Religion

[Blue Mist]

Not as far as I know.
Do you know different?

No, that is why I asked the question.

 

[arfurclue]

no thanks. I have no time for religion, that said I hold nothing against those that practice it peacefully and without hitherto us.
I hate any religion that uses its power to inflict death and misery on other human beings. The Bhuddists in Burma (Myanmar) are doing just that.

If I spoke of teaching of peace I’d pretty much get told to fuck off and stop being a hippy Anyhow, I think he was talking about Buddhists rather than taoists. And you won’t want to but if you read a little bit of the Tao te Ching, you might discover it’s not exactly in the tone of hate and slaughter and power tripping. That’s maybe more the domain of egocentrism etc

 

[Metal Biker]

Really?

You have examples?

 

[arfurclue]

You have examples?

You are saying that it has not been implied, at the very least, that a belief in religion is in direct conflict with the truth of science? Fair enough. It was written with a smile not for some great debate. Enjoy your evening.

 

[Blue Mist]

If I spoke of teaching of peace I’d pretty much get told to fuck off and stop being a hippy Anyhow, I think he was talking about Buddhists rather than taoists. And you won’t want to but if you read a little bit of the Tao te Ching, you might discover it’s not exactly in the tone of hate and slaughter and power tripping. That’s maybe more the domain of egocentrism etc

But I am nor looking for religion, taoist or any other kind. I was stating I despise those religions that murder people. Bhuddism being one.

 

[Metal Biker]

You are saying that it has not been implied, at the very least, that a belief in religion is in direct conflict with the truth of science? Fair enough. It was written with a smile not for some great debate. Enjoy your evening.

In other words, you don't have any evidence that people on this thread have ever stated that religion is bad because it's anti-science. I thought so.

At most, people have criticised that any religious doctrine that continues to promote outdated, inaccurate and incorrect ideologies (Earth being 6,000 years old, humanity derived from Adam and Eve etc) then that can be considered 'bad' because it's promoting inaccuracies that can be harmful, especially if there are those who believe in religious doctrine so ignorantly that it disadvantages others.

 

[arfurclue]

In other words, you don't have any evidence that people on this thread have ever stated that religion is bad because it's anti-science. I thought so.

At most, people have criticised that any religious doctrine that continues to promote outdated, inaccurate and incorrect ideologies (Earth being 6,000 years old, humanity derived from Adam and Eve etc) then that can be considered 'bad' because it's promoting inaccuracies that can be harmful, especially if there are those who believe in religious doctrine so ignorantly that it disadvantages others.

I think we have crossed wires. And if you want to have a conversation, great. If you just want to tell me I have to do this or that, then, quite simply, no. Same as with religion.

 

[arfurclue]

But I am nor looking for religion, taoist or any other kind. I was stating I despise those religions that murder people. Bhuddism being one.

Murdering people is a tenet of buddhism? Not sure I can agree with that. Malignant egocentrics may find a way to justify murder with buddhist teachings? Seems you may have a point but that doesn’t necessarily equate to them being correct in their justification. In my eyes at least. And enjoy life without religion - great, go for it.

 

[Metal Biker]

I think we have crossed wires. And if you want to have a conversation, great. If you just want to tell me I have to do this or that, then, quite simply, no. Same as with religion.

I'm not telling you to do or think anything.

You claimed that people on this thread have stated that religion is bad because it's anti-science. I just called you out on it.

 

[arfurclue]

I'm not telling you to do or think anything.

You claimed that people on this thread have stated that religion is bad because it's anti-science. I just called you out on it.

You are saying that there aren’t? Don’t really feel the need to go trawling back through the thread. If you really believe differently, then fine, I can accept that this is your viewpoint. Feels more like a distraction than something essential.

 

[Metal Biker]

You are saying that there aren’t? Don’t really feel the need to go trawling back through the thread. If you really believe differently, then fine, I can accept that this is your viewpoint. Feels more like a distraction than something essential.

You made the claim, not me.

 

[arfurclue]

You made the claim, not me.

From conversations I’ve had on this thread, yes there has been that kind of message. You don’t see it the same. I don’t feel to go back. You seem to want to claim this invalidates what was said. No matter. Ages ago I looked at the etymology of the word education - one part of it was from the latin ‘educo - to draw from within.’ Unlike this way ,I have found that arguments can be a way of shutting down natural inspiration to try and fit into others motivations. That doesn’t strike me as so great. From here, that appears to be what some here have experienced with religion (shut down your natural happiness and we promise you’ll be happy when you die) but have also found similar with science (shut down your natural vitality in favor of this theory and we promise you’ll be healthier mentally and physically…). Maybe this will give more context to what was written and how I write. And maybe I should have put a smiley at the end of the first comment that you responded to.

