<p>There you go trying to use logic again. Why can’t all religions reflect a part of the same truth? Does a moving electron act like a wave or a particle? Doesn’t it have to be one or the other, or can it be both or neither?</p>
<p>Also, since christianity grew from Jewish how can christianity be divine…it has a precursor? It seems more like regional politics that eventually engulfed the entire world to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Heh - I’ve never heard it put quite that way. You mean Judaism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With Constantine’s adoption of the faith in the early 4th c., there was indeed a lot of politics invloved in the spread of Christianity. Before that, Christians were themselves subjected to a great deal of persecution.</p>
<p>“Does a moving electron act like a wave or a particle”</p>
<p>It has properties of both: yes. Is it both: no.</p>
<p>No, two electrons can inhabit the same space at the same time; moving in the same exact motion.</p>
<p>If you want to bring logic back into the equation then I suggest you also read up on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.</p>
<p>Heh - I’ve never heard it put quite that way. You mean Judaism.</p>
<p>Sorry, that was supposed to be “a Jewish sect”. I am familiar with the terminology, however, despite your “subtle” insinuation. Also, if you would like me to start picking apart your grammar on an internet forum, I will do so.</p>
<p>I apologize for correcting you. I didn’t think you didn’t know the terminology, I was just amused by the Yiddish cadence of “grew from Jewish”.</p>
<p>My hero:</p>
<p>"Imagine there’s no Heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today </p>
<p>Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace </p>
<p>You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one </p>
<p>Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world </p>
<p>You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one"</p>
<p>The Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us about limitations of measurements. I don’t believe Heisenberg that anything to say about different religions reflecting part of the same Truth.</p>
<p>I was referencing god not religion, since you wanted to bring logic back into the argument.</p>
<p>The Uncertainty Principle postulates that it is impossible to determine the exact momentum and position of a particle simultaneously. Furthemore, a particle’s kinetic energy can also not be determined, that is within a set amount of time. The cause for the Uncertainity Principle not only involves imprecise measurement, but wave-particle duality. An infinitely small particle, for instance a photon, consists of a select few quantum particles. If a single photon changes its location or momentum; it would be impossible to calculate. God cannot violate this condition of immeasureable precision and subsequently does not exist because god is ergo not all powerful.</p>
<p>Would you like me to tear down my own argument for you?</p>
<p>Don’t bother. Your argument is irrelevent.
Some religions believe in an all knowing and all powerful god. That is a belief and does not require arguments or proofs.</p>
<p>True believer syndrome.</p>
<p>That is not a correct application of the term true believer syndrome. TBS refers to continued belief after exposure of an obvious fraud. </p>
<p>Belief in an all powerful god is just that - a belief. The belief may be irrational or unfounded but it is not necessarily a result of fraud.</p>
<p>:) You are lecturing me on true believer syndrome? True believer sydnrome refers to a person who continues to believe in the supernatural despite colossal evidence that indicates that the supporting proof was fradulent. Also, the person believes more than before. Religion is fradulent and yet people still cling to it, even more so some may say.</p>
<p>Stated by Keene himself:
“The true-believer syndrome merits study by science. What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it’s exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it–indeed, clings to it all the harder?”</p>
<p>But of course there is nothing wrong with believing in an invisible pink unicorn and the belief should not be questioned or even doubted :).</p>
<p>Science can disprove some of the religious stories. Science cannot prove or refute the existence or characteristics of god(s). It is also clear that many scientists are deeply religious and see no conflict between religious beliefs and scientific investigation. There is no obvious fraud and hence TBS does not apply. Again, I think you are making a mistake in trying to apply logical arguments to religious belief systems. The observable fact is that there are and have been a lot of very religious people and religious beliefs have had and continue to have a major impact on the world. If you want to apply some sort of scientific investigation, then you can look at the origins of religious beliefs, what part of those beliefs seem to be pre-programmed and what part is attributable to culture. You can study the impact, history and trends in religious belief systems, but you can’t make them go away or impose your sense of reality on others. You cannot use logical arguments to change the view of people who are immersed in religous belief systems. Personally, I find it interesting to consider why people want to root for the home team, why we appear to be predisposed to hundle together in social groups and to largely conform to the culture and beliefs of those groups.</p>
<p>“Isn’t it an incredible coincidence that almost all people hold the religion (and in many cases, even the sect) that they were born into as the correct belief - across all religions.”</p>
<p>Well, I’m one that has changed religion, and somewhat radically.</p>
<p>By pure logic, I would be an agnostic. But of a particular kind - a Quaker agnostic. Quaker agnostics (as a group) do not believe that God is unknowable, only that THEY don’t have any experience of Her.</p>
