Freud on Religion

[Moose]

Originally posted by Marshbear

All of your theories are very interesting but there is one simple solution to this post.

 

If you want to know if God exists then why not just ask him? Just say " hey God. If you are real and you do exist then please tell me so I will know wether to believe in you". If you think I'm crazy then that is your opinion and entitled to it. I will say that I know God exists and you can too.

I know better than to temp my God. I already know He exsists.

It's like saying that studying english or history is the same as studying physics or mathematics.

True, my point is that the understanding of the subject is based on what you've read, and what you've experienced in real life. Then you take stock in it. This is true, NO MATTER, what subject you're studying. And you'll defend it with everything you got.

[ConfusedInOC]

Moose, this thread is the room with no windows and a rubber hammer. That's why I quit posting in it

 

God bless you.

[blind_otter]

Right. OC quit posting on this thread. That's why he posted above. Talk about windowless room and rubber hammer (what a bizarre analogy).

 

Read Max Weber.

[MySugaree]

I didn't get the "room with no windows and a rubber hammer" reference either.

 

I thought it was just me.

 

I love your avatar, blind. Very hot.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by blind_otter

Right. OC quit posting on this thread. That's why he posted above. Talk about windowless room and rubber hammer (what a bizarre analogy).

 

Read Max Weber.

 

Read back a few post and you'll see why I brought that up. It was in inference to believers, so I thought I'd kick it right back at ya.

 

I really don't care if someone thinks I am nuts for having faith. I answer to God and God only.

[tokyo]

That was BlockHead who started talking about windowless rooms and rubber hammers.

[Moose]

I really don't care if someone thinks I am nuts for having faith. I answer to God and God only.

[blind_otter]

Nobody here thinks anyone is nuts for having faith.

 

Don't get all defensive.

 

Science and religion aren't the same. The whole point of faith is to not question, because you have faith in God's will. The whole point of science is to constantly question. The two are constantly at odds with each other, which is why they butt heads.

 

THAT IS THE ISSUE (i have at least).

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by blind_otter

Nobody here thinks anyone is nuts for having faith.

 

Don't get all defensive.

 

Science and religion aren't the same. The whole point of faith is to not question, because you have faith in God's will. The whole point of science is to constantly question. The two are constantly at odds with each other, which is why they butt heads.

 

THAT IS THE ISSUE (i have at least).

 

In science, you can measure anything you want. But you have to have FAITH that the universe was created by the big bang, all alone, by itself, with no "higher level" influence.

 

This is no different than faith in God. That's all I am saying.

 

I don't think ALL science is faith, and I should have made that point more clearly.

[blind_otter]

so you're saying theoretical astrophysics is the same as religion in terms of faith. ok.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by blind_otter

so you're saying theoretical astrophysics is the same as religion in terms of faith. ok.

 

Not exactly.

 

I am saying you can not prove the origin of the Universe by either science or religion.

 

For those that doubt faith, and I have read many science articles on the origin of the universe, let me ask you:

 

Have you read or even tried to read the Bible or any Christian books? If not, please don't immediately dismiss Christian beliefs until you've read enough to understand both sides.

[blind_otter]

I read the bible cover to cover about 5 times in my life, when I was 7, when I was 10, when I was 12, when I was 14 and when I was 21. I went to catholic school for 9 years, studied the bible as literature in a class (age 14), and went to confirmation classes and studied about various saints, etc.

 

The nine years I was in catholic school I went to mass twice a week, and during lent did the stations of the cross every day after school.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by blind_otter

I read the bible cover to cover about 5 times in my life, when I was 7, when I was 10, when I was 12, when I was 14 and when I was 21. I went to catholic school for 9 years, studied the bible as literature in a class (age 14), and went to confirmation classes and studied about various saints, etc.

 

The nine years I was in catholic school I went to mass twice a week, and during lent did the stations of the cross every day after school.

 

Then AMEN! You did your part. I pray you allow God to embrace you again.

[blind_otter]

Religion is a personal thing. I have had personal experiences with the divine, which have led to my belief system as it is. The message that I received is that my actions are the ground on which I stand and that salvation lies in my personal choices and actions, and that Jesus taught that we are all children of God, that his divinity lay in his awareness of this, and that salvation comes from that personal choice. Which is very much in line with siddhartha gautema's message of buddhanature, like the essence of the tree within the seed, that exists within all of us. Thich Naht Hanh, who calls Jesus Christ one of his spiritual ancestors, mentions "jesusnature" in his writings. "Living Buddha, Living Christ" is a great read.

