what makes man religious

[Diocle]

Agnostic. Find the mistake and rewrite the sentence correctly.

Atheist, as I wrote and I love to write here once again.

I don't accept your impersonification of myself, do you really think you know what I believe in? Who are you for assuming to know something about my mind and my heart?

If I write Atheist, it's because actually I'm Atheist, God doesn't exist, this is my choice, end of the tale.

Actually I see Agnosticism as a miserable variant of human cowardice, so, I don't like it. All in all, I prefer Theists or Atheists, that is people who has the testicles to take position about the meaning of life, assuming the (few) risks coming from this choice and (at least in my case) without thinking being the owners of some truth valid for others.

A suggestion? Never ask for something you can't get, it's meaningless, ridiculous and annoying (mainly for yourself).

[Garbarsardar]

I suggest you avoid personal references. Subsequent occurrences of personal off topic comments will be penalised. Oh, and please post in English.

[Ludicus]

Atheist, as I wrote and I love to write here once again...If I write Atheist, it's because actually I'm Atheist,

Please decide once and for all. Haven't you cited Pascal's Wager? "Then I take my risk, I gamble on...call me "atheist-theist"

Diocle

I see Agnosticism as a miserable variant of human cowardice, so, I don't like it

Always dramatically hyperbolic, excessive...
I see "atheist-theists" or "theist-atheists" as pseudo-religious travestis, so, I don't like it.
--

Edit, -avoiding personal references,

Diocle

I prefer Theists or Atheists, that is people who has the testicles to take position

Unless academic testosterone is distorting my judgment, in fact there are some studies suggesting that too much testosterone make men overvalue their opinions and behave irresponsibly.
Hitler did have only one ball, and look what he did...(well, with a little help of some testosterone injections).

[Gaidin]

Please decide once and for all. Haven't you cited Pascal's Wager? "Then I take my risk, I gamble on...call me "atheist-theist"

Pascal's Wager? That full of crap choice between the Christian God and no God? What about every other God in every other religion. What are your odds now? Roll that thousand and thousand sided die now and see how well you fair in the after life when nearly every religion out there wants to throw you into the depths of proverbial hell for not following them.

I don't know about Diocle, but I say I'm atheist because I can find no evidence of God, any God, so I see no reason to default to 'maybe' and say agnostic. It's just atheist until evidence turns up saying otherwise. Get over it.

[Ludicus]

Pascal's Wager? That full of crap choice between the Christian God and no God?

Exactly,that full of crap choice.Well said.

Gaidin

I say I'm atheist because I can find no evidence of God

It's (more or less) Bertrand Russel's opinion,

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

-----
Gaidin

I see no reason to default to 'maybe'... Get over it.

Well, I see no reason to default to "atheist".It's my intellectual position. Get over it...
I'm with Huxley,(and Kant and Hume)
Huxley,

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last.
The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" - had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion.

...That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism

[fkizz]

For me my moment came in Church, alone (morning mass) and that was the last time I went to Church that wasn't a school for family function. For me, the curtain had been lifted and I finally "got it" but what it was wasn't what I thought it would be.
After that all of my Church experiences were that of an actor, going through the motions of a play or LARP.

Well, being honest I can relate more than I should to what you say about Church and the "thou shall go to mass" as if it's one of the 10 commandments annoying background voice.

What I've gathered so far is that masses are basically a social ritual. The eagerness to go to or not to Church is highly dependent on who you already know you will meet there, and in more old times centuries ago the amount of distractions were basically infinitesimally small compared to what is around today, so it served as a pretext for people to meet using a religious bridge. Like when people arranging to have lunch or tea together, the point is not just the tea or the food itself, but the social interaction that comes because of it.

In here it's custom for everyone regardless of faith to go to mass some times during childhood (at least until 1st communion), regardless of how they turn out later. I remember feeling some eagerness in going to several it because I had guaranteed meeting with people I often got along with. No easy acess to mobile phones.
Also some distant friends and family that rarelly appeared all of sudden appeared together. No other more rational excuses to make them appear worked. So the point of "connecting with people and some other misterious force" could be felt, rather than just intellectualized.

So for you mass experience was an annoying routine discipline drill, like an early alarm clock ringing loud when you go to bed later, for me it was a means to meet people I would be distant of otherwise.
I will admit that in your position I would possibly have a different, more negative and more sceptic/cynical view of the institution Church.

And Church nowadays is too weakened out. Masses bend over too much to whatever modern trend is around. That takes appeal away as well.

