Did you read the article? What do you think caused the universe to expand intinitally (initially) or what do you think allowed the big bang?
— christian2017

I didn’t read the article because it sounds like just a pop sci retelling of something I already know.

According to the eternal inflation model, which I tentatively accept as the best science we have at the moment, nothing caused the universe to expand initially because there is no initiation, runaway expansion has always been the normal state of the universe going back potentially forever. The big bang was a random temporary slowdown of a small part of it, which became our known universe, which has been slowly accelerating back up ever since and will someday resume that runaway expansion like everything else beyond it. — Pfhorrest

citation?

lol.

Are you aware that gravity would probably keep the universe from expanding at that point? My citation is the article i posted in the OP. If your not willing to read the article posted in the OP, why would you expect me to post a citation. In regards to what you asked me to post a citation for in a post above, i'll get to it in a couple of hours.

Stephen Hawkings believes a black hole is like a star that is so dense that the gravitational pull won't let light to escape.
— christian2017

That’s the normal idea of a black hole yeah. — Pfhorrest

thanks.

I looked it up. Some Physicists do believe that its possible for when two black holes collide for them to explode.
— christian2017

[citation needed] — Pfhorrest

Just google it. I didn't ask for citations when most of the other people commented. In a couple of days or perhaps in 2 hours i'll provide a citation. And by the way posting a video is not a citation.

It strikes me as dangerous that mankind has reached a consumerist plateau of satisfying solely wants instead of needs. Most, if not all needs have been accounted for. Even the homeless beg for money to spend it on drugs more often than on food, which is found in abundance everywhere one may travel or reside. There are shelters for the homeless, medicare for them, and fountains on every bus stop, where you might find them dwelling. Just the other day I saw a pair of homeless folk with an mp3 player and noise cancelling headphones. Strange, eh?

The title of this thread was picked due to a growing sentiment of mine that people who are never confronted with very essential problems, such as devoting time to the bare necessities in life, become rudderless, depressed, and anxious about their own insatiable desire for more. In one of my previous topics I outlined the perversion or downright confusion about mixing up wants for needs.

So, how do you go about living a meaningful and live with a sense of purpose if you have so easily met needs? Let me try and be clear here, what exactly do we want, after survival has been accomplished so easily? The average lifespan of the average European is significant longer than it was during the industrial revolution. Steven Pinker has made the claim that wars are becoming less and less burdensome or eventful in modern day human history.

Should we spend more time in museums to entertain what life used to be like?

I am honestly scared about how fast things are changing. I do not doubt that mankind doesn't have the capacity to adapt to any future happenings or progress; but, I honestly think we should at least slow down a little. Our very own emotional responses are used against us in the multitude of advertisements found online and elsewhere. This is strange, and perverted.

I suppose, the reader might be asking, 'so what', or 'who cares', or 'there's no solution'. I suppose, the point should be made that it's not a matter of so what or who cares, due to the fact that we are by nature a social animal. Despite the instilled hierarchies found anywhere in a social setting, it is apparent that man needs man to continue being a man. This so what, not my problem, who cares are actually pretty damming sentiments to profess due to their anti-social nature. Now, about the need for a solution, that is an important point in my mind. The solution ought to be found in the entertainment of what one already has. One of the most profound questions one can possible ask, is "Why do I want more?"...

When one asks such a question, the presupposition is that most if not all one's needs have been dealt with or satisfied in some long term manner. Indeed, this is a question I recently asked myself, and by the mere fact of asking it, I found my way out of the problem.

So, ask yourself, why do you want more? Aren't you already satisfied? — Shawn

Broken sexual relationships is a huge reason people are homeless. Sex is not a joke in the sense that it should be taken lightly (you were talking about homelessness). I'm not saying homeless people are unique in their sexual practices but various factors can leave one serial monogamist to extreme riches and another serial monogamist to homelessness. Why does the homeless guy use drugs, because they got used to that drug and they need more of it next time to get the same high, but also to make them forget about that past sexual relationship.

There are solutions to "the poor" and this does tie in closely to the OP beyond homelessness. Modernized building codes in light of commercial off the shelf security systems and also cheap building materials made available from global factories, is one of the primary ways to bring fiscal conservatism and would enable the poor to be self sufficient.

Most poor people i know are working very hard.

I do agree that simplifying your life but at the same time if you are able saving up money for a rainy day can bring happiness to a person. I typically only do the former.

Excess food actually dates back to Ancient Iraq/Sumer. Much of our depression in this modern age relates to being over worked and also combined with modern views of how a family should be. We can't change what our parents did, so we have to move on and decide what is right for us.

