ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Damn, I agree with okinrus -- life sucks!
John Clayton
- Thread starter hshatfield
- Start date
Originally posted by Raithere
Please tell me what is so original about my point of veiw?
You have no idea what I am, you are too busy defending atheism.
LOL!!!! What counter arguments?
LOL!!!!
I said;
“In the sense that “science” means knowledge.”
Websters Dict; science Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.
The state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.
In another post I said;
“Modern science is, observing and experimenting with phenomena, its concern is with the materials and functions of the “physical” universe.”
Websters Dict. : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :
Wrong again Raithere.
Love
Jan Ardena.
They are only errors from your POV.
Where people are involved, you will find many different descriptions/definitions of the one God, because there are innumerable traits to His Character and Personality. But the god I am reffering to, is the ONE who is known as the; Original Cause of everything that is, was, and will be.
It cannot successfully complete such tasks until it knows the origin of everything including itself. So I take your boastful claims with a pinch of salt.
I believe you misunderstood. I was not referring to testimony, just to the fact that so many people from all walks of life either develop belief or think there is a possiblity that God created the phenominal world.
You see it as an error, but I don’t.
Why don’t you give an example of his generalisations.
Maybe he is only using his experiences to explain where his head was at, at the time. And maybe it is what lies behind those experiences at that time, that he is trying to get across.
Quote,
At one time in my life, I was totally and firmly convicted that there was no such thing as God and that anybody who believed in God was silly, superstitious, ignorant and had simply not looked at the evidence. I felt that believers in God were uneducated and were just following traditions, superstitions and things that really made no sense to a person who was aware of what was going on around him. Of course, that kind of life and conviction led me to do and say things and to be something that was really very unpleasant.
Are you seriously telling me, you cannot recognise yourself and Cris (sorry Cris, just being honest) in the above exert?
Point out some of this erroneous generalisation.
Not according to Websters.
You bet there are!
Love
Jan Ardena.
In my experience your particular mix Hinduism/Christianity is rather original as is your interpretation on the founding religious texts of each. Perhaps I am wrong and there are many people with this interesting perspective but you're the only one I've ever met and discussed religion with. Thus I find your opinion original.
I don't defend atheism, I discuss issues. I only consider myself atheist as a technical fact; practically I don't find that the label fits very well and within some contexts I can actually be considered a theist.
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
I stand corrected. I did state that poorly. It's not that you erroneously redefine the word but you manipulate its usage within the context of the topic. Let's examine this particular exchange:
hshatfield: Anyone that thinks science has the answer to everything, hasn't studied science or hasn't learned very well
Jan: In a sense, science does have the answer to everything, it just depends on what you term "science."
hshatfield: In what sense are you talking about?
Jan : In the sense that “science” means knowledge. Knowledge is not only to be found via scientific observation or experiment, even though some would disagree.
In context, what you said was, 'knowledge has the answer to everything' which is rather nonsensical and not what hshatfield was talking about.
Science, as it was initially being used was in reference to the particular method(s) of knowing that we call Science. You then change to using it to mean knowledge in order to support your refutation that science does indeed have the answer to everything even though you then revert back to its referencing method to ultimately agree with the point you were refuting by saying that "knowledge is not only to be found via scientific obersevation...".
I find it rather brilliant in an odd sort of way, because you make it seem as if you have won a point in the argument even though what you said ultimately poses no conflict with, and actually supports, hshatfield's assertion.
The only question I have is whether you do this deliberately or whether your thinking is actually this confused.
(edit)
~Raithere
No, he has made many logical and factual errors as well as a number of errors from a scientific viewpoint.
Fine and well until one attempts to assert specific conditions and traits to such an infinite being.
If God has an effect on the physical world such an effect would be measurable. One does not have to know everything in order to know some things.
Yes, you were referring to testimonial evidence, as opposed to empirical evidence.
Testimonial: "A statement in support of a particular truth, fact, or claim."
Empirical: "Relying on or derived from observation or experiment"
(AHD)
We already have:
"Mistake #2: "The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning"
This is simply factually incorrect. Many atheists belive that the Universe began with the "big-bang", for instance.
Mistake #3: "The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief."
No, that would be a concise statement of The Humanist Manifesto regarding matter and existence. A concise statement of atheistic belief would be, "There is no God." Of course, that in itself is misleading and incomplete as the majority of atheists hold no atheistic beliefs only disbelief."
No, he continually asserts that a particular position is that of all atheists.
Quite honestly; I do not. I do not consider theists to be more silly, superstitious, or ignorant than anyone else. Nor do I find that 'this kind of life and conviction' leads me to say or be something very unpleasant. I share very few of the views that he claims all atheists share. He is therefore wrong seeing as that I am an atheist.
See above.
Yes, according to Websters:
"1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.
2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.
3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science.
4. Any branch or department of systematized knowledge considered as a distinct field of investigation or object of study; as, the science of astronomy, of chemistry, or of mind.
Usage: Science, Literature, Art. Science is literally knowledge, but more usually denotes a systematic and orderly arrangement of knowledge. In a more distinctive sense, science embraces those branches of knowledge of which the subject-matter is either ultimate principles, or facts as explained by principles or laws thus arranged in natural order.'' --Karslake.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc." (emphasis mine)
The problem lies in determining the veracity of such things.
