Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Vishal wrote: "Shannon, my heart is really falling in love with you. How did you manage to join those pieces together very beautifully? I can't control this heart anymore. "
I'm beginning to think I might have been Hindu in a past life.
(No, I don't have scientific evidence of that or of past lives.)
Two things ...
I have Native American ancestry and was raised by a mother who believed all religions held truths. Why does that matter? I think there might be certain similarities between some Native American beliefs and Hindu philosophy. The idea that Great Spirit or a divine essence is in all things, for example. So, some of what I've been reading is somewhat familiar to me. That might make it easier for me to grasp some of what you've written and some of what I'm reading regarding Hindu philosophy. Given the fact that I was raised to learn from all people and value all people and their beliefs or lack thereof, I might not put up as many walls as some might. For example, I can read posts by atheists or Christians or Hindus, etc... and see truths in the different people's words.
In addition to this, I'm a teacher. I've taught students in grades 7-12 for the past 15 years. I used to teach history and English. I only teach English at this time. Even when I taught history, I had my students write. I've seen a lot of different pieces of writing. Some amazing. Some challenged. I consider it my job to understand what my students are saying ... from penmanship to actual content. I've pretty much seen it all, including text lingo. There have only been two times when I passed a piece of writing back and told the student to re-write before I read it. Once, the penmanship as so bad I couldn't make it out. (The kids are actually amazed by my ability to decipher their penmanship. One boy, a few years ago, would write as small as he possibly could, a challenge to me ... to see if I could still read it. ;) Ha! I shocked him by being able to read it.) Another time the student had written an incredibly sloppy piece, for him, no capitalizations, misspellings, etc... That was out of character for him; he was capable of more. So, I wouldn't finish reading it. But, all in all, I consider it my job to honor their thoughts and their writing. Given that, I also consider it my job to figure out what they're saying. I'm getting at the fact that I've had a lot of practice at this .... Not just misspellings and grammar and spacing and text lingo. I've also had a lot of experience with students who write beautifully ... who speak in metaphor. So, I'm on the watch for things like that ... the deeper meaning ... not just seeing the literal but the symbolism behind it.
Given my job and experience, I have an advantage, often times but not always, in reading different writing styles.
I'm beginning to think I might have been Hindu in a past life.
(No, I don't have scientific evidence of that or of past lives.)
Two things ...
I have Native American ancestry and was raised by a mother who believed all religions held truths. Why does that matter? I think there might be certain similarities between some Native American beliefs and Hindu philosophy. The idea that Great Spirit or a divine essence is in all things, for example. So, some of what I've been reading is somewhat familiar to me. That might make it easier for me to grasp some of what you've written and some of what I'm reading regarding Hindu philosophy. Given the fact that I was raised to learn from all people and value all people and their beliefs or lack thereof, I might not put up as many walls as some might. For example, I can read posts by atheists or Christians or Hindus, etc... and see truths in the different people's words.
In addition to this, I'm a teacher. I've taught students in grades 7-12 for the past 15 years. I used to teach history and English. I only teach English at this time. Even when I taught history, I had my students write. I've seen a lot of different pieces of writing. Some amazing. Some challenged. I consider it my job to understand what my students are saying ... from penmanship to actual content. I've pretty much seen it all, including text lingo. There have only been two times when I passed a piece of writing back and told the student to re-write before I read it. Once, the penmanship as so bad I couldn't make it out. (The kids are actually amazed by my ability to decipher their penmanship. One boy, a few years ago, would write as small as he possibly could, a challenge to me ... to see if I could still read it. ;) Ha! I shocked him by being able to read it.) Another time the student had written an incredibly sloppy piece, for him, no capitalizations, misspellings, etc... That was out of character for him; he was capable of more. So, I wouldn't finish reading it. But, all in all, I consider it my job to honor their thoughts and their writing. Given that, I also consider it my job to figure out what they're saying. I'm getting at the fact that I've had a lot of practice at this .... Not just misspellings and grammar and spacing and text lingo. I've also had a lot of experience with students who write beautifully ... who speak in metaphor. So, I'm on the watch for things like that ... the deeper meaning ... not just seeing the literal but the symbolism behind it.
Given my job and experience, I have an advantage, often times but not always, in reading different writing styles.
Shannon wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Shannon, my heart is really falling in love with you. How did you manage to join those pieces together very beautifully? I can't control this heart anymore. "
I'm beginning to think..."
Like one of your students I am also shocked.
I'm beginning to think..."
Like one of your students I am also shocked.
Shannon wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Shannon, my heart is really falling in love with you. How did you manage to join those pieces together very beautifully? I can't control this heart anymore. "I'm beginning to think..."
Cool, I have Native American ancestry as well. Cherokee and Sioux to be precise. I also have German and Irish, I'm a mutt.
Hazel wrote: "Viji wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Maybe its other peoples perceptions I'm interested in. "
I'd not considered that as a possibility."
@Hazel--If you wanted to know about Hinduism then pl..."
Yes interpretations will help us to go deep into the subject in which we pursue. But first we will fundamentally know what it is and then go further to listen to those interpretations. And it is not an advice Hazel. In my experience, when I wanted to know about Christianity I first read The Holy Bible and then read other books that gave further thoughts and insights on the same. So I thought that in some best ways avoided certain confusions.
