THE NATURE OF UNITHEISM see Warren Farr's pages http://www.unitheism.org
============================================================
Rick, unitheism, which I think of as referring to a rational belief in the g-d concept, is not a bad term. It sort of identifies that which is half way between doctrinaire monotheism, which I left, way back, and dogmatic atheism. Keep in mind that all three terms contain 'theism'.

Rick. Interestingly, from my research on the WWW, apparently, three of us coined the term, independently of one another. I coined it as a doublet for panentheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism to avoid confusion with pantheism. In my opinion, we all need to be free--a constant theme of unitheism--to use terms which are helpful and meaningful to us.

BTW,check out http://boomer.invisionzone.com/index.php?s...=120&#entry3672

There, believe it or not, for over half a decade, a group--some with very strong and colourful opinions--of us have been locked in a theological and philosophical debate. You and others, feel free to join in, anytime. Some of the posters tend to be...well, I will let you judge for your self. Let me know what you think
===================================================
BTW, Farr links with the FLFcanada.com and with Brain-meta, among others.
===================================================

Not real, but it did lead up to the present. It actually happened, but it no longer exists.

What is time? A definition that may fit is as follows:

Time is nothing more than a manifestation of this physical, three dimensional
universe, defined by light.

What does this mean? Simply put, without light, time would have no meaning.

Because of the existence of light, time can be measured.

Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles per second. According to Albert Einstein, at the speed of light, time ceases to exist.

According to the Special Theory of Relativity, it would be impossible for a mass, (spaceship, person,etc...) to travel at this velocity, because of the compounding of weight, as you approach the speed of light. The faster the object moves, the heavier it becomes. As you approach the speed of light, this phenomena prevents an object from this three dimensional universe from breaking into the realm of “No Time”.

If this theory is correct, then at the speed of light, you enter into another dimension. Possibly a parallel dimension, that encompasses both this three dimensional universe, and for the sake of argument, let’s call this new dimension the Fourth Dimension.

If it is true that an object from the third cannot enter into the fourth, in its present state, is it possible that the physical make up of the object can be changed to accommodate existence in the fourth? I believe so.

From a Theological point of view, the fourth dimension might be called “The
Realm Of God”. According to the Bible, God encompasses all space and time in this physical three dimensional universe. He is everywhere at all times. I believe this means ALL times,past, present, and future. He exists in this universe, yet he doesn’t. He lives in heaven.

Could it be possible that heaven is just another dimension, parallel to this one, occupying the same space as us, yet so much more?

Could the Rapture be a change in this physical body to accommodate living in this fourth dimension? Let’s explore these thoughts more closely.

An example I’ve heard used to explain the different plains (dimensions), goes something like this: Draw two stick people on a piece of paper. These people are called “Flatlanders”.

The paper represents their universe. It is a two dimensional universe. They could move up or down, or back and fourth in this universe, but out or in dosen’t exist to them. These are properties of the third dimension. They might be aware that their is another direction besides up or down, or back and forth, but that awareness would be the same as our awareness of the fourth plain, based on theory or faith.

Try as they might, they can’t turn their little two dimensional heads in our
direction. Now suppose we were able to pick up one of these stick men off of the paper. It would appear to the other that his buddy just disappeared. He couldn’t tell the others which direction he went, but he might try using his limited two dimensional mind. He might say, “He was taken up”, as he points above him.

Now, for us to be able to even pick up this stick man, a change in his physical makeup must occur. His two dimensional body cannot exist in our plain. He would have to have depth, a property of our dimension.

The Bible teaches us that our bodies will be changed “In a twinkling of an eye”. I believe this is to accommodate our living in this new plain.

According to some theorists, a four dimensional being can see all sides of an
object at once. This is impossible in our universe. We can’t even hardly comprehend it.

Yet, God is everywhere at once. To him, all things are possible. If we became fourth dimensional creatures, only then would we fully understand.

The Bible states that Christians will live forever in the presence of God, but the body must change first.

