Feelings against Organized Religion

[Ka-El]

Plus you still haven't explained the difference between mythical wood creatures and imaginary beings in the sky.

I don't believe in either idea so why would I engage in such a simplistic, silly and childish argument? Once again you've demonstrated that you've completely failed to grasp the points being made and that this argument is really above and beyond anything you're willing (or able?) to participate in.

[alanjh595]

Plus you still haven't explained the difference between mythical wood creatures and imaginary beings in the sky.

I don't believe in either idea so why would I engage in such a simplistic, silly and childish argument? Once again you've demonstrated that you've completely failed to grasp the points being made and that this argument is really above and beyond anything you're willing (or able?) to participate in.

[capleton]

Plus you still haven't explained the difference between mythical wood creatures and imaginary beings in the sky.

I don't believe in either idea so why would I engage in such a simplistic, silly and childish argument? Once again you've demonstrated that you've completely failed to grasp the points being made and that this argument is really above and beyond anything you're willing (or able?) to participate in.

You just said in a earlier post that imaginary woodland creatures and god could not be compared. So now your back tracking eh. I didn't address your full post because it was not addressed to me. You said God was something that we can't understand and and it was unknowable so ultimately it's a pointless concept and then something about Stephen Hawking acknowledging that the Big Bang Theory could be from god which I can't find anything about.
Think you just have a big non-argument here. I'm just saying that gods like leprechauns are completely man made. Everything that man once thought was from god has a scientific explanation.

[alanjh595]

I don't believe in either idea so why would I engage in such a simplistic, silly and childish argument? Once again you've demonstrated that you've completely failed to grasp the points being made and that this argument is really above and beyond anything you're willing (or able?) to participate in.

Not my fault your arguments are poor.

His comments are NOT poor. They are succinct and worthy.

[capleton]

Not my fault your arguments are poor.

His comments are NOT poor. They are succinct and worthy.

How so?

[whatwhat]

You said god is what something that people to refer to what people don't understand. guess what, we have something called "science" now. 2000 years ago people would ask the "wise man" why did volcano explode. The answer would be because god is angry, "why did the crops didn't grow" because god is angry. So you are just kind of trying to justify a god of the gaps argument which isn't convincing in the least.

I think religious people still look for God, instead of science, is for comfort. The world is a scary, and sometimes hard place to exist in. People find comfort that there is a God, an unknown being, who has a plan for their life. A way to explain the bad, the hardships in ones life. I also think there is a lot of fear around death, and the unknown of dying. The idea of a wonderful, magical place once you die in comforting for some people.

It does still have a lot to do with not understanding. Why is life hard, why do bad things happen to use, what happens after death? Some people need a a comforting ideology.

With saying that, I am not religious at all. But I do agree with peoples rights to practice religion, and can understand the need for it. As Bsuds said, just don't ask for money, or try to bring your religion into government.

[capleton]

You said god is what something that people to refer to what people don't understand. guess what, we have something called "science" now. 2000 years ago people would ask the "wise man" why did volcano explode. The answer would be because god is angry, "why did the crops didn't grow" because god is angry. So you are just kind of trying to justify a god of the gaps argument which isn't convincing in the least.

I think religious people still look for God, instead of science, is for comfort. The world is a scary, and sometimes hard place to exist in. People find comfort that there is a God, an unknown being, who has a plan for their life. A way to explain the bad, the hardships in ones life. I also think there is a lot of fear around death, and the unknown of dying. The idea of a wonderful, magical place once you die in comforting for some people.

It does still have a lot to do with not understanding. Why is life hard, why do bad things happen to use, what happens after death? Some people need a a comforting ideology.

With saying that, I am not religious at all. But I do agree with peoples rights to practice religion, and can understand the need for it. As Bsuds said, just don't ask for money, or try to bring your religion into government.

Very true, people can believe whatever they want, doesn't make it true or rational though. I don't need a god or religion for comfort though, I think it's silly and I think that science has the solutions for most of man problems, not religion. Science cured polio and smallpox while religious people sometimes burn witches and suicide bomb buildings. Hmm I wonder which I should put my trust in.

[whatwhat]

Very true, people can believe whatever they want, doesn't make it true or rational though. I don't need a god or religion for comfort though, I think it's silly and I think that science has the solutions for most of man problems, not religion. Science cured polio and smallpox while religious people sometimes burn witches and suicide bomb buildings. Hmm I wonder which I should put my trust in.

Oh for sure, I get that religion isn't exactly rational or true (as I said myself, I am not religious). But not everyone is you. People think differently then you, and having an open mind in understanding that is important.