~Raithere
Pardon?
Try looking at a larger portion of the paragraph:
"This rather upset me. I did not appreciate that and I said, "Well, what do you mean?" He said, "This is not a question that a scientist tries to answer. This is a question for the philosopher or theologian, but this is not something that falls into the realm of science." I was very disturbed by that answer. I had always felt that science could ultimately answer all the questions that man had-- that there was nothing that science could not eventually take care of as far as what man might challenge and want to know about--yet this learned man, an expert in his field, said that this was an area that the scientist should not even try to answer--that it was totally beyond the capacity of science to explain and explore. "
Very clearly, science has been identified as separate and specific from other methods of acquiring knowledge; not as knowledge in general. Clayton was disappointed in the professor's response that some questions were better answered by the fields of philosophy or theology as opposed to the field of science.
Sorry, but your interpretation falls out of context. Clayton is quite clearly differentiating science from alternative approaches to knowledge.
My mind works 24/7.
Which would be one of the testimonies I was referring to.
It depends upon the claim being made. Some people, for instance, have claimed to be able to heal others though the supernatural power of God. In such cases scientists have examined the healing of people both with and without such 'assistance' only to find that there is no statistical correlation (both groups had the same rate of recovery). Various other claims, when scientifically tested, have likewise been proven false.
Yes, you were directly referring to testimonial evidence as "expressed beliefs". Here is what you said, "But from past and present people from all walks of life, some brilliant some not have expressed beliefs in God, or considered that there may be a god, these include a host of scientists." This would, in fact, be testimonial evidence.
Technically this is irrelevant, the fact remains that not all atheists believe the Universe is infinite. But there is no fundamental flaw as you assert; the hypothesis is simply not constrained by our common-sense notion of causality. Nor, if you bother to examine it, is the hypothesis of a creator God or an infinite Universe.
Regarding this question, technically, I am agnostic. I do not presume to know whether matter was caused by something else or came into existence ex nihlo. However, once again this is irrelevant as atheism makes no such assertion even if some, or even most, individual atheists do.
~Raithere
If we want to know something specifically, then we have to acquire knowledge of that particular thing, Yes?
“Everything” is not a subject matter, as it cannot be quantified, measured, or put into some sort of category.
The term primarily used to describe science is “knowledge” as opposed to “not knowing or ignorance.” This knowledge cannot be quantified/measured, in the same way that “everything” cannot be quantified. It just is.
So, to know everything, one must have knowledge, period. Therefore science and knowledge must be the same thing. The only difference (for want of a better word) is that with science the knowledge can be broken up into specific areas. So in that sense science has the answers to everything.
Not really! Clayton could have been disappointed because the professor fell short in the true meaning of what science meant by saying; “it does not fall in the realm of science” and then going on to say (in so many words) that philosophy and theology were not part of science (knowledge).
Maybe superficially he sees knowledge as localised, but subconsciously realises that knowledge cannot be differentiated anymore than water can.
Really we would have to ask him.
But it is not a testimony. If you want to know something properly, then you go to the source, or somebody who is aware of the source, this is obtaining knowledge.
How would you know if somebody was genuinely aware of the source?
By how they act.
How are they supposed to act?
According to the rules and regulation set by the source.
How would we know?
By studying the source objectively. If we don’t, then we can’t know, we speculate. So it boils down to the intelligence of each individual.
Why would this mean their claims are not valid?
How would you know?
I don’t doubt that for a moment. But healing is not a very good subject to measure the effects of God, because there are various methods of healing widely available today.
What other effects have they measured?
It could well be, but that is not where I am coming from. I mean, there are literally millions if not billions of people, past and present who must have expressed belief, if in-fact they do believe in God, but I have not heard or seen their testimonies.
I never stated they did, nor did Clayton. My point was that all actively strong atheists cannot adhere to the idea of matter being created because this would imply a creator, which would invalidate their position as an atheist. So they come up with 2 ideas, either the universe came from nothing into existence or the universe is infinite and therefore there is no need of a creator. Each idea stresses matter was not created.
But as it stands at the moment, there is no demonstrable evidence which supports the idea of matter coming from nothing. So to hold on to this fundamentally absurd idea, in the hope that one day evidence will emerge, is among other things, dogmatic, despite all the evidence that there is cause to this universal manifestation. One such evidence simply being “life comes from life.”
My question was do you believe matter was created, not do you know matter was created. As we are talking about belief I would have thought the answer should either be yes or no. So I will ask again in the hope of a simple answer; Do you believe matter was created?
In one sense you are telling me atheism is not a body of people with a certain collective mindset, then in another sense you are saying atheism is uniformed in that “it” would not make any such assertions. This is just as ambiguous as your claim to whether you are atheist or agnostic.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Yes, to have knowledge one must acquire it. And in order to have a can of baked beans one must acquire it.
I disagree, for as you stated one must acquire knowledge. Once acquired, knowledge may be quantified, measured, qualified, and categorized. In fact, this is the very essence of knowledge.
But this is not what you were saying.
