If all religion is false then why is....

[spidergoat]

I agree, however in my opinion because their teachings are so vastly similar, there must be something to it all.

Yes, there is something to it. Consensus reality is limited, and cultivating an awareness of the infinite vastness within your mind is fruitfull. Something within the nature of reality or about the nature of reality and matter leads to self-organizing- into chemistry, physics, mind, art, nature, ect.

 

[wsionynw]

The only objection theists have against science is the when science claims it 'knows' god and the spiritual does not exist. When in fact all it can really say is it cant provide emperical evidence that either god does or does not exist.

I don't know of any scientist or atheist that claims to KNOW god does not exist. The simple fact is that nobody can provide evidence that any God exists or does not exist. So we agree, let's move on.

 

[wsionynw]

Such as he has already explained. At every point in the past science has believed itself to be correct, yet a hundred years or so later a great deal of it is proved to be wrong. This cycle continually keeps repeating and yet at every stage the scientists of the day ignore history and believe they are completely correct. Even on this post someone makes the claim that science is now 99.9% correct. Yet to make such claims goes against historical evidence. Based on what has happened in the past we can say with some certainty that a great deal of what science now says is fact will in the future be shown as fiction.

Yet many people ignore this fact a take science as 100% fact.. Now obviously we have to have a working truth, the best we can come up with existing methods, knowledge and technology; and this is fine as long as we view it as such and not take it as a complete description of absolute reality to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Science is a very good empirical method but to solely rely on it means making the massive assumption that all that is of importance to us and to reality is tangible with the five senses or our technological extensions of the five senses.

We have no choice but to act on what we currently know to be fact, or as close to absolute fact as is understood. If we didn't then technology would not exist, and we would all be waiting for God to create the car, or the microwave oven.
The point of all this is that science is not interested in trying to prove that a given God does not exist, since there is no evidence one way or the other (the same can be said of unicorns, fairies, FSM, etc).
I don't waste my time worrying about star signs, ghosts, blah blah, because there is no evidence that holds weight to support them. If my six year old neice believes in Santa Claus and her imaginary friend, does that mean they exist and we should direct ourselves to studying them?

 

[Enterprise-D]

JL Picard and Superman were both heavy MORALISTS, and were written to have fought for many of the same ideals (justice, peace etc), both wielding other worldly or otherwise more-than-human powers to back it up (Superman his sun driven abilities, and Picard with both Enterprise flagships). You're fighting a moot point of level of same-ness, rather than seeing that characters can be ascribed comparable abilities and morals and still not exist.

At any rate Vital, all deities created have been given equal powers and piety by their creator. I don't give a fig about who came first, or which one was written about first. Admittedly I know nothing about Lao Tzu, however whatever religion appeared from him YOU implied that it is similar to the Abrahamic religions and others by mere virtue of including Mr. Tzu in your quotings.

My point still stands. Religions and their writers compile their gods to be comparably potent to back up their doctrines and laws (I could ask it this way...were Krishna and Yahweh to fight who would win?). They also define some adversarial concept of evil whether this "adversary" be a being or a state of mind. I'll also venture to guess that religions borrow the best of each other to gain audience (the biggest ongoing intellectual property lawsuit waiting to happen). Heck we all know that Christianity for example kept many of the same pagan rules and holidays to ease the transitions.

You comparison is misconceived since you have deigned to glean something totally wrong from my explanation. I am saying that whether either of your two men or one billion men claiming 1+1=2 are referring to the same thing or not, the CLAIM - as repeated as it may be - is not true because it's popular. It's only true when PROVEN.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't know of any scientist or atheist that claims to KNOW god does not exist. The simple fact is that nobody can provide evidence that any God exists or does not exist. So we agree, let's move on.

Spirituality and the concept of God are not the same thing.

 

[charles cure]

I'll point out some of the exact similarities:

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." - Jesus (Revelation 22:13)

"I am also the beginning, the middle, and the end of all beings." Krishna (BG 10.20)

"If you realize that all things change, there is nothing you will try to hold on to" - Lao Tzu

"Everything changes, nothing remains without change" - Buddha

“He who rules his spirit has won a greater victory than the taking of a city.” - Jesus

"It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell" - Buddha

And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death. " - Jesus (Gospel of Thomas, 1)

"I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal..." - Krishna (BG 13.13)

"Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you." - Jesus (Gospel of Thomas, 3)

"The Supreme Truth exists outside and inside of all living beings...." - Krishna (BG 13.16)

"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth" -Buddha

"For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed." - Jesus (Gospel of Thomas, 5)

"It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu

"It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another's duties perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one's own duty is better than engaging in another's duties, for to follow another's path is dangerous." - Krishna (BG 3.35)

