click here for pele's theory on religion and arguments with/for/against it

[skrobo]

Create one? Just create one? Just like that?

If a religion were to be created that was sure to be true, let me tell you, that would be the greatest idea in human history. That is what many scientists are trying to do actually. They are trying their best to bounce off possible ideas off of one another about things in general, and then test them out through experimentation. There are plenty of scientists out there who's goal is to discover more and more about the general nature of everything, eventually spreading their discoveries throughout humanity. Once all is discovered, their discoveries would become the world's religion, as long as all are willing to accept the ideas.

With science it's very different though than most religions. Most religions nowadays glorify absolute faith, and discourage the consideration of ideas that oppose it, and discourage any doubts in the specific religion. Science is very different. Science, in theory, does exactly the opposite, it encourages a constant change in theories as new evidence is shown that disproves what was thought to be true. Science is on a constant quest for completion as well as accuracy, while religion claims to be complete and correct in all aspects, and to have always been correct from the beginning. This is a dangerous state of mind to be in, because the nature of conscious life is that as more experiences are had, ideas become better developed and more accurate, as there are more pieces of evidence to consider. Thankfully, one of the aspects of human nature is that these ideas often are shared with one another, more and more is recorded, and more and more is known. The more experiences taken into account, the bigger the sample of experience and that almost always leads to higher accuracy. Since knowledge can be passed on in humanity to the future, and recollected from the past, as time rolls on, and more experiences and ideas are recorded, there's more and more to work with, and more and more oppurtunities for finding out the nature of things. I absolutely love how when I look back at my past, and think of my ideas back then, and how they sort of morphed as I had gained more experience as well as had more time to think about them. It's one of the most beautiful things in the world when people adapt there previous theories and ideas to match there experiences as they come to them, in my opinion. I love it when I experience something that causes me to think differently than I have before, it gives a great feeling of advancement, and higher accuracy. So it saddens me when so many religions out there discourage such evolution of ideas, dooming the human race from any further inspection, any improvement in accuracy, and any furthering of knowledge. The ideas shown in many of today's religions were likely very advanced for their time, and worked well with the common knowledge of the people. The people of the time came up with wonderful theories as to what may be the case, why everything is the way it is, and that is truly beautiful. However, so much more has been discovered since then, so many religious ideas can be adapted to be more consistant with what we now believe to be true, but the idea that one needs absolute faith is what stops us from any adaptation towards further accuracy. It's a shame, it's very depressing, and causes nothing but problems. Why must we trick ourselves into thinking that we were right all along? Why can't we accept all of our ideas as what they are, simply theories that are consistant with all of what we had considered, which can change as soon as more is considered. If only people began to realize that they aren't gods, they don't know anything for certain, and they cannot treat anything as certain, this world would be so much better.

reading all of that made me think of one point... most scientists accept that the beginning and the end will never be known, the truths they understand bring MOST of them (assuming from my life, what scientists I've met, and what i understand about their religious views) to a religion to explain. From what i understand (i'm using the worst words to explain this i know) their understanding of how things work brings them to believe that there is something greater... the church (or whatever you want to call it i.e. spaghetti monster) offers an explanation of this.

edit: only solo-scripto religions believe in the evolution theory... and even then it can be argued that evolution fits w/ the creation story on the fact that God knows no time, but i'm getting back into Christianity now, so i will stop... haha

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by skrobo

reading all of that made me think of one point... most scientists accept that the beginning and the end will never be known, the truths they understand bring MOST of them (assuming from my life, what scientists I've met, and what i understand about their religious views) to a religion to explain. From what i understand (i'm using the worst words to explain this i know) their understanding of how things work brings them to believe that there is something greater... the church (or whatever you want to call it i.e. spaghetti monster) offers an explanation of this.

edit: only solo-scripto religions believe in the evolution theory... and even then it can be argued that evolution fits w/ the creation story on the fact that God knows no time, but i'm getting back into Christianity now, so i will stop... haha

Actually, atheism is much more common among dogs than it is among scientists.

Scientists are just as likely to be persons of Faith as the rest of the population, like Einstein.

