Religion?

[G3lc]

One wonders why humanity seems to need/ponder these unknown unknowns but it seems to be part life for many thousands of years, over 80 years ago when I was very young I had the thought life was a dream and when we died we woke up - but then what? Haven’t really considered it since.

[ursaminortaur]

One wonders why humanity seems to need/ponder these unknown unknowns but it seems to be part life for many thousands of years, over 80 years ago when I was very young I had the thought life was a dream and when we died we woke up - but then what? Haven’t really considered it since.

You wake up to find you are at the Blips and Chitz arcade and aren't really Roy/G3Ic

https://rickandmorty.fandom.com/wiki/Roy:_A_Life_Well_Lived

Roy: A Life Well Lived is a Virtual Reality Life Simulator, a game seen at the Blips and Chitz arcade
.
.
.
Players assume the role of Roy Farnsworth, and the goal of the game is to guide Roy through life in Rotherham, from childhood to death, overcoming obstacles along the way. The game's programming will adjust Roy's life path and the events that happen to him according to the decisions the user makes, in one life Roy has a daughter Paige and in another he is homeless along side another character Neil. The premise seems similar to The Matrix, with elements of a Choose Your Own Adventure story mashed with a RPG.

Alternatively you wake up in the far far future to find that you have either just successfully graduated from a virtual kindergarten meant to develop your empathy and social skills or having failed to develop the required values are about to have your mind wiped so that you can start over in that virtual kindergarten.

[bruncher]

I wonder about formal religion. I understand it very well (at least I think I do) but I do wonder. Take Christianity. A fellow turns up and starts apparently performing miracles. He is a street sleeper (NFA) and yet? I attended the funeral of a good friend of mine on Monday and, ever since, I have had it on my mind. Clearly a committed Christian, he was a singular gentleman for reasons that are not relevant to this post.

Afterwards, a couple of the attendees and I chatted (I had never met them before) The lady said, who was the Minister and did I attend the church. I told her the first and said yes to the second question. Then she said what time is the church on Sundays? She thought about coming along. I said in reply well that is for you but we are here anyway. I just wonder what motivated that exchange?

Dod

Perhaps the lady was inspired by the words spoken by the presiding Minister? Church liturgy has been thought about, tested, and found to be deeply resonant - but it also depends on who is speaking (hence why children should not do readings). Perhaps your Minister has a profound understanding of what he is saying, which informs what he says, and thus he reached the lady attending the funeral?

[Dod101]

I wonder about formal religion. I understand it very well (at least I think I do) but I do wonder. Take Christianity. A fellow turns up and starts apparently performing miracles. He is a street sleeper (NFA) and yet? I attended the funeral of a good friend of mine on Monday and, ever since, I have had it on my mind. Clearly a committed Christian, he was a singular gentleman for reasons that are not relevant to this post.

Afterwards, a couple of the attendees and I chatted (I had never met them before) The lady said, who was the Minister and did I attend the church. I told her the first and said yes to the second question. Then she said what time is the church on Sundays? She thought about coming along. I said in reply well that is for you but we are here anyway. I just wonder what motivated that exchange?

Dod

Perhaps the lady was inspired by the words spoken by the presiding Minister? Church liturgy has been thought about, tested, and found to be deeply resonant - but it also depends on who is speaking (hence why children should not do readings). Perhaps your Minister has a profound understanding of what he is saying, which informs what he says, and thus he reached the lady attending the funeral?

I think you may be right. The minister is a traditional type who is good. Your comment about children resonates with me.I am all for encouraging children but I think nowadays they are pandered to far too much in church at least in ours.
BTW the lady concerned has been a couple of times since the funeral.
Dod

[MaraMan]

I sometimes admire people who are staunch believers or atheists. I feel that I can't be sure about anything really, some days I feel there is a '"god" other days I am convinced that there can't be one, or at least not one that cares a jot about anything. It seems to me that Shakespeare was right when he wrote the lines from Hamlet; "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

Having said all that I love visiting old churches and there is something going on in some of them, but not something I can explain. I have felt the same in a Mosque by the way, and in a Buddhist temple. Maybe all expressions of an ultimate truth beyond ability to comprehend.

And then I watch the news.....

So much of religion is a structure within which to express our need for the transcendent. It's also manifestly a way to exert power. But, and there's always a but, I have been profoundly affected by some very religious people. I have had a habit over many years to taking some time out, just a few days, at a monastery, in fact several different ones. Maybe although think we can never know the truth we still strive for it, like trying to grasp something that is just out of our reach.