"It is, Kassapa, as if a potter made different vessels out of the same clay. Some of these pots are to contain sugar, others rice, others curds and milk others still are vessels of impurity. There is no diversity in the clay used the diversity of the pots is only due to the moulding hands of the potter who shapes them for the various uses that circumstances may require." - The Buddha (Gospel of Buddha, 55.2)

"Gold alone is present before its manufacture into gold products, the gold alone remains after the products' destruction, and the gold alone is the essential reality while it is being utilized under various designations. Similarly, I alone exist before the creation of this universe, after its destruction and during its maintenance." Krishna (SB 11.28.19)

"Health is the greatest possession. Contentment is the greatest treasure. Confidence is the greatest friend. Non-being is the greatest joy." - Lao Tzu

"Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship." - The Buddha

I could continue describing other innumerable exact similarities. As you can see, some of these match word for word, almost as if they are indeed trying to explain the same essential truth to mankind.....isn't it also ironic that they all promise eternal bliss..freedom from all suffering...etc...just think about it

The only real similarities in these statements are that all of them are vague, non-specific, uninstructive, open-ended, and rely on the reader's interpretation in order to function as a guide to anything.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Correct Charles...and I am kicking myself for not including this in my own post Good show.

 

[VitalOne]

The only real similarities in these statements are that all of them are vague, non-specific, uninstructive, open-ended, and rely on the reader's interpretation in order to function as a guide to anything.

How so are they vague, non-specific, uninstructive, and open-ended? Please tell me. They do not seem to rely on the reader's interpretation at all, you need to try hard to interpret them as being different.

As I stated there are many more exact similarities, but it would take days to list them because I would have to re-read all the scriptures. However anyone who studies their teachings independantly will constantly find similarities.

JL Picard and Superman were both heavy MORALISTS, and were written to have fought for many of the same ideals (justice, peace etc), both wielding other worldly or otherwise more-than-human powers to back it up (Superman his sun driven abilities, and Picard with both Enterprise flagships). You're fighting a moot point of level of same-ness, rather than seeing that characters can be ascribed comparable abilities and morals and still not exist.

Again, you seem to point out very very vague similarities. Also the debate is not whether they exist or not. As I told you The Buddha and Lao Tzu are known to have historically existed.

Where did I imply that they were similar to Abrahmic religions? They are not similar to Abrahmic religions. Religion and the words of Jesus are completely different. If you read Jesus's teachings alone without the Bible you would probably conclude that he was an Eastern philosopher.

At any rate Vital, all deities created have been given equal powers and piety by their creator. I don't give a fig about who came first, or which one was written about first. Admittedly I know nothing about Lao Tzu, however whatever religion appeared from him YOU implied that it is similar to the Abrahamic religions and others by mere virtue of including Mr. Tzu in your quotings.

You fail to realize that the stories behind Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Lao Tzu and others are completely different yet they still teach the samethings....why is this?

My point still stands. Religions and their writers compile their gods to be comparably potent to back up their doctrines and laws (I could ask it this way...were Krishna and Yahweh to fight who would win?). They also define some adversarial concept of evil whether this "adversary" be a being or a state of mind. I'll also venture to guess that religions borrow the best of each other to gain audience (the biggest ongoing intellectual property lawsuit waiting to happen). Heck we all know that Christianity for example kept many of the same pagan rules and holidays to ease the transitions.

I would have to disagree with this...if that were true then the teachings would also differ greatly...but they do not. They would not be saying the samethings. Who has defined a concept of evil? Not Jesus, Not Krishna, Not Buddha, Not Lao Tzu....only Zoroaster

You're also stuck in the mind-set that science is 100% true to the highest degree, therefore you being all-knowing can conclude that religion is false. Like I said, we already know that science will greatly change...knowing this...how can you make these assumptions?

Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and Lao-Tzu all speak of a way to salvation, the end of all suffering, eternal bliss, freedom and they say very similar things. Why is this? Maybe, in reality they really did have knowledge of the way, the truth.

You comparison is misconceived since you have deigned to glean something totally wrong from my explanation. I am saying that whether either of your two men or one billion men claiming 1+1=2 are referring to the same thing or not, the CLAIM - as repeated as it may be - is not true because it's popular. It's only true when PROVEN.

Haha, this has got to be the funniest thing I've ever heard. So you're telling me that back in Ancient times electromagnetism did not exist, blackholes did not exist, quantum particles had no existence, because "It's only true when PROVEN".

Thats illogical, something is true whether it is proven or not.