[peleschramm]

Before I read anything here, from the other thread:

Originally Posted by maestro8

No. Hell no. I understand what you're getting at, but no. Science is but a method. Religion is an all-encompassing philosophy. Big difference there.

Science is a method that is designed to increase knowledge and find out things about how and why things are the way they are. Religion also tells how and why things are the way they are. Did I say that Science is a religion? I don't think I did, but if I did I apologize because that is simply not true. I did, however, say that scientists are constantly trying to find out more and more about the nature of reality, slowly replacing previous religious ideas with accurate theories whose reasoning they have behind them is very clearly stated. I don't think that the Human race will survive long enough for scientists to uncover all of the areas that all religions have covered, but at least the theories produced will be much more verifiable.

Originally Posted by maestro8

Dude, seriously, you could crush an elephant under that monstrosity of a paragraph. I know you've found the "Enter" key. Learn to use it more. It's impossible to read what you write sometimes.

I apologize if I am writing too much for your comprehension. I try my best to go in depth with my ideas, so my paragraphs do sometimes get a little long. If you are suggesting that I should press the enter key every now and then even if I hadn't moved onto a separate topic, then forget it, because that would be even harder to read.

[UniBrier]

This is so great! We must have seven or more threads about or discussing religion in the first 25 default page view alone! All we need now is more newbie unicycle threads in JC and we may be able to kill all those pesky perpetual threads once and for all.

Dare to dream! (Or should I say Dare to Pray!?)

[peleschramm]

Nobody has anything to say? Man, I worked hard typing all that up...

Nothing? No one?

[dudewithasock]

meh

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by peleschramm

I apologize if I am writing too much for your comprehension. I try my best to go in depth with my ideas, so my paragraphs do sometimes get a little long. If you are suggesting that I should press the enter key every now and then even if I hadn't moved onto a separate topic, then forget it, because that would be even harder to read.

Sometimes Maestro can be a little harsh to take seriously. But his writing comments are valid, and should be obvious enough to someone of your skills. Write gigantic paragraphs and readers will either skip over them, or have a hard time grasping all of it. Don't believe us, look for examples in books, magazines or your local paper. You didn't think up everything in that paragraph in the time it takes to read it. Breaking it down makes it easier to swallow and comprehend.

[peleschramm]

Originally Posted by skrobo

reading all of that made me think of one point...

Hehey! Very good Skrobo!

Let me tell you, I think that it is incredibly likely that there are things out there that we cannot see, there are things out there that are not known, there are things out there that are much beyond us. The very fact(well, commonly believed theory) that there are actually 11 spacial dimensions should point immediately to our lack of ability to actually comprehend reality. We are only able to move about in 3 dimensions, while in the 4th dimension we can only go in one direction (time). What we perceive is not reality, it is an incredibly watered down version of reality. There may even be beings who we are unable to see in our 3-4d world. From what I know, it is very possible for things that share some of the characteristics of god to exist. I am not against that idea at all, it is possible. It is not the only possible explanation, however, it's a possible one, and should be treated as a possible scientific theory with little background supporting evidence, and this theory should definitely be looked into further.

The problem however with the widely practiced religions that build off of the theory of a godly being, is that there are numerous other things that come along with the explanations that can, with today's evidence and ideas, be shown to be incredibly unlikely. To start off with philosophical fault's, I had already explained how while they preach absolute faith, absolute faith is hardly moral, and will certainly not get you very far if you want to increase the accuracy in your ideas. Countless of the moral suggestions in the bible are grossly simplified into black and white ideas, that while many of them are true most of the time, they are not true all the time. If you would like me to go deeper into the subject of morality, I have no problem with that. There are also many cases in which the bible contradicts its own morals, and other philosophical ideas.

When getting into the comparison between these religions today and scientific evidence, it is quite easy to see that many explanations that both testaments offer are outstandingly inaccurate. If the bible were to be correct, the earth would have to be around 6,000 years old, give or take 2,000 years. Fossils, carbon dating, and geological structuring all clearly suggest that the earth is significantly older than that. There is a significant amount of evidence which shows evolution to be true (evolution not necessarily regarding the creation but at the very very least that species change over a long period of time due to the extinction of those with genes that ruin the species' chance of survival).