I hope you are on the mend Dod

MM

[G3lc]

If god is real in any way I would suggest we have no words or comprehension to discuss the subject, all we can do is say/think what we want or don’t want to believe - nothing wrong with that.
All we really have is our conscience to guide us.

[Leothebear]

By "formal" do you mean organised? I not keen on religion of any persuasion. For centuries it has been and still is, a vehicle to control the masses and by no means necessarily for their own good.

Privately, I'm more than happy for people to believe whatever they like. Just don't assume I do.

Leo

[Dod101]

By "formal" do you mean organised? I not keen on religion of any persuasion. For centuries it has been and still is, a vehicle to control the masses and by no means necessarily for their own good.

Privately, I'm more than happy for people to believe whatever they like. Just don't assume I do.

Leo

I make no assumption that anyone believes in anything. I do not agree with what you say although there is no doubt that religion had a huge influence over ‘the masses’ until comparatively recently, quite possibly for good reason.
Nowadays we are of course too sophisticated to believe in something that requires a bit of faith and imagination. I doubt that the world is a better place without it. In fact of course in many parts of the world belief in some sort of religion is actually growing.

Dod

[1nvest]

By "formal" do you mean organised? I not keen on religion of any persuasion. For centuries it has been and still is, a vehicle to control the masses and by no means necessarily for their own good.

Privately, I'm more than happy for people to believe whatever they like. Just don't assume I do.

Leo

I make no assumption that anyone believes in anything. I do not agree with what you say although there is no doubt that religion had a huge influence over ‘the masses’ until comparatively recently, quite possibly for good reason.
Nowadays we are of course too sophisticated to believe in something that requires a bit of faith and imagination. I doubt that the world is a better place without it. In fact of course in many parts of the world belief in some sort of religion is actually growing.

Dod

A religion of white is bad, especially males ... has very broad/growing global support, often masses are formed by a single focal point of hatred.

[G3lc]

Most of the problems with religion seem to me to be believers trying to convince others to believe in what they think others should believe, and being a sceptic we should, I think, question and try to get it right, whatever right is.

[Leothebear]

By "formal" do you mean organised? I not keen on religion of any persuasion. For centuries it has been and still is, a vehicle to control the masses and by no means necessarily for their own good.

Privately, I'm more than happy for people to believe whatever they like. Just don't assume I do.

Leo

I make no assumption that anyone believes in anything. I do not agree with what you say although there is no doubt that religion had a huge influence over ‘the masses’ until comparatively recently, quite possibly for good reason.
Nowadays we are of course too sophisticated to believe in something that requires a bit of faith and imagination. I doubt that the world is a better place without it. In fact of course in many parts of the world belief in some sort of religion is actually growing.

Dod

I suggest you consider the Christianity practiced in the US, the Islam practiced in Iran and so many other countries. The Roman Catholic hold was just as bad until the sheer amount of evil carried out by their priests and nuns was exposed. The inquisitions were savage beyond belief.

Opposing religions has not been the only reason for conflict but it remains as a major player.
Leo

[Dod101]

If you read my original post you will see my subject was religion (or whatever) at a very local level and I had no intention of dredging up the organised and sometimes aggressive religious feelings abroad in our world and would prefer that the thread was closed down rather than get into that.

Dod

[mikewarr]

Meanwhile if you study the evidence.. the modern world like Dawkins has gone from science, to what is now scientism
We hear it so often we are brainwashed into believing science knows far more than it does.

So I will light the blue touch paper and then retire immediately.

Reality of the Dawkinsian view
1/ the current narrative through chemical abiogenesis evolved to present day life, has nothing to support it at cell level.
2/ there is plenty of evidence now that consciousness is not just a chemical process of the brain,
3/ so if consciousness is seperable, chemistry can never account for life.
4/ Indeed the physical laws which we use to great effect are an observation of the universe not an explanation of it. And They are limited to our senses. It does not account for all there is.
5/ The first live cell is irreducibly complex and Most of the life we actually see in livestock domestic animals , crops and plants are the product of intelligent design . By man! Turns out the forbidden phrases "intelligent design" and "irreducible complexity" are actually true,.

Even worse for Dawkins...
1/ there is plenty of forensic evidence for miracles,
2/ Many to chose but I will pick eucharistic miracles, verified cardiac tissue from bread
3/ white cells show these were live at the point of sampling, so life from other than evolution small change
4/ Which is the very criterion Darwin says would falsify his theory. So Darwin is dead, long live darwin.

So the score on actual forensic evidence is Religion 5. Dawkins 0. Darwin 0
There is nothing for life from abiogenesis. No structure, observation or process.