 

[(Q)]

I'm not trying to discredit science...I'm just stating the obvious...a 1,000 years from now there will be theories and principles, etc...you would never have dreamed to be true because our current knowledge will be inferior to the knowledge we possess in 1,000 years. There's a big revolution in science every once in a while that changes things (like the QM revolution), this will surely happen several times within a thousand years, as anyone will tell you modern science is still very incomplete, there are many many unknowns.

Knowing this to be true, how can anyone act as if our modern science is 100% true?

It's only theists who misrepresent that notion. No scientist worth his salt would ever say modern science is 100% true. Theists will make that representation in their wasted efforts to promote their unfounded notions of the good things their religions are supposed to provide.

Atheists are no different. They act as if they KNOW that modern science is 100% true, to the highest degree, similarly to how many theists act as if they KNOW their dogma to be true.

More misrepresentations. An atheist will affirm that scientists know something about electrons simply because a computer works, for example. Could they not say that to be 100% ture?

It is really a matter of faith, faith that science will not change, and that science will not discover some that there is some type of unphysical mind which would thereby confirm an afterlife or some other discovery that may confirm other religious beliefs. It is all a matter of faith for atheists and theists.

No, it's a matter for theists to put their money where their mouths are and stop spouting off their imagined nonsense and come up with something to back their ridiculous claims, and leave science to do what it does best.

Atheists claim that religion is false because of modern science. Now logically we all know that science will change tremendously within a 1,000 years, and then more within 10,000 years, if civilization still exists the way it does. So those very same beliefs currently held be true by scientists today will be very different in time. Knowing our current, modern science to simply be another phase in the search for the truth, an atheists must have much faith in science, nothing but faith, so much incredible faith in modern science they rule out every possibility of any religious beliefs being true. Its all a matter of faith for them.

What a load of crap! You theists are hypocritical blowhards, if it wasn't for science, you'd still be living in caves to the ripe old age of 40, if you're one of the lucky ones.

WTF have your impotent gods ever done for humanity?

 

[VitalOne]

It's only theists who misrepresent that notion. No scientist worth his salt would ever say modern science is 100% true. Theists will make that representation in their wasted efforts to promote their unfounded notions of the good things their religions are supposed to provide.

No, atheists claim religion is false because of science...now that must mean they think science is 100% true otherwise they would not be 100% certian that religion is false.

More misrepresentations. An atheist will affirm that scientists know something about electrons simply because a computer works, for example. Could they not say that to be 100% ture?

How could atheists say that there is no soul? Surely the idea of unphysical mind is not far-fetched nor illogical as matter != consciousness and there are many unsolved mysteries in neurology. Yet atheists firmely believe they know it all already, there is no possibility of a soul or afterlife, they have knowledge of all.

No, it's a matter for theists to put their money where their mouths are and stop spouting off their imagined nonsense and come up with something to back their ridiculous claims, and leave science to do what it does best.

You're right..doing good deeds..helping others...its all nonsense, why consider it? Why not just do bad deeds...be selfish? Its all nonsense, jibberish, ridiculous claims that science is unable to refute.

What a load of crap! You theists are hypocritical blowhards, if it wasn't for science, you'd still be living in caves to the ripe old age of 40, if you're one of the lucky ones.

WTF have your impotent gods ever done for humanity?

Why is it a load of crap? Because you cannot refute a word of it? You know everything I said was true. You must have lots of faith to completely blind yourself out to any possiblity of a soul, afterlife, God, etc...

I am not condemning science, science and religion only oppose each other in the West, I am saying that science is ever-changing, so why do you all act is if you KNOW that there is no soul, no afterlife, no karma, no God? The ideas really are not far-fetched or illogical

 

[(Q)]

No, atheists claim religion is false because of science...now that must mean they think science is 100% true otherwise they would not be 100% certian that religion is false.

Nonsense. Religion is false because no one can back up the claims made by religion. Simple really. The onus is on theists, not science.

How could atheists say that there is no soul? Surely the idea of unphysical mind is not far-fetched nor illogical as matter != consciousness and there are many unsolved mysteries in neurology. Yet atheists firmely believe they know it all already, there is no possibility of a soul or afterlife, they have knowledge of all.

You have no knowledge either, because no knowledge exists, as the soul has never been shown to exist. The question should really be, how could theists say there is a soul?

You're right..doing good deeds..helping others...its all nonsense, why consider it? Why not just do bad deeds...be selfish? Its all nonsense, jibberish, ridiculous claims that science is unable to refute.

What does that have to do with anything? Theism IS all nonsense and gibberish.

Why is it a load of crap? Because you cannot refute a word of it? You know everything I said was true. You must have lots of faith to completely blind yourself out to any possiblity of a soul, afterlife, God, etc...

