Science without Religion is like food without taste

Einstein, Sagan and Hawking hold or held the definition of "God" not as an entity, but as a concept of the mystery and wonder. The Awe that is the natural universe.
Just a bit of background on that quote.

There are quite a few ancient cultures that are older than 6k years.
list of cities based on habitation/timeline Some cities could have had people as long as 12,000 years ago.


(edit: fixed a typo)

[edit on 24-1-2010 by lordtyp0]

reply to post by Aceofclubs


Nazism sprung out from the science of the day, like social-darwinism and racial hygiene, and they used a twisted form of Christianity to have a common ground against Judaism and Communism. I am not talking about religion as a social mechanism, but as a way to expand ones understanding of things like conciousness, and the ultimate philosophical questions. In Einstein's article I snipped from above, he mentions three kinds of religions.

1 Religion based on fear and obedience
2 Religion based on morale and obedience
3 Religion in a universal sence based on freedom of thought and higher awareness

It's the third kind I refer to in this thread. And ofcourse how organised religion and political or otrherwise power hungry minorities force either one of the above on masses of people. From the bottom up we are born religious. However, as time runs by we are put into smaller and smaller cells until in the end it breaks us down. Unless we look on the brighter side of things. Why is it that everyone when confronted with religion has some biased preconceived idea that it has to be organised into some godless system of fear and loathing? That is the most primitive form of religion and can be likened to the kind of science we were doing in our sandbox as kids. Some of those ideas are still with us, while 99% of the rest of it has come along as we walk through life and eventually reach the apex of what we can hold, and then we die? And most of us, if we have even been the greatest atheist all our lives, become religious and turn backwards from universal love and order to making up the bits and pieces moralistically before we end up fearing death? Whether we like it or not, we are all religious in one way or another..... Still an atheist would never admit it.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
When you reach a certain level of knowledge it's nearly impossible to exclude God. You may ofcourse still be an atheist and explain it differently, but it will still be God the way God is explained throughout history and in all parts of the known world.
What initiated Big Bang?

You're making an argument from ignorance. Because science has not figured out how something works or what originated it, doesn't mean God did it or is needed for that something to work. That's, however, how most religious people, fallaciously, look at something unexplained as of now. Scientists can't explain it? God did it!

I find it comical that you make definitive statements when there is absolutely no evidence to support such a statement—that a designer is required to account for the Universe, for instance—and yet you are accusing others of being biased.

One last thing: there are no "christian scientists." There are scientists, period. If there are people that let their religion and spiritual beliefs influence the results of objective data and experiments, and the conclusions they reach from them, those people are certainly something but scientists they are not.

I do not think I agree. Science is about evidence and facts even if they are wrong at the time. It is still based on facts and evidence. I have never seen ANY concrete proof of god or evidence that it exists or has done anything.

reply to post by lordtyp0


A civilisation is known by a few things. Among other a written language, laws, kings/government, army, organised religion, organised agriculture, irrigation, city states with buildings, roads, markets etc. As you will learn such civilisations rose in the Middle East around 6000 years ago. The rest is left for speculation. Some claim that the Egyptian civilisation is older than Sumer, which is roughly 6000 years old. The ancient Egyptian calendar suggests that Egypt rose to civilisation about 7000 years ago but still we lack substantial evidence for it.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

A civilisation is known by a few things. Among other a written language, laws, kings/government, army, organised religion, organised agriculture, irrigation, city states with buildings, roads, markets etc. As you will learn such civilisations rose in the Middle East around 6000 years ago. The rest is left for speculation. Some claim that the Egyptian civilisation is older than Sumer, which is roughly 6000 years old. The ancient Egyptian calendar suggests that Egypt rose to civilisation about 7000 years ago but still we lack substantial evidence for it.

When you say 6000-7000 are you referring to direct years? Most things I have seen indicate it was 6000-7000BC which means 8-9000 years ago. Also, the 'golden age' of egypt was around that time, the people were around longer obviously.

Dalmascus in Syria is thought to be 8000 to 10,000 BC (10-12k years ago).

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

you have an odd definition of religion here is what i thought it was
www.thefreedictionary.com...
and here is some stuff about the nazi religion it was cristianity,norse, pagan and occult mixed in but thay did worship so it was not just science based. so i see no "danger" in seeing all religion as nonsense and just see what science comes up with
www.nazireligions.com...
samuraisam1.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by felonius
Do you have a take on qabalism and the four worlds? Atlantis?