But one goes to places where said people of your demographic and suposed similiar interests are nowadays in more current times (formerly church was one of them, now older age bars and discos), and even more depressing seeing an otherwise prospective opposite sex partner braging about having kissed 15 guys and messing around with you so you are the 16th.. and hurry up! so she can go the 17th or something. Or having women talk to you with sex literally as the first subject.
I mean men are what they are no doubt, but there's the imagination/platonic element thing working as the polar opposite. There's a difference between what a man does out of primal urge or what a man brings home to stay there and nurture. Bring the wrong thing and it's a ticking clock until long and costly court divorce process is inevitably happening.

This is the "evolved" alternative offered to younger people. Either you find a decent social circle with hobbies/gatherings outside of that, or well..

Basically, lets say it may not be a mere coincidence that some people talk of decline.

But to not forget main point, in your shoes of having the mass as the annoying morning clock after night of little sleep, I would grow irritated of it and have possibly different orientation later on.
--------------------------------

False. I haven't said that.Think twice before posting. I said that the religious fanaticism played a central role in the conflict between Europe and the Moslem world.

Well and County of Portugal went from County to Kingdom precisely in the Frontline of such tensions. D. Afonse Henriques is known to have been a skilled military commander, even got North European volunteers from 2nd Crusade to stay here under his command for Siege of Lisbon. The opponent? Moors (Jihadis from 900 years ago).This is basically a huge part of how Portugal starts as an independent Kingdom.

Given you spoke of such things as an emotive thing to reprove rather than in a more stoic manner of looking at Historical context, well conclusion doesn't seem too far off.

[Gaidin]

Exactly,that full of crap choice.Well said.

Gaidin

It's (more or less) Bertrand Russel's opinion,

Atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism aren't religions. There descriptions of positions on the existence of divine beings. There are, in fact, atheist religions. Trying to define an atheist or theist position on every known god to have theoretically existed is pretty useless. You're either atheist or you're not. Thanks for nothing Bertrand Russel.

[Ludicus]

You're either atheist or you're not.

Atheism and agnosticism are actually vastly different worldviews.Read above: Huxley, Hume, Kant.
Even the atheist philosopher William L. Rowe clearly explains,

...the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational. In the modern period, agnostics have appealed largely to the philosophies of Hume and Kant as providing the justification for agnosticism as a philosophical position.

Many atheists have argued that atheism should be defined as a lack of belief in God.

------
fkizz

Given you spoke of such things as an emotive thing to reprove rather than in a more stoic manner of looking at Historical context, well conclusion doesn't seem too far off.

Not at all. For better clarification - the word "dirty" doesn't make sense, I don't use it, and I don't need to take lessons on patriotism
You're not supposed to be so blind with "patriotism" that you can't face the historical reality.
(that's the problem with the ultra nationalists (not you, I know) a grandiose/heroic/lyric vision of the national history)

Allow me to quote A. Disney, A History of Portugal and the Portuguese Empire, volume 1,page 66,

As Armesto has shown, the sense of a long, continuing struggle between good and evil-Christianity and Islam- was strong at the Leonese court around the year 1000. But is was not until the late eleventh century that religious fanaticism might be considered the dominant drive force of the Reconquest...the territorial ambitions of Christian leaders, sometimes involving intense competition, was another factor of growing importance

[Diocle]

Pascal's Wager? That full of crap choice between the Christian God and no God? What about every other God in every other religion. What are your odds now? Roll that thousand and thousand sided die now and see how well you fair in the after life when nearly every religion out there wants to throw you into the depths of proverbial hell for not following them.

I don't know about Diocle, but I say I'm atheist because I can find no evidence of God, any God, so I see no reason to default to 'maybe' and say agnostic. It's just atheist until evidence turns up saying otherwise. Get over it.

You or me, we can't prove that God/Gods doesn't exist using logic, because for definition God is beyond the territory of logic, it can't be reached by our mind, even because if we were able to state, using some kind of algorithm, that God is non-existent, the game would be over, and we all would not be here, waiting for the next Islamic massacre, perpetrated in name of their God. So, sadly, up to now, we have not yet discovered the final equation of the non-existence of God. At this point, in my opinion, we have two main roads to choose:

1 - One road is saving our ass saying - Who cares? I'm agnostic! - Congrats. Game over. You're a smart guy. Bravo.

