The problem with Religious debates ONLINE

Originally posted by RRokkyy
Science (scientific materialism) is just another religion.
You should have figured that out by now.
Science just predicts how things behave under
various states or conditions.
Science cant even explain what Time,Space,Energy,or Substance is let alone
Consciousness.
It is all arising mysteriously in the present moment.
Reality can never be known, only Intuited or Felt.
Religious belief is just a childish adaptation to life, and
atheism just adolescent rebellion from the True Principle of
Self Sacrifice.
Jesus did not teach belief but the sacrifice of belief
as Love. Religious Belief is paganism,mind control,and evil.

edit on 4-8-2012 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)

No, science is the prediction of our reality based on the observations we make about it. As observations reveal patterns, we describe the patterns and give them names. Yeah, science can't explain a lot, because a lot still doesn't make sense. That's accepted.

The difference between science and religion is that science says "We don't know, but we'll keep trying to figure it out." Religion merely says, "We know, because a book a bunch of different people wrote tells me so."

Even Jesus wasn't written down until a few generations after his death. Wouldn't that twist or exaggerate his true story?

reply to post by Varemia

As far as I have been able to learn the earliest writing of the Old Testament came from the A.D. 50's, and the latest was written between 70 and 90. A lot of people were alive in that time that lived through the events. I don't see a lot of evidence for the idea that the gospel writers didn't write down what they saw or what they were told by people who did.

reply to post by BSTStar

Dude, it's Friday night. People are out having fun. All I'm saying is certain things are backed by facts and certain things are not. Biology, chemistry, genetics and modern synthesis are all backed by facts. Religion is not. God is not. Faith is not. I know you don't like to hear that, but that's the truth. Don't be upset with me, I'm only the messenger. I'm not just some hack taking a stab in the dark. I'm talking about peer reviewed scientific experiments with results that can be tested by anybody who doubts them. I just don't understand why you'd equate a method of gathering information to a faith based belief system. They are exact opposites. When a hypothesis is falsified, it's no longer a hypothesis. You said scientific conclusions were based on assumptions. They are based on experiment results.

Nobody's saying science is perfect. It is the best explanation we have based on the evidence. But that doesn't mean it's a complete guess, or that all of a sudden the field of biology gets proven wrong and disappears. Slight adjustments and modifications are usually made, but ground breaking discoveries do happen.

reply to post by Barcs

It is the best explanation we have based on the evidence.

Exactly. That's why religion is so solid, particularly Christianity. The documents are historical evidence. By applying various scientific and logical techniques, historians, document examiners, textual critics, and others, have come up with the "best explanation."

That's a solid foundation for belief.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to [url= by Barcs[/url]

 

It is the best explanation we have based on the evidence.

Exactly. That's why religion is so solid, particularly Christianity. The documents are historical evidence. By applying various scientific and logical techniques, historians, document examiners, textual critics, and others, have come up with the "best explanation."

That's a solid foundation for belief.

Belief in a supernatural entity with no evidence for anything supernatural, ever.

That's not in any way, shape or form a solid foundation for belief

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Barcs

 

It is the best explanation we have based on the evidence.

Exactly. That's why religion is so solid, particularly Christianity. The documents are historical evidence. By applying various scientific and logical techniques, historians, document examiners, textual critics, and others, have come up with the "best explanation."

That's a solid foundation for belief.

Actually, it was ridiculously common at that point in time to exaggerate stories and even make them up as they were told by story-tellers. If something seemed to lack detail, it would be literally made up. The Bible is about as historically accurate as Harry Potter.

In fact, the whole part about the Jews as slaves in Egypt is basically proven completely wrong, while most other parts of the Bible are completely impossible to validate. Historical document my ass.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Barcs

 

It is the best explanation we have based on the evidence.

Exactly. That's why religion is so solid, particularly Christianity. The documents are historical evidence. By applying various scientific and logical techniques, historians, document examiners, textual critics, and others, have come up with the "best explanation."

That's a solid foundation for belief.

So you have evidence to suggest the bible stories are valid? Experiments, repeatable tests? If you want to suggest religion is the same as science, that needs to be demonstrated. Why don't you consider the Quaran and other holy books as evidence as well? They are just as "valid" as the bible, and when I say valid, I mean there's no evidence for any of them being accurate, especially when nobody even knows the origins of the stories.