If this realm of “No Time” is another dimension, then time has no meaning, as we know it.
Because of the overlapping of that plain with ours, it may be possible for us in our new bodies to live in both plains at once, just as God does. After all, he calls us his children.

The word rapture does not appear in the Bible. The word means, “a catching away”. The good book also teaches us that if our bodies die, we have another one waiting just beyond the curtain of time. Either way, our soul has a residential body. Whether it’s a changed body or a completely new one.

Is it possible for a soul to live outside of a body? I believe so, yet it is a
temporary state of existence, a transitional state. Life energy does not die. Energy cannot die only change, disapate, collect and the process starts all over....but that's another subject....

Don, a very thoughtful post. Let me think about it. Okay?

Sounds like science fiction meets theology.

....Mystery rays could be sign of cosmic strings....

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18625023.700

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa...78C83414B7F0000

I read "The Elegant Universe" and tried to understand what Greene was proposing on his string theory. It was difficult. I don't remember much, but I was fascinated with the concept of the Planck length (it's short). I also watched the Nova production, but all I remember is a bunch of colorful, vibrating, looped "strings," as the show couldn't go into a whole lot of depth for popular consumption. I can imagine the possibility of other dimensions that we can't perceive. The example you gave of the two-dimensional stick men trying to come to grips with the effects of a third dimension is a good one. Maybe currently unexplained phenomena (gravity, for instance) are influenced by another dimension where--if you could just see/sense that dimension--it all makes perfect sense. Just a thought.

PHILOSOPHERS, SCIENTISTS AND THEOLOGIANS--THE NEED TO BE HUMBLE
Above, we have a lot of interesting and valuable talk, not only about the nature and function of science, but also about the nature and function of "God"--the focus of theology. Having been away from BrainMeta for a time doing a lot of thinking about how philosophy, theology and science need to relate to one another, may I return by pointing out that much of what I say, especially about philosophy and theology needs to be prefaced with the phrase: In my humble opinion (IMHO), or, for short, IMO. Physically, mentally and spiritually speaking, the more I learn, the more I realize there is to learn; and the more I want to learn, from nature and from others.

For example, IMO, the god-concept is so vast and complex that I have come to the conclusion that I need at least three words, to even begin to get the concept, as I understand it, across. TLID, you say,"God encompasses all space and time...everywhere at all times." For that concept I write G-D--that which is total, absolute and impersonal. When I conceive of the divine as being with us, collectively, as the human family, I write it, "G-d". When I conceive of the divine as being in you and me, I write it g-d. Using this method I avoid the problem of genderizing the god-concept.

Perhaps if we need to remind ourselves that compared with what science tells us about how long this mysterious cosmos has been in the making it is only a short time ago that we began came to consciousness.

I like the story of about the smart orangutan.

One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orangutan was reading two books: the Bible and Darwin's Origin of Species. Surprised, he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both those books?"

"Well," said the orangutan, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."

BTW, in the Genesis myth, where Adam asks God: "Am I my brother's keeper?' God does not respond, "Yes, you are." What follows...including the whole message of the Bible is: We are our brother's brother...and our sister's brother, too.

lgking--interesting thoughts on time.

I've considered the possibility that our concept of time is misleading.

Maybe there is only a NOW.

What exactly is "now"?

If nothing, I mean NOTHING ever changed AT ALL--no movement, no thinking, nothing, then would time even exist?

Is time just a measurement of the movement that occurs during "now"?

We think of time as something that flows from the past, into the present, and then on into the future. Yet, the pinpoint of the present (now) it is the only "place" where anything actually happens. You really CAN'T do something in the future. It all comes down to the fact that you have to do it now. You might think that tomorrow, you'll go to the gym--but unless you actually go to the gym during now, it just doesn't happen (as many of us can attest).

This is just an idea. I can't get my mind completely around it, and I'm not really sure if it's valid. I read "The Power of Now," but this is something I've always wondered about, anyway.

