• Spirituality (and lack thereof) linked to specific areas of brain
    194 replies, posted
How is for :science: Why is for :catholic:
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;20165768]Like what's happening in this thread, and every other thread mentioning religion on any forum on the Internet, right?[/QUOTE] I'm actually not sure what's happening in this thread. There's two guys who both seem to be talking out of their asses, and Scorpious was arguing with one or both of them but he stopped as soon as I got here, and he's the only person I would trust to at least make a coherent post. SOMEONE HELP ME
[QUOTE=TH89;20165812]Dammit Scorpious! We need to have a talk about this.[/QUOTE] You don't think climate changes has been turned more into a political quagmire ignorant of the scientific evidence?
[QUOTE=TH89;20165720]I figured there must be some context to it. But what is "enlightenment?" What knowledge are you looking for, specifically?[/QUOTE] I used to have a clear picture of this, but I've lost it in the notion of enlightenment. Well, let me recall. I want to go back to the very roots. I'd like to know the beginning. The beginning of all things, assuming there is one. Why things are, how they occur. The way my mind works and who I am confuses me. Other people also do on occasion. Other people are also confused by themselves and others. I would like to have some self-enlightenment in this regard. I would like to be able to make it sound more humble than it does and I wold like to sound like I'm pursuing something original. Sadly I am not. Countless others have sought this, there really isn't anything that sets me apart from them.
[QUOTE=TH89;20165720] That's a very poor use of "invoke." You shouldn't try to write above your vocabulary level, fyi In any case, that's not science. That's logic. It's an intrinsic part of the mind, which science happens to be founded on. But using it doesn't make you special. It certainly doesn't make you a scientist.[/QUOTE] Why are you personally insulting me? In my opinion that doesn't seem very mod like. I've been totally fair through all this debate. And yes here is the definition of invoke: [quote=wiktionary] To call upon (a person, especially a god) for help, assistance or guidance; To appeal for validation to a (notably cited) authority; To conjure up with incantations; To bring about as an inevitable consequence; To solicit, petition for, appeal to a favorable attitude; (computing) To cause ...[/quote] I don't want to argue about grammar. That's not the point, aren't we above that? And I am not arguing it makes you a physical scientist.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20165821]How is for :science: Why is for :catholic:[/QUOTE] Anyone who is incapable of fabricating their own philosophy on life and existence doesn't deserve to have one.
There's no such thing as a "physical scientist" unless you mean a physicist, and that wouldn't make sense.
[QUOTE=TH89;20165923]There's no such thing as a "physical scientist" unless you mean a physicist, and that wouldn't make sense.[/QUOTE] A better word would be actual, so you can't confuse my meaning of it.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20165862]You don't think climate changes has been turned more into a political quagmire ignorant of the scientific evidence?[/QUOTE] Oh, absolutely. But it's complicated. The problem is that while the scientific evidence IS largely in line with what the politicians are saying, the politicians don't know jack shit about it, so it's very easy for people taking a contrarian view to poke holes in what they say. The scientists similarly have no PR ability and get torn to shreds by the contrarians for THAT reason. [editline]03:24AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Nyaos;20165944]A better word would be actual, so you can't confuse my meaning of it.[/QUOTE] As opposed to what? An imaginary scientist?
