Thread: Organized Religion Makes Me Lol

I know. Just look at all the beauty in that picture. And that's only a small fraction of a dark patch in the sky.

Saying "God made that!" just desecrates the real beauty by making the universe into a cheap trick by an invisible man. It's such an intellectual and aesthetic cop-out that it's not even funny.

"God made that" is a blunt statement which alludes to Divine Creation. The Beauty of Divinity is the essence of life itself, and life is therefore an expression of that infinite Love. The "invisible man", however, is thus a confused perception.

Beauty also originates within the Heart.

If there is other life out there, do they believe god made the universe? If not, then why are we the only ones to believe it?

Originally Posted by slayer

If there is other life out there, do they believe god made the universe? If not, then why are we the only ones to believe it?

What does that matter? (What do frogs believe in?)

Originally Posted by really

What does that matter? (What do frogs believe in?)

I believe the correct word to use is "Why". As in "Why does that matter?" [/Grammar Nazi]

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I believe the correct word to use is "Why". As in "Why does that matter?" [/Grammar Nazi]

I actually knew that someone would correct me on that.

Either way the same essential question remains.

It could just be one step closer into proving Gods exsistance or not.

Originally Posted by really

I actually knew that someone would correct me on that.

Either way the same essential question remains.

Well, if a vastly more advanced civilisation popped along and made themselves known and we asked them "Do you believe in God?" and explained to them the concept of God, and they said no, wouldn't that destroy the whole idea of God? If a civilisation advanced to travel across space safely did not even believe such things and then retorted that the idea is mere superstition, would you listen to that or hold on to the same ideas still?

Slayer, "proof of God" is quite a controversial topic to explain, and would lead off-topic.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Well, if a vastly more advanced civilisation popped along and made themselves known and we asked them "Do you believe in God?" and explained to them the concept of God, and they said no, wouldn't that destroy the whole idea of God? If a civilisation advanced to travel across space safely did not even believe such things and then retorted that the idea is mere superstition, would you listen to that or hold on to the same ideas still?

God has nothing to do with technological sophistication. Flying around space emphasizes evolution through shifts in material/objective knowledge.

I would like to know how another civilation thinks the universe was made.

Originally Posted by really

God has nothing to do with technological sophistication. Flying around space emphasizes evolution through shifts in material/objective knowledge.

That's the point though. What if such a civilisation popped around and held nothing of the likes of spirituality and had pretty much nailed how the universe came to be, etc. Would you simply ignore their knowledge because none of it is spiritual? Hell, what if they pointed out the ridiculousness of all the spirituality stuff? I mean, unless they came around and peddled the same ideas of what God and Spirituality were, then you'd have a case, but if nothing was said of the kind from them or were to be refuted, what then?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

That's the point though. What if such a civilisation popped around and held nothing of the likes of spirituality and had pretty much nailed how the universe came to be, etc. Would you simply ignore their knowledge because none of it is spiritual? Hell, what if they pointed out the ridiculousness of all the spirituality stuff? I mean, unless they came around and peddled the same ideas of what God and Spirituality were, then you'd have a case, but if nothing was said of the kind from them or were to be refuted, what then?

This is an argument that intrinsically is a conflict between: "how things appear" and "how things are". To what depth the knowledge of appearance and logic is, may never comprehend actuality. Jesus would be no farther from God if he was witnessing the works of a particle accelerator of today.

Only forming the hypothetical, though, and they are not useful to dwell upon.

Originally Posted by really

This is an argument that intrinsically is a conflict between: "how things appear" and "how things are". To what depth the knowledge of appearance and logic is, may never comprehend actuality. Jesus would be no farther from God if he was witnessing the works of a particle accelerator of today.

Only forming the hypothetical, though, and they are not useful to dwell upon.