 

There are numerous interpretations of the bible, and as it stands the one commonly used today is something like the 25th translation. Translated from aramaic to greek to latin to english and various other languages. I have studied international literature and actually did a compare/contrast paper when reading a novel by gabrial garcia marquez - 100 years of solittude. This was when I was better at spanish of course, but I also read the english translation and the very tone of the text was markedly different.

 

This is what led to my questioning the current establishment in regards to literalism when dealing with the bible.

 

I also have a hard time swallowing the whole crazy revelations, sons of judea, 7 eyed bleeding lamb, heaven and hell kinda stuff. I feel that the buddhist analogy of billiards is a better description of the afterlife.

[BlockHead]

blind_otter

Some indiginous peoples in South America believed that the moon is swallowed every month by a snake. OK. That's their religious belief. They require no rigorous scientific examination to follow that belief up, because it's based in FAITH. That's what faith means, ok, that's what I'm saying. Jeeeeeeez.

I think it is possible, but not probable.

 

Maybe I’m a little more open-minded.

blind_otter

Belief in what you are researching is in no way comparable to belief in GOD.

With no hard evidence, it is just another unsupported belief.

blind_otter

I mean, I do statistical reports for my boss. It takes months sometimes to compile the data.

I think I know why there is a failure to communicate. Abstract ideas aren’t your forte.

blind_otter

An apple falls on a man's head. A religious man thinks, "It's God's will" and leaves it at that.

Do you think science and Christianity are mutually exclusive?

Since religious people are so indoctrinated and obedient, maybe you can explain why there were so many schisms in the Church.

 

When you embrace ideas from the sciences without question, you become another follower. The same is true for politics.

 

Scientific method is just another ritual. You can believe in it if you want to.

Tell me, do you expect scientific method to change with the times or stay unchanged like the conservative Catholic Church.

blind_otter

…salvation lies in my personal choices and actions…

Why was one of the criminals (who was crucified with Jesus) saved? He probably did something very bad to be sentenced to crucifixion. What made him different from the other criminal?

[blind_otter]

Originally posted by BlockHead

Why was one of the criminals (who was crucified with Jesus) saved? He probably did something very bad to be sentenced to crucifixion. What made him different from the other criminal?

 

Intention, which is the basis for action, is most likely what made the two criminals different. Is a man wrong for stealing bread for his hungry family, or medicine for a dying wife? What about the man who steals merely to gain wealth? We know nothing of the context of the men's crimes.

 

These are questions we were posed in classes that we took before we were confirmed in the catholic church. Discussion followed.

 

But I don't question your faith, I simply disagree with the ascertion that all science is faith based. Sure, theoretical astrophysics is. But you underestimate the abilities of the human mind itself.

 

In fact, the church used to DEMAND mindless, slavish following of their doctrine. Remind me - was it Galileo who was put to death for saying that the earth was not the center of the universe?

[Moose]

I simply disagree with the ascertion that all science is faith based.

Maybe not all science BO, but the area of creation verses evolution is where most scientists and people of faith butt heads. In this area......scientists MUST have TONS more, "blind faith", than those who believe in God. I stopped posting in this thread so that I could find a couple of articles I read a few months back.... In the November 2004 edition of National Geographic's cover article, (page 8), scientists, both modern and historical, admit that, "the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor", (page 25). Scientists are asked to believe in the theory of evolution, (and do so with extreme conviction), with 99.9% of the data missing. This takes a huge amount of faith if you ask me.

 

If you tried to watch a film that had every other 999 frames cut out of it.....would you be able to follow it? Would you know without a doubt exactly what and how things happened? I think not. The "fossil record" to which evolutionists point consists, overwhelmingly, of "missing links". - Tommorow's World Magazine This is something that I read, touched, has been researched again and again. BUT, who are we to say that any of these people are right???? I certainly don't.

Belief in what you are researching is in no way comparable to belief in GOD.

