Religion: Just a Form of Brain Washing?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
On what basis do you say that beings cannot exist in an environment without order? That is also an assumption that cannot be tested. As such, it is just as valid to state that order has been applied externally.
[/quote]

I did not say that. I said that order may be required for observing beings (like us) to exist. An ordered world is not definitive proof of the existence of the deity, because there are many potential worlds that may have existed (or will exist) in which there is no order, and no beings capable of observing the lack of order.

This is not my understanding of Chaos Theory.

282

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
On what basis do you say that beings cannot exist in an environment without order? That is also an assumption that cannot be tested. As such, it is just as valid to state that order has been applied externally.

I did not say that. I said that order may be required for observing beings (like us) to exist. An ordered world is not definitive proof of the existence of the deity, because there are many potential worlds that may have existed (or will exist) in which there is no order, and no beings capable of observing the lack of order.

[/quote]

True. We have no comparison. And comparing random occurrence within and ordered system would not be a reasonable comparison. However, it doesn’t preclude the theory that order requires external action to achieve. And until that can be disproved it is valid.

[quote]
I’m sure you are also aware that Chaos Theory believers feel that everything is random, which in my assessment is not mathematically feasible due to the very delicate balance required to maintain life and the amount of time that this balance has “randomly” been maintained.

This is not my understanding of Chaos Theory.[/quote]

What is your understanding of chaos theory?

283

No. That’s absolutely wrong. A theory is invalid until there is sufficient evidence for it to be deemed useful. At that point, it gets used until we have better information. Saying everything is true until proven otherwise is absolutely horrible reasoning.

The notion that order is descended from some more ordered being is a non-starter in and of itself. Where did the more ordered being get all of its order?

Lastly, the notions of order and chaos are entirely man-made. They are labels we apply to segments of the reality we experience. They aren’t proof of anything at all.

284

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
What is your understanding of chaos theory?
[/quote]

That some systems are highly sensitive to very small changes in their initial conditions, which are difficult to measure. As such systems continue in operation, these small changes express themselves more dramatically throughout the system in ways that are difficult or impossible to predict because we do not have a way of modeling the system with sufficient precision. But such systems are deterministic, and not random.

285

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
What is your understanding of chaos theory?

That some systems are highly sensitive to very small changes in their initial conditions, which are difficult to measure. As such systems continue in operation, these small changes express themselves more dramatically throughout the system in ways that are difficult or impossible to predict because we do not have a way of modeling the system with sufficient precision. But such systems are deterministic, and not random.[/quote]

Then what do you make of systems that may be deterministic but we cannot tell due to Heisenberg?

Are they deterministic or are they not and what difference does it make to us`?

286

[quote]orion wrote:
Then what do you make of systems that may be deterministic but we cannot tell due to Heisenberg?

Are they deterministic or are they not and what difference does it make to us`?[/quote]

I believe they are deterministic. I’m not sure how this is relevant to the discussion… I was only answering Lorisco’s question about my understanding of Chaos Theory, not QM.

287

[quote]nephorm wrote:
orion wrote:
Then what do you make of systems that may be deterministic but we cannot tell due to Heisenberg?

Are they deterministic or are they not and what difference does it make to us`?

I believe they are deterministic. I’m not sure how this is relevant to the discussion… I was only answering Lorisco’s question about my understanding of Chaos Theory, not QM.[/quote]

That was just a tangent.

It goes something like, if something might be deterministic but we know we will never know, is it really?

288

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
What is your understanding of chaos theory?

That some systems are highly sensitive to very small changes in their initial conditions, which are difficult to measure. As such systems continue in operation, these small changes express themselves more dramatically throughout the system in ways that are difficult or impossible to predict because we do not have a way of modeling the system with sufficient precision. But such systems are deterministic, and not random.[/quote]

As an aside: this is the reason why planned societies (communism, socialism, all those) cannot endure. Social scientists tried to use the ideas of Newtonian Physics on human societies. Yet one thing (like Hitler contracting syphillis) spells doom for the whole system.

Humans tend to think linearly yet human societies are non-linear.

289

[quote]pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Give me an example of what i may believe in that i can’t prove.

Good grief, where to start? Try this one: do you believe that time exists?

If so, try proving it.

Much of the “realities” we take for granted to be true (that, say, time not only exists, but moves in a “forward” direction) are, it turns out, far more mysterious than they appear.

