QUOTE
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 8:01:46 AM

Interesting point Belly and Amjay – is religion a failure of the imagination or a product of an overactive imagination?

I reckon it is both; an active imagination in the first instance and then a failure of imagination by those who blithely just go along with it.

It is a pity that threads with religious themes generally get much more response than just about any other subject. But having said that, I’m intrigued about the imagination – religion connection.

So I reckon I’ll start a new thread! ( :>)....<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2323

it takes no imagination TO JUST FOLLOW blindly

BUT you raise an interEseting point
the lack of imagination is covered over
by becoming a fanatic
[be it fanatical ABOUT belief in evolutions THEORIES
or faulse theories about god]

[each theory has its specialists]
who only KNOW their SPECIALised area of knowing

each of gods messengers has become more than their message [GOD}

[or made sacrement [sacrocanct] the theories hidden in the words and rituals of believers in 'their' chosen messenger 's mess age]

[and the religions formed ARROUND their mess-AGE
are all forms of religious belief]

evolution theory is as faith based
than athiest would be able to take comfort in

but they TOO revere their [imagi-native] messengers into faulse gods

[all of em, religious or evil-lootionist alike]

the loot is the belief [faith] of its UN-IMAGINATIVE followers

we are soon to leave these realms of science certainties
it is hoped the next generation
will have the imagination to think their own thoughts

to realise THEIR OWN DREAMS
live by their own im-ages

create their own new r]age mess-in-jures

[not accept blindly the vision media
[and special intrests]wants to SELL us]

Under one god,

Your last couple of posts have simply been disjointed burblings, having started this post and claim scientific knowledge, to simply retreat into a corner and mutter to yourself does more than simply strip you of any credibility, but calls into question your lucidity.

Or as per Cheech "I want whatever that guy's smoking"

Shadow Minister said:
Or as per Cheech "I want whatever that guy's smoking"

Hell no, (shudder) you wouldn't want to end up like uog spilling your crazed and fractured stream of consciousness all over the internets

UOG
re. your post on 'what sort of entity is god'
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 8:51:48 AM

resonated...

and I've read quite a few... following from the beginning...

that post said it all for me, I was hoping for that in you prior to that I was afraid you were just another ....

yet

I was quite dismayed by;

create their own new r]age mess-in-jures

on this thread...

perhaps the words of frustration...

however

being as I'm just dead matter animated by
electrochemical impulses
and my mind is merely an emergent
epiphenomenon looks like I'll
never be redeemed

--

physical law is to god as the hammer is to the carpenter

even 'dead' science has its deeper hidden layers

energy can neither be created nor destroyed but changes form

how do they know?

how do they test that?

what happened before the big bang?

they didn't say it started there

it's assumed it has always been - eternal

--

don't bother answering

Im out

Ive already made peace with my ever evolving soul

I see

you understand transcendence
the cage of the mind
the leap of faith
to the larger world
to allow for the creator

the access is the heart
and connects to totality

the mind of the creator
contains creation
when you are unbounded
every movement is creation

--
I'm heartened

now we're in a different domain
maybe I see what you mean by evolution

the question

"Evolutionists [stand up] EXPLAIN your ambiogenesis
that 'first cell that evolved via natural selection
that is the first evolution [in theory]"

so...
why evolve? (an explanation)

not 'life evolved' (a description)

why not just out-replicate the competition...?

why not just adjust basic chemical properties to changes in the environment?

why would a molecule replicate?
and develop information carrying capability?
and why head toward sentience?

interesting...

- access to more energy...?
- a greater conduit for energy & matter?
- expression of chemical bonds & packing geometries?

or

an expression of something immaterial inherent in matter
consciousness? quantum vibrations carrying interference patterns?
a logos of sorts?
scale does not affect information
if it can be stored effectively
in energy
at the infinitely small
and the vast

scale came into form when energy became matter
boing

think I know what you meant by quoting the amoeba e.g.
sounded silly...
but when one considers this difficult to define quality called consciousness

more interesting...

not easy to explain with naturalism & science
impossible?

they would of course say that consciousness was an epiphenomenon and an illusion

the opposing is that consciousness is the reality and physical mind is the illusion (or a model of a greater intelligence)

evolution? a process of manifesting (or forming) universal consciousness? through energy spiralled up into material expression
on a cosmic cycle...

these are thoughts
thought can contemplate beyond the senses
but
there is also emotion and direct experience
available from our deeper structure and earlier form
with cognition overlayed

I hope that is what you mean by creation
and evolution

that is why I believe they should not be confused
with either sci or relig. different path to this arena
arguing with scientists over this one... I don't know...

the creation reflects the creator
and contemplating creation we strive to understand the creator
we imagine that state of total being
only coherence(love) can create
otherwise entropy
life's struggle, create or die

in *that* context,
you say sci. evo. is a theory

I agree.

--

But it's not like saying 'big bang is a theory'

I will illustrate;

Current mainstream theory

'big bang' steady state or collapse back to origin

recently

'big bounce' - universe can't come to a point but very close to it & then bounces... & this is probably eternal

OK - this is not reality
It is prediction
but it has to be tested etc etc

To the extent people confuse *that* with reality
clearly they are mistaken.

With sci evo however, at a certain level,
It works as a disciplne
You might call it reality

That is the belief I have in sci evo
you might call it rational belief