[Ka-El]

You just said in a earlier post that imaginary woodland creatures and god could not be compared. So now your back tracking eh.

Yes, I did say the ideas of imaginary woodland creatures and God could not be compared and I have never deviated from that, so your suggestion I have somehow “back-tracked” reveals either some confusion on your part (not knowing what back-tracking is) or a somewhat desperate deflection. I also said nothing about Stephen Hawking saying the Big Bang came from God. In fact, I clearly stated Hawking was an atheist so why would he make such a suggestion? If you read my point more carefully, you’ll see what I did say was that Hawking acknowledged his premise that time began with the Big Bang could support the idea of an infinite God; something that existed before time began, exists now, and will exist after time ends (after the universe collapse back in on itself).

I would agree that this discussion is a non-argument in the sense that the idea of God cannot be proven or disproved by either logic or science; something that Hawking recognized even as an atheist. Modern day philosophy, having moved far beyond arguments of leprechauns, or even old men with long white hair and beards sitting on a throne in the clouds (actually, if you ever do take a philosophy course you will see the discipline of philosophy moved past these arguments of God more than a hundred years ago), concentrates on the argument of what is and what is not possible within the parameters of current scientific knowledge. Your comparisons here have long been discarded and the discussion today is far more advanced.

When I was an economics student at SFU in the early eighties, in addition to electives in philosophy and science I also took a course in “Altered States of Consciousness”. During that course we reviewed an experiment that was conducted at MIT where a “supercomputer” (bear in mind this was forty years ago; long before the internet was around for public access and we used libraries) was programmed to generate millions of random binary (0 & 1) numbers at incredible speed. The purpose of the experiment was to test the statistical probability that two choices being randomly generated would consistently result in a 50/50 split as long as enough numbers were generated – and of course this turned out to be true.

What was really interesting though is that when they put a subject in a room next to the computer and told the subject what the computer was doing and to “think about it” the results started to skew. There was no prediction or causal effect claimed or noted, just that the results no longer came out at 50/50. The question that did come out of this (good science always creates more questions) was could consciousness exist outside of the body, and the even more fantastic question - if consciousness could exist outside of the body, could it exist without the body?

Our brain is composed of billions of neurons where each neuron connects to many other neurons in the brain. Whenever we perform cognitive activities such as thinking, reasoning, perceiving, or decision-making, the corresponding group of neurons are lit up inside the brain; that is, electrical signals pass back and forth between them. When these neuron cells are active they pass electric pulses back and forth and send messages to each other. The network of cells synchronizes their firing, and this becomes a repeating cycle known as the “brainwave”.

The point is this electrical activity within the brain is quite strong and can be scientifically measured by an instrument called EEG (electroencephalogram). In this technique, electrodes are placed on top of the scalp where they detect the electrical pulses with the help of EEG. These electrical pulses are further visually analyzed on a display monitor.

Beta brainwaves are predominant during the normal waking consciousness. When people are in the beginning phase of meditation, they transition from beta to alpha. As a result, they start experiencing more calm as the mind becomes quieter. Alpha brainwaves calm the overall nervous system and lower the heart rate. In the alpha state, the mind is clear of unwanted thoughts and the functioning of the senses (inputs) is minimized (experienced when we start practicing mindfulness).

Theta brainwaves are associated with deep meditation, and expert meditators are said to have experienced this state, which gives deep relaxation and dream-like imageries associated with daydreaming, enhanced learning, and creativity.

Delta brainwaves are the most mysterious of all brainwaves. During the delta cycle, we are in the deepest part of our sleep, so much so, that we don’t even experience any dream in this state. It’s hard to remain conscious in this state. Consciousness does not disappear in this state. It’s just that there is nothing to be aware of because our brain changes activities in the regions that correspond to sensory inputs.

Zen masters and monks are said to emit delta waves during deep meditative states. In this state, there is no awareness of what is happening, but the body goes through a period of healing and regeneration. Some experienced meditators are able to achieve this state of deep rest within a short time (within an hour or two), as compared to what regular people experience after a deep sleep of eight hours.

Another interesting observation has been that people who practice meditation alone and with groups have noted they can achieve the meditative state more quickly and more deeply when they are with a group as opposed to sitting alone (and this observation has also been confirmed by EEG) again raising some very interesting questions: can consciousness exist outside of the body, and is shared consciousness possible?