Indeed, the “certainties” that we cling to in our own lives, not to mention many aspects of the universe itself, are majestically opaque, intrinsically unprovable, and (perhaps) ultimately unknowable.

The point is this: to say that religion is a bunch of “hooey” because it depends upon unprovable conjectures is a fallacious argument.

Time is nothing but a million different clock faces all over the world. A collection of cogs and springs or electronic parts.Time helps us get to work on time or watch our favorite TV program.

Time has never been claimed as an entity. It is a tool.

I have never called it “hooey”, I have merely questioned its necessity…I want to understand why it has such a hold over people. How people can so deeply believe in something so transparent…That is my view only, I speak for no one else.

Fair enough, but methinks you’re avoiding the question: “Dost thou believe that time exists?”

A simple “yes” or “no” will do :wink:

It cant be answered with a yes or no and it would be wrong to say that it could be in the sense that you are referring to which i assume is in terms of it “being” a non physical entity.

Time is a unit that man created. The fact that people see time as anything other than the tool it was created for is reading to much into it.

To be able to “turn back time” is merely use of a tool to calculate exactly how far back the person wants to go back in their constant flow of actions to be able to repeat or change one of those actions.

Time can be broken down into milli-seconds or bundled up into centuries…it is a mathematical calculation…that time i believe in as a tool…it is something that i can manipulate to suit me where possible.

Oh brother…Man did not make time. All things things you mentioned are means by which to measure, what are they measuring?[/quote]

You tell me…Time to me is a “TOOL”. Man created time to measure the inevitable movement and growth of everything that exists…
If you think time is anything other than that explain to me what it is and what it was before time existed…and of course how you know this to be…

290

[quote]pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Nothing has ever been proven!

So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?

Neither. What is being said here is this: religion is not unique in proceeding upon unprovable axioms. You do so as a person. Science does so on a daily basis. And yet, for some reason it seems to drive you nuts that “RELIGION” does as well. Why?

I think you’re really reaching comparing the things science takes for granted and the things religion takes for granted. Science is based on empirical observation and repeatability. While it’s true no scientist can guarantee the laws of physics will still be true tomorrow, I don’t know of anyone that will step in front of a bus just in case they changed.

Religion assumes that the things written in a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself (there are 2 creations stories that directly contradict each other in Genesis) are the key to higher knowledge, instead of the just strange things written in a very old book.

Religion is a means by which to communicate with God, not an “Old Book”. Science, as empirical as it is, is still fallible. Just see this sight. Read scientific articles from 1999 and now and see how much has changed, all of which was based empirically. So in science, you still end up taking things on faith.

Like the experiment was conducted correctly with the proper controls, the experimenter knew what he was doing, etc. If you weren’t there and know it was conducted correctly you are acting on faith that it was. [/quote]

Very good point…but, the difference is that we know and accept that science will change…not so for religion.

291

[quote]pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Give me an example of what i may believe in that i can’t prove.

Good grief, where to start? Try this one: do you believe that time exists?

If so, try proving it.

Much of the “realities” we take for granted to be true (that, say, time not only exists, but moves in a “forward” direction) are, it turns out, far more mysterious than they appear.

Indeed, the “certainties” that we cling to in our own lives, not to mention many aspects of the universe itself, are majestically opaque, intrinsically unprovable, and (perhaps) ultimately unknowable.

The point is this: to say that religion is a bunch of “hooey” because it depends upon unprovable conjectures is a fallacious argument.

Time is nothing but a million different clock faces all over the world. A collection of cogs and springs or electronic parts.Time helps us get to work on time or watch our favorite TV program.
Time has never been claimed as an entity. It is a tool.

I have never called it “hooey”, I have merely questioned its necessity…I want to understand why it has such a hold over people. How people can so deeply believe in something so transparent…That is my view only, I speak for no one else.

People were able to measure time before clocks existed. As far as I know clocks don’t make the sun come up or go down, cause babies to age into adults, or cause rust to grow on iron. Time is not an illusion as you suggest. The question is, is a clock measures time, what is it measuring.

What is transparent about “it”?

The clock face comment was a generality i used as an example. It is a tool. nothing more. Rust is a chemical reaction. The earth revolves on it own axis as well as around the sun. This was “Measured” by the Inca. Babies into adults complicated chemistry that eventually burns out or malfunctions.

Surely cannot claim that “time” as we know has any influence over anything other than as a measurement.

