Religion is Silly Fairy Tales

Your situation, seems to me, is similar to that of a character in a graphic novel. He looks around trying to understand his world, but all he sees is lines and colors on a page. There are things there he can put his hands on and evaluate, but he isn’t capable of imaging there is an artist creating him and his world. There is no evidence of a creator...except the existence of the character and his world.

 

When you get into that realm of speculation, which I love to do, I think about how unique consciousness is. The human brain is the most mysterious thing known to man except perhaps the universe itself. We have some understanding of it’s function but there is still so much to know.

One thing I share with all other animals is consciousness. Perhaps you could conclude that if I have a purpose at all, it is to experience reality.

It’s a bit of a trap though. One of the things that has made the human species successful is our ability to find purposes for things. Our minds seek purposes. Sometimes we see faces where there are none on the face of Mars or in the discolouration of a taco shell. Our minds have developed an ability to see patterns so we see things that aren’t really there. So too can we be deceived when seeking out an overarching purpose for all of humanity.

 

Religion is not silly fairy tales.

Fairies are not real and don't tell tales.

 

There is no doubt that humans don't know everything there is to know. But, that is not evidence.

In fact, quantum physics is known only in that it is a methodology that can be reliably demonstrated and has been useful in predicting outcomes. It's not as if physicists understand it.

I do not see any connection between the double slit experiment and NDEs.

 

LOL!!

No, I think we have a pretty good hold on what is real and what is not real.

Furthermore, science provides us both with a concrete and highly successful methodology for exploring this universe, something religion absolutely does not have.

 

Yes, science is good for examining the physical world. But science has no explanation for creation, and never will have.

 

Do you think there’s a chance consciousness exists independent of our physical brains?

 

The NDEs suggest that there is more to our existence than outward physicality, i.e. the consciousness factor. The DSE demonstrates the significance of conscious awareness as a decisive factor in the behavior of the physical process involved.

 

We only know of consciousness that is created through a biological organism. The brain is the machine that produces consciousness. When people speculate about ghosts or other non-corporeal beings my first thought is to ask where such a being stores data and by what physical laws does it function? I don’t agree that if you separated my consciousness from this body that the consciousness would be me.

 

Maybe. It's certainly true that we have little information from "before" the big bang expansion.

But, religion doesn't have anything from then, either.

The difference is clear:
Science: "I don't know."

Religion: "God did it."

 

in both cases pure conjecture, in both cases both are believed to be true, in both cases 'religion'.

 

I see no reason to believe that. All evidence we do have points to no. Alter the brain and you alter consciousness. We can produce false perceptions and even alter thought and ability to think by altering the brain.

 

If it looks like a religion, talks like a religion, acts like a religion, and defends itself like a religion, it's a religion.

 

The above is nonsense logic .. someone believing the earth is flat - pure conjecture - believed to be true - does not make this belief that the earth is flat a "Religion"

 

You are the one living in the graphic novel mate - -but nice attempt at making a fish out of water analogy - even if applied to the wrong person.

It is those that try to fit the world into man made religious dogma who are unable to see the water.. need to pull them out of the religious brainwashing .. out of the water - out of the haze - and only then they can see the water.

 

You have no possible way of understanding anything more than what you see around you. You have no idea why we or the universe exist. You’re scrambling around in your little squirrel cage measuring and exploring. If you even think about creation you might think the universe has always existed, it never wasn’t. That requires more faith than believing in a creator

So yes, science is a religion, a weak and superficial religion.

 

Nope and neither do you.

As are you mate - and as do you - why would the universe have not "always been" - or the Multiverse - perhaps existence is eternal. Regardless - its one or the other .. either has or it hasn't .. so not much faith at all involved in anything .. rather knowing what you don't know.

A creator ? - what does that look like .. somethign created humans .. be it the God of the Bible or the God of Nature.. in what creator am I to believe ? which one are you referring to .. this is a differnent topic than the existence of the universe itself.. however if nothing existed at some point - then the creator did not exist at some point - unless you want to claim the multiverse such that the creator was hanging out in a different universe and then came in to create this universe .. but this is not saying that"Nothing" exists .. note the goalpost movage .. this is saying that the universe did not exist.

Not sure what faith has to do with any of these ontological questions / definitions.