You possibly know that different light waves, radio waves, etc. can exist at the same place at the same time; and depending on whether the waves are a trough or a crest, the amplitudes of the waves either cancel each other out or amplify one other. What you possibly did not know is that while traditional physics states two physical objects cannot exist in the same place and time, quantum mechanics and astrophysics demonstrate the existence of multiple universes and an infinite number of realities all existing in the same place and time, but at different frequencies.

For each possible outcome to an action, our world splits into an exact replica of itself, a process known as decohesion. For instance, an objects wave function can be said to be of both particulate or of wave nature. Therefore, when a physicist measures the nature of this particle, the object can either be measured as a wave or a particle. To incorporate both of these possible outcomes, the universe splits into two. In one universe the physicist measures the object in wave form, while in the other universe; the object is measured in particulate form.

The point of all this (if you’re still with me here) is that the more we discover through scientific exploration and investigation, the more questions we come up with to further explain our discoveries. For example, it is not at all far-fetched to consider the possibility of an infinite underlying (or over-encompassing) energy or force that is holding this all together. At this stage we really have no understanding and little appreciation of the nature or purpose of this energy or force (if it even has purpose), but there is evidence some people have successfully and consciously tapped into something outside of themselves through meditation (possibly prayer as well) and quantum mechanics has given us a whole new question of what infinite really means while we still struggle to come to grips with its existing description.

I’ve never described nor stated my own spiritual beliefs here and wouldn’t even start to do so with people still trying to dismiss the idea of the God concept with deflections to comparisons with mythical wood creatures. I am not religious; I do not pray to old men with long white beards and I completely understand that all of humankinds religious texts are ancient historical stories that were written by men. For me, God is simply a label to describe something that is currently far beyond any understanding of logic or science. Thus my initial statement, that should have actually be taken as a critique of those who presume to know God (ie. organized religion), that “the true nature of knowing God is to know that God is unknowable”.


https://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/ ... 80116.html

https://mindfulnessquest.com/how-medita ... ain-waves/

[nucksRnum1]

I can subscribe to the idea that there is a god. I have seen some amazing things. The problem is that bossy human's name and claim gods and screw it up for everyone else.

[fluffy]

I’ve never described nor stated my own spiritual beliefs here and wouldn’t even start to do so with people still trying to dismiss the idea of the God concept with deflections to comparisons with mythical wood creatures. I am not religious; I do not pray to old men with long white beards and I completely understand that all of humankinds religious texts are ancient historical stories that were written by men. For me, God is simply a label to describe something that is currently far beyond any understanding of logic or science. Thus my initial statement, that should have actually be taken as a critique of those who presume to know God (ie. organized religion), that “the true nature of knowing God is to know that God is unknowable”.

I can certainly relate to that. Spiritual beliefs are a deeply personal thing, and there is no right or wrong. I gave this a lot of thought during my early days in Alcoholics Anonymous, a program rooted in spirituality by one that deliberately avoids association with any organized religion. Members are free to develop their own concept of God, the important thing being not so much the nature of God you choose to believe in, but just believing that a greater power does exist. For me it took on the form of something Obiwan Kenobi-ish, the idea that there is an unseen force tying everything together. Physicists have chased this elusive "ultimate goal" under names like "unifying theory". For my purposes it was not important to understand the true nature of God, just to acknowledge that perhaps there was something in control that wasn't me. Even control" is a bad word for this, as it does imply some deliberate thought that might not be accurate.

I like that the mystery is out there, and I like to think that the conflicts between God and science may one day be resolved on some as yet undiscovered middle ground. There is a simple experiment that anyone can do with a light source and a pinhole or "box" camera. At the projection end of the box, cut a single vertical slit and then shine a light into the other end. The result on the projection screen will be a homogeneous blur. Repeating the experiment with two slits in the box will yield a series of vertical stripes, not two over-lapping blurs as one might expect. Was the particle of light (or wave) somehow aware of the second slit and that there were then areas on the projection screen where it wasn't allowed to land ? I betcha God knows.

[Ka-El]

I like that the mystery is out there, and I like to think that the conflicts between God and science may one day be resolved on some as yet undiscovered middle ground. There is a simple experiment that anyone can do with a light source and a pinhole or "box" camera. At the projection end of the box, cut a single vertical slit and then shine a light into the other end. The result on the projection screen will be a homogeneous blur. Repeating the experiment with two slits in the box will yield a series of vertical stripes, not two over-lapping blurs as one might expect. Was the particle of light (or wave) somehow aware of the second slit and that there were then areas on the projection screen where it wasn't allowed to land ? I betcha God knows.

