is religion a language virus?

this article is misleading.

the inhomogenous distribution of baryonic matter in great filaments & voids is due to an unequal distribution of DM which may have its origin in the temperature differences of the early universe as evidenced by the cosmic background radiation, which is theoretically explained by parameter #5 & #6 of the lambda cdm cosmological standard model.

I have no idea why went to describe DM in such great length when this has nothing to do with DE whatsoever...

edit:

yet you are using it here:

this is exactly how the theory of DE is officially being described - as a universal anti-gravity scalarfield

I said no such thing, the article did. I didn't write the article.

DM need not be causing the apparent acceleration. In timescape cosmology voids in space can run about a little over a third faster than denser space. In the voids billions of more years have taken place. Since the voids out number the denser portions of the universe, after averaging the expansions, will make it seem like the expansion is getting faster.
 
That's because most people only see two extremes, when there's actually four. The other two extremes are both and neither. I put myself in the neither category too.
you think an afterlife exists. That requires faith, is subjective, unverifiable and unrepeatable

I think humans die after going 8 minutes without oxygen. This requires no faith and is objective. I can verify this by filling a 5 gallon bucket with my shit and piss, grabbing your scrawny, autistic, vegan ass by his girly hair, and shoving your head into the bucket for 8 minutes

Science requires no faith in that or any other regard
 
42cb3b3c59bdffef9c0708315dd47263.jpg

I'm neither theistic nor atheistic. I reject theism, atheism, and even agnosticism because all of them adhere to some position. I only hold the position that God cannot be conceived as existing.
It's not up to me to affirm or deny the existence of God since it's a stupid supposition in the first place, therefore I'm not an atheist nor a theist. It's not my argument, so I refuse to even take part.
 
I said no such thing, the article did. I didn't write the article.
well... you were citing it in support of your argument. so you should stand by it.
typo?
In timescape cosmology voids in space can run about a little over a third faster than denser space. In the voids billions of more years have taken place. Since the voids out number the denser portions of the universe, after averaging the expansions, will make it seem like the expansion is getting faster.
that would require a new theory of gravitation, right? because, as it is currently described by general relativity, it won't affect time as nearly as much as this timescape cosmology would like to have it.
star systems, galaxies, the great walls n filaments - they're mostly void themself and their fabric of spacetime isn't curved enough to allow such a great 30% discrepancy in time delay.
close or inside massive objects, sure... but its not that stars exist in a galaxy "back to back"...

and GR has never ever been falsified, not a single time, and they still try on every occasion....
 
Dawkins defines the "symptoms" of being infected by the "virus of religion", providing examples for most of them, and tries to define a connection between the elements of religion and its survival value (invoking Zahavi's handicap principle of sexual selection, applied to believers of a religion). Dawkins also describes religious beliefs as "mind-parasites", and as "gangs [that] will come to constitute a package, which may be sufficiently stable to deserve a collective name such as Roman Catholicism ... or ... component parts to a single virus".

The influence of religion on politics is not a phenomenon that is confined solely to the Christian world. But, it's impossible for any political theorist to ignore the role of Christianity in the public lives of Christians. Its huge impact upon the politics of Christian nations can be attributed to the strong inclination of the population towards it, and the powerful voice that it is given by them.

It's pretty obvious that any legal system requires a government to adopt it and the apparatus of a state to implement and enforce it.

So,, do you think a person having faith in something, even a political ideal, could be interpreted as a symptom of mental illness?
Religion was a way of explaining the universe before the advent of science, a cultural leftover from another time. All it takes is a is a charismatic fabulist and gullible people to create a new religion, Joseph Smith and the creation of Mormonism is a classic modern example, cult leaders are another. What we today call religion is as old as humans and every paleolithic tribe had its version of the "truth" and it was one of the things that bound human groups together. When agriculture was developed and human communities and societies became larger and more impersonal religion took on a larger "political" role in defining adherence to a society. In most early agrarian societies like those in Egypt, South America and Asia, there was a God/King, even the Romans deified their emperors. Politics and religion were one and the same for a very long time and in Christianity there was a split between the political and religious authorities long before the reformation and this aided it's spread and also later allowed secular societies to arise.

