 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Hey, I'm all for love, but the problem is that I think love is fundamentally incompatible with religion. |
Heya P123,
Therefore, because you are all for Love,
you must be really against the HATE that is fundamentally incompatible with Love for all!
Therefore, you must be using 'religion' as a metaphor for 'the HATE for any' in religion!
Which proves that religion is NOT the problem: Hate IS the problem!
And which allows us or SW to have our own religion, without denying it, while condemning the hatred in religion!
sigh
We call Hate by misnomers or euphemisms in order to allow ourselves to continue our hating who we want to hate!
see?
Example:
Instead of calling those who hate other races as Haters or as hatists,
we call them racists!
That makes as much sense as calling people who hate fish, fishists!lol
Instead of calling men who hate women as haters, and vice versa, we call them sexists!
Instead of calling people who hate gays as haters,
we call them homophobic---which tho more accurate, less inaccurate, is still a misnomer...since I can love fire and still be fearful of it.
P123,
suppose you hated me.
If I then wanted to hate you back,
I cd NOT allow myself to identify your problem as your HATE of me, or else even I, even ME, and others wd recognise that I was HATING you back with the same HATE I condemned you for hating me with!
I wd be saying:
I hate you for hating me!
What?
I am condemning myself!
Others who heard me wd be saying:
Atoz, you are a hypocrite!
U hate him for hating you!
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I can't say that!
So how do i solve this dilemma?
Simple:
I just describe you in words that are NOT the word Hate!
Oh, you just love yourself!
Oh, you are stuck up!
Oh, you are a fool!
Oh, you are rude!
While adding to each of the above: I hate you!
see?
I can now hate you back without condemning myself---consciously!---and without being condemned by any others who also want to hate who they want to hate!
Same with religion.
I call the problem IN religion: I call the problem in religion as the same word 'religion' or by any other name other than Hate, which miscalling then allows me to hate it---while compounding the real problem, the same problem I am really decrying: the hatred IN the religion or in whoever!
Hope that helps.
with Love and r,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6808
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't know, atoz... I think that the problems with religion go deeper than just love and hate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | I don't know, atoz... I think that the problems with religion go deeper than just love and hate. |
They can't go deeper than that since Love and Hate are the master words: they are the deepest we or even God can go!smile
For instance:
The first and only problem with 'problem' is the Problem of Hate for problems!
Why?
Every problem carries its own solution,
and
every solution carries its own problem.
So we can't have one without the other and vice versa.
So too with religion of re-bonding:
the only problem with religion is any Hate for irreligion or for religion.
Here is JL on it:
Watching The Wheels
People say Im crazy doing what Im doing
Well they give me all kinds of warnings to save me from ruin
When I say that Im o.k. well they look at me kind of strange
Surely youre not happy now you no longer play the game
People say Im lazy dreaming my life away
Well they give me all kinds of advice designed to enlighten me
When I tell them that Im doing fine watching shadows on the wall
Dont you miss the big time boy youre no longer on the ball
Im just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round
I really love to watch them roll
No longer riding on the merry-go-round
I just had to let it go
Ah, people asking questions lost in confusion
Well I tell them theres *no problem, only solutions
Well they shake their heads and they look at me as if Ive lost my mind
I tell them theres no hurry
Im just sitting here doing time
Im just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round
I really love to watch them roll
No longer riding on the merry-go-round
I just had to let it go
I just had to let it go
I just had to let it go
* No= Not only problems, but also solutions.
with The Solution of Love that eliminates the only real problem: The Attitude Problem or the Problem Attitude of Hate for problems,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6808
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, one of the (many) problems with religion is that it is not scientific. However, to me it doesn't seem like this can be shoehorned into a category of love or hate.
To say that religious people hate science doesn't really address the problem. The main problem as I see it is that most religious people have never been educated in science. It's not really their fault that the education system failed them. That isn't really a love/hate issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | Well, one of the (many) problems with religion is that it is not scientific. However, to me it doesn't seem like this can be shoehorned into a category of love or hate.
To say that religious people hate science doesn't really address the problem. The main problem as I see it is that most religious people have never been educated in science. It's not really their fault that the education system failed them. That isn't really a love/hate issue. |
Hmmmmmmmmm
These are to keep you re-thinking until later!smile
"A universe with a God would like quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different.
So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory."
Richard Dawkins
"Now, even though the realms of Religion and Science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies.
Though Religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from Science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.
But Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.
This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of Religion.
To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.
I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.
The situation may be expressed by an image:
Science without Religion is lame,
Religion without Science is blind."
Albert Einstein
Hmmmmmmmmmsmile
"Love has reasons which reason [based on Hate of any reason] cannot understand."