2 - The other one instead is more complex, painful and dividing, but also more interesting: it consists in taking position, even though we can't prove it, we can believe in God or we can say - God doesn't exist. - both these choices are in explicit contradiction, one excludes the other.

- That is, choosing God, you give a new meaning to your life, a new meaning which explains every aspect of our life experience: death, pain, love, passion, war, hate, suffering, time, space, universe, everything now finds a new meaning, every single part of our lives can be, if not fully understood, at least accepted as God's will. You're here, on this planet, because you're part of a big supernatural design, any action and decision taken, plays a role in the big fresco of the divine will. Everything is finalized to some kind of meaning, so everything finds a meaning in the end, even though our minds are too small to fully understand it, as part of a whole. Key words are: faith and hope.

- Instead if you choose the matter, then you exclude any kind of external explaination for the world in which you live, there is no meaning, there is no finality, there is just matter, colliding and competing to survive, we are just slow chemical combustions, we are on this planet without any reason, there is no finality in our existence, we have nothing to prove, there's no tribunal for us and for our actions, we are the judges and the tribunal of ourselves; there is not even any hope to save our ass if we fail, there is only one life lasting more or less 80 or 90 years then .. nothing, nothing at all, we have just one shot, then we will vanish as thinking subjects. In atheism the nothing is the most peaceful and damn hard concept to accept, accepting the real end of ourselves as thinking subjects is probably the hardest part of atheism, but, all in all, it's also very consolatory.
I've made my choice, I can't rationally prove that God doesn't exist, being God an irrational concept/presence. I firmly refuse to explain the world using God, for I believe in the non-existence of God, this is why
I'm theistically atheist, the non-existence of God has for me the same value of faith. This is called materialism, and believe me, not always it's an easy trail on which taking a walk.



Side note: Of course, when I write the word "God" I'm not talking of the Christain deity, I'm talking of any form of metaphysical presence/s beyond the physic space we can touch, measure, and understand (in some way).

[Gaidin]

Atheism and agnosticism are actually vastly different worldviews.Read above: Huxley, Hume, Kant.
Even the atheist philosopher William L. Rowe clearly explains,

I never said they were. You're up there speaking like somebody has to choose one over the other. Why should I let my atheism effect my agnosticism? The two don't exclude each other. Until you try to capitalize the A's. And then the terms are just wrong.

[chriscase]

You or me, we can't prove that God/Gods doesn't exist using logic, because for definition God is beyond the territory of logic, it can't be reached by our mind, even because if we were able to state, using some kind of algorithm, that God is non-existent, the game would be over, and we all would not be here, waiting for the next Islamic massacre, perpetrated in name of their God. So, sadly, up to now, we have not yet discovered the final equation of the non-existence of God. At this point, in my opinion, we have two main roads to choose:

1 - One road is saving our ass saying - Who cares? I'm agnostic! - Congrats. Game over. You're a smart guy. Bravo.

2 - The other one instead is more complex, painful and dividing, but also more interesting: it consists in taking position, even though we can't prove it, we can believe in God or we can say - God doesn't exist. - both these choices are in explicit contradiction, one excludes the other.

- That is, choosing God, you give a new meaning to your life, a new meaning which explains every aspect of our life experience: death, pain, love, passion, war, hate, suffering, time, space, universe, everything now finds a new meaning, every single part of our lives can be, if not fully understood, at least accepted as God's will. You're here, on this planet, because you're part of a big supernatural design, any action and decision taken, plays a role in the big fresco of the divine will. Everything is finalized to some kind of meaning, so everything finds a meaning in the end, even though our minds are too small to fully understand it, as part of a whole. Key words are: faith and hope.

- Instead if you choose the matter, then you exclude any kind of external explaination for the world in which you live, there is no meaning, there is no finality, there is just matter, colliding and competing to survive, we are just slow chemical combustions, we are on this planet without any reason, there is no finality in our existence, we have nothing to prove, there's no tribunal for us and for our actions, we are the judges and the tribunal of ourselves; there is not even any hope to save our ass if we fail, there is only one life lasting more or less 80 or 90 years then .. nothing, nothing at all, we have just one shot, then we will vanish as thinking subjects. In atheism the nothing is the most peaceful and damn hard concept to accept, accepting the real end of ourselves as thinking subjects is probably the hardest part of atheism, but, all in all, it's also very consolatory.
I've made my choice, I can't rationally prove that God doesn't exist, being God an irrational concept/presence. I firmly refuse to explain the world using God, for I believe in the non-existence of God, this is why
I'm theistically atheist, the non-existence of God has for me the same value of faith. This is called materialism, and believe me, not always it's an easy trail on which taking a walk.