Historical studies have also pointed to several events in the bible which do not seem to be true nowadays. However, it is difficult to verify history, and what historians believe to be true is comparatively inconsistent, so I won't go to deeply into that, because our knowledge of history does change frequently over time.

I don't know if any of you noticed, but my sig line as of maybe a month or two ago no longer says "Unicycle for Atheism". I no longer believe myself to be certain that there are no "spiritual beings" out there whatsoever. I am agnostic in that sense. However, I have found faults in each of the world religions. I have found enough faults in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam to say with extreme confidence that they are untrue. There are many religious ideas out there that I haven't found anything wrong with, but really there are near infinite possibilities, and while they have not been disproven I don't see any reason to believe in them, because while I have not considered anything that suggests they are wrong, that doesn't mean they are right, because my knowledge, as well as everyone else's knowledge, is incredibly limited. Often times I find it fun to think up various religious theories that could be true, that haven't been disproven, and it's nice to just have various ideas of what could be true. The thing is, we can't know if anything at all is true unless we know and have considered everything there is to know. All we have is the knowledge that we have gained over the course of our lives to determine whether something is correct or incorrect, and since we know an incredibly tiny fraction of what there is to know, it is ridiculous to be certain about anything at all. That is why one should keep an open mind, and let his new knowledge and experiences be used to modify his/her previous ideas to be more accurate.




Oh, and if you haven't figured out already, my connection between the "Christians pray here" thread and Rosa Parks was just me being silly. Although what went on in the original Christian prayer thread and segregation against blacks results from similar psychological phenomenons, making that comparison is a bit ridiculous as the emotions that accompany each are quite different from one another.

[BillyTheMountain]

[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by peleschramm

The very fact(well, commonly believed theory) that there are actually 11 spacial dimensions should point immediately to our lack of ability to actually comprehend reality.

Is that spacial excluding temporal dimensions? Or the various permutations wherein both spatial and temporal dimensions intersect?

Originally Posted by peleschramm

are only able to move about in 3 dimensions, while in the 4th dimension we can only go in one direction (time).

So now time only moves in one direction? What about all those people who are unstuck in time?

Originally Posted by peleschramm

we perceive is not reality, it is an incredibly watered down version of reality.

Who is watering down my reality? I've suspected this for a while, but I didn't know who to report this to. The Attorney General? There are those who believe BTM is getting the opposite, an incredibly concentrated version of reality. Spend some time with your friends, and pretty soon you can tell who is getting a watered down reality and who is getting a concentrated version.

Originally Posted by peleschramm

may even be beings who we are unable to see in our 3-4d world.

OMG!!!! If you cannot see them, you may be unicycling right over them! They may be getting pissed off about this, and plotting revenge!

Originally Posted by peleschramm

what I know, it is very possible for things that share some of the characteristics of god to exist.

I am proof of that! You are too!

Originally Posted by peleschramm

I am not against that idea at all, it is possible. It is not the only possible explanation, however, it's a possible one, and should be treated as a possible scientific theory with little background supporting evidence, and this theory should definitely be looked into further.

What's another possible explanation? You might prefer to use the word Hypothesis?

Originally Posted by peleschramm

The problem however with the widely practiced religions that build off of the theory of a godly being, is that there are numerous other things that come along with the explanations that can, with today's evidence and ideas, be shown to be incredibly unlikely. To start off with philosophical fault's, I had already explained how while they preach absolute faith, absolute faith is hardly moral, and will certainly not get you very far if you want to increase the accuracy in your ideas.

Increase accuracy as an end in and of itself?

Originally Posted by peleschramm

of the moral suggestions in the bible are grossly simplified into black and white ideas, that while many of them are true most of the time, they are not true all the time. If you would like me to go deeper into the subject of morality, I have no problem with that. There are also many cases in which the bible contradicts its own morals, and other philosophical ideas.

Please do. And while you are at it, I'd like you to start a thread with all your sentencing guidelines for all the possible crimes. Or just Robbery and Burglary, under $100.00; $100.00 to $1 thousand; and over $1 thousand. First offense, second offense, and third offense. How much time in prison, or how long community service, or must they be drug tested during probation/supervised release?

