"Just as a candle cannot burn without fire, men cannot live without a spiritual life"

[rjr6]

The fantasy is karma. That is pure bullshit. If I'm wrong, please show me the evidence that "karma" creates the flaws in animals. This belief also includes that karma influences the type of animal you become in the next life. So, if you have the evidence to support it, I'm ready. Otherwise, your ad hominem remark notwithstanding, you're full of shit.



And yet, this is the primary purpose of religion from band-level societies up through state-level. Otherwise, religions wouldn't impose moral codes, taboos, and all manner of superstitious requirements for their adherence. If there is a religion that has an exception to this, I challenge you to reveal it. I'll take your silence as concession of the point.



Nope. While religions have philosophical ideas, not all philosophical ideas are religious. So, you use yet again a logical fallacy. This time the non sequitur.



Really? And how would you obtain that proof? I assure you, I can move the goal post as soon as you approach it. This is what has occurred over the centuries with explanations of gods and other supernatural poppycock: the believers constantly move the goal post as soon as the reasoned freethinker successfully approaches it.



I dismiss it because it is flawed. Seriously flawed. If you can support this argument, please do. Quantify how a soul is "more statistically probable" than a celestial teapot -excluding that I admit the celestial teapot is fantasy.



You did. Everything about your beliefs and assertions in this very thread suggest magic. A quality that simply does not exist in any quantifiable or measurable way. It is supernatural: existing outside of the realm of nature and thus the physical laws within nature.



If the evidence isn't at least potentially falsifiable or testable, then it probably *is* a hoax. Particularly since the hoax is the most parsimonious explanation. Humans deceive to further their beliefs. There are several that have done so in this very forum.

As the rest of your reply follows the same fallacious trend, I see no need to do the quote-to-quote thing. More anti-science mumbo-jumbo that simply doesn't hold water. Those that believe in supernatural explanations will always claim that they cannot get those that aren't convinced of their superstitions to believe them because the non-believers don't want to believe. With evidence -real evidence- even the most hardlined skeptic would become a believer. The lack of evidence or what would qualify as real evidence is the onus of the superstitious, yet they continue to ask silly questions like, "what would you accept as proof." Really! What an ignorant thing to ask! The freethinker hasn't a claim, it's the believer that has the claim. The evidence is the believer's problem.

You end your fallacious reply with the same fallacious argument about the sun revolving around the Earth as if this logical fallacy proves your claim. What I would have believed in the 1600's is irrelevant to the discussion. Religious adherents claim to have "knowledge" and to be able to "observe" their superstitions such that it informs their beliefs. Yet they are unable to do better than appeal to personal incredulity in order to support their claims. They are unable to test or falsify their observations or adequately explain them such that the methodology of their observations can be replicated by those not afflicted with their superstitions.

If you want proof that can be weighed or measured, God hasn't provided that unless you have faith. Science can not prove where exactly a blade of grass from, but maybe it started in a pool of goo 4 billion years ago. I challenge you to take any chemical or basic building block of matter and make a blade of grass. That dosen't mean "God 'done it!" I merely state that your acceptance of science does not explain reality, just describes our experience of it- and incompletely at that. The scientific method is an excellent tool at discovering the universe. Given time I am sure we will discover and understand things that are now just observed as 'anomalies', and science will correct current misunderstandings that we are unaware of.
So if you want proof, look at a blade of grass. It is the same as you saying 'look in this here mi-cro-scope at this here electron'.
I interpret your argument to be basically that if you understand science, i.e. get an education or loosely -your ignorant- then you will be able to think 'rationally' . I challenge you that spirituality, or belief in the supernatural, is similar. Not the same, but sharing commonalities.
Actually, I challenge you to prove where a blade of grass came from, reproducible and testable, or else science is all poppycock.

 

[Godless]

Or misrepresentations of words Sam;

Gautama Buddha (as portrayed in the Pali scriptures/ the agamas) set an important trend in nontheism in Buddhism in the sense of denying the existence of an omnipotent Creator God[1]. Nevertheless, in many passages in the Tripitaka Gautama Buddha spoke about gods and gave specific examples of individuals who were reborn as a god, or gods who were reborn as humans. Buddhist cosmology recognizes various levels and types of gods, but none of these gods is considered the creator of the world or of the human race[2].