<p>I would be of that camp, except for my experience. I have no experience of a Creator, of a personal Jesus or Allah, of some force in the external world which commands obedience or worship. I don’t deny that other folks have such experiences - I know that there are certain sound frequencies that my kids can hear that I can’t, my vision isn’t what it used to be, and I burned out my tastebuds a long time ago. But I haven’t been hit over the head with a Burning Bush, Flaming Sword, or Kiss of Jesus any time recently as far as I can reckon. I don’t think it is because I am not in a state of grace, or because of my “original sins” (which I think is an absolutely ridiculous and anti-human piece of doctrine.)</p>
<p>But I do have experiences that I can’t explain by logic alone. Internally, for reasons I don’t understand, I respond to an inward voice, an inner teacher, a light within, (Christian Quakers call it "the Christ within’, but that’s way too fancy for me). I have learned to listen to it, or for it, and when I do, it lights me on my way, and when I don’t, and simply rely on logic, I often get flustered (or just depressed). I am willing to call that voice, or light, or whatever “God” - though I have absolutely no need of the God-Talk, and if someone wants to call it the Spaghetti Monster or a pink unicorn, I am not easily offended.</p>
<p>What I do know is that I have found a community of folks (many of whom come from other religions) who have discovered the same thing. We don’t have to claim it is universal (we have an inkling that it is, but it doesn’t make any difference to us); our “theology” (or excuse for same) takes up about a quarter of a page, but we are all united in our listening, and interested in discovering what each of us finds out.</p>
<p>John Woolman wrote about it in the 18th Century:</p>
<p>“There is a principle, which is pure, placed in the human mind, which in different places and ages hath had different names; it is, however, pure and proceeds from God.—It is deep, and inward, confined to no forms of religion, nor excluded from any, where the heart stands in perfect sincerity. In whomsoever this takes root, and grows, of what nation soever, they become brethren.”</p>
<p>When we listen to this voice, historically, it seems, we do good stuff.</p>
<p>what do you mean by “pre programmed”</p>
<p>are you saying that if you were born in the middle east, your would have the same religious beliefs you do now…that parents, culture, etc are irrelevent when it comes to what people believe</p>
<p>as well, it is NOT a mistake trying o apply logical arguments to religou belef systems</p>
<p>religion taught that we were the center of the universe, guess we should have just said, okay sure, ignore the logic that shows that is improbable</p>
<p>religion taught that women were less than man in many cultures, guess we should jsut let that go to, that its okay to beat their women folk cause God says its okay</p>
<p>religion taught that martydom is a good thing, and if you kill or die for the cause, well, good for you, should we not try and stop that thought process</p>
<p>religion taught that evil spirits caused insanity, illness etc…too bad logic and science got in the way there</p>
<p>so it is not a mistake to try and apply logic, it is shameful and dangerous not to</p>
<p>I am not sure I have an exact sense of innate, pre-progamming. Clearly, Mini does. I think during the course of evolution, we have become more social. In order to develop societies, we need to give up some of our independence, we need to have some feeling of group participation and pride, we need to conform to a large extent, we need to be bound together by common goals and beliefs. I suspect a lot of these tendencies have become innate; i.e., pre-programmed. So the specific cultural and religious beliefs are not pre-programmed, but our tendency to believe may be.</p>
<p>Science can disprove some of the religious stories. Science cannot prove or refute the existence or characteristics of god(s). It is also clear that many scientists are deeply religious and see no conflict between religious beliefs and scientific investigation. There is no obvious fraud and hence TBS does not apply. </p>
<p>“Again, I think you are making a mistake in trying to apply logical arguments to religious belief systems.”</p>
<p>Quite a few religions are opening their doors to logic. The Catholics, for instance, openly reject fideism…I would know having Aquinas shoved down my throat. Either way, it is an intellectual coward’s way out to state that a god or a belief in that god does not have to follow the natural laws of the universe and is beyond our logic.</p>
<p>“The observable fact is that there are and have been a lot of very religious people and religious beliefs have had and continue to have a major impact on the world. If you want to apply some sort of scientific investigation, then you can look at the origins of religious beliefs, what part of those beliefs seem to be pre-programmed and what part is attributable to culture. You can study the impact, history and trends in religious belief systems, but you can’t make them go away or impose your sense of reality on others.”</p>
<p>Scientific research of this calibre has already been conducted. The reason for belief has been explained biologically and anthropically. Religion is not undeniable. Times change; people begin to believe differently. Eventually, people will judge Christianity’s God, as most today judge the Olympian Gods. So, how can any religion be divine or ineffable?</p>
<p>“Personally, I find it interesting to consider why people want to root for the home team, why we appear to be predisposed to hundle together in social groups and to largely conform to the culture and beliefs of those groups.”</p>
<p>Again, it is intersting, but that does not mean we shouldn’t question it.</p>