I highly recommend reading ‘The Sacred and The Profane’ by Mircea Eliade if you haven’t already. — I like sushi

Alright, thank you. I'll add that to my journal and either get it at the local library when the library opens back up or if its cheap i'll get it at amazon.

Considering walmart and amazon are both owned by essentially the same international bean counters (stock holders very often and to some extent all share the same common interest atleast in this modern age), i have no problem shopping at walmart/target/amazon. I don't view them as separate companies. Even Best Buy which is significantly different from Walmart probably has strong ties to Walmart/Target in the sense that they all share atleast some of the same stockholders to some extent. I do believe there are fiscally conservative law modifications that can be made that would also enable the poor to be self sufficient, but i'm not going to go into great detail right now because, this is off topic. I could have summarized all this with "and yes i do shop at amazon", but instead i gave you the long answer. My assumption is you are a liberal, so you might have appreciated this stab at modern (modern) capitalism.

I'm really not sure we can say that atheists don't subscribe to faith and not even in the sense that they are at all different from religionists.
— christian2017

I agree that an atheist can be just as irrational as any theist, if that’s what you’re suggesting. And we do indeed all have shared fictions, some deeper and more influential than others. Religion tends to cut deep. I assume that’s because it offers structure, ultimate authority, and big promises. — praxis

Big promises? Communist russia and communist china atleast at its inception made big promises. The book of Revelation says that socialism will eventually take hold so i'm not sure how hard we should fight it (also considering globalism and automation). Are you familiar with the propaganda regarding a futuristic society in the early 20th century in Russia?

Structure will be in government whether you have religion or not. Money is a legal fiction and everyone either needs money, wants money, or wants money and needs money. Even gold is a fiction in the sense that when the spanish brought back american gold to the old world it cost massive inflation in europe. Gold is only useful to some extent in electronics and in fact even if we didn't have gold, it can be replaced with other things in the case of electronics. A motherboard doesn't have alot of gold anyway.

Government is an ultimate authority and very often even more so when there is no religion. If you remove religion power doesn't also disapear.

Many would say when you die you don't feel or feel pain or happiness.
— christian2017

But not necessarily atheists, who hold that a god or gods don’t exist. An atheist may subscribe to a metaphysics that in some way allows for a continuation of being after death, for instance. Maybe something like simulation theory, or Buddhism minus the gods. — praxis

Some forms of hinduism don't have gods. Buddhism being derived from hinduism may have certain sects like that too.

I actually met a "neighbor" in college who was athiest but yet he said he had dreams alot of time that told him what would happen the next day or somewhat in the future.

So basically what your telling me is some atheists are open to a punishment after life just like religionists are very often open to a punishment after life. I'm really not sure we can say that atheists don't subscribe to faith and not even in the sense that they are at all different from religionists. I used to say that if a person just believes a scientist without doing their own research that that person has faith. This brings a whole new level to the concept of a atheist having faith. I'm not sure any person is completely free from the concept of faith. If i walk outside and see a butt ugly man like the man in Isaiah 53 (Jesus Christ) and we have a conversation, who is to claim i'm an outright idiot for not just claiming its a hallucination?

If a person's science can't be proven at this point in time or this point in history, that person has faith.

I might watch those videos later, do you have articles that pertain to those videos?

The inflationary model (well, the eternal inflation model, which seems to be what's proposed here) is that the natural state of most of the universe ("multiverse") is to be accelerating everything away from everything else ridiculously faster than the speed of light, but then quantum fluctuations can cause a small part of that to decelerate, converting enormous quantities of that dark energy into other forms, filling that little decelerated pocket with energy. Such an event would have been the start of our "universe": we're a little pocket that has temporarily stopped accelerating so much. And now we're on our way back to accelerating apart again, very, very slowly. — Pfhorrest

Did you read the article? What do you think caused the universe to expand intinitally (initially) or what do you think allowed the big bang?

Universes" don't exist as moving objects in a space that can collide like black holes do. Also, black holes don't explode when they collide, they just merger. (Black holes do eventually explode, after an unfathomably long period of time, as their "evaporation" accelerates as they get smaller). — Pfhorrest

I looked it up. Some Physicists do believe that its possible for when two black holes collide for them to explode. Stephen Hawkings believes a black hole is like a star that is so dense that the gravitational pull won't let light to escape.

The Bible is clear "Once Saved, Always Saved". John 15, John 3, Psalm 23, book of James, book of Romans among others. If Jesus Christ thought i was going to do something to lose my salvation in 10 years he would kill me today. When the horse gets a broken leg, the farmer takes it around back behind the barn and shoots it.