Actually, knowledge and logic can go so far as figure out what consciousness is and what this reality is (The Universe, etc). We may not know now, but that's not to say we won't know in the future. Science has a way of making the unknown into the known, because it works upon discoveries and exploration. If anything, Science is better equipped to figure out these things than some preacher from 2000 years ago. Spirituality deals with "how things appear and feel", the intuitive approach, whilst Science deals with "how things are", the objective approach. Science can be very counter-intuitive, and yet it yields amazing discoveries into the very nature of our Universe and more.

To say Science will never work out what it means to be conscious is to literally give it a challenge that it will one day surpass. If you look at the history of Science, it has a habit of doing just that.

Originally Posted by really

"God made that" is a blunt statement which alludes to Divine Creation. The Beauty of Divinity is the essence of life itself, and life is therefore an expression of that infinite Love. The "invisible man", however, is thus a confused perception.

Beauty also originates within the Heart.

Yes, for god so loved life, he made the universe 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001& #37; life.

"God made that" is an unbacked statement that answers absolutely nothing about the universe, and is based on an old, old superstition.

Stop pretending you are somehow "better" than other theists or something because you are mystical about it and "spiritual". You both subscribe the the same bullshit, you just choose to be mystical about it because you are being "spiritual" (Read: Mystical, dodges questions, generally adds nothing to discussion other than useless crap like the post above.)

Spiritual/Physical

So called 'spiritualists' ignore the physical world when neither can exist without the other.

Maybe it is all just bullshit, though words vs words is still the biggest turd of all.

When you say no to God, you really say yes.
You probably talk more of God than me, you know. (sp?)

I think the fact that isolated societies also come up with religions gives us a clue to what any alien civilisations would believe.

God is a knee-jerk answer to the primitive question, 'how come this world is so perfectly designed for all my needs?'. Since Darwin we have known the real answer, which is that the question is wrong. God is redundant.

Well, just to comment on the "If intelligent way past our level came by" thing.

If it rediculed religion and other spiritual stuff. Then I see what you mean about that it should nail religion down.

I'd just have to add though, that if they came with their own beliefs of an intelligent creator, then I would still be an atheist.

Unless they had a character in a 2000 year old book called Jesus. Then I would be fucking scared.



Also, on another note, I just stared at that picture for like, 5 minutes straight. It's so awesome. It's not like any other pictures. It provokes all kinds of feelings at the same time, or so it feels.

Originally Posted by really

"God made that" is a blunt statement which alludes to Divine Creation. The Beauty of Divinity is the essence of life itself, and life is therefore an expression of that infinite Love. The "invisible man", however, is thus a confused perception.

Beauty also originates within the Heart.

That's just word salad. It has no real meaning, and capitalizing certain words will add none. Show me some evidence of this "divine creation" or "essence of life," because without it, all you just said is meaningless.

That's the biggest playground I've ever seen.

Originally Posted by Maeni

Unless they had a character in a 2000 year old book called Jesus. Then I would be fucking scared.

If they pulled out the bible I would think they must be fucking with me, lmfao.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Actually, knowledge and logic can go so far as figure out what consciousness is and what this reality is (The Universe, etc). We may not know now, but that's not to say we won't know in the future. Science has a way of making the unknown into the known, because it works upon discoveries and exploration. If anything, Science is better equipped to figure out these things than some preacher from 2000 years ago. Spirituality deals with "how things appear and feel", the intuitive approach, whilst Science deals with "how things are", the objective approach. Science can be very counter-intuitive, and yet it yields amazing discoveries into the very nature of our Universe and more.

Consciousness is beyond the logical realm, look into quantum reality, for example.

Also, Spiritual Teachers generally speak of the same truths which never change (Context). Hence these truths are beyond the material world - which always changes (content).

Spirituality is how things are in Spirit (Essence), Science is about how things are in form (detail). It is up to your deepest interest which one you will place your finest value.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

To say Science will never work out what it means to be conscious is to literally give it a challenge that it will one day surpass. If you look at the history of Science, it has a habit of doing just that.