Originally Posted by peleschramm

When getting into the comparison between these religions today and scientific evidence, it is quite easy to see that many explanations that both testaments offer are outstandingly inaccurate.

Yes of course. you'll find the same thing when you compare a science text from 1880 to a text from 1980, or 1980 to 2010.

Originally Posted by peleschramm

If the bible were to be correct, the earth would have to be around 6,000 years old, give or take 2,000 years.

You're mistake is that you misconstrue how long a day was back then. Don't forget how dependent we are on our Earth's rotation to know how long a day is, and the Earth wasn't even in its current rotation until like Day 6. Heck, the Sun wasn't even her until Day 4, so who even knows how long a year was in the first 4 "days."

Originally Posted by peleschramm

Fossils, carbon dating, and geological structuring all clearly suggest that the earth is significantly older than that.

Don't forget that all those measures were calibrated against THEORIES!!! If the cops radar detector is calibrated incorrectly, I can beat the speeding ticket.

Originally Posted by peleschramm

There is a significant amount of evidence which shows evolution to be true (evolution not necessarily regarding the creation but at the very very least that species change over a long period of time due to the extinction of those with genes that ruin the species' chance of survival).

"True" is not a scientific concept. It's a religious concept.

Also, adaptation is not evolution. Evolution is the development of a NEW species.

Originally Posted by peleschramm

Historical studies have also pointed to several events in the bible which do not seem to be true nowadays. However, it is difficult to verify history, and what historians believe to be true is comparatively inconsistent, so I won't go to deeply into that, because our knowledge of history does change frequently over time.

Thank GOD. When I think of Sean and Madison, like cave men over on MR .....

Originally Posted by peleschramm

I don't know if any of you noticed, but my sig line as of maybe a month or two ago no longer says "Unicycle for Atheism". I no longer believe myself to be certain that there are no "spiritual beings" out there whatsoever. I am agnostic in that sense.

You never explained your conversion.

Originally Posted by peleschramm

However, I have found faults in each of the world religions.

Most scientists, whether persons of Faith or not, also find fault with most scientific theories. It's no big deal. As a matter of fact, that's appropriate.

Originally Posted by peleschramm

I have found enough faults in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam to say with extreme confidence that they are untrue.

Again, untrue is not scientific language. Maybe you mean to say you have garnered sufficient evidence to reject each theory. Most persons of Faith just overlook that stuff.

Originally Posted by peleschramm

There are many religious ideas out there that I haven't found anything wrong with, but really there are near infinite possibilities, and while they have not been disproven I don't see any reason to believe in them, because while I have not considered anything that suggests they are wrong, that doesn't mean they are right, because my knowledge, as well as everyone else's knowledge, is incredibly limited.

Amen to "everyone else's knowledge, is incredibly limited"

If you've ever studied psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, physics, etc, you might just find you don't have enough reason to believe in any of the theories in any of those fields. Most physicists have rejected "string theory" years ago, yet precious journal space continues to be eaten up by discussions of "string theory." Without any good reason, a psychotherapist might latch onto behaviorism, cognitive therapy, psychoanalysis, accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy (which I'm fond of), client-centered therapy, the list is endless, without even beginning to discuss the various family therapies, like Structural Family Therapy (which I'm fond of), etc.

You don't need a reason to believe in them, maybe they work for you, maybe you enjoy them, maybe you like the people who associate with them. Hey, we're human, thus fallible. No big deal. Look how long we got along just fine without nuclear physics, and the mess it left in Nagasaki-Hiroshima.

Originally Posted by peleschramm

Often times I find it fun to think up various religious theories that could be true, that haven't been disproven, and it's nice to just have various ideas of what could be true. The thing is, we can't know if anything at all is true unless we know and have considered everything there is to know.

That is a tall order!

Originally Posted by peleschramm

we have is the knowledge that we have gained over the course of our lives to determine whether something is correct or incorrect, and since we know an incredibly tiny fraction of what there is to know, it is ridiculous to be certain about anything at all. That is why one should keep an open mind, and let his new knowledge and experiences be used to modify his/her previous ideas to be more accurate.