Raithere : However, it has on occasion disproved various claims as to the physical manifestations of God's effect upon the world.
Jan: It cannot successfully complete such tasks until it knows the origin of everything including itself.
If one needs to know the origin of everything in order to know anything then no one knows anything.
You're still not making any sense. If the only use of the word science is equated with knowledge then what do you call, and how do you classify such systematic methods of acquiring knowledge such as Biology, Physics, and Mathematics. And how are these methods different from other fields such as Philosophy, Logic, Metaphysics, Theology, Art, and Literature? Or is everything the same from your perspective?
I disagree.
Yes, they are. Most often they are not even first-hand testimonies but hearsay passed down for generations before being written down but even those that were written first hand are testimonies of the experiences of the individuals who wrote them. The alternative would be that reading the texts was the equivalent of the experience itself.
They could indeed be valid. But since we cannot know for sure our best course of action in determining their validity is to use the investigatory methods I mentioned earlier.
No, that would not affect the outcome of a proper study.
All kinds of claims; precognition, telepathy, telekinesis, ghosts, spiritual guides, far sight, communicating with the dead, numerous miracles (such as bleeding statues), faith healing.
Of course not, the testimonies have been filtered into statistical summaries. But the basis is still personal testimony. How else would one know that billions of people believe in various Gods?
Clayton stated, "The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning". If he meant to say that some atheists' maintain there was no beginning then that's what he should have said. Either he is wrong or he such a terrible writer that he cannot communicate such things clearly, in which case he's not worth reading anyway.
What about atheists who believe that matter was created by someone or something that is not God; such as pantheists or Buddhists?
Yes there is. The phenomena are known as virtual particles and their existence (and disappearance) has been well demonstrated and documented.
Sorry to burst your bubble but it already has (see above).
And fire comes from fire... but fire can also arise from non-fire. Water comes from water too (ice, water, steam) but water can come from non-water (H2O). I don't see any discrepancy, particularly after noting that all the necessary components for life occur quite naturally and are prevalent throughout the Universe.
By whom or what? Sorry but you need to be specific. But if you mean by God then my answer is, "No."
The universal atheist position makes no assertions al all, it is simply, "Disbelief in God(s)." There is also the 'strong' atheist position which makes the assertion, "There is no God(s)." Atheism makes no other assertions. In just the same way the universal theist position is, "Belief in God(s)." While the strong position is, "God exists." Beyond that one has to search quite hard to find any collective assertions and when brought to the level of the individual there are none.
As I stated, technically I am an atheist in that I do no believe in an existent God. However, I am willing to work with certain conceptions of God in the abstract that make such a classification incorrect in an absolute sense.
~Raithere
R
Redoubtable
Guest
I don't think that's correct, Raithere.
Virtual particles like electromagnetic quanta, or photons, have no mass. Therefore, some, including myself, would not consider them matter at all.
Are there virtual particles with mass? I don' t know. Do you? If so, could you give a quoatation or link?
I believe that some of the singularity-related work of Hawking has shone some light on this topic, though I cannot be sure.
[edit]
Ack . . . I did look at this thread again . . .
[/edit]
Virtual photons, being photons, do not have mass. However, there are other virtual particles that do.
Here are some links:
"Yes, virtual particles have mass."
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov98/911227577.Ph.r.html
" Although their existence is fleeting, the effects produced by virtual particles are quite real and can be measured in high-precision experiments. The more precise the measurement, the more massive and short-ranged particles can be studied through their virtual interactions."
http://buphy.bu.edu/bu/ExHepPhy.html (scroll down to the g-2 experiment)
" the mass of a virtual particle can assume any value whatsoever and it is related to the interaction time by the well-known indeterminacy priciple"
http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/delta/delta18.html
~Raithere
Raithere,
If you don’t know what you’re looking for, then how would you know how to investigate?
And if somehow you did, and you investigated ten million frauds, that still doesn’t mean you are correct, it only means you were correct about those ten million.
And if you use mathematical probabilities and statistics, then you have only an hypothesis, and a weak one at that, as there are billions of people on this planet.
The fact that doctors do this everyday 24/7, all over the world?
How would you know whether this particular patient wasn’t divinely healed?
Your only strength is mathematics and logic, but if they can only determine what the senses can perceive, and the senses are imperfect, what use are they in determining truth.
We can understand through scientific observation and calculation that the universe is not static, in fact it is expanding. This observation was properly recognised in the twentieth century.
The Qur’an was written hundreds of years ago and there is a verse where Allah says the universe is expanding. This, imho, is proper observation of God's effects.
Life does not come from non-life. If you can demonstrate that it can, you will have mine and everybody’s full attention and admiration.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Knowledge of a particular thing, yes, but knowledge of “everything,” no, because “knowledge” as a whole cannot be quantified/measured mundanely, and neither can “everything.”
To determine whether God has no effect on/in the universe successfully, one has to know the origin of everything, because the claim is that God is the cause of everything that exists.
Once classified, these droplets of knowledge become a part of the whole. The idea is gain as much knowledge as we can so we can understand our origin, our selves, our destination, etc…With each molecule (part) of knowledge we gain, we begin to cover the ocean {whole) of knowledge. This is the “ascending process” of acquiring knowledge.