Blaise Pascal
From the Religion of the Science of Love
and
from the Science of the Religion of Love,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6808
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atoz wrote: |
"A universe with a God would like quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different.
So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory."
Richard Dawkins
|
I hope that you've left out something here, because this isn't a very accurate claim. I agree that SOME of the basic claims of religion are scientific. For example, the Book of Genesis makes statements about where the Earth, Universe, and humans / animals came from. That is certainly a scientifically-testable claim, and in fact science has falsified that 'hypothesis'.
But I would argue that the basic claims of religion are NOT scientific, precisely because most religions deal with the supernatural, which by definition are not scientifically testable or falsifiable.
| atoz wrote: |
But Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.
|
Sort of. I agree that scientists tend to be the people in our society who are most interested in figuring out how everything works, but there are also many scientists who are just in it for the money.
| atoz wrote: |
This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of Religion.
|
I disagree. Like I said, greed is a big motivator, and as for the honest sense of scientific curiosity, I don't see why it has anything to do with religion. Most of the best scientists I personally know are hard-core atheists.
| atoz wrote: |
To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.
I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.
|
This is not faith. We know for a fact that *some* of the regulations valid for the world of existence are comprehensible to reason. There's no faith required.
| atoz wrote: |
Science without Religion is lame,
Religion without Science is blind."
Albert Einstein
|
Yes, but Einstein was an atheist, just like Spinoza and Sagan (and me!). His idea of 'religion' doesn't in any way resemble Christianity or Islam or any other standard religion found on Earth today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Well, one of the (many) problems with religion is that it is not scientific. However, to me it doesn't seem like this can be shoehorned into a category of love or hate.
|
atoz: It's pretty easy to shoe horn it in when it is already in-cluded!
Science means knowledge.
Religious knowledge is therefore of itself scientific knowledge or science-knowledge.
And all knowledge/science of anything is either loved or hated.
| P1234567890 wrote: |
To say that religious people hate science doesn't really address the problem. The main problem as I see it is that most religious people have never been educated in science. It's not really their fault that the education system failed them.
|
atoz: when education failed them because the teachers hate math-science and the kids hate math-science, and nobody is able to teach what they hate nor learn what they hate?
hmmmmmmmmmmm
| P1234567890 wrote: |
That isn't really a love/hate issue. |
atoz: that's the epitome of the issue and the fundie issue.
Let me ask you:
Is math english?
If you answered yes, 99.9 of teachers in the US and worldwide don't consciously even know that!
And that lack of science is based simply on Hatred for either english or math or both!
with the Love that teaches us that we have to learn to love before we can love to learn whatever else:math, english, religion, science, phusics, chemistry, etc,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6808
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I applaud your pro-love standpoint, but as a theory for trying to understand the world, I find that creating two buckets, one labeled 'love', and the other labeled 'hate' is too much of an oversimplification.
When it comes down to it, ultimately you need more than two strings containing one bit each to describe the universe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
| atoz wrote: |
"A universe with a God would like quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different.
So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory."
Richard Dawkins |
I hope that you've left out something here, because this isn't a very accurate claim. I agree that SOME of the basic claims of religion are scientific. For example, the Book of Genesis makes statements about where the Earth, Universe, and humans / animals came from. That is certainly a scientifically-testable claim, and in fact science has falsified that 'hypothesis'.
But I would argue that the basic claims of religion are NOT scientific, precisely because most religions deal with the supernatural, which by definition are not scientifically testable or falsifiable.
|
atoz: Well, I just checked on his site, and its a whole quote within RD's own quotation marks showing it as a complete thought to him!
What he says is so obvious, --- but I also understand how you feel about that quote! He unwittingly gave a kudo to religion in his over-zealous over-reaction to puting it down--in Hate of it--not realizing that, of course by undermining his opposites, he is also undermining his own premise, unwittingly again aping, with the Hate of opposites he learned form theists, the same theists he despises, forgetting again that despising others means auto-despising himself and his own tenets!sad
| P1234567890 wrote: |
| atoz wrote: |
But Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.
|
Sort of. I agree that scientists tend to be the people in our society who are most interested in figuring out how everything works, but there are also many scientists who are just in it for the money.
|
atoz: ---- due to the Hatred for selves as poor that they learned from theists!
And even those who are most interested in figuring out how et works are AGAIN MOSTLY doing so IN HATE OF not UNDERSTANDING HOW EVERYTHING WORKS!
| P1234567890 wrote: |
| atoz wrote: |
This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of Religion.
|
I disagree. Like I said, greed is a big motivator, and as for the honest sense of scientific curiosity, I don't see why it has anything to do with religion. Most of the best scientists I personally know are hard-core atheists.
|
atoz: So P123, thiMk one more thought:
What motivates greed?
