SuperstarNeilC
Well-Known Member
A factory in Columbia is making hospital beds that can be turned into coffins if the patient dies
“The work of God”?
- Thread starter city2
- Start date
D
D
Deleted member 77198
Guest
Me neither.
We started going through The Enlightenment in the late 1600s, but the grip monotheistic religions have over the masses has meant that, still, 300+ years later, Bronze Age-Medieval fairy tales are still being believed and followed.
But atheism is the most accelerating religious status in the world.
More than half of Great Britain declare themselves as having “no religion” with 25% being convinced atheists; in South America “no religion” has increased from 2% in the 1990s to over 8% (actually up to 37% in Uruguay, with 10% of the country being convinced atheists); in North America “no religion” has risen from 16% in 2007 to 23% in 2018.
In Africa and Asia, while there are still countries that have 0% atheists and non-religious, there are countries like Eygypt (4%), South Africa (4%) and South Sudan (6%) who are convinced atheists; and in Asia counties like Iran (5%), Khazakstan (8%), Philippines (20%), Japan (34%) and China (61%) who are convinced atheists.
Being convinced there is no god(s) is growing. However, in a run of 300+ years it’s not moved very quickly when science and history has shown religion up to be fabricated.
Last edited by a moderator:
Onholiday(somemightsay)
Well-Known Member
Very informative post........
SuperstarNeilC
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure this won't be your thing but will write anyway. You mention enlightenment - most might think of the opposite of this as 'dark' but some might experience this opposite as more like 'heavy.' This heaviness may feel like a dullness, lack of vibrancy, tension, burden of life, emotional pain etc Maybe not so important how one experiences the heaviness but rather how best to deal with it. Hold on, try and and fix it, let it go? Each to their own. But if one chooses to let go then one may naturally discover more enlightened forms of science, religion, art etc Might even speak of this. Ahhh, but then someone might say, for example, I KNOW what religion is, and it isn't what you speak of. Bit of a problem. Does one go back to the heaviness, so as to fit into the this 'right' definition of religion, or let go of the heaviness for good even if one's ideas of religion may be seen as wrong? Maybe just best to walk on.
Along these lines, if people are choosing to let go of unenlightened religion,and so finding their own way to light through other forms, then great. On the other hand I would question whether (some) science has really 'proved' the non-existence of enlightened religion or whether it s actually incapable of being aware of it, so decided it can't be truth. Have seen some scientists get in all sorts of tangles when it comes to the likes of plant medicines and how knowledge of this was obtained. Different form, perhaps but similar ideas and questions
Onholiday(somemightsay)
Well-Known Member
Is that not more a case of people being in-tune with their environment or 'with the Universe' etc as opposed to parables of Jesus turning water into wine which people go to church for?
I know I sound a bit flippant but you know what I mean.........
arfur we've been through this all before science has not disproved any religion nor has any religion proved it is true, the burden of proof lies completely within the person/persons making the claim
on a basic level science will then investigate those claims and see if any of it stacks up.
for your personal enlightenment can you demonstrate this to a wider audience or is it just personal to you
Yes. And that is what 'some' religion is about - the latter is 'a' way to know the former. Not the only way. But the latter can become the goal and the only way, in the minds of some, at the expense of awareness of the former. Is kinda curious? But I'd suggest that it is not only the field of religion that can be like this. 'My scientific ideas about the universe, are more important than being in tune with the universe.' On the other hand, if one says that being 'in tune' with the universe is 'light,' and this is the goal, then there is the possibility of more enlightened religion, science, business, politics and relationships in general. This seems wonderful for me. And it raises the possibility of, for example, a more enlightened medical field, in which new solutions may be found to currently 'unsolvable' problems. Some may welcome these new solutions and ideas, some may not. Some might really go for it, others fall away. How to describe what's going on? Maybe speak of ideas as seeds, and how they grow or not, according to how they are received. This theme could be found in any field of study/practice, and so could be said to be universal not just, for example, religious.