Thanks for the compliments. As to your questions, I am a novice in Kabalah, and not very familiar with the Atlantis theories that among others Rudolf Hess (one of your league? Just wondering due to the black white and red flags and all) used in his developing of Nazi ideology, where he is said to have found evidence that supposedly seven Atlantean priests who had survived the Great Deludge (that most known religions mention) came ashore in the Himalayas where many people (from among Cain's tribe) had survived the flood, allowing these blonde and blue eyed people from Atlantis to mix with the locals, who produced offspring who eventually moved westwards via the Caucasus to Northern Europe at the time of the Sumerians started building their cities. It's fascinating stuff, and I could only wish I knew more about it seen from some objective view.

reply to post by lordtyp0


I don't care about how old +/- 6000 years a civilisation rose, and there may have been primitive civilisations before Sumer, Egypt and Indus, but it's based on a few archaeological findings, and by far as well documented as the three civ.s I mentioned above. Some pottery and a few squares isn't enough to call it a civilisation. There is a great difference between culture and civilisation. Civilisation is a culture, but a culture isn't civilisation unless you choose to put one culture above another, as in the West is civilisation while the developing countries are not. What kind of alfabet did the cultures you mention keep? As far as I know Sumerian cuneiform is the oldest alfabet we have. How many city states did belong to these cultures, and what was their religion?

reply to post by Aceofclubs


dictionary.reference.com...

I think this dictionary is better explining what religion is. However I still cling to the kind of religion one would typically find within science and ancient schools of thought like Alchemy, Kabalah and Hermetecism. As a too of teaching and studying explaining and sourcing out our origins and where our place in these vast universes is. Any conformity isn't religion. Not all religions talk of a god or gods, not all religions prohibit booze etc. Every religion is unique in a sense, but still there are things connecting them.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

I don't care about how old +/- 6000 years a civilisation rose, and there may have been primitive civilisations before Sumer, Egypt and Indus, but it's based on a few archaeological findings, and by far as well documented as the three civ.s I mentioned above. Some pottery and a few squares isn't enough to call it a civilisation. There is a great difference between culture and civilisation. Civilisation is a culture, but a culture isn't civilisation unless you choose to put one culture above another, as in the West is civilisation while the developing countries are not. What kind of alfabet did the cultures you mention keep? As far as I know Sumerian cuneiform is the oldest alfabet we have. How many city states did belong to these cultures, and what was their religion?

My apologies. I was looking at some statements earlier that seemed to put weight on "6000" years ago ala the biblical creation myth. I was not aware that the scope was so narrow and selective in acceptable evidence. I suppose that is my failing.

I will move on to more interesting threads now.

Enjoy.

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


so by that definition 2nd part would make Science a religion itself. as thay all have to follow the same rules to prove a Scientifict fact and have it acepted. so Science is an evergrowing religion that moves with the times

by the way do you have a good knowledge of Kabbalah i thought it was old mind control and astrology, but have never looked in to it so any links would be appreciated

Originally posted by the_grand_pooh-bah
the problem is faith.
faith presupposes answers to questions,this is against the scientific principles.

Thinking of lab scientists I know, believe me they do have "faith". They have their world views and expectations and are not pure, simple, unbaised, data-driven, empty-minded folks just looking for "truth". They are human beings after all. Even when they have told me about something they found that was "unexpected", they explain the unexpected in terms of their "faith" in what they are ever so sure is "true". No so hard to believe this in the wake of the global warming fiasco, is it?

Originally posted by Aceofclubs
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

 

so by that definition 2nd part would make Science a religion itself. as thay all have to follow the same rules to prove a Scientifict fact and have it acepted. so Science is an evergrowing religion that moves with the times

Indeed, you got it. Instead of Zion's Lamb, we have Science Lamp. Not too big a difference. Or how about the one below from Deuteronomy 19:15?

