BF2S Forums Religion good or bad?

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Name a religion that doesn't have something to do with a God or Gods. There isn't one.

Strong answer. I would google Atheism and start finding non-god believing religions.

And if you bothered to look up the definition of atheism, you wouldn't find the word religion anywhere in there.

Ei Em wrote:

African tribe religions, such as belief in nature. In Africa, there's HUGE amount of religions that has nothing to do with god's, existence or anything that is not seen. They can believe in rat and its holiness but it still isn't god. It is just rat.

Their belief in the holiness of a rat makes that rat a god. Their belief in nature as an entity of some sort makes nature a god/gods.

Ei Em wrote:

Religions based on Qi. There's HUGE amount of religions believing in some form of Qi. Some religions have the essence to believing that everything has no start nor end. It is just flow of Qi.

Now you are confusing an aspect of a philosophy (Taoism) with religion. Philosophy and religion are not synonymous.

Ei Em wrote:

Bad thing with internet is that it's difficult to find religions without God/Gods because everything seems to be explained for western/modern people. Getting information about religions that has nothing to do with deities is very difficult unless you travel in Africa, China, India, Nepal, Laos, Cambodia, etc. It's all because of western people who believe that every religion has something to do with deities. After reading one 100 page book with elephant sized letters, that some western fat ass wrote, we go and write in Wikipedia how we know everything about Laozi and his doings.

You seem to think that it takes a defined deity to be considered a god. It doesn't.

Nice rant about the internet, though. Have you personally traveled to all those places and studied their religious teachings? Have you taken a comparative theology course?

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If you think we will EVER get to a point where science explains everything, you're not half as scientific as you think you are.

FEOS wrote:

Where the hell are you coming from? What you just typed made no sense in the context of what I said.

Do you believe that your upper quote is true? Do you KNOW that people will never know everything?

EDIT:

FEOS wrote:

Of course there is such a thing in science as "we can't explain". There's far more that can't be explained in science than can be.

Basically I want to know that if you really believe (or even better if you KNOW) this to be true.

Do you KNOW that we will ever get to the point where science can explain (with LAWS, not THEORIES) everything in the universe? The universe is vast enough that we won't ever get there. There will always be something that can't be explained by science. And once it gets explained, there will be something else.

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

How scientific you think you are. Which is far more than--it appears--you actually are.

I asked you because you said that I am not half as scientific as I think I am. So I thought you would to know how scientific I am... I'd like to know it too.

It's relative. Your absolutist approach to science shows that you aren't as scientific as you think you are.

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Re-read what I wrote. It's perfectly clear. You are making an inference I did not imply.

But can you explain anyway, as I obviously don't understand. Take it as a test, can you teach stupid goon (me) to understand what you mean.

I never called you a stupid goon. If you choose to label yourself as such, I can't stop you.

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That made no sense whatsoever...particularly in the context of what I was saying.

Basically that religions (theistic) does not approve scientific methods of explaining that "why". And it can be quite hard to explain everything if we don't even know it all. "Why" is the very last question to answer, before that we should know everything else.

Nonsense. Theistic religions do not disapprove of the scientific method. Some might disapprove of certain experiments on moral grounds, but the overall scientific method is not a problem.

"Why" is the first question asked. Otherwise, there's nothing to pursue.

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Why does it matter what route religion is using? It's simply a way for people to gain comfort by getting answers that satisfy their needs. Science does the same thing in its own way.

Doesn't really. I just want to know what route religion is using.

Depends on the religion. Some are more open-minded than others. Followers of the three major theistic religions have used the scientific method...showing that religion and science can easily coexist.

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Maybe there is a language issue..

Might very well be. This is my 4th needed language and I have hard time placing commas, prepositions and create fluent text.

I'm sure momma's proud. Don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on your back.

The language issue I was referring to involved basic comprehension. Still not convinced you've got it.

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Their belief in the holiness of a rat makes that rat a god. Their belief in nature as an entity of some sort makes nature a god/gods.

"And if you bothered to look up the definition of" God.