In Mahayana Buddhism there is far less reticence on the part of the Buddha to speak of metaphysical matters (including the all-pervasiveness of Buddha's "body" throughout the universe - see trikaya). A distinction therefore needs to be drawn between the teachings ascribed to the Buddha in the Pāli Canon or the Āgamas, which do not speak affirmatively of an omnipotent Creator God, and the more explicitly mystical ideas attributed to the Buddha in some Mahayana sutras and Tantras, where expression is given to an apparent Ultimate Ground of all things - the immanent, omniscient, and transcendent Reality of the Awakened Mind or the boundless sphere of the "Buddha Nature" (buddha-dhatu or Tathagatagarbha)[citation needed].

In both the Pali suttas and the Mahayana sutras, the Buddha does teach the existence of "gods" (devas). These are not, however, "God" but merely heavenly beings who temporarily dwell in celestial worlds of great happiness. Such beings are not eternal in that incarnational form and are subject to death and eventual rebirth into lower realms of existence[3].

Furthermore, buddhism is nothing more than a primitive form of existentialism, a mythical non-serquitus philosophy that can easily be manipulated by usurping tendecies of individuals, the original buddha clearly stated "don't worship me, I'm not god" yet today many do, worship the buddah as a god, it's all about interpretation and who makes such claims, only cause they have reached sertain level of prestiege amongs their religion, does not make them god like, or supernatural in any manner, they are afterall human!

Certain Buddhists (particularly in the modern West) hold to an interpretation of Buddhism that admits nothing of either the supernatural or divinity. In non-theistic views, realms and gods are viewed with a liberal dose of metaphor, as tools to understand aspects of Mind, and indeed this is supported by some sutras such as the Lankavatara Sutra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

Thus you then take the mythical path, of buddhism, while I on the other hand take no part of it, however I do know the implications of non-theistic buddhist teachings, to be primitive forms of existentialism!

 

[SkinWalker]

It would seem that the only real argument that a believer can muster is one from personal incredulity: "oh, yeah! Well science can't prove X, so god must exist."

What a cop-out.

 

[S.A.M.]

Or misrepresentations of words Sam;



Furthermore, buddhism is nothing more than a primitive form of existentialism, a mythical non-serquitus philosophy that can easily be manipulated by usurping tendecies of individuals, the original buddha clearly stated "don't worship me, I'm not god" yet today many do, worship the buddah as a god, it's all about interpretation and who makes such claims, only cause they have reached sertain level of prestiege amongs their religion, does not make them god like, or supernatural in any manner, they are afterall human!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

Thus you then take the mythical path, of buddhism, while I on the other hand take no part of it, however I do know the implications of non-theistic buddhist teachings, to be primitive forms of existentialism!

How do you know which interpretation truly is from Buddha? On what basis?

 

[Godless]

How do you know which interpretation truly is from Buddha? On what basis?

Since I only meditate, or do some light yoga, I have no clue Sam, it's on your personal choice, since there seem to be so many interpretations, such as there is many interpretations of christianity, judaism, islam. You only do what may feel right for you, as I have an understanding of the mythical implications of buddhism I don't follow such religion, nor do I follow taoism, or any variation of mythical religions, btw they are all mythical in nature, even buddhism though it's mostly atheistic, it's still existentialist.

Debunking Enlightenment:

The spiritual quest, as much as it seeks to achieve unity with an ultimate reality that transcends the person, is still a personal endeavor, colored by the psychology of the seeker. The longing to discover the key to existence and to reside in God, or some atheistic version of the Absolute, is driven by the problem of life: our capacity for suffering and the desire for its cessation, our insatiable drive for knowledge and meaning, and our awareness of mortality. To achieve mystical communion – the direct understanding of the Real – is to solve this problem, at least temporarily; it’s to quiet the restless striving of the limited, egotistic self by experiencing its connection to the infinite. Historically, Buddhists have been the most candid in recognizing the practical motivational basis for the spiritual quest, which is simply to end the human suffering rooted in fear and craving.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/clark_24_2.htm

 

[S.A.M.]