There's nothing to refute, you've said nothing.

I am not condemning science, science and religion only oppose each other in the West, I am saying that science is ever-changing, so why do you all act is if you KNOW that there is no soul, no afterlife, no karma, no God? The ideas really are not far-fetched or illogical

Yes, they are far-fetched and illogical, and no one has shown an iota of evidence in their favor. It's all imagined goobledegook.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Perhaps, but why do you close your eyes to the possibility that the spiritual masters really did discover the essential truth and gained eternal bliss...there's really not much in science against it....

'Spiritual Masters' have made assertions with no supportive evidence for tens of thousands of years. Many of those assertions (ex. "the Xian 'God' exists") are being contradicted by information reality provides through the process of science.

Yes which is why new notions and assertions are frowned upon because they could destroy the many theories....just like how Quantum Physics was not easily accepted by many scientists in the beginning...every once in a while there's a big revolution that changes things...that probably will happen many times in a 1,000 years as our current knowledge is incomplete.

No matter how accepting / resistant a scientist may be to a theory, the ultimate test is reality. If reality says assertion 'X' is true then it is true regardless of what anybody thinks and ALL theories affected would have to be updated accordingly. The breadth and depth of knowledge gained through the scientific process might indeed change dramtically.

I find these two statements contradictory...you claim that the truths spiritual masters are fantasy yet science isn't the truth.

It's because what I am communicating is not being understood. Science is a process (that's why it's not "the truth"). This process is used to discover truth as it allows humans to ask reality questions. Sometimes the questions aren't good / complete. Sometimes the answers are misinterpreted / incomplete.

There is only one validator of truth that exists. Reality. If reality agrees with an assertion then that assertion is true. If reality disagrees with an assertion then that assertion is false.

So then where do you get the notion that truths revealed by spiritual masters are fantasy?

Well, I admittedly oversimplified what I was trying to communicate. I was focusing claims of existence specifically. Spiritual leaders tend to claim things like 'God exists', 'Souls exist', 'Demons exist', 'Heaven exists', 'Angels exist', etc... none of which have any supportive evidence and most of have plenty of contradictive evidence (thanks to people being able to ask reality questions with the process of science).

 

[spidergoat]

"Spiritual masters" make assertions, but in the Eastern Tradition, you are the only one that can support them with your own subjective experience. It doesn't have the weight of scientific fact, but neither do they evangelize or encourage unquestioning belief. It's a kind of mental Kung Fu, you don't learn it by rote, but by doing.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Actually Vital, that is correct...I should have left it at popularity is not a proof of truth. It was indeed incorrect of me to say a lack of proof belies the truth of anything. However, my statement that one billion men can claim something and it does NOT mean that it is true - is quite correct.

However, you have MISSED the point entirely, focusing instead on my slip up last phrase. As mentioned before popularity does not equal truth or proof of truth.

YOU are also stuck in the theist mentality where you believe that you are 100% correct because you have majority on your side. You are focusing on what you think are the inaccuracies of my comparison. The only thing i am maintaining with my whole diatribe, and what you are conveniently ignoring is that once more...popularity does not equal truth or proof of truth.

 

[baumgarten]

The mentality to which you refer, I think, is more accurately described as the assumption that one is 100% correct simply because that is what one believes. Popularity needn't come into it; at best it's a weak attempt at justification, not a real reason.

 

[spidergoat]

Although poopularity is not proof of truth, I do think VitalOne is on to something. From a purely scientific standpoint, it would be wrong to dismiss the phenomenon of religion and spiritual traditions entirely. Perhaps these traditions have discovered something interesting about the brain. Although I do dismiss their supernatural explanations, there could be other explanations.

Humans have not stopped evolving. Any new ability or tendency could manifest itself first as an obscure religious practice, or it could be considered a type of "disorder" that prevents "normal" behavior.

 

[VitalOne]

Nonsense. Religion is false because no one can back up the claims made by religion. Simple really. The onus is on theists, not science.

Right again...you know it all...you know everything...modern science is 100% true to the highest degree....therefore you are able to make this assumption

You have no knowledge either, because no knowledge exists, as the soul has never been shown to exist. The question should really be, how could theists say there is a soul?

Theists say there's a soul because that was passed down to them.
Atheists say there is no soul because they insist science is 100% true to the highest degree, it will never change, there is no possibility, even though there are many missing pieces in explaining consciousness. THey know it all already.

What does that have to do with anything? Theism IS all nonsense and gibberish.

Re-read everything and you may find out. You're right. You know it all, you have knowledge of everything, there is nothing that you or science does not know. Therefore you are able to say this.

