society. Everyone was religious, everyone believed in the gods, everyone was just about forced to. Most ancient religions were polytheist. Fast forward to where we are today and you will see a completely different world. Science has revealed many of religions "facts" wrong (such as the creation of the earth, why certain natural actions happen ect.) and much of the earth population either isnt very religious or does not believe in a higher power of any sort. My theory is this progression in the right direction will continue throughout human history until eventually the mix of increased intelligence caused by better understanding of the universe and progressive evolution causes religion to disapear completely. Thoughts?

I don't think religion will die out only because many denominations already fully accept such discoveries. Granted, some don't and that's a huge problem. I think those denominations will be diminished, but religion in general? No.

So you've evidently missed, ignored or forgotten the number of times I have specifically suggested using a different word for your meaning? Because the current word includes "god" as part of the definition.

I have consistently throughout this thread maintained and explained as such my use of "religion" including "god", even when you have attempted to redefine it as not. You, on the other hand, have, despite claiming there will always be religion, at no point suggested that the definition would alter in common usage. :rolleyes:

Geertz (1973:90) defined religio (http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Anthropology.htm)n as (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men [and women] by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

Yup. That's one guy's definition.
As I noted, there are conflicting definitions. As I also noted, I have been using the standard dictionary definition.
You own link, if you go the page headed DEFINITION OF RELIGION (http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/defreligion.htm) has definitions that include "god" or at least "supernatural". At least as many as don't, if not more.

Giving a link now isn't much use, since throughout I have been consistent (and have consistently in the explanation) in my usage.
You have tended to waffle back and forth. Much as you did with Buddhism including gods. Or not.
If you'd bothered to be somewhat more specific in what you meant by "religion" we wouldn't be in this position now.

Fine, however. For the purposes of this discussion I'll accept the definition given in your post.
All that means, effectively, is that the progress of science may well not wipe out religion, merely the belief in god(s) and/ or the supernatural.

It still leaves you dangling on a number of your other claims: reincarnation, its relevance to evolution, the existence of a "soul"/ transferable disembodied consciousness etc. etc.

Yup. That's one guy's definition.
As I noted, there are conflicting definitions. As I also noted, I have been using the standard dictionary definition.
You own link, if you go the page headed DEFINITION OF RELIGION (http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/defreligion.htm) has definitions that include "god" or at least "supernatural". At least as many as don't, if not more.

Giving a link now isn't much use, since throughout I have been consistent (and have consistently in the explanation) in my usage.
You have tended to waffle back and forth. Much as you did with Buddhism including gods. Or not.
If you'd bothered to be somewhat more specific in what you meant by "religion" we wouldn't be in this position now.
Even if I provided the best definition I found with a quick googlism, I have been consistent in explaining how the definition of religion should not be centered upon the belief in a supernatural god or gods.
I was also consistent in that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion; and that the “devas” are not gods.
But I accept that you were also consistent in your argument, we just hadn’t asked the correct questions I guess.


It still leaves you dangling on a number of your other claims: reincarnation, its relevance to evolution, the existence of a "soul"/ transferable disembodied consciousness etc. etc.
I never stated that those were facts; I only said that for me, it seems like a very possible scenario. And I only explained them because you asked me to, and I thought you were accepting the premise that I could not back up my claims scientifically, only philosophically. Even before you asked me what was the mechanism of how reincarnation works, and how it fits into evolution theory, you knew that for reincarnation to be explained there was something similar to a soul that persists through reincarnations, like a memory. I was hesitant to use the word soul, what I said was exactly: “It is like saying “the memory remains”, I’m not including a soul in this equation, just something that remains that has the accumulated memory of our experiences.”.
But if we are going to continue the discussion on reincarnation vs evolution I suggest we do so in another thread, although I don’t know what would be the point. And I agree on the fact that reincarnation cannot withstand scientific scrutiny today.


Fine, however. For the purposes of this discussion I'll accept the definition given in your post.
All that means, effectively, is that the progress of science may well not wipe out religion, merely the belief in god(s) and/ or the supernatural.
Finally, an agreement to the OP answer. It was pretty instructive and cool to have this discussion with you.

And also, the concept of a "god" as the central point of religion is weird, considering the non-theistic religions. But if you say there is no such thing as non-theistic religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions), then many people may disagree with you.

And I'd most definitely be one of them. There obviously are non-theistic religions out there. Prominent ones like Buddhism, Confucianism and the Jains.

Christians, and the kind of atheist whose entire vision of what 'religion' means is shaped by the Christianity that he rejects, will sometimes insist that religion, or true religion at least, is necessarily concerned with man's response to God. Because that's what the Bible is about.

It took a long time for Western scholarship to move away from a medieval view of religiosity that divided 'religion' into Christianity, Judaism, the Saracens (Islam) and everyone else, lumped together as "heathens". If medieval thinkers devoted any thought to heathens at all, apart from killing them, they would have described them as "idolaters", people who worshipped idols as if they were gods. That's really all that anyone wanted to know about them.

That view was still prevalent at the time of the voyages of discovery and the Spanish and Portugese carried it around the world. You can still read Portugese accounts of sailing into ports in Burma or Thailand, being met by men in orange robes and shaven heads (obviously descriptions of Buddhist monks) who wanted to show them around their elaborate wats (temples). And the accounts relate the uncanny terror that the Portugese felt even approaching these unclean places filled with incense and heathen idols. Few actually dared to enter, which probably seemed inexplicable to the well-intentioned monks.

(It's ironic that some of the temples described in the 16'th century travelers' accounts still exist today and have become tourist attractions, filled with tourists from Europe, America and Australia.)

But back then, in those days, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto, Taoism or any of the others couldn't be religion. No!! They could only be some dark, twisted and unspeakable perversion of true religion, of the true worship of God.

I think that the history of religious studies, the academic study of religion in its broad sense, represents a continually broadening vision of what 'religion' is, contains and can be, as scholars move away from a-priori assumptions derived from Biblical religion.

Finally, an agreement to the OP answer. It was pretty instructive and cool to have this discussion with you.

Now re-read the OP: it mentions the belief in god(s) quite a few times: IOW it would appear that he was using the general definition of religion.
In which case my answer is yes. :p

Now re-read the OP: it mentions the belief in god(s) quite a few times: IOW it would appear that he was using the general definition of religion.
In which case my answer is yes. :p
You scrupulous, merciless man…

In anyway, I don't think we are in disagreement 'cause of the following picture:
* IF (for the purpose of this thread) the word religion implies the belief in a supernatural god, or other supernatural spiritual beliefs; AND we accept the premise that the meaning of the term “religion” will never change in the future in this matter, then I also think science will eventually crack it. Only philosophy will remain, and religions such as Buddhism will be called a philosophy. But this is a hypothetical, un-real case, therefore unscientific.

* But considering that the reality is that the term "religion" can also apply to non-theistic religions today, and the term itself has gone through many re-definitions throughout history; religion will remain (maybe even hand by hand with science), while belief in the supernatural will probably not. This still leaves a place for faith in god on some forms of religion, but only through the “via negativa” or apophasis.

Religion is borne of ignorance and superstition and perpetrated by fear.

One needs no scientific data to prove this anymore than those with blind faith need any for theirs. I do not seek it. Why do they?