The main reason im not religious.

In no other community besides a religious community will you see such strong clinging to illogical interpretations being thoroughly debunked with simple logic, yet the one who believes in the interpretation will blindly and emotionally defend the interpretation despite all the simple logic. Its sad, really.

Every other community, most people have the ability to consider alternative explanations of things except perhaps the ufo community. I guess if you want to believe something bad enough, you naturally will reject an honest method of exploration in favor of a biased, closed minded approach.

Im not writing this to say the subjects of religion are definitely wrong as much as I am writing this to point out rhat the term "religious nut job" is a good term to describe some of you religious people. Its obvious you dont even want to hear other explanations even if they are being offered by trustworthy people who have appriached the topic using.honest logic. You dont want to hear them, so you dont.

It may be irrational for me to disregard religion based on the religious, but after seeing your behaviors, im afraid that ill become retarded like some of you, and I dont want to lose my sanity. So I stay away from religion because I witness everyday how it makes some of you so disconnected from logic. Its ironic really that religions which speak of truth have so many followers that can disregard facts and logic so easily. Its ironic and sad. I hope with this thread some of you crazy people might take a second look at how you consider information and be more truthful in your approach to the beliefs that you tightly and blindly cling to.

I agree with your post. There are a lot of irrational people who are religious. Not all are bad or stupid. I have met people with strong faith who have shown me with respect. Regardless of your faith or lack of we need respect and rational thought.

Also I would like to learn more about psychology and religion. How the minds of religious people react differently from non-religious people.

reply to post by smithjustinb


Glad to know that you didn't succumb to the shackles of religiosity. Ridding yourself of religion requires critical thinking, a process most people are too lazy to undertake.

As an African American atheist, I know firsthand how much religion is deeply entrenched in the fabric of African American communities, and this in turn reinforces an abhorrence towards weaving possible alternatives such as atheism, or even skepticism.

all of what you said could apply to politics, also.

i'm not religious either, just sayin'.

Sounds like you're pretty religious, actually. Just looks a little different. Your church is a university. Your scriptures are peer-reviewed theoretical journals. Your messiah is Aristotle. Your sacrament is an equation. The Smithsonian is your Mecca.

Your attachment to logic is no different than a religionist's attachment to superstition. I don't understand why rational, scientific types can't see this. A cursory comparative analysis of science and religion reveals more similarities than differences between the two, in terms of their doctrinal rigidity and institutional organization.

I could take your OP, substitute "religion" and related words with "science", and it would be just as accurate. I guess that's why I'm not a scientist.

reply to post by NthOther


I would have to respectfully disagree with your post. To me science and religion is very different. I never understood how people can relate science to religion. Religion deals with beliefs and cultural systems that relates to spiritually and supernatural. Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

You can see why I disagree with your comment. I was linked to an article that discusses the relationship between religion and science. Which I'll read. Can you discuss in your reply why said that and also use sources if you can.

Originally posted by thishereguy
all of what you said could apply to politics, also.

i'm not religious either, just sayin'.

Perhaps. But politics, whether youre liberal or conservative is usually understood by the people who hold those beliefs that they are just personal opinions based on preference. The logical ones will say, "I THINK abortion is wrong because..." Now you probably cant convince them easily that it is right, but if you somehow found evidence that it was okay, I doubt they would blindly diregard it as much as those in the religious community disregard evidence. Political views tend to be understood as opinions in most cases, either that or preferred lifestyles. Religious views usually get accepted as fact and no room for contrary evidence will be accepted.

The two may be similar, but religious are always more extreme.

reply to post by smithjustinb


Logic and rationality can only point to what is most evident. This is the point of being rational. We look toward the higher axioms that resolve paradox below.

