Crosswords1 min ago
What Is the Future of Religion?
73 Answers
The resurgence of religion has been dramatic in the countries of the former Soviet Union. In Russia alone, 50 percent of the population now declare themselves to be Orthodox, and millions are adherents of other religions. Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism are among the long-established ones,
Answers
you only say it's rubbish because you're to scared to step out in faith, you'd rather follow the crowd!
12:31 Fri 16th Nov 2012
@ Beso
I agree that spiritual search can exist within organised religion but it can also exist independently as individual search and meditation not constrained by previous dogma,
Of course proving a negative is illogical. All you can say is that it hasn't happened yet and that you believe or do not believe that it can happen - this does not make it scientific fact.
What is hypothesis if not interpretation? It certainly isn't fact.
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
I agree that spiritual search can exist within organised religion but it can also exist independently as individual search and meditation not constrained by previous dogma,
Of course proving a negative is illogical. All you can say is that it hasn't happened yet and that you believe or do not believe that it can happen - this does not make it scientific fact.
What is hypothesis if not interpretation? It certainly isn't fact.
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
@Beckersjay.
You are addressing the wrong person. It was I who raised the majority of the questions you were attempting to address in your last post.
You have still failed to offer a definition of what you mean by a "spiritual search" or in what way it could be considered an equivalent alternative to a "scientific search".
You have still failed to offer a logical reason why organised religion should be excluded from your umbrella term of "spiritual search"
I am pleased that you recognise that your question asking for proof of a negative was illogical. The idea that some form of spirit travel could transport a human to another planet is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence to support it - otherwise it is just fanciful conjecture, and not worth spending any time on. You offer no evidence and so it remains a scientific fact that such methods are not going to get you to the moon.
Thanks for the link, but I don't need help in defining what constitutes a scientific law, or a theory or a hypothesis, nor do I need help in understanding the differences between them.
What I understood from Beso's comment -"Science isn't "interpreted". Science is about evidence." - was that religious organisations and religious "facts", such as the creation story are based upon narrative alone, with no external corroboration, and are therefore wide open to an old interpretation, all of which could be considered equally valid. If I am wrong in that "interpretation", perhaps Beso can offer further clarification.
Science is not the same. Something like the Law of Gravity for instance is not open to challenge or interpretation in the same way.
No one I know of would consider the words "interpretation" and "hypothesis" interchangeable.
Your hypothesis - that the scientific or atheist worldview is close minded, and that a "spiritual search" for truth and reason is more open minded fails.
You are addressing the wrong person. It was I who raised the majority of the questions you were attempting to address in your last post.
You have still failed to offer a definition of what you mean by a "spiritual search" or in what way it could be considered an equivalent alternative to a "scientific search".
You have still failed to offer a logical reason why organised religion should be excluded from your umbrella term of "spiritual search"
I am pleased that you recognise that your question asking for proof of a negative was illogical. The idea that some form of spirit travel could transport a human to another planet is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence to support it - otherwise it is just fanciful conjecture, and not worth spending any time on. You offer no evidence and so it remains a scientific fact that such methods are not going to get you to the moon.
Thanks for the link, but I don't need help in defining what constitutes a scientific law, or a theory or a hypothesis, nor do I need help in understanding the differences between them.
What I understood from Beso's comment -"Science isn't "interpreted". Science is about evidence." - was that religious organisations and religious "facts", such as the creation story are based upon narrative alone, with no external corroboration, and are therefore wide open to an old interpretation, all of which could be considered equally valid. If I am wrong in that "interpretation", perhaps Beso can offer further clarification.
Science is not the same. Something like the Law of Gravity for instance is not open to challenge or interpretation in the same way.
No one I know of would consider the words "interpretation" and "hypothesis" interchangeable.
Your hypothesis - that the scientific or atheist worldview is close minded, and that a "spiritual search" for truth and reason is more open minded fails.
@ Beso and Lazygun
As most debates on this thread, this one is getting tedious and semantic. I'm dropping out and I may be out some time...
I will continue to consider both science and spiritual search (my individual meditation on the origins and meaning of life, neither of which I find are adequately covered by science), and I still contend that this is a more open-minded approach than that of those atheists who reject and often ridicule anything that cannot be scientifically proved. I leave you with a final thought - if the Big Bang created the Universe from a single particle/mass, who or what created that original particle and why?
And where do art and beauty fit in?
As most debates on this thread, this one is getting tedious and semantic. I'm dropping out and I may be out some time...
I will continue to consider both science and spiritual search (my individual meditation on the origins and meaning of life, neither of which I find are adequately covered by science), and I still contend that this is a more open-minded approach than that of those atheists who reject and often ridicule anything that cannot be scientifically proved. I leave you with a final thought - if the Big Bang created the Universe from a single particle/mass, who or what created that original particle and why?
And where do art and beauty fit in?
beckersjay // I leave you with a final thought - if the Big Bang created the Universe from a single particle/mass, who or what created that original particle and why? //
The Big Bang is needs no maker. It was the first pixel of intense formless energy. The complexity we see in the Universe today developed from that pure energy following the thoroughly understood Laws of Physics. Physics maps the development from that single formless pixel the whole way to what we see today, step by step without a gap.