If so tell me how…I am intrigued…

Measurements don’t change anything, the analyze things. Time is a measurement of movement and change. If nothing moved and nothing changed, then “time” as we know it would cease because there would be nothing to measure. Of course, you could never experience this as you as well would be frozen in space.
[/quote]

When has anyone ever “physically” used “time” ???

Time is a concept that we use…it is not an entity or anything similar…short of the atmosphere desolving into space nothing will ever stop changing…and even then it will only be life as we know it that will perish…the planet itself will still live and who know what micro-organisms will develop over “time” with the new influx of materials and influences that we are currently sheltered from…

I am trying not to get sarcastic with my reply s but i am sensing that you find this line of thinking very hard to understand…

292

Perfectcircle,

I think you may be getting confused between two senses of the word “time.” 1. a measuring system, a series of units, a “tool,” as you say; and, 2. that which is being measured (very hard to define).

The first is man-made; the second is in no way “made” by man. It exists independently of man’s ideas or purposes or perceptions. I’m sure you would agree with this much, no?

293

[quote]pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:

Religion doesn’t go around trying to “Better” itself, it stays a constant throughout and therefore unfortunately it becomes dated.
It is something that is being taken as “Gospel” so to speak, even though it has never been, for lack of a better word, proven.

You still haven’t answered my question yet: do you believe in things that cannot be, “for lack of a better word, proven?”

You don’t want to answer this - and it’s pretty obvious why.

Can you see the pointlessness of this sort of attitude?

Yes, I absolutely see the pointlessness of this attitude.

that is a question that has no answer that will ever be acceptable to people with beliefs like yourself.

If i say yes, then it will be thrown at me as to “why can you not then believe there is a god”

If i say no, i am a hypocrite, because i have said that i believe we will always have an ever changing view of how and why the world we live in is what it is.

people with beliefs as strong as i feel yours are, will always find it hard to understand how or why others cannot see what to you is so obvious…but to me it is obvious only in a different way…

So my answer to your question is…I have no answer. I dont need one.

You need one if your are going to refute arguments. Answering by not answering is really a way of avoiding the truth.

Based on what I have read from you, your arguments for atheism is pretty weak, you really need to rethink them and do much better. I have heard good arguments for atheism, but you haven’t presented any except, you feel absolved from needing one. That is a crock of shit, you took a stance on an issue, you need to be able to defend it, or not take a stand on it publicly.

And for the record, you do believe in things that cannot be proven; everyday. I bet you can’t even give me a decent argument that you exist, much less anything else.[/quote]

Well i asked that this didn’t get personal right at the start…If i say that i don’t need an answer, why is that so hard to understand?..only you need an answer and only you need me to have an answer…i was looking for reasons as to why people though like this because it is so completely irrelevant to me.

You class me as an “Atheist”…i have never once claimed to be of any specific belief whether for or against religion. I have not once said that God does not exist, i have merely asked why others believe he does and then put across another view.

I put this to public forum to try to understand why people think in this way and i have learnt a tiny bit as to why. That has not changed my way of thinking. In some ways it re-enforces what i have always wondered.

People with easily created frustrations like yourself are the ones that tend to act on these frustrations in a quick and often violent way.

Dont get me wrong, I’m no “saint” so to speak and will most likely burn in your “Hell” if it turns out that you guys were right all along…But what the Fuck…who cares…you dont…others i know who believe may do but that is up to them.

To me, you find it as intriguing as i do as to why someone would think like so differently. But instead of taking it and saying…“oh well, his soul will burn”…you attack and demand to know why i dont think as you do.

Get over it and stop speeling long dead peoples thoughs who would dunk a so called witch to see if she lived and thus “proved” she is a witch and therefore had to burn at the stake.
Talking in circles achieves nothing. If i have to be classified as a believer in anything it is that change is inevitable.

294

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle,

I think you may be getting confused between two senses of the word “time.” 1. a measuring system, a series of units, a “tool,” as you say; and, 2. that which is being measured (very hard to define).

The first is man-made; the second is in no way “made” by man. It exists independently of man’s ideas or purposes or perceptions. I’m sure you would agree with this much, no? [/quote]

I agree with 1 & 2 but not with your explanation of 2.

For the sake of those who have trouble with my thought lines, i will say it like this…

To me “Time does not exist outside it’s use as a tool/measurement”.

It is only a perception created by the ever changing environment we live in. It is not man made in the sense that we can no sooner control every living thing on earth and beyond as we could lick our own elbows…Weak example i know…but…

295

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle,

I think you may be getting confused between two senses of the word “time.” 1. a measuring system, a series of units, a “tool,” as you say; and, 2. that which is being measured (very hard to define).

