Dionysus Forums Archives

#21

05-12-2004, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus32

You do realize that what you're saying here is there's a distinct difference between the left brain and the right brain and there should be no common grounds bewteen the two don't you? In which case how can we possibly serve humanity for the better if we don't at least try to bridge the gap between the two? ... i.e., Science and Religion.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Yes, the left and right brain operate in different manner, but where did I say that there were no common grounds? What does the physicality of the brain have anything to do with science or religion?

__________________
There are some things that travel faster than the speed of light; the thoughts of an imbicile (To paraphrase Gabriel Voisin, automotive and aero engineer, 1934)

Perhaps "TRUTH" lies in the middle of what appears to be a paradox (ME)

#22

05-14-2004, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dretceterini

Because I think the physicality of the brain goes a long ways to illustrate the difference between the two. Hence where Religion is more intuitively based and not readily apparent, Science is more rationally based and contingent upon that which is concrete. Sounds like separate functions of the same mind if you ask me. So rather than the one trying to exclude the other which, seems so prevalent currently, I think some sort of concession needs to be made. For we are speaking of the same humanity aren't we? If so, then why shouldn't we be speaking of wholeness, rather than promoting their dysfunctionality?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

#23

05-19-2004, 03:49 AM

Hence where Religion is more intuitively based and not readily apparent

If you said spirituality, I would agree, but to my mind religion is nothing more than a human system of thought control.

#24

05-19-2004, 07:29 AM

While I admit that religion doesn't tend to do a good job of teaching about spirituality -- really, it all depends on how it's structured more than anything else -- religion, by its design is supposed to teach us about spirituality anyway.

However, the problem like you say, is that it can become the means by which to coerce people into accepting and doing things without any comprehension behind what they're doing, and becomes an effective means by which to control people. In which case you have that which is merely a superficial outcropping of that which is supposed to be a faithful and intuitive response to life -- which, in fact has very little to do with what others might think.

In other words a spiritualist has to become some sort of a maverick in order to get past the dogma which has been pounded into you by the Church. So yes, religion can become the very anti-thesis of what it's been designed to do, namely, to teach people how to become independent, free-thinking human beings.

P.S. This is something which would need to be addressed if, in fact there was any hope for Science to bridge the gap with Religion.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

#25

05-29-2004, 08:59 AM

What is Absolute?

From the thread, What is Absolute? ...

Quote:

So is it possible that absoluteness has anything to do with context? For example, say Joe had four cows. Now, if he took all four cows and put them in a pen, would it be possible to say that all four of Joes cows, hence the notion of absoluteness, are in the pen? Also, aren't we speaking of a similar notion when we say "She can't be a little bit pregnant?" Isn't that in fact an absolute? So what it seems to suggest is that absoluteness is none other than the truth and, that the truth can only remain the truth so long as the value it represents, hence the good, remains in context.

So whatever happened to this thing called reality is what I would like to know?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

#26

05-29-2004, 07:14 PM

why do you equate value, which generally means quality of quantity to good?

#27

05-29-2004, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dretceterini

why do you equate value, which generally means quality of quantity to good?

Yeah, I kind of realized that after posting it, but when writing about it I was thinking more in terms of the substantial value of what we're counting (the cows in this case) as opposed to their quantity. It's like what exactly are we counting if, we haven't already assigned a value to what that is? I realize I may be stretching it a bit but, I think you get the general idea.

This all stems from a big debate I was getting into over at the JREF Forums about the absoluteness of math, where people kept insisting it's not possible because there are no two things which are exactly alike and, that there are different systems for counting, in which case the idea that 1 + 2 = 2 is not an absolute. However, I was trying to explain that in principle it was.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

#28

06-10-2004, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dretceterini
Yes, but evil is simply a human concept. The idea of evil actually existing is a religious one, and IMO absurd

Can you describe something that is NOT a human concept?