Magicpole
Well-Known Member
Yes in the 70's. Not going was never an option for us kids at that time. Our mothers were the crack troops of the parish and they all worked together in a network to ensure you had to be very clever to evade capture whilst missing mass. And those were the days were if you got a bollicking from one of them, you wouldn't even think of giving them lip, or telling your mum. That would guarantee two bollockings. The young today, as you say, haven't a fucking clue how much of a battle it was to win the choice not to go. I should be up for a fucking medal. Me being a stubborn **** all my life ensured I stuck to guns that were not conducive to an easy time. When I think back on the shit I got it seems as if I was living in the bastard dark ages. :)
Magicpole
Well-Known Member
If the same scope should be given to me as people who believe a man lived inside a fish for four days, then they have to believe me when I say three sex crazed beautiful sirens visit me every night to shag my brains out. One of them is a bit mad, but, nice in her own way. I can't prove it, it seems mental, but it's no dafter than believing in literally thousands of aspects of the big book of pish.
I need to go now as I'm gubbed after an all nght sex sesh.. hallelujah and pass the lube.
Ok, then if you have a scientist like David Bohm, of whom was written...
“Some scientists seek to clarify reality, others to mystify it. David Bohm seemed driven by both impulses. He is renowned for promoting a sensible (according to Einstein and other experts) interpretation of quantum mechanics. But Bohm also asserted that science can never fully explain the world, and his 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order delved into spirituality."
then we might all be screwed by this burden of proof?
The experience of the heaviness/light is what I experience, yes. And this corona virus has been a catalyst for change this way. Then, I may speak with others, do some research. Other people and theories may be in agreement with this, some not so much. And that's great - folk can choose which way they want to go with. In the meantime there are qualities of life such as beauty, love and joy - can I be aware of these even if they have not been fully understood or proven? Or so I have to wait until a scientific journal has written a definitive answer before I can choose this as a truth to experience? Beyond that, there are plenty of scientists that explore religion, mysticism, spirituality etc and I find their
explorations interesting and, at times, in agreement with what I have personally discovered. Others might reject this, and that is their choice. Each to their own.
Elbow beards
Well-Known Member
I'm just glad Boris has got two scientists stood next to him and not a Bishop and imam or even worse a Jehovah's Witness.
D
D
Deleted member 77198
Guest
I would say science has defined those things.
Beauty, love and joy are ways to develop safety in numbers and the continuation of the species. Beauty (in the eye of the beholder of course haha) attracts two mates, two are better than one to protect each other. They form a bond that we attach the name ‘love’ to. That bond helps strengthen the two mates further. They then reproduce to sustain and continue the species over generations and it’s evolution. The bond between family members keeps that family safer, team work, fighting, surviving, finding food, hunting, looking out for danger.
Joy is another thing that strengthens that bond but also creates a bond between people you don’t love but are useful to enhance the protection and survival of a wider tribe. Friendships are formed, they enjoy hunting and eating together, fermented alcoholic drinks around the fire, sharing stories and having a laugh.
Beauty, love and joy are all about bonds, strength in numbers, survival and continuation of the species. All formed through chemical reactions in the body.
That’s also what supporting a football team is all about. Enjoyment of the beautiful game we love within our tribe. We need tribal togetherness to enjoy life and form those bonds. That’s why deep down we’re so passionate about it. It’s a human instinct.
In a way that’s what religion originally was as well. Those old stories the hunter gatherers will have told about the Sun and the seasons allowing the plants to grow it’s fruit and the soil to grow it’s roots to eat, the animals that are born each year and can be hunted, how in the dark and cold months the Sun has died and food is scarce and that why the Sun should be worshipped. Then as more people will have come together to worship the Sun the religion formed together creates a tribal belief, increased numbers and therefore strength in their wider tribe and population.
Personified children’s stories about the Sun and how it contributes to life and survival will have been told and passed on down the generations and then the myths of the Sun being a God or created by a God will have grown from those.
If football was around in the Bronze Age and Agüero had score that goal back then, the stories would have been passed down the generations and he’d be worshipped as a God!
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, would agree with heaps of that. I would also say that beauty, joy and love can be qualities that one can come to be attuned to. But also qualities that one can become less attuned to - so ending up with an experience more like,eg, ugliness, misery and hate So, man and woman meet, are attracted to each other and form a bond. Might then continue to live life this way. Or they might decide to see if its possible to become even more attuned to - so joining in union beyond even the initial bond. Not just safety and survival now, but also something else. Wonderful, right? The only thing is that coming to be more attuned to beauty, love and joy, can involve becoming aware of where one has been attached to ways that are less in attunement. Not always easy. In way humanity might evolve to know more beauty, joy and love or it might choose the other way. May even discover that some ideas are more in attunement than others.