 

[Blue Mist]

Murdering people is a tenet of buddhism? Not sure I can agree with that. Malignant egocentrics may find a way to justify murder with buddhist teachings? Seems you may have a point but that doesn’t necessarily equate to them being correct in their justification. In my eyes at least. And enjoy life without religion - great, go for it.

Burma (Myanmar) is predominantly Bhuddist. They are raping and murdering Rhohinga Muslims at will. They are guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing and the world stands watching.
Murder may not be a tenant of Bhuddism but they seem to be very good at it.

 

[Metal Biker]

From conversations I’ve had on this thread, yes there has been that kind of message. You don’t see it the same. I don’t feel to go back. You seem to want to claim this invalidates what was said. No matter. Ages ago I looked at the etymology of the word education - one part of it was from the latin ‘educo - to draw from within.’ Unlike this way ,I have found that arguments can be a way of shutting down natural inspiration to try and fit into others motivations. That doesn’t strike me as so great. From here, that appears to be what some here have experienced with religion (shut down your natural happiness and we promise you’ll be happy when you die) but have also found similar with science (shut down your natural vitality in favor of this theory and we promise you’ll be healthier mentally and physically…). Maybe this will give more context to what was written and how I write. And maybe I should have put a smiley at the end of the first comment that you responded to.

It still doesn't change the fact that nobody has ever stated in intentioned that the concept of religion is bad or evil because it is anti-science. That's your own miguided interpretation of others arguments against it. It is when religious doctrine and scientific discovery come into conflict, especially when religion refuses to budge on what is scientific fact, because "that's not what is written in The Book".

I and others take no issue with those who seek spiritual comfort in religious practices, but those who cite religion for answers to questions that scientific research has already disproven and still portraying them as fact. Religion itself is not a conscious thing, it is only by those who follow it who refuse to adapt, alter or change their perceptions, that 'religion' becomes an issue for others. Someone believing in a God means nothing to many who don't. Someone believing that those who don't believe in God are sinful, lacking morality and are going to burn in Hell so should be avoided, is where the problems develop and where the conflicts of opinions occur.

That is what is cited as 'bad' and has been the crux of most people's aversion to religion. Unless you're about to tell me that it is perfectly acceptible for someone of faith to treat those without, differently. Atheists themselves are not 'bad people' primarily just for lacking faith, as is perceived by those with faith; until that perception of Atheists by religious folk changes, this conflict of interest will continue.

 

[arfurclue]

It still doesn't change the fact that nobody has ever stated in intentioned that the concept of religion is bad or evil because it is anti-science. That's your own miguided interpretation of others arguments against it. It is when religious doctrine and scientific discovery come into conflict, especially when religion refuses to budge on what is scientific fact, because "that's not what is written in The Book".

I and others take no issue with those who seek spiritual comfort in religious practices, but those who cite religion for answers to questions that scientific research has already disproven and still portraying them as fact. Religion itself is not a conscious thing, it is only by those who follow it who refuse to adapt, alter or change their perceptions, that 'religion' becomes an issue for others. Someone believing in a God means nothing to many who don't. Someone believing that those who don't believe in God are sinful, lacking morality and are going to burn in Hell so should be avoided, is where the problems develop and where the conflicts of opinions occur.

That is what is cited as 'bad' and has been the crux of most people's aversion to religion. Unless you're about to tell me that it is perfectly acceptible for someone of faith to treat those without, differently. Atheists themselves are not 'bad people' primarily just for lacking faith, as is perceived by those with faith; until that perception of Atheists by religious folk changes, this conflict of interest will continue.

Thanks for your considered reply. I still don’t agree with your ‘fact’ about religion not being seen as bad in any way - even if it were not explicitly stated.That seems more like your perception. Am not so interested in arguing about that.Religion/spirituality etc, for some, goes beyond belief. If you can imagine that you can be aware of the physical body and of emotions and of thoughts and beliefs of the intellectual mind - well some religious/spiritual practices lead one to experiences/ states of being beyond that AND they can bring a deeper awareness to the likes of the physical. To insist that it is just about beliefs is very limiting at the least. In that way, it can seem that conversations (eg on this thread) can have different goals - some might be arguing about what beliefs are right and wrong, some more interested in opening to awareness beyond that. Crossed wires.