There's nothing to refute, you've said nothing.

Yes I did, but you couldn't say anything about it...all you basically said was so what if science will be completely different in 1,000 years and there's a chance that there is a soul and afterlife? I still some how KNOW that there isn't a soul, I KNOW there isn't an afterlife, because I know everything there is to know.

Yes, they are far-fetched and illogical, and no one has shown an iota of evidence in their favor. It's all imagined goobledegook.

There's lots of evidence, lots...

 

[glaucon]

...
Although poopularity is not proof of truth, I do think VitalOne is on to something.

...

From a purely scientific standpoint, it would be wrong to dismiss the phenomenon of religion and spiritual traditions entirely.

You're correct that it would be improper to dismiss evidenciary phenomenae, but this is exactly why VitalOne is not onto something; there are no religious/spiritual phenomenae.

 

[VitalOne]

Actually Vital, that is correct...I should have left it at popularity is not a proof of truth. It was indeed incorrect of me to say a lack of proof belies the truth of anything. However, my statement that one billion men can claim something and it does NOT mean that it is true - is quite correct.

True but if it was a result of culture and tradition it would still all be completely different.

However, you have MISSED the point entirely, focusing instead on my slip up last phrase. As mentioned before popularity does not equal truth or proof of truth.

Popularity isn't proof of truth. However, all these people claimed to have ways to end suffering, salvation, eternal bliss, etc...why do they speak similarly? Why do they explain reality in the same way?

YOU are also stuck in the theist mentality where you believe that you are 100% correct because you have majority on your side. You are focusing on what you think are the inaccuracies of my comparison. The only thing i am maintaining with my whole diatribe, and what you are conveniently ignoring is that once more...popularity does not equal truth or proof of truth.

No I'm not, I'm questioning things on both sides. Atheists however do not question things, they already KNOW that religion is false. There is no need to speculate, because they have complete, full knowledge of all there is to know. Yet they claim they require no faith, how ironic.

If popularity is not proof then you also claim that because millions of scientists reach the same conclusion that doesn't mean something is true. Therefore you, yourself have again ended up proving my point instead of yours.

'Spiritual Masters' have made assertions with no supportive evidence for tens of thousands of years. Many of those assertions (ex. "the Xian 'God' exists") are being contradicted by information reality provides through the process of science.

Supportive evidence does not equal truth. According to you, a thousand years ago because there was no shred of evidence to support a blackhole existing, it never existed. So if someone a thousand years ago said blackholes existed, they must be wrong, because at the time there was no supportive evidence. This is EXACTLY what you're saying.

No matter how accepting / resistant a scientist may be to a theory, the ultimate test is reality. If reality says assertion 'X' is true then it is true regardless of what anybody thinks and ALL theories affected would have to be updated accordingly. The breadth and depth of knowledge gained through the scientific process might indeed change dramtically.

Thats not entirely true, take the big bang for instance, because other models fit in its accepted. The super-string theory is also gaining acceptance in the same way.

If I provide strong concrete evidence for something that isn't widely accepted it will most likely be ruled out as a cause of something else, ignored, ridiculed. This is what happens to many scientists...

It's because what I am communicating is not being understood. Science is a process (that's why it's not "the truth"). This process is used to discover truth as it allows humans to ask reality questions. Sometimes the questions aren't good / complete. Sometimes the answers are misinterpreted / incomplete.

Science is a process, an ever-changing process.

There is only one validator of truth that exists. Reality. If reality agrees with an assertion then that assertion is true. If reality disagrees with an assertion then that assertion is false.

Yes, and these spiritual beings have said that reality as we know it has no independant existence of its own, etc...

Well, I admittedly oversimplified what I was trying to communicate. I was focusing claims of existence specifically. Spiritual leaders tend to claim things like 'God exists', 'Souls exist', 'Demons exist', 'Heaven exists', 'Angels exist', etc... none of which have any supportive evidence and most of have plenty of contradictive evidence (thanks to people being able to ask reality questions with the process of science).

Well those things really aren't testable, except for the soul one, but neurology is still in its infancy. They still haven't figured out exactly how this illusion of consciousness is created from matter and chemical reactions alone.

 

[spidergoat]

there are no religious/spiritual phenomenae

I disagree. Enlightenment is one phenomenon, even if it's only the sudden absense of delusional thinking. This spiritual phenomenon is not limited to Buddhism or the East. It might not be a supernatural thing at all. Brain scans show unusual things happening to a meditator's brain activity.

I wouldn't dismiss things like telepathy either, perhaps they are real. I would be very interested in any evidence of such. The pursuit of science requires an open mind.