This is the biggest crock. Tell me, what do you think the differences are? That we of Faith can't physically touch and examine what God has Created? That there is no evidence of creation? You're sadly mistaken......if that's the case.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by Moose

Maybe not all science BO, but the area of creation verses evolution is where most scientists and people of faith butt heads. In this area......scientists MUST have TONS more, "blind faith", than those who believe in God. I stopped posting in this thread so that I could find a couple of articles I read a few months back.... In the November 2004 edition of National Geographic's cover article, (page 8), scientists, both modern and historical, admit that, "the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor", (page 25). Scientists are asked to believe in the theory of evolution, (and do so with extreme conviction), with 99.9% of the data missing. This takes a huge amount of faith if you ask me.

 

If you tried to watch a film that had every other 999 frames cut out of it.....would you be able to follow it? Would you know without a doubt exactly what and how things happened? I think not. The "fossil record" to which evolutionists point consists, overwhelmingly, of "missing links". - Tommorow's World Magazine This is something that I read, touched, has been researched again and again. BUT, who are we to say that any of these people are right???? I certainly don't. This is the biggest crock. Tell me, what do you think the differences are? That we of Faith can't physically touch and examine what God has Created? That there is no evidence of creation? You're sadly mistaken......if that's the case.

 

Well done, Moose!

 

No, not all science is faith based, but a darn good amount of it is -- especially in regards to creation.

[tokyo]

Hm, how can I can I get my point across without getting so rude that the moderators will delete my post.

 

In science you make observations, you develop hypothesis, you do research, you make experiments, you collect evidence, you start to build a theory. A theory is not something absolute, because you can never verify a hypothesis, only falsify it with new gained knowledge. Scientists don't claim that they possess they absolute truth, they assume that a certain theory based on certain experiments and data is currently serving them best to understand the way how things work. If their theory is not serving this purpose anymore, they will look for a better theory.

 

What's the difference to you guys then? Example, you guys read the bible and you believe in the seven days theory. Is there any evidence that supports this belief? What about the reliability of the authors? Where's the proof that man is indeed the endresult of some pottery class? You guys dismiss Darwin, but has anybody ever been able to find anything that would support the genesis theory without having to refrain to the old argument that the world and man is sooooo great, they simply can't stem from apes and there must be a creator.

[alphamale]

Originally posted by kooky

Example, you guys read the bible and you believe in the seven days theory. Is there any evidence that supports this belief? What about the reliability of the authors? Where's the proof that man is indeed the endresult of some pottery class? You guys dismiss Darwin, but has anybody ever been able to find anything that would support the genesis theory without having to refrain to the old argument that the world and man is sooooo great, they simply can't stem from apes and there must be a creator.

 

hmm, yes KOOKY. This reminds me of a discussion I had a long time ago with my late mother.

 

We were discussing creationism and evolution. I asked her how could there be fossils of dinosaurs that are millions of yrs old if the earth was created a few thousands yrs ago according to the scriptures.

 

Her answer was "well, my little alpha, the devil planted those in the earth to make you not believe in god"

 

and such was my education in god vs the scientist.

[tokyo]

Originally posted by alphamale

Her answer was "well, my little alpha, the devil planted those in the earth to make you not believe in god"

Damn, those guys have really good arguments. I need to prepare better.

 

Correction:

You guys dismiss Darwin, but has anybody ever been able to find anything that would support the genesis theory without having to refrain to the old argument that the world and man are sooooo great, therefore man simply can't stem from apes and there must be a creator.

[BlockHead]

alphamale

and such was my education in god vs the scientist.

You seem to believe in American Imperialism with no evidence, and without a plausible or rational conspiracy theory.

Yes, we spend billions on the military so that rich fat cats can steal priceless bananas and coconuts from poor people. In the case of Afghanistan, they are stealing premium sand.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by kooky

Hm, how can I can I get my point across without getting so rude that the moderators will delete my post.

 

If you can't, you don't really have a point.

 

In science you make observations, you develop hypothesis, you do research, you make experiments, you collect evidence, you start to build a theory. A theory is not something absolute, because you can never verify a hypothesis, only falsify it with new gained knowledge. Scientists don't claim that they possess they absolute truth, they assume that a certain theory based on certain experiments and data is currently serving them best to understand the way how things work. If their theory is not serving this purpose anymore, they will look for a better theory.