Side note: Of course, when I write the word "God" I'm not talking of the Christain deity, I'm talking of any form of metaphysical presence/s beyond the physic space we can touch, measure, and understand (in some way).

I think there are a number of problems with the approach you have outlined here.

In the first place, you will find less than unanimous agreement that all God definitions are irrational (or put more mathematically, poorly-defined). More to the point, once you have relegated God to the realms of the irrational, you have also expelled it from the objective. Now if you want to grant the possibility of existence to this non-objective, poorly defined entity, you need to reinvent the concept of existence, because by standard application of the concept the god you have described does not meet the minimal qualifications for existence.

As to your attempt to hold diametrically opposed positions, I think you have created a bit of a false choice for yourself. One might observe that the existence of irrational beliefs shouldn't in itself drive us to discard a rational approach to our own thought processes. Conversely if you wish to posit a thought experiment as to what one might think or say about a theoretical entity that is by definition beyond any possible investigation, mental or physical; I would say the only reasonable conclusion to reach about such a thing is that it is not worth talking or thinking about. I would hold it as a thought process that might be beneficial to one's mental hygiene in the same sense that a computer might benefit from a reboot. But as an actual model of anything in the world it has no use.

[Diocle]

I think there are a number of problems with the approach you have outlined here.

In the first place, you will find less than unanimous agreement that all God definitions are irrational (or put more mathematically, poorly-defined). More to the point, once you have relegated God to the realms of the irrational, you have also expelled it from the objective. Now if you want to grant the possibility of existence to this non-objective, poorly defined entity, you need to reinvent the concept of existence, because by standard application of the concept the god you have described does not meet the minimal qualifications for existence.

As to your attempt to hold diametrically opposed positions, I think you have created a bit of a false choice for yourself. One might observe that the existence of irrational beliefs shouldn't in itself drive us to discard a rational approach to our own thought processes.

Indeed chris, if you read my previous post, you'll discover that I quoted Blaise Pascal, so i'm aware of the rational (Catholic in this case) approach to the concept of God, so, I don't need to quote (even to avoid mass murdering people and fellow forum members using the dangerous weapon of mass destruction known as Agonizing Boredom!) Aristotles, Plato, Plotinus, or René Descartes and all the characters involved in the study of a rational approach to faith to prove my intellectual awareness about it. The problem is that I needed to get some synthesis, trying to stay loyal to the OP:

What is it that makes man religious even to the point of killing others who don't agree with him?

Have you read chris? It's the OP that is pushing us to consider religion a pretty irrational universe (it would be very hard for me thinking that men killing other men for their faith, are doing this in the name of any rational thinking. At least, I refuse this approach.), so it comes my synthesis: God's definitions have to be irrational because we haven't yet found a way to mathematically prove (or disprove) the existence of matter beyond the matter, nor we are able to advance any rational hypothesis about the existence of a world Μετά τα φυσικά acting on our lives from outside of our rational mind.

That said, I see only two choices:

1 - Disengaging ourselves from the issue -> Agnosticism.

2 - Engaging ourselves in the issue -> Theism / Atheism.

If you have any third position, I'm ready to read it and I'll be forever grateful to you for having introduced me into a new world, whose depths are still unexplored by my limited intellect.

Conversely if you wish to posit a thought experiment as to what one might think or say about a theoretical entity that is by definition beyond any possible investigation, mental or physical;
I would say the only reasonable conclusion to reach about such a thing is that it is not worth talking or thinking about.

I disagree. Let me quote just a simple example of ancient elementary mathematics, as clear sign concerning the absolute necessity of facing the unnecessary figure of God:

Golden Ratio, or Divina Proportione or just .. Φ (Phi) = 1.618033988749895…

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.goldennumber.net/what-is-phi/

.