In the other hand, who or what created this god you speak of, the most complex thing in the Universe? The concept that the Universe begins with the most complex organisation is lubriciously stupid.
// And where do art and beauty fit in? //
The sense of aesthetics of a conscious organism.
From what I have read of gods, they are deeply prejudiced concepts devoid of any sense of beauty. Have you even read the Bible?
The Big Bang is needs no maker. It was the first pixel of intense formless energy. The complexity we see in the Universe today developed from that pure energy following the thoroughly understood Laws of Physics. Physics maps the development from that single formless pixel the whole way to what we see today, step by step without a gap.
In the other hand, who or what created this god you speak of, the most complex thing in the Universe? The concept that the Universe begins with the most complex organisation is lubriciously stupid.
// And where do art and beauty fit in? //
The sense of aesthetics of a conscious organism.
From what I have read of gods, they are deeply prejudiced concepts devoid of any sense of beauty. Have you even read the Bible?
Beso and Lazy @ Yes you are so funny, the Bible contrasts wisdom with foolishness and stupidity—traits we surely want to avoid. (Ecclesiastes 6:8)
Why, because the world abounds with schools and libraries containing millions of books! Many of these are textbooks that impart instruction in language, mathematics, science, and other fields of knowledge. But the Grand Instructor has provided the textbook that outstrips all others—his inspired Word, the Bible. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)
It is accurate not only when touching on such subjects as history, geography, and botany but also when foretelling the future, to live the happiest and most productive life right now.
Why, because the world abounds with schools and libraries containing millions of books! Many of these are textbooks that impart instruction in language, mathematics, science, and other fields of knowledge. But the Grand Instructor has provided the textbook that outstrips all others—his inspired Word, the Bible. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)
It is accurate not only when touching on such subjects as history, geography, and botany but also when foretelling the future, to live the happiest and most productive life right now.
@Goodlife. You are being mendacious yet again. The bible offers nothing useful to contribute to the sum total of valid scientific knowledge. Rather, it has been shown be a collection of edited fairytales.
You are hopelessly blinkered when it comes to your religion. You are incapable of any kind of rational or objective analysis of your religion, because your faith forbids it. It becomes both tedious and pathetic.
We definitely want to avoid foolishness and stupidity -The irony is that this is something being proposed within the bible, because the greatest modern repository of foolish and stupid can be found within the zealous believes of the bible and the koran in particular.
You are hopelessly blinkered when it comes to your religion. You are incapable of any kind of rational or objective analysis of your religion, because your faith forbids it. It becomes both tedious and pathetic.
We definitely want to avoid foolishness and stupidity -The irony is that this is something being proposed within the bible, because the greatest modern repository of foolish and stupid can be found within the zealous believes of the bible and the koran in particular.
Beckersjay, I’m not a scientist, but I don’t believe the Big Bang emanated from nothing either. I don’t, however, attribute its cause to something for which there is no evidence. Why would I? I’m happy to say I don’t know what caused it but I hope that one day science will explain it.
//And where do art and beauty fit in?//
I don’t understand the association you appear to be making. Both fit into my life perfectly well.
//And where do art and beauty fit in?//
I don’t understand the association you appear to be making. Both fit into my life perfectly well.
Beckersjay - “... As most debates on this thread, this one is getting tedious and semantic. I'm dropping out and I may be out some time ...”
Spoken like a true defeatist. It's become clear that you're hopelessly out of your depth and as such have decided that the debate has got far too 'semantic' for your liking. Translation – “I'm losing the argument and I don't know how to defend my unverifiable beliefs.”.
You further say, “... I still contend that this is a more open-minded approach than that of those atheists who reject and often ridicule anything that cannot be scientifically proved...”
Atheists are open minded people. We thrive on evidence and logic. What you are proposing in it's stead is irrationality and the rejection of logic. You, and others like you, do like to accuse atheists of being 'closed minded' when the truth is the complete opposite and is more a description of yourself. Atheists are open minded but not so open-minded that they allow their brains to dribble out of their ears.
You finally say, “... And where do art and beauty fit in?...”
Art and beauty are highly subjective terms. What is art to one person is a mess to another. Same too for beauty. Your statement is just platitudinous waffle; bereft of any significance as to the question of how the universe was brought into existence.
Spoken like a true defeatist. It's become clear that you're hopelessly out of your depth and as such have decided that the debate has got far too 'semantic' for your liking. Translation – “I'm losing the argument and I don't know how to defend my unverifiable beliefs.”.
You further say, “... I still contend that this is a more open-minded approach than that of those atheists who reject and often ridicule anything that cannot be scientifically proved...”
Atheists are open minded people. We thrive on evidence and logic. What you are proposing in it's stead is irrationality and the rejection of logic. You, and others like you, do like to accuse atheists of being 'closed minded' when the truth is the complete opposite and is more a description of yourself. Atheists are open minded but not so open-minded that they allow their brains to dribble out of their ears.
You finally say, “... And where do art and beauty fit in?...”
Art and beauty are highly subjective terms. What is art to one person is a mess to another. Same too for beauty. Your statement is just platitudinous waffle; bereft of any significance as to the question of how the universe was brought into existence.
Latest Posts
News7 mins ago
Editor's Blog7 mins ago
More Attacks On Freedom Of Speech
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
