Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ECrownofFire]

Calling Religion unscientific just seems so..... petty.

This is the Twenty First Century. Religions point is no longer explaining the world and how it works. It's showing you who you are.

It's quite obvious that most religious people completely block out most scientific evidence without giving it a second thought.
So calling it unscientific makes it petty? Or are you trying to change the word 'religion' to something that it isn't? /facepalm if we're going to start arguing more semantics.

Ooh, ooh! I have an idea! Let's generalize all religions!

And yes, arguing about religion is pretty damn pointless. But it's nice to get your thoughts out. And it's just fun

[Realmfighter]

But are arguing.

Over the thoughts we have gotten out.

This thread is so stupid.

[CoughDrop]

This thread is so stupid.

Bingo.

Ooh, ooh! I have an idea! Let's generalize all religions!

I like your thinking.

[Realmfighter]

You do not go far enough brother.

We must generalize everyone.

[CoughDrop]

You do not go far enough brother.

We must generalize everyone.

Everyone but the self is wrong. The self is all knowing.

[Realmfighter]

You must generalize the self above all else.

It is the only way.

[ECrownofFire]

You do not go far enough brother.

We must generalize everyone.

Everyone but the self is wrong. The self is all knowing.

Everything is all-knowing.

(See, it's funny, because I'm a pantheist )

[Siquo]

But then, can it know itself?

I never really got Pantheism. It's so... naturalistic. But based on your previous statements, Crown, I think you're more a Panentheist.

[Siquo]

Totally off-topic linkdump: Arguments to use against your xenophobic neighbours about Islam:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam.html

[ECrownofFire]

But then, can it know itself?

I never really got Pantheism. It's so... naturalistic. But based on your previous statements, Crown, I think you're more a Panentheist.

Actually, I'm both, hehe. We need some terminology though.

Pantheism: The universe and the god(s) are one and the same, indistinguishable. "God is the whole"
Panentheism: The universe is contained within the god(s), or the god(s) are simply beyond the universe. "The whole is in God"
Immanent: The god(s) are within the world. "God is in the whole"
Transcendent: The god(s) are beyond the world. "God is beyond the whole"

What I believe is a mixture of immanence and transcendence. Pantheism and panentheism. They're not mutually exclusive. You know how somebody was drawing parallels between my religion and Hinduism? That's because Hinduism is pantheistic and panentheistic as well. The gods are simultaneously within and beyond the universe, permeating it and surpassing it, immanent and transcendent.

[Leafsnail]

My point was that a debate on this sort of thing will go on forever.

And there will always be people who think they have damning evidence and it just prolongs the whole thing.

I'd say it's surely a devil's proof.  I mean, God could very easily end the debate at any time he chooses.  But he doesn't.

Totally off-topic linkdump: Arguments to use against your xenophobic neighbours about Islam:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam.html

Eh, I had most of those debunked just by living in an area with quite a few Muslims.  They aren't really very different from anyone else.

[Siquo]

Actually, I'm both, hehe. We need some terminology though.

P: Pantheism: The universe and the god(s) are one and the same, indistinguishable. "God is the whole"
E: Panentheism: The universe is contained within the god(s), or the god(s) are simply beyond the universe. "The whole is in God"
I: Immanent: The god(s) are within the world. "God is in the whole"
T: Transcendent: The god(s) are beyond the world. "God is beyond the whole"

What I believe is a mixture of immanence and transcendence. Pantheism and panentheism. They're not mutually exclusive. You know how somebody was drawing parallels between my religion and Hinduism? That's because Hinduism is pantheistic and panentheistic as well. The gods are simultaneously within and beyond the universe, permeating it and surpassing it, immanent and transcendent.

Well, there's a large difference between "everything" (Pantheism) and "almost everything" (Immanent). Panentheism is not immanence+transcendence, it's the combination of pantheism+transcendence. God is everything and beyond, as opposed to pantheism: God is everything. The combination of Immanence and Transcendence is possible as well, but Immanence is mutually exclusive with Pantheism (as "within" excludes "is everything", unless you mean "within up to and including everything" in which case it means everything).

So we can do (I've labeled the terms in your quote)
E = P + T
P > I    <- There's the difference
I + T != E

Now if you take hinduism, where every god is an aspect of the whole, then it becomes pan(en)theistic as soon as there's a god for every aspect of the whole, but I don't know hinduism that well.

[malimbar04]

It's not stalemate, at least not in the sense of our entire civilization. The religious have made a claim that their god exist. In the world of science, you must prove that claim before anyone else need give it observation. If you can prove in a observable way under lab conditions that god exists, your claim will be considered. If not, then not. That's all I ask of anyone making a claim, no matter what it is, the difference being that the religious have never met that claim.

My personal thoughts are the matter is that they never have and never will because deep down they know it won't ever work, but that's personal only.

a small quibble, in science you can't prove it. However, you must define it, and then you must test it. If it is both defined and has passed all attempts to disprove it, then it stays on the shelf as a theory.

Every god that has been defined has been proven wrong except the most useless and lofty of gods.

[ECrownofFire]

What I believe is transcendence, immanence, pantheism, and panentheism, not panentheism by itself. I don't agree that pantheism and transcendence make panentheism, because then the universe would be transcending itself. Immanence is not that the gods are within the world, it's that they manifest throughout the entire world. It is not mutually exclusive with pantheism, and in fact, is the main part of it. Because of this, panentheism is more like transcendence and immanence combined. Perhaps the way I explained it just wasn't clear enough. When I say "within" the world, I mean manifesting in the world, or more accurately, manifesting in every portion of the world. You can always look up... articles on Wikipedia, or something if you really want to know more.

See, now we're almost just arguing pure semantics

It's not stalemate, at least not in the sense of our entire civilization. The religious have made a claim that their god exist. In the world of science, you must prove that claim before anyone else need give it observation. If you can prove in a observable way under lab conditions that god exists, your claim will be considered. If not, then not. That's all I ask of anyone making a claim, no matter what it is, the difference being that the religious have never met that claim.

My personal thoughts are the matter is that they never have and never will because deep down they know it won't ever work, but that's personal only.

a small quibble, in science you can't prove it. However, you must define it, and then you must test it. If it is both defined and has passed all attempts to disprove it, then it stays on the shelf as a theory.

Every god that has been defined has been proven wrong except the most useless and lofty of gods.

Tell me one god that has been disproved.

And I think a disproved god would be more useless than an unproved lofty one

[Il Palazzo]

Totally off-topic linkdump: Arguments to use against your xenophobic neighbours about Islam:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam.html

Man, the comments section makes me proud of the level of discussion we're maintaining.