Closer to the truth today than in the 1920s, no?

[paultrr]

Isn't that a little bit like saying Democrats cause political conflict?

 

If you ask me, as a party both sides cause political conflict. I'm republican for the most part. But I find my own party tends to be wrong on points as much as I do the other party. One reason I have never been the republican equal to my democratic Dad who always voted the party line. If anything, again an example of organized bodies causing trouble.

[paultrr]

The more you know about anything, the more you know about everything.

 

Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you represents determinism; the way you play it is free will.

-Jawaharlal Nehru

 

To each according to their gifts and tallents. Knowledge is something we gain by investigation from the moment we are born. If humankind lacks anything it would be the wisdom to properly apply that knolwedge which tends to take time. Life is actually what we the individuals make of it. One thing else, that perhaps you're signature lacks: The Tao that is known is not the Tao that is. Basically, the sum of our knowledge as long as this universe remains infinite will never be the full knolwedge there is. There will always be new things to learn.

 

The search for a theory of everything is Physics' modern equal to the Holy Grail of the middle ages. I think Godel had it right in his mention to Einstein that an infinite universe always implies that there will always be knowledge beyond our field of observation to learn. Yes, we are closer to the truth today in some respects. But its a never ending quest at the same time. That rather implies that life keeps on dealing us new cards all the time. Hard to count those cards when the deck seems to be infinite, I'd say.

[paultrr]

According to one creation storyline it was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil that brought about the fall of man. But knowledge of something is not in and of itself evil. Its how one applies that knowledge that works out in human terms for either good or evil. Learning to split the atom had the potential of both helping mankind or distroying mankind. Its man, the individual who decides how it will be used.

 

To a tee, every world war this planet has seen has started with the acts and choices of individuals acting at times through an organization of one form or another(ie Hitler and the Nazi party). It takes one small spark in the form of a human voice to ignite the flames of distruction into an organized force of such. Once ignited it can take an ocean of water to put out that fire. Yes, we are closer to the truth. But are we wiser today than yesterday?

[TINNY]

Einstein was a deist. Yet, his own beliefs spurned him on because he looked for order in the universe. The only point his individual beliefs got in the way was in the does God play dice perspective. Organized religion is actually what has played the major retarding role. It has never actually been the individual religion that got in the way. Many of the major minds down through the centuries who actually gave us the backbone of what we have in science today where religious people. Some where Catholic, some Protestant. Its not individual, personal religion that I see as a threat to progress of knolwedge. Its the organized fundamentalism no matter the source that tends to stand in the way. One prime example of this is found in the founding fathers of this country itself. Most of them where deists themselves. Yet, they believed in the rights of individuals to think for themselves and to be free. Interesting enough deists are not by nature an organized religion, with perhaps the exception of the Unitarians who themselves have always tended to be open minded. Only Church I know of where one can find people of many different divergent faiths when it comes to personal beliefs meeting in one place of worship(ie Pagans, Deist, etc).

I notice that attacks on religion are actually only has to do with Christianity. It is a shame that people straightaway make generalizations - applying it to all forms of theism.

[TINNY]

To each according to their gifts and tallents. Knowledge is something we gain by investigation from the moment we are born. If humankind lacks anything it would be the wisdom to properly apply that knolwedge which tends to take time. Life is actually what we the individuals make of it. One thing else, that perhaps you're signature lacks: The Tao that is known is not the Tao that is. Basically, the sum of our knowledge as long as this universe remains infinite will never be the full knolwedge there is. There will always be new things to learn.

 

The search for a theory of everything is Physics' modern equal to the Holy Grail of the middle ages. I think Godel had it right in his mention to Einstein that an infinite universe always implies that there will always be knowledge beyond our field of observation to learn. Yes, we are closer to the truth today in some respects. But its a never ending quest at the same time. That rather implies that life keeps on dealing us new cards all the time. Hard to count those cards when the deck seems to be infinite, I'd say.

hmm... if we are never closer to the truth,then what is the use of studying? We will never approach truth.

 

By the way, my first signature is about the interconnectedness of the world. By knowing a bit of physics, we will understand a bit of chemistry. Knowing a bit of computers helps us understand our brains. etc...

[paultrr]

hmm... if we are never closer to the truth,then what is the use of studying? We will never approach truth.

 

By the way, my first signature is about the interconnectedness of the world. By knowing a bit of physics, we will understand a bit of chemistry. Knowing a bit of computers helps us understand our brains. etc...

 

The purpose of studying is to get closer to that truth. Does the college student after years of study know everything he will ever discover? I did not say we are not closer to the truth. I simply stated that there is always new things to learn.

[paultrr]

I notice that attacks on religion are actually only has to do with Christianity. It is a shame that people straightaway make generalizations - applying it to all forms of theism.

 

Its because there is a human tendency to throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak. Christianity today represents to a lot of people organized religion, at least in this country. When attacks take place they are generally directed at the most vocal instituational representation one knows of. In our country, and in a lot of the free world that would be Christianity. The lumping part involves its own closed mindedness and at times shows a lack of understanding the human equation is not some statistical whole that can be all placed into square pegs to begin with. It tends to be as bad as the parts about organized Christianity some of us tend to dislike in the first place. Simply put its a narrow mind that tends to make those generalizations, which is again part of the human equation itself.

[emessay]

hmm... if we are never closer to the truth,then what is the use of studying? We will never approach truth.

