The creator did it.

[paarsurrey]

Not really.

GodDidIt is what ancient man (and still some today) say when asked questions that have no answers with then current knowledge.

Questioner: What caused that big mountain to explode?
Honest answer: We don't know (yet).
Answer given by leaders who dare never say "I don't know": God Did It.

Both are correct answers, one from the point of religion and other from the point of science. I don't see any contradiction in them. Right, please?
One confirms my view point in a way.Right, please?

Regards

 

[ecco]

Not really.

GodDidIt is what ancient man (and still some today) say when asked questions that have no answers with then current knowledge.

Questioner: What caused that big mountain to explode?
Honest answer: We don't know (yet).
Answer given by leaders who dare never say "I don't know": God Did It.

Both are correct answers, one from the point of religion and other from the point of science. I don't see any contradiction in them. Right, please?
One confirms my view point in a way.Right, please?

Regards

No. Both answers are not correct.

Science says 3+2=5.

If I create a religion based on ignorance of mathematical principles, I can state, from a religious point of view that 3+2=7.

I do hope you see a contradiction.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. Both answers are not correct.

Science says 3+2=5.

If I create a religion based on ignorance of mathematical principles, I can state, from a religious point of view that 3+2=7.

I do hope you see a contradiction.

Despite the common usage of the word 'religion' to apply to the human created institutions that propagate some teaching about existence and our place in it, the actual meaning of the word 'religion' is to reconnect or retie. So the question arises...to what...the answer is.. the source of our being. You can argue all you want about what you think constitutes the source, but human knowledge is not the source of creation, but a creation in itself, by the Cosmos, and is therefore an integral of it...hence such terms as religion and yoga....reunion, union.

 

[shunyadragon]

Despite the common usage of the word 'religion' to apply to the human created institutions that propagate some teaching about existence and our place in it, the actual meaning of the word 'religion' is to reconnect or retie.

Common usage is how English works in the real world, and not how you want to narrowly define it for your own comfort and convenience.

So the question arises...to what...the answer is.. the source of our being. You can argue all you want about what you think constitutes the source, but human knowledge is not the source of creation, but a creation in itself, by the Cosmos, and is therefore an integral of it...hence such terms as religion and yoga....reunion, union.

In reality the question remains unanswered.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Common usage is how English works in the real world, and not how you want to narrowly define it for your own comfort and convenience.

In reality the question remains unanswered.

So in your schooling, presumably Latin and Greek prefixes and roots were never taught. In Australia where I come from, we were required to learn this in order to understand the meaning of words of Greek and Latin origins. In any event, it is not as though I am defining it as I would like, but precisely as it was meant to be understood, and as I do understand it. Of course I understand the term when used in common discussion, but in a forum meant to discuss God, any discussion will go sideways if we can't agree on what words mean.

To you the question may remain unanswered my friend, and that is fine, but not all souls.

 

[shunyadragon]

So in your schooling, presumably Latin and Greek prefixes and roots were never taught.

Sarcasm gets you nowhere quick. I have not only been taught the Latin and Greek roots, but basic courses in the languages themselves. The roots indicate the origins of the words and not as languages evolve and change over time, and yes common usage evolves over time and determines the meaning of the words today.

In Australia where I come from, we were required to learn this in order to understand the meaning of words of Greek and Latin origins. In any event, it is not as though I am defining it as I would like, but precisely as it was meant to be understood, and as I do understand it. Of course I understand the term when used in common discussion, but in a forum meant to discuss God, any discussion will go sideways if we can't agree on what words mean.

If you are living in the past with narrow definitions of words that is not how they are used today.

To you the question may remain unanswered my friend, and that is fine, but not all souls.

I consider all fallible humans living as not having absolute answers to the questions in question. There are far too many conflicting variable answers of those who claim to 'know' the unknowable, to be real and believable.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sarcasm gets you nowhere quick. I have not only been taught the Latin and Greek roots, but basic courses in the languages themselves. The roots indicate the origins of the words and not as languages evolve and change over time, and yes common usage evolves over time and determines the meaning of the words today.

If you are living in the past with narrow definitions of words that is not how they are used today.

I consider all fallible humans living as not having absolute answers to the questions in question. There are far too many conflicting variable answers of those who claim to 'know' the unknowable, to be real and believable.