I'd not considered that as a possibility."
@Hazel--If you wanted to know about Hinduism then pl..."
Yes interpretations will help us to go deep into the subject in which we pursue. But first we will fundamentally know what it is and then go further to listen to those interpretations. And it is not an advice Hazel. In my experience, when I wanted to know about Christianity I first read The Holy Bible and then read other books that gave further thoughts and insights on the same. So I thought that in some best ways avoided certain confusions.
Drew wrote: "Cool, I have Native American ancestry as well. Cherokee and Sioux to be precise. "
Mohawk and Blackfoot ... with English and a little Welsh, Irish and French.
Mohawk and Blackfoot ... with English and a little Welsh, Irish and French.
Now let me write this one and give you the meaning of Hinduism.
Through Aryan (they used to call themselves, comes from Arya- a noble one) invasion( or may be invasion did not happen), Indus-valley civilization came into existence( it can be that there was also some civilization before vadic civilization because the name 'Aryavarta' was in existence before of this civilization. In Mohanjodaro, there are some evidence which has no similarity with Vadic culture. And many believe that this is more ancient than Vadic civilization.) Because native people were living in India before of their coming so when they invaded India(it is a max muler theory, taught in schools), instead of trying to destroy natives faith, an unique thing happened. They tried to assimilate them in their own societal strata. So mainly this word Hindu came from Sindhu, a river where this Indus-Valley civilization started. They created 'Vedas'(books which tell different knowledge about society, body, soul, philosophy and art of living. It can be that Vedas were created only in India because there are scriptures saying that its culture and tradition was in existence only in India) and there they have divided the society in four parts, Scholar, Warrior, Businessman and in the last workers. And interesting thing is there in Vedas. They had completely destroyed the chance of any revolution by including this thought that, it is not a strict rule and any one who is in category of workers can be a Scholar or Warrior or Businessman if truly one wants and do whatever is needed for that caste. The caste system was based on quality of human.
Now if you come to India and see it closely, you will find that thread of caste and creation of society is still here. But that caste system was only the mistake of vadic civilization. They might be thinking that it will go right but something different began to happen. People started fanatically believing the caste they used to belonged and it is still here, one big scar on us. But these Aryans had created a balanced society and instead of controlling, they became a management institution. So more liberalization and acceptance made this civilization a mixed civilization of many faiths, from where the true fragrance of Hinduism comes. If you see closely this Hinduism then quickly you will find out that actually it is not working as religion but as an big management institution which is managing many small institution under the one tag, Hinduism. That is what the reason you will wonder how in different states, these Hindus have different culture and tradition and also their festivals are in variety.
If someone who has gone through the Indian film and festivals, (I am pointing to the fact where Anjali was about lord shiva), one will get amazed if one is not native Indian that how and why they have so much music and dance all the time? If I am asked to say the whole philosophy of Hinduism in one sentence, I'd express this way:- "This whole existence is music and dance and it is singing and dancing on its own rhythm."
Let me explain- Many Hindu explorers found that there in everything which is the part of this universe is moving with its own pace and energy and a sound is happening and this sound they call music. They found that in everything there is a certain kind of vibration even it is a stone. They call it dancing. When we see how molecule consists of Atoms and and in Atoms, electrons are revolving around a center, we can understand what they have called. Even a stone looks nothing strange from outside but inside of it, something is dancing and that's why it has a certain kind of energy level. When Anjali was talking about lord shiva, actually by my angle(I may be wrong) she was telling the same I had explained above what Hindus have been believing for ages. The depiction of shiva as somewhere Anjali had said the word, 'Ardhanarishwar', half man, half woman can be understood to see the idol of shiva. It actually combination of man and woman reproductive organs, merging together, means a creation, a creation of a perfect balance, man woman, a dualism (what Anjali had already said)coming from non dualism, separately man and woman, two non dualism is creating a dualism.
'Upnishads' (philosophical books, a little different from the Vedas in tone and writing) had come in the time when the effect of Vedas were slowly getting weaker and then these books had given a new meaning to Hinduism. Written in the form of poetry, this is in the form of commentaries which have all the taste of Vedas and these are more effective. Then 'Bhagwat Gita' comes which is more near the individual rather then society. Buddhism has come from this Hinduism, from its core of learning and searching, experimenting and exploring. But Buddha goes more near an individual as like Krishna.
I have tried my best to give in a very short way what Hinduism is.
Through Aryan (they used to call themselves, comes from Arya- a noble one) invasion( or may be invasion did not happen), Indus-valley civilization came into existence( it can be that there was also some civilization before vadic civilization because the name 'Aryavarta' was in existence before of this civilization. In Mohanjodaro, there are some evidence which has no similarity with Vadic culture. And many believe that this is more ancient than Vadic civilization.) Because native people were living in India before of their coming so when they invaded India(it is a max muler theory, taught in schools), instead of trying to destroy natives faith, an unique thing happened. They tried to assimilate them in their own societal strata. So mainly this word Hindu came from Sindhu, a river where this Indus-Valley civilization started. They created 'Vedas'(books which tell different knowledge about society, body, soul, philosophy and art of living. It can be that Vedas were created only in India because there are scriptures saying that its culture and tradition was in existence only in India) and there they have divided the society in four parts, Scholar, Warrior, Businessman and in the last workers. And interesting thing is there in Vedas. They had completely destroyed the chance of any revolution by including this thought that, it is not a strict rule and any one who is in category of workers can be a Scholar or Warrior or Businessman if truly one wants and do whatever is needed for that caste. The caste system was based on quality of human.