Since I only meditate, or do some light yoga, I have no clue Sam, it's on your personal choice, since there seem to be so many interpretations, such as there is many interpretations of christianity, judaism, islam. You only do what may feel right for you, as I have an understanding of the mythical implications of buddhism I don't follow such religion, nor do I follow taoism, or any variation of mythical religions, btw they are all mythical in nature, even buddhism though it's mostly atheistic, it's still existentialist.

Debunking Enlightenment:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/clark_24_2.htm

So even though you don't know, you still present your interpretation as the most likely one? Hmm.

 

[Godless]

So even though you don't know, you still present your interpretation as the most likely one? Hmm.

I only presented the other side of the coin Sam, I took the notion of non-mythical aspect of buddhism, cuase I'm not mythical, however in further observation it's purely mythical anyhow, since existentialism is a form of mysticism boarding on speculation of reason.

EXISTENTIALISM AND ITS INFLUENCE:
http://www.neo-tech.com/advantages/advantage32.html

 

[VitalOne]

The fantasy is karma. That is pure bullshit. If I'm wrong, please show me the evidence that "karma" creates the flaws in animals. This belief also includes that karma influences the type of animal you become in the next life. So, if you have the evidence to support it, I'm ready. Otherwise, your ad hominem remark notwithstanding, you're full of shit.

How can I prove karma? Again your logic is devastatingly flawed...if no evidence is available it must be false, there's a 0% chance it is true

And yet, this is the primary purpose of religion from band-level societies up through state-level. Otherwise, religions wouldn't impose moral codes, taboos, and all manner of superstitious requirements for their adherence. If there is a religion that has an exception to this, I challenge you to reveal it. I'll take your silence as concession of the point.

No, what you're talking about is government. The government imposes laws that people have to follow and tries to control people and gain order. In the past the Catholic Church and the government were intimately connected, so I understand how you could make this error.

Nope. While religions have philosophical ideas, not all philosophical ideas are religious. So, you use yet again a logical fallacy. This time the non sequitur.

But in the beginning they were, philosophy and religion were one or inseperable.

Really? And how would you obtain that proof? I assure you, I can move the goal post as soon as you approach it. This is what has occurred over the centuries with explanations of gods and other supernatural poppycock: the believers constantly move the goal post as soon as the reasoned freethinker successfully approaches it.

How you would obtain proof determines on how the celestial teapot exists. If exists it can be found to exist in some way.

In the same way if an immaterial mind exists, then some type of proof could be gained and some type of experiment could be setup to show it.

I dismiss it because it is flawed. Seriously flawed. If you can support this argument, please do. Quantify how a soul is "more statistically probable" than a celestial teapot -excluding that I admit the celestial teapot is fantasy.

How can I? Simple. You see neurologists don't know if consciousness is physical or not or what it is, making the possibility of a soul-mind more statistically probable.

You did. Everything about your beliefs and assertions in this very thread suggest magic. A quality that simply does not exist in any quantifiable or measurable way. It is supernatural: existing outside of the realm of nature and thus the physical laws within nature.

No it doesn't. Magic is unexplainable. There's nothing magical about the science of karma, an immaterial mind, God, or anything.

However, with ignorance it can appear magical, just like how anything without knowledge appears magical.

If the evidence isn't at least potentially falsifiable or testable, then it probably *is* a hoax. Particularly since the hoax is the most parsimonious explanation. Humans deceive to further their beliefs. There are several that have done so in this very forum.

You've just confirmed what I said. If I did get real evidence atheists would insist it was a hoax of some type no matter what, therefore whats the real point of gathering evidence?

You've already made up your mind to disbelieve, because thats your faith (atheism).

As the rest of your reply follows the same fallacious trend, I see no need to do the quote-to-quote thing. More anti-science mumbo-jumbo that simply doesn't hold water. Those that believe in supernatural explanations will always claim that they cannot get those that aren't convinced of their superstitions to believe them because the non-believers don't want to believe. With evidence -real evidence- even the most hardlined skeptic would become a believer. The lack of evidence or what would qualify as real evidence is the onus of the superstitious, yet they continue to ask silly questions like, "what would you accept as proof." Really! What an ignorant thing to ask! The freethinker hasn't a claim, it's the believer that has the claim. The evidence is the believer's problem.

Thats not entirely true. It took a long while for somethings in science to be accepted, they only accepted it when they had no choice.