They differ only in our perception of reality.
But what would you know what to look for?
If you don’t know what you’re looking for, then how would you know how to investigate?
And if somehow you did, and you investigated ten million frauds, that still doesn’t mean you are correct, it only means you were correct about those ten million.
And if you use mathematical probabilities and statistics, then you have only an hypothesis, and a weak one at that, as there are billions of people on this planet.
If you observed a doctor bringing a patient out of a deep coma, how would you know that God didn’t help the patient, through the doctor?
The fact that doctors do this everyday 24/7, all over the world?
How would you know whether this particular patient wasn’t divinely healed?
Your only strength is mathematics and logic, but if they can only determine what the senses can perceive, and the senses are imperfect, what use are they in determining truth.
These are not effects of God, these are supernatural effects. If you read any scripture, there is no mention of these things being attributed to God. Lets stick to things attributed to God for example;
We can understand through scientific observation and calculation that the universe is not static, in fact it is expanding. This observation was properly recognised in the twentieth century.
The Qur’an was written hundreds of years ago and there is a verse where Allah says the universe is expanding. This, imho, is proper observation of God's effects.
I think that’s quite a harsh reaction.
These are not atheists by dictionary definition. Buddhist do not believe in the personality of God, they believe God is impersonal. Pantheists believe everything is God.
Where is this demonstration?
How can fire come from non-fire?
Life does not come from non-life. If you can demonstrate that it can, you will have mine and everybody’s full attention and admiration.
This is just a silly evasion tactic. The question was specific enough, the who or what should be built into your belief.
Ok, so; Do you believe matter was created?
If you don’t believe God exists, why do you need to use ideas of what you don’t believe, to classify the incorrectness of the existence of a god you don’t believe in?
Love
Jan Ardena.
I'm not sure where you're going with this but okay; although I'm not sure that one can refer to the 'whole' of something infinite, knowledge as a whole cannot be quantified.
True; when we are referring to God being the prime cause. This however, is not the case when specific claims are made. They may be tested for independently.
I've no problem with this but one needs to also weed out falsehood. One should then attempt to discover which methods are most reliable and which are unreliable as well of methods of distinguishing truth from falsehood.
Their methods are quite different as well; as is their reliability.
One looks for statistical deviations. If a certain behavior or treatment is indeed beneficial it will be manifest. To date it seems that the religious influence on healing is either non-existent or equal to non-religious methods of bolstering a positive outlook. That is, God, prayer, and 'faith healing' have, at best, the same effect as a sugar pill.
This is true. However, if these 10 million cases were randomly distributed throughout all religions, cultures, and walks of life one would start to get a pretty good picture of the reliability of such claims.
And how would one distinguish this from the doctor succeeding without God's assistance? One would look towards the statistical successes of many doctors and watch for a deviation amongst those who are religious. Unless God distributes such assistance completely at random a pattern would emerge.
Those are hardly my only strengths but they are extremely useful tools. Using these and other tools, as well as the senses are the only methods I know for determining the truth. You say they are imperfect and I do agree but there the best we have as far as I am aware. What alternative methods would you suggest?
Occasional hits do not impress me. The question becomes, "How accurate is it across the spectrum of its assertions." Again, one looks for a statistical deviation from chance or other methods. As the Qur'an is also wrong in a number of its assertions I have no reason to believe it is the inerrant word of God.
There are more excellently conceived and written texts out there than I will ever have time to read. Why waste on someone who cannot communicate effectively or accurately? Except possibly to refute his errors and try to reduce his bad influence upon others.
No, Buddhists do not believe in a creator or God in any western sense of the word. They believe in an ultimate state, Nirvana, that is neither existence nor non-existence. I should have been more specific with my mentioning pantheism, I was thinking particularly of certain Animist beliefs that everything has a spiritual dimension but there is no overruling creator or God.
Search on 'virtual particles' and the 'Casimir effect'. Here is a start:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
By heating a combustible material until the gasses it expels under heat combust.
Who now is being presumptuous about what cannot be? You rebuke my disbelief in God by saying that science does not know everything yet science has more evidence for the possibility of Abiogenesis than there is for God. Give it some time, it took nature billions of years and an entire planet, it may take man a few centuries to demonstrate the possibility in a test tube.
No, I would not say that I believe that matter was created.
That's not what I meant. I can accept and work with God as a condition or as an abstract state but I find literal and/or existent interpretations to be erroneous. I'm not sure I can explain this fully and even if I could it would take me many pages but this thread gives a basis of my thoughts:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25532
You might also look for some of the threads where Tiassa and I got into the subject.
~Raithere
Raithere,
What you need to do, is find out what religion really is.
Why?
Does God advocate any religion organisation in the scripture, that might make you think he would only heal or use people to heal, if they were affiliated with a religious organisation?
In scriptures God says that homosexuality is an abomination to Him, yet religious people who are homosexual claim that they are blessed by Him, and see themselves as “servants of God.” So what use is religion in all honesty, if it can make such drastic contradictions.
The time for institutionalised religion is coming to an end.