Now if you come to India and see it closely, you will find that thread of caste and creation of society is still here. But that caste system was only the mistake of vadic civilization. They might be thinking that it will go right but something different began to happen. People started fanatically believing the caste they used to belonged and it is still here, one big scar on us. But these Aryans had created a balanced society and instead of controlling, they became a management institution. So more liberalization and acceptance made this civilization a mixed civilization of many faiths, from where the true fragrance of Hinduism comes. If you see closely this Hinduism then quickly you will find out that actually it is not working as religion but as an big management institution which is managing many small institution under the one tag, Hinduism. That is what the reason you will wonder how in different states, these Hindus have different culture and tradition and also their festivals are in variety.
If someone who has gone through the Indian film and festivals, (I am pointing to the fact where Anjali was about lord shiva), one will get amazed if one is not native Indian that how and why they have so much music and dance all the time? If I am asked to say the whole philosophy of Hinduism in one sentence, I'd express this way:- "This whole existence is music and dance and it is singing and dancing on its own rhythm."
Let me explain- Many Hindu explorers found that there in everything which is the part of this universe is moving with its own pace and energy and a sound is happening and this sound they call music. They found that in everything there is a certain kind of vibration even it is a stone. They call it dancing. When we see how molecule consists of Atoms and and in Atoms, electrons are revolving around a center, we can understand what they have called. Even a stone looks nothing strange from outside but inside of it, something is dancing and that's why it has a certain kind of energy level. When Anjali was talking about lord shiva, actually by my angle(I may be wrong) she was telling the same I had explained above what Hindus have been believing for ages. The depiction of shiva as somewhere Anjali had said the word, 'Ardhanarishwar', half man, half woman can be understood to see the idol of shiva. It actually combination of man and woman reproductive organs, merging together, means a creation, a creation of a perfect balance, man woman, a dualism (what Anjali had already said)coming from non dualism, separately man and woman, two non dualism is creating a dualism.
'Upnishads' (philosophical books, a little different from the Vedas in tone and writing) had come in the time when the effect of Vedas were slowly getting weaker and then these books had given a new meaning to Hinduism. Written in the form of poetry, this is in the form of commentaries which have all the taste of Vedas and these are more effective. Then 'Bhagwat Gita' comes which is more near the individual rather then society. Buddhism has come from this Hinduism, from its core of learning and searching, experimenting and exploring. But Buddha goes more near an individual as like Krishna.
I have tried my best to give in a very short way what Hinduism is.
At Rain. Maybe being bitten by a dog has something to do with Darwin's natural selection.
One beautiful way to explain my belief ...This quote is from a great guru called Ramakrishna....."One man may read the Bhagavata by the light of a lamp, and another may commit a forgery by that very light; but the lamp is unaffected. The sun sheds its light on the wicked as well as on the virtuous."
In the religious field, where the word is most commonly used, a guru is a Hindu religious teacher. So a priest or any person learned in Hindu lore may be a guru. The main purpose of the guru is to teach...Acquire the transcendental knowledge from a Self-realized master by humble reverence, by sincere inquiry, and by service. The wise ones who have realized the Truth will impart the Knowledge to you says even the gita
Never go to excess, but let moderation be your guide.-Cicero
This advice still applies centuries later. There are zealots on both sides: those who would use religion for temporal and selfish purposes, and those who would use science to pursue knowledge by any means with little care for ethical consequences.
Humanity is the steward (not master) of creation. A little respect for the advantages of faith and scientific inquiry would go a long way.
Science and religion can co-exist and are not automatic rivals. This is the message I got from Angels and Demons as well.
Shannon wrote: "Luis wrote: "More to the point- primitive man live for ages without religion."Is that accurate? Unless, when you speak of primitive man living for ages without religion, you mean the organized r..."
Shannon wrote: "Luis wrote: "More to the point- primitive man live for ages without religion."
Is that accurate? Unless, when you speak of primitive man living for ages without religion, you mean the organized r..."
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Luis wrote: "More to the point- primitive man live for ages without religion."
Is that accurate? Unless, when you speak of primitive man living for ages without religion, you mean..."
It is accurate. Man lived without ceremony for the dead, or any real concern of an afterlife for ages. Religion, or something resembling it does seem to have come from the stone-age, but it appears to be something along the lines of awe for what surrounded them as opposed to the acreditting the phenomena to any deity. On the other hand, science has evolved along side of man. The simple act of placing a stone on the end of stick, of figuring out how to sharpen stone, learning the migratory patterns of prey, etc were all amazing leaps in technology even if by today's standard they seem quaint.
Drew wrote: "What I'm getting from all this is that Hindus don't actually believe in a god or divine being, that what people consider a Hindu god is really to Hindus, just a symbol but not something to consider..."Actually, there are many thought processes within Hinduism...it is more a way of life than a handed down concept of other religions.
