Opinions on Religion?

Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:32 PM

So I'm curious of what you all feel about religion, or what you view. I thought this would be a interesting topic. Plus I wanna get to know some people on here.

Replies to This Posting

  1. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:39 AM

    here's my religion:

    Everything and everyone has purpose. If we didn't, we wouldn't exist. God and Satan are VERY real. Proof? There isn't any. Believe it, don't believe it, I doubt either one of them care either way. Many people say, "but..the bible is proof!" No, it isn't. No religion has proof that it either doesn't or does exist. Not even atheists can back up their own shit. It's all hear-say. Same with all the other organized religions. They can never back anything up. Why? Because there simply isn't any proof.

    I said God and Satan are VERY real. I have no proof. It's simply just my beliefs on all of it. I believe there is a religion in each and every one of us. Not one, nor the other, is correct. Not even mine.

    I just love believing in shit that can't or will never be proven.

    "everything is wrong every time"

  2. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:13 AM

    Thanks for replying to my post misanthrope. What you said was interesting. In my view, God’s works, such as quantum mechanics are AWESOME and deserve to be studied. So you said to posit that energy existed before the big bang. Like a what if kinda deal. Thats ok. Posit whatever you want. It still doesn’t prove God doesn’t exist. Its just speculating about the universe’s beginnings. Energy is still a ‘something’ which raises the question, in many, where did this something come from, no matter how small it was. Even Steven Hawkings, who married quantum mechanics, believes the universe had a beginning. To have a beginning there has to be a cause in place for the effect/beginning to follow. Math, itself, is just part of the tools God used/uses to form life permitting conditions. Your right when u say “given the right catalyst”. Those catalyst don’t come around too many self replicating neclotides around our galaxy or for millions of miles around it, apparently. God has made it possible for those nucleotide chains to form eventually into animal, plant, and human life. So It is true that there is more probability for life not to exist than it is for life to have existed the way it does in our case. God isn’t limited by time or resources so it would make sense that we go through natural selection and all that. For me it’s just part of his design.

  3. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:19 AM

    d1rtytr@sh wrote:
    I just love believing in shit that can't or will never be proven.


    Because you're a fucking moron.

  4. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:36 AM

    Bene Gesserit wrote:
    Thanks for replying to my post misanthrope.


    No problem :)


    What you said was interesting. In my view, God?s works, such as quantum mechanics are AWESOME and deserve to be studied.


    We may differ on out philosphiocal outlooks but we at least agree on that.

    So you said to posit that energy existed before the big bang. Like a what if kinda deal.


    It's more of a an absolute fact kinda deal.

    Thats ok. Posit whatever you want. It still doesn?t prove God doesn?t exist.


    I'll be clear. I cannot prove God doesn't exist, moreover I'm not trying to. I can only refute specific claims that can be refuted with evidence. God's existence is a matter of faith, not evidence, and therefore I could not disprove it. I can state categorically that no God is needed for the universe or life to exist, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Until there is evidence wither way I decline to comment on that matter, save for I am unconvinced by the claims of theism.

    Its just speculating about the universe?s beginnings. Energy is still a ?something? which raises the question, in many, where did this something come from, no matter how small it was.


    Energy, simply, is the capacity for mechanical work. It is not 'something' tangible but it does have the capability to become 'something' because energy and mass are interchangeable.

    Even Steven Hawkings, who married quantum mechanics, believes the universe had a beginning.


    The universe as a system, yes, but that beginning is fully explainable without invoking a god.

    To have a beginning there has to be a cause in place for the effect/beginning to follow.


    And that cause can be explained mathematically and physically with our current understanding of physics.

    Math, itself, is just part of the tools God used/uses to form life permitting conditions.


    Mathematics is just an abstract concept capable of explaining how things works.

    Your right when u say ?given the right catalyst?. Those catalyst don?t come around too many self replicating neclotides around our galaxy or for millions of miles around it, apparently.


    Actually clay is a perfect catalyst. Also, there is solid observation to support the hypothesis that life also did exist on Mars billions of years ago. Life is not a one off.

    God has made it possible for those nucleotide chains to form eventually into animal, plant, and human life.


    You see, this is where it gets messy. You believe in God so you will claim God as the cause, whereas these processes exist well enough without God.

