Thread: Science kills religion.

Science will cleanse religion.

What we currently call religion is nothing more than a distorted reflection of something that was once great. There was a time when all religions were one. Trace any and all religious traditions back and you find the same symbols and stories. Like the telephone game over thousands of years, what we have now is not what religion was meant to be.

Just because people lived thousands of years ago doesn't make them any less intelligent than us, even with our allmighty scientific method. My guess is that religion was originally based on some fundamental realizations about the universe and reality. Discovered either by some kind of Einstein genius or some one really high on drugs.

My money's on science making sense of religions, unifying them, and explaining the source. And I don't think that will undermine religious belief in any way or make it any less miraculous.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

You clearly have no understanding of science or how it works, this unfortunatly makes your points on science invalid.
Educate yourself about the scientific community and method before you make comments about how it works. You are simply uneducated on the subject and are making incorrect statements.
I seriously suggest you watch this video to educate yourself about the basics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro


As for how science explains NDEs read the later work of Susan Blackmore for a very interesting take on the subject. She was a trained scientist who had an NDE, so dedicated 20 years of her life to "prove other small minded scientists wrong"... in the end, she had to conclude that there was no evidence to support it. Research her.

Science never EVER finds something that "pisses it off" - that is absurd. Educate yourself before you criticise the very way of thinking that has allowed you to post on this forum, watch TV, call your friends, get medical help, sent men to the moon etc. etc. etc.
You can't pick and choose the science that suits you. If you disagree with science go live in a cave and let your "spirituality" sustain you. You wont need a mobile phone because you'll just be able to astrally contact your other spiritual friends.
No? oh why not? BECAUSE ITS NONSENSE.

Live in a delusion if you like. But don't get defensive when you share your delusional views with the rest of the world and they start pulling it apart with facts and evidence to the contrary.

Of course you'll have to accept science to be able to reply to me, which must really piss you off.
Or was the internet born from a spiritual revelation?

wow

your anger is really childish

what I meant was when I said science, was the overall work of scientists. I aplogzie for the confusion. scientists who have biases, scientists born into a certain culture, or religion, scientists who are human. and its only human nature to get angry or feel threatened when faced with something that goes against your beliefs.

you didn't answer my question, but you took the time to show me that it upset you.

how does science explain individuals witnessing real time events in the emergency room, when their heart wasn't even beating? detailed events that the doctor can profess to be true? and even events happening in other emergency rooms? that not even the doctor knew about?

the only answer given is that its a lie

but what if its not a lie?

someone has to have the balls and consider the testimony of these individuals and ask the bold question "what if they are telling the truth?"

outside stimuli doesn't do it. not when someones heart isn't beating, not when someone's brain wasn't even lighting up the machines. were not talking about people who were just sleeping. were talking about individuals, many of which were CLINICALLY DEAD before being revived.

clinically dead is VERY DIFFERENT from the ACTIVITY your brain is in in REM sleep

all too often skeptics just cry out hallucination. but even hallucinating is a brain ACTIVITY. the vivid, detailed 'hallucination' of the NDE would require a fairly active brain

but what if the brain is so dead it can't even dream?

If the NDE was just a hallucination, why aren't NDEs wild and crazy where anything goes? Where anything happens? Why are there strong themes prevelant in the experience instead? After all, if NDEs were just hallucinations, they would all be so random we would not be able to view them as a body of near death experiences

Now some people have suggested that the individual is merely dreaming what they expect death to be like. I agree with this to an extent, but theres a problem with this suggestion.

Not everyone who had an NDE was consciously aware they were dying. How do you expect something you didn't know you were supposed to be expecting?

Many also experienced an after life they were not expecting, making them question their own religious beliefs

Now another suggestion is that the brain has incoded within it this death program. A program it instantly turns on when it realizes its dying. This program is some sort of dream given to the conscious individual before ceasing to exist. This would explain why NDEs seem to have this format, rather than being random as we would expect from a decaying dying brain.

It would also explain why the experience can defy culture, religion and expectation.

This is a very interesting suggestion. And I agree with it to a point.

However, atheists have used the death program to end the debate on NDE's without questioning what this death program would mean.

Let's question it. What is its purpose?

What is the purpose of our brain making us believe we are about to go some place magical, when the next moment we won't even exist?