Thoughts?

Interestingly, there are some languages--for example, Hebrew--which have no future tense. I think that the same is true for Aramaic, the common language of Jesus' day. Similar to Latin, in modern times, Hebrew was the language of the temple ritual.

BTW, I agree with the point that I feel you are trying to make: Time does not pass; we pass through it, as we move in space. Like G-D, it simply is IS. It is that which is self-evident.

The important point is, IMO: As we move in space, to what extent are our thoughts words and deeds moral, ethical and loving ones? Or are they otherwise?

Time is a creation of the mind, as is space. It is necessary for the perception of objects, which are extended in space and time.

So both time and space are all in our minds? Do objects have a "presence" that is perhaps far beyond our limited ability to comprehend? Maybe our human brains function at a very rudimentary level, using very crude tools (space/time) to get us through the day intact. Survival just isn't dependent on a more complex understanding of our immediate surroundings, much less the universe. No need to evolve further, but even if there was, the current path might very well be irrelevant. Isn't it possible that the best way to truly understand the universe might not require (or have anything to do with) space/time?

Does any of this make sense? I do have a lot to learn.

Actually, I like what "Trip" said, above, about God, the rapture, and four-dimensional beings who can see all four dimensions at once. This would be the best of everything, and as a reluctant athe..agnostic, this is what I HOPE for.

spatio/temporal paradigm shifts

IMO, ALL that IS is a creation of the PNEUMA--mind in the self-conscious, aware sense of the word. I also like to call it G-D. In John 4--where Jesus talks to the Samaritan woman-- G-D is described as PNEUMA--air, wind, breath, metaphors for that which is immeasurable. Because in modern times, air, wind and breath are recognized as physical in nature, were Jesus around today, he would probably use 'vacuum'.

BTW, TLID, how come you get 'God' as part of you login and I do not.

It seems to be an unfortunate choice of words for the user ranking based on the number of posts, starting with "newbie," "junior member," and on through "God." Lindsay, as you know with my very limited beliefs, I would prefer not to have that appellation associated with my name.


Jesus did and taught some very great things, but I believe he made two very great mistakes that we (Western society) are paying for today. First was his insistence on unreasoning belief. Second was his appeal to the (very human) desire for immortality. It's true that the church would not have survived to thrive without these two key ingredients of the meme, but false belief is worse than no belief.

Rick wrote:
Rick, read John 10:34, and John 17:20-25. There, interestingly, Jesus taught, quite clearly, IMO, that we are all, potentially, gods and immortal beings, if we so choose to be. Keep in mind that Jesus never said: "I am the Son of God and you are not..."

It is also my opinion that Jesus emphasized orthopraxy, true and loving actions, not just orthodoxy, true beliefs. "Follow me..." he said. The whole NT, especially, James, the brother of Jesus, emphasizes that faith without works is total hypocrisy.

Even Paul, who put a lot of focus on the value of faith, made it clear that without moral and ethical actions, faith is a fraud.

As I said before, Jesus taught some wonderful things, such as humility and forgiveness, but he was human and made some big mistakes. Don't confuse having a seemingly-divine component in our makeup with individual immortality. Even the immortality of life as a whole is not assured. It's possible that we could destroy it all:

http://professordixon.blogspot.com/

Rick, if you wish me to drop the subject, I will. But you seem to have something against religion, as such. Remind me. Have you already told us what is it about your religious upbringing which has coloured, and made you feel "bitter" about the nature and value of religion?

It's good to see you've been paying attention. I will repeat a few of the items I have mentioned here and in other threads. The harms of religious belief are ubiquitous. The historic evils are enormous (Crusades, Inquisition). Today Christians are working to end the world because they falsely believe in an afterlife. Muslims seek to kill infidels. False beliefs, like weeds in a garden, crowd out the truth. These things are abundantly evident to anyone who is still able to use even a small portion of his nature-given reasoning power.