Jesus Christ can predict 100% of everything.

This is a religious post about christianity by a christian so i'm authorized to post scripture.

Exactly, which is why you don't or technically should not have to go to church to be considered a Christian or to be saved. So the pastor's logic actually goes against what is in the Bible. — BBQueue

i agree.

Considering atheism argues for an eternity without feeling, i'm not sure there would be negative repercussions to find out there was no god or afterlife.
— christian2017

The repercussion is commonly believed to be, in a word, nihilism.

Not sure what you mean by "atheism argues for an eternity without feeling." — praxis

"without feeling". Many would say when you die you don't feel or feel pain or happiness.

How would you prove social critters don't have some irrational or fictional beliefs related to images considering they can't communicate with us. I'm not saying they have religion but they do have irrational or fictional beliefs.
— christian2017

I'm sure social animals can be conditioned to have maladaptive responses to situations and in that way be considered irrational. And social animals can communicate with us. My dog and I communicate daily with body language and verbally. We don't philosophize about the existence of God together but our communication has the virtue of lacking all human bullshit, at least from his side.

At the very least you could say they aren't the best at survival nor can they predict certain things as well as we can.
— christian2017

Just looking at dogs, it's estimated that there are almost a billion in the world. There are 7.8 billion sapiens. So canine survival ain't too shabby by comparison. In some ways, dogs are better predictors than we are because their minds aren't preoccupied with ruminating about human bullshit. Dogs pick up on subtle patterns that most people would miss and respond instantly to them.

I think you mean abstract thought or mental simulation rather than prediction.

As to "where this is going": we are all supposed to keep an open mind or rational people tend to push people off of sites like this.
— christian2017

It is a philosophy forum, after all.

Considering atheism argues for an eternity without feeling, i'm not sure there would be negative repercussions to find out there was no god or afterlife.
— christian2017

The repercussion is commonly believed to be, in a word, nihilism.

Not sure what you mean by "atheism argues for an eternity without feeling." — praxis

the dog or in other words domesticated wolf is at the mercy of humans. Most wolves have been wiped out just as some say humans wiped out some of our precursors (not whether or not this is true). Dawkins claims wolves and dogs are essentially the same species because when they mate they produce offspring that is not infertile. There are 5 types of grizzly bears and one type of grizzly bear can mate with a polar bear and produce fertile offspring.

Most animals that can naturally survive are usually animals that humans produce on farms or animals that humans domesticate. Some would say its not survival of the fittest but survival of the domesticated.
I believe in aliens so perhaps we are all domesticated by aliens.

Cock Roaches, bacteria and viruses break this mold however.

If you have seen pictures of the stone, it is only around half as tall as a person, and there is a great deal of writing on it which from a distance appears very small and close together. Moreover, I am assuming that in order for the writing to have been preserved for as long as it was and not otherwise faded (and because part of it was in hieroglyphics), that the writing was likely created using a chisel type tool to physically carve the letters into the stone, although I imagine this had to be a very laborious and time-consuming process.

In any case, I am curious as to how so much writing could have been created using this method, and yet still be legible enough and free enough of errors that the Greek passage could be translated entirely. I would just think that if you were using a chisel to chisel something into stone, that there would be at least several mistakes from parts of the stone potentially chipping off or breaking, and that this might occur even if you were moderately skilled from having done it many times before since no one can predict what might happen during the process. The Greek letters also appear to be fairly neat when viewed close up, almost as neat as if they were written by hand, so I also don't know how that was achieved by any measure. — BBQueue

My guess is the stone might be more workable than a stone used for carving. They may have used paint as a stencil or guideline when applying the chisel. And the guy (or girl lol) probably was trained from child hood or something like that on how to do this stuff kind of like an apprenticeship.

The Bible is clear "Once Saved, Always Saved". John 15, John 3, Psalm 23, book of James, book of Romans among others. If Jesus Christ thought i was going to do something to lose my salvation in 10 years he would kill me today. When the horse gets a broken leg, the farmer takes it around back behind the barn and shoots it.

Jesus Christ can predict 100% of everything.

This is a religious post about christianity by a christian so i'm authorized to post scripture.

I have heard from several religious figures, including a pastor at a Christian church that just going to church alone does not make you a Christian if you do not maintain a Christian mindset or do certain things outside of church. I have even heard it said by a select few in YouTube
videos that giving money was among the requirements, which would essentially mean that people who are not in a position to give money are not and cannot be Christians. Of course this notion is beyond ridiculous, but even aside from it I have to wonder why it is that any "Christian" even bothers going to church, or why the pastor wants them to go to church if he himself is of the mindset that simply going to church does not make you a Christian.