Basically, this laywoman sees it as a combination of -
1. the original Brahman - the highest entity or soul whose/which can't be fully understood - with no beginning or end, the whole and the parts of the whole 2. The trinity of gods who along with their consorts create, sustain and destroy the universe to create all over again......you use symbols or idols, said to contain this divine energy within them, to reach this entity.
3. we have the concept of avatars - reincarnations of god in various forms to bring about peace and balance on Earth and other planes of existence.
4. Hinduism also recognizes the divinity within each of us - our souls are believed to be separated from the supreme soul and expects us to use knowledge and experience on Earth for our spiritual growth or evolving into a soul capable of reuniting.
This is the essence of what I have gathered from the books.
Luis wrote: "It is accurate. Man lived without ceremony for the dead, or any real concern of an afterlife for ages. Religion, or something resembling it does seem to have come from the stone-age, but it appea..."
??
What about all of the burials ... pre-history ... burials with tools and weapons and food ... that seem to suggest a belief in an afterlife ... given the dire times they lived in, why would they "throw away" perfectly good tools, weapons and food?
??
What about all of the burials ... pre-history ... burials with tools and weapons and food ... that seem to suggest a belief in an afterlife ... given the dire times they lived in, why would they "throw away" perfectly good tools, weapons and food?
yes, they did have rituals regarding burial, and much suggests a belief in an afterlife, but there was man before that, who did no such thing.
Hazel wrote: "yes, they did have rituals regarding burial, and much suggests a belief in an afterlife, but there was man before that, who did no such thing."
Some evidence for intentional burial with grave goods stretches back 100,000 years; some think Neanderthals were the first hominids to bury the dead with such things. However, others dispute this. Most within the scientific community see evidence for intentional burial with grave goods and links to religious belief to stretch back 50,000 years.
I'm okay with standing with facts. Humans began burying their dead with grave goods 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, conservatively, 50,000 years ago.
Those are very significant numbers.
Some evidence for intentional burial with grave goods stretches back 100,000 years; some think Neanderthals were the first hominids to bury the dead with such things. However, others dispute this. Most within the scientific community see evidence for intentional burial with grave goods and links to religious belief to stretch back 50,000 years.
I'm okay with standing with facts. Humans began burying their dead with grave goods 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, conservatively, 50,000 years ago.
Those are very significant numbers.
yes, and the earliest known human ancestor was about 8 million years ago, and one of the first human species was Homo habilis, which lived from approximately 2.33 to 1.4 million years ago. You are only looking at humans from about cro magnon man onwards, 100,000 years ago was about when modern Homo sapiens appeared, but any species of the genus Homo was human, and that gives us over 2 million years of ancestry to play with. A signification proportion of human history has been without ritualistic burial and religion in general. In fact, one could say an overwhelming proportion of it.
Hazel wrote: "yes, and the earliest known human ancestor was about 8 million years ago, and one of the first human species was Homo habilis, which lived from approximately 2.33 to 1.4 million years ago. You are ..."
Let's give information on the human family tree so people can learn more.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/h...
Let's give information on the human family tree so people can learn more.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/h...
I agree that religion and science should exist together and are needed. Picking one over the other would be...extremist to a certain point. Balance helps us move forward without tipping over I think.
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "yes, and the earliest known human ancestor was about 8 million years ago, and one of the first human species was Homo habilis, which lived from approximately 2.33 to 1.4 million years..."so, yes, over 2 millions years of the genus homo, thus over 2 million years of humans, and evidence of ritualistic behaviour only appear with homo neanderthalensis about 600,000 years ago ish. Thats about 75% of the time that homo genus has been around without any evidence fo ritualistic behaviour.
Hazel wrote: "so, yes, over 2 millions years of the genus homo, thus over 2 million years of humans, and evidence of ritualistic behaviour only appear with homo neanderthalensis about 600,000 years ago ish. Thats about 75% of the time that homo genus has been around without any evidence fo ritualistic behaviour. "
http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-char...
Evidence of humans using pigments date back to approximately 300,000 years ago. Burials with grave goods date back 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. Evidence of humans recording information dates back to approximately 70,000 years ago. (If interested in history, people should take a peek at the above site. It's actually quite good.)
Given the fact that "humans" existed for such a long time prior to that, prior to art, prior to burial with grave goods, which suggest religious beliefs, and prior to writing, should we, as humans, give up art, religion, and writing?
If one is going to use the existence of "humans" for a long period of time before burials with religious evidence as a reason for people to give up religion, should we use a similar argument to give up art and writing?
Personally, if I were an atheist who was trying to convince the masses to give up their belief in a divine presence, gods, etc..., I'd not use this argument. It's quite problematic. I'd stick with the "you can't prove it scientifically" argument .... Where is the scientific evidence for the existence of divinity? That argument is logical and can't be easily debated.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-char...
Evidence of humans using pigments date back to approximately 300,000 years ago. Burials with grave goods date back 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. Evidence of humans recording information dates back to approximately 70,000 years ago. (If interested in history, people should take a peek at the above site. It's actually quite good.)
Given the fact that "humans" existed for such a long time prior to that, prior to art, prior to burial with grave goods, which suggest religious beliefs, and prior to writing, should we, as humans, give up art, religion, and writing?
If one is going to use the existence of "humans" for a long period of time before burials with religious evidence as a reason for people to give up religion, should we use a similar argument to give up art and writing?