    So It is true that there is more probability for life not to exist than it is for life to have existed the way it does in our case. God isn?t limited by time or resources so it would make sense that we go through natural selection and all that. For me it?s just part of his design.


    Well at least you're not a young earth creationist :D

  5. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:14 AM

    misanthrope wrote:
    d1rtytr@sh wrote:
    I just love believing in shit that can't or will never be proven.


    Because you're a fucking moron.


    You think calling me a moron makes you look smart? It just makes you look like an even bigger one.

    I believe in things that cannot be proven because I CAN. It doesn't make me a moron because I think like that and don't have a thousand words to say otherwise. It's simple. You believe or you don't. Everything else in between is only hear say.



    "everything is wrong every time"

  6. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:14 AM

    You think calling me a moron makes you look smart? It just makes you look like an even bigger one.


    No, I don't think I'm smart. I do however know I'm smarter than you, because you're a fucking moron.

    I believe in things that cannot be proven because I CAN. It doesn't make me a moron because I think like that and don't have a thousand words to say otherwise. It's simple. You believe or you don't. Everything else in between is only hear say.


    No, everything in between is usually subject to observable, testable and falsifiable evidence.

  7. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:51 AM

    The world is so vastly complex that I think we'd be giving ourselves undue credit if we thought that any one of our systems to understand it (science, religion, math, philosophy, etc.) comes close to giving it justice.

    The closest we've come is through science, a system that works by drawing and revising conclusions based on observation. Mostly, I think it's becasue the lines between what is correct and incorrect are much clearer, if not absolute, in this area of knowledge. Math is a purer area than science in that regard, but its purity comes from its ignorance of a lot of real-world context. And so its best use is as a quantitative enhancement for science, which is qualitative.

    There is a lot that is unexplained, especially concerning human existence and the human mind/spirit. There is documented evidence that water particles act differently around different emotions, that we emit more atoms to an object just by observing it, etc. Science as it is now cannot give an explanation to these effects, nor can it give us meaning or ethics. Of course, meaning and ethics can be found elsewhere; in philosophy, in common sense and reason, in deliberate personal choice, etc. But religion has been a way of fulfilling that 'spiritual' need for the masses through spirituality. It also tries to describe reality in its own way, and some parts of what it claims are in correlation with science, while others aren't. I see religious scripts as a source of ancient knowledge that are to be considered and used as we see fit, but not taken as absolute word.

    I want to point out that I see organized religion and spirituality as two different entities. Spirituality is pure, while religion is a way of distributing and enforcing it. Spirituality deals with understanding effects associated with humanity and nature that science hasn't explained, i.e; what the soul is, what God is. Religion is a set of rituals and ways of life that tries to bring good about, as dictated by its specific brand of spirituality.

    Religion, especially organized religion rather than more self-oriented ones like Buddhism, has had its use as a social structure tool. It showed peasants the difference between right and wrong, it kept a working social hierarchy in place, acted as justification for war, it gave power to a select few to control the masses, and it also provided a way to give people basic education in some instances. But by definition, it's rigid and dogmatic, and doesn't bend to accommodate humanity's change and increasing complexity. It's outdated at this point and does more harm than good.

    Spirituality and religion can be beautiful ideas that help people and societies grow and develop. But they are also very powerful, and as people tend to be abusive idiots, they get misused. Religion turns into a hammer for people to bash one another's skulls in, as they have always done, only this time with moral conviction on their side. Until we as a species improve to the point where we can ALL be open-minded and sensitive about our beliefs, we can't be trusted with it.
    ...

  8. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:40 PM

    There is documented evidence that water particles act differently around different emotions, that we emit more atoms to an object just by observing it, etc.


    Not according to any academic peer review publications I can find. Could you link to the source?

  9. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:03 PM

    No, I don't think I'm smart. I do however know I'm smarter than you, because you're a fucking moron.


    You're not smart. You're an arrogant cunt. It isn't that hard to be smarter than a moron, which you aren't, you're dumber than one but just go on believing you are smarter anyways, if it makes you sleep at night. Dipshit.

    No, everything in between is usually subject to observable, testable and falsifiable evidence.


    Yes. Everything in between is hearsay. Which is what you pretty much just came back at me with.
    Fucking hysterical.