"A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses"

by the way do you have a good knowledge of Kabbalah i thought it was old mind control and astrology, but have never looked in to it so any links would be appreciated

No I'm concidering myself a novice and hardly that in any mystical school, but I'm getting there. Would love to provide some links and stuff, but searching for Kabalah on the net is more or less worthless. Zohar and Sefer Jetzirah/Yetzirah would be two books to start with. It explains much of what's hidden within the Bible, and goes on to explain everything from creating your own Golem out of clay to how God's name is spelled, and all based in Alchemical principles it seems. Anyhow, to fully understand Kabalah one must learn the language it was written in, Hebrew and Aramaic, translations are not good to work with in any case where one wants to find the fundamentals. How can we visualise the Tree of Life without knowing the letters behind the 22 branches and understand the concepts behind the ten dimentions of our conciousness without being able to read what the different rabbis and schools have defined it to be? Etc. My Hebrew is what stopping me.

Edited spelling

[edit on 24/1/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

reply to post by lordtyp0


LOL. And I'll have to curb in now, it's been a fun exercise altogether, but even this nut needs sleep and food and something to live for called a life. So I'll settle for that right now. Don't destroy my nice little thread while I'm gone....

Regarding the "Big Bang Theory" cause it's still a theory.

So, what existed before the Big Bang? Indeed, what went Bang in the first place?

NOTHING can only produce NOTHING!

What mr. Hawking is implying is magic!

What there really needs to be done is a release from dogma.

People are too dogmatic, whether it be religious dogma, scientific dogma, or societal dogma.

Really, the key is to release any and all preconceived beliefs and assumptions and allow all information in, and to thumb through all information with a magnifying glass.

If you're truly capable of dissolving any dogma you hold, you should be able to figure out what information should be tossed aside, and which should used later on.

Basically, follow the motto of Socrates. All I know is that I know nothing.\

For me, this one statement caused possibly the most dynamic shift in perception of our existence then any other.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
Basically, follow the motto of Socrates. All I know is that I know nothing.\
For me, this one statement caused possibly the most dynamic shift in perception of our existence then any other.

But is this really true? When you stand up, you have faith your legs will hold you. When you sit down, you don't think first whether the chair will collapse. When you turn the key in your car, you have "faith" it will start and are surprised when it doesn't. When you put a glass of water to your lips, you don't get rattled wondering whether your esophagus will move sufficiently to swallow it. People have faith the earth won't move and for this reason, people often suffer mental and emotional turmoil after an earthquake. Their faith in the fundamental was shaken. All examples of faith my friend. No getting away from faith in our every day lives.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Indeed, you got it. Instead of Zion's Lamb, we have Science Lamp. Not too big a difference.

Saying there's "not too big a difference" between religion and science is preposterous on many levels, indicative—once again—of your ignorance of and bias towards science. And those claims cannot remain unaddressed.

Religion's central theme is faith. Faith, being the belief in things not based on evidence, is by principle, and definition, the opposite of what science is based on and holds dear.

I've frequently heard the accusation that science is like religion because it requires faith, as the average person needs to believe what science and scientists tell them because, usually, an average person does not have the means to examine, understand or test the data, results and experiments. This is, of course, a shortcoming of those people in particular, not of science.

If you were capable of understanding and had the means to review, evaluate and test the data and experiments, you could—without the need of any faith whatsoever—determine for yourself if what science claims is right or wrong. And if you found some scientific conventions and theories to be wrong, you could improve them, correct them or come up with new better ones, as science not only allows for that to happen, it strives on it.

Is there anything remotely similar in religion? Is there anyone, regardless of the expertise on religious matters one can gather, that is able at some point of testing the claims in one's so called holy books and religious tenets? The answer is, obviously, an emphatic "no."

Besides those crucial differences, science also lacks many of the obvious characteristics that make religions be religions. There are no supernatural beings or entities in science; there are no sacred or holy figures or theories in science—everything is up for questioning, and frequently, is; and there are no prayers or invocations in science, just to name a few differences.

So let's not kid ourselves—science is nothing like religion, and anyone who says differently is not only very ignorant of science, but also, being extremely misleading.

Want proof of the God and Goddess?

here you go.




Myself being a father of 11 years, I will never forget the second I saw the top of my baby girls little head when she was being born.

My red headed demon goalie!

I was the first to see her come into the physical plane. I loved my wife dearly before but after, it went through the roof and I love her more everyday for the baby she gave me.

What more proof do you need? This isn't just chemistry. Its bloody Magick and I don't mean David Copperfield!

If you've never experienced childbirth (or been with your woman when she did) you will not understand. Your wife is at that moment in UNION WITH THE DIVINE!

Worship your woman! She's as close as your gonna get to the Goddess this side of death.