You have shown nothign of the sort - Scientists don't "Have Faith" that a claim is true ... they try to prove it is true. .. and diving into "Perhaps life is but a dream" - does not change this .. because in this dream - what ever it may be - there are rules that seem to hold.. such as Gravity .. and perhaps one day this will change .. but I having Faith that the sun will rise tomorrow .. is significantly different than having faith that some diety existed .. who did many things according to this book.

 

1]
Economic philosophy - which part of the OP quoted Karl Marx?

Self proclaimed Christian Conservatives and their infatuation with Karl Marx: most fail to be Christian, Conservative or familiar with Karl's first personal writings.
Seems to me his antithesis would be more in the wheelhouse of a comparison with Adam Smith than with Jesus, and yet I don't often see Smith mentioned here at PF.
And, it also seems to me that if you just read the plain text of the new testament, the economic alignment implications fit better with Karl's ideas than Adam's.
But hey, by all means, let's debate it if you have the time and interest. Jesus versus Karl vs Adam or as the great Gordon Gecko stated - Greed is Good?

Do you refute my assertion that Christianity has among its foremost tenants that blessed are the poor and the meek, material wealth an impediment to a favorable afterlife and communal themes consisting of love for one another offer folks a chance to grasp the keys to the kingdom of heaven upon their death?

Freedom is not a theme of Christianity, according to the plain text of the New Testament. No, not freedom but rather servitude to Christ is the theme of Christianity, and if you simply take the texts at face value it is a wholly impracticable set of values. Pretty much the only Christians that are possibly even marginally within compliance are folks living homeless. No, Jesus destroyed the trading tables in the Temple because he opposed regulations on trading, is that it? Hahaha.... Seriously..... For Reals....?

Why is it too much for you to respond to your first post in this thread with a reasonable explanation for the rest of this:

"God is real and he lives."

How do you know this? Which of your five senses have confirmed this for you? Sight? Sound? Taste? Touch? or Smell? I suppose none of these. I'll not expect you to claim to have touched, tasted, smelled, heard or seen God. How do you know God is male? Where does "he" "live"? What does he eat, drink and breathe? And if these are absurd questions, then what is your definition of life.

"It is just as reasonable to say that contrary to this is the tool to control the gullible masses."

No, it is not just as reasonable to say that belonging to the mathematical set of people who choose no religious affiliation is equivalent to joining a set that demonstrably can be shown to require compliance of its adherents to behaviors and aspirations that conveniently include being poor or weak or free of material obligations - features that religions from Taoism to Islam have in common. Your analysis of this is wrong and it impairs your analytical skills as well as your ability to convince others of the validity of your position.

"To say there is no ultimate judge. To say that what evil is done in darkness or buried will remain so. That there is no ultimate accountability. To say that truth held in common in no strong bond but a vain dalliance. Nor shame in deceit or any wickedness. And that there is no justice beyond the strength of our arms. So let justice too die along with valiance and moldering hope. And do well to what end but death?"

This. This is your knights of the round table nonsense. So, again, I ask for you to clarify this with plain language.

"Is this the voice of reason and freedom. What leader scrapes the soul and says there is no God but me."

Ah, back to the beginning. And you claim that all of this was about Karl Marx, or at least that is all the clarification with which you chose to reply.

2]
All I see here is your ego claiming a special connection to God. That is all you've done here. Argue your points like an adult ffs.

3]
A Catholic are you then?

 

We’ll have to go our separate ways.

 

No, science does draw a line in time before which not enough is known.

For questions concerning before that time, science says, "I don't know" while religion says, "God did it".

 

Yes, and? Since you admit you don't know, you can't possibly claim "God did it" as false.

 

Science rarely deals in such absolutes anyway.

We can safely say that “God did it” is more of an explanation of “why” the universe exists. Science is about determining “how” the universe exists. How did “god” create the universe?

 

This is exactly right. Science can determine the how of things (very good at it in fact) but cannot determine the why. Jews and Christians do have a theological explanation of why God created the universe, which is difficult to explain in a forum like this, but the how is easier and pretty well accepted by the faithful: God exists outside time and space, and created the universe by speaking it into existence."creatio ex nihilo."

 

True. But, any claim to know does not come from information.

I'm happy saying "i don't know", because that is the truthful answer.

 

We're still going our separate ways so I don't know what your cheering is about.