?!?!?! Christians ending the world? I have views against religion too but I hardly see strong evidence for such an assumption. Hitler did kill many many people but the church did not support his idiologies, he like many before him made a diffrent version of the christian faith (King Henry also did this to bypass the marriage laws and a few others.) This however is not the massive religion that is run under the watchful eye of the vatican, now I am not saying I support all of the churches views but they do give people hope (I like to think of religion as bedtime stories to help adults sleep when they wonder about death) many, many people cannot stand the massive trama of the idea that when they die they will simply cease to exist (not to say we do cease to exist or that we dont). So think of religion as a sedative for peoples many worries about things they cannot explain.

Maximus 242 writesDoes any mind that we way off topic? If it is okay with others, I don't.

BTW, Max, thanks for the support(?) . I think it was Marx who described religion as the "opiate of the people". Freud described it as the "universal neurosis". Indeed, both of these may be true for much of what goes by the name of religion.

However, the religion to which I belong encourages me to live boldly in the now and think for myself. Sure it is good to respect good leaders and the great traditions, but I am not be tied to a some sacred book, boring traditions or a dead guru.

My religion inspires and help me to be moral, ethical, just and loving in my daily life, and to have a critical and analytical faith, which is grounded in reason. My religion is a questioning philosophy, a dynamic psychology and pneumatology, and an ever expanding and artful way of living.

Christianity has served its purpose for our species. It should have died centuries ago during the Renaissance, but rather as a testament to Man's ignorance and gullibility, it has survived, though much weaker, to present day. It would appear inevitable that Christianity's complete demise is on the horizon. Hallelullah!

Wow, LD, kudos to you for the single most provocative post I've ever laid eyes on.

I'm a former but sadly, hard-wired Catholic who has since seen the light. I still believe in limbo, however, because I'm condemned to a state of perpetual cognitive dissonance 'til the day I die (and beyond). Believe me, it's hell...

Religion is one of the biggest obstacles to world peace. If something is perceived as God's will, all rationality flies out the window. Any act of war is given a free pass, no matter how obviously immoral it may be. Atrocities of the worst kind are justified. A few years ago, some men were convinced that God wanted them to fly airplanes full of innocent people into buildings loaded with innocent people. No religious group is immune.

Oh, and the string theory is a bit provocative as well (tying it all together).

>>>edited for typo

I agree that back in the renissance & medieval eras Christianity had an extrordinary amount of power in fact it was way out of control I think it is good that it has lost the extreme level of influence it had but it does still control how many countries operate. Religion is the single most lucrative buisness in the world, the only thing you need to do is tell stories, you technically give nothing but promises and in return recieve more money than ony corperation in the world thats the beauty of it. If I wanted to become a millionaire the first thing id do is start my own religion.

Thanks OnlyNow. There's much more where that came from.



L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Dianetics cult, believed the same thing. You can found out more about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu and http://www.xenu.net

Ah yes I remember the church of scientology very well but they are not as much of a cult as they are a con. Although it is known that in the inner most circle cult indoctrication techniques are used most of the churches efforts are to swindle people out of money rather than control them. I believe that the founder was actually kicked out of america for some time where he and his scientologist travelled the globe looking for another sutable location on his very expensive boat. I think he spent about two years exilied from america due to his meathods. True cults are scary groups, they usually start out small with a resonably responsible leader. But as time goes on the leader becomes more involved in his own fantasy world than reality. Once the leader is fully enveloped in his own private world he begins to see himself to be more and more of a god, he will begin to carry out more and more irrational and potentially dangerous commands. He will begin to get ideas of global domination and being a supreme ruler. This is the unfortunate end result of cults, the leader will have so much power over his subjects that he will become more wicked and totaltarian. The most damage is done to the cult members themselves, any rejection of the cults ideas will often result in harsh beatings and other psychological ploys. In fact I remember one case in a small cult where the leader ordered the parents to punish their child for defying the leader, the father spanked his child for two hours straight without any remorse, where the end result was the child dieing of internal bleeding. Cults are definatly not a good thing to be involved in... hmm mybe il start a thread on spotting cults & deprogramming from the cult mindset.