I am not living in the past wrt my religious practice, but in the eternal now, that is where the source of my being is, not in the human perceived time concept.

You can consider what you like, but it does not help to project your yet unfinished spiritual 'journey''s understanding onto all beings. And fwiw, those who practice religion as it is intended, ie., to realize union with the source of their existence, it is understood that the source is unknowable to the conceptual mind, for that reason the religious practice involves transcending thought. Then the apparent duality of the source of one's being and the self of being is transcended, they are not two separate aspects, but one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Old thread and I'm sure that on page 75, there's other topics going on. But I notice this OP and couldn't help but to reply.

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things

Science has never shown any such thing and logically can't show any such thing, because it is literally logically impossible to prove negatives like that.

In principle science can only show that life CAN come from non-living things - by demonstrating that very process.
But it can't show that it can't. Failing millions of times to show that it can, doesn't prove that it can't. It only proves that it can't be done in those specific ways that have been tested so far.

can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that?

Absolutely, because forming such a conclusion for such a reason is LITERALLY an argument from ignorance.
Logical fallacies, are no way to argue or obtain conclusions.

Once this door is open

It's not.

why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"?

One could. One could also believe that the undetectable pixies did it or the monsters under my bed.
The question is not "why couldn't one believe that". It rather is "why would one believe that"?

So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

Well... if someone doesn't care about what is actually true and only cares about holding on to their beliefs, whatever they may be... one can do that, off course.

But one will only be making sure that one will end up with false beliefs sooner or later. Probably sooner.

 

[paarsurrey]

No. Both answers are not correct.

Science says 3+2=5.

If I create a religion based on ignorance of mathematical principles, I can state, from a religious point of view that 3+2=7.

I do hope you see a contradiction.

"based on ignorance"

But the calculation one gave is based on Anti-Religion or No-Religion, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[ecco]

Despite the common usage of the word 'religion' to apply to the human created institutions that propagate some teaching about existence and our place in it, the actual meaning of the word 'religion' is to reconnect or retie. So the question arises...to what...the answer is.. the source of our being. You can argue all you want about what you think constitutes the source, but human knowledge is not the source of creation, but a creation in itself, by the Cosmos, and is therefore an integral of it...hence such terms as religion and yoga....reunion, union.

Wrong. The actual meaning of the word is as shown below. We are not living in the year 101, we are living in 2019. We are not talking about the source of anything, just the commonly accepted usage of a word. Woo nonsense does not change word definitions as much as you and people like Greg Trimble want it to.

re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   synonyms: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology;

 

[ecco]

"based on ignorance"

But the calculation one gave is based on Anti-Religion or No-Religion, please. Right, please?

Regards

I do not understand your question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wrong. The actual meaning of the word is as shown below. We are not living in the year 101, we are living in 2019. We are not talking about the source of anything, just the commonly accepted usage of a word. Woo nonsense does not change word definitions as much as you and people like Greg Trimble want it to.

re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   synonyms: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology;

No, it is not. It is one definition, but not the only one:
Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world. In many religions, texts are deemed to have scriptural status, and people are esteemed to be invested with spiritual or moralauthority. Believers and worshippers participate in and are often enjoined to perform devotional or contemplative practices such as prayer, meditation, or particular rituals. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.
Source: religion | Definition & List of Religions

Here is one religion:
Unitarian Universalist Association

Your bias is showing. Religion is also changing over time and it appears you like to "fight" theism in some form, but that is not the only form of religion.
So if we live in 2019, religion is not just the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wrong. The actual meaning of the word is as shown below. We are not living in the year 101, we are living in 2019. We are not talking about the source of anything, just the commonly accepted usage of a word. Woo nonsense does not change word definitions as much as you and people like Greg Trimble want it to.

re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   synonyms: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology;

OK, but this one definition is incomplete. The belief in God or Gods, nor being organized as a religion is not a necessary criteria, For example; the religions of Buddhism and Taoism in their variations do not necessarily believe in God nor gods in the western concepts.

