Most religions are based on Gods that there is no proof exists. The only 'evidence' is through that religions holy books and prophets and 'miracles' witnessed by people. This is why i refuse to submit myself to religion as i believe that i would be wasting my life believing in something with no solid facts to support it. By the way im a man of science not faith.

I think there are quite a few threads based around that very concept. The conclusions drawn were something along the lines of, those religions were invented to keep the people in line, the holy books were written by men, as means of helping the legend grow and back up the idea of a God etc.

By the way im a man of science not faith.

I think that there is a possibility to be both. They are different. Science attempts to understand the world that we observe. Religion attempts to understand why there are things that we can observe. They have different aims, different goals.

What has been done is people have said there is no proof of God's existence, and then made the connection that the term proof runs along the same lines as science. Therefore, they must be opposites.

Science is nothing more than observation that still relies on faith. First, we have to recognize that we are limited by our sense, space and time. We can observe and observe and observe, and we can make a logical "assumption" that our observation will happen that way again. And we have every reason to, because if we observe again, it still happens. But in all actually that only proves that for every time we have observed so far that has been the outcome. It makes an assumption, and maybe a very good one, that once observed again the behavior will be the same, but that is not proof that it will happen again.

Faith in that situation is very important. Because without it we would not have the knowledge that we have and the advances that we've made. Without that faith we would be afraid that anything could happen at any time for which we cannot be prepared for.

So, science has been man's response to fear as much as religion has. By being a man of science you are wasting your life believing in something there is only past proof of observation, but never future proof (only future assumption).

I'm not saying that that is a bad path to take, but to point out that to be a science man or a religious man might not mean that much.

thx madmax i think you raise a valid point, however i think that religion has generally led to regression rather than progression in history. think the middle ages where medicine was halted because the church refused to accept it. also i think that it is more than coincidence that western countries who have become less and less led by religion have progressed further than countries like iran who are still led by their faith

What if religion is not based on Gods or proof of them, but the beneficial effects of it to the believer? You focus in reducing the religion to basic assumptions, because that is how science works, but that is not how religion works. Look at Mormons, for instance. The power of their religion has little to do with the questionable nature of their prophet and his claims. A scientific study of religion might prove that it evolved as an adaptive function to benefit both the individual and society.

A scientific study of religion might prove that it evolved as an adaptive function to benefit both the individual and society.

That is exactly what religion was.

Religion is a primitive form of philosophy--an attempt to offer a comprehensive view of reality--many of it's myths are distorted, dramatised allegories based on some element of truth, some actual, if profoundly elusive, aspect of man's existence. Rand

However when these ancient "philosophies" collide, the differences between them often brought controversies, disagreements, and wars. Still do today.

**So why is it so many religions have come to favor light and despise darkness? Perhaps it's because religion itself developed as a reaction to darkness, to not knowing. In his work on the origin of consciousness, Professor Julian Jaynes attributes the rise of religion to humanity's loss of certainty. Jaynes believes, for good reason if one reads his work, that human beings once hallucinated voices that gave guidance and instructions amidst life's uncertainties. When the voices suddenly fell silent, for several reasons, religion was developed to fill the silent void.**click ref (http://www.cliftonunitarian.com/toddstalks/mystery.htm)

Julian Jaynes has a good explanation on the origins of religion
click (http://www.trincoll.edu/zines/papers/1996/bicameral.html)

Godless

'so why is it so many religions have to to favour light and depise darkness'

please listen...those religions anc ults and ideologies are ptriarchal. IFas yo claim you are 'scientific' doesn't tis include lookin at religion in a scientific way....?? collating facts, investigating its history and so on? wel Do it. and you will find that the ptriarchal beliefs come from worship of solar/sun and stella/space

for these beliefs dark=evil and light=good and males are closer to light and women to darkeness...AND lighter skinned pepple are equalling light/good and darker skinned pople equalling/dark/bad

is you gerting it. and many people all tis supersition has died in te so-called scientific age...but shhhhhhh it aint. it lives on and on Uconsciously!!!!!because yo aint just what you think ypu is...some kind of rational objectivist being all scientificy and 'pure'--oh know, beneath tat facade is depthless depth. and what YOURmaterialistic 'religion' do is...DENIES all that, and pathologizes it. so it is just AS oppressive as the Churchian times