From a recent news item:

"Evangelical ministers meet in Inglewood to discuss ways to convert millions and hasten the Second Coming."

In the Los Angeles Times, February 8, 2006. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pa...ack=1&cset=true

It's important to pay attention to disturbing trends. The harm religions do is not merely wasting the time and money of their converts, but is potentially unbounded.

Apparently I need to register to use that link rick (payed registration). I do agree that religions do more than waste time but you have to admit it has gotten better compared to the renissance. At least the popes army is disbanded although their are still scandals, naturally. As religions death grip begins to loosen people become more and more aware of the time they waste in religion (im not saying religion is going away anytime soon but some people are becoming openminded). The problems with religion is after it is all said and done it has the same idiologies as any other group, religion uses time tested techniques of fear and propaganda to keep the masses in line. To which extreme this is taken is how one seperates cults and religions, athough the principle is the same, use fear (whether of god or of pain) to influence and manipulate people. The true source of what religions power was is the same power that corperations used to ensure buyer loyalty, this all ended in the sixties. Corperations had the loyalty of their customers, just like religions had the loyalty of their people. The idea is to pass on this loyalty to each family member and of course from their once they have families of their own they do the same. This means that with each generation the religion grows significantly, the churches would (help) any member of the family who had troubles believing in god, of course once the sixties came around and everyone was changing their views people easily move from one product or religion to another. This of course means that someone born and raised in a catholic family who attended a catholic school can become a non god fearing revolutionist (aka me , by revolution I mean encouraging openmindedness and freedom).

Come on now, all of you!!!
What's with the mud-slinging approach to all religions? Surely you need to be a little more precise in your criticisms if you expect to be taken seriously.

What would you think of a poster who wrote: "I read a couple of books since I first learned to read. They were awful. Books are a waste of time...Maybe, even dangerous. Kill all authors!" ?

The same kind of thing can be said about education, philosophy, economics, politics, science, art, you name it. This is called generalizing, which is like using a loose cannon. This is dangerous. So are generalizers. BTW, how many universities, including Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Boston U (one of my alma maters), Yale, Princeton, etc., were started by churches.

THE PRACTICAL USE OF CHURCH BUILDINGS
BTW, I was inspired, by a Christian minister, to get a very good education. As it so happened, this led to my having a long career--over 40 years--as a minister.

In addition to leading church congregations, teaching and counseling, I helped build several church buildings. They are still being used, not only on Sunday and by mid-week church activities, these buildings, to this day, allow space to be used for community and cultural activities by people who may not even be members of the church. Some may even be atheists. In most communities churches have a park-like use. All churches that I know of employ staff, including musicians, pay their bills, which provides employment and services to the community. Ask people who live near churches: Would you like to see it torn down and replaced by a gas station, whatever?

BTW, my work provided me with my pay. And, now, what I saved provides my pension--BTW, I lived--and live--on less that the average school teacher. All that I earned, then and now, goes back into the community in one way or another. Don't tell me that churches are useless. They even have an economic value. Anyone who provided the lands and materials to build the churches in our community benefitted. Today, those who own a useful business anywhere within the scope of any church benefits from the money which that church and its activities receives and circulates.

Now, if you would like to check your motives and then point a critical, but positive, finger at sick religions, with a view to helping them do a better job, the floor is yours. And I will gladly join in.

Lindsay... of course they have economic value! The only organization richer than them is the government! They are fat with money, if you have read anything about the renissance or medieval religion or prehaps even the inquisition you would realize what we are talking about. I have no problem in letting the sheepies go on eating grass and following a shepard, but I do have a problem when they try to get others to come along.

Religion is certainly a problem in some parts of the world, but it cannot be condemned wholesale and it cannot be blamed for promoting hatred and suffering. The two most violent ideologies of all time had a rejection of Christianity at their core, namely Communism and Nazism. That is not to say it was the lack of Christianity that was behind the evils of those systems, but it does point to the very basic truth that getting rid of religion won't solve the world's problems.