Science doesn't answer any questions regarding subject matter. Describing evolution does not tell my "why" but "how". Science does not actually go against anything Spiritual; visa versa, by nature. Yet it is quite easy to get lost between them (R/S board ).

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Yes, for god so loved life, he made the universe 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001& #37; life.

Woa - WHAT!? The universe is already made is it?

It is always being made; eternally, through evolution, accretion etc. Be grateful for the fact that you are alive at all; through infinite Love.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

"God made that" is an unbacked statement that answers absolutely nothing about the universe, and is based on an old, old superstition.

It looks like an unbacked superstition. "The Universe (and beyond) made that" is the same thing; self-evident.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Stop pretending you are somehow "better" than other theists or something because you are mystical about it and "spiritual". You both subscribe the the same bullshit, you just choose to be mystical about it because you are being "spiritual" (Read: Mystical, dodges questions, generally adds nothing to discussion other than useless crap like the post above.)

Stop pretending the relatively apparent is actually Real. Meaning without, is found Within.

Originally Posted by ClouD

So called 'spiritualists' ignore the physical world when neither can exist without the other.

I think it's more directed to say that they ignore the physical world for spiritual questions/answers.

Originally Posted by -Tyler-

That's just word salad. It has no real meaning, and capitalizing certain words will add none. Show me some evidence of this "divine creation" or "essence of life," because without it, all you just said is meaningless.

Look deeply into the image in Post #1. Ask yourself some honest questions. (If you were more aware you wouldn't need that picture ).

Originally Posted by really

Consciousness is beyond the logical realm, look into quantum reality, for example.

Also, Spiritual Teachers generally speak of the same truths which never change (Context). Hence these truths are beyond the material world - which always changes (content).

Spirituality is how things are in Spirit (Essence), Science is about how things are in form (detail). It is up to your deepest interest which one you will place your finest value.

Quantum reality? Please Last time you tried to use science to substantiate your argument, you failed miserably. Also, ever considered what these 'Spiritual Teachers' to say to simply be common sense? As in how to treat others, etc? For a lot of those things, my own parents would qualify as Spiritual Teachers if that were the case.

Science is about how things are (objective), Spirituality how things feel and appear (subjective, intuitive). There is no other way around that fact.

Originally Posted by really

Science doesn't answer any questions regarding subject matter. Describing evolution does not tell my "why" but "how". Science does not actually go against anything Spiritual; visa versa, by nature. Yet it is quite easy to get lost between them (R/S board ).

Why and How's can interchange depending on their meaning and context. For example, I can still ask "Why does that happen?" and still get the same answer as "How does that happen?". However, in the context you are using, then Why's are not important, as long as the How is known. Why could be any additional explanation, but no matter how these vary, the How will not change.

Science does not go against it directly, but it does destroy some of the concepts behind Spirituality from time to time, whether intentional or not.

Originally Posted by really

Woa - WHAT!? The universe is already made is it?

It is always being made; eternally, through evolution, accretion etc. Be grateful for the fact that you are alive at all; through infinite Love.

The universe has existed and has expanded since the point it began, however, the stuff within is going through a constant cycle of destruction and formation. Also, evolution does not deal with star/planetary/anything of cosmological origin/etc formation, only with the diversification of life.

Originally Posted by really

It looks like an unbacked superstition. "The Universe (and beyond) made that" is the same thing; self-evident.

Strawman. Things have a tendency to form naturally within this universe, not because the universe is making it, but due to processes that occur within it.

Originally Posted by really

Look deeply into the image in Post #1. Ask yourself some honest questions. (If you were more aware you wouldn't need that picture ).

Oh no, not another teleological argument. "Just look at everything! It is all proof of a creator!" Right... bullshit argument....

You don't have to go around in circles, blue. It does get a bit repetitive doesn't it?

Originally Posted by really

You don't have to go around in circles, blue. It does get a bit repetitive doesn't it?

|:

Care to point out how I am going in circles instead of just stating so?