but...alas, i bet you will refuse to see this

What if religion is not based on Gods or proof of them, but the beneficial effects of it to the believer? You focus in reducing the religion to basic assumptions, because that is how science works, but that is not how religion works. Look at Mormons, for instance. The power of their religion has little to do with the questionable nature of their prophet and his claims. A scientific study of religion might prove that it evolved as an adaptive function to benefit both the individual and society. yes spider ignorance is bliss, but it has'nt helped humanity advance one iota, all we have is a world, that is two thirds populated with happy halfwits(it's redneck heaven), however, man is now getting the education, and science is allowed to progress. pretty soon man wont need the comfort blanket they call religion.
as knowledge brings an immence sense of well being, why should we remain blissfully ignorant.

yes spider ignorance is bliss, but it has'nt helped humanity advance one iota, all we have is a world, that is two thirds populated with happy halfwits(it's redneck heaven), however, man is now getting the education, and science is allowed to progress. pretty soon man wont need the comfort blanket they call religion.
as knowledge brings an immence sense of well being, why should we remain blissfully ignorant.
'blissfully ignorant'---hah, yu mean like totally ignoring my post above......whatyalike you people

'so why is it so many religions have to to favour light and depise darkness'

please listen...those religions anc ults and ideologies are ptriarchal. IFas yo claim you are 'scientific' doesn't tis include lookin at religion in a scientific way....?? collating facts, investigating its history and so on? wel Do it. but what if anything, is scientific about religion, it's an ideolgy based of faith.and you will find that the ptriarchal beliefs come from worship of solar/sun and stella/spacebut they did not know the were solar or stella only that they were gods.
heck some people still do, some still think the earths flat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm

for these beliefs dark=evil and light=good and males are closer to light and women to darkeness...AND lighter skinned pepple are equalling light/good and darker skinned pople equalling/dark/bad[/ quote] yes and it is rank stupidity, irrationality rules with the religious.[QUOTE=duendy]
is you gerting it. and many people all tis supersition has died in te so-called scientific age...but shhhhhhh it aint. it lives on and on Uconsciously!!!!!because yo aint just what you think ypu is...some kind of rational objectivist being all scientificy and 'pure'--oh know, beneath tat facade is depthless depth. and what YOURmaterialistic 'religion' do is...DENIES all that, and pathologizes it. so it is just AS oppressive as the Churchian times

but...alas, i bet you will refuse to see thiswe all have our subjective side, however some of us, do not let it control our lives.
as that would be foolish, ignorant, and infantile.

but what if anything, is scientific about religion, it's an ideolgy based of faith.but they did not know the were solar or stella only that they were gods.
heck some people still do, some still think the earths flat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm[QUOTE=duendy]

for these beliefs dark=evil and light=good and males are closer to light and women to darkeness...AND lighter skinned pepple are equalling light/good and darker skinned pople equalling/dark/bad[/ quote] yes and it is rank stupidity, irrationality rules with the religious.we all have our subjective side, however some of us, do not let it control our lives.
as that would be foolish, ignorant, and infantile.
ohhhh geeser, it isn' as easy as that! these deep parts of you are rather in control of YOU, yeah. dont you see??
you are not just an objective being, but also are subjective. IF you dont see this andpretend tat you can keep your subjectivity at bay 'in the name of science' IS the problem. because willy nilly your interpretation OF relaity IS BOTH objective AND subjective

ohhhh geeser, it isn' as easy as that! these deep parts of you are rather in control of YOU, yeah. dont you see??
you are not just an objective being, but also are subjective. already stated this earlier. IF you dont see this andpretend tat you can keep your subjectivity at bay 'in the name of science' IS the problem. because willy nilly your interpretation OF relaity IS BOTH objective AND subjectivesorry I beg to differ, a subjective reality can only exist in the mind of the individual, reality can only be objective, that which effects the senses, my interpretation of reality, is the same as any other animal's interpretion.