If going to church is supposed to be one of the requirements among others, then a person can't really be criticized for going to church even if they don't do other things that might be considered necessary to be a Christian because at least they are making an effort. But aside from that, a person may as well practice Christianity outside of a church setting, or do more or less what is done in church but outside of a church if they are doing other things. I do imagine that it must be difficult, in any case, to constantly question if one is doing enough of the right things and in the right ways to be considered a Christian, especially if a pastor is creating doubt on a regular basis. — BBQueue

Most churches squander the tithes and offerings and at the same time reject true fiscal conservatism that would actually help the poor. There are ways to help the poor through law changes with out government handouts. Mainly through modernized building codes that take into account building materials and commercial off the shelf security systems made cheap by global factories. Many churches just follow "work harder, spend less and give more to the church".

We live in a society where happiness is valued above all else. Happiness is on everyone's mind: Gotta do this or that to be happy. If you're not happy there's something wrong with you. Sadness is associated with mental illness. Nobody has time for your sadness. "Get over it", "why don't you just be happy?", "oh, stop being so miserable", "don't bring everybody down", etc..

I'm fine with people wanting to be happy, but I don't believe we should suppress our negative feelings. There's a lot to be sad about: the world we live in is far from perfect, misery is a part of life. Let's not turn our back on all misfortune in this world and pretend it doesn't exist.

When I think about all the sad and horrible things in the world, knowing I can't do anything about it except feel sad, I feel a sense of joy. It's hard to explain, but I find pleasure when I know things are truly hopeless. Does anyone else feel the same way? — Wheatley

Alot of problems in America in terms of economic problems can be solved not with socialism or government handouts but with modifying land laws and building code laws. I'll spare you the details at this point unless you ask for more information. Alot of current land laws and building codes popped up after LBJ's war on poverty. Globalism and automation are in general bad things but they can be used to our advantage if we modify certain laws.

As for other countries, each country is different and i don't pretend to know alot about them.

I’ve read Sapiens.

1) I suppose that’s true.

2) Prolonged anxiety may have a tendency to lead to clinical depression. Sapiens may be unique in our capacity for existential angst.

3) Social critters encourage 'good behavior' without utilizing religion, as did sapiens prior to developing it. 'Advanced' societies utilize religion and other shared fictions.

Not sure where this is going or what the point may be. The gist of Sapiens is the theory that shared fictions like religion or money help to bind groups in cooperative behavior and that this has proven to be an extremely successful survival strategy. — praxis

Oh wow, i missed this post probably because my feed didn't give an alert.

How would you prove social critters don't have some irrational or fictional beliefs related to images considering they can't communicate with us. I'm not saying they have religion but they do have irrational or fictional beliefs. At the very least you could say they aren't the best at survival nor can they predict certain things as well as we can. However the common religious concept is that if something is done dumb it shouldn't be punished too bad for its wrong doing or it's stupid act because its dumb.

The book sapiens said religion probably began in some form (in some form) with hunter gatherers.

As to "where this is going": we are all supposed to keep an open mind or rational people tend to push people off of sites like this. Considering atheism argues for an eternity without feeling, i'm not sure there would be negative repercussions to find out there was no god or afterlife.

If two condensed universes (similar to black holes based on my limited knowledge) were accelerated towards each other due to gravity, and then they collided, could that explain how these two pseudo black holes (or condensed mass/universes) were able to explode and cause the expansion of the universe commonly talked about? You know when they say our galaxy is in the approximate center of all the other galaxies in the universe and that the universe is expanding outwards. And that all the galaxies are moving.

this may sound stupid and i knew this day would come but i'm at 666 and i would like to move to 668 for superstitious reasons (mentions). Help a buddy out lol. Have you ever seen the movie Pi (same guy who made "Requiem for a dream")?

I was reading the third article and this is a quote from it, and perhaps i'm taking it out of context: "Some AI enthusiasts even envision the ultimate evolution of a Cosmic Mind, informed by all lower level phases."

I read what you said about this top mind not being a creator and i can kind of see why this top mind wouldn't have to be a creator, but why is it a stretch to say primitive people who believed in religion weren't in some sense (some sense) refering to this top mind or cosmic mind?

We can't for sure equate the cause of feeling/consciessness to information.
— christian2017
What else can you equate it with? If you accept the scientific consensus of evolution over billions of years, from pure Energy to Matter to Mind, how can you explain the emergence of Consciousness?