[QUOTE=Lankist;20165918]Anyone who is incapable of fabricating their own philosophy on life and existence doesn't deserve to have one.[/QUOTE] Although I can agree to this statement, what does it have to do with my little quip? [editline]10:25PM[/editline] [QUOTE=TH89;20165962]Oh, absolutely. But it's complicated. The problem is that while the scientific evidence IS largely in line with what the politicians are saying, the politicians don't know jack shit about it, so it's very easy for people taking a contrarian view to poke holes in what they say. The scientists similarly have no PR ability and get torn to shreds by the contrarians for THAT reason.[/QUOTE] I agree
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20165821]How is for :science: Why is for :catholic:[/QUOTE] I'm going to just stop talking and quote this, because that's the message I was trying to originally convey.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20165971]Although I can agree to this statement, what does it have to do with my little quip?[/QUOTE] You said religion was what helped answer the "Why?" He was saying one should develop their own life philosophy.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;20166010]You said religion was what helped answer the "Why?" He was saying one should develop their own life philosophy.[/QUOTE] I don't think he means the actual dogmatic religions, just some sort of spiritual faith.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20165971]Although I can agree to this statement, what does it have to do with my little quip?[/QUOTE] Because you implied it is religion's place to attribute purpose and meaning to the lives and actions of individuals, where in reality that is solely the responsibility and privilege of the individuals themselves. [editline]09:30PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Nyaos;20166034]I don't think he means the actual dogmatic religions, just some sort of spiritual faith.[/QUOTE] The concept of Godhood places no legitimate or tangible weight on a philosophical discussion or outlook, with the exception of discussing Human Divinity. God is a word that means "I do not know." To incorporate it into a personal philosophy is to forfeit your own definition as a person. [editline]09:32PM[/editline] In layman's terms: To think that there is a God on a philosophical level is to think that you are powerless over your own life. That is an unhealthy attitude that breeds irrational and dangerous behaviors and a complete lack of personal accountability. You are your own God. The way in which a religious person shapes and defines their personal definition of God is a delusion, as they are simply shaping a being that they wish they could be.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;20166010]You said religion was what helped answer the "Why?" He was saying one should develop their own life philosophy.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/rating/information.png[/img] Although, I was implying spirituality in general.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20165971]I agree[/QUOTE] And yet, you post misleading articles from contrarian non-scientific sources that further muddy the issue. :smug: It's really pretty much a given that any article from a mainstream news source like AP, CNN, Fox, BBC, NBC, etc is going to report inaccurately and poorly on science issues. It's pretty lame but there it is.
[QUOTE=Lankist;20166036]Because you implied it is religion's place to attribute purpose and meaning to the lives and actions of individuals, where in reality that is solely the responsibility and privilege of the individuals themselves. [editline]09:30PM[/editline] The concept of Godhood places no legitimate or tangible weight on a philosophical discussion or outlook, with the exception of discussing Human Divinity. God is a word that means "I do not know." To incorporate it into a personal philosophy is to forfeit your own definition as a person. [editline]09:32PM[/editline] In layman's terms: To think that there is a God on a philosophical level is to think that you are powerless over your own life. That is an unhealthy attitude that breeds irrational and dangerous behaviors and a complete lack of personal accountability.[/QUOTE] And if your God is a vengeful God that is unforgiving toward "irrational and dangerous behaviors"? [editline]10:35PM[/editline] [QUOTE=TH89;20166134]And yet, you post misleading articles from contrarian non-scientific sources that further muddy the issue. :smug: It's really pretty much a given that any article from a mainstream news source like AP, CNN, Fox, BBC, NBC, etc is going to report inaccurately and poorly on science issues. It's pretty lame but there it is.[/QUOTE] I swear I will never again post anything on climate change unless from a scientific based website. Promise.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20166136]And if your God is a vengeful God that is unforgiving toward "irrational and dangerous behaviors"?[/QUOTE] Then you are a vengeful person. Read the edit. The concept of God is just a construct created by each faithful individual, the very definition of what they wish they could be, without acknowledging that, were they to drop the label of "God," they could very well be that person. When a person creates a God that is malevolent and spiteful for their own worship, they clearly aspire to be malevolent and spiteful. When someone creates a charitable and benevolent God, they aspire to be thus. We all aspire to be powerful, that is a given. For instance, when you create a Charitable God, it is a delusion. Rather than being that Charitable God yourself, you relegate your time and effort into worshiping what you want to be rather than striving to be it. On a philosophical level, Science is a recognition of these constructs. Rather than wasting time with the worship of an all knowing deity, Science strives to raise Humanity as a whole to the level of an all knowing deity. Its endgame is Godhood, as there are only two possible endings for our species. Divinity or Extinction. In other words: The purpose of religion is to pursue extinction. The purpose of science is to pursue Godhood.
I fucking hate you athiests. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling" - TH89))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20166136]I swear I will never again post anything on climate change unless from a scientific based website. Promise.[/QUOTE] [img]http://media.photobucket.com/image/heavy%20weapons%20guy/jjskywalk/happyheavy.jpg[/img] Kiss me.