"two gorillas in a forest they both look ahead and theres two trees, they both see two trees, one of them does'nt see, a pink polar bear on a pogo stick, now does it. come on talk sense.

however if I personal want to halucinate an alternative reality, in my mind then that my perogative, but it is'nt sensible to believe it's real.

already stated this earlier.sorry I beg to differ, a subjective reality can only exist in the mind of the individual, reality can only be objective, that which effects the senses, my interpretation of reality, is the same as any other animal's interpretion.

me))and that ontological assumption is basis of materialistic philosophy. the idea of pire objctive materiality with no subjective interelation with individual. THAT is the aWFUL alientating factor and what justifies to themselves that they can do whatsoever hey like with material reality because it is mere 'object'! having no inner life like us

"two gorillas in a forest they both look ahead and theres two trees, they both see two trees, one of them does'nt see, a pink polar bear on a pogo stick, now does it. come on talk sense.

me))at the moment we aint talkin gorrilas, we are alkiing example you and me, or two humans looking at a tree. so. one is woking for a corporation who ants the 'site' for some godawful yet-ANOTHER conrete hell designed to make profit. the othe observer understands ecosystems and how they are needed for healthy environemt. BOTH are being objective ANDsubjejective, but te one who is willing to cut tree down for profit is pretending o be wholly objective and not realize his subjectivity is manipulted by a divisive philosophy which cuts hs sense of meaning from Natue which is his natrual sustainer

however if I personal want to halucinate an alternative reality, in my mind then that my perogative, but it is'nt sensible to believe it's real.
no yu believe your 'objectivity' is 'real' and will carry on the dirty work of your soul-dead 'heros'

and that ontological assumption is basis of materialistic philosophy. the idea of pire objctive materiality with no subjective interelation with individual. THAT is the aWFUL alientating factor and what justifies to themselves that they can do whatsoever hey like with material reality because it is mere 'object'! having no inner life like uswhat are you rambling on about, how can you do, whatever you like with material reality, you cant change whats real, only your subjective mind can alter your reality.
at the moment we aint talkin gorrilas, we are alkiing example you and me, or two humans looking at a tree. so. one is woking for a corporation who ants the 'site' for some godawful yet-ANOTHER conrete hell designed to make profit. the othe observer understands ecosystems and how they are needed for healthy environemt. BOTH are being objective ANDsubjejective, but te one who is willing to cut tree down for profit is pretending o be wholly objective and not realize his subjectivity is manipulted by a divisive philosophy which cuts hs sense of meaning from Natue which is his natrual sustainerI think you've mistaken the religious forum fo the political one, what does my objectivity/subjectivity, have to do with ecosystems/corporate concrete hells. just because I use my objective mind, rather than cloud my vision with fantasy does not mean, I dont delve into my subjective side, and also I'm a humanist/atheist do you know what that means, I have more care for man and his enviroment, in my little finger than I million xians, I just dont go round sucking on a security blanket called religion.
no yu believe your 'objectivity' is 'real' and will carry on the dirty work of your soul-dead 'heros'
what soul, some evidence of one existing, would help you case.
lets not get into who's, dirty and who's not, I think we all know who are the more pure, dont we.

however, man is now getting the education, and science is allowed to progress. pretty soon man wont need the comfort blanket they call religion

Actually this is unlikely. From a statistical perspective: The uneducated, (and thus higher religious), have more children than the educated. There are various sources for this, and I can dig them up if asked.

Religion helped unites people and give them a common morality to live by which was beneficial to the society as a whole. Religion gives people a sense of community. Religion is a cultural shaper because of its comprehensive nature. Religion was part or the government.

Religion is here with us to stay. It takes new modern forms in the socialistic and communist doctrines. If you see, they will usually agree with the morality of the prophets, sages, and other holy men, even to the point that they create a theocracy, although many fail to see it in its modern guise of the state...

Religion helped unites people and give them a common morality to live by which was beneficial to the society as a whole

While also realising that there is room for only 1. Once it is found there are other religions that conflict yours, intolerance is born - as are wars and death for anyone that disagrees with you. Indeed not only other religions, but anyone who's view of what "morality" encompasses differ from yours.

P.S That's a universal "your", I don't mean you specifically.

Actually this is unlikely. From a statistical perspective: The uneducated, (and thus higher religious), have more children than the educated. There are various sources for this, and I can dig them up if asked.oh shit that was one of my dreams, however snakelord I dont doubt your right.