Thanks, that all seems reasonable enough. But is it possible that there is a love that is beyond - but includes - chemical reactions? Bohm
spoke of "“He proposed that underlying physical appearances, the “explicate order,” there is a deeper, hidden “implicate order.” Is it possible that the implicate order is of Love but we are trying to understand love from only the viewpoint of the explicate order? Maybe there is an explicate form of love than can be embraced and transformed by an opening to an implicate Love? Explicate love will have survived but now it will have a different quality to it, one born of Implicate Love. Not just a love of survival, but one that thrives and blossoms.
As in awareness/experience for oneself, rather than relying only on sources outside of oneself? A way that might place
power in the hands of individuals rather than institutions? 'What, you are finding truth for yourself rather than listening to
wha we tell you is truth? What will happen to us now? You sinner!' I use the word 'sin' here and its normally associated
with religion but other fields may have their versions of the word. I might also know a different meaning of the word 'sin.'
So if you ask me if I have evidence of being a sinner, then yes, I do. Though I'd love more if I could. If you say that
I don't have evidence of the institutional kind and therefore what I say is, at best, doubtful for you - then thanks, tone,
that's the kindest thing you could say, a wonderful compliment. I might be more of a sinner than I realised! More evidence
for me but maybe not so much for you. Each to their own, free to choose their way to live, free to choose which kind of evidence
to follow.
Just to go more into the above. Am not meaning so much to be anti-institutional, rather looking at a difference between institutions
serving people or people being servile to institutions.
So a church might provide a service for some people. How? Perhaps has a tough day at work and so go to a service to join with others, release the tension and commune in joy. Or maybe in the morning go to a service to pray in love, so that this is the inspiration for rest of the day. Great. But no-one judges if one doesn't turn. A freedom here. Another church might be more about being servile. A guy stands at the front and tells everyone that they are miserable sinners but if they listen to him they might go to happy place after they die. In this case, if people don't turn up they may be judged as bad and thus destined to go to hell. Not so free. Maybe 'church' does not have to a formal building or even religious. Just somewhere they may go to release troubles and join with others in joy, love and beauty. Could be an AA meeting for some, a pub for others. Whatever serves each individual best.
Similar might be said for educational institutions. Some might go school and find it teaches a servile nature and so rebel against this - 'fuck education.' But after a while they might find this rebellion tiring - but not wanting to go back to servile school, they choose to educate themselves in a way of freedom. May even discover a school where others want to educate themselves this way and so join there. But the experience - and what is learned - may be different. Might even be seen as 'wrong' or a 'sin' by others. But what is best and 'true' for one may not be so for another. And the planet keeps on spinning, the sun rises and sets each day.
serving people or people being servile to institutions.
So a church might provide a service for some people. How? Perhaps has a tough day at work and so go to a service to join with others, release the tension and commune in joy. Or maybe in the morning go to a service to pray in love, so that this is the inspiration for rest of the day. Great. But no-one judges if one doesn't turn. A freedom here. Another church might be more about being servile. A guy stands at the front and tells everyone that they are miserable sinners but if they listen to him they might go to happy place after they die. In this case, if people don't turn up they may be judged as bad and thus destined to go to hell. Not so free. Maybe 'church' does not have to a formal building or even religious. Just somewhere they may go to release troubles and join with others in joy, love and beauty. Could be an AA meeting for some, a pub for others. Whatever serves each individual best.
Similar might be said for educational institutions. Some might go school and find it teaches a servile nature and so rebel against this - 'fuck education.' But after a while they might find this rebellion tiring - but not wanting to go back to servile school, they choose to educate themselves in a way of freedom. May even discover a school where others want to educate themselves this way and so join there. But the experience - and what is learned - may be different. Might even be seen as 'wrong' or a 'sin' by others. But what is best and 'true' for one may not be so for another. And the planet keeps on spinning, the sun rises and sets each day.