However, if you accept the religious doctrine of divine intervention to add an immortal Soul to a mortal body, you will have to take that on Faith. And quit trying to be a philosopher, using Reason to discover Truth.

The EnFormAction link above may give some idea of how I envision the emergence of Soul/Self with no need for magical intervention into the evolutionary process of Creation. :nerd: — Gnomon

lol. Uhhhhhh. When you use G-d (which is a jewish way of saying God), and then you go on and on about G-d being a creator but also not a creator, and then the fact that this whole philosophy/science thing your explaining is your idea................ and your accusing me of acting on faith? Any time you've concieved of an idea and have yet to prove your idea, to some extent you can be accused of acting on faith.

I'll read those articles later and i've added the links to my journal. I'm not sure you've proven that i'm the only one acting on faith.

So feeling/conscienceness is atleast somewhat related to this G-d you were talking about in your post?
— christian2017
Of course. Where else would they come from? And I can only assume that G*D is conscious in some sense, since "feeling/consciousness" exists in He/r creation. Raw Information (similar to mathematics) is the root (potential) of consciousness. But I don't know how "feelings" would work for an eternal BEING without a physical body to generate emotions. So I prefer to avoid anthro-metric characterizations of a transcendent entity. [note : "He/r" is intentionally ambiguous]

However, I understand that ancient people, with no idea of Information or Energy, imagined their deities in the best way they knew how : comparing them to human kings and tribal leaders. So, emotional non-philosophers needed relatable metaphors in order to understand the god concept. But rational philosophers, among their peers, used more abstract descriptions of the transcendent deity. Perhaps the best example of the common vs expert god-models is the dual definitions of Brama (one of a trinity of polytheistic gods) and Brahman (absolute abstract unitary creator) in Hinduism.

Likewise, the ancient Hebrews imagined their tribal god as a warrior king whose special power was control of the weather, including lightning (equivalent to Greek Zeus). But as their priests & scribes became more sophisticated in philosophy and knowledge of how the world works, their professional understanding of God became more remote and abstract (similar to Brahma). Unfortunately, in their scriptures, these dual definitions were used interchangeably. The confusing result is that Christians inherited a Bible with depictions of a humanoid God walking in the Garden of Eden, and of a transcendent creative principle that had no human form. The late Jewish notion of God was so abstract and remote, that the myth of a human son was proposed in an effort to re-humanize the deity with feelings & human consciousness.

Consequently, I have abandoned the notion of a creator who made his creatures in his own likeness, with upright posture and two legs. Instead, I imagine G*D as an unimaginable cosmic principle. I attribute my own personal feelings to the emergence of metaphysical Mind from eons of physical evolution. I call that creative process EnFormAction. But it's too abstract & philosophical to be the basis for a popular religion. :nerd:


G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

BEING : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Brahma : https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/deities/brahma.shtml

EnFormAction : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html — Gnomon

thats fair. I'll add your articles to my journal and read them later.

Raw Information (similar to mathematics) is the root (potential) of consciousness — Gnomon

assuming i understand that what you wrote in paranthesis, this is what i'm getting at. We can't for sure equate the cause of feeling/consciessness to information. I'm not saying you are wrong but like you said equating it to the G-d you mentioned is actually more sensible at this point in the conversation.

Absolutely no agreement? Lets embrace the spectrum idea, ofcourse there is atleast some agreement.
— christian2017

Sure, but I meant total agreement. — Pinprick

That adds confusion to your post. So i had to comment on it because that changes what you are saying a very significant amount.

Chistianity and Islam is drastically different.
— christian2017

Sure, but I don’t see the relevance here. You mentioned the corruption of religion, but not of a specific religion.

There is a concept in Christianity called the Pale of orthodoxy, which to make an overly simple statement "There are about 10 or so accepted denominations or relative theology sets that even though they have significant differences, the interpretations aren't deemed heretical".
— christian2017

They aren’t deemed heretical by who? Accepted by who? Are there other denominations that claim to be Christian, but are not accepted? If so, on what grounds?

Absolutely no agreement? Lets embrace the spectrum idea, ofcourse there is atleast some agreement.
— christian2017

Sure, but I meant total agreement.

Actually Jihadism is in the Koran. Are you saying otherwise? Mohomad the founder of Islam was a "great" general/warlord.
— christian2017

There are many statements in all of the religions texts, but people interpret them differently. Usually some mixture of literal and metaphorical/allegorical. I know Jihadism is in the Koran, but not all Muslims practice it. My point is there is no way to determine who is following the “correct” or “uncorrupted” doctrine. Perhaps Jihadism should be taken literally, or perhaps not. It is very easy and convenient for a Theist of a particular religion to sit back and denounce all aspects of their religion as corrupt that they disagree with. — Pinprick

" It is very easy and convenient for a Theist of a particular religion to sit back and denounce all aspects of their religion as corrupt that they disagree with."