It is said by almost all atheists that religion was born out of a time when there was no science and needed some kind of comfort to overcome the fear of death, pain, old-age etc. So man came up with this fantasy, through his imagination, of a supreme being which rewards and punishes, in the form of religion, and wrote the scriptures to go with it.
I have just shared you with some information from one of the said scriptures, which clearly states a modern scientific fact. This particular fact has no feel good factor, whatsoever. It does not come with a reward or punishment package. It is a simple truth which can be backed up with science fact.
It is proof. And you say you’re not impressed.
What would impress you?
Lord Buddha was the twenty first incarnation of God according to Vedanta Sutra. His purpose was to delude the atheistic class.
On the plea of Vedic sacrifice, every place was practically turned into a slaughterhouse, and animal killing was indulged in unrestrictedly. He preached non violence and that he did not believe in the tenets of the Vedas, and stressed the adverse psychological effects incurred by animal killing. Less intelligent men of the age of Kali, who had no faith in God, followed his principle, and for some time they were being trained in moral discipline and non violence, the “preliminary steps in proceeding to God realisation.
He deluded the atheist because such atheists who followed his principles did not believe in God, but they kept their absolute faith in Lord Buddha. Thus, they were made to believe in God, in the form of Buddha.
Technically Lord Buddha’s philosophy is called atheistic because there is no acceptance of God and because that system of philosophy denied the authority of the Vedas. But that is act of camouflage of God.
After Lord Buddha’s disappearance, the next stage in vaishnavism appeared in the form of Shankaracharya, his teachings were a step up from Buddha’s toward believing in a personal God. But it was still impersonal. Next was Madhvacharya, then Ramanujacharya, then finally Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. With each personality, religion became more restored to its original purpose. When Chaitanya Mahaprabhu appeared He inaugurated the religion of the age.
I think if it was possible to create life from matter, it would have been accomplished before now.
Love
Jan Ardena.
If the cause is not understood, or believed not to exist, then independent testing is futile.
I totally agree. But the scientific and mathematical “method” are not appropriate by themselves, in all circumstances. At some stage we require faith in something outside of physics and math. We have to determine what is true and what is false through our own understanding, for this to be successful we have to develop our intelligence, to a point where we can see things as they are, without any preconceived ideas. This is where philosophy, art, and religion can come into play.
The methods may be quite different initially, but eventually they are all part of the same thing. A good analogy is “fire” fire distributes heat and light, they are indivisible from fire, but separate also.
Why does it have to be a religious experience? It seems we are caught up in God only working in a religious context.
What you need to do, is find out what religion really is.
Why shouldn’t it have?
But the fact still remains, you do not know what you are looking for. If God is the controller of nature, and we are in part a manifestation of nature, and God uses His nature to heal us, how can we know whether it is the direct work of God, or providence. You may investigate someone who genuinely has been divinely healed through the agency of nature. How could you detect it was indeed divinity? This is why healing is not a good investigatory ground to decide if God has any effect.
What need would there be of distinguishing it? The point would be, the person is healed, and as such nothing else matters.
Again you seem to think that religion would have to be involved.
Why?
Does God advocate any religion organisation in the scripture, that might make you think he would only heal or use people to heal, if they were affiliated with a religious organisation?
In scriptures God says that homosexuality is an abomination to Him, yet religious people who are homosexual claim that they are blessed by Him, and see themselves as “servants of God.” So what use is religion in all honesty, if it can make such drastic contradictions.
The time for institutionalised religion is coming to an end.
Developing your intelligence. Learn to see things as they are.
Its not about being “impressed,” it is about sincerely wanting to understand who and what you are, how you came to be and what will become of you.
It is said by almost all atheists that religion was born out of a time when there was no science and needed some kind of comfort to overcome the fear of death, pain, old-age etc. So man came up with this fantasy, through his imagination, of a supreme being which rewards and punishes, in the form of religion, and wrote the scriptures to go with it.
I have just shared you with some information from one of the said scriptures, which clearly states a modern scientific fact. This particular fact has no feel good factor, whatsoever. It does not come with a reward or punishment package. It is a simple truth which can be backed up with science fact.
It is proof. And you say you’re not impressed.
What would impress you?
Why waste time with this non-sense assessing, the information is there. What are you going to do about it?
Let’s discuss the “wrong” parts of the Qur’an.
Lord Buddha was the twenty first incarnation of God according to Vedanta Sutra. His purpose was to delude the atheistic class.
On the plea of Vedic sacrifice, every place was practically turned into a slaughterhouse, and animal killing was indulged in unrestrictedly. He preached non violence and that he did not believe in the tenets of the Vedas, and stressed the adverse psychological effects incurred by animal killing. Less intelligent men of the age of Kali, who had no faith in God, followed his principle, and for some time they were being trained in moral discipline and non violence, the “preliminary steps in proceeding to God realisation.
He deluded the atheist because such atheists who followed his principles did not believe in God, but they kept their absolute faith in Lord Buddha. Thus, they were made to believe in God, in the form of Buddha.
Technically Lord Buddha’s philosophy is called atheistic because there is no acceptance of God and because that system of philosophy denied the authority of the Vedas. But that is act of camouflage of God.