Personally, if I were an atheist who was trying to convince the masses to give up their belief in a divine presence, gods, etc..., I'd not use this argument. It's quite problematic. I'd stick with the "you can't prove it scientifically" argument .... Where is the scientific evidence for the existence of divinity? That argument is logical and can't be easily debated.
Researcher have done a research to trace out the Mitochondrial DNA and they believe that the Mitochondrial Eve may be standing initially 200,000 or between 150,000 to 100,000. And then the migration may have happened from Africa. The question is how they began migration? Going from one place to other and they would be in need of a community and it needs mutual interaction with each other. If they didn't have a language, it can be that they would have some specific sounds for different purpose. Going in route they may have made some weapons. And because they were then evolved in some form so when they were interacting with something, they must be getting fear. This fear may be making them to get a belief of unknown.
We have seen that animals react with something they don't have interacted. Yes it can be that they would not have idea about burial but because of mutual relationship they must be giving in some form of respect to dead.
This homo family, when they began hunting, they may be hunting individually or in a group but they not be living separately. It can be that they would have a group where they were sharing the food. Now group hunting also need some form of mutual understanding. And if they were moving in group then they must be protecting their community from unknown. And it can be that they would be feeling fearful for some unknown. I suppose that to keep their community in a shape, they would be using some specific sound.
By rising of feeling we can see some bleak traces of religious sentiments.
We have seen that animals react with something they don't have interacted. Yes it can be that they would not have idea about burial but because of mutual relationship they must be giving in some form of respect to dead.
This homo family, when they began hunting, they may be hunting individually or in a group but they not be living separately. It can be that they would have a group where they were sharing the food. Now group hunting also need some form of mutual understanding. And if they were moving in group then they must be protecting their community from unknown. And it can be that they would be feeling fearful for some unknown. I suppose that to keep their community in a shape, they would be using some specific sound.
By rising of feeling we can see some bleak traces of religious sentiments.
"Freedom of thought will best be promoted by that gradual enlightening of the human understanding which follows the progress of science. I have therefore always avoided writing about religion and have confined myself to science" - Charles Darwin
you know, the Venerable Bede wrote a similar philosophy in his De Natura Rerum.
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "so, yes, over 2 millions years of the genus homo, thus over 2 million years of humans, and evidence of ritualistic behaviour only appear with homo neanderthalensis about 600,000 years..."I thought the argument was just wether they had religion or not.
I think you are taking a leap to then go to 'should we also get rid of art and writing?'.
If you had also mentioned fire, I would have lost hope in you.
The point I think that is being made with the 'We went millions of years without religion', is that if it was 'divine' as opposed to a man made construct wouldn't it have always been there, as opposed to being a more 'recent' idea.
Or they could be making an argument that all monkeys are atheists.
Plus, we then run into the problem of, turning your 'why not get rid of art' idea around and going, 'If we are keeping religion, why not bring back flinging our poop and getting dates by whacking the girl on the head and dragging her back to the cave?'
It worked for our ancestors.
In message 5808, Luis made an argument that said, in part,
"We've lived in a world without science. It's called the Dark Ages. A religion-domiated world brought misery, and death for untold millions of people. More to the point- primitive man live for ages without religion. Science on the other hand has been with us every step of the way up our evolutionary ladder.
...
The truth is that a world without science is impossible, while a word without religion is not only possible but has happened in our past. It is not until religion was introduced and eventually took over that our steady progress found it's first road blocks."
I took that to mean, given the fact that primitive man didn't have religion, we could do without religion.
I wrote and asked him if his information was accurate. After all, humans from pre-history did bury their dead with tools, weapons, food, etc..., which leads us to believe they had religious practices.
You wrote and said they did, but they were superstitious just like religious people today.
Luis responded today by saying, "Man lived without ceremony for the dead, or any real concern of an afterlife for ages. Religion, or something resembling it does seem to have come from the stone-age, but it appears to be something along the lines of awe for what surrounded them as opposed to the acreditting the phenomena to any deity."
Hmmm....
Hence my discussion of humans in pre-history who buried the dead with grave goods.
Then, Hazel came in with Homo habilis. Now, while human, I, personally, don't think Homo habilis when I think about humanity. Personally, I think they were barely just, but that's my opinion.
At any rate, from the original argument, I guessed the point was ... if we did without it for years and years, we can do without it; it's not necessary to our existence. Enter my argument ... Homo habilis didn't have art or writing either. Since "humans" lived so long without those, should we do away with them, too? (Clearly, I think that's bunk and wouldn't advocate for such.)
Personally, Travis, I wouldn't make any of these arguments.
As I stated, if I were an atheist who wanted to convince people that they're ignorant and need to give up their faith, I'd stick with the winning argument. Where is your scientific proof of a divine being or beings? That is THE argument, after all. There is no response, other than ... I have no scientific proof.
Neither Luis nor Hazel mentioned your argument, which is interesting. If the divine exists, it would have existed at the time of Homo habilis. Therefore, I'm guessing you're saying we'd have evidence of Homo habilis believing in such divinity ... at least burials with grave goods.
(Though that would still be a construct of human origin, I suppose.)