The evidence for Christ speaks for itself. Truth is defined by three letters of Hebrew and these three letters make the words Father, Mother and Son. You can only deny ignorance. Truth has invariable symmetry. This means it cannot be changed if you rotate it by perspective. I show this invariable symmetry in the thread linked above. If it is untrue, simply show where there is variation to the story we know from scripture. When you realize you cannot do this, you can also easily see that physics backs the truth up 100%. For God to be truth, the Physics of creation must mirror his invariable symmetry (Unchanging Nature). Other than the free will of the electron stealing from the future, we see the rest of physics follow this symmetry. For free will to exist, we must find the same balance demonstrated by the weak nuclear force that does not follow law. Protons and Neutrons (Strong nuclear force) follows symmetry. Two is always better than one. Three is ideal.

Ecclesiastes 4

9 Two are better than one,
because they have a good return for their labor:
10 If either of them falls down,
one can help the other up.
But pity anyone who falls
and has no one to help them up.
11 Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm.
But how can one keep warm alone?
12 Though one may be overpowered,
two can defend themselves.
A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

I won't argue with you. I can only show you truth. Ignoring Truth is Ignorance. I can only help you deny it yourself with truth. Evident Truth is what is most rational if you are honest with what is shown in the Bible. God is invariable. We are children. Of course, the Son rebels against the authority of the Father. Would you expect anything less than this from the God that perfected Creation and allows you to have a part in it?

How can surplus be made from unity? Everyone is looking for an overunity device to create more than what is given. Is this possible? When 1+1=3, you get more out than you put in. Where do you know this pattern in nature? Love is the key and God could never create our reality apart from giving more than is taken. Chaos demands this if we are to find unity form the mathematics.

What is irrational about evident truth?

Religious people tend to believe theories that are in some cases thousands of years old, and as such quite unprovable. By this I mean I cant prove Jesus walked among us as I werent there at the time.
By the same token I cant prove that he didnt therefore I need to rely on faith. They say faith can move mountains but in my lifetime mountains are moved by earth movers developed by science and technology.
Science can be proved and is forevor being updated as we discover more about our environment andthe Universe beyond.
My problem with religion is that it is based on heresay and not on current fact, however I keep an open mind on religion as again I cant prove it not to be based on fact, but I refuse to rely solely on faith and hearsay.

reply to post by Phoenix267


Religion is an expression of humanity's attempt to make sense of the reality in which it finds itself. Science is an expression of humanity's attempt to make sense of the reality in which it finds itself. The differences are superficial variations in methodology. The motivation is the same. The goal is the same.

Is this not the case?

Religion minimizes objective experience in favor of the subjective. Science minimizes subjective experience in favor of the objective. They are both, in their own ways, reductionist philosophies that never consider the whole picture, and are therefore incapable of ever providing any holistic answers.

On that note, why is it so important that we have these answers in the first place?

reply to post by NthOther

Religion is an expression of humanity's attempt to make sense of the reality in which it finds itself. Science is an expression of humanity's attempt to make sense of the reality in which it finds itself. The differences are superficial variations in methodology. The motivation is the same. The goal is the same.

I can see we're lost in translation. In away you're both correct and incorrect. It's how you explain the differences and similarities between the two camps. In my first reply I explained the definitions of both science and religion. You can see why I see both camps are indifferent to each other. With science being more rational and trying to understanding reality I'm more agreeable than religion that tries to understand life by the supernatural and faith.

Is this not the case?

I now see where you're coming from in the paragraph I quoted.

Religion minimizes objective experience in favor of the subjective. Science minimizes subjective experience in favor of the objective. They are both, in their own ways, reductionist philosophies that never consider the whole picture, and are therefore incapable of ever providing any holistic answers. On that note, why is it so important that we have these answers in the first place?

It's good to question to understand and debate random subjects. To me science can answer all questions. But I do believe humanity is afraid of anything that can threaten our existence. A lot of people are attracted to religion and similar views because it offers hope to them. Everyone is different.

reply to post by smithjustinb

Nice to see you again, but I'm surprised your post uses so much hate-filled and condemning language.

"Illogical, blind, emotional, biased, closed minded, nut job, retarded, crazy, untruthful" I don't know what path you're on, but if this is where it has led you, perhaps you should reconsider it.