There appears to be some confusion over the words, "scientific," "reliable," and "evidence." Perhaps I'm using them incorrectly.

I'd also prefer to stick with the New Testament, because the Old Testament includes books that were intended to be lyrical poems, a "Poor Richard's Almanac" of advice, hymns, etc.

It seems that I've been taken to mean more than I intended to say. The ancient manuscripts are evidence. They can be, and have been, subjected to any number of repeatable tests. Scholars have used, for centuries, the recognized techniques of their fields to analyze the words on the documents as well as the material they were written on.

They have been compared against each other for consistency, and checked against the known facts of the time. The language has been studied, so has the writing styles. Conclusions have been reached. If you go to any of these Ph.D holders and accuse them of having no evidence for their conclusions and they are just blindly believing based on their cultural programming, you will be laughed at or hit with a rolled up thesis.

Now, you may not agree with their conclusions. That's fine, but to say it's unscientific is something I would not care to do.

Oh, scientific proof of the supernatural? That's self-contradictory. Science doesn't prove or disprove the supernatural. It's instruments can only be directed at nature, not the things outside of it. First let science build a device that can definitely detect a god, if one is there. Then you can make your tests, check your dials and announce your results.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by RRokkyy
Science (scientific materialism) is just another religion.
You should have figured that out by now.
Science just predicts how things behave under
various states or conditions.
Science cant even explain what Time,Space,Energy,or Substance is let alone
Consciousness.
It is all arising mysteriously in the present moment.
Reality can never be known, only Intuited or Felt.
Religious belief is just a childish adaptation to life, and
atheism just adolescent rebellion from the True Principle of
Self Sacrifice.
Jesus did not teach belief but the sacrifice of belief
as Love. Religious Belief is paganism,mind control,and evil.

edit on 4-8-2012 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)

No, science is the prediction of our reality based on the observations we make about it. As observations reveal patterns, we describe the patterns and give them names. Yeah, science can't explain a lot, because a lot still doesn't make sense. That's accepted.

The difference between science and religion is that science says "We don't know, but we'll keep trying to figure it out." Religion merely says, "We know, because a book a bunch of different people wrote tells me so."

Even Jesus wasn't written down until a few generations after his death. Wouldn't that twist or exaggerate his true story?

Admit it! Nothing makes any sense!
Why are you here?
Where did you come from?
Where are you going?
E=MC2 explains the conversion of energy to mass. But it in
no way explains what energy or mass is. There is no explanation for that.

I can explain you in two words and a question mark.
You are always,Avoiding Relationship?
THAT IS ALL THAT YOU ARE ALWAYS DOING IN EACH MOMENT
OF YOUR CONFUSED EXISTENCE.
You are always separating yourself from your Divine Nature as REality Itself.
There is ONLY THE ONENESS.
Nothing else exists.
God Only.
Only God.
Neither faith nor belief will reveal it.
Only Radical Understanding in Each Moment
through Self Observation.
Grace is Always Already Given.
It need not be sought.
Searching is Separating Yourself.
Dont Seek.
Understand Seeking.
Reality or the Divine is No Seeking or Love/Bliss.
All this is explained in The Knee of Listening by Adi Da
But you as Narcissus prefers to seek.
Thus no one will listen to the Truth.
You always meditate upon your self existence,
in Fear. Fear is your own creation as you separate
yourself from yourself as The Oneness.
The Oneness is Prior to Fear.
This is the Fourth Great Teaching.
Krishna
Buddha
Jesus
Da
There is nothing more to know.

The Religious people will reject this because they are
Narcissus, in love with themselves as limited egos.
They seek some magical heaven where their egos
will be equal to God and eternal. They truly worship
themselves.
The scientific materialists,atheists,etc are also in love
with themselves and will reject the principle of sacrifice
of the ego.
But all the great spiritual traditions demand the sacrifice
of the ego self.
Narcissus must die. That is the Spiritual Law.

reply to post by windword

Ultimately, they WILL be disappointed to see mankind succeed and evolve without the intervention of their returning savior.

