swansont Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 the discussion is about the detrimental effects caused by religious prejudice. If we fail to unite under the flag of universal truth, the human race is doomed. Pulled from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85392-the-message/ with a preachectomy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Lately I've been focused on the objectives of religious groups. I see plenty of churches organizing to help the needy, or even just help their own congregations in various positive ways. I have absolutely no problem with these folks; they seem to be what's best about organized religions. Some religious groups have decided that they know what's best for everyone. They've decided that their beliefs should be applied as legislation applicable to the whole population. They're out there lobbying against gay rights, evolution taught in schools, abortion, and other issues where they feel their beliefs are superior. These groups are the very reason and spirit behind separation of church and state, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 These groups are the very reason and spirit behind separation of church and state, imo. I am not terribly sure. I was under the impression that in many countries, including US the separation was to protect individual practitioners from state persecution. An offspring of freedom of thoughts, so to say. The exception would be laicite (pardon my lack of accents) adopted by France and Turkey which distinctly calls to lessen the influence of church on public institutions. Though with the general rise of secularism the quoted part may be the current de facto (if not the historical) reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 I am not terribly sure. I was under the impression that in many countries, including US the separation was to protect individual practitioners from state persecution. An offspring of freedom of thoughts, so to say. The exception would be laicite (pardon my lack of accents) adopted by France and Turkey which distinctly calls to lessen the influence of church on public institutions. Though with the general rise of secularism the quoted part may be the current de facto (if not the historical) reason. Fair point. I should have stipulated the perspective of the State in my comment. Churches should expect tolerance from the State regarding how they worship, but the State should be free from undue influence from the Church as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) Pulled from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85392-the-message/ with a preachectomy So let us clarify your viewpoint Swansont. The dream itself and my philosophical interpretation you label "preaching" because I include a creator? I wonder if the philosophers of the past were condemned as preachers when they pondered the source? I think not. I speak clearly on the grounds of a unified civilization under the flag of universal truth and reason. What is true for one is true for all, scientific fact. Look around you. The wars of the world are fought for two main reasons, religious differences and greed. None of our words change natural reality. It existed before us, now, and will continue long after we self destruct. Being a parent I must believe that our species can change that gloomy future. We don't know it all but all that exists can be known with enough time, cooperation, and the scientific method. Explain to me why you think my viewpoint is vacillating trumpery when the only unproven fact is the definition of the source. It is as steady as the natural constants which rule this realm, and form the foundation of my perspective. You disregard any value of my story because you are biased towards me. Edited September 9, 2014 by photon propeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic134 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 photon propeller, I'm not sure I follow the point you are trying to make; is it that religion(s) is a source of detriment to humanity? Or are you saying we all need to believe in the "right" god? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) Lately I've been focused on the objectives of religious groups. I see plenty of churches organizing to help the needy, or even just help their own congregations in various positive ways. I have absolutely no problem with these folks; they seem to be what's best about organized religions. Some religious groups have decided that they know what's best for everyone. They've decided that their beliefs should be applied as legislation applicable to the whole population. They're out there lobbying against gay rights, evolution taught in schools, abortion, and other issues where they feel their beliefs are superior. These groups are the very reason and spirit behind separation of church and state, imo. I agree. We don't decide what the truth is. It was forged in the very essence of creation. We can only strive to discover it. photon propeller, I'm not sure I follow the point you are trying to make; is it that religion(s) is a source of detriment to humanity? Or are you saying we all need to believe in the "right" god? Religious differences exist because they are a product of environment and tradition. The one true reality is the same for everyone. I believe the source of creation is God, most religions would agree. I would also assert God is the same for everyone, no matter what our perspective. Edited September 9, 2014 by photon propeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 So let us clarify your viewpoint Swansont. My philosophical interpretation of my own dream becomes "preaching" because I include a creator? Religious differences exist because they are a product of environment and tradition. The one true reality is the same for everyone. I believe the source of creation is God, most religions would agree. I would also assert God is the same for everyone, no matter what our perspective. This is preaching, btw. Not because you invoke a god or because you believe in a certain religion. Preaching/soapboxing is where you apply your opinion as an assertion, be it about religion, politics, or any other subjective assessment. Asserting that "God is the same for everyone, no matter what our perspective" is patently false. It may be your opinion, but you haven't shown that this God is the same for me as it is for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 9, 2014 Author Share Posted September 9, 2014 So let us clarify your viewpoint Swansont. My philosophical interpretation of my own dream becomes "preaching" because I include a creator? I wonder if the philosophers of the past were condemned as preachers when they pondered the source? I think not. I speak clearly on the grounds of a unified civilization under the flag of universal truth, what is true for one is true for all, scientific fact. Look around you. The wars of the world are fought for two main reasons, religious differences and greed. None of our words change natural reality. It existed before us, now, and will continue long after we self destruct. Being a parent I must believe that our species can change that gloomy future. We don't know it all but all that exists can be known with enough time, cooperation, and the scientific method. Explain to me why you think my viewpoint vacillates when the only unproven fact is the definition of the source. It is as steady as the natural constants which rule this realm, and form the foundation of my perspective. ! Moderator Note Your message is unnecessary to the self-proclaimed point of your discussion (which was not at all obvious to me). You were warned about this kind of thing before. Take the suggestion in that thread to heart: if you want to post that sort of thing, go and start a blog. This is a discussion forum, and topics that don't foster discussion (preaching/soapboxing) are against the rules. As to your claim of speaking clearly, the responses you got have gotten thus far tell a different story. Get back to the discussion and don't respond to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 This is preaching, btw. Not because you invoke a god or because you believe in a certain religion. Preaching/soapboxing is where you apply your opinion as an assertion, be it about religion, politics, or any other subjective assessment. Asserting that "God is the same for everyone, no matter what our perspective" is patently false. It may be your opinion, but you haven't shown that