What makes a single number so interesting that ancient Greeks, Renaissance artists, a 17th century astronomer and a 21st century novelist all would write about it? It’s a number that goes by many names. This “golden” number, 1.61803399, represented by the Greek letter Phi, is known as the Golden Ratio, Golden Number, Golden Proportion, Golden Mean, Golden Section, Divine Proportion and Divine Section. It was written about by Euclid in “Elements” around 300 B.C., by Luca Pacioli, a contemporary of Leonardo Da Vinci, in “De Divina Proportione” in 1509, by Johannes Kepler around 1600 and by Dan Brown in 2003 in his best selling novel, “The Da Vinci Code.” With the movie release of the “The Da Vinci Code”, the quest to know Phi was brought even more into the mainstream of pop culture. The allure of “The Da Vinci Code” was that it creatively integrated fiction with both fact and myth from art, history, theology and mathematics, leaving the reader never really knowing what was truth and what was not. This site studies this golden number Phi, and its mathematical cousin, the Fibonacci sequence (0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, …) , both of which have roles in the plot of this murder mystery, and distinguishes between the myth and the math.

Mathematics of the Golden Ratio

This Golden Ratio truly is unique in its mathematical properties and pervasive in its appearance throughout nature. The “mathematically challenged” may be more interested in the appearances of Phi in nature, its application to art, architecture and design, and its potential for insights into the more spiritual aspects of life, but let’s begin with the purest of facts about Phi, which are found in mathematics.
Most everyone learned about the number Pi in school, but relatively few curricula included Phi, perhaps for the very reason that grasping all its manifestations often takes one beyond the academic into the realm of the spiritual just by the simple fact that Phi unveils a unusually frequent constant of design that applies to so many aspects of life. Both Pi and Phi are irrational numbers with an infinite number of digits after the decimal point, as indicated by “…”, the ellipsis.
Where Pi or p (3.14…) is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, Phi or Φ (1.618 …) is the Golden Ratio that results when a line is divided in one very special and unique way. To illustrate, suppose you were asked to take a string and cut it. There’s any number of places that you could cut it, and each place would result in different ratios for the length of the small piece to the large piece, and of the large piece to the entire string. There is one unique point, however, at which the ratio of the large piece to the smaller piece is exactly the same as the ratio of the whole string to the larger piece, and at this point this Golden Ratio of both is 1.618 to 1, or Phi.

What makes this so much more than an interesting exercise in mathematics is that this proportion appears throughout creation and extensively in the human face and body. It’s found in the proportions of many other animals, in plants, in the solar system and even in the price and timing movements of stock markets and foreign currency exchange. Its appeal thus ranges from mathematicians to doctors to naturalists to artists to investors to mystics.
Part of the uniqueness of Phi is that it can be derived in many other ways than segmenting a line.

• Phi is the only number whose square is greater than itself by one, expressed mathematically as Φ² = Φ + 1 = 2.618.
• Phi is also the only number whose reciprocal is less than itself by one, expressed as 1/Φ = Φ – 1 = 0.618.

These two qualities of phi can be expressed algebraically as a+1=a² and a-1=1/a. This can then be rearranged and expressed as a²-a -1=0 . This is a quadratic equation, the only positive solution of which is:

Φ = (1 + √5) /2 = 1.61803398874989484820…

Where 1.618 is represented in upper case as Phi or Φ, its near twin or reciprocal, 0.618, is often represented in lower case as phi or φ. Phi is an irrational number, a number which cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integer numbers.

The Fibonacci Sequence

The Fibonacci sequence, also a plot element in “The Da Vinci Code,” provides yet another way to derive Phi mathematically. The series is quite simple. Start with 0 and add 1 to get 1. Then repeat the process of adding each two numbers in the series to determine the next one: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, and so on. This pattern is also found in the diagonals of Pascal’s Triangle. The relationship to the Golden Ratio or Phi is found by dividing each number by the one before it. The further you go in the series, the closer the result gets to Phi. For example:

1/1=1
2/1=2
3/2=1.5
5/3 = 1.666
13/8 = 1.625
21/13=1.615

If you go further into the series and you’ll find that 233/144 = 1.61805, a very close approximation of Phi, which to ten decimal places is 1.6180339887.

Geometry of the Golden Ratio

The Golden Ratio is also found in geometry, appearing in basic constructions of an equilateral triangle, square and pentagon placed inside a circle, as well as in more complex three-dimensional solids such as dodecahedrons, icosahedrons and “Bucky balls,” which were named for Buckminster Fuller and are the basis for the shapes of both Carbon 60 and soccer balls.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), discoverer of the true elliptical nature of the orbits of the planets in the solar system described it as such: “Geometry has two great treasures: one is the Theorem of Pythagoras; the other, the division of a line into extreme and mean ratio. The first we may compare to a measure of gold; the second we may name a precious jewel.” (See other Quotations)

Nature and Life

There are many other fascinating mathematical relationships and oddities in both Phi and the Fibonacci series that can be explored in more depth, but for now let’s now take a step away from the purely mathematical and venture into nature, where Phi and the Fibonacci series manifest themselves pervasively, but not universally. Fibonacci numbers frequently appear in the numbers of petals in a flower and in the spirals of plants. The positions and proportions of the key dimensions of many animals are based on Phi. Examples include the body sections of ants and other insects, the wing dimensions and location of eye-like spots on moths, the spirals of sea shells and the position of the dorsal fins on porpoises. Even the spirals of human DNA embody phi proportions.