Should we keep our minds open to bigotry and hatred? Do we have any values to filter out and reject ideas? Does that mean our mind is closed?

Originally Posted by peleschramm

Oh, and if you haven't figured out already, my connection between the "Christians pray here" thread and Rosa Parks was just me being silly.

WHAT!!!

Originally Posted by peleschramm

what went on in the original Christian prayer thread and segregation against blacks results from similar psychological phenomenons, making that comparison is a bit ridiculous as the emotions that accompany each are quite different from one another.

You might wish to specify the emotions, and the accompanying bodily experience associated with each.

Billy

[phlegm]

Pele, regarding your comparison of the Bible to scientific evidence, I think it's important that you don't read the Bible as a scientific text. Even if we were to subscribe to the most conservative reading of the Bible, it's plain to see that the texts were written from human perspectives that aren't privy to the scientific understandings we have today. So, read the Bible as a collection of ancient stories. Ask yourself what the central themes are and not what scientific theories are supported or contradicted.

Regarding religion in general, I think it's important to consider that most people don't care to think as carefully and systematically as you seem to. If you're like me in that you want to know more details than most, then you need to go looking for what religious scholars think. Otherwise it becomes too easy to just be cynical about what you see of most religious people in the general media. Unlike science classes that are readily available in our K-12 public schools, education about religious thought is for the most part entirely up to you.

[peleschramm]

In response to Billy:

1. What's another possible explanation? You might prefer to use the word Hypothesis?

2. Please do. And while you are at it, I'd like you to start a thread with all your sentencing guidelines for all the possible crimes. Or just Robbery and Burglary, under $100.00; $100.00 to $1 thousand; and over $1 thousand. First offense, second offense, and third offense. How much time in prison, or how long community service, or must they be drug tested during probation/supervised release?

3.Don't forget that all those measures were calibrated against THEORIES!!! If the cops radar detector is calibrated incorrectly, I can beat the speeding ticket.

4."True" is not a scientific concept. It's a religious concept.

5. Also, adaptation is not evolution. Evolution is the development of a NEW species.

6. You never explained your conversion.

7. Most scientists, whether persons of Faith or not, also find fault with most scientific theories. It's no big deal. As a matter of fact, that's appropriate.

8. Again, untrue is not scientific language. Maybe you mean to say you have garnered sufficient evidence to reject each theory. Most persons of Faith just overlook that stuff.

9. Amen to "everyone else's knowledge, is incredibly limited"

If you've ever studied psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, physics, etc, you might just find you don't have enough reason to believe in any of the theories in any of those fields. Most physicists have rejected "string theory" years ago, yet precious journal space continues to be eaten up by discussions of "string theory." Without any good reason, a psychotherapist might latch onto behaviorism, cognitive therapy, psychoanalysis, accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy (which I'm fond of), client-centered therapy, the list is endless, without even beginning to discuss the various family therapies, like Structural Family Therapy (which I'm fond of), etc.

You don't need a reason to believe in them, maybe they work for you, maybe you enjoy them, maybe you like the people who associate with them. Hey, we're human, thus fallible. No big deal. Look how long we got along just fine without nuclear physics, and the mess it left in Nagasaki-Hiroshima.

10. That is a tall order!

11. Should we keep our minds open to bigotry and hatred? Do we have any values to filter out and reject ideas? Does that mean our mind is closed?

12. You might wish to specify the emotions, and the accompanying bodily experience associated with each.
Billy[/QUOTE]

1. Hypothesis is an excellent word. Thank you Billy. Another hypothesis is that our dreams in this world serve as a sort of metaphor for the nature of our own lives. Our lives in this world may simply be sort of dreams, in a sort of "higher reality". When we die, we just sort of wake up from the dream.

Another theory I thought of after looking at a video which explains the 10 dimensions in regards to the fifth dimension is that we actually continue living on forever. The fifth dimension suggests that there are an infinite amount of universes, each a result of what would have happened had another thing with potential probability occurred. There is a possibility that you will drop dead at any given second (as long as you haven't already), and there is a possibility you will stay alive in every given second (if you haven't dropped dead already). Since this is the case, you have died a virtually infinite amount of times in other parallel universes. Since it is always somewhat possible to stay alive (even though at times it's incredibly unlikely), each time you would die in a parallel universe you would actually be sent to one were you didn't die, and you would continue living forever. While I do not believe these theories to be true, I believe them to be at least somewhat reasonable.