They will cry out for the Mountains to fall on them, and kill them, but they cannot die. They will cry out for help from those who have already left.

Originally posted by RRokkyy
You are always,Avoiding Relationship?

I believe in God. Just not yours.

Face it. The Bible is simply a book. It's your choice to believe that it is divine, but it will only be that to you. The time when people find out the truth is after death, when no one can return to say if it was true or not. I personally think that if I deserve Hell for not believing it, then I will gladly take Hell.

Originally posted by charles1952Oh, scientific proof of the supernatural? That's self-contradictory. Science doesn't prove or disprove the supernatural. It's instruments can only be directed at nature, not the things outside of it. First let science build a device that can definitely detect a god, if one is there. Then you can make your tests, check your dials and announce your results.

Supernatural events supposedly manifest themselves within the physical universe, so why couldn't they be detected?

with indifference,
Prezbo369
(as it says to the left of all my posts, just above my avatar, just in-case anybody missed it)

reply to post by Prezbo369

Dear Prezbo369,

Supernatural events supposedly manifest themselves within the physical universe, so why couldn't they be detected?

Good idea, but I think you have to take it one step farther. As a first example, say you are looking out a window and see a branch waving back and forth. Is the wind blowing it, or is a child, out of sight, shaking it? You can see the effects, but know nothing of the cause. Consider any reported miracle, say, one of the healings at Lourdes. Doctors can study the patient's condition before and after the healing, certainly, but they can't come up with any explanation for it's improvement.

You're absolutely right that the manifestation can be, and is, studied. It's what's behind the manifestations that are out of our reach.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
Good idea, but I think you have to take it one step farther. As a first example, say you are looking out a window and see a branch waving back and forth. Is the wind blowing it, or is a child, out of sight, shaking it? You can see the effects, but know nothing of the cause.

Conducting a very basic investigation into why the branch was moving would answer that masterful conundrum.

Consider any reported miracle, say, one of the healings at Lourdes. Doctors can study the patient's condition before and after the healing, certainly, but they can't come up with any explanation for it's improvement.

Diseases go into remission, sometimes the remission can be explained thoroughly, sometimes not at all. In every case however there has been no evidence of anything supernatural occurring, even when claims of supernatural healing miracles have been made.

You're absolutely right that the manifestation can be, and is, studied. It's what's behind the manifestations that are out of our reach.

Well thats at complete odds with what you previously posted:

Originally posted by charles1952
Oh, scientific proof of the supernatural? That's self-contradictory. Science doesn't prove or disprove the supernatural. It's instruments can only be directed at nature, not the things outside of it. First let science build a device that can definitely detect a god, if one is there. Then you can make your tests, check your dials and announce your results.

Seems you haven't really thought this out

With frustration,
Prezbo369

reply to post by charles1952


Not all miracles, if indeed any, can be attributed to God. The human mind is capable of things we still don't understand. I remember a little kid on "Oprah" who cured himself of a brain tumor by concentrating on it and imagining he was bombing it, like in his videos games. You know what, the doctors couldn't figure it out, but the tumor was gone!

Just the other day, I saw something about a young girl lifting a car off of her father and saved his life! I read about a lottery winner who said she saw a "Circle K" logo in the clouds, so she pulled into the next "Circle K" that she saw and purchased the winning lottery ticket.

These are just a few examples of so called "miracles" where the recipients didn't credit God.

reply to post by Prezbo369

Dear Prezbo369,

I think we're missing each other by a bit, and I'm not sure how to close the gap.

Let me try for an understanding of "supernatural." If an event occurs and after thorough investigation, every possible known natural explanation is ruled out, what do you call it? If there is no "natural" explanation possible, why not use the word "supernatural?" After all it only means "Outside of nature."

Of course, if one's opening position is that there is nothing supernatural, then looking for it, even thinking about it is a waste of time. One is forced into the awkard position of having to say, "There's a natural cause for X, I don't know what it is, the scientists and great thinkers have no idea. In spite of that I believe there is a natural explanation for it. I have no evidence, but I believe it any way." Surely that requires more faith than saying, "Every natural explanation has been ruled out, I'll believe that it's non-natural (or supernatural.)"