[QUOTE=-Matt-94;20166259]I fucking hate you athiests. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling" - TH89))[/highlight][/QUOTE] I rated you heart because i don't hate you <3
[QUOTE=Lankist;20166228]Then you are a vengeful person. Read the edit. The concept of God is just a construct created by each faithful individual, the very definition of what they wish they could be, without acknowledging that, were they to drop the label of "God," they could very well be that person. When a person creates a God that is malevolent and spiteful for their own worship, they clearly aspire to be malevolent and spiteful. When someone creates a charitable and benevolent God, they aspire to be thus. We all aspire to be powerful, that is a given. For instance, when you create a Charitable God, it is a delusion. Rather than being that Charitable God yourself, you relegate your time and effort into worshiping what you want to be rather than striving to be it. On a philosophical level, Science is a recognition of these constructs. Rather than wasting time with the worship of an all knowing deity, Science strives to raise Humanity as a whole to the level of an all knowing deity. Its endgame is Godhood, as there are only two possible endings for our species. Divinity or Extinction.[/QUOTE] I understand your point, but I disagree with it partly. I do not believe that every religious person will spend most of their time "worshiping what they want to be" rather than striving toward being it. Perhaps for those who think worshiping is all they have to do, will just sit in church all day, but anyone religious doesn't automatically believe this way. Also, I didn't catch your edit at first. [editline]10:47PM[/editline] [QUOTE=TH89;20166267][img]http://media.photobucket.com/image/heavy%20weapons%20guy/jjskywalk/happyheavy.jpg[/img] Kiss me.[/QUOTE] Ja! [img]http://www.shacknews.com/images/generated/480609f62a7b2_featured_without_text_medic.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;20161575]So religious people have something in common with people with defective brains? Interesting.[/QUOTE] that's not what it's saying at all.
[QUOTE=frasierdog;20169402]that's not what it's saying at all.[/QUOTE] It's a just a funny conclusion I quickly wrote. Also, if you consider having a part of your brain removed due to cancer a defect, both these people with defective brains and religious people have something in common, religion.
Even though it might or might not be related to the thread, I see a lot of discussion about religion in here, so I suggest that both religious and non-religious guys in this thread watch the first part of Zeitgeist: The Movie, which is in my point of view a real revelation of what or what not is religion. It is avaliable online, as it isn't a copyrighted movie.
[QUOTE=MR-X;20163460] All i have to say is can you prove god exists? [b]can you prove he doesn't exist? [/b]No, so both sides shut up. Move on with your lives, someone believing in god (Or not believing) isn't going to effect your daily lives. [/QUOTE] Burden of proof yo.
Isn't that movie full of bullshit?
[QUOTE=MR-X;20163460]Why is religion stupid and how do you know it is made up? The only people sounding stupid and pompous are the fucking atheists going "lol see religion make u stupid" The only thing dumber then being a crazy religious person is a uptight asshole atheist. Atheists and religious people are just as stupid as the other. I have problems with both sides who can't seem to keep their mouth shuts and let people believe in what they want too. And i highly doubt that any of you fully understand the article all so you see is "LOL RELIGION MAKES YOU STUPID!" This is only going to fuel a argument that makes both sides look like complete idiots. I often see stupid people who are atheists - i guess there is a correlation between atheism and stupidity. All i have to say is can you prove god exists? can you prove he doesn't exist? No, so both sides shut up. Move on with your lives, someone believing in god (Or not believing) isn't going to effect your daily lives. I know the article is about the fact loss of certain parts of the brain are linked with acceptance of religion, but i can see all these other posts don't get that so. I was posting that relating to that, not the article itself.[/QUOTE] If you're going to talk about evidence, you can't deny that there's more evidence that disproves God's existence. There are so many parts in the Bible (and other religious texts and beliefs) that contradict with what can be proven with science today. There are so many contradictions that I believe the Bible (or whatever) holds no credibility.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20161625]Scientific American is a magazine that would deny god's existence even if he came down from the skies. Not a great source, in my opinion.[/QUOTE] Incredible, that's something for me.
[QUOTE=Teal Moose;20165213]I am proud not to be a man of modern science. Science today serves to put us one step closer to mutually assured destruction and make our lives easier. Too easy I might add. I am a scientist of the long lost art, SCIENCE. A hypothesis is a proposed answer to a question. [b]A theory is a more refined hypothesis.[/b] I develop my original proposition until I have a definitive answer. So in reality, it is a hypothesis, later a theory, finally a conclusion. I don't use flashier terms to make myself a scientist. [/QUOTE] That is wrong. A theory is not any kind of hypothesis.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.