So the essential question becomes: if getting rid of religion won't solve old problems, will it create new ones?

Will it create new ones? well it all depends on your outlook, is anything ever a problem or a solution? does it simply note the interation between the world rather than actually having an accomplishment? People will always have diffrent views of diffrent things so one persons catastophy is another blessing, one persons heaven is another persons hell.. The thing is not will everyone see it as new problems, every event contains both good and bad sides to it, the key is whether or not it is more benifitial to the people invoking the change. In other words if you could get rid of religion right now do you think it would bring more harm or good?

The problem with critics of religion is that they fail to see that religion doesn't create problems. The NRA motto is dumb but true: guns don't kill people, people kill people. Getting rid of guns won't put an end to murder; getting rid of religion won't put an end to whatever evils religion is blamed for.

So you can't argue for the end of religion because you want to see an end to wars, terrorism, ignorance, or whatever evils you associate with religion. You can only argue for the end of religion if you can establish that religion is undesirable on its own, rather than based on what religious people do. For instance, it makes sense to argue for the end of ignorance because ignorance is undesirable on its own; even if ignorant people were better, richer, healthier than educated folks (and don't tell me that's impossible!), ignorance would still be undesirable.

Not so with religion, because religion is completely harmless. You can be religious and live your life any way you please; in fact, that is exactly what the absolute majority of religious people do. Religion is private because it's about the relationship between the individual and the cosmos. No one should have any business with somebody else's religion.

Besides all that, religion is a personal choice, you can't argue for the end of believing anymore than you can argue for the end of feeling or thinking. I don't know why those protesters protest so much, as far as I can tell they are fighting windmills or, more likely, ghosts in their own closets.

HAHAHA man i got a good laugh out of that one.. you do realize that the terrorists bomb because they believe they have secured a place in heaven by doing so right? Let us take a look at the historical records..

Spanish Inquisition

Gee whats this? murder,torture,fear,starvation,burning alive.. hmm sounds like religion is wonderful now doesnt it? The spanish inquisition was established in order to purge the world of evil under the name of god under the authority of the pope of the Catholic church.

Crusades

Anyone remember this? well five million people died doing god battles so how wonderful is that now?? Whats worse is this army was formed by the pope..

Witch Hunts

Well whats this? people going off and slaying innocent young women because of arbitrary facts further exploited by the church.. 100,000 deaths.. that religion for you

French Wars of Religion

well here we go again I will just post the deaths.. 3 million.

Second World War

Hitler created his own makeshift Christianity but it is still a religion and the religions hatred for jews and seeking the deindividualization of all lead to this war.. 55 million in total, 7 million Jews in Death Camps..

Here is a chronological version of Medieval French Religious Wars

The First War (1562-1563)
Provoked by the massacre at Vassy
The Second War (1567-1568)
Provoked by trying to sieze the person of the King.
The Thrid War (1568-1570)
The Cardinal de Lorraine hatched a plot to overturn the peace and capture Condé and Coligny
The Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre (1572)
The night of August 23, the decision was taken at the Louvre to kill Coligny and the Huguenot leaders gathered around him. Rumors ran thick and fast, and somehow the militia and the general population went on a rampage, the killing went on for 3 days or so.
The Forth War (1572-1573)
The city of La Rochelle, the de facto capital of the Protestants, refused to pay taxes to the king because of the massacre and refused admittance to the royal governor, the King declared war.
The Fifth War (1576)
20,000 troops invaded France under Jan Casimir in the spring of '76
The Sixth War (1577)
A royal force was put together to take back some of the Protestant towns along the Loire
The Seventh War (1580)
Some kind of maneuvering between Navarre and the crown in which Queen Margot was involved
The War of the Three Henries (1584-1589)
The League sent an army against Henri III, and Henri III turned to Navarre for an alliance. The two kings joined forces to reclaim Paris. In July 1589, in the royal camp at St. Cloud, a monk named Jacques Clément begged an audience with the king and put a long knife into his spleen. At first it was thought the king might recover, but the wound festered. On his deathbed, Henri III called for Navarre and named him his heir
The Wars of the League (1589-1598)
Henri IV brought the war out of the south and into the north trying to ensure his claim as king. He hung the Protestans and bribed the Catholics

I think you get the point now but if not I have much much more..