Increasingly the shroud of turin is now accepted as the real deal. As are the other cloths. The RC date long discredited.
Which is a non contact mark, presumed formed by radiation. Does it mark the ressurection?

[CliffEdge]

Meanwhile if you study the evidence.. the modern world like Dawkins has gone from science to scientism
We hear it so often we are brainwashed into believing science knows more than it does.

So I will light the blue touch paper and then retire immediatel.

Reality of the Dawkinsian view
1/ the current narrative through chemical abiogenesis evolved to present day life, has nothing to support it at cell level.
2/ there is plenty of evidence now that consciousness is not just a chemical process of the brain
3/ so if consciousness is seperable, chemistry can never account for life.
4/ Indeed the physical laws which we use to great effect are an observation not an explanation. They are limited to our senses.
5/ The first live cell is irreducibly complex and Most of the life we actually see in livestock domestic animals , crops and plants are the product of intelligent design . By man!

Even worse for Dawkins...
1/ there is plenty of forensic evidence for miracles,
2/ Many to chose but I will pick eucharistic miracles, verified cardiac tissue from bread
3/ white cells show these were live at the point of sampling, so life from other than evolution small change
4/ Which is the very criterion Darwin says would falsify his theory.

So the score on forensic evidence is Religion 5. Dawkins 0. Darwin 0

Increasingly the shroud of turin is now accepted as the real deal. As are the other cloths. The RC date long discredited.
Which is a non contact mark, presumed formed by radiation. Does it mark the ressurection?

There is also proof that madness exists.

[mikewarr]

There is also proof that madness exists.

Which proves the biggest problem with subjects like the original post.
It is hard to get a serious discussion on it.
Your comment on the points I made?

[CliffEdge]

There is also proof that madness exists.

Which proves the biggest problem with subjects like the original post.
It is hard to get a serious discussion on it.
Your comment on the points I made?

I don't think a serious discussion about religion is possible. Faith is not subject to analysis in any meaningful way. People of Faith believe what they believe, end of. (Which, incidentally, does not prove they are wrong to have Faith, though their actual beliefs are usually very individual and not generally accepted among their kind.)

What causes madness, do you think? It's an interesting question from many angles and in connection with many beliefs and perceptions.
A trivial example: is a mad person conscious? Brings in so many other other questions.

[88V8]

2/ there is plenty of evidence now that consciousness is not just a chemical process of the brain,
3/ so if consciousness is separable, chemistry can never account for life.

Orang utans appear to have self-awareness, but they seem to manage without religion, or we presume so.
Why do we need it - as a prop?

V8

[mikewarr]

Faith is not subject to analysis in any meaningful way.

The very point of my post was that analysis of scientific evidence points in the direction of faith.
There is almost nothing except speculation for life from abiogenesis.

A non religious forensic pathologist said of his analysis of one of the eucharistic miracles
"compelling evidence of creation of heart tissue"
So creation 5 abiogenesis 0 is the score on forensic evidence for start of life.

What young people are taught now is scientism not science.

Dawkins says he has no idea how life started. He is right.
But then he adds his atheist faith statement "but it must have been like this"

[mikewarr]

2/ there is plenty of evidence now that consciousness is not just a chemical process of the brain,
3/ so if consciousness is separable, chemistry can never account for life.

Orang utans appear to have self-awareness, but they seem to manage without religion, or we presume so.
Why do we need it - as a prop?

V8

It is not a case of "whether you need it" but whether it is true.
Education and media tell you that life is a product of random chance chemistry.
The evidence begs to differ.

And If consciousness is separable, not just a process of the brain, then the "chemical" explanation (actually supposition) of life fails.

[bungeejumper]

A non religious forensic pathologist said of his analysis of one of the eucharistic miracles
"compelling evidence of creation of heart tissue"
So creation 5 abiogenesis 0 is the score on forensic evidence for start of life.

What young people are taught now is scientism not science.

Oh dear, oh dear. There's none so scientifically blind as them that will not see. But welcome to the board, anyway, sir. Around these parts we do expect a bit more intellectual distance from our contributors than that. Flat statements of Christian faith, or flat dismissals of those who think otherwise, are not considered likely to advance the debate very much. Especially if you won't tell us who this anonymous (but clearly creationist) "non religious forensic pathologist" is?

Eucharistic miracles? Maybe it would be illuminating if you could explain exactly what you mean by that? And how precisely can you claim to know what young people are being taught? I doubt you are there in every school, but you do seem very sure that you know what's being said in the classrooms.

Questions, questions. In the meantime, folks, Google is your friend.

BJ