What motivates greed is Hatred for being poor or for not having or for being a havenot or etc.
And why honest curiousity has to do with religion is because the honesty in et comes from being honest IN LOVE!
The most dishonest people are those who are honest IN HATE of liars!
Curiousity based on Hatred for not knowing is what killed the cat!
Yes, most scientists who are hard-core atheists are hardcore haters of theists -just as hardcore theists are hardcore haters of atheists!
| P1234567890 wrote: |
| atoz wrote: |
To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.
I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.
|
This is not faith.
We know for a fact that *some* of the regulations valid for the world of existence are comprehensible to reason.
There's no faith required.
|
atoz: Do you faith in what you just asserted:
that there's no faith required?smile
sigh
| P1234567890 wrote: |
| atoz wrote: |
Science without Religion is lame,
Religion without Science is blind."
Albert Einstein
|
Yes, but Einstein was an atheist, just like Spinoza and Sagan (and me!). His idea of 'religion' doesn't in any way resemble Christianity or Islam or any other standard religion found on Earth today. |
atoz: Ah! So he WAS religious?smile
So comment on what he said about religion, P123! Not about how it doesn't resemble other religions!
And since you say that you are like AE and BS and CS, this is to encourage you and les autres to get with the program of Love as per those 3 et autres:smile
'Ah! Hunting around on my shelves I found it.
According to Hubertus zu Lowenstein, Einstein was at a charity dinner in New York, where he said to zu Lowenstein that
In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
This angry remark apparently arose because people used his essay on Science and Religion to support atheism. Einstein denied the existence of a personal God, but did not deny -- indeed he affirmed the existence of -- a non-personal deity.'
with compliments from Plotinus, 10.31.07!smile
The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependence of science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our predominantly materialistic age, is only too easily overlooked.
While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge.
If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis, they would hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements.
Albert Einstein
"What has perhaps been overlooked [due to irrational & insane Hatred for the irrational and etc]
is
the irrational, the inconsistent, the droll, even the insane, which nature,
inexhaustibly operative,
implants into the individual,
seemingly for her own amusement.
These things are singled out only in the crucible of one's own mind."
Albert Einstein
with Tireless & Untiring Amor for the sane and insane, the religionistic scientist and the scientific religist,
and etc and etc,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6808
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm an atheist. Do you think I hate theists?
As for scientists wanting to understand things because they hate not understanding them, I think that is a very negative way of looking at it.
When I engage in scientific activities, I like to think it's a positive thing. I don't light a candle because I hate the dark. I light a candle because I like the light. Similarly, I don't do science because I hate ignorance. I do science because I like knowledge.
But again, this is overly simplistic. Science also improves quality of life and does all sorts of other things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | I applaud your pro-love standpoint, but as a theory for trying to understand the world, I find that creating two buckets, one labeled 'love', and the other labeled 'hate' is too much of an oversimplification.
When it comes down to it, ultimately you need more than two strings containing one bit each to describe the universe. |
Thanx for your applause for Love of all words and their opposites,
which IS the TOE: The Theory of Everthing!
But then you cerebrally switched up on yourself and revealed a bit about your, at present, lack of scientific curiousity:
if Simplicity is presented or looks or sounds too simplistic or over-simplified,
then based on your Hatred for the simplistic,
you will not have the dersire nor curiousity to look
and so will NOT look into it
and so will overlook it!
There you said it, P123!
To which I submit AE as responder to you personally,
to increase that holy curiousity that comes from Whole-y and w-holistic Love:smile
"What has perhaps been overlooked [due to irrational hatred of the irrational] is
the irrational,
the inconsistent,
the droll,
[the oversimplistic!]
[the too simple]
even the insane,
which nature,
inexhaustibly operative, implants into the individual, seemingly for her own amusement.
These things are singled out only in the crucible of one's own mind."
Albert Einstein
"Never lose a holy curiosity [especially for what looks MOST obvious or UN- or NON-curious.]"
Albert Einstein
How more can I give you more of a hint to blaze a path where none ever was, and leave a path for others to follow!
sigh
Read Emerson and Thoreau?smile
Read Werner Heisenberg?smile
From the Nail of Love,
on which the String of Love for all,
and
on which the string of Hate for hating any, hang,
and
on which two strings hangs
the bucket that holds the Universe,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6808
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atoz wrote: |
But then you cerebrally switched up on yourself and revealed a bit about your, at present, lack of scientific curiousity:
if Simplicity is presented or looks or sounds too simplistic or over-simplified,
then based on your Hatred for the simplistic,
you will not have the dersire nor curiousity to look
and so will NOT look into it
and so will overlook it! |
Actually, I was giving you an information-theoretic argument. If love and hate are the only two words you have for describing the world, then there will be many things which you cannot describe, because like I said, two strings containing one bit each just aren't enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
I'm an atheist.
Do you think I hate theists?
|
atoz: Let me ask you one question:
Do you lvoe yourself as a simpleton, as a fool?
Your answer will say it all!
| P1234567890 wrote: |
As for scientists wanting to understand things because they hate not understanding them, I think that is a very negative way of looking at it.
|
atoz: that's just another way of saying they hate themselves as fools--so their motivation to be learned is NOT purely for the learning: it is to get LOVE & RESPECT from the learning by being smart or wise or thought-provoking or brilliance as a thinker or etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They have prostituted themselves!
| P1234567890 wrote: |
When I engage in scientific activities, I like to think it's a positive thing.
|
atoz: But P123, Do you ALSO lvoe the negative?
That is key--if you hate the neg, your motive is already skewed towards genius and not towards the simplicity that is also hiding genius!
See?
| P1234567890 wrote: |
I don't light a candle because I hate the dark.
|
atoz: you are hiding from you now!
Do you lvoe the dark ages of religious stupidity?
If you hate it,
you ARE lighting that candle of enlightenment because you hate the dark!--so you MUST overlight and over do or over accumulate cash!
sigh
Do you see?
But let's be specific:
Do you lvoe the dark?
Do you lvoe yourself as dirty?
Most dirt is dark or black.
| P1234567890 wrote: |
I light a candle because I like the light.
|
atoz: Ah! That's good---but only halfgood!
Do you light the candle because you also lvoe the dark?
Yes to that means that you are wholly good with whole Love.
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Similarly, I don't do science because I hate ignorance. I do science because I like knowledge.
|
atoz: P123, listen to yourself!
Love of knowledge is great!
BUT, do you LOVE yourself as ignorant?
Do you LOVE ignorance?
If not, you are doing science ALSO because you hate ignorance: scientific and otherwise! because you ALSO hate ignorance---which is knowledge tooooooooooooo!
sigh
To know that I don't know is knowledge of my ignorance!
| P1234567890 wrote: |
But again, this is overly simplistic. Science also improves quality of life and does all sorts of other things. |
atoz: There u use that word again!
So you must hate yourself as a fool who of course is ignorant and in the dark, and foolish things are funny and simple---tho genius things also look funny and foolish since genius is simple!
hmmmmmmmmm
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!)
but 'That's funny...'"
Isaac Asimov
Yes, but without the Love for the problems, all scientific improvement of quality of life bring us horrendous attandant results: Read Things That Bite Us back.
But this is good: you ARE questioning yourself!
The first step.
with Love for myself as wise and as a fool so that I am able to really believe that the first thing a wise man knows is that he knows nothing--and still loves himself and IT,smile
atoz
Last edited by atoz on Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | atoz wrote: |
But then you cerebrally switched up on yourself and revealed a bit about your, at present, lack of scientific curiousity:
if Simplicity is presented or looks or sounds too simplistic or over-simplified,
then based on your Hatred for the simplistic,
you will not have the dersire nor curiousity to look
and so will NOT look into it
and so will overlook it! |
Actually, I was giving you an information-theoretic argument. If love and hate are the only two words you have for describing the world, then there will be many things which you cannot describe, because like I said, two strings containing one bit each just aren't enough. |
Love loves all words.
So Love has an infinity of words at its disposal by which to describe everything and the something called nothing and even the thing that is beyond description!!smile
So Love is more than enough to describe the universe, with multiple back-up sytems to boot!smile
In fact,
there being a word for no thing,
Love has more words for things than there are things to describe!
Therefore,
there are more things in the Philosophy of Love than there are in the universe!
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly;
what is essential is invisible to the eye."
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
with Indescribable Love for everything,
without which Love nothing nor its properties can be properly described,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6808
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atoz wrote: |
Do you lvoe yourself as a simpleton, as a fool?
|
Yes, definitely!
| atoz wrote: |
But let's be specific:
Do you lvoe the dark?
Do you lvoe yourself as dirty?
Most dirt is dark or black.
|
See, this is where the love/hate dichotomy breaks down. I don't love the dark, and I don't hate the dark, but I think that it must be understood.
| atoz wrote: |
Do you LOVE ignorance?
If not, you are doing science ALSO because you hate ignorance: scientific and otherwise! because you ALSO hate ignorance---which is knowledge tooooooooooooo!
|
Ignorance isn't knowledge; it's the opposite. But again, it isn't an issue of love or hate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