2. I will not create punishments I'm sorry, but I will go into more depth. Actually I think I already have in the "No outside food or drink" thread. Just look for my posts here and you will see a lot of information on it, as Wickedbob made me re explain myself countless times. Go through the thread and look at the discussions on morality to see what I think about it.


3. True, they were calibrated against theories. However, the majority of the theories used have a significant amount of evidence backing them, allowing very little room for error.


4. True is a word that in this case means correct. While absolute truth is a religious concept, that is not what I am talking about. I mentioned that there was a lot of evidence which suggests that it is true, which is a very scientific concept.


5. Really Billy? In case you were serious, the theory of evolution suggests that new species are created through adaptation over the course of a long period of time.


6. Well, I figured that because I previously mentioned that I did believe that there was a lot out there that we cannot see and do not know, and that we cannot be certain about anything, I figured it would be somewhat self explanatory as to why I no longer am convinced that there is absolutely nothing out there that we don't know about. Really, it would still be considered atheism by many since I do not believe in all the words of the bible, but that is not the direct definition of atheism.


7. ... Huh?


8. Again, true as in correct. I mentioned that it was with extreme confidence, and not with absolute certainty. Extreme confidence in this case means near absolute certainty.


9. You should have a reason to believe in them. Something should not be believed with confidence unless there has not been any evidence suggesting it to be wrong, and there have been very many cases in which it was shown to have worked.


10. Yes it is.


11. We should keep our minds open to any ideas, and judge them fairly. Something that appears to us as hatred and bigotry at first may actually be correct and/or moral.

12. Emotion common in the segregation of blacks and whites: hatred, superiority, inferiority, offense, feeling of insignificance, feeling of being unimportant, anger, sadness, depression, insecurity.

Emotion common in the gathering of Christians to pray: Sense of welcoming/being a part of something, superiority, hope, annoyance, false confidence.



If I did not respond to something you said that means I either didn't know how to, thought you were kidding, or thought that a response would not be worthwhile.


Edit: Sorry, for some reason the quoting won't work.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by peleschramm

9. You should have a reason to believe in them. Something should not be believed with confidence unless there has not been any evidence suggesting it to be wrong, and there have been very many cases in which it was shown to have worked.

WHew! Good job! I cannot match you, but I'll address 2 points:

There are many different psychotherapy techniques, as in economics, business, human resources, painting, welding, chemistry, that have been shown to work. And there are many different theories supporting each separate collection of techniques. A psychotherapist could spend a lifetime becoming a jack of all theories and techniques, and master of none (since more come out each year), but that would not serve the patients. Same with economists and others. If you master one theory and technique, you serve your patients. But becoming mediocre does not serve your patients. You don't need to believe your theory and technique is the best for it to work. That's what science is all about, it works whether you believe in it or not.

Hindu/Buddhist/Christian meditation all bring you to enlightenment/nirvana if you master one, why does it matter which path to enlightenment you select? Each technique works whether you believe in it or not.

You believe one species adapts and adapts until it becomes another species? Why become a new species? Isn't that extreme? YOu can no longer reproduce with your previous family.

If adaptation was necessary, why does the old species sometimes persist? Doesn't that suggest such extreme adaptation wasn't necessary? Doesn't adaptation imply necessity? Or does an animal just mutate for the heck of it? Like sex for pleasure, not just procreation.

Why did Cro-Magnon Man become extinct? Is it that they didn't have the killer extinct that Homo Sapiens has? Did Homo Sapiens kill off Cro-Magnon Man?

Why haven't we observed evolution? Why is it still referred to as a "theory." Adaptation has been observed any times, and they do not refer to adaptation as a theory. Why?

Billy

[peleschramm]

Originally Posted by phlegm

Pele, regarding your comparison of the Bible to scientific evidence...