I agree. Do you agree with your own statement?

As far as Pale of Orthodoxy is concerned, how many Pentecostals, United Methodists, Presybiterian (liberal or conservative), Anglican, and even Catholic to some extent actively barrage each other or even kill each other over theology. Most Christians critisize other christians (or kill) over money. If you want to critisize the modern christian church, the primary accusation you can make is over the churches use of money, the church's view of the work ethic of the poor, and how the church view's modern building codes and land practices. Most christians are angry at other christian over economics.

There are many Muslim theocratical countries and they have a tremendous amount of land, why is it they can't be happy with the amount they have? And why when they expand is it not about expanding a secular nation but instead a theocratic nation?

I'm not saying you are wrong but how does spirit and soul equate to energy and information?
— christian2017
For a more complete understanding of that analogy you'd have to be familiar with my Enformationism worldview. Ultimately, everything in this world is a form of universal Information (patterns, meanings, potential), which exists in both physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) phases. For example, Physicists have concluded that raw data (information) in computer memory can be transformed into useful energy.

Ancient people saw unexplainable events --- such as a tree suddenly falling over --- and without any concept of gravity, assumed that some "agent" pushed it over. Eventually, those invisible causal agents were called "spirits", or "chi", or "prana". Almost all cultures have some notion of disembodied spirits or ghosts or souls causing otherwise unexplainable motions, lights, or sounds. Today, most of us understand that Energy is an invisible-but-mundane causal force. But some still imagine ghosts or supernatural agents which cause events that can't be immediately explained by scientists.

In my thesis, I trace the existence of material objects back to the insubstantial but potential creative energy that emerged in the Big Bang. But what caused the Bang? Evolution is a series of transformations from essentially nothing to everything, including matter & mind. So, I propose a theory to explain how mental phenomena can be produced by sufficiently organized (enformed) matter, such as human brains. Long story short, I track everything in the world back to a First Cause (the Enformer, G*D) with the power to create both Matter & Mind.

Thus, just as Energy equates to Spirit, and Information equates to Mind, then Evolution equates to Creation. And my axiomatic Creator is what I call G*D, because it equates to all the god-models in all human cultures. But, all I know about that eternal Potential is by inference from the actual world. So I don't know how many arms & legs G*D has, or what H/er intentions are for H/er creatures. "G*D" is merely a placeholder name for something transcendent & ineffable. And since the myriad of conflicting scriptures of the world can't all be right, I simply accept the fact that this world was created, without pretending to know by whom, or for what purpose. Hence, my relationship with G*D is ambiguous. :cool:


Energy is Information : https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information

Information to Energy : https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/ — Gnomon

So feeling/conscienceness is atleast somewhat related to this G-d you were talking about in your post?

That’s not at all what I am saying or implying. The overwhelming majority of people in general are at least decent. I just don’t understand what christian2017meant by religious corruption. As far as I know, there is absolutely no agreement in any religion as to what is the correct doctrine, and which doctrine is corrupt. That’s precisely why there are so many different sects and denominations within each religion. Therefore, who is to say that Jihadism is a corrupted form of Islam, for example? Those Muslims that are not Jihadists may think so, but the reverse is also true. I guess the more direct questions I was asking were when was religion corrupted, and by who? And what is your reasoning to back up whatever your claim is? — Pinprick

Chistianity and Islam is drastically different. There is a concept in Christianity called the Pale of orthodoxy, which to make an overly simple statement "There are about 10 or so accepted denominations or relative theology sets that even though they have significant differences, the interpretations aren't deemed heretical". I would argue if a Christian is reasonable and tries somewhat to embrace "turn the other cheek", they don't have anything to worry about in terms of correct theology (ofcourse they have to accept John chapter 3 to a strong measure as it is traditionally understood).

Absolutely no agreement? Lets embrace the spectrum idea, ofcourse there is atleast some agreement.

As far as rejecting religion altogether, that has never had great (keyword: great) results. Yes embracing religion doesn't always have good effects either.

Actually Jihadism is in the Koran. Are you saying otherwise? Mohomad the founder of Islam was a "great" general/warlord.

The Pope and Stalin have killed for not being Catholic/Athiest.

I would argue the corruption of religion dates back to whether a religion becomes like the religions of ancient Iraq. Temple prostitution in modern hinduism is an example of this.