Animal(s) they believe in is not in higher position nor it can do anything "otherworldly". After all, that rat is just a rat. They kill that rat if they need to. They eat it if they need to. But still that rat is holy for them. Same goes for every other creature and plant that has some meaning for them. But these things aren't gods.

Holiness implies otherworldiness, which means some supernatural nature, which makes it a god. People used to worship trees, but still cut them down to build shelters and burned them for firewood.

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Now you are confusing an aspect of a philosophy (Taoism) with religion. Philosophy and religion are not synonymous.

No.
Religions believing in sole form of Qi is quite usual. Taoism might be the source where those religions-of-Qi have diverged but they are not the same thing anymore.

Then one would think one would find more than just references to Qi as philosophical or medicinal when one does a search on religion and qi. But one doesn't.

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You seem to think that it takes a defined deity to be considered a god. It doesn't.

Nice rant about the internet, though. Have you personally traveled to all those places and studied their religious teachings? Have you taken a comparative theology course?

I think to know what I seem to think. So, no.

Yes I have been in all those countries, and I did study here. When and what I have studied should not weight anywhere.
(Seems to lack some info in English.)

I'm not weighting it except for your apparent self-described mastery of religious beliefs in those areas as compared to others (hence the question about comparative theology). Otherwise, your opinion is just as informed and expert as mine is.

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Do you KNOW that we will ever get to the point where science can explain (with LAWS, not THEORIES) everything in the universe? The universe is vast enough that we won't ever get there.

What wonders me is your absolute truth of knowing that we will never know. Why will there never be answers if we can question? Surely answer exists before question.

What wonders me is your absolute truth of knowing that we will. Why will there never be ALL the answers? Because the questions are just too numerous. And when we get more answers, it begets more questions. Just because the answer exists doesn't mean we will ever learn what it is.

My comment was made from the perspective of our ability to answer the questions, not whether the answer exists. Probably a language issue, tbh.

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There will always be something that can't be explained by science. And once it gets explained, there will be something else.

Problem is that you know that there will be something that can't be explained but you can't tell why.
Is it possible to think that in the end we, humans (no matter in what form we are in the end), just know everything? Claim the status of-all-knowing, god, universe, etc.

Do I really need to spoon-feed this to you? Fine.

Why something can't be explained: because our science can't explain it. It's fairly straightforward. There are questions that we haven't even thought of because our science hasn't gotten us to the place where we can even intelligently ask them or because we haven't been exposed to the phenomenology that would drive us to ask the question.

So, while it is possible to think that, in the end we, humans, "just know everything", that thinking would be erroneous.

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's relative. Your absolutist approach to science shows that you aren't as scientific as you think you are.

I am not scientific at all, so your point is not valid anymore.

Thanks for validating what I had already determined. Your defense of science as answering all questions that exist is proof enough of your non-scientific nature.

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I never called you a stupid goon. If you choose to label yourself as such, I can't stop you.

Well, I sure know that you never called me a stupid goon. But I sure did ask you to explain me your answer as it clearly didn't mean what I thought it meant.

Refresh my memory then. To which answer are you referring, and which question was I answering?

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Nonsense. Theistic religions do not disapprove of the scientific method. Some might disapprove of certain experiments on moral grounds, but the overall scientific method is not a problem.

Sure they disapprove if they don't want science to study it. If large amount of mass prevents scientific research from studying "everything" relying on some religion then how is that not disapproving?

I've got a news flash for you: it isn't religion that's keeping science from studying "everything".

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Followers of the three major theistic religions have used the scientific method...showing that religion and science can easily coexist.

Theistic religions have largely adapted because of science, surely not the other way around.

You miss the point. Science and religion have coexisted since science as we know it started. Each has adapted, not necessarily because of the other. The point that I was making was that religion and science is not the either-or situation that many (particularly the science crowd) assert.

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on your back.

The language issue I was referring to involved basic comprehension. Still not convinced you've got it.

I have to keep that in my mind.
And don't worry about if I have got it.

I only worry about it to the extent that having to explain fairly simple concepts even more simply for you creates a /facedesk situation on my end. Since the movers are about to pack up my desk, I want to limit that situation.