Science in the west started out as as an investigation of "God's creation", as a way of knowing about God through his "works". In post reformation Protestant Europe the arisen secular societies allowed science to proceed and understanding to advance with much less interference and suppression from religion. Cosmology (Copernicus) and natural history (Darwin etc) started as religious pursuits to learn about the nature of "God" by studying his creation and in doing so they discovered God did not exist. We've only been at this science stuff for a few centuries, Darwin published the origin of the species in 1859 and most of the mainstream religions accept science, Darwin and all. Among Christians only the fundamentalists and "born yesterdays", found mostly in the USA believe in Adam and Eve. These beliefs are found in the American south for the most part and are predicated on "belief and belief alone" will get you through the pearly gates. They claim Hitler could go to heaven if he just took Jesus into his heart before death, it's the kind of belief system that allows bigots and slave owners to get into heaven. Traditionally a Christian made it through the pearly gates by attaining a state of grace, something most fundamentalist Christians and Trumper pseudo christians are incapable of. Most of these idiots wonder "what kind of gun would Jesus own" and figure they can get into heaven carrying a heart full of hate, just squeezing their eyes shut real hard and believing bullshit is all that's required.

I'm a secular Buddhist (and atheist), one who adheres to the practical philosophy for psychological peace and happiness, but devoid of religious content. The psychological aspects of Buddhism are largely validated by science and it is a very science friendly belief system, open to enquiry. Many scientists practice secular Buddhism, because it's a practice, not a set of beliefs to be adhered to, "come see for yourself", not dogma is the attitude. It deals with our subjective relationship to reality and science deals with objective reality. Both science and Buddhism have done much to relieve human suffering, one from the inside out and the other from the outside in. One deals with our "spiritual" (in a non religious sense) needs and desires and the other with the material. Having said the above, Buddhism is a religion to millions, most have no true understanding of it and are a lot like born again fundamentalist Christians in that respect. Even in Asia though, there has been a growing secular Buddhist movement for well over a century. In the west Buddhism is almost completely secular, psychiatrists and psychologists are it's biggest fans, have elaborated on it and study it using science.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a gravitational field.
Religion was a way of explaining the universe before the advent of science, a cultural leftover from another time. All it takes is a is a charismatic fabulist and gullible people to create a new religion, Joseph Smith and the creation of Mormonism is a classic modern example, cult leaders are another. What we today call religion is as old as humans and every paleolithic tribe had its version of the "truth" and it was one of the things that bound human groups together. When agriculture was developed and human communities and societies became larger and more impersonal religion took on a larger "political" role in defining adherence to a society. In most early agrarian societies like those in Egypt, South America and Asia, there was a God/King, even the Romans deified their emperors. Politics and religion were one and the same for a very long time and in Christianity there was a split between the political and religious authorities long before the reformation and this aided it's spread and also later allowed secular societies to arise.

Science in the west started out as as an investigation of "God's creation", as a way of knowing about God through his "works". In post reformation Protestant Europe the arisen secular societies allowed science to proceed and understanding to advance with much less interference and suppression from religion. Cosmology (Copernicus) and natural history (Darwin etc) started as religious pursuits to learn about the nature of "God" by studying his creation and in doing so they discovered God did not exist. We've only been at this science stuff for a few centuries, Darwin published the origin of the species in 1859 and most of the mainstream religions accept science, Darwin and all. Among Christians only the fundamentalists and "born yesterdays", found mostly in the USA believe in Adam and Eve. These beliefs are found in the American south for the most part and are predicated on "belief and belief alone" will get you through the pearly gates. They claim Hitler could go to heaven if he just took Jesus into his heart before death, it's the kind of belief system that allows bigots and slave owners to get into heaven. Traditionally a Christian made it through the pearly gates by attaining a state of grace, something most fundamentalist Christians and Trumper pseudo christians are incapable of. Most of these idiots wonder "what kind of gun would Jesus own" and figure they can get into heaven carrying a heart full of hate, just squeezing their eyes shut real hard and believing bullshit is all that's required.