Watching television sitcoms instead of reading is a personal choice. Sitting on a couch instead of exercising is a personal choice. Listening to right-wing talk shows on the radio is a personal choice.

Believing that one is born favored personally by God to be destined for eternal life in Heaven is a personal choice. Believing that we are all in this together so that we should work for the common good is a better choice because it's based on fact.

I do indeed argue against making stupid personal choices. Humankind is better than that and we deserve better.

No, I don't realize that at all. I know terrorists bomb because they feel oppressed, marginalized, and have lost all hope in this world. If they had a nice house in the suburbs with an SUV in the garage, I very much doubt they would sacrifice their lives for a vague promise, no matter how tempting.

It's silly to believe people are stupid just because they are not educated.



Somehow you seem to think there's something in the historical record which should be obvious to everyone but only a few smart people can see. tsc tsc...

What are Americans doing in Iraq? They are not taking Christianity to the Muslim unbelievers, that is for sure, but they say they are taking freedom, democracy, and other good things. So, according to your understanding of history, freedom and democracy are bad things because they caused the Iraqi war.

Religion is not the problem. The real problem is, why is it that noble ideals motivate people to do horrible things? Should we get rid of noble ideals at all?



There's no getting the point. All those arguments against religion are too naive, I have seen them countless times already. In fact, when I was younger I used to take them at face value, just like you do now.

Actually a recent study showed that terrorists recieve a excellent plan, the method for reqruitment is to first Target those within the religion, then they are presented not only with benifits and a family health plan but eternal salvation.



Please do not presume to know what I am thinking. I am not stating that within the historical records are some secret knowlege I am looking at evidence and putting it up for evaluation.


Naive? excuse me? Now you presume to think that I take things at face value, well prehaps you have only seen me post here but I hardly take things anywhere near at just face value. I could go into deep introspection but I really dont have the time, I am busy and when I am not I am on 6 or so forums so excuse me if I dont have the time to cover a indepth anaylsis of a topic that you are clearly not intrested in debating. The only thing I can see is a close minded person who catagorically attempts to make themselve appear more intelligent by talking down to others. I am not acting like a 2 year old brat and stating that religion is evil or religion is perfect I am stating that religion is responsible for events that have occured. You deny this and say that it is something completly diffrent and that their is no chance that religion could be a problem, your reluctance to even consider the possiblity is what leads me to believe that you are simply intrested in fighting and not in further increasing philosophical understanding.


Religion stops being private when it starts affecting others.. I have no problem with letting people believe in their own religion and I am supportive of it to leave them alone and let them have their own beliefs. However I am not supportive of religion when it starts forcing others to follow its views or perish, to threaten others mentally or physically and to influence them for their own private agendas is when people like me stop liking religion..

Kaku says we wernt supposed to even know about string theory for another 100 years and that it is fluke we stumbled upon it

That still doesn't change the fact that terrorists are desperate people. You really think you don't have to be desperate to fly a plane into a building? Come on.



Please do not get upset. I'm not trying to talk down to you, you seem a smart guy, it's just that I'm tired of being exposed to those historical facts as if their meaning were obvious except to fools like me. Can't we talk about something new? Yeah, I know religion did this and religion did that, but why can't we explore the more interesting question of "why"? What is it about religion that makes people do those things you claim they would not otherwise do? It can't be the promise of heaven, that is too naive. People are not that dumb.