From: Religion - Wikipedia

Religion is a cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[1][2]

Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine[3], sacred things[4], faith,[5] a supernatural being or supernatural beings[6] or "some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life".[7] Religious practices may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of deities), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions have sacred histories and narratives, which may be preserved in sacred scriptures, and symbols and holy places, that aim mostly to give a meaning to life. Religions may contain symbolic stories, which are sometimes said by followers to be true, that have the side purpose of explaining the origin of life, the universe, and other things. Traditionally, faith, in addition to reason, has been considered a source of religious beliefs.[8]

There are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions worldwide,[9] but about 84% of the world's population is affiliated with one of the five largest religion groups, namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or forms of folk religion.[10] The religiously unaffiliateddemographic includes those who do not identify with any particular religion, atheists, and agnostics. While the religiously unaffiliated have grown globally, many of the religiously unaffiliated still have various religious beliefs.[11]

The study of religion encompasses a wide variety of academic disciplines, including theology, comparative religion and social scientific studies. Theories of religion offer various explanations for the origins and workings of religion, including the ontological foundations of religious being and belief.[12]

Oft asked question: Is atheism a religion? No, it is a religious belief that religions like Buddhism and Unitarian Universalists may include atheism and by the way agnosticism.

Like wise is Theism a religion? No.

 

[usfan]

Despite the common usage of the word 'religion' to apply to the human created institutions that propagate some teaching about existence and our place in it, the actual meaning of the word 'religion' is to reconnect or retie.

Common usage is how English works in the real world, and not how you want to narrowly define it for your own comfort and convenience.

The Greek word translated, 'religion', δεισιδαίμων, is a composit of δείδω, to fear, and δαίμων, deity.

So 'religion' (in the greek) has to do with the reverence for (or lack thereof) toward deities.

But the latin based 'religion', is about retying, or binding, or possibly 'careful' (religiens).

It has become a very ambiguous term, and is often used as a pejorative by anti-christians.

IMO, it has nothing to do with origins, and is thrown out as a deflection..

'Christians are religious! Atheists have science!'

 

[ecco]

Your bias is showing. Religion is also changing over time and it appears you like to "fight" theism in some form, but that is not the only form of religion.

Before you make accusations, how about putting my response in context. It was a reply to this comment.

Despite the common usage of the word 'religion' to apply to the human created institutions that propagate some teaching about existence and our place in it, the actual meaning of the word 'religion' is to reconnect or retie. So the question arises...to what...the answer is.. the source of our being. You can argue all you want about what you think constitutes the source, but human knowledge is not the source of creation, but a creation in itself, by the Cosmos, and is therefore an integral of it...hence such terms as religion and yoga....reunion, union.

Do you believe that your definition agrees with his concept of religion?

 

[ecco]

OK, but this one definition is incomplete.

See post #1495 and answer the same question I posed to mikkel_the_dane.

 

[ecco]

Oft asked question: Is atheism a religion? No, it is a religious belief that religions like Buddhism and Unitarian Universalists may include atheism and by the way agnosticism.

I'm glad that you recognize that atheism is not a religion.


However, to call it a religious belief is wrong. It is a belief about gods, not religions or about religions.

 

[ecco]

'Christians are religious! Atheists have science!'

Who says that? Certainly not this atheist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Wrong. The actual meaning of the word is as shown below. We are not living in the year 101, we are living in 2019. We are not talking about the source of anything, just the commonly accepted usage of a word. Woo nonsense does not change word definitions as much as you and people like Greg Trimble want it to.

re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   synonyms: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology;

Not wrong, I accept that the common usage is now what it is, but because I am very interested in the subject, I like to dig deeper, how is that woo? Oh, I see you are an atheist, any teaching about the spiritual aspect of being to you I imagine is seen as woo.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Before you make accusations, how about putting my response in context. It was a reply to this comment.

Well, here is the etymology of thing:
thing | Origin and meaning of thing by Online Etymology Dictionary

The problem of what a word means, is that it changes over time. At one time atheism meant in part amoral.
So yes, we can debate what religion is, but in fact it is a diverse human set of behavior and which as far as I can tell have only one theme in common, there is more to the world than the single human. What that more is, is then subject to cultural relativism.
But yes, the reunion, union part makes sense to me.
To me it works better, because it is about being a part of something bigger than myself. Not being ruled by a controlling power.

But of course to some, it is about by ruled by a controlling power.

Sorry for overlooking the context. Yes, I have a thing with the correct definition of a word. Sometimes if to narrow, if frames a certain POW and overlook other aspects.
Here is one take on science:

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

So how I see religion, is influenced by my bias in part.