After Lord Buddha’s disappearance, the next stage in vaishnavism appeared in the form of Shankaracharya, his teachings were a step up from Buddha’s toward believing in a personal God. But it was still impersonal. Next was Madhvacharya, then Ramanujacharya, then finally Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. With each personality, religion became more restored to its original purpose. When Chaitanya Mahaprabhu appeared He inaugurated the religion of the age.
Heat is a part of fire.
In this case I am. But I am most confidenct that this feat cannot be demonstrated, with any real sense of clarity.
What do you regard as evidence for God?
Nature does it less than every second. How hard can it really be?
I think if it was possible to create life from matter, it would have been accomplished before now.
As far a you are concerned, Clayton is right then, isn’t he? I wonder how many other atheists on this board at least believe that matter was not created?
I think you intellectualise, where there is no need, on this subject.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Quite wrong. Independent testing would show if there is indeed such an effect upon the real world even if we did not know what its cause was. Many discoveries have been made in precisely this way.
To an extent, I do agree. However, such a subjective method is extremely prone to error and can be quite dangerous.
Indeed, they are part of a persons world view. The error begins when one begins to presume the subjective experience is objective reality.
It's not; that was my point.
I no longer have any need for religion or dogma, I have grown beyond it. Religion is like parental rules for a child, at some point the child grows beyond the need of such things.
That's not my side of the argument.
I am no longer looking for God, its a fools errand. What religion terms God is a part of my daily experience.
Then choose the evidence you wish to discuss; I was providing an example of what many people take as proof of God.
That is not what I think but it is indeed what most theists claim.
I quite agree. Institutionalized religion is oxymoronic in the first place.
Indeed, this is something I consistently work upon.
I'm not impressed with random successes I'm looking for something more accurate than that. A broken clock is correct twice a day; this does not mean that a broken clock is a good mechanism for determining what time it is.
I have read and spent some time studying it. As with most religious texts it contains many human truths but very few regarding the Universe. Religion is an expression of the human experience; it is not an accurate depiction of the workings of the Universe.
Let's leave that to another thread, our topic is spread out as it is.
This sounds as if it's a Hindu interpretation of Buddhism. But in fact, it is quite wrong. Siddhartha never proclaimed himself God nor did he require faith. He taught others how to find the state of enlightenment he had acquired.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm
No, heat is the transfer of the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules. One does not require fire to have heat.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html#c1
As to fire:
http://www.discover.com/ask/main16.html
I do not share your confidence. Rather, I think it is inevitable. I'm sure you are familiar with the analogy of finding a watch on the beach but the analogy typically leaves out a few things. The reality of the situation is that we have found a functional watch on a beach that is comprised of watch parts. Further, as we watch the beach we find that these parts have a natural tendency to combine and form more complex watch parts all on their own. The beach is also littered with other watches that are different than the one we first found but share some basic similarities in the way they function.
I don't know but if I find it I'll let you know.
No, what you are observing is the continuous process of life. It is one thing.
No he is not correct as far as I am concerned because while I don't believe that matter was created I do not necessarily believe that it didn't have a beginning.
The quandary presented is one of logic and thus intellect, not intuition or emotion. Present me with another quandary and I may choose a different method but I have chosen the proper methods for this particular problem.
~Raithere
Raithere,
But what would we know what we are testing for? What if God used "nature" as a cause for the effect, how would independant testing discriminate?
And it has been documented that they are natural causes, and that's all that can be said due to the limitations and imperfections of man.
When all is said and done, all methods can be dangerous and prone to error. So it is still left to the individual to make up his mind.
What about the person doesn't persume this?
I didn't state that you need religion, i said you need to know what it actually is.
No religion is a way to become self-realized, to understand who and what you are. It deals with the whole of life, the commandments/rules are there to help the individual on the path to self-realization.
Your point shows that you do not really understand what "religion/spirituality" is.
How so?
Are you basing "religion" purely on what "theists" think?
Pardon me, i thought you were looking for truth.
Sooooo!!! You think that was just a lucky guess from the authors?
I have explained what religion is.
LOL!!I don't believe this!!!
The scripture is REVEALING you something that could not be known to anyone readily. Only through scientific work and technology could this be unveiled, and you're telling me the scripture has no accurate depiction of the workings of the universe?
It may sound Hindu, but it is "Vedic" knowledge.
Who said he proclaimed himself God?
Everybody requires faith in some stages of their life.
It's part of being human.
Why?
What do you mean by "combine?"
Are the parts just thrown randomly together until something fits?
What is the beach? How did it come to be the perfect resting place for the unknown combiner to combine?
There is so much fault with your analogy, it doesn't seem worth debating over.
In other words you don't believe God exists.
How do you know that process isn't continuing and that's what life is?
Then what do you believe?
I find it amusing that you carve your mind up like that.
Love
Jan Ardena.
But what would we know what we are testing for? What if God used "nature" as a cause for the effect, how would independant testing discriminate?
And it has been documented that they are natural causes, and that's all that can be said due to the limitations and imperfections of man.
When all is said and done, all methods can be dangerous and prone to error. So it is still left to the individual to make up his mind.
What about the person doesn't persume this?
I didn't state that you need religion, i said you need to know what it actually is.