Is that your argument? It might have been difficult for them to have done so, given their very many limitations (x10,000), environment and challenges. While human, I think it's quite fair to say that they were very primitive indeed. They lived. They had tools. We have evidence of this and little else.
But, again, personally, I wouldn't be going down this particular road.
Which, brings us full circle and to my point ... and yours-ish. The winning argument for atheists deals with scientific evidence for divinity. Is there a divine presence? If so, it wouldn't be constructed by humans, Homo habilis or otherwise. It would simply exist. If the divine existed, why is there no scientific evidence of such, separate and apart from human construct ... though, using the human developed scientific method, I would imagine, to prove such existence.
"We've lived in a world without science. It's called the Dark Ages. A religion-domiated world brought misery, and death for untold millions of people. More to the point- primitive man live for ages without religion. Science on the other hand has been with us every step of the way up our evolutionary ladder.
...
The truth is that a world without science is impossible, while a word without religion is not only possible but has happened in our past. It is not until religion was introduced and eventually took over that our steady progress found it's first road blocks."
I took that to mean, given the fact that primitive man didn't have religion, we could do without religion.
I wrote and asked him if his information was accurate. After all, humans from pre-history did bury their dead with tools, weapons, food, etc..., which leads us to believe they had religious practices.
You wrote and said they did, but they were superstitious just like religious people today.
Luis responded today by saying, "Man lived without ceremony for the dead, or any real concern of an afterlife for ages. Religion, or something resembling it does seem to have come from the stone-age, but it appears to be something along the lines of awe for what surrounded them as opposed to the acreditting the phenomena to any deity."
Hmmm....
Hence my discussion of humans in pre-history who buried the dead with grave goods.
Then, Hazel came in with Homo habilis. Now, while human, I, personally, don't think Homo habilis when I think about humanity. Personally, I think they were barely just, but that's my opinion.
At any rate, from the original argument, I guessed the point was ... if we did without it for years and years, we can do without it; it's not necessary to our existence. Enter my argument ... Homo habilis didn't have art or writing either. Since "humans" lived so long without those, should we do away with them, too? (Clearly, I think that's bunk and wouldn't advocate for such.)
Personally, Travis, I wouldn't make any of these arguments.
As I stated, if I were an atheist who wanted to convince people that they're ignorant and need to give up their faith, I'd stick with the winning argument. Where is your scientific proof of a divine being or beings? That is THE argument, after all. There is no response, other than ... I have no scientific proof.
Neither Luis nor Hazel mentioned your argument, which is interesting. If the divine exists, it would have existed at the time of Homo habilis. Therefore, I'm guessing you're saying we'd have evidence of Homo habilis believing in such divinity ... at least burials with grave goods.
(Though that would still be a construct of human origin, I suppose.)
Is that your argument? It might have been difficult for them to have done so, given their very many limitations (x10,000), environment and challenges. While human, I think it's quite fair to say that they were very primitive indeed. They lived. They had tools. We have evidence of this and little else.
But, again, personally, I wouldn't be going down this particular road.
Which, brings us full circle and to my point ... and yours-ish. The winning argument for atheists deals with scientific evidence for divinity. Is there a divine presence? If so, it wouldn't be constructed by humans, Homo habilis or otherwise. It would simply exist. If the divine existed, why is there no scientific evidence of such, separate and apart from human construct ... though, using the human developed scientific method, I would imagine, to prove such existence.
Rut ro!
It just came to me.
If there is a divine presence or energy, regardless of name or names, it would simply exist. Right? Like you said. It wouldn't be a human construct. It would just be.
Harkening back to yesterday's conversation regarding trying to explain something and simply being, I wonder ....
If divinity existed, would such energy feel the need to try to prove itself to humans. Or, would it just be?
Huh?
Maybe scientific evidence isn't the winning argument after all.
It just came to me.
If there is a divine presence or energy, regardless of name or names, it would simply exist. Right? Like you said. It wouldn't be a human construct. It would just be.
Harkening back to yesterday's conversation regarding trying to explain something and simply being, I wonder ....
If divinity existed, would such energy feel the need to try to prove itself to humans. Or, would it just be?
Huh?
Maybe scientific evidence isn't the winning argument after all.
Shannon wrote: "Rut ro!It just came to me.
If there is a divine presence or energy, regardless of name or names, it would simply exist. Right? Like you said. It wouldn't be a human construct. It would just ..."
So then why have the Bible or other texts written about it?
Drew wrote: "Shannon wrote: "So then why have the Bible or other texts written about it?"
People's interpretations and perceptions?
People's interpretations and perceptions?
Shannon wrote: "Drew wrote: "Shannon wrote: "So then why have the Bible or other texts written about it?"People's interpretations and perceptions?"
But God said in the Bible not to have you're own interpretations of the Bible.
Drew wrote: "But God said in the Bible not to have you're own interpretations of the Bible."
I've never viewed the Bible to be, word for word, the divine word of God. Further, I've never taken each story to be literal.
My mother raised me within the Christian faith. However, when I had questions about the Bible, she asked me several questions. Who wrote the Bible? When did men write the Bible? What was life like at the time? Which parts of the Bible were based on men's interpretations of God and descriptions of the cultural mores of the time? Which parts had moral truths that would help me to live a better life?
And ... Christianity and the Bible are just one part of the story, in my opinion.