Religion helped unites people and give them a common morality? morality, how so, man had morality before religion, but now he could kill because his god said so. wow thats moral.
to live by which was beneficial to the society as a whole. or the society, he was in, if he was of a different society then he was like to be killed by the other society. Religion gives people a sense of community. and a mind set to kill. Religion is a cultural shaper because of its comprehensive nature. Religion was part or the government. unfortunately so, hence why so many wars.Religion is here with us to stay.hope not man would survive much better without it. It takes new modern forms in the socialistic and communist doctrines. well if you believe these are religions then thats your perogative I suppose. If you see, they will usually agree with the morality of the prophets, sages, and other holy men, even to the point that they create a theocracy, although many fail to see it in its modern guise of the state...sadly man can be easierly indoctrinated, but with education someday maybe, someday.

Religion helped unites people and give them a common morality to live by which was beneficial to the society as a whole.

Wrong, religion divides people and gives them unrealistic perceptions of reality. How does an afterlife benefit anyone?

Religion is here with us to stay.

Wrong again, eventually, through education, religion will be eradicated.

Wrong again, eventually, through education, religion will be eradicated.

Like I stated to Geeser, that is hard given that the poor and uneducated have more children than the educated. Can't really blame them I suppose.. they need 100 kids just to ensure they get enough crop to survive on once they're old and cannot work for themselves. So a bunch of religious folk go over and dig a few pits for them while selling their religious ideals to a bunch of people that have no choice but to accept them due to their predicaments. They still have a bunch of kids, now all religious - and while they now don't instantly die from drinking water, they're still just as poor and still have no decent education.

And not one of them has the intelligence to ask that why, if this god being sold to them is real, he decided to make it impossible to grow food on a large portion of the planet - where diseases created by that being kill many of them before their third birthdays.. and why they don't get rain like other places. The religious man just tells them that if they worship a specific god they will eventually have a nice life part II. It doesn't stop the shit life they have right now where they're most likely going to die from some disgustingly violent and sickening infestation - but that's probably exactly why they buy the belief... they have to. To think they have but one life, and they're going to spend that whole time being infected by mosquitos, and watching their children die in such vile ways.. Bring on the comfort blanket.

The first thing to be done is redirect monies that go to the churches of the world to go directly to feeding and educating those children.

The first institution to fall should be the Vatican. Sell off all their assets and use the monies to help find cures for those diseases.

what are you rambling on about, how can you do, whatever you like with material reality, you cant change whats real, only your subjective mind can alter your reality.

me)))))its not rambling fool. listen. EXPLOIT material reality. are you pretending to be ignorant or what?

I think you've mistaken the religious forum fo the political one, what does my objectivity/subjectivity, have to do with ecosystems/corporate concrete hells. just because I use my objective mind, rather than cloud my vision with fantasy does not mean, I dont delve into my subjective side, and also I'm a humanist/atheist do you know what that means, I have more care for man and his enviroment, in my little finger than I million xians, I just dont go round sucking on a security blanket called religion.

me))))))))you like to put things in separate boxes dont you my 'caring humanist'. whys it you sound like the xistian yo hate. hypocritical?

what soul, some evidence of one existing, would help you case.
lets not get into who's, dirty and who's not, I think we all know who are the more pure, dont we.
no. what are YO ramblin on abou now. i aint a mindreader

its not rambling fool. listen. EXPLOIT material reality. are you pretending to be ignorant or what?have I upset you, the discussion was in regard to the objective and subjective mind, not the exploitation of the planet. what has the subjective mind, to do with that. you like to put things in separate boxes dont you my 'caring humanist'. whys it you sound like the xistian yo hate. dont hate anybody, however can dislike, but hate is to strong, no man is worthy of hate. hypocritical? how so.no. what are YO ramblin on abou now. i aint a mindreader a mind reader to what. you said no yu believe your 'objectivity' is 'real' and will carry on the dirty work of your soul-dead 'heros' I said what soul, some evidence of one existing, would help you case.
lets not get into who's, dirty and who's not, I think we all know who are the more pure, dont we
so in answer to that statement, "the non religious, are the more pure."

of course i will get pissedoff if you accuse me of 'ramblin on' when realliy its you not gettin me. better you say you dont understand?

i am saying that you cannot have objectivity without subjectivity, right?