If the death program is merely a dream, why not make us dream of the life we wanted to live before we die? I mean, if our brain is out to lie to us, why not lie to us some more? Why not give us everything we want?

What role do NDE themes play if we have a death program that makes us dream of death as we die?

The first is the life review. Who the hell wants to relive every horrible moment in their life on their death bed? Why doesn't the dream just skim over the bad parts and just make us relive all the good parts in life?

It's important to understand that in the life review you are not merely reliving memories. As some would like to think, that its just the brain throwing up information as it dies.

Often they are photographic, 3D experiences, in concise chronological order. Not only relived, but examined. Where the individual can comment over their own memories. Judge their life so far. Showing how alert and conscious they are.

What is the purpose of a life review?

The next strong theme is letting go. Especially letting go of the physical body. Seeing it as merely old worn clothes that no longer fits you. And ultimately, letting go of life as a human.

Why? Why is it so important that the individual acknowledges their own death?

The next strongest theme, is returning to life, that famous phrase heard by thousands "It's not your time". Often this happens after a person has let go of their earthly life. Many are sooooo happy to be in heaven they protest being returned to earth.

You made the mistake of thinking that science gets in the way of spirituality. Science can never get in the way of spirituality, and it never will.

Even if a scientist were to tell me that there is death program encoded in our DNA, it would not go against my spiritual beliefs. Why? It is believed that in natural death, an individual can not die unless the soul willingly departs from the body.

It would be perfectly okay in spirituality for the body to have this design within it, to help the individual let go. And what would be the purpose of our brain to help us let go...............except to move on?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I find it very funny, given it was scientists who discovered supernovae, information on planetry formation, and generally found out this stuff in the first place, and accept that such events are responsible for Earth's formation and thus life's formation, even though those events are not actually life. Yes, scientists are so closed minded and find it difficult to see that they actually accept it played a part in the creation of life!

Then you should realize my quote isn't my words, which is why I have it in quotation

It's actually the quote of a scientist

In nature, the stronger devours the weaker.

I wonder how it will go with these two.

The human will for ignorance is pretty strong compared to the will for wisdom.

Or you could say that human will for self-comfort is stronger than need to obtain the truth.

Either way, it is quite interesting.

Then you should realize my quote isn't my words, which is why I have it in quotation

It's actually the quote of a scientist

I'm well aware it was a quotation. It's just a stupid one.

I looked it up, and apparently it was written by one Elisabet Sahtouris

http://futurepositive.synearth.net/2002/05/15/

Many scientists still unwilling to accept consciousness as the source of creation, rather than its late product, will continue for some time to vacillate between ideas of accident and purpose in attempts to explain how non-life becomes life. It took time to see matter and energy, wave and particle, time and space, as aspects of the same underlying unity; it may be even more difficult to see life and non-life as aspects of the cosmic process or as relative organizational states of cosmic matter. Scientists have no problem seeing the process of life in a puffball bursting to scatter its spores, but they do tend to have difficulty seeing the process of life in a star bursting to scatter its dust, for all that we are made of that dust.

The further development of a conscious, organic model of the universe clearly requires the cooperative efforts of biologists and physicists as well as other scientists, not to mention philosophers and spiritual leaders in a great co-creative process. With so much to learn and co-create as new stories, or worldviews, this is a most exciting and challenging time of discovery and new understanding. Most important in these developing efforts is the promise of seeing ever more clearly just how we humans fit into the great cosmic holarchy of life and how we may learn to cooperate in creating its greatest health and fulfillment.

Assuming the attribution is accurate, I have to question how such a person can be a scientist, given the extremely unscientific nature demonstrated in the quote I provide above. One based on a lack of evidence, on disciplines that do not use evidence, an ignorance of science and what scientists believe, and fundamentally wrong ideas.

In short, it's a load of bullshit.

If I could just take this moment to comment juroara; I've always found the quote in your signature extremely irritating in its ignorance.

If it weren't for the scientific method we would have absolutely no idea that our heavier elements came from nuclear fusion in supernovae in the first place. It wouldn't even make sense to us.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Science will cleanse religion.

What we currently call religion is nothing more than a distorted reflection of something that was once great. There was a time when all religions were one. Trace any and all religious traditions back and you find the same symbols and stories. Like the telephone game over thousands of years, what we have now is not what religion was meant to be.