You're absolutely right that the manifestation can be, and is, studied. It's what's behind the manifestations that are out of our reach.

Well thats at complete odds with what you previously posted:

Oh, scientific proof of the supernatural? That's self-contradictory. Science doesn't prove or disprove the supernatural. It's instruments can only be directed at nature, not the things outside of it. First let science build a device that can definitely detect a god, if one is there. Then you can make your tests, check your dials and announce your results.

And I thought I was being entirely consistent, indeed repetitive. Oh, well, good for my humility.

Since we've used "healing" a lot, let's stick with it. The "manifestation" was the evidence of the cure. The bone has straightened, whatever. What's caused the cure, the "supernatural," can not be studied because it is outside of nature and science can only study things in nature, like the straightened bone. A machine cannot be devised to detect God, because he is outside of Nature and our instruments are inside of it.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

Good post and good examples I can always count on you to open new doors. Have you always been a creative thinker?

Allow me to set aside your first sentence for just a moment. I now agree with everything you say. You're absolutely right and I congratulate you.

But I suppose I have to do something with that pesky first sentence:

Not all miracles, if indeed any, can be attributed to God.

Now if you mean by that, that the people involved don't credit God for that, then I agree with every single thing you've said. But if you meant that the true cause of these miracles is rarely, if ever, God, I see a problem.

I agree with you that the doctors have no explanation for the tumor bombing kid. They don't know if it was sunlight or diet, or visualizing video games. How then can we possibly know that God wasn't responsible? I can see no way. If video games were the child's life, that may very well have been the language God used to get through to him. It might have been different had the patient been an old lady who had been telling her beads for decades.

Your examples show miracles but as the doctors have found, there is no natural cause (which is a simple, working, definition of miracle). I find it easier to think of those causes as supernatural (or "non-natural," or "outside of natural" if you prefer.

The cause of miracles? God is an easy answer. It works for me and there seems to be no logical flaws with it if you accept the existence of God. Science certainly hasn't come up with anything.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952

Let me try for an understanding of "supernatural." If an event occurs and after thorough investigation, every possible known natural explanation is ruled out, what do you call it? If there is no "natural" explanation possible, why not use the word "supernatural?" After all it only means "Outside of nature."

Until we know everything about the natural world, a unified theory of physics, chemistry and biology, we have no business attempting to explain an unknown with another unknown.

Of course, if one's opening position is that there is nothing supernatural, then looking for it, even thinking about it is a waste of time. One is forced into the awkard position of having to say, "There's a natural cause for X, I don't know what it is, the scientists and great thinkers have no idea. In spite of that I believe there is a natural explanation for it. I have no evidence, but I believe it any way." Surely that requires more faith than saying, "Every natural explanation has been ruled out, I'll believe that it's non-natural (or supernatural.)"

Again, until we know everything about reality, using the idea of the supernatural as a default explanation for something we cannot as of yet explain is pointless. Its the same thinking religious people attempt to use when asked for evidence of their particular supernatural entities, an ever receding ball of ignorance.

Since we've used "healing" a lot, let's stick with it. The "manifestation" was the evidence of the cure. The bone has straightened, whatever. What's caused the cure, the "supernatural," can not be studied because it is outside of nature and science can only study things in nature, like the straightened bone. A machine cannot be devised to detect God, because he is outside of Nature and our instruments are inside of it.

Whatever straightened the bone would have to manifest itself in some way within the physical universe, within 'nature' and so would be entirely detectable. And the fact is that there are many natural and explainable reasons as to why a bone might straighten, bend, or repair itself without inducing the fantastical concept of the 'super'natural.

These are fairly pedestrian attempts at examples of the supernatural. Do you have any other examples of supposed supernatural events that do not depend on the small pockets of ignorance we have of the natural world?

Originally posted by charles1952
There appears to be some confusion over the words, "scientific," "reliable," and "evidence." Perhaps I'm using them incorrectly.

You just might be. Scientific = backed by objective evidence. Evidence = data gathered by the scientific method based on facts. The bible is not evidence of anything other than the fact that people wrote stories thousands of years ago. Within the bible, everything is subjective.