if you believe you can is when the one-sidenes and trouble begin. if you see/understand and treay Earth, Nature, etc like an object without subjectivity is when you EXPLOIT it.....which is what is going on

yo seem to be confused and wonder what tis has got to do wit 'religion'? well if you cared t research intopatriarchal interpretation of religion you will know tat tey also denounce Nature and dream of some spiritual realiy. ie., thy are being more so SUBJECTIVE--also sides

so both belief systems, the patrirchal religios and scinetific materialist are like mirror refelctons of each oter. both one-sided, and oppressive

duendy, I have never once said, that you should only rely on your objective side, all I said is one should have dominion of the other, thus you will act according to whats right, for you, and not what other may say or do, take nobodys word for anything find out for yourself.(in my case objectivity take president over my subjective side.)
I agree there are people who are single minded, either on the objective side or the subjective, they do tend to stamp there feet and say my ways the right way, dont we call these type of people fundys or zealots, however that is the foolish standpoint, better to be open minded, is it not.

PS
there does seem to be an awful lot of these people, in public office, dont you think.

duendy, I have never once said, that you should only rely on your objective side, all I said is one should have dominion of the other, thus you will act according to whats right, for you, and not what other may say or do, take nobodys word for anything find out for yourself.

me))see what you said? 'dominion' of th other---ie., 'subjectivity'. THAT is exactly what is going on, and has been for many centuries. an deification of 'logic/reason/objectivism' an denigratrion of emotion/feeling/subjectivity. the SUPPRESSINGof it thru FEAR of it. tis is wat i am saying.



(in my case objectivity take president over my subjective side.)
I agree there are people who are single minded, either on the objective side or the subjective, they do tend to stamp there feet and say my ways the right way, dont we call these type of people fundys or zealots, however that is the foolish standpoint, better to be open minded, is it not.

me)))))))yes , fundamentalists, fascists, they are IN CONTROL right now!

PS
there does seem to be an awful lot of these people, in public office, dont you think.
as said. we are RIDDLED with that mindset

duendy, spirit and matter are one.

i've become a god now, i'm so happy!
will you too become?
life is a paradise.

i always was god... i had just forgot it.
that's why... those who fall in love... they often feel like... they've met.
of course i've met... myself... god.

duendy, spirit and matter are one.

i've become a god now, i'm so happy!
will you too become?
life is a paradise.

i always was god... i had just forgot it.
that's why... those who fall in love... they often feel like... they've met.
of course i've met... myself... god.
you are a real dumb prick

While also realising that there is room for only 1. Once it is found there are other religions that conflict yours, intolerance is born - as are wars and death for anyone that disagrees with you. Indeed not only other religions, but anyone who's view of what "morality" encompasses differ from yours.

P.S That's a universal "your", I don't mean you specifically.

That is a problem too broad to attribute to religion. The exact same thing can be said about political views. The US has a view of democracy that other countries are resorting to war to keep that political view from spreading to them.

Max

Are you Baron Max under a different name?

yes spider ignorance is bliss, but it has'nt helped humanity advance one iota, all we have is a world, that is two thirds populated with happy halfwits(it's redneck heaven), however, man is now getting the education, and science is allowed to progress. pretty soon man wont need the comfort blanket they call religion.
as knowledge brings an immence sense of well being, why should we remain blissfully ignorant.
In many ways "advancement" is a sham. We only need to advance because of the bad effects of previous advancement. There are many things I wish to remain ignorant of; the lives of the creatures I ate, the problems of every single person, the mites that live in my eyelashes...

Science itself has come upon a limit of it's understanding. The positions of sub-atomic particles can only be estimated as probabilities. Uncertainty may be something we just have to live with.

Are you Baron Max under a different name?

No.

religion is for dumbasses who like to like to follow the trend rather than people who go against the norm and decide against a religion

religion is for dumbasses who like to like to follow the trend rather than people who go against the norm and decide against a religion

If there are only two choices--go with the norm and go against the norm, and both options are being chosen--then regardless of which you choose you are following a trend.

I guess that a third possible choice would be to be completely and utterly original, but that is beyond human ability, and therefore not a plausible choice.

If there are only two choices--go with the norm and go against the norm, and both options are being chosen--then regardless of which you choose you are following a trend.

I guess that a third possible choice would be to be completely and utterly original, but that is beyond human ability, and therefore not a plausible choice.
no it's not. to be orginal just means to see thru te tired old game of the literalist religionists versus the scientific materialistsand vice versa