Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
young-gun said:
chicken or the egg ey dutchie? i find its best to not even speculate on the above, or it will simply result in a couple of nurofen. its not in our nature to be able to come to terms with "it simply just is". IMO we are hundreds if not thousands of years off even skimming the top.
Click to expand...
;) speak for yourself, young-gun :eek:

I feel quite comfortable accepting something that "simply just is". My life doesn't need any other "purpose" than the one I give it. As a species, humankind may indeed be a few steps away from accepting responsibility for "Self"; and that may well be the reason why, in the mist of awakening self-awareness, early humans had to invent gods and demons in their own image - just more powerful and smarter - in order to hold the tribe together and encourage the thinking individuals to put family before self. And even then, it is quite likely that these rules of cooperative, civilised behaviour did not come about by intelligent design/ planning, but it is far more likely that tribes, who adopted the most civilised "commandments", had a better chance of survival than others, who let bullies and despots run riot.

In that sense, Cardinal Pell does have a point when he said the Jews were "The Chosen People" because they were more intelligent - in spite of being mere shepherds :D

But apart from missing the hilarity of that rationale, he also has the logic R's about:
The god, whom their ancestors invented and whom they equipped with superhuman powers of strength and wisdom, did not "choose" them, but they happened to equip their mythical leader with ideas that worked out for them. Never mind the barbaric customs and legends about sacrificing children, offering one's virgin daughters in exchange for a good night's rest, or having bears tear kids to bits because they poked fun at a bald old coot. It's the main rules, specifically the Ten Commandments, and the carrot-and-stick legends reinforcing their adherence, that gave the "intelligent shepherds" an edge over their more barbaric neighbours.
By the time a larger, more belligerent world power came around, that edge was blunted, and the Romans kicked the shepherds' butt. But just in time, a new set of "ideas" was hatched: Love Thy Neighbour and don't fight him. Lie low, support friends in need, and offer passive resistance where you can't fight the Powers that be.

None of the above requires the pretense of an Intelligent Design. Simply accept the Laws of Evolution in action: With increasing numbers, different groups of humans came up with randomly distributed rules of social interaction; some worked for a limited time, others remained successful for longer. The successful ones aren't necessarily more "ethical" or more "divinely inspired" - they simply turn out to work a little better under the living conditions at the time. Just like those animals, whose scales changed to body hair, could survive better in cold climate, so they survived the global temperature plunge, when the dinosaurs felt the big chill.
 
I just watched a recording of the Q & A. Dawkins certainly was far from his best. I thought Pell got himself into a lot of difficulty which unfortunately the host didn't allow to be pursued. It was raised a few times, but he never got to answer the question of where Original Sin sits, if there was no Adam & Eve. in my understanding, the whole basis of Christianity is that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected, but he dying for our sins, presupposes Original Sin. I also thought Pell was threading on thin ice when he tried to suggest that the body and blood of JC is in the wafer and wine at the mass, but again was not pursued as to what he meant by body and blood. Dawkins directly asked if he was talking about the biological body, but that question got lost in the toing and froing.

I think Dawkins got into a bit of a fix trying to explain nothing. It was not so much that he couldn't explain it, but the concept as understood by modern physics is almost impossible to explain in lay terms. I have watched a few interviews of Lawrence Kraus (whom Dawkins cited as the expert in that area) and even though I have a good understanding of science, I still find his explanations of something from nothing difficult. I can grasp that 0 can produce -1 + 1, which are two somethings from nothing, but that is just my trivial understanding. There is also the concept of why we should assume that there ever was a nothing. What dictates that there couldn't always have been a something? Those who invoke God are assuming that there always was a something - that something being God.
 
The Root of What is Happening to America.

Is this also happening in Australia ?















Very scary but informative. It is well worth your time.
This is a very telling lecture. It hits at the root of what is happening in American Universities, and what is happening to our culture.
This fight is as real and costly as any combat this nation has been through in the past. The battlefield is non-conventional, but so are the methods of our enemies.
Please take the time to listen.

Click here: Article
 
bellenuit said:
I just watched a recording of the Q & A. Dawkins certainly was far from his best. I thought Pell got himself into a lot of difficulty which unfortunately the host didn't allow to be pursued. It was raised a few times, but he never got to answer the question of where Original Sin sits, if there was no Adam & Eve. in my understanding, the whole basis of Christianity is that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected, but he dying for our sins, presupposes Original Sin. I also thought Pell was threading on thin ice when he tried to suggest that the body and blood of JC is in the wafer and wine at the mass, but again was not pursued as to what he meant by body and blood. Dawkins directly asked if he was talking about the biological body, but that question got lost in the toing and froing.