No religion is a way to become self-realized, to understand who and what you are. It deals with the whole of life, the commandments/rules are there to help the individual on the path to self-realization.
Your point shows that you do not really understand what "religion/spirituality" is.
How so?
Are you basing "religion" purely on what "theists" think?
Pardon me, i thought you were looking for truth.
Sooooo!!! You think that was just a lucky guess from the authors?
I have explained what religion is.
LOL!!I don't believe this!!!
The scripture is REVEALING you something that could not be known to anyone readily. Only through scientific work and technology could this be unveiled, and you're telling me the scripture has no accurate depiction of the workings of the universe?
It may sound Hindu, but it is "Vedic" knowledge.
Who said he proclaimed himself God?
Everybody requires faith in some stages of their life.
It's part of being human.
Why?
What do you mean by "combine?"
Are the parts just thrown randomly together until something fits?
What is the beach? How did it come to be the perfect resting place for the unknown combiner to combine?
There is so much fault with your analogy, it doesn't seem worth debating over.
In other words you don't believe God exists.
How do you know that process isn't continuing and that's what life is?
Then what do you believe?
I find it amusing that you carve your mind up like that.
Love
Jan Ardena.
If God acts in a completely random manner than we could not detect his actions. If God acts in a non-random manner his influence would be apparent no matter what his method was.
Or perhaps because that's all they are; natural.
Certainly. However, if you tend to use a method that is prone to error than you are more likely to be in error than not.
Those I have no problem with.
I understand what religion is.
There is more than one way to reach self-realization one does not need religion for this.
There is a unity to existence that I am aware of from moment to moment.
Well I cannot very well base it upon what atheists think now, can I. So yes, my understanding of religion is based upon what theists think.
A random success does not indicate that a method is a good tool for discovering the truth.
Bingo!
I wouldn't go so far as to say it has none but it's record is pretty bad. Its success is generally better predicted by the state of knowledge in the people of the day, coincidentally enough. Typically though, religious text is reinterpreted in light of discovery as being non-literal.
Really? Care to provide independent corroboration?
If he didn't say or prove he was more than a man why would someone think that he was? Sounds silly to me.
Not in God.
Because part of that enlightenment includes compassion for others. He taught that himself.
To join together.
Within the natural laws of this theoretical universe; yes.
There is no unknown combiner, the natural laws are such that the universe proceeds naturally along such a course.
No, in other words: I am not so presumptuous as to attempt to define God by my rules, therefore I do not have a set of tests that would validate something as God. I do not believe in God because I have not yet seen any evidence that convinces me otherwise but if I did, I would.
The process of life is continuing. That's what I just said. :bugeye:
There isn't enough evidence either way for me to decide.
My mind is whole and fine, thank you. One selects the proper tool for the job; one would not try to dig a ditch with a hammer. Neither would one state that 2+2 = 5 because one 'feels' that the answer should be 5. There are better tools for such activities.
~Raithere
Raithere,
There would be no reason for Him to act anyway else.
From the the description of God, how could He act in an un-random manner?
At some point, if someone had said the universe is expanding, it says so in the Qur’an, who would believe bar the faithful? I think scientists are aware of things that happen in a so-called un-random manner, but they cannot explain it, or it may not fit into their understanding and it gets left by the wayside, or is given a silly explanation
Who knows!
So the ones that are not prone to any type of error should be studied.
But that’s what religion is, anything else is irreligion. Every single method of self-realisation is categorised, from Lord Buddha to Lord Jesus Christ. I think what you regard as religion are offshoots of the original religion which is one thing for all species.
What theists think, is not “religion.” I suppose you could say “religion” is the source of what they think. To understand anything in life imho, one has to go, at some stage to the source.
Truth is truth, why does it matter how it is acquired. In this case the truth was revealed by two methods, the descending and ascending processes of knowledge.
That’s fair enough. But it says heaps about your character.
An example?
Could you rephrase that?
Among the instructions in religious texts, are there any which state that it should be reinterpreted, or that it is to be take non-literally? I don’t think there is. For us to understand them we have to rise to occasion (intelligence). Of course strories and analogies are told in scriptures, but it is always clear that they are thus.
There’s no need. At the time of Lord Buddha there was no such title as “Hindu.” The term was invented by Arabs who invaded India to describe the people who lived across the river “Sindhu.” What we term as Hinduism are actually bit and bobs of the Vedic system.
His advent was predicted long before he came. This is how people would know. The province which was born into, his appearance, his parents and his activity are all known.
Okay! No need to bite my head off.
I hear ya!
Maybe its me, but that doesn’t suggest randomness, it suggests a deliberate act.
I am not of that same opinion.
That explains nothing.
God is not described in such a way where He can be empirically tested. In all scriptures He is classed as being trancendendal to nature. So what god are you talking about, because it certainly cannot be God as described.
I given you a good start with that scripture, but you reject it as pot-luck.
I don’t think it matters to you whether God exists or not.
I asked for that one didn’t I?
So you believe in science. Namely the scientific method?
Please don’t take offence. I think you use your mind quite skilfully. Your certainly no slouch.
Its funny I see the above as common sense. Is logic just a complex version of common sense?
Love
Jan Ardena.