It seems that I've been taken to mean more than I intended to say. The ancient manuscripts are evidence. They can be, and have been, subjected to any number of repeatable tests. Scholars have used, for centuries, the recognized techniques of their fields to analyze the words on the documents as well as the material they were written on.

Can you post and describe some of the repeatable objective tests that have been used to verify the stories and supernatural events in the bible? You can analyze the texts of any ancient story, but what gives the bible more credibility than the hundreds of other myths and legends from ancient society? Why aren't the Egyptian god myths taken as truth? They are studied and translated by scholars as well.

They have been compared against each other for consistency, and checked against the known facts of the time. The language has been studied, so has the writing styles. Conclusions have been reached. If you go to any of these Ph.D holders and accuse them of having no evidence for their conclusions and they are just blindly believing based on their cultural programming, you will be laughed at or hit with a rolled up thesis.

Bible scholars study the texts themselves. They don't provide evidence or do science experiments to prove the stories accurate. For example, where is the evidence that Jesus died and was raised from the dead, or the evidence that Jesus was the son of god? That's the entire basis of Christianity. Can you prove that without circular reasoning? If you can, then I can prove Moby Dick is real.

Now, you may not agree with their conclusions. That's fine, but to say it's unscientific is something I would not care to do.

Bible scholars are not scientists. They study the texts themselves not objective evidence.

Oh, scientific proof of the supernatural? That's self-contradictory. Science doesn't prove or disprove the supernatural. It's instruments can only be directed at nature, not the things outside of it. First let science build a device that can definitely detect a god, if one is there. Then you can make your tests, check your dials and announce your results.

Since no device exists, or even can be designed based on our current understanding of the universe, it's pretty safe to say that god has zero objective evidence behind him. Don't play word games with "supernatural". God IS supernatural, so when people say proof of supernatural bible events, they are looking for proof of god, or proof that it happened. Neither can be provided. I'm not trying to diss your faith, I'm just saying that's it's faith and not fact.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by RRokkyy
You are always,Avoiding Relationship?

I believe in God. Just not yours.

THE METHOD OF THE SIDDHAS: Adi Da
Invocation
Narayana Sooktam

(1) I worship the Lord, who has thousands of heads, thousands of eyes, who is the source of happiness in the world, the Eternal God. All this is nothing but the Present God. All this lives by Him.
(2) I worship Him who is the Self and the Lord of the Universe, the Eternal God, the benign and undecaying Divine Soul, the Supreme Being who is to be known, the Self of all, the Supreme Goal.
(3) The Lord is the Absolute Supreme Being, He is the Supreme Reality, He is the Supreme Light, He is the Supreme Self, He is the Supreme Meditator, He is the Supreme Object of Meditation.
(4) The Lord abides pervading whatever is seen or heard in this universe, whatever is within and without.
(5) I worship and meditate upon the infinite and immutable Seer who is the other end of the ocean of identification with birth and death, and who is the source of all happiness.
(6) The Heart, the perfect seat of meditation, resembles an inverted lotus bud.
(7) In the region below the throat and above the navel there burns a fire from which flames are rising up. That is the great support and foundation of the Universe.
(8) It always hangs down from the arteries like a lotus bud. In the middle of it there is a tiny orifice in which all are firmly supported.
(9) In the middle of it there is a great fire with innumerable flames blazing on all sides which first consumes the food and then distributes it to all parts of the body. It is the immutable and all-knowing.
(10) Its rays constantly shoot upwards and downwards. It heats the body from head to foot. In the middle of it there is a tongue of fire which is extremely small.
(11) That tongue of fire is dazzling as a streak of lightning in the midst of a dark cloud and as thin as the awn at the tip of a grain of rice, golden bright and extremely minute.
(12) In the middle of that tongue of flame the Supreme Self abides firmly. He is God. He is the Immortal, the Supreme Lord of all.
(13) I bow down again and again to the Eternal Law, the Truth, the Absolute Supreme Being, the Divine Being who is dark blue and reddish, the pure celibate, with extraordinary eyes, who has assumed all forms.
(14) We shall try to know the Lord, we shall contemplate on the Divine Being. Let Him be pleased to guide us.