I Believe in Religion

In Chaos Theory, which for the record is acknowledged as fundamentally relevant as Gravity theory to Nature. A very relevant point to the argument in relation to order in the Universe vs. A randomly generated Universe. Is that Chaos theory presents that what we consider in nature to be random at larger scales of observation is in fact not.


This is a rational conclusion that points to the fact that given this is apparent and observable in Nature, it could also represent. The actual status of the large scale structure of the Universe.

And LM does not want to discuss it.

Beyond that there is also this....

Selected Peer-Reviewed Publications on Psi Research

The following is a selected list of downloadable peer-reviewed journal articles reporting studies of psychic phenomena, mostly published in the 21st century. There are also some important papers of historical interest and other resources. A comprehensive list would run into thousands of articles. Click on the title of an article to download it.

The international professional organization for scientists and scholars interested in psi phenomena is the Parapsychological Association, an elected affiliate (since 1969) of the AAAS, the largest general scientific organization in the world.

Commonly repeated critiques about psi, such as “these phenomena are impossible,” or “there’s no valid scientific evidence,” or “the results are all due to fraud,” have been soundly rejected for many decades. Such critiques persist due to ignorance of the relevant literature and to entrenched, incorrect beliefs. Legitimate debates today no longer focus on existential questions but on development of adequate theoretical explanations, advancements in methodology, the “source” of psi, and issues about effect size heterogeneity and robustness of replication.

This page is maintained by Dean Radin. Updated April 18, 2014.

Source

Any thoughts?

PS: LesMisanthrope this is a Discussion Forum, if you are not here to discuss what exactly is your Agenda?

PSS: "(This is meant to provoke a philosophical discussion, not a religious one.)".

This is your Op's Headline? So you expect members of this forum to take you seriously???

a reply to: BlueMule

Nothing lurks in the text itself. It’s arbitrary symbols and scratches on paper until a human lays his eyes on it. No; religion is not literature, for it would have to be honest to admit that, and is thus not honorable enough to deserve that distinction, but it is no less an artifact of humanity.

Humanity’s sacred texts are just that, writings appointed sacred by those who revere them. They’re revered not for what is written in them, but for what they are, a tradition.

originally posted by: christophoros
a reply to: johndeere2020

You really aren't giving any credit to our ancestors basic universal laws? Of course they knew universal laws what do you think hermetics is or even the laws in the bible they all follow universal law

Laws of nature or man has their assigned levels.

It is determined by how easy they are violated - made void or inconsistent.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics for example, could easily be violated but not the 3rd law which is the conservation of energy. Living creatures for instance, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in many of their systems which makes them incredibly energy efficient. We have little to none of such application in any of our modern technology in the context of energy production.

Political/authority and economical structures of the 21st century is unsustainable because they are based on deeply flawed principles.


Laws in nature or of man introduces some sort of order but many of them leaves much to be desired.

Many of them could be violated/changed into something better for instance, to eradicate poverty, corruption, wars, even violent crime. To solve all energy problems and reverse global warming - whether this problem is real or not.


I'm sorry say this but we cannot truly advance humanity with tremendous speed if we look at laws like treasure instead of looking at them as yet another journey to an even greater treasure and so on and so forth.

a reply to: Kashai

Any thoughts?

PS: LesMisanthrope this is a Discussion Forum, if you are not here to discuss what exactly is your Agenda?

PSS: "(This is meant to provoke a philosophical discussion, not a religious one.)".

This is your Op's Headline? So you expect members of this forum to take you seriously???

This would be about the 4th time you've tried to spout off some chaos theory in a thread that has nothing to do with chaos theory. I have no clue what point you are trying to make, Kashai, and your attempts to aggravate me are boring at best.

Let me know when you wish to discuss the topic at hand. I'd be happy to engage.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kashai

Any thoughts?

PS: LesMisanthrope this is a Discussion Forum, if you are not here to discuss what exactly is your Agenda?

PSS: "(This is meant to provoke a philosophical discussion, not a religious one.)".

This is your Op's Headline? So you expect members of this forum to take you seriously???

This would be about the 4th time you've tried to spout off some chaos theory in a thread that has nothing to do with chaos theory. I have no clue what point you are trying to make, Kashai, and your attempts to aggravate me are boring at best.

Let me know when you wish to discuss the topic at hand. I'd be happy to engage.

You need Diapers and there is nothing random given Chaos theory about the Universe.

a reply to: JUhrman

I do agree that there is nothing inherantly wrong with religion. the only issue i have with it is when it's used to justify thoughts or actions that are nothing more than personal prejudice. And not only being used to justify them but making it ok to indoctrinate people into the same ill thought process.