 

Let's refer this url thinking ........closer to the TRUTH...........

http://www.vendian.org/envelope/TemporaryURL/mass.html

 

Take comparison these masses:

 

10exp(-35) kg = a visible light photon

10exp(+2) kg = human adult

10exp(+52) kg = minimum mass if the universe is to eventually collapse

 

Now we're thinking hardly other and another :

 

10exp (-100) kg...................... B) ;) ...................... 10exp (+100) kg

 

Yes, I believe .....'we' are going somewhere and not alone.........THE TRUTH....... ;) .

[BEAKER]

According to one creation storyline it was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil that brought about the fall of man. But knowledge of something is not in and of itself evil. Its how one applies that knowledge that works out in human terms for either good or evil.

"...There were two trees in the middle of the garden that God had made.

One gave Life; the other gave knowledge.

 

Knowledge does not give life.

 

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil became the temptation.

 

Man already had the knowledge of good. it was the desire for the knowledge of evil that was mans downfall.

 

What was the knowledge of evil that God, in His Wisdom wanted to keep from man? It was no true knowledge at all, only a lie.

The lie was, and still is, that man can be like God.

 

But there is, always was, and always will be Only One God.

 

The first harsh reality that man discovered after eating the forbidden fruit, was that it didn't deliver the anticipated result. The only knowledge he gained that he didn't already posses was the awareness that he was naked and helpless..."

[lindagarrette]

When attacks take place they are generally directed at the most vocal instituational representation one knows of. In our country, and in a lot of the free world that would be Christianity. The lumping part involves its own closed mindedness and at times shows a lack of understanding the human equation is not some statistical whole that can be all placed into square pegs to begin with. It tends to be as bad as the parts about organized Christianity some of us tend to dislike in the first place. Simply put its a narrow mind that tends to make those generalizations, which is again part of the human equation itself.

Your first statement is probably correct. Christians make up the most vocal group at least in my region. But I personally find all religions almost equally repugnant. Some may be less billegerant than others but the potential is always there since the concept is based on some supernatural power doing unpredictable things.

[emessay]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

 

Closer to the truth after 10,000 yrs human civilization on Earth........confirmed !!! :xx:

[paultrr]

Your first statement is probably correct. Christians make up the most vocal group at least in my region. But I personally find all religions almost equally repugnant. Some may be less billegerant than others but the potential is always there since the concept is based on some supernatural power doing unpredictable things.

 

I find nothing wrong with individual beliefs unless one is talking about those who tend to think their opinion and views should somehow be those of others or those who try to enforce their views upon others. I believe fully in the rights of individuals to worship or believe the way they choose to. I believe in the seperation of church and state. One also has to ballance all of this with a real understanding of why Christians are vocal to begin with. By the Great Commision they are to preach the gospel. I do not damn those who attempt to do this. But, if they are honest to that same general commision it also shows that one is to simply preach the word and let the Spirit of God do the rest. You cannot brow beat people into belief, nor does logic tend to lead anyone to anything either. I too dislike certain aspects of modern organized religion. But the personal type of religion I do not see real problems with. Certanly, the founding Fathers of this country held beliefs. Most where deists. They found it possible to find unity in infinite deversity and so do I.

[Fluffy]

There are a lot of brilliant people on this site, but their knowledge of religious basics is often akin to a high school freshman's knowledge of biology: exposed, but not particularly informed.

 

I suggest that information trading both ways is useful.

 

I'm not sure about the people on this site but I agree in that your statement applies to the general public. I have a minor in religious philosophy and it never ceases to amaze me how little people know about their OWN religions much less the religions of others. I'm not a religious person by any means and I don't necessarily think that organized religion is a good thing but people need to be educated in religions in general to help alleviate some of the biases and misunderstandings between cultures.

 

 

*edit* sorry, this was a bit late, I didn't realize there was more than one page :)

[Stargazer]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

 

Closer to the truth after 10,000 yrs human civilization on Earth........confirmed !!! :)

Weird that they made a difference between "no religion" and atheism. I suppose they regard atheism as strong atheism only. Anyway, I think everybody knows that atheism is not a religion. It would be like saying good health is a kind of disease.

[Biochemist]

Weird that they made a difference between "no religion" and atheism. I suppose they regard atheism as strong atheism only. Anyway, I think everybody knows that atheism is not a religion. It would be like saying good health is a kind of disease.

Many folks define atheists as a set of people that have made a decision (versus agnostics, who have not). Personally, I don't think this makes atheism a religion, because religion (by definition) is a set of practices. It is normal usage (in American english) to say that you brush your teeth religiously. The repetitive practice flavor of the word applies to any organized set of beliefs.

 

I could see how the authors of the link might choose to separate atheists form "no religion", but I think it is a poor choice of words.

[C1ay]

Many folks define atheists as a set of people that have made a decision (versus agnostics, who have not). Personally, I don't think this makes atheism a religion, because religion (by definition) is a set of practices.

I think it boils down to how literal some people want to be and which dictionary they want to use. One dictionary says atheism is the disbelief in the existence God or Gods while another says it is the denial of the existence of God(s). I personally fit one description and not the other, I do not believe in the existence of God(s). OTOH, I do not make any claim that there is/are no God(s) because some would claim that places some burden of proof on me to prove there is no God(s) and I'm not going to play that silly game, I don't believe in any God(s) and I don't believe there is any proof that there is or is not a God. So, if you want to call me an atheist then do so, if not then call me agnostic. The label makes no difference to me. Either way, I consider my belief to be a lack of religion, not a branch of religion.