But you see, that is why I didn't only address the scientific flaws of the bible, I also addressed the philosophical flaws in it. The bible's suggestions on morality are incredibly simplified and apply ridiculous generalizations. Killing is bad, lying is bad, adultery is bad, not having absolute faith in god is bad, it's bad not to treat others as you would want to be treated, etc. I can find exceptions to all of these, and as I have explained many times having absolute faith in anything is almost always the wrong choice.

You say not to interpret the bible literally? Don't think of it as facts that happened, think of it as just stories? Well let me tell you, once you take away the bible's factual accuracy, and once you take away the bible's philosophical accuracy, you aren't really left with much more than a collection of theories and symbolic ideas that may or may not be true, and should be regarded as no more.

I confess I don't really understand what you are getting at in the second paragraph.

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

WHew! Good job! I cannot match you, but I'll address 2 points...

Billy

Well, first of all I can say that your claim that Hindu/Buddhist/Christian meditation all have been shown to lead to spiritual enlightenment isn't really the case. I think I would maybe agree with you in the case of Buddhism, but not necessarily for Christianity or Hinduism. I confess, actually, that I do not remember all that much of Hinduism, but when I was learning about it I think I've seen some flaws, but we'll leave that one be for now as I am not equipped with enough information to make a decent argument.

Well, I may be a bit confused by what you mean by enlightenment. I am going to argue with the assumption that by enlightenment, you mean happiness in life. I can tell you that there are most likely very many people out there who have followed the rules and guidelines bestowed by their Christian denomination, have accepted Christ as their savior, remained abstinent until marriage, didn't use birth control, confessed their sins and have lived their lives by all that is suggested by the bible and have still not reached true happiness. What's more, they live their lives with the assumption that all of their faithfulness with the ways of the bible will eventually pay off in the afterlife. Seeing as so much else in the bible seems to be untrue, I find it very hard to believe that following all of its advice will necessarily lead to a good afterlife, if there is an afterlife at all.

Buddhism is based much less on statements of history and explanations for why things are the way they are, and much more on philosophical reasoning and ideas. The Buddhism is based on the idea that as soon as one accepts suffering, the person will reach Nirvana. We'll just call Nirvana complete happiness for now, since we do not know how things are going in the afterlife. In this case, Buddhism does work out great, and if followed absolutely and correctly, will lead to nothing but happiness (of course, I say this because I have not yet heard of any reasoning that would suggest otherwise). The reason why the Buddhist works is that the very idea behind it is to accept all suffering, meaning to turn all suffering into indifference. As soon as one stops caring about whether he/she suffers or not, suffering no longer exists at all in that person, as the very definition of suffering refers to an emotion in which the person in question does not like. If anyone loses the concept of not liking something, suffering will no longer occur, and all that is left is indifference and happiness.


Regarding your questions on evolution:
-After adaptation is necessary, the original species sometimes persists because of the fact that there is more than one place in the world. While adaptations are necessary in certain areas, they are unnecessary in others.

-Yes, I do believe that a species adapts and adapts until it changes so much that it can't become a new species and would be unable to reproduce with the original species. I don't see why that's so hard to believe, as it has been shown to work with microorganisms who reproduce at a significantly faster rate than those of the animal kingdom, allowing accelerated evolution.

-Sex is pleasureful because species who enjoy their method of reproduction are significantly more likely to reproduce, and to reproduce more, causing those species' genes to be transferred onto more of the offspring than the genes of those who do not like the method of reproduction. Eventually, the method of reproduction becomes pleasureful, as those who do not find it pleasureful slowly die out.

I think I've responded to just about everything. I hope I did so in a clear, complete and direct manner.



I also had a small exchange with Ivan in regards to morality in which I think I explained a bit more of the thought behind my idea of morality. I don't think he would mind me sharing his pm and my response.:

Originally Posted by ivan

... from what I have read I can say that your theory is beautiful and noble. Happiness for everyone. Everybody matters. Every single sentient being. I really feel you there, I think the same way myself. The problems begin when you want to apply your theory to life.

As we've agreed before, you cannot possibly take everything into account. There are mirriads of sentient beings out there of whose existence we're only aware marginally(if we're aware of it at all): dolphins, people in Urugwai, neighbours next door, aliens... Then there are those of who we don't even know whether they're capable of feeling emotions at all or not: certain animals, people in a coma, dead people(science tells us you die when you die, but science hasn't been able to really explain the mind so far, so how can it know), trees...