Ultimately, in my opinion, religious texts of all cultures were written by men, who were weren't infallible. Further, I think all cultures interpret divinity differently, seeing different aspects and sharing different truths. But, when all is said and done, they are, in my opinion, the interpretations of men, which are further interpreted and perceived by those who read them.
I've never viewed the Bible to be, word for word, the divine word of God. Further, I've never taken each story to be literal.
My mother raised me within the Christian faith. However, when I had questions about the Bible, she asked me several questions. Who wrote the Bible? When did men write the Bible? What was life like at the time? Which parts of the Bible were based on men's interpretations of God and descriptions of the cultural mores of the time? Which parts had moral truths that would help me to live a better life?
And ... Christianity and the Bible are just one part of the story, in my opinion.
Ultimately, in my opinion, religious texts of all cultures were written by men, who were weren't infallible. Further, I think all cultures interpret divinity differently, seeing different aspects and sharing different truths. But, when all is said and done, they are, in my opinion, the interpretations of men, which are further interpreted and perceived by those who read them.
So what you're saying is that your god doesn't even care if we know him at all?
Drew wrote: "So what you're saying is that your god doesn't even care if we know him at all?"
Nope. That's not what I'm saying.
Nope. That's not what I'm saying.
Drew ....
Pretty sure we don't have a language barrier ....
Pretty sure we don't have a language barrier ....
Shannon wrote: "Rut ro!It just came to me.
If there is a divine presence or energy, regardless of name or names, it would simply exist. Right? Like you said. It wouldn't be a human construct. It would just ..."
Even if divinity is some kind of 'just being' energy, you still need proof that it ;just be's'
and if it is a 'just be' energy then there wouldn't be so many interpertations of it.
The Hindus don't have a different gravity than the catholics.
Points for trying and the scooby-doo reference, but nope.
Shannon wrote: "Drew ....Pretty sure we don't have a language barrier ...."
Huh... what? Me no understand.
Travis wrote: "if it is a 'just be' energy then there wouldn't be so many interpertations of it. The Hindus don't have a different gravity than the catholics.
Points for trying and the scooby-doo reference, but nope. "
Why couldn't there be different interpretations? Especially if we don't fully understand it at this time?
Glad you gave me points for the Scooby reference! ;)
Points for trying and the scooby-doo reference, but nope. "
Why couldn't there be different interpretations? Especially if we don't fully understand it at this time?
Glad you gave me points for the Scooby reference! ;)
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "if it is a 'just be' energy then there wouldn't be so many interpertations of it. The Hindus don't have a different gravity than the catholics. Points for trying and the scooby-doo..."
I'm not saying you can't have different interpretations but it specifically says so in the Bible that you can't make up your own interpretations of it, but like you said, it may not be the divine word of God. I'm sure it isn't.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "if it is a 'just be' energy then there wouldn't be so many interpertations of it. The Hindus don't have a different gravity than the catholics. Points for trying and the scooby-doo..."
if it 'just is' or you are treating it like a form of energy or physical law of the universe than you first to get over that pesky no proof thing and then you have to get rid of the other interpertations.
Doesn't matter if you don't understand it, if you try to nudge divinity into the science section, it has to follow those rules.
Otherwise it isn't an aspect of the universe, just a man made construct. As real as 'The Force'.
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "if it is a 'just be' energy then there wouldn't be so many interpertations of it. The Hindus don't have a different gravity than the catholics. Points for trying an..."
These aren’t the droids you’re looking for
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "if it is a 'just be' energy then there wouldn't be so many interpertations of it. The Hindus don't have a different gravity than the catholics.
Points for trying an..."
First, let me say ... I don't have the answers. I try to find answers. But, this is just me thinking and making connections ... not giving a definitive truth.
Second, I'm not the science person here, as I've said. I'm humanities. Having said that ....
DNA is real and always has been; it's always existed. We didn't, until very recently, prove that it existed. I'm fairly certain DNA was an "aspect of the universe" even before it was a scientifically proven fact. But, again, since I'm not Ms. Science, correct me if I'm wrong.
Third, too many Star Wars references are running through my mind to decide which one to end with. The point in this instance goes to Drew.
Points for trying an..."
First, let me say ... I don't have the answers. I try to find answers. But, this is just me thinking and making connections ... not giving a definitive truth.
Second, I'm not the science person here, as I've said. I'm humanities. Having said that ....
DNA is real and always has been; it's always existed. We didn't, until very recently, prove that it existed. I'm fairly certain DNA was an "aspect of the universe" even before it was a scientifically proven fact. But, again, since I'm not Ms. Science, correct me if I'm wrong.
Third, too many Star Wars references are running through my mind to decide which one to end with. The point in this instance goes to Drew.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "if it is a 'just be' energy then there wouldn't be so many interpertations of it. The Hindus don't have a different gravity than the catholics. Point..."
*bows*
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "if it is a 'just be' energy then there wouldn't be so many interpertations of it. The Hindus don't have a different gravity than the catholics. Point..."
True, we have different interpertations, until we come up with 'the one', but even then, we knew there was 'something' there.
With divinity, we aren't even getting a crumb of proof to point where research should go.