The first is man-made; the second is in no way “made” by man. It exists independently of man’s ideas or purposes or perceptions. I’m sure you would agree with this much, no? [/quote]

Another thought…is not any use of time merely a measurement to identify an occurrence? whether backward or forward?

296

So the rust example you used previously: the iron isn’t really rusting - a process revealing the passage of time - but it’s only rusting in your perception?

I’m just trying to understand your thought lines here.

297

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle,

I think you may be getting confused between two senses of the word “time.” 1. a measuring system, a series of units, a “tool,” as you say; and, 2. that which is being measured (very hard to define).

The first is man-made; the second is in no way “made” by man. It exists independently of man’s ideas or purposes or perceptions. I’m sure you would agree with this much, no?

Another thought…is not any use of time merely a measurement to identify an occurrence? whether backward or forward?[/quote]

Yes, but this “occurrence” is a process (time in the #2 sense) we’re observing - and that is what time (in the #1 sense) is measuring.

298

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:

Well i asked that this didn’t get personal right at the start…If i say that i don’t need an answer, why is that so hard to understand?..only you need an answer and only you need me to have an answer…i was looking for reasons as to why people though like this because it is so completely irrelevant to me.

You class me as an “Atheist”…i have never once claimed to be of any specific belief whether for or against religion.
I have not once said that God does not exist, i have merely asked why others believe he does and then put across another view.

I put this to public forum to try to understand why people think in this way and i have learnt a tiny bit as to why.
That has not changed my way of thinking. In some ways it re-enforces what i have always wondered.

People with easily created frustrations like yourself are the ones that tend to act on these frustrations in a quick and often violent way.

Dont get me wrong, I’m no “saint” so to speak and will most likely burn in your “Hell” if it turns out that you guys were right all along…But what the Fuck…who cares…you dont…others i know who believe may do but that is up to them.

To me, you find it as intriguing as i do as to why someone would think like so differently. But instead of taking it and saying…“oh well, his soul will burn”…you attack and demand to know why i dont think as you do.

Get over it and stop speeling long dead peoples thoughs who would dunk a so called witch to see if she lived and thus “proved” she is a witch and therefore had to burn at the stake.
Talking in circles achieves nothing. If i have to be classified as a believer in anything it is that change is inevitable. [/quote]

I’m not sure what anyone is supposed to get from this post.

One thing I do get from your posts generally, PerfectCircle, is that you seem quite willing to pronounce judgments about religion. And yet, while I could be wrong, you don’t seem to know very much about it. (Whatever “it” is.) Nearly every post of yours is pretty revealing in this respect.

I think what you really want is for posters to “reinforce what you have always wondered” about religion. In other words, perhaps you’re expecting everyone to cater to your prejudices?

I’m not sure what you were expecting, but when you enter a public forum with statements akin to, say, “hey, guys, isn’t obvious that scientists are all just a bunch of deluded, brainwashed idiots?” you’re going to get some strong arguments back at you. And that’s the way it should be, right?

299

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
So the rust example you used previously: the iron isn’t really rusting - a process revealing the passage of time - but it’s only rusting in your perception?

I’m just trying to understand your thought lines here. [/quote]

No, it’s rusting…it’s how long it takes to finish the procces that is the perception.

From when it started to rust to the point where it has broken down so much that it is no longer visually perceivable would be a period of time that would now be history…although unrecorded.

The rusted pipe or whatever would still be there in some form, but not one that we can seen and not being a chemist i couldn’t say how long those traces may be around.

All i am trying to get across is that i don’t see Time as being anything that can be explained in any other sense other than as a marker of events and a measurement between events…be it extremely complicated.

300

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle,

I think you may be getting confused between two senses of the word “time.” 1. a measuring system, a series of units, a “tool,” as you say; and, 2. that which is being measured (very hard to define).

The first is man-made; the second is in no way “made” by man. It exists independently of man’s ideas or purposes or perceptions. I’m sure you would agree with this much, no?

Another thought…is not any use of time merely a measurement to identify an occurrence? whether backward or forward?

Yes, but this “occurrence” is a process (time in the #2 sense) we’re observing - and that is what time (in the #1 sense) is measuring.[/quote]

A process yes, but in what way do you mean. As, you may have concluded by now, to me it is a purely chemical process.