I'm a secular Buddhist (and atheist), one who adheres to the practical philosophy for psychological peace and happiness, but devoid of religious content. The psychological aspects of Buddhism are largely validated by science and it is a very science friendly belief system, open to enquiry. Many scientists practice secular Buddhism, because it's a practice, not a set of beliefs to be adhered to, "come see for yourself", not dogma is the attitude. It deals with our subjective relationship to reality and science deals with objective reality. Both science and Buddhism have done much to relieve human suffering, one from the inside out and the other from the outside in. One deals with our "spiritual" (in a non religious sense) needs and desires and the other with the material. Having said the above, Buddhism is a religion to millions, most have no true understanding of it and are a lot like born again fundamentalist Christians in that respect. Even in Asia though, there has been a growing secular Buddhist movement for well over a century. In the west Buddhism is almost completely secular, psychiatrists and psychologists are it's biggest fans, have elaborated on it and study it using science.
You are actually pretty religious in the sense that you are willing to believe in many things without proof.

Science is not that.
 
There is no such thing as a gravitational field.

You are actually pretty religious in the sense that you are willing to believe in many things without proof.

Science is not that.
Foggy this can explain my views better than I can articulate them and in a lot more detail, I'm a science guy and so are many others who practice (not believe, as in dogma) secular Buddhism. It's like saying stoicism is a religion, it's a philosophy and is about our relationship to reality, our perception of it you might say. Two people can look at the same reality from two different perspectives, a sunny warm day looks a lot different to a happy well adjusted person, than to someone who is clinically depressed.

Here is some of my recent reading on the subject and it meshes with my views, secular buddhism is not science and I never claimed it was, it's more of a practical philosophy. Professional scientists have found validity in it's psychological aspects and more importantly have put it to the test. So far so good...

Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment

Here is a free online course I'm taking that covers most of the material in the book.
Buddhism is true in a naturalistic sense, not a supernatural one! :D Evolution designed us to survive and pass our genes along, not to be happy.
A free online course given by Robert Wright author of Why Buddhism is true
Buddhism and Modern Psychology

Or if you prefer a video (there are many such videos by leading scientists in the field)
Dr. Ron Siegel: "The Science of Mindfulness" | Talks at Google
 
Last edited:
Foggy this can explain my views better than I can articulate them and in a lot more detail, I'm a science guy and so are many others who practice (not believe, as in dogma) secular Buddhism. It's like saying stoicism is a religion, it's a philosophy and is about our relationship to reality, our perception of it you might say. Two people can look at the same reality from two different perspectives, a sunny warm day looks a lot different to a happy well adjusted person, than to someone who is clinically depressed.

Here is some of my recent reading on the subject and it meshes with my views, secular buddhism is not science and I never claimed it was, it's more of a practical philosophy. Professional scientists have found validity in it's psychological aspects and more importantly have put it to the test. So far so good...

Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment

Here is a free online course I'm taking that covers most of the material in the book.
Buddhism is true in a naturalistic sense, not a supernatural one! :D Evolution designed us to survive and pass our genes along, not to be happy.
A free online course given by Robert Wright author of Why Buddhism is true
Buddhism and Modern Psychology

Or if you prefer a video (there are many such videos by leading scientists in the field)
Dr. Ron Siegel: "The Science of Mindfulness" | Talks at Google

Sounds like cultural appropriation to me where you just take what you like and abandon the nutty religious stuff. The majority of Buddhists from Asia, where the religion originated, don't even meditate. Mindfullness isn't even the same as meditation. Mindfullness is new age hokum, while meditation is a religious practice which originated from Yoga, with the goal of cleansing your kundalini paranayama. True meditation if done improperly can damage the body, while fake mindfullness pretend meditation just makes you look stupid. The Buddha was even a Yogi before giving himself the title Tathagata.
 
Sounds like cultural appropriation to me where you just take what you like and abandon the nutty religious stuff. The majority of Buddhists from Asia, where the religion originated, don't even meditate. Mindfullness isn't even the same as meditation. Mindfullness is new age hokum, while meditation is a religious practice which originated from Yoga, with the goal of cleansing your kundalini paranayama. True meditation if done improperly can damage the body, while fake mindfullness pretend meditation just makes you look stupid. The Buddha was even a Yogi before giving himself the title Tathagata.
Nazi Buddha formerly racist rabbit is back
 
Sounds like cultural appropriation to me
Cultural appropriation is bullshit and you have at best a very superficial intellectual understanding of the subject. Argue with the scientifically trained professionals who study the subject. You have about as much an understanding of this subject as you have demonstrated with your lack of understanding of physics as evidenced by your posts to this thread. Your fuzzy about communism, physics and Buddhism/mindfulness.
It's better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt, there is no doubt about you among those posting here.
 
Back
Top