'divinity' isn't itself more than a vague blanket phrase, it's on list with soul, spirituality, magic and religion. They sound good, but they are just different ways of saying the same thing.
and we go round the circle and back to it sounding good, but not being science or a part of the physical universe.
and on the Star Wars quote thing: I was going to go with 'wretched hive of scum and villainy', but figured somebody would take that personally.
Instead I have this image of Shannon looming over us atheists and saying 'I find your lack of faith disturbing,' while making the Darth Vader hand gesture.
Travis wrote: "Instead I have this image of Shannon looming over us atheists and saying 'I find your lack of faith disturbing,' while making the Darth Vader hand gesture. "
Nah.... I've no desire to choke people into believing.
I'd be more likely to say something like ... (Sadly, I had to resort to Google to get it exactly right ...)
Kenobi: [gets up and takes a blast helmet] I suggest you try it again, Luke. Only this time, let go your conscious self and act on instinct. [puts the helmet on Luke, which covers his eyes] ... Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them. [remote shoots Luke] Stretch out with your feelings! [Watches Luke succeed in blocking the lasers] You see? You can do it.
Nah.... I've no desire to choke people into believing.
I'd be more likely to say something like ... (Sadly, I had to resort to Google to get it exactly right ...)
Kenobi: [gets up and takes a blast helmet] I suggest you try it again, Luke. Only this time, let go your conscious self and act on instinct. [puts the helmet on Luke, which covers his eyes] ... Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them. [remote shoots Luke] Stretch out with your feelings! [Watches Luke succeed in blocking the lasers] You see? You can do it.
Edward Burnett Tylor propounded a theory in his book 'Primitive Cultures' that primitive man's mind was illogical but some basic bodily and mental conditions such as sleeping, waking, dreaming, illness, trance and death had made them to belief in unknown which is different than the body. And due to this they started believing in some divine power. And it can be that lack of logic had made them to worship a divine.
I found it by googling:-
The theories of Tylor, Frazer, Freud, Durkheim and the others had a vast influence not only on the scholarly level, but also at the popular level. Man's religious tendencies were reduced to a scientific explanation that destroyed their value and meaning. The concept of God was nothing more than the end result of the evolution of primitive man's fear and superstition. In other words, it could be said with scientific accuracy that God did not create man but that man created God.
The theories of Tylor, Frazer, Freud, Durkheim and the others had a vast influence not only on the scholarly level, but also at the popular level. Man's religious tendencies were reduced to a scientific explanation that destroyed their value and meaning. The concept of God was nothing more than the end result of the evolution of primitive man's fear and superstition. In other words, it could be said with scientific accuracy that God did not create man but that man created God.
Drew wrote: "So what you're saying is that your god doesn't even care if we know him at all?"
Drew, you have interpreted right. If you think to know god, god will start caring you then it is not. god doesn't care if you know him or not. Yes in reverse you will start caring of god.
Drew, you have interpreted right. If you think to know god, god will start caring you then it is not. god doesn't care if you know him or not. Yes in reverse you will start caring of god.
Shannon wrote: "But, perhaps, he's coming at things from a different perspective. "You do have a point generally Shannon, he does seem to be coming from a different perspective, but that does not necessarily make his arguments any more valid.
Ironically though;
Shannon wrote: "Authentic religious discourse could not lead to clear, distinct, and empirically verified truth."
On this I agree, in fact that is part of the basis of science, that you cannot discover things unless you set aside belief at some point, plus by its very nature science will never likely be clear and distinct as the claims of religion. This is simply because the model that we make in our head is just that, a model. If the model in out head could exactly match the universe, it would be the universe.
Several times Vishal has complained when I say an answer is complex, the real cultural difference here seems to be that complex equates to unknowable for Vishal but for a scientist 'complex' just means that we may be able to explain parts or make a simplified model to compare it too, which still allows us to 'know' something about the complex whole.
Shannon wrote: "You could not achieve this insight by rational logic. You had to acquire the knack of thinking outside the ordinary 'lowercase' self, and like any craft or skill, this required long, hard, dedicated practice.'"
Again outside of the religious context this is a great metaphor for science. If you start just with rational logic based on the experience of the 'self' it is hard to realise the truth of a spinning Earth going around a sun, rather than us on the ground and the heavens above which is our experience. What chance would we have with advanced optics, particles to small to be lit with light or quantum physics?
It seems that there is a realisation there that to see the truth of things greater than ourselves we need to set aside our own preconceptions, our selves. The only trouble is that this is immediately followed by a belief which is the ultimate enshrinement of self.
Pat wrote: "Faith on the other hand, is a deep connection to a greater power. Faith and religion are two different things."What "power", can you measure it, can you use it, what is the nature of the transfer of this power along faith, is faith an attractor of this power or is faithlessness a resistance?
Unless you can demonstrate independently the existence of this power then you believe in it. Faith is defined as "belief that is not based on proof".
Religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" so your belief in a "power" that "faith" connects us too is a religion.
Thousands of years of monotheistic influence have convinced us culturally that faith is a virtue, even when now we see it's flaws. It's no surprise I suppose that many people want to blame religion or blind dogma while praising its cause.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
do you mean since yesterday? Which is the day before today, whereas tomorrow means the day after today. Ot..."
Ops! I made a mistake. yes, 'yesterday'. let me correct this one.