Is ELP against christianity

Arteum wrote: Maani, that is an interesting story. You are probably one of the few who came to religion from secular environment. I am only wondering why you did that? Were you thinking that science and rationalism (and atheism) were too difficult for you to follow [yes, everybody knows that math is MUCH more difficult than handwaving], or you just found them wrong (incorrect)? Wrong in what? Of course, the "rational world" is not "all there is". There exists art (literature, philosophy, paiting ...) -- your resort did not have to be religion. And I see one serious problem with your education. Although you were not brainwashed as a child, you were seriously brainwashed during years of "treatment" by priests, mullas, lammas ...  and "other faith-based leaders". You were out of touch with reality for so many years! You probably have no idea about physics, do you? Or you read about its evil teachings in "Watchtower"? Did you have as many conversations with scientists and rational people in general? Now it's too late for you anyway. It will be impossible to undo the years of brainwashing. Practice shows that in many cases even a couple of years of influence of religion is incurable. One thing I learned seeing the generaous religious zeal on this forum: the attachment to prog does not depend on one's philosophy.

WTF does physics have to do with religion?  Just because someone is religious doesnt mean they dont understand science!  It has forever baffled me that most people find no possibility for a reconciliation between science and religion.  unless you are a total fundamentalist, science should not be a threat to the existence of God.  understanding the universe and understanding God are roughly the same goal.  Intelligent theologists know that understanding God is impossible, and modern scientists know that fully understanding the universe is impossible (because by observing the universe you change the outcome).  Neither topic can be reduced to a one sentence answer or any concise explanation. 

Arteum:

Again, you proceed from false assumption.  Firstly, my grounding is science - and, ironically, particularly physics - is almost unarguably greater than yours.  I was a student of Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist who is one of the major proponents of the superstring theory.  I dare say I have read more "hard science" books than you have, in more areas of science, including physics, biology, chemistry, anthropology, naturalism, etc.  I am conversant in areas as diverse as the mating habits of lions and the properties of quarks, gluons, mesons and neutrinos.  And I take a back seat to no one (other than trained scientists) in astrophysics and superstring theory - not out of arrogance, but because I have read and studied more deeply than most.

Evolution?  I would bet that 90% of the people who engage in debate on this issue have never even read "The Origin of Species" or "Descent of Man," or read them so long ago that they haven't the foggiest idea what they actually say.  I have read both of them twice, once only months ago, so they are fresh in my mind.  You are probably one who thinks that Darwin was an atheist who set out to disprove the existence of God.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Darwin was a Christian whose only earned degree was in theology.  And though his faith wavered at times, he remained a Christian throughout his life, becoming a deacon of his church, and being buried in Westminster Abbey.

What Darwin set out to prove was not that God did not create life.  He set out to prove that God did not create every individual plant, insect, animal, etc. as an act of "special creation," but that species "evolved" through "natural selection."  However, Darwin credited that to God.  The following is quoted from the "Summary and Recapitulation" of "The Origin of Species":

"Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created.  To my mind, it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed upon matter by the Creator that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes...There is grandeur in this view of life...having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one."  (Emphases mine.)  Not exactly a stinging rebuke of those who believe in God, is it?  Thus, Darwin believed that the "laws of the universe" - including evolution - were "impressed upon matter" by God.  There is no other interpretation of his statement.

You say faith "represses" thinking?  Au contrarie!  "There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."  Similarly, the "Judeo-Christian construct" I believe in has far more room for the secular - logic, science, psychology, philosophy, etc. - than your narrow atheistic construct has for faith, metaphyics and anything you can't see, hear, taste, touch or smell.  So whose thinking is being repressed?

Flawed brain?  I was invited to join Mensa when I was 15.  I was an honors math student from 5th to 10th grade.  I had the highest sophomore average in the history of my high school.  I am a national champion crossword puzzle solver.  I have never taken a law class, yet have won every case I have ever argued in court (over 15 of them), whether pro se or on behalf of others, out-arguing even high-priced attorneys.  I engage in reasoned, solidly supported debates with Ph.D.'s in a variety of subjects.

Flawed brain?  I think not.

Coward?  I'll tell you what.  Let's meet.  Then let's have someone put a gun to each of our heads.  Let's see who is afraid to die and who isn't.  Let's see who reacts from fear and who doesn't.  Does this mean I do not care about my life?  Of course not.  But it means that I have something you don't: an inner peace - a direct result of my faith - that it is unlikely you could achieve even if you wanted to.

Let me leave you with a quote from no less an authority on science and rationalism than Albert Einstein:

"Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exists between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies.  Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.  But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.  The source of this feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.  To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.  I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.  The situation may be expressed by an image: religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame." (Emphasis mine.)

Peace.

Zargus wrote: Most people with something in there head knows all religions are yust fairytales invented by som people many 1000 years ago who dident understand beter now many 1000 years after that we shuld know beter we know that no god created Humans, that we are from the begining apes, and that the univers was created from a big bang not some god, i have never belived in any god and never will i know there is no one. Religons are for weakminded people who need something to belive in, and brainwashed idiots, who cant think for they selfs. That what i think. And yust think about all the sh*t the religons have caused on the earth all the wars, even now people fight about religons, is that was your god hade planed? that we whuld kill ourself for him? if thats so he cant be very nice, realy after all terible things going on how can anyone belive in god, thats yust somthing i cant understand. if he realy existed shuldent he do somthing?