Americans typically don't get violent over religion in modern times. Alot of American violence is over economic or on the other hand domestic issues.
— christian2017

The problem I see re corruption and religion is that the latter is about submission to a higher power and this acts as a magnet to politicians and statesmen - people who'd like nothing more than to legitimize and consolidate power through divine association.

Perhaps I digress. — TheMadFool

How do you feel about the US Constituion and the Bill of Rights? I understand its not perfect but how do you feel about the document itself rather than how history played out?

considering this an online forum, i have no basis to argue with you right now. If you have never met a decent religionist in the flesh, then i have no argument at this point.
— christian2017

I've been an agnostic for over 60 years now...and I have known MANY people who are religious who are decent, reasonable, intelligent people...some of whom go out of their way to help with the needs of their fellow human.

Anyone (like Pinprick, apparently) who thinks "religious = mostly bad" and "without religion = mostly good" is simply not giving the issue sufficient reflection.

Good, decent, bad, evil, generous, envious, caring, oblivious, moral, depraved, merciful, resentful, kind, malevolent, considerate, compassionate...are traits shared equally by theists, agnostics, and atheists.

It is time we all come to realize that. — Frank Apisa

well in this modern age i would have to agree with that

How would our ancestors have adopted science (considering scientific understanding is a spectrum?)?
— christian2017
By making observations of the world and making sure that they aren't projecting their wants and needs (like being accepted in the social group) onto what it is they are observing.

In the beginning it was hard to get writing materials and a phonetic alphabet came with time and these two things are very important for science. The Native Americans didn't have these as far as i know which is why just like everyone else they resorted to religion.
— christian2017
At root, science identifies and integrates sensory evidence (which is the nature of reason). Science is essentially based, not on experiment, but on observation and logic; the act of looking under a rock or into a telescope is the quintessentially scientific act. So is the act of observing and thinking about your own mental processes--a scientific act is completely private. (Proof of one's conclusions to others comes later, but that is argumentative, not inquisitive.) Science is willing to accept and integrate information from any observational source, without concern about persuading other people. — Harry Hindu

True. But how would you expect these early hunter gatherers to make this leap without alot of knowledge considering they didn't have a writing system.

Have you ever read Noah Harrari's "Sapiens". He argues one of the things that enabled cohesion on a massive scale among humans was fictional concepts like money(gold) and religion.

They understood death better than the animals that were less verbally talented but they didn't understand death the way you or i do.
— christian2017
They didn't "understand" death. They were aware of it, but didn't understand it. There's a difference. If they understood it, then how did they understand it other than how their religion described it?

Also, language isn't needed for understanding. Understanding is needed in order to learn a language, so understanding is prior to language-use. — Harry Hindu

Considering this is conjecture on both our parts, how would either of us prove it either way. The forum topic was food for thought. But once again neither of us can prove to what extent they understood death. To some measure they did, because understanding is a spectrum.

The hunter gatherers had limited knowledge so saying they are just simply selfish is an oversimplification.
— christian2017
I didn't say, "selfish". I said self-centered. There's a difference. It seems to me an inherent human quality to think oneself as "important", or "valuable". These are subjective, mental properties that we project onto the world that isn't important or valuable. It just is. — Harry Hindu

I understand there can be a difference based on context, however self-centered is sometimes used to mean selfish.

I'm sure i'm far from the first to have this idea but perhaps religion began because humans have more
complex speech/communication than most animals, and....

thus

1. we understood death better than other animals in terms of communicating decomposure and physical details associated with it.

2. we feared death more because abstract thought tends to encourage severe depression. (how many animals commit suicide?)

3. we were a social animal so we felt the need to encourage good behavior in these small tribes. Primitive people are more prone to resort to religion to encourage ethics.
— christian2017

1. If we understood death, we wouldn't need religion. Religion is a knee-jerk knowledge-gap-filler. When our ancestors didn't understand something (which was a lot), they asserted a religion.

2. Exactly. We fear what we don't understand. Religion alleviates that fear for a lot of people still today

3. Absolutely. As Praxis pointed out,
that shared fictions like religion or money help to bind groups in cooperative behavior and that this has proven to be an extremely successful survival strategy.
— praxis

But then this raises another question: Is religion a viable source of encouraging ethical behavior today? If not, then what changed - the religions, or us?

4. I'm adding another point as to the origin of religion: Humans are inherently self-centered. We believe the world was made just for us, and that there is a plan, or purpose, made just for us.