In truth religion is a wonderful moral and philosophical guide, but also has alot to do with how it's interpreted and taugh, and it is my opinion ( others may disagree) that it is more often than not taught in a way that portrays it as being there to help, but in reality used as a way to justify telling someone that the way they live their life is wrong.

i have no problem with religio. What i have a problem with is corruption.

originally posted by: johndeere2020

The 2nd law of thermodynamics for example, could easily be violated but not the 3rd law which is the conservation of energy. Living creatures for instance, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in many of their systems which makes them incredibly energy efficient.

Living creatures do not violate the 2nd law. The people who claim that do so because they don't understand the law or have never read the whole thing. Living creatures, our planet, even our entire solar system and Galaxy are not closed systems and therefore do not apply to the 2nd law in that way. The 2nd law deals with "Closed, Isolated Systems" where no new energy is being introduced.

originally posted by: babybunnies
I usually find that when you're trying to convince others of whatever your belief system is, you're really only trying to convince yourself.

I'm an Atheist, but never try and convert others to my cause. I'm very good at stating my beliefs when they come up in conversation, but don't try and justify them to others.

My biggest problem with Christians specifically is that they're all arrogant enough to think that they are important enough to their God that he has some sort of plan for them.

If there really was a God, you'd be about as significant to Him as ants are to us. We don't have a plan for ants, other than to wipe them out when they get into our homes. It's certainly ridiculous to think that even if we had an ant farm, we'd have a plan for every single one.

The most ridiculous statement I hear over and over from Religion is "but this misfortune is all part of God's plan for me".

But at the same time, you call them "ridiculous" for their beliefs while you don't even consider that you may be "ridiculous" in yours. My Wife once said to me "You always think you are right". I responded with "Well...why would I say something that I thought was wrong?". She didn't like that.

As much as people can look at another's views and call them stupid, a smart person realizes that others look at theirs the same. When a person's views are in the majority they then feel confidant in looking down upon the others without care. But our history, even recent shows that the popular beliefs are not always the right beliefs. An exceptional person will realize that their views are no more right or valuable than any other person's views simply because they are opinions of a topic that hasn't been proven beyond doubt. And when there is doubt...there can only be opinions.

So...and this is not addressed at you specifically...if you realize you may be 100% right but may be 100% wrong, then your views will be accepted (but maybe not believed) much better than demanding that other's realize themselves to be ignorant.

originally posted by: mOjOm
Living creatures do not violate the 2nd law. The people who claim that do so because they don't understand the law or have never read the whole thing. Living creatures, our planet, even our entire solar system and Galaxy are not closed systems and therefore do not apply to the 2nd law in that way. The 2nd law deals with "Closed, Isolated Systems" where no new energy is being introduced.

I understand the principle perfectly. I have engineering degree with several courses in gas dynamics. I also took a hobby of scientific research and aerodynamics. At work, I deal with statistical mechanics which is clearly involved with the kinetic theory of gas molecules.

Things I deal with everyday are concerned with thermodynamics.

Violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics alone doesn't result to discruption of energy equilibrium or conservation of energy. Since in the 2nd law, we are only describing the transfer of energy (hot to cold). The 2nd law doesn't care if energy is produced in a closed system or reduced. It only cares about not having energy move from cold to hot. So we're not really trying to make free energy from nothing but having the ability to transfer energy that is already existing in the environment in whichever we we want.

Example of this energy is the ambient heat in air which present as long as the air is hotter than -273'Celsius or 0 Kelvin. We're not really making energy from nothing because that ambient heat in air came from the Earth, Sun and the microwave background radiation of space. I'm simply describing an insanely efficient means of harnessing energy that is already available in unimaginable abundance around us. No energy is created.

In fact, there is absolutely no reason for the 2nd law to exist. It only exists in classical laws because it doesn't take into account individual motions of molecules or atoms or subatomic particles which statistical and quantum mechanics consider.


Mainstream Science acknowledges the fact the 2nd law has been violated:


www.gizmag.com...

And obviously, the articles involved are molecular in scale.



The subject of my personal research in such direction is developing a practical application so it won't be necessary to deal with expensive nanotechnology. If successful, I'll obviously be nominated for the Nobel, knighthood, bla bla, yada yada and have my own island in the Pacific.

I'd be the target of revenge attacks though for causing the collapse "petro economy" and possibly the world economy too. Big things come at a dear dear price.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Your theory of literature seems to be rooted in straightforward, common-sense ground.

What lurks in that sentence? Surely there is not a plot of earth somewhere with your theory growing in it.

'A dream is a scripture, and many scriptures are nothing but dreams.'

-Umberto Eco

If Tolkien didn't invent Faramir, what did?

Did you watch that vid?

What are dreams?



👣

a reply to: BlueMule

Religion is not literature. It has a component of literature, granted, but it is not literature. So I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Yes I utilize the common senses. Most people have them. Do I have more senses? It's likely my whole body is a sense.

Tolkien did invent Faramir. Whether he was inspired by a dream, it was still Tolkien's dream.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

It is amazing what we can learn when we don't close our mind, myself as a once devout Christian, went on a long journey through time and text, and found beauty.