 

[Metal Biker]

Thanks for your considered reply. I still don’t agree with your ‘fact’ about religion not being seen as bad in any way - even if it were not explicitly stated.That seems more like your perception. Am not so interested in arguing about that.Religion/spirituality etc, for some, goes beyond belief. If you can imagine that you can be aware of the physical body and of emotions and of thoughts and beliefs of the intellectual mind - well some religious/spiritual practices lead one to experiences/ states of being beyond that AND they can bring a deeper awareness to the likes of the physical. To insist that it is just about beliefs is very limiting at the least. In that way, it can seem that conversations (eg on this thread) can have different goals - some might be arguing about what beliefs are right and wrong, some more interested in opening to awareness beyond that. Crossed wires.

Again, your claim was that people have called it bad because it is anti-science and that's not been the case. WHEN religion is stubbornly and ignorantly against proven scientific analysis, is when issues occur.

How many more times do I need to repeat this?

 

[arfurclue]

Again, your claim was that people have called it bad because it is anti-science and that's not been the case. WHEN religion is stubbornly and ignorantly against proven scientific analysis, is when issues occur.

How many more times do I need to repeat this?

Oh I understand what you are saying. I just don’t agree with you saying that what was spoken of is both explicitly and implicitly incorrect. And have better uses of my time than to go back through this thread to disprove your statement. Not such an inspiring use of life. But if you were interested in coming to a deeper awareness, then you might begin to question some commonly held religious AND scientific ideas. Strangely, might also a see a unity in places too. Do you meditate or have any spiritual or eg mindfulness practice? As that may change your perspective on this conversation. And, no, I’m not saying that you have to. Just suggesting that it can change how one sees things and life.

 

[Metal Biker]

Oh I understand what you are saying. I just don’t agree with you saying that this is incorrect. And have better uses if my time than to go back through this thread to disprove your statement. Not such an inspiring use of time. But if you were interested in coming to a deeper awareness, then you might begin to question some como Ku held religious AND scientific ideas. But strangely might also a seem a unity in places also. Do you meditate or have any spiritual or eg mindfulness practice? As that may change your perspective on this conversation. And, no, I’m not saying that you have to. Just suggesting that it Can change how one sees things.

Its still irrelevant to your initial point. Nobody has criticised religion itself as being anti-science and therefore bad. At worst it is considered bad when religious followers ARE anti-science in spite of undeniable evidence.

Do I meditate? Sometimes, but meditation itself isn't religious, it's spiritual. You could call me an atheistic Germanic Pagan, in that I observe the traditions and celebrations of that culture, but in no way whatsoever believe in any 'higher powers'. I treat it the same way I would the Lord of the Rings novel or any other works of fantasy as I recognise it as being just that; fantasy.

All I recognise is that my ancestors at one point believed in the Gods and they formed a culture and traditions surrounding those beliefs. I myself do not, but I observe the cultural aspects on a spiritual level as I find it brings me peace and harmony. Do not for one second dare try and suggest that means anything other than what I have stated.

 

[arfurclue]

Its still irrelevant to your initial point. Nobody has criticised religion itself as being anti-science and therefore bad. At worst it is considered bad when religious followers ARE anti-science in spite of undeniable evidence.

Do I meditate? Sometimes, but meditation itself isn't religious, it's spiritual. You could call me an atheistic Germanic Pagan, in that I observe the traditions and celebrations of that culture, but in no way whatsoever believe in any 'higher powers'. I treat it the same way I would the Lord of the Rings novel or any other works of fantasy as I recongise it as being just that; fantasy.

All I recognise is that my ancestors at one point believed in the Gods and they formed a culture and traditions surrounding those beliefs. I myself do not, but I observe the cultural aspects on a spiritual level as I find it brings me peace and harmony. Do not for one second dare try and suggest that means anything other than what I have stated.

Do not dare try and suggest what? No matter. Great that you find peace and harmony. What I saying is that you have seemingly decided that your observations about this thread are correct, that my observations are not in agreement and thus are incorrect. How to know what is true? Perhaps you could use a scientific method to go through this thread and draw conclusions that way? Thought not. Anyhow this feels like a distraction from the thread, so maybe best to carry on in pm or to bring the conversation to an end. Cheers

 

[Metal Biker]

Do not dare try and suggest what? No matter. Great that you find peace and harmony. What I saying is that you have seemingly decided that your observations about this thread are correct, that my observations are not in agreement and thus are incorrect. How to know what is true? Perhaps you could use a scientific method to go through this thread and draw conclusions that way? Thought not. Anyhow this feels like a distraction from the thread, so maybe best to carry on in pm or to bring the conversation to an end. Cheers

Because your observations ARE incorrect; making a statement that is completely false and have failed to back it up and are now using your own false interpretations to support your own conclusion.

Here's the "scientific method" for you; use the search function, find all posts on this thread that back up what you claim, copy and paste the specific posts. You're just being ignorant now.