↪praxis It seems to me that ethics, rights and political ideology also fall into that same category of "fictions that help bind groups in cooperative behaviors." What about science? Is science a shared fiction? Has science proved to be an even better survival strategy? If so, then maybe "extremely successful" isn't a proper characteristic of the outcome of shared fictions. How do we know that we wouldn't have been more successful if our ancestors adopted science instead of religion? — Harry Hindu

The hunter gatherers had limited knowledge so saying they are just simply selfish is an oversimplification.

They understood death better than the animals that were less verbally talented but they didn't understand death the way you or i do.

How would our ancestors have adopted science (considering scientific understanding is a spectrum?)?

In the beginning it was hard to get writing materials and a phonetic alphabet came with time and these two things are very important for science. The Native Americans didn't have these as far as i know which is why just like everyone else they resorted to religion.

I don't study Kabbalah. Some say the Mormons study it some as well the Freemasons. I have studied the Talmud. It appears the Talmud makes the implicit and vague statements from the old testament law and makes them very explicit like a well written legal document. Atleast from what i've read.

How do you feel about the religions of the city states of ancient Iraq? — christian2017

Intuitively I should say that it was, probably is and will be about the nature of divine being in essence. That it springs from what was originally introduced to humans of the modern world to get a sense of what a God could be. That then from divine inspiration and human cohesion sprung the precept of the Abrahamic God. Although still disputed today, I believe it is about to settle and that the then Mesopotamian religions will play an important part in re-integrating a measure of unity in the equation. That in turn will amount to a real sense of a single individible God - Tawhid. From it we will collectively realize what has happened - thus who we are. Exhilarating times. :joke:

I have spent some time as a Latter Day Saint and I have seen no signs of pure Kabbalah, although I can see that the general idea is there. It's all about divinity and how it belongs to us all anyway. Now, the Talmud - interesting stuff. In retrospect it will reveal a lot more about the mind of God than any other scripture. Although if you want to know how God did it, I recommend to study the Sibylline Books in retrospect. Knowing all of history of course is a requirement for zen in the matter. It happened on Earth though, that's for sure. The planet of solidified God - Tell-us.

Just a feeling. Please share any worthy seeming sensation pertaining to the Talmud. I would love to hear of it. — Eleonora

How do you feel about ancient temple prostitiution in ancient Iraq? This actually has occurred in other places around the world through out history including modern Hinduism.

Considering Kabbalah has mulitple interpretations and the texts and information related to it is 10s of thousands of pages (correct me if i'm wrong), why would the Mormons strictly (strictly) observe Kabbalah?

The corruption of religion implies that there is a more, for lack of a better term, pure form of it that exists, or at least existed. However, every denomination and sect of each individual religion claims to be this “pure” form. If I were to be cynical, I would say that religion has been corrupt since it’s inception, as it was used primarily as a tool to establish authority and “order,” but under the guise of “truth” or “morality.” — Pinprick

considering this an online forum, i have no basis to argue with you right now. If you have never met a decent religionist in the flesh, then i have no argument at this point.

Oh so you were saying ancestor worship was more comforting than christianity (your original phrase was slightly vague). I disagree but whatever.
— christian2017

Christianity is immoral, ancestor worship isn't. Sure it's comforting to think a God would die for you in order to change you (not you personally) from a evil person to a good person. But it's a clear perversion of justice in the name of mercy. Mercy has to do with doing away with punishment in order to give someone a chance to make up for what they did. Christianity changes mercy into something else, saying that you can't make up for your sins so that your only salvation is for God to walla! change you into a good person. It's sick. It was created by sinners for sinners. Bad people created it. Weak people believe it. We all have weak moments though — Gregory

ok

I was talking about Hinduism. Did i mention ancestor worship? Whats this about a jewish rabbi?
— christian2017

I was speaking of Jesus. You brought up Druids, so I brought up another interesting theory. With the theory of evolution, how far back is it scientifically rational to worship your ancestors? Hinduism doesn't interest me as much as Buddhism though. Fascinination with nothingness! — Gregory

Oh so you were saying ancestor worship was more comforting than christianity (your original phrase was slightly vague). I disagree but whatever.

Humans could easily go back 2 million years and a minimum of 100,000. I don't see why human ancestor worshiping religions can't go back to scientific adam and scientific eve. You ought to look up those concepts because scientists actually recognize scientific adam and scientific eve.

I don't study Kabbalah. Some say the Mormons study it some as well the Freemasons. I have studied the Talmud. It appears the Talmud makes the implicit and vague statements from the old testament law and makes them very explicit like a well written legal document. Atleast from what i've read.

How do you feel about the religions of the city states of ancient Iraq?

I watched parts of it. Thats funny. Abstract thought leads to depression which is why i would argue humans are more prone to depression than most animals.