I guess you find what you are looking for.

I found some interesting verses in the Bible that defied explanation, so I went searching for answers.

Basically I wanted to know where it all started, can't say I found out, but I have an idea.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Dreams and imagination have created so much.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

“I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”

If only we had the wisdom of those ancient scribes, wisdom is the beginning of knowledge.

“How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! and to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver!”

In the beginning was the word, the scribe.

Question, can you love me and accept me even though I am religious and you are not?

Or do you immediately judge me as inferior ?

A religious nutter who prays to the sky fairy?

Or can you get to know me the person not the religion?

Can we find worth in each others views?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
I never said it did. I'm only curious as to what part of religion atheists do not believe in.

Religion exists.

an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

Many organized systems of belief (religions) exist. There's nothing about that to not believe. What atheists don't believe in is a god, not religion.

Yes, there is not a god to lack belief in. If so, then what do you lack belief in? The book? The promises of priests? This is what I cannot understand.

Do you also have trouble understanding that...

Some people believe in angels. Some don't.
Some believe in aliens. Some don't.
Some believe in an afterlife. Some don't.
Some believe in fairies. Some don't.
Some believe in love. Some don't.

Do any of the above statements perplex you so? And to add to them...

Some believe in a god. Some don't.

What's so hard to understand? It is not necessary that something exists for a person to take the position that it doesn't exist.

Let me put your position to you: Do you believe in Leprechauns? If your answer is no, then you must believe they exist to hold a disbelief in... Silly, huh?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Religion is not literature. It has a component of literature, granted, but it is not literature. So I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

What else is it then? You've said, "every God changes and morphs with the language, for our Gods are language, and for that is the only place a God has ever remained. Seek elsewhere and nothing of the sort can be found. Open a book; there they are."

I'm just trying to understand you better. There is a very important component of religion that you neglect, which is contemplative practice of one kind or another. I have yet to see you make a thread about it. Why is that?

Tolkien did invent Faramir. Whether he was inspired by a dream, it was still Tolkien's dream.

But what is a dream? Are you a skillful dreamer? Do you recall your dreams? Do you dream in vivid color, lucidly, every night? Have you shared a dreamscape with other dreamers, have you contemplated philosophy in a dream, have you seen the future or the past in a dream?

👣

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

It is amazing what we can learn when we don't close our mind, myself as a once devout Christian, went on a long journey through time and text, and found beauty.

I guess you find what you are looking for.

I found some interesting verses in the Bible that defied explanation, so I went searching for answers.

Basically I wanted to know where it all started, can't say I found out, but I have an idea.

Absolutely! I was raised Catholic but have since realized that for me...it doesn't work. I don't believe in a traditional God nor do I like organized religion. But I had my children go to church when they were younger because it taught values they wouldn't see in today's society. They have now taken those lessons and incorporated themselves and their beliefs into a structure that works for them. I hope there is a God...that would be awesome and I support any religious person so long as they don't become a pusher of their own drug. Some people need religion. I wouldn't damage or argue that for anyone. I support religious rights, gay rights, equal rights, etc. But I do see some of the people who want rights, fighting against others who want their rights also. Which kind of negates the whole "equal" thing.

If religions that or should be that good at explaining things or giving hints or ideas to certain questions that should be asked, then why doesn't it.

Like where the obvious, or predictable question is, is God real? Now some would say God is real, as if it were unquestionable like the Sun bringing dawn, because everyone can see it. Some would do it out of blindness or desperation, others could easily be wolves in sheeps clothing, while other could answer with possibly the most spiritual, or common answer. God is what is in the inside.

If religion were that good or right about how life should or how it supposed to be, like Christianity for example, they would have to pick two sides, with their own abilities, like light and dark. The light would be able to heal and shoot lightning bolts from their finger tips, where as the Dark could have life leech or throwing fireballs like traditional sorcerers selling their souls. It would be like "WOW", you pick ether Azeroth or the Horde, because the God(makers at blizzard) said so.

If religion were that good at a practice, or provable in teachings, then why can't any body heal like Jesus did without having to present themselves as holy figures, or even godly for that matter? Where it just becomes common?

Instead of using basic, to tedious mental principles that even most practitioners have a difficult time explaining because they are too worried about looking good, instead of acting so good...Its bad.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Question, can you love me and accept me even though I am religious and you are not?

I'm not one to love willy-nilly, or because I am supposed to, for that is not love. Love is earned and gifted, and no belief system can get in the way of that. I can love you.

Or do you immediately judge me as inferior ?

A religious nutter who prays to the sky fairy?

Or can you get to know me the person not the religion?

I judge religion as inferior to the people who create it. It is those who judge the opposite that I have choice words for.

Can we find worth in each others views?

We can only find worth in that people have views and are able to have views. But not every view is valid.