My personal opinion on this is the only conflict that exists between science and God exists between traditional and dated science (for example, traditional physics as compared to quantum mechanics) and traditional and dated concepts of God (mythical wood creatures, old men with white beards, etc.). I first saw the pinhole camera experiment among some other fascinating demonstrations quite some time ago on a documentary of quantum physics and this was where I first heard an actual scientist ponder the idea of alternate realities. They were sharing some considerably complex ideas and my first thought was “man, these guys just have way too much time on their hands” (hmmm, “time”). The “God concept” came up in that show and I was actually quite keen to start thinking about the idea of God in an entirely different manner, one that had no conflict with physics or science at all.

The OP began this thread asking about what baggage people have been carrying as a fallout from organized religion, and I think for some people it has created a strong psychological barrier or defense mechanism that confines the way in which they will look at the subject. I’m sure in your experience you’ve probably met people who were so “triggered” by the word that they could not adopt any spiritual principles that would have assisted them in their recovery from alcoholism and/or addiction. While fascinated by new scientific discoveries and ideas of infinity that now include an infinite number of alternate infinite universes and the potential for one infinite unifying force holding it all together, for me God is simply a label that describes something I cannot hope to understand. Spirituality and the way a person chooses to experience it is certainly a personal choice, but as scientific experiments and investigations into processes such as meditation have projected it is perhaps possible to achieve or get nearer to a closer conscious contact with this force. I know some people believe so.

[fluffy]

I’m sure in your experience you’ve probably met people who were so “triggered” by the word that they could not adopt any spiritual principles that would have assisted them in their recovery from alcoholism and/or addiction.

That's not uncommon at all, in fact I'd go so far to suggest that the majority of newcomers to the program feel some pushback initially. With some effort and creative thought most people find their way around it. Like you say, it's just a word, and AA is great at giving people alternatives to traditional religion. For me, arriving at a concept of God that didn't require me to compromise what I believed at that point was just something I had to do to open the doors to letting the program work for me. That concept has been an evolving thing for me for years, it's been beneficial not to be tied to some rule book. I think it's that lack of flexibility in some organized religions that breeds resentment, especially when you run into people that are convinced they have it all figured out.

[segg s oppender]

No, that would be an assumption of knowing what is unknowable

I don't know if leprechauns exist or not but until I get actual evidence for their existence, I'm going to conclude they are imaginary beings created by man. Same with god. What is a god anyway? no one can really agree on a definition for her.

To this point, I've been doing a lot of research recently and I've come to the conclusion at this point in time that 'Leprechauns' or at least organisms that share much of the same qualities as those that characterize leprechauns exist. People aren't fully capable of perceiving them until they've put forth a massive effort to do so. These things are far from harmless and are in fact quite abusive. Makes sense why they're so prevalent in Irish culture. Things really start to click when you dive into these topics. It's quite the rabbit, or should I say leprechaun hole (haha).

[youjustcomplain]

The true nature of knowing God is knowing that God is unknowable.

Though I agree, there is nothing we can know about God at present, that same fact is true about an infinite number of ideas.
Take the spagetti monster or orbiting teapot examples. We're just as likely to ever know whether those exist as ever knowing the Christian god exists.

I think the crux of it, for me, is that today, nobody can know a god exists. At least, not the kinds of gods I've heard of. We're told that you need faith and that it's virtuous to believe in things without evidence and really, that's the last thing I'll ever do. What would happen if a god DOES exist and reveals him/herself to the world, thus removing any need for faith. What would people of faith believe then? What if this truly was a god and had only malevolent feelings towards us. Maybe it demonstrates awful things, just because it can. Maybe it waves its human like arm and gives us a tiny virus that kills millions of people. Maybe this god creates childhood cancer to watch us suffer. Maybe it causes nature to act violently and kill thousands. Then this being sits there laughing at us, pondering what else it can do to torture us.

I look around and can see a world of beauty. I can add meaning to my life and to the lives of my children. I an imagine a purpose to everything I do, and I can spend my life trying to make peoples lives better. But if I'm to believe that there is a god somewhere out there pulling the strings, then why would I be so arrogant to believe this god loves us, or is looking out for us. How many awful things do we need to hear about and experience before we can conclude that the loving god doesn't exist. If a god is out there with the ability to do anything at all, I can conclude that this god is not kind. If it exists, it's surely neutral or evil. If god is neutral, then we have a name for it already; Nature. If it's evil, then we have no reason to praise it, celebrate it, worship it, or do anything we might imagine it wants of us unless we're to consider ourselves servile.