If my understanding of spiritual matters were "thoroughly debunked with simple logic," I would abandon it. But that hasn't occured yet. I welcome your attempt. I'm all ears.

Of course I have the ability to consider alternative explanations. When I am presented something better than what I have now, I'll accept it. What is your alternative explanation?

And the rest of your post is basically the same thing repeated, so I don't feel the need to add any more in response to your post.

On the science-religion split, consider that science deals with what it can observe and measure. It has no tools for analyzing the supernatural. I happen to believe there is a supernatural, so however much I appreciate the amazing work science has done, I realize it is incapable of adding anything to a spiritual analysis. It just doesn't have the tools.

If you reject the idea of a supernatural, then of course all you have left is the natural world. But there is no logical reason for making the claim that the supernatural doesn't exist. And, if it does exist, what will you do about it.

Closed minded people shut out the idea that the supernatural has any place in explaining existence. The religious are open enough to consider both science and religion, in their appropriate place.

reply to post by Phoenix267


I'll have to respectfully disagree with the notion that science can explain everything. It has already shown itself incapable of doing this.

Science is, for all practical purposes, the study of matter. Yet it cannot define what matter is. First it was earth, air, fire, and water. Then it was atoms. Then it was subatomic particles. Now it's these elusive strings of energy that are neither here nor there, nor would even exist without participation from an observer. Now if that's your idea of an "answer", well...

Again, the parallels to religion here are striking. "Who made us?" God. "Who made God?" "Who made the one who made the one who made God?"

"What is a rock?" An electromagnetically-bonded group of silicate compounds. "What's a compound?" "What's an atom?" Protons, neutrons, and electrons. "What are those made of?" "What are quarks made of?" "What's a Higgs-boson particle made of?"

And on and on it goes in our attempt to impose a linear quality to reality, which exists in both religion and science. Neither paradigm is sufficient.

reply to post by NthOther


I only know so little about science that I'm not the right person to be an ambassador to explain anything about science. To be honest I'm skeptical of your comment, but I respect it because it makes me see religion and science differently. To me science can answer all questions. We just need to use science right. But I only know so much and do have a little faith in science. We all need a little faith in life.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Logic and rationality can only point to what is most evident. This is the point of being rational. We look toward the higher axioms that resolve paradox below.

The evidence for Christ speaks for itself. Truth is defined by three letters of Hebrew and these three letters make the words Father, Mother and Son. You can only deny ignorance. Truth has invariable symmetry. This means it cannot be changed if you rotate it by perspective. I show this invariable symmetry in the thread linked above. If it is untrue, simply show where there is variation to the story we know from scripture. When you realize you cannot do this, you can also easily see that physics backs the truth up 100%. For God to be truth, the Physics of creation must mirror his invariable symmetry (Unchanging Nature). Other than the free will of the electron stealing from the future, we see the rest of physics follow this symmetry. For free will to exist, we must find the same balance demonstrated by the weak nuclear force that does not follow law. Protons and Neutrons (Strong nuclear force) follows symmetry. Two is always better than one. Three is ideal.

Ecclesiastes 4

9 Two are better than one,
because they have a good return for their labor:
10 If either of them falls down,
one can help the other up.
But pity anyone who falls
and has no one to help them up.
11 Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm.
But how can one keep warm alone?
12 Though one may be overpowered,
two can defend themselves.
A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

I won't argue with you. I can only show you truth. Ignoring Truth is Ignorance. I can only help you deny it yourself with truth. Evident Truth is what is most rational if you are honest with what is shown in the Bible. God is invariable. We are children. Of course, the Son rebels against the authority of the Father. Would you expect anything less than this from the God that perfected Creation and allows you to have a part in it?

How can surplus be made from unity? Everyone is looking for an overunity device to create more than what is given. Is this possible? When 1+1=3, you get more out than you put in. Where do you know this pattern in nature? Love is the key and God could never create our reality apart from giving more than is taken. Chaos demands this if we are to find unity form the mathematics.