Then there is the complexity of the emotion felt by every individual being. Emotions isn't just a variable on a linear scale(+5 very happy, -11 fucking depressed). It's a very complex system, of which we are often unaware even inside ourselves. I think Red Hot Chilli Peppers put it quite nicely: "Because I'm happy to be sad".

In the end you get such an intricate system that it's absolutely impossible to tell whether any single action, even as simple as clicking your fingers in the privacy of your home is moral or not. And if you simplify, you're leaving out some beings, giving priority to others, assuming how people feel about things and doing a lot of other stuff that's sort of against the theory itself. That's why you can never say if something is moral or not. You simply don't know. Which is sad, because if you did, supposedly you could make everyone just a bit happier.

This brings me to my next point. Buddha said: "Life is suffering". No matter how good it may seem to you now, there'll always be suffering in it. You can't shelter yourself from it. Moreover, at any given time when you feel good, there are thousands of others out there who feel awful. The only way to avoid suffering is to attain enlightenment. Step one is accepting everything as it is. There is no good and bad in buddhism. There's only the path of bettering yourself.

But it's a bit more complex than that, I'd like to say more, but I'm a bit tired of typing and need to digest my lunch. I can just say now that to me buddhism is very related to doing some sports, like unicycling or climbing. When you're doing a trick on a unicycle, you have to free your mind: perfrectly concentrate on the trick and not think about anything at all at the same time. That's when you land your trick. That's that momentary enlightenment. At least for me, I don't know how you work, plus you're a much better rider than me.

Anyways, tell me what you think and also thank you for bringing forum discussions to the level where they once were. You're a man of high standards.

-Ivan

And here was my response:

Originally Posted by peleschramm

Hey thanks a lot Ivan. Yeah, I do agree with many of the Buddhist philosophies, I have had a great deal of suffering in my life, and I am steadily growing to accept it more and more.

For sure, morality is very complex, and very hard to judge, and I think it's everyone's responsibility to be the best judge they can possibly be, while trying their best to let go of their previous biases. I forgot who, but I think it was either Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle, said that ultimately, the ultimate goal for every action is for one's happiness. Now at first this seems quite bizarre, but it can be more or less proven if you ask a series of "why" questions (Why do you eat? to not be hungry. Why do you not want to be hungry? so that I don't feel bad. Why don't you want to feel bad? Because it makes me unhappy, and therefore eating makes me happy). To me, I think of happiness as different from Joy, it is not an emotion, it is a state of being. There are certain emotions that one likes, and those make him happy, and their are certain emotions which one does not like, which makes him sad, in somewhat simplified words. If the ultimate goal is happiness for every emotional being out there, it just seems logical to me that what is moral should be described as what brings all emotion feelers closer to absolute happiness, their main goal.

I also think that although it's impossible to take everything into account, it is possible, with practice, to take a great deal into account, to give you a good enough idea of what is moral. If everyone focused a bit more on figuring out what is moral, even when having to make some inaccurate estimations using my method, I think that at least our world would be a significantly better place, although there will be inaccuracies and the world would still be very much imperfect.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Sometimes Maestro can be a little harsh to take seriously...

Thank you John, I will keep this in mind.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by skrobo

...most scientists accept that the beginning and the end will never be known, the truths they understand bring MOST of them ... to a religion to explain. ...their understanding of how things work brings them to believe that there is something greater... the church (or whatever you want to call it i.e. spaghetti monster) offers an explanation of this.

You've got it backwards. Most scientists, like most of everyone else, were raised in the particular religions of their parents. Whatever religious teachings they were brought up with came first. Then science was added and they began searching for more facts. They did not "turn to religion" for the answers. In fact, I'd guess that most scientists have their various religions as a background, which for the most part has no conflict with their studies.

I could borrow a quote from Indiana Jones here: "Archeology is not the search for truth. It's the search for fact." And that truth is found in the philosophy class down the hall, or in religion.

...but i'm getting back into Christianity now, so i will stop... haha

Woah, wait. You were away from Christianity at some point?