this God is the same for me as it is for you. So lets leave my definition of the source, "God", completely out of it. Do you agree that scientific fact, "creation", is the same for everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic134 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 The one true reality is the same for everyone. I believe the source of creation is God, most religions would agree. I would also assert God is the same for everyone, no matter what our perspective. You are claiming to know something that is in reality unknowable and you are making the claims in the complete absence of evidence, which is a dangerous behavior and detriment to humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Do discussions not foster conclusions? Isn't that the root of the problem? Figuring out what we all can agree on is the tough part. Is reality not the same for everyone no matter what our perspective? If I assert that it is am I preaching or has our conversation simply fostered a conclusion? You are claiming to know something that is in reality unknowable and you are making the claims in the complete absence of evidence, which is a dangerous behavior and detriment to humanity. Is it really unknowable? Isn't the periodic and harmonic symmetry of energy and the beautiful architecture of the natural constants enough evidence to contrive an archetype? Is God not simply an aphorism for the archetype? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Not really, different Universes could simply have different physical constants. Some combinations permitting life and others not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic134 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Is it really unknowable? Isn't the periodic and harmonic symmetry of energy and the beautiful architecture of the natural constants enough evidence to contrive an archetype? Is God not simply an aphorism for the archetype? When you say god you are referring to a Spinoza god... merely the appreciation of the beauty of the universe or do you mean to use the capitalized god which suggests theism. If the later than no, there is no evidence, unless you've found some you would like to present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Not really, different Universes could simply have different physical constants. Some combinations permitting life and others not. multiverses are pure speculation and based on flawed logic. The outer boundry of the cmb is not the edge of the universe. When you say god you are referring to a Spinoza god... merely the appreciation of the beauty of the universe or do you mean to use the capitalized god which suggests theism. If the later than no, there is no evidence, unless you've found some you would like to present. I am referring to the one word which summarizes the complete original model of which our universe is based upon, and which we are all manifestations of, the source potential. If any word deserves to be capitalized, shouldn't it be this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 So lets leave my definition of the source, "God", completely out of it. Do you agree that scientific fact, "creation", is the same for everyone? Define "creation", please. Are you talking about how individual humans are created, or how our species evolved, or about the first life we're all descendant from, or are you talking about something else? To which "scientific fact" do you refer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) Define "creation", please. Are you talking about how individual humans are created, or how our species evolved, or about the first life we're all descendant from, or are you talking about something else? To which "scientific fact" do you refer? All of them. The evolution of energy. Edited September 9, 2014 by photon propeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Do discussions not foster conclusions? Isn't that the root of the problem? Figuring out what we all can agree on is the tough part. Is reality not the same for everyone no matter what our perspective? If I assert that it is am I preaching or has our conversation simply fostered a conclusion? Part of the problem here is that you seem to have reached a conclusion about a subjective issue before you started discussing it with us. You claim that reality is the same for everyone no matter what the perspective is, and there is a very narrow definition of reality where you're right, but it seems pointless to discuss it with someone who has already made up their mind. And that's really the reason we don't like soapboxing; discussions go nowhere if all minds involved aren't open to change. Discussion fosters insight; conclusions are optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic134 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Deepak? But seriously, you appear to present the concept of god as just the beauty, symmtery and totallity of existence in one instance but then use the word creator. Are you suggesting intelligence behind the creation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) Deepak? But seriously, you appear to present the concept of god as just the beauty, symmtery and totallity of existence in one instance but then use the word creator. Are you suggesting intelligence behind the creation? I'm suggesting an intelligent source which creates potential, once the universe begins, it is a game of chance and probability. Probability is the constant, chance is the variable. Edited September 9, 2014 by photon propeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 All of them. The evolution of energy to matter. You want me to agree that it's a scientific fact that all life is created the same way? I couldn't. I'm suggesting an intelligent source potential, once the universe begins, it is a game of chance and probability. So you're a Deist. There's no evidence to support what you suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Part of the problem here is that you seem to have reached a conclusion about a subjective issue before you started discussing it with us. You claim that reality is the same for everyone no matter what the perspective is, and there is a very narrow definition of reality where you're right, but it seems pointless to discuss it with someone who has already made up their mind. And that's really the reason we don't like soapboxing; discussions go nowhere if all minds involved aren't open to change. Discussion fosters insight; conclusions are optional. What change is your mind open to? We have to be convinced to change. Is it really change or evolution, adding to but not taking away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic134 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 I'm suggesting an intelligent source which creates potential, once the universe begins, it is a game of chance and probability. Probability is the constant, chance is the variable. Therein lies the problem. If you are asserting that an intelligent source created the universe than you are doing so with no evidence to back up the belief and you are immediately a victim of an infinite regression problem. Why make an assumption(deism/intelligent creator) prior to have any evidence to support the claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) You want me to agree that it's a scientific fact that all life is created the same way? I couldn't. So you're a Deist. There's no evidence to support what you suggest. I am a pantheist. As far as evidence of intelligence behind the potential, if the potential of the fundamental forces differed by a margin of one quintillionth, we wouldn't be here. That's 1 with 18 zeros. I'll put faith on those odds any day. The fundamental forces govern the dynamics of energy. They were in place from the beginning. That level of accuracy proves an archetype and an architect. Edited September 9, 2014 by photon propeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 What change is your mind open to? We have to be convinced to change. Is it really change or evolution, adding to but not taking away. Personally, I look for how much evidence is available to support any explanation. I trust that methodology not to lead me to hasty conclusions. If you had evidence that evolution adds to a species without ever taking anything away, you could change my mind about how evolution really works. But you'd have to have a bigger mountain of evidence than I have that says otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now