I only said you take things at face value because you are simply repeating a mantra I hear everyday. But there has to be something wrong with the notion that religion is evil, because religion is primarily concerned with goodness. Don't you find that strange? The Church you accuse of burning people in stakes is the same Church that preaches "love thy neighbour". Don't you think the world would be a better place if everyone loved their neighbours? You are more religious than you realize.



I am interested in debating, but you have to give me something new rather than repeating the usual anti-church rhetoric. That, I can get somewhere else.



I'm sorry you think I'm only interested in boosting my ego, that is as far from the truth as it can be. What really happens is that I'm frustrated with thoughtless arguments. You don't want to think about the subject, fine, you don't have to. But please don't show me a long list of religious wars as if I never heard about it. That is talking down!



But you are mistaken about me, I have no interest in fighting, and there's something I'm really curious to understand. Let me tell you what that is:

I consider myself a religious person, but religion plays no big role in my actions. It's something at the base of my personal philosophies, but it's not something that guides me to do this thing rather than that. Even acts of kindness, in the rare cases when I do them, it's out of compassion, not out of religious belief. The most important thing about religion is that it gives me peace of mind. "Lord, give us peace"; that is really the only thing that matters about religion. And that peace is not the kind of peace this world can give you; it's not the end of wars but the end of struggle.

The absolute majority of people I know seem to be like me. They profess a belief in God and the possibility (not certainty!) of an afterlife, pray now and then, go to church occasionally, things like that. That is the majority. Now there are some people who are obsessed with religion, who consider religion something ultimately important, something that must be fully accepted or fully rejected. To those people religion is either the source of our salvation or the main cause of our misery.

Honestly, I don't get those people. I don't get religious fanatics, and I don't get people who think religion matters more than it actually does. I do realize that the real fight is between active atheists and religious fanatics, and while I understand why religious fanatics would like to fight, it completely baffles me why so many atheists don't simply ignore them.

That is basically what I'm trying to understand - the mind of the person who believes, erroneously, that religion is more than it really is.



Exactly which religion you are talking about? You can't possibly think of mormons, moderate jews, shiites, catholics, orthodox jews, buddhists, as all being the same because "it's all religion". Some religions must be worse than others, with that much at least you should agree. So please stop making incorrect generalizations because they lead to misunderstanding.



Well, guess what, so do I. I am Roman Catholic and I know Catholics have as much contempt for some Christian denominations as any atheist, possibly even more so. To be honest, if I could have my way some religions would be outlawed for being more obscene than child pornography.

So exaclty where do we disagree?

interesting discussion over religion but what does this all have to do with the future of string theory?

I was wondering the same thing. It may be because string theory is a boring academic subject completely devoid of any relevance :smile:

string theory is fascinating and learning it has helped me improve my yoyoing and knitting abilities considerably.

mm their right we should stay on topic.

String Theory does not define a shape, geometry or topology to
the universe.

It also does not _require_ the universe to be a continuum. String Theory does
sucessfully blend both Quantum Mechanics (matter exists in discrete lumps) and
General Relativity (matter distribution is smooth on large scales).

In the 'empty' space of.. well space there is still the quantum foam (the
seething mass of short lived elementary particles) and thus zero-point energy.
The cognitive leap is that all matter is a finite loop somewhat smaller than
the plank length.

The plank length is the smallest measurable distance - extrapolated from the
Uncertainty Principle

So, with String Theory we still need the 'space', however in accordance with
Quantum Mechanics it doesn't consist of 'nothing'.

Further, with the 10 (or 11) dimensions required to unify all the forces it
provides a mechanism for the expansion of the universe. It is the space itself
that is expanding.

Just so you know, there was something called the "Continuum Hyptothesis."

What do we mean when we say "continuum"? Here's a description Albert Einstein gave on p. 83 of his Relativity: The Special and the General Theory:





Below, this is called a KK Tower.

You must understand how it works?

You had to understand that you would end up with a result mathematically?

Gravity and Light in the fifth dimension? You had to understand what the bulk is, and how the graviton is produced to exist in it.