    "everything is wrong every time"

  10. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:13 PM

    d1rtytr@sh wrote:
    You're not smart. You're an arrogant cunt. It isn't that hard to be smarter than a moron, which you aren't, you're dumber than one but just go on believing you are smarter anyways, if it makes you sleep at night. Dipshit.


    That literally made no sense.

    Yes. Everything in between is hearsay. Which is what you pretty much just came back at me with.
    Fucking hysterical


    Evidence, by definition, is not hearsay. Learn to critically think, dumb dumb.

  11. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:36 PM

    For the water phenomenon:

    Dr. Masaru Emoto has worked with water, and observed it changing when people evoked strong emotion by it. His work has been largely controversial. Here is his work as published in Explore Journal .

    His work is more casually explained in this article.

    This article talks informally about some of the older research in the area.

    And finally, here are some concise visuals of the results at the top.
    ...

  12. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

    I made a mistake in the atom phenomenon. In that case, observation causes more atoms from the object to be emitted to YOU. It's one example of the observer effect, which is still largely a mystery to us. The fact that observation alone can affect reality is largely agreed on at this point, though we're no closer to understanding HOW or WHY this happens.

    I'm sure a lot of research is going on about this, so I won't bother looking it all up and linking it. But here is an article that discusses this a little in general.

    ...

  13. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM

    The Observer Effect in physics merely states that the act of interaction will have an effect on the thing being observed, most notably in experiments like the Double Slit. It's not very well understood why this happens, granted, but the cause lies in wave-particle duality and Feynman's Path Intergral forumula. Particles act either like waves or single objects depending on any observational interaction, and can exist in multiple places at the same time, which means they take every possible path from source to destination.

    Observer Effect, in this instance applies only to quantum phenomena, it doesn't apply to macroscopic objects.

    Also, atoms don't emit atoms.

  14. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:08 PM

    ADandelion wrote:
    Dr. Masaru Emoto has worked with water, and observed it changing when people evoked strong emotion by it. His work has been largely controversial. Here is his work as published in Explore Journal .


    "Emoto's work is widely considered pseudoscience by professionals, and he is criticized for going directly to the public with misleading claims that violate basic physics, based on methods that fail to properly investigate the truth of the claims"

    "Commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls, and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community. In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto#Criticism

    In short, Masaru Emoto is at best a crackpot and at worst a dishonest con man.

  15. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:30 PM

    I cited the examples out of a very basic, minimal awareness of modern science whose effects seem to be linked to the spiritual, or to the human soul. Other such examples include the sudden diminished mass of a corpse's weight a given time after its heart ceases beating.

    The point that I was trying to make was that science has given logical explanations to the colorful, imaginative and inaccurate ones humans have been using to describe the world. One is replacing the other. In these given cases, I wanted to demonstrate a link between what seems spiritual and what is scientific, and how religion crudely describes truth through human experience and guesswork, while science slowly, accurately and methodically re-describes that same truth, and in doing so brings us closer to its nature by eliminating the false and bringing in new information.

    I thank you for the discussion; your challenges to my claims hve made me look them over. However, as you seem to have your roots solidly lodged in science, could you switch your role from the opposer to the informer? Rather than having me putting out my layman's views from the tidbits I've gathered, it would make for a more stimulating discussion if you shared what you know.
    ...

  16. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:40 PM

    I would be happy to do so, but given the subject matter I would advise that we follow the rules of debate. That being the burden of proof lies with whoever makes the positive claim, which is why I asked for you to provide evidence.

    If there's anything specific you'd like to discuss then fire away. Though given that for some reason I have to work in order to get money I won't be able to respond for a while.

  17. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:45 PM

    That makes sense. I have work of my own to take care of, (imagine that), but I'll come back to this when I've formulated thoughts and questions to my satisfaction.
    ...

  18. Moderator

    Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:17 PM

    The bashing and name calling back and forth needs to stop! This type of behavior adds nothing to the discussion and is only of a harassing nature. There is no need to take it to that level.



  19. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:05 PM

    Agonstic-atheist with some trails of spirituality.

    I don't believe in man-made religion.

    God might or might not exist.

    I believe in the undiscovered source of inspiration and creativity. Whatever form it may have.
    ----------------------------------------------


    Stop reading my signature.




    I mean it

  20. Re: Opinions on Religion?

    Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:53 AM

    Very nice. You should elaborate like this in the Catbox more often.
    ...

Get the latest from Korn!