Just because people lived thousands of years ago doesn't make them any less intelligent than us, even with our allmighty scientific method. My guess is that religion was originally based on some fundamental realizations about the universe and reality. Discovered either by some kind of Einstein genius or some one really high on drugs.

My money's on science making sense of religions, unifying them, and explaining the source. And I don't think that will undermine religious belief in any way or make it any less miraculous.

To understand religion, you have to go one step further. To understand anything you have to go one step further than everyone. Then one step further again. And AGAIN. How many steps have YOU taken?

Edit: -Many Actually in my opinion!

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

So understanding how things work disproves God?

You don't even know what you mean by the WORD God.

Understanding how things work makes God unnecessary. You cannot prove God, and you cannot disprove imaginary things; that's why science is sceptical. Without scepticism there is no scientific validity.

The problem is that people automatically believe that all scientists are not corrupt.

That their is no way possible a large group could mux the situation and tests as they see fit, usually to gain a profit...

Science would be perfect if it was autonomous, or if we had robots that could not possibly be corrupted.. But human beings... Well we all know the stories of our cultures, why would Science be free of such idiocy?

(All of life is an illusion, nothing is actually as it seems only what our eyes allow us to see)
No one has all the answers, neither spiritualist nor scientists, nor the majority of internet jockeys on this forum.
Everyone can lie, and liars exist in all facets of life. Calling people delusional solves nothing and just shows a feeling of superiority and a supposed correct view of life compared to others. You all live in a delusion because what we know for fact is quite slim.

Scientists can be corrupted, that's true. But with not only the results, but also the methods used to obtain the results, available for criticism to thousands of scientists across the globe a lot of scientists need to be in on some sort of conspiracy for your objection to hold any water. Scientists often have to go up against other scientists who would like nothing more than to disprove one theory and promote their own.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."

"Science Kills Religion"
Paper covers rock.
Aliens obliterate paper with space rays.

Game over.

Set, Match, Run.

To more serious discussion without reading the entirety of the thread:

I'd say the scientific method and phenomenology kills supernatural assumptions and orthodoxy, but there is some reason in madness?

And maybe no reason in my post.

Originally Posted by l000needles

Scientists can be corrupted, that's true. But with not only the results, but also the methods used to obtain the results, available for criticism to thousands of scientists across the globe a lot of scientists need to be in on some sort of conspiracy for your objection to hold any water. Scientists often have to go up against other scientists who would like nothing more than to disprove one theory and promote their own.

Not really, just watch the state of our medicine field and the drugs being pushed by scientist throught to the market. The recent pull of Zicam being just one.

Obviously something tested by a large majority of science is less likely to be faked, but a lot of science is not so rigiourisly tested.

I don't think religion will ever end. And the reason why is simple:

There is absolutely no way in which we could ever get to know everything about everything. Thus, humankind will keep needing an explanation for that which we don't know about. Cue in a god.

Originally Posted by The_Patient

I don't think religion will ever end. And the reason why is simple:

There is absolutely no way in which we could ever get to know everything about everything. Thus, humankind will keep needing an explanation for that which we don't know about. Cue in a god.

Why is such an explanation for the unknown necessary?

I doubt Religion will suddenly disappear. It will probably continue slowly dissolving until it only exists in the pages of history.

Originally Posted by Licity

Why is such an explanation for the unknown necessary?

I think that we, as humans, can't stand having any "blank spots" in our conception of the world, and thus we let religion fill in the blanks that aren't explained by science.

Originally Posted by Xei

If I could just take this moment to comment juroara; I've always found the quote in your signature extremely irritating in its ignorance.

If it weren't for the scientific method we would have absolutely no idea that our heavier elements came from nuclear fusion in supernovae in the first place. It wouldn't even make sense to us.

I have nothing against the scientific method, nor does the scientist of whom I quoted

I have something against the idea that the scientific method gives us the final word on the absolute truth.

But the quote doesn't pertain to that.

The fact that many great scientists were religious proves that the existence of a God can still coexist with the discoveries of man.

Originally Posted by Exhalent

The fact that many great scientists were religious proves that the existence of a God can still coexist with the discoveries of man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...atheism#Trends

I think God is clearly contradictory to the scientific method. No questions.