I think Dawkins got into a bit of a fix trying to explain nothing. It was not so much that he couldn't explain it, but the concept as understood by modern physics is almost impossible to explain in lay terms. I have watched a few interviews of Lawrence Kraus (whom Dawkins cited as the expert in that area) and even though I have a good understanding of science, I still find his explanations of something from nothing difficult. I can grasp that 0 can produce -1 + 1, which are two somethings from nothing, but that is just my trivial understanding. There is also the concept of why we should assume that there ever was a nothing. What dictates that there couldn't always have been a something? Those who invoke God are assuming that there always was a something - that something being God.
Click to expand...

The fact that the two of them couldn't agree on anything just means that neither has a good grasp of their field. They both appeared totally pathetic to me. There are far, far wiser men who can see numerous similarities between the core aspects of modern physics and the real core of religions (which were killed many centuries ago). eg. Fritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism".

Having said that, neither science nor religion will get you to "God". Both disciplines are rooted in concepts that appeal to the mind. The best they can do is "point towards the moon". And as the saying goes, most people "mistake the finger for the moon".

Nothingness is indeed where everything springs from. Nothingness however will never be understood by the mind, and since both science and religion are rooted in the mental concepts and experiences, the best you will ever achieve is confusion and argument.

Ditch both.

God is not a thing (obviously).
God is not an experience (not even the experience of Love or Truth or ecstasy).
God is not anything that can be known by you; the thought that you exist is the falsehood that keeps you from knowing "It".
The only way God can know itself in everything, is by you seeing through the illusion of the "I" thought.

Descartes said "Je pense donc je suis" - which means "I think, therefore I am". If I'm not thinking, the "I am" must disappear. Then God is. God is the "AM".
 
They are having an atheists convention in Melbourne at present.

I heard an atheist (who was forced by his parents to go to Church twice a week as a boy) on the radio saying why he wasn't going to someone trying to drum up support to the convention:-

"So I sit in a room with people who have the same beliefs and we discuss those beliefs and how to spread them - sounds too much like church to me"
 
Knobby22 said:
"So I sit in a room with people who have the same beliefs and we discuss those beliefs and how to spread them - sounds too much like church to me"
Click to expand...
One of the things the atheist 'movement' is missing. A sense of community. Less the fairy tales to encourage moral behaviour.
 
WASHINGTON, April 18, 2012 (AFP) - The Philippines leads the world in the number of people who believe in God, while the elderly across all countries tend to be the most religious, according to a US study out Wednesday.

Belief in God tends to be strongest in the United States and Catholic countries and lowest in Scandinavia and former Soviet states, according to the survey carried out by the NORC research group at the University of Chicago.

The study was based on data from 30 countries -- nearly all with Christian majorities -- in which surveys about belief in God have been taken since 1991.

It found that 94 percent of people in the Philippines said they had always believed in God, followed by Chile, with 88 percent, and the United States with 81 percent.

Belief was lowest in the former east Germany (13 percent) and in the Czech Republic (20 percent).

The surveys found atheism was most widespread in Scandinavia and the former Soviet Union -- with the exception of Poland -- and that belief in God was generally declining worldwide, but not in Russia, Slovenia or Israel.

The report found that senior citizens tend to believe more strongly in God. On average, 43 percent of respondents 68 and older are certain that God exists, compared to just 23 percent of those 27 and younger, the report said.

"Looking at differences among age groups, the largest increases in belief in God most often occur among those 58 years of age and older," said Tom Smith, who wrote the report, entitled "Belief About God Across Time and Countries."

"This suggests that belief in God is especially likely to increase among the oldest groups, perhaps in response to the increasing anticipation of mortality," Smith said.

In the United States, 54 percent of those younger than 28 said they were certain of God's existence, compared to 66 percent of those 68 and older, while in France eight percent of young people said they believed in God, compared to 26 percent of older citizens.

The surveys, taken in 1991, 1998 and 2008, were mainly carried out in European countries, in addition to Chile, Japan, New Zealand and Australia.
 
pixel said:
;) speak for yourself, young-gun :eek:

I feel quite comfortable accepting something that "simply just is". My life doesn't need any other "purpose" than the one I give it. As a species, humankind may indeed be a few steps away from accepting responsibility for "Self"; and that may well be the reason why, in the mist of awakening self-awareness, early humans had to invent gods and demons in their own image - just more powerful and smarter - in order to hold the tribe together and encourage the thinking individuals to put family before self. And even then, it is quite likely that these rules of cooperative, civilised behaviour did not come about by intelligent design/ planning, but it is far more likely that tribes, who adopted the most civilised "commandments", had a better chance of survival than others, who let bullies and despots run riot.
Click to expand...

