HOME | DD
jackcomstock β Question Everything
by-nc-sa
Published: 2011-02-09 06:08:52 +0000 UTC; Views: 7167; Favourites: 86; Downloads: 510
Redirect to original
Description
This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness - The Dalai LamaJack Namaste: [link]
Related content
Comments: 96
π: 1 β©: 0
Funny coming from one who believes the world is here by chance.
π: 0 β©: 0
Makes a helluva lot more sense.Β We can all coexist, in fact in the USA, freedom of faith is written into the Bill of Rights.Β We just need to make sure we can enforce separation of church and state!
π: 0 β©: 0
The same could be said about close-minded antitheists, who will reject God's existence even if it is someday proven to be true. They don't question science, but they should.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I'd believe it if it was proven but that hasn't happened yet. I'm gonna need something better than the virgin marry appearing on toast.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not telling you to. But blindly following the scientic consensus isn't a good idea either. You need to question everything in order to have a mind that is truly free.
π: 0 β©: 1
The existence or nonexistance of a deity is something science doesn't really concern itself with. You are ENCOURAGED to question science. Science thrives on scrutiny.
π: 0 β©: 1
What I'm referring to is the common misconception that scientific facts are absolute. Nowadays, many topics (e.g. the Big Bang, macroevolution and man-made climate change) are treated as absolute truths, and anyone who dares question the consensus is seen as delusional or a fanatic. That is a serious problem, if you ask me.
π: 0 β©: 1
If you challenge evolution because you've found evidence to disprove it, the scientific community will be all ears. If you challenge evolution because it contradicts an ancient book, you will be rightly laughed off. The Big Bang is currently the best explanation of the origin of the universe. The evidence does point to man made climate change. Again, if you have valid evidence to disprove it, please present it, submit it for peer review, because I would love for it to be wrong.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
My point is that those are theories and should be treated as such instead of as absolute truths. The evidence isn't definitive and must thus be supported by personal considerations. Therefore, I try not to judge those who think that the scientific consensus is off course.
π: 0 β©: 1
You do understand the difference between the common use of the word, "theory" and the scientific use, right? Do you know what an idea has to go through to be considered a theory? If an idea has achieved the status of a scientific theory, that means that scientists the world over set out to disprove it and could not. That isn't to say a theory can't possibly be wrong, just that it's where all the facts and evidence we have is leading. I can't imagine something which could disprove evolution. Paleontology, genetics, embryology, all support this theory, and it would take something mind blowing to discredit it. I don't know about you, but I've yet to hear someone oppose evolution for non religious reasons. For that matter, a lot of the opposition is coming from people who obviously know nothing about evolution and don't care to learn.
π: 0 β©: 1
I know very well how the scientific method is used, thanks. But what you're talking about doesn't invalidate the view that macroevolution is false, even if it's based on religion alone. Everyone has their reasons.
π: 0 β©: 1
But not good reasons. "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended for us to forego their use." -Galileo Galilei.
π: 0 β©: 1
Who are you to say that one can't reject macroevolution on the basis of reason? If it doesn't make sense to a particular person, then I think that's fair enough. He/she doesn't have to be a religious fanatic.
π: 0 β©: 1
I sopose someone could reject it on the basis of reason(hard to imagine that actually happening), but that's not the case. It's almost always "Bible say it wrong, bible word of God, evolution evil lie from Satan." It's overwhelmingly an argument from ignorance. Some of these people really think that evolution means a monkey giving birth to a human. A creationist might as well be a flat-earther or a geocentrist.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Indeed, it often is nothing but ignorance. But blindly following the scientific consensus isn't any better. You have to form your own opinions independently of dogma/perceived facts and religious/scientific authority. That's all I've been saying.
π: 0 β©: 1
I Agree, for the most part. I'm trying to become scientifically literate, unamerican as that may be π. When I finally researched evolution, and how it worked, it made perfect sense to me. It took all of a half hour to understand evolution by natural selection. I'll never understand everything of science, of course. When it comes to the really advanced stuff, I will unfortunately have to trust that they know what they're talking about, because I probably won't. Even scientists have to do that in disciplines outside of their specialization.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Same could be said about governments, religions other than these three, corporations, and most other powerful groups and organizations in the world. Such is human nature.
π: 0 β©: 0
The same mentality inevitably shows up where a set of rules are concerned. Rules lawyers and morality bureaucrats did exist before the publication of Dungeons & Dragons. Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Religion to us was.supposed to feed the homeless look after widows and be kind.... Β religion was all those things. Greedy people used it for bad and good people used it for Good... Religion is on no one's side..... it's neutralΒ
π: 0 β©: 0
Science flys people 2 the moon. Religion flys people into buildings.
π: 0 β©: 0
Β I did.Β Questioning almost always expands your understandings .
π: 0 β©: 1
As an Agnostic Atheist I encourage you to question us.
π: 0 β©: 1
Just do it in a polite way.
π: 0 β©: 1
What makes you hold such disregard to Abrahamic religions? Just wondering.
π: 0 β©: 3
Bacause we have freedom of speech. And religion can be critised (and must be) like anything else.
π: 0 β©: 0
They are the top 3 major religions and hold the most influence on the way the people of the world think. Β Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Science has a big influence on people's thought processes as well, but that doesn't make science a bad thing.Β
Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were influential people who changed the way people thought, but that doesn't make them bad people.
Influence can be good or bad, depending on what the subject or person is influencing.
π: 0 β©: 1
Right, influence is neutral but the 3 major religions influence people in a negative way. Religion fly's people into buildings and science fly's people to the moon
π: 0 β©: 1
Correction; Radical extremism flies people into buildings.
π: 0 β©: 0
"cause they are sucks!
π: 0 β©: 2
Damn! Waracki you troll, i trought you're dead!
π: 0 β©: 0
I'd prefer you gave me clear reasoning to your disdain, but that's quite alright. Opinions are opinions, and clearly mine differs from yours.
Peace be upon you.
π: 0 β©: 0
True.
Though authority truly is blind.
I find it funny that as athiest, you use a religious mans quote.
π: 0 β©: 0
What if they did take it as truth? What if, and this we cannot know, there are those who had not sacrificed truth on the altar of respect. What if there are those who dared to go against the flow, just to establish what is now. What if there are those who have dared to believe, that which cannot be understood by philosophy nor science, but they believe nonetheless because they know of their inferiority to the truth, and they know well enough when, something too big to grasp, to simply reject or accept. To deny or believe. To live simply at end to die. Or to die now, knowing that only life follows.
There is beauty in following what the soul has spoken. What the Truth has spoken. What the Light knows.
There us no need for philosophy. No need for temples. Yes, we are the temples. But temples to ourselves? To declare oneself one's own is aads, road that leads, no matter what one believes, to only ruin.
π: 0 β©: 0
If you're philosophy is to believe in truth... then why do you speak against religions that expose those truths you're talking about ? I thinks your philosophy is more a violent one. You are pathetic to fight against beliefs of others. If the leaders make a religion official in a contry, this is not synonymous of lies everywhere. Everyone can believe in his religion. So don't speak about something you do not know, please. This makes you really stupid.
π: 0 β©: 0
this can be applied to anything though ... not just religious nonsense
π: 0 β©: 0
Then there should be no war memorials. A temple has meaning. 
π: 0 β©: 0
Damn good quote and understanding. I've been looking into all this religion & authority stuff quite deeply in pursuit of intellectual and spiritual awareness, very much with you on this.
π: 0 β©: 0
see my gallery. I have made a picture of Buddha quotes which says "Do not believe in anything simply because..., but after OBSERVATION and ANALYSIS...". I think I will submit in this group too.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>