I NO!! HOW CAN ANY1 BELEEV IN GOD???!! PEEPLE HOO BELEEV IN GOD ARE A BUNCH OF FAJETS!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously, people care too much about what religion other people believe in.  I've been a Catholic all my life and I respect other people's beliefs and thoughts.  You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want.  It's that simple.  Now let's go to the pub and 'ave a few rounds.

Arteum wrote: The Wizard wrote: The lyrics of many ELP songs clearly are against Christianity: People are stirred, moved by the Word Kneel at the shrine, deceived by the wine How was the Earth conceived, Infinite Space Is there such a place? You must believe in the human race Can you believe, "God makes you breathe?" Why did he lose six million Jews?... Who looks on Life itself, who lights your way? Only you can say How can you just obey? Don't need the Word, now that you've heard Don't be afraid, Man is Man-made And when the hour comes, don't turn away Face the light of day And do it your way...it's the only way.   The Only Way, Tarkus     My beloved ELP I like the song about Benny even more: Sidney grabbed a hatchet, buried it .... in Benny's head. The people gasped as he bled: The end of a Ted? Well, they dragged him from the wreckage of the Palais in bits. They tried to stick together all the bits that would fit. But some of him was missing and "part of him" arrived too late, So now he works for Jesus As the bouncer at St. Peter's Gate. To me, as an antheist, this is very amusing. In general, I am very pleased when prog-rock bands are anti-religious or atheistic (which appears to be the case in most cases, I suppose) . I hope Steve Wilison is an atheist too.

Well buddy... when you die... you'll be in for a surprise!

If ever a thread needed locking its this one.

'we pull jesus from the hat

get into that

get into that'.

what does it mean?

maani wrote: Arteum: Again, you proceed from false assumption.  Firstly, my grounding is science - and, ironically, particularly physics - is almost unarguably greater than yours.  I was a student of Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist who is one of the major proponents of the superstring theory.  I dare say I have read more "hard science" books than you have, in more areas of science, including physics, biology, chemistry, anthropology, naturalism, etc.  I am conversant in areas as diverse as the mating habits of lions and the properties of quarks, gluons, mesons and neutrinos.  And I take a back seat to no one (other than trained scientists) in astrophysics and superstring theory - not out of arrogance, but because I have read and studied more deeply than most. Evolution?  I would bet that 90% of the people who engage in debate on this issue have never even read "The Origin of Species" or "Descent of Man," or read them so long ago that they haven't the foggiest idea what they actually say.  I have read both of them twice, once only months ago, so they are fresh in my mind.  You are probably one who thinks that Darwin was an atheist who set out to disprove the existence of God.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Darwin was a Christian whose only earned degree was in theology.  And though his faith wavered at times, he remained a Christian throughout his life, becoming a deacon of his church, and being buried in Westminster Abbey. What Darwin set out to prove was not that God did not create life.  He set out to prove that God did not create every individual plant, insect, animal, etc. as an act of "special creation," but that species "evolved" through "natural selection."  However, Darwin credited that to God.  The following is quoted from the "Summary and Recapitulation" of "The Origin of Species": "Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created.  To my mind, it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed upon matter by the Creator that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes...There is grandeur in this view of life...having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one."  (Emphases mine.)  Not exactly a stinging rebuke of those who believe in God, is it?  Thus, Darwin believed that the "laws of the universe" - including evolution - were "impressed upon matter" by God.  There is no other interpretation of his statement. You say faith "represses" thinking?  Au contrarie!  "There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."  Similarly, the "Judeo-Christian construct" I believe in has far more room for the secular - logic, science, psychology, philosophy, etc. - than your narrow atheistic construct has for faith, metaphyics and anything you can't see, hear, taste, touch or smell.  So whose thinking is being repressed? Flawed brain?  I was invited to join Mensa when I was 15.  I was an honors math student from 5th to 10th grade.  I had the highest sophomore average in the history of my high school.  I am a national champion crossword puzzle solver.  I have never taken a law class, yet have won every case I have ever argued in court (over 15 of them), whether pro se or on behalf of others, out-arguing even high-priced attorneys.  I engage in reasoned, solidly supported debates with Ph.D.'s in a variety of subjects. Flawed brain?  I think not. Coward?  I'll tell you what.  Let's meet.  Then let's have someone put a gun to each of our heads.  Let's see who is afraid to die and who isn't.  Let's see who reacts from fear and who doesn't.  Does this mean I do not care about my life?  Of course not.  But it means that I have something you don't: an inner peace - a direct result of my faith - that it is unlikely you could achieve even if you wanted to. Let me leave you with a quote from no less an authority on science and rationalism than Albert Einstein: "Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exists between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies.  Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.  But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.  The source of this feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.  To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.  I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.  The situation may be expressed by an image: religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame." (Emphasis mine.) Peace.

I love Michio Kaku's books. Hyperspace is my favorite.