 

That's true in a lot of science, but not exactly true with it comes to the creation of the universe. They're speculating. A lot.

 

What's the difference to you guys then? Example, you guys read the bible and you believe in the seven days theory. Is there any evidence that supports this belief?

 

Is there any evidence to suppory the big bang?!

 

What about the reliability of the authors?

 

I need to post a few links on the validity of the bible. When I find them, Kooky, I'll post them for you. Also, I suggest "The case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, if you really want answers from top scientist, theologians and more.

 

Where's the proof that man is indeed the endresult of some pottery class?

 

Where's the proof we're not?

 

 

You guys dismiss Darwin, but has anybody ever been able to find anything that would support the genesis theory without having to refrain to the old argument that the world and man is sooooo great, they simply can't stem from apes and there must be a creator.

 

You find the direct link from ape to man yet, Kooky? Nobody has. You think that's a coincidence? Fossil records are a lot more sketchy than the bible.

 

They found John the Babtist's cave recently. I mean, if you expect us to believe in the fossil records, surely you must believe SOME validity of John the Babtist, right?

 

What you're saying is it's ok for science to speclate, but everything in the bible MUST be a crock, right?

 

I feel bad for you that you have not come to know God's love. Honestly.

[d'Arthez]

ConfusedInOC,

 

There are all kind of variables in the universe, like for example the quantums of energy, the gravitational constant, the speed of light et cetera. If they were but a fraction different, the whole universe would have been instable and collapsed in most cases. Researchers are fairly certain that they know which state the universe was in after a fraction of time (after the bang). True, the proof is not conclusive, as that is an impossibility in science. The proof is always preliminary. But science does not regress. Einstein's relativity will not be replaced with Newtonian mechanics.

 

Of course we cannot create the universe anew. What we can do, is to travel into time, by induction and deduction, based on mathematical models. We know how much the sun weighs, by the fact that there exist laws of gravitation, so we don't actually have to send a shuttle with a gigantic weighing scale, to find out that its mass is roughly 2 x 10 ^30 kilograms.

 

And don't say that it would be nonsense to create something out of nothing. Scientists could make the same argument about God. How did He come into being, if there was nothing? A minor bang? That requires at least a leap of faith, something you claim to be invalid in science, but which science does not need.

 

If you want to claim absurd things about science, hopefully you won't require a leap of faith to use a car. To listen to the radio. To use a telephone.

Yes, we do know how these work, but not exactly why they work. Why do particles carry sound with them, if we are discussing a radio? Or why does every radio do the same, and why does not one of them broadcast a TV-signal? Does it require faith from us to let a radio work, as we are used to? Or does it not, and does a radio work in that way, regardless of our faith and trust in science?

 

And as far as claiming that there is no connection between men and apes, you are entitled to your own opinions. But you don't have a right to be offended if people don't believe in God. People have a right to choose what they believe themselves. You have a right to your own anti-scientific mindset. Just as people have a right to an anti-religious mindset.

[BlockHead]

ConfusedInOC

Is there any evidence to suppory the big bang?!

There is proof, but I want to see if these so called physicists, scientists, and mathematicians can come up with it. There rarely forthcoming. Maybe that is because of the abundance of ignorance.

ConfusedInOC

You find the direct link from ape to man yet, Kooky? Nobody has. You think that's a coincidence? Fossil records are a lot more sketchy than the bible.

I believe there is an aquatic ape theory which could explain the webbed skin between our fingers and toes.

 

 

It seems like some people are under the false impression that scientists have a consensus.

 

d’Arthez

Of course we cannot create the universe anew. What we can do, is to travel into time, by induction and deduction, based on mathematical models.

You can use the equations in Newtonian to prove Quantum Physics false.

Mathematical models are just approximations, and they can be wrong. The Wright brothers threw out all of the aerodynamics equations used by the so-called experts, and reinvented it.

 

The weight of the sun and weight of the Earth are just estimates.

Can you tell me how scientists estimated the age of the Earth?

d’Arthez

Why do particles carry sound with them, if we are discussing a radio?

Is electromagnetic energy a particle or a wave? I’d have to say neither.

Every atom in the universe vibrates. Like electromagnetic energy, they aren’t particles or waves.

What is the limit? You can’t comprehend something that is neither a particle nor a wave.