You end your fallacious reply with the same fallacious argument about the sun revolving around the Earth as if this logical fallacy proves your claim. What I would have believed in the 1600's is irrelevant to the discussion. Religious adherents claim to have "knowledge" and to be able to "observe" their superstitions such that it informs their beliefs. Yet they are unable to do better than appeal to personal incredulity in order to support their claims. They are unable to test or falsify their observations or adequately explain them such that the methodology of their observations can be replicated by those not afflicted with their superstitions.

Eventually it will no longer be superstitious, only a lack of knowledge makes something appear superstitious.

 

[spidergoat]

My faith is not in any particular aspect of science, but in the process itself. This is because it has a much better track record for finding things out than religion. Many scientists have a faith in both religion and science, but when it comes to practical questions about their world, like questions involving the behavior of animals, they don't ask a priest.
All of science is not based on the krebs cycle, or on esoteric kinds of knowledge. There is valuable science that can be done by high school students in their backyard.

...where doe sthat leave you in regard to the remainder of science outside of your direct perception and verification?

That leaves me with a healthy scepticism.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
[Carl Sagan]

So how does personal relationship fit into this? For instance if I had acquaintances who had direct perception of god how does that help me if all I accept my own direct perception?

It means I have had firsthand experience with the power of the scientific method. I am not a scientist, nor have I been formally trained in any of it's spheres, but I am generally scientifically literate. If I ever had a question about how somthing works, either I get an explanation, or pointed in the right direction. I never have to trust in authority, since all scientific truths can be studied to whatever degree of detail one might wish, (or have time for).

Despite all this you have to rely on faith to determine the truth/falsity of the kreb cycle - why?

No I don't. I said I can accept it tentatively, but since I'm not familiar with the details and how they were determined, I don't have to have faith in it. neither does anyone else. I do not require you to have faith in evolution if you don't understand the first thing about it, but you do have to realize that your ignorance is not sufficient proof to deny it.

Personal anecdotal evidence of God is not satisfactory, otherwise would you have me believe in alien abductions, too? Scientific observation does not require esoteric personal preparation. Anyone can see how data was collected. Anyone can collect data given a minimum of instruction. I collected data on the chemistry of the Chesapeake Bay one summer. I was told that phosphates in fertilizer wash into the bay and make algae grow thicker, robbing light from the underwater plants that stabilize islands, leading to erosion of the islands and loss of habitat. I was not required to accept this on faith, but saw with my own unprepared eyes the difference in phosphate levels in healthy and unhealthy parts of the bay.

You seem to be trying to equate personal experience of God with personal experience of a measurement tool, and I don't think they are the same.

 

[lightgigantic]

Spider goat

My faith is not in any particular aspect of science, but in the process itself. This is because it has a much better track record for finding things out than religion.

Empricism can only answer the little questions - for instance do you know where you are?

Many scientists have a faith in both religion and science, but when it comes to practical questions about their world, like questions involving the behavior of animals, they don't ask a priest.

Its not practical to know where you are?

All of science is not based on the krebs cycle, or on esoteric kinds of knowledge. There is valuable science that can be done by high school students in their backyard.

Backyard science experiments are not the foundations for evolutionary theory/abiogenesis etc - if persons are not familiar with the kreb cycle its questionable on what strength they are flaunting evolutionary theory/abiogenesis etc

“
...where doe sthat leave you in regard to the remainder of science outside of your direct perception and verification?
”
That leaves me with a healthy scepticism.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
[Carl Sagan]

Which is why one can see a distance between the claims of empiric theory and the body of empiric evidence

“
So how does personal relationship fit into this? For instance if I had acquaintances who had direct perception of god how does that help me if all I accept my own direct perception?
”
It means I have had firsthand experience with the power of the scientific method. I am not a scientist, nor have I been formally trained in any of it's spheres, but I am generally scientifically literate. If I ever had a question about how somthing works, either I get an explanation, or pointed in the right direction. I never have to trust in authority, since all scientific truths can be studied to whatever degree of detail one might wish, (or have time for).