Perceptions of Beauty

More intriguing yet is the extensive appearance of Phi throughout the human form, in the face, body, fingers, teeth and even our DNA, and the impact that this has on our perceptions of human beauty. Some would argue that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but there is evidence to support that what we perceive as beauty in women and men is based on how closely the proportions of facial and body dimensions come to Phi. It seems that Phi is hard-wired into our consciousness as a guide to beauty. For this reason, Phi is applied in both facial plastic surgery and cosmetic dentistry as a guide to achieving the most natural and beautiful results in facial features and appearance.

Art, Architecture and Design

With all the unique mathematical properties of Phi and its appearance throughout creation, it’s little wonder that mankind would not only take notice of this number and the Golden Ratio it creates, but also use it to capture the beauty and harmony of nature in our own creations in art, architecture and other areas of design. In some cases, mankind’s application of Phi is undeniable. In other cases, it is still the subject of debate. The Great Pyramid of Egypt appears to embody the Golden Ratio in the ratios of its base, height and hypotenuse, but its missing outer shell and the absence of the mention of Phi in ancient Egyptian writings make it difficult to prove conclusively that this was by design. The Greeks knew of Phi at the time of the building of the Parthenon, and while its overall dimensions only approximate the golden ratio, there appears to be evidence of it use in the design of the beam atop the columns. The confusion on these points leads to those who contest this as well. It is recognized that Leonardo Da Vinci used Phi, known in the 1500’s as “The Divine Proportion,” in a number of his paintings. Other artists, including Raphael, Sandro Botticelli and Georges Seurat did as well. While this is undeniable, some people creatively overlay golden spirals to images where others do not believe they were intended by the artist. The dimensions of the treasured Stradivarius violins built around 1700 show Phi relationships. It plays a role in music and acoustics. More modern applications of the Golden Ratio in architecture can be seen in Notre Dame in Paris, the United Nations Headquarters Secretariat building in New York and the CN Tower in Toronto. It’s commonly used in the design of products and logos and by many major corporations. It has even been used in high fashion clothing design, such as in the “Phi Collection” announced in 2004 and covered by Vogue, Elle and Vanity Fair. It’s also the basis for The Fashion Code, a style guide to women’s dress. Various studies have tested to see if a golden rectangle is the most pleasing rectangle to the human eye. Results of the studies are mixed, but generally point to rectangles with shapes close to the golden rectangle as being most pleasing.

The Solar System and Universe

Curiously enough, we even find golden ratio relationships in the solar system and universe. The diameters of the Earth and Moon form a triangle whose dimensions are based on the mathematical characteristics of phi. The distances of the planets from the sun correlate surprisingly closely to exponential powers of Phi. The beautiful rings of Saturn are very close in dimension to the golden ratio of the planet’s diameter. NASA released findings in 2003 that the shape of the Universe is a dodecahedron based on Phi.

New Discoveries involving the Golden Ratio

The Golden Ratio continues to open new doors in our understanding of life and the universe. It appeared in Roger Penrose’s discovery in the 1970’s of “Penrose Tiles,” which allowed surfaces to be tiled in five-fold symmetry, a task previously thought impossible. It appeared again in the 1980’s in the three-dimensional molecular arrangement of quasi-crystals, a newly discovered form of matter. As we enter the 21st century, Phi seems to be having a rebirth in integrating knowledge across a wide variety of fields of study, including time and quantum physics.

Spiritual Aspects

The description of this golden proportion as the Divine proportion is perhaps fitting because it is seen by many as a door to a deeper understanding of beauty and spirituality in life, unveiling a hidden harmony or connectedness in so much of what we see. That’s an incredible role for a single number to play, but then again this one number has played an incredible role in human history and in the foundations of life itself. The line between its mathematical and mystical aspects is thus not easily drawn.