There would be no reason for Him to act anyway else.
From the the description of God, how could He act in an un-random manner?
At some point, if someone had said the universe is expanding, it says so in the Qur’an, who would believe bar the faithful? I think scientists are aware of things that happen in a so-called un-random manner, but they cannot explain it, or it may not fit into their understanding and it gets left by the wayside, or is given a silly explanation
Who knows!
So the ones that are not prone to any type of error should be studied.
But that’s what religion is, anything else is irreligion. Every single method of self-realisation is categorised, from Lord Buddha to Lord Jesus Christ. I think what you regard as religion are offshoots of the original religion which is one thing for all species.
What theists think, is not “religion.” I suppose you could say “religion” is the source of what they think. To understand anything in life imho, one has to go, at some stage to the source.
Truth is truth, why does it matter how it is acquired. In this case the truth was revealed by two methods, the descending and ascending processes of knowledge.
That’s fair enough. But it says heaps about your character.
An example?
Could you rephrase that?
Among the instructions in religious texts, are there any which state that it should be reinterpreted, or that it is to be take non-literally? I don’t think there is. For us to understand them we have to rise to occasion (intelligence). Of course strories and analogies are told in scriptures, but it is always clear that they are thus.
There’s no need. At the time of Lord Buddha there was no such title as “Hindu.” The term was invented by Arabs who invaded India to describe the people who lived across the river “Sindhu.” What we term as Hinduism are actually bit and bobs of the Vedic system.
His advent was predicted long before he came. This is how people would know. The province which was born into, his appearance, his parents and his activity are all known.
Okay! No need to bite my head off.
I hear ya!
Maybe its me, but that doesn’t suggest randomness, it suggests a deliberate act.
I am not of that same opinion.
That explains nothing.
God is not described in such a way where He can be empirically tested. In all scriptures He is classed as being trancendendal to nature. So what god are you talking about, because it certainly cannot be God as described.
I given you a good start with that scripture, but you reject it as pot-luck.
I don’t think it matters to you whether God exists or not.
I asked for that one didn’t I?
So you believe in science. Namely the scientific method?
Please don’t take offence. I think you use your mind quite skilfully. Your certainly no slouch.
Its funny I see the above as common sense. Is logic just a complex version of common sense?
Love
Jan Ardena.
I'm fine with that but lots of theists disagree.
This is exactly what I mean by reinterpretation in light of other knowledge. Here are several translations of the verse; you'll note that only one of these interpretations suggests an expanding Universe and it seems that the translator was not absolutely sure of his interpretation:
Therefore it seems to me that whether or not Mohammed was literally saying the Universe is expanding is rather questionable. Only knowledge provided by science gives any surety to this interpretation.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Science has no inherent problems with order or randomness, only with lack of data and sometimes with interpretation.
I don't think there are any that are error free. Certainly, the foibles of man introduce errors into any method. What seems to me the best approach is to never completely rely on any one method.
Then why bother with any particular method. It seems to be it is up to the individual to find their own path and to attempt to refute anyone's personal approach is quite presumptuous.
What source?
The problem is not how truth is acquired; the problem is discerning truth from falsehood.
Such as?
How about the 6 days of the Genesis creation?
Very often when religion makes an accurate 'revelation' about the Universe that information was already available. One might look to the 'miracle' that the word meaning 'day' was used 365 times in the Quran. Yet the knowledge that there were (approximately) 365 days in a year was known at the time.
This is not quite as exacting as one might think; look back to the interpretations I offered above.
What I meant was is there independent corroboration of this Vedic interpretation as being correct. All of the accounts of Siddhartha that I have read do not depict him as being thought of as a God but strictly as a man who had reached enlightenment. The idea that people were led to believe in him as a God seems utterly foreign to any of the Buddhists texts that I have read.
I would bet that there is a lot of room for error and interpretation in that prediction.
Molecules do so quite naturally.
But this is indeed how it happens. Atoms and molecules are not mysteriously drawn towards each other to form specific combinations. They bump into each other at random until, sometimes, they fit together and combine.
It does actually. It indicates that if there is indeed a Creator, it is not necessary for him to tinker around building plants and animals and planets and such. That the Universe was created in such a way that these things evolve on their own.
Many religions describe a God that often influences the world directly, yet no such influence can be detected. I've no quarrel with a transcendent God except when people start telling me that they know something about him.
Not really, no. I'm satisfied that my life is an honest search for truth and understanding. Any God that would condemn me for this I have no reverence for.
I believe that the scientific method is the most reliable method we have for distilling truth and knowledge about the Universe and how it works. Logic and Philosophy are also good tools. Most religious texts I view as expressions of the human condition, which are also truthful and sometimes very insightful but in the way that a novel or a poem is truthful.
Essentially, yes. Logic is formalized reason. It's a method for examining common sense and reason in a way that illuminates errors and assumptions.
To look at it another way, common sense is a kind of gestalt approach to logic. You look at a situation and decide, "That makes sense." The human mind is very good at this but it also relies upon a lot of approximations, generalizations, and assumptions. Logic allows us to examine the situation in detail to see if maybe we made some mistakes or are relying upon unrecognized assumptions.
~Raithere