What is irrational about evident truth?

edit on 13-7-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

enochwasright

had to read that twice that you wouldn,t argue with him,u spout a load of big words and sentences but you haven,t provided 1 bit of evidence what u say is true

show me something that has come from a so called book thats full of the origins of life thats fact

i have seen no evidence that anything in the bible is true,until i do then its another great story that everyone wants to believe but sadly there is no actual evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by sparky31
enochwasright

had to read that twice that you wouldn,t argue with him,u spout a load of big words and sentences but you haven,t provided 1 bit of evidence what u say is true

show me something that has come from a so called book thats full of the origins of life thats fact

i have seen no evidence that anything in the bible is true,until i do then its another great story that everyone wants to believe but sadly there is no actual evidence to back it up.

When I was a different user on ATS, I summarized evidence for the authenticity of the Bible. Here's the Summary. Since I have been this user, I have added twice this many threads. All of them speak one truth. The Bible is true from Beginning to End. It is evident if you bother to look.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Im not outright condemning any religion here. There is a lot of stuff in every book that makes great sense. Theres also a lot of great nonsense to match. My condemnation is directed towards those who cant recognize the non sense and, in fact, refuse to even question it out of fear of whatever.

Originally posted by NthOther
reply to post by Phoenix267

 

Religion is an expression of humanity's attempt to make sense of the reality in which it finds itself. Science is an expression of humanity's attempt to make sense of the reality in which it finds itself. The differences are superficial variations in methodology. The motivation is the same. The goal is the same.

Is this not the case?

Religion minimizes objective experience in favor of the subjective. Science minimizes subjective experience in favor of the objective. They are both, in their own ways, reductionist philosophies that never consider the whole picture, and are therefore incapable of ever providing any holistic answers.

On that note, why is it so important that we have these answers in the first place?

I have spent a lot of time trying to validate the subjective aspects of existence. I have concluded that truth is not always what it seems. To fully believe in subjective things is to dismiss the possibility of you being wrong and that is just arrogance which never does anyone any good.

Originally posted by smithjustinb
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Im not outright condemning any religion here. There is a lot of stuff in every book that makes great sense. Theres also a lot of great nonsense to match. My condemnation is directed towards those who cant recognize the non sense and, in fact, refuse to even question it out of fear of whatever.

I will agree with you on this. The Bible is different. Anyone who questions the Bible will mainly complain about the LORD of the Old Testament. They note the atrocities there. What they do not know is that the Son of God created our material world in Genesis 2. Paradise is Genesis 1. Here is a thread on the topic: Two Creations

Why two creations? Why is one fallen? It's a simple answer. First, God is raising His Son to maturity. This is accomplished by the Son involving into the material world as humanity. Not only are we our own person, but we are all one loaf of bread. In other words, we are all from the same soul. That soul is being raised and so are we. Any mistakes made by the LORD of the OT are truly our mistakes. We blame the LORD without realizing that the LORD is the same soul as the one we use to be a human. We are mirror images. As He grows, so do we. How do I confirm this?

Colossians 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Follow me here. He is the firstborn over all creation. He is the maker of Adam (Luke 3 Genealogy). He is the head of the Church. Great. Now we just need to identify the Church.

1 Corinthians 10

16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

If the church is one loaf of bread, who is the heel on either side of the loaf (Beginning and End)?

1 Corinthians 15

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

Adam is the heel on either side of the loaf. What does the heel do? Eventually, he does this:

Genesis 3

“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

The heel crushes the head (Authority) of Satan. The Same Adam that fell is the same Adam at the end that saves humanity. We are Adam.

Ask Job

Job 19

23 “Oh, that my words were recorded,
that they were written on a scroll,
24 that they were inscribed with an iron tool on lead,
or engraved in rock forever!
25 I know that my redeemer[c] lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.[d]
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet[e] in[f] my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

Who is the root of the problem? Adam. Who is the Redeemer? Adam at the end. The Son of God is the heel.

Now that you know why the OT is harsh, also know who saved us.

See my latest thread...