I was referring more to the vast majority;) I too can accept that everything may simply 'just be'. But i prefer not to, as I enjoy speculating about what could be, no matter how ridiculous. I have expressed my views previously on this thread, and although I don't stand by them religiously, I enjoy having my own opinion/theory on everything. I guess at the end of the day I would like to believe that there may be a reason or an explanation for it all, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I would hate to think you havent allowed your mind to explore(or humor) every possibility?

Perhaps the only point to life is to be able to observe what has been created, after all, if no one, or no thing is able to observe it, does anything actually exist?
 
I uncounted a local example of "Religion IS crazy!" this morning.

I live in a Sydney suburb that has a high Islamic population....on my way to do some shopping today i noticed 3 large Advertising Posters next to the train station (at near ground level) had been vandalised in a very selective way...the legs of all the women had been painted over with a roller using white paint, also a bear chested man and a woman in a swimsuit totally painted over.

Not Graffiti but seeming done because pictures of those body parts had offended people/s in some way... that's the only explanation i can think of.

Religion IS crazy!
 
So_Cynical said:
I uncounted a local example of "Religion IS crazy!" this morning.

I live in a Sydney suburb that has a high Islamic population....on my way to do some shopping today i noticed 3 large Advertising Posters next to the train station (at near ground level) had been vandalised in a very selective way...the legs of all the women had been painted over with a roller using white paint, also a bear chested man and a woman in a swimsuit totally painted over.

Not Graffiti but seeming done because pictures of those body parts had offended people/s in some way... that's the only explanation i can think of.

Religion IS crazy!
Click to expand...
Of course it's graffiti, and the full force of the law should bear down on the vandals who defaced other people's property. In addition to laws dealing with property damage, Australia has outlawed discrimination on grounds of race, sex, religion... Claims that one religion outranks all others is in no way different to claims that one race is superior over all others.

Note that even Cardinal Pell has recognised that Gays and Lesbians can go to Heaven. About time the laws that deal with inciting to racial hatred be applied to clerics across all "faiths" that claim inequality.
 
pixel said:
Note that even Cardinal Pell has recognised that Gays and Lesbians can go to Heaven. About time the laws that deal with inciting to racial hatred be applied to clerics across all "faiths" that claim inequality.
Click to expand...
Is this correct pixel? I thought this type of decision needed to come from the Vatican.
 
So_Cynical said:
I uncounted a local example of "Religion IS crazy!" this morning.

I live in a Sydney suburb that has a high Islamic population....on my way to do some shopping today i noticed 3 large Advertising Posters next to the train station (at near ground level) had been vandalised in a very selective way...the legs of all the women had been painted over with a roller using white paint, also a bear chested man and a woman in a swimsuit totally painted over.

Not Graffiti but seeming done because pictures of those body parts had offended people/s in some way... that's the only explanation i can think of.

Religion IS crazy!
Click to expand...

perhaps someone should go over there and draw a body over the burqas, what ever punishment is dealt for that, the same should be applied to those doing the same here.
 
I came across this poem today which talks about Nothingness as the source of everything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That which can be perceived is not the timeless That.
That which can be named is not the nameless One.

The source of heaven and earth is without form or substance.
Naming creates the ten thousand things.

When desire is absent, the mystery is obvious.
When desire occurs, creation unfolds.

Mystery and creation arise from the same source.
The source is emptiness.
Void within void.
The realm of Tao.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

All religions point to the same source. I only like Taoism, Zen and Advaita because they are slightly less corrupted and perverted than most other religions. They also sit quite nicely with the findings of (some) modern physicists who feel that consciousness == source.
 
rumpole said:
:goodnight
Click to expand...

My younger brothers girlfriend i discovered is quite religious. she was absolutely horrified at my opinion that we are a product of evolution. she's a very smart girl, her parents are religious nutters. she was completely closed off to suggestions of anything other than jesus:rolleyes:

it's a shame people aren't given the chance to establish their own views and opinions of exactly what it's all about, without their parents drumming **** into them from the word go.
 
noco said:
Back in 1956, the Jehovah Witness said the world was going to end that year.

Now I read where man's self rule is about end 27/05/2012. Hey, that is tomorrow week.

I know things are bad around the world ATM but geez, it is getting close again.



http://the-end.com/2008GodsFinalWitness/?gclid=CNbD-7rRi7ACFcVMpgodJg2brQ
Click to expand...
Perhaps we might see some of Bob Brown's aliens arriving to take us over.
Did he leave the Greens to join up with his aliens to become the World's supreme leader.
Maybe he might be one of the advanced crew.LOL.:D:D:D
 
Top