Its not clear how you are not trusting authority, since you just get pat answers for your q's and are not actually directly perceiving anything by dint of scientific observation of data and testing phenomena - you are just accepting someone else's opinion or findings without doing any actual work yourself
“

Despite all this you have to rely on faith to determine the truth/falsity of the kreb cycle - why?
”
No I don't. I said I can accept it tentatively, but since I'm not familiar with the details and how they were determined, I don't have to have faith in it. neither does anyone else. I do not require you to have faith in evolution if you don't understand the first thing about it, but you do have to realize that your ignorance is not sufficient proof to deny it.

Well given that the kreb cycle contributes to evolutionary theory it tends to indicate something

Personal anecdotal evidence of God is not satisfactory, otherwise would you have me believe in alien abductions, too? Scientific observation does not require esoteric personal preparation. Anyone can see how data was collected.

You are neglecting the other half - not only they saying they have perceived somethinmg - they are also indicatingthe processes that also enable others to see the phenomena too

Anyone can collect data given a minimum of instruction. I collected data on the chemistry of the Chesapeake Bay one summer. I was told that phosphates in fertilizer wash into the bay and make algae grow thicker, robbing light from the underwater plants that stabilize islands, leading to erosion of the islands and loss of habitat. I was not required to accept this on faith, but saw with my own unprepared eyes the difference in phosphate levels in healthy and unhealthy parts of the bay.

And if you didn't accept that process, what would be the value of your opinions ?

You seem to be trying to equate personal experience of God with personal experience of a measurement tool, and I don't think they are the same.

You also had personal experience regarding the phosphate levels - this indicated something about the nature of reality - if you neglect , what to speak of being in complete ignorance, of the processes advocated by saintly persons, what is the value of your judgements on the significance of what they are perceiving?

 

[candy]

There is Kant formula to interpret metaphysical phenomena.
"the relationship of a to b perfectly resembles that of c to x" when x is unknown and unknowable. Which is what I assume is being questioned by Skinwalker. In this case god is x and can only be understood by it's relationship to c that mirrors a's relationship to b.
For instance god's relationship to humanity is like a parent's relationship to a child.

 

[lightgigantic]

There is Kant formula to interpret metaphysical phenomena.
"the relationship of a to b perfectly resembles that of c to x" when x is unknown and unknowable. Which is what I assume is being questioned by Skinwalker. In this case god is x and can only be understood by it's relationship to c that mirrors a's relationship to b.
For instance god's relationship to humanity is like a parent's relationship to a child.

Just a little bit of advice garnered by experience here - If you want the anti party to understand this you will have to unpack it a bit more

 

[Sarkus]

There is Kant formula to interpret metaphysical phenomena.
"the relationship of a to b perfectly resembles that of c to x" when x is unknown and unknowable. Which is what I assume is being questioned by Skinwalker. In this case god is x and can only be understood by it's relationship to c that mirrors a's relationship to b.
For instance god's relationship to humanity is like a parent's relationship to a child.

But this formula does not work - and CAN NOT WORK - due to the absence of information of X.

How do we KNOW that C is to X as A is to B - when we can know sweet FA about X ("unknown and unknowable").

One person might say C is to X as A is to B - and another might say C is to X as A is to D - where B and D are incompatible.

Who is right?
When X is unknown and unknowable - neither is right - both are mere guesses as to the nature of X, even if X exists.

It is utterly ridiculous to posit the nature of an "unknown and unknowable" - and even more so to then claim it as true.

 

[spidergoat]

Scientific observations are observable by anyone, the means of collecting data isn't obscure. The data is independent of the observer, therefore it is more reliable than data collected through "spiritual" means.

I did not need to accept scientific explanations on faith, as there are many simple experiments you can do with common household equipment.

Lightgigantic is an example of the failure to educate our children on the basics of science.

Evolution is a fact, fossils are directly observable, and anyone can visit a museum and see how different classes of animals are found in different layers, showing a progression of evolution.

I am familiar with religion, but you are not familiar with science, therefore this conversation amounts to educating you on basic science, something I don't have the patience for.

(oh, and I know where I am in relation to certain landmarks)

 

[Satyr]

Duh…what does spirituality have to do with religion?

What does ‘goodness’ have to do with belief?

By the way Kant was wrong, trying to justify his moralistic positions by evoking a mysterious thing-in-itself.
He is often used, just like Plato’s Idea (Ιδεα), by imbeciles to justify a leap of faith into what this thing-in-itself could be or what the