General Religion & Philosophy Discussion Thread (24 Viewers)

[Ocelot]

I'd be very very sceptical with those sorts of claims. If you try reaching hard enough, you can interpret almost anything as anything.

Same stuff gets said about the Bible & Koran too regularly, probably other texts too I don't know about.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

I'd be very very sceptical with those sorts of claims. If you try reaching hard enough, you can interpret almost anything as anything.

Same stuff gets said about the Bible & Koran too regularly, probably other texts too I don't know about.

Same thing is true of grandma's trusted old scones recipe. You can't suppress that scientific folk wisdom, it's everywhere.

 

[Seven]

Same thing is true of grandma's trusted old scones recipe. You can't suppress that scientific folk wisdom, it's everywhere.

I'd be very very sceptical with those sorts of claims. If you try reaching hard enough, you can interpret almost anything as anything.

Same stuff gets said about the Bible & Koran too regularly, probably other texts too I don't know about.

What fascinates me is that some believers appear to think that their religion is strengthened when backed by science. It sort of happened with Islam too.

I find it odd, because why not just go for the science then?

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

I'd be very very sceptical with those sorts of claims. If you try reaching hard enough, you can interpret almost anything as anything.

Same stuff gets said about the Bible & Koran too regularly, probably other texts too I don't know about.

True, but a lot of what is said in those texts can be disproved by science too. Not sure what are in the Buddhist texts though, and if its teachings can be disproved. I guess there's only one way to find out

Is this true in the quantum mechanics world?

"A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction."

What fascinates me is that some believers appear to think that their religion is strengthened when backed by science. It sort of happened with Islam too.

I find it odd, because why not just go for the science then?

Why not, if both can be compatible (science and spirituality)?

 

[Seven]

True, but a lot of what is said in those texts can be disproved by science too. Not sure what are in the Buddhist texts though, and if its teachings can be disproved. I guess there's only one way to find out

Is this true in the quantum mechanics world?

"A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction."

Why not, if both can be compatible (science and spirituality)?

Because if you derive value from something being proven scientifically, you'd do much better to simply rely on science directly.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Because if you derive value from something being proven scientifically, you'd do much better to simply rely on science directly.

Some spiritual beliefs cannot (yet) be disproven, and don't contradict science. If one was to rely on science directly, he could still hold those beliefs, because after all, we all believe in some things that haven't been validated by science.

 

[Seven]

Some spiritual beliefs cannot (yet) be disproven, and don't contradict science. If one was to rely on science directly, he could still hold those beliefs, because after all, we all believe in some things that haven't been validated by science.

Yes, but on the other hand many things have been disproven. If science adds value to religion, yet it disproves certain elements of that religion, it makes no sense.

 

[Dostoevsky]

The only common thing between religion and science is depth.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Yes, but on the other hand many things have been disproven. If science adds value to religion, yet it disproves certain elements of that religion, it makes no sense.

Agreed. That's why people distinguish religion from "spirituality". Your whole religious text is invalidated if one part of it is scientifically falsifiable. But you can hold many spiritual beliefs which you can justify as they're not falsifiable.

- - - Updated - - -

The only common thing between religion and science is depth.

Meaning?

 

[Dostoevsky]

Meaning?

One will never discover all and understand everything.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

One will never discover all and understand everything.

Dunno if I agree that religion has so much "depth"

 

[Dostoevsky]

Dunno if I agree that religion has so much "depth"

Combined with philosophy it offers questions about humans that will hardly ever be answered, morality and everything else that's still being questioned nowadays.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Combined with philosophy it offers questions about humans that will hardly ever be answered, morality and everything else that's still being questioned nowadays.

Maybe other religions, but I don't see Christianity at least, in that light

 

[Ocelot]

Agreed. That's why people distinguish religion from "spirituality". Your whole religious text is invalidated if one part of it is scientifically falsifiable. But you can hold many spiritual beliefs which you can justify as they're not falsifiable.

Not necessarily.

The literal infallibility of the text goes out of the window, but you can still argue for it to be taken metaphorically and in need of interpretation.

- - - Updated - - -

True, but a lot of what is said in those texts can be disproved by science too. Not sure what are in the Buddhist texts though, and if its teachings can be disproved. I guess there's only one way to find out

Is this true in the quantum mechanics world?

"A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction."

That's much less physics than social constructivism and post-modernist philosophy.

Buddhist texts are a bit different from the holy books of the monotheistic religion afaik. There's much less direct talk of wonders and other stuff that can be easily shown as basically physically impossible (technically not, but for all practical purposes let's say it can).

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Not necessarily.

The literal infallibility of the text goes out of the window, but you can still argue for it to be taken metaphorically and in need of interpretation.

Of course. But there are some things that every Christian takes literally - like Jesus walked on water, or rose from the dead - which obviously never happened, so you just know it's just some made up shit

That's much less physics than social constructivism and post-modernist philosophy.

Buddhist texts are a bit different from the holy books of the monotheistic religion afaik. There's much less direct talk of wonders and other stuff that can be easily shown as basically physically impossible (technically not, but for all practical purposes let's say it can).

 

[HelterSkelter]

Not sure about details of Buddhist text, but the faith does claim supernatural powers for the man, more or less on the same level associated with the monotheistic religions.

Indian religions generally tend to have very elaborate stories ( much more than Abrahamic religions ) and supernatural beliefs are very strong. I would argue that Sikhism probably has the least belief in the supernatural side of things but that could also be down to it being the youngest religion of them all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[campionesidd]

@Snobist
@AndreaCristiano

Moved from Sarri Pep Thread
Nope Wahabbi would be more like the Westboro Baptist Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

 

[AndreaCristiano]

@Snobist
@AndreaCristiano

Moved from Sarri Pep Thread
Nope Wahabbi would be more like the Westboro Baptist Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

Ok so can you lay it in order in comparo to Christianity

So Catholic being the original and then the break aka lutherean, Calvin etc

 

[campionesidd]

Ok so can you lay it in order in comparo to Christianity

So Catholic being the original and then the break aka lutherean, Calvin etc

I'm not Muslim, so I could be totally wrong, but from what I know

Sunni and Shia are the most common denominations of Islam, like Catholicism and Protestant Christianity
However, the divide between Shia and Sunni originated more on historical/ poltical disagreements rather than theology. (although there are some religious details that differ as well)
The main difference between the two denominations is based on who they believe Muhammad chose/didn't choose as his successor.

Now an Islamist is someone who uses Islam for political tools, an example of this would be the Muslim Brotherhood.
Not all Muslims are Islamist.

Now coming to Wahhabism, it's an ultra religious and conservative faction of Sunni Islam, the kind that is followed in Saudi Arabia.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

I'm not Muslim, so I could be totally wrong, but from what I know

Sunni and Shia are the most common denominations of Islam, like Catholicism and Protestant Christianity
However, the divide between Shia and Sunni originated more on historical/ poltical disagreements rather than theology. (although there are some religious details that differ as well)
The main difference between the two denominations is based on who they believe Muhammad chose/didn't choose as his successor.

Now an Islamist is someone who uses Islam for political tools, an example of this would be the Muslim Brotherhood.
Not all Muslims are Islamist.

Now coming to Wahhabism, it's an ultra religious and conservative faction of Sunni Islam, the kind that is followed in Saudi Arabia.

Yes I remember that one of the sects believes it's Mohammeds son while the other believe it's some imam can't recall his name. Correct?