Phi does not appear explicitly in the Bible or other ancient scriptures, yet we find that the dimensions given by God to Noah for the Ark and to Moses for the Ark of the Covenant both reflect a 5 to 3 proportion, Fibonacci numbers with a ratio of 1.666, and a reasonably close approximation to Phi. The Kaaba, the most sacred site of Islam in Mecca, is located very close to the golden ratio of the distance between the Earth’s north and south poles. Curiously enough, even the symbol for Phi, a circle with a line drawn through it, can be thought to represent a zero, or void, divided by one, or Unity, to create beauty, analogous to God creating the universe from nothing.

.

Now, many think Divine Proportion is the imprint of God on the Universe, in any case, even though nobody will ever be able to mathematically prove or disprove the existence of God, we have to face Golden Ratio math's every day in any activity of our life, either we believe or not in God, so, it's almost unavoidable, for the heirs of Odisseus, feeling the need to gaze into the eyes of God, even to kill him cursing his name, or just to refuse his existence, but, in any case, facing the problem with all the moral and intellectual weapons we have at our disposal.

So, it seems to me that the most relevant part of this tale it's that the concept of God may be worth some interest, some moral engagement, some deep thought by our part and not just a smart, convenient and, let me say please, pretty coward agnostic removal from our spiritual landscape.




Regards.
Diocle, devout atheist.

[basics]

Diocle,

Wouldn't you then agree that if there never was a God man wouldn't be arguing about Him? The very fact that many have claimed to know that there is a God has to influence the argument that there isn't one way or another in the minds of those that take the opposite view.

[Gaidin]

That's some amazing circular logic dude.

[fkizz]

we have to face Golden Ratio math's every day in any activity of our life, either we believe or not in God, so, it's almost unavoidable, for the heirs of Odisseus, feeling the need to gaze into the eyes of God, even to kill him cursing his name, or just to refuse his existence, but, in any case, facing the problem with all the moral and intellectual weapons we have at our disposal.

So, it seems to me that the most relevant part of this tale it's that the concept God may be worth some interest, some moral engagement, some deep thought by our part and not just a smart, convenient and, let me say please, pretty coward agnostic removal from our spiritual landscape.

Excelent post, it's also baffling that you even find the Golden Ratio in Fibonnaci Sequence and Pascal Pyramid, and many endless other things. Literally impossible to escape the Golden Ratio. It's also imprinted in the way our genetics manifest, due to our bodily proportions following Golden Ratio aswell.

Indeed a number ratio with an infinitely high number of coincidencences to be mere coincidences I'd say.

------
Not at all. For better clarification - the word "dirty" doesn't make sense, I don't use it, and I don't need to take lessons on patriotism
You're not supposed to be so blind with "patriotism" that you can't face the historical reality.
(that's the problem with the ultra nationalists (not you, I know) a grandiose/heroic/lyric vision of the national history)

Allow me to quote A. Disney, A History of Portugal and the Portuguese Empire, volume 1,page 66,

Quote taken. Regardless issue is, lamenting too much on the type of tensions that allowed your country to even have a chance to rise in the first place, because important actors (in the sense of action) took the chance fate put in front of them, and said context was that of religious warfare, may not only be inducive of defeatist thought, but can give a serious case of "When you look at the abyss, it looks back at you".

Do you think it would be healthy for a citizen of Old Rome to look and re-look at the story of how Romulus and Remus had to be fed as infants and how that is lamenting and sorrowful? Without focusing on anything else good or virtuous? Because that's the impression your posts sort of give, no offense, but replace Rome with your country.

On Nationalism, well, I can say with a fair degree of honesty characters like João Ferreira do Amaral are more Nationalistic than me, so take that as you want. I tend to agree more often with our left and center left parties on pragmatic (non ideological) issues than our right wing (in true colors Neo-Liberal globalism breeding grounds) ones.

[basics]

That's some amazing circular logic dude.

Gaidin,

Circular logic or just plain good old Scots linguo a fankle because that's what I see being argued here that still doesn't answer the simple explanation of why man becomes religious?

[Diocle]

Gaidin,

Circular logic or just plain good old Scots linguo a fankle because that's what I see being argued here that still doesn't answer the simple explanation of why man becomes religious?

You know that your question has no answer. Don't you? If it was otherwise not only this thread but also the last 2000 years of debate about Christianism would be wiped out.

Rhetorical questions are an ancient, precious and decorative Roman tool, suitable to decorate any discussion, in any case it's necessary knowing they are just rhetoric.

[fkizz]

You know that your question has no answer. Don't you? If it was otherwise not only this thread but also the last 2000 years of debate about Christianism would be wiped out.

If it has answer it's not easily explainable.

A thing I've noticed, assuming societal colapses can happen every 250-300 years (some of them more significant than others), and that Christian orders manage to stay alive and intact in the meanwhile..

People who find other things to "save" them, even if they work on a literally materialistic sense, eventually either themselves or their ancestors will see what they took for granted disappear, as old society order crumbles and a new one appears. This happening cyclically for millenia, and with things such as Christian orders and Monasteries outliving said colapse, guarantees that on a bizarrely and ironical Darwinistic sense Christianity remains alive.
I guess it's dividends paying from surviving major colapses. Given it was around during the time of Roman Emperors, the colapse of Western Roman Empire was not enough to bring Christianity down.

Similiar recurrent pattern thing noted in Chinese dinastical colapses and their (with Asian religions) monasteries.

Though it's a logic following cycles and very long timespans.

[Ludicus]

You're up there speaking like somebody has to choose one over the other.

Hmm,no, not at all.
-----
Diocle

we can't prove that God/Gods doesn't exist using logic, because for definition God is beyond the territory of logic

Exactly. For instance, I understand - and even admire - Kierkegaard's position.

Diocle

One road is saving our ass saying - Who cares? I'm agnostic! - Congrats. Game over.

I don't even understand what that means "one road is saving our ass". In what sense? let's suppose that God exists.Well, if he exists, I'm with Pessoa,
"To think of God is to disobey to God,
Because God wanted us not to know him,
And therefore did not show himself to us...
Let's be calm and simple,
Like books and trees,
And God will love us for it, make us
Beautiful as brooks and trees,
And will give us the green of his spring,
And a river to go when we are done!..."


Diocle

but also more interesting: it consists in taking position

It's also "interesting",and above all -it's more rational- to take the position that is not possible to know the truth.Why should I believe in one thing or another?

Diocle

choosing God, you give a new meaning to your life

Obviously...

Diocle

...being God an irrational concept/presence

The concept of God is no more or less rational/irrational than the concept of the initial singularity.

Diocle

I believe in the non-existence of God,

I believe in evolution because the evidence is overwhelming, but I can't disprove the existence of a supreme being as the first cause. I don't have an answer.

-----------

fkizz

Given you spoke of such things as an emotive thing to reprove ...lamenting too much on the type of tensions that allowed your country to even have a chance to rise in the first place..

Here we go again...
I said that religion can only aggravate conflict. It's a fact. Portugal was born from religious warfare, it's a fact. I said that the religious fanaticism played a central role in the conflict between Europe and the Muslim world, it's a fact.

I don't "lament" it. Have I said that? Why should I reprove or lament the past, or look at the past through the eyes of present? you are confused, fkizz. (have you read my posts in "Portugal Faction Thread"?)

Allow me to cite another author, the Anglo-Spanish Felipe Armesto, in "Portuguese Expansion in Global Context",page 506
What difference did it make?...
"...Portugal played a vital role-or, for its black and native Brazilians victims a lethal one- in creating the Atlantic networks around which modern Western civilization took shape: revealing the South Atlantic wind system and liking it with the Indian Ocean; and pioneering transfusions of blood and culture to across the ocean. The Portuguese example thought the potential of the transatlantic slave trade to other Europeans who engaged on it"
The Atlantic in, in a sense, a Portuguese see, with Portuguese speaking communities dotted around its shores..."
----
I could go on, but may I ask - what your (very white and very patriotic) heart has to say? do you agree? are you satisfied now? or do you disapprove or lament the "transfusions of blood and culture"...? was it good? was it bad?
Humm?

-----

Iyou have relegated God to the realms of the irrational

As Marie Louise von Preussen put it, three years ago (another thread), it seems that metaphysics is dead here.

[fkizz]

----
I could go on, but may I ask - what your (very white and very patriotic) heart has to say? do you agree? are you satisfied now? or do you disapprove or lament the "transfusions of blood and culture"...? was it good? was it bad?
Humm?

On Slavery, we started by mimicking the trade that Moroccans did at the time, and the Berber Pirates, including their slave trade. Difference being unlike the former two, we didn't castrate the slaves.

So yes, being good student may give mixed results.

Also see all the terrorist strikes near Christian-symbolic places today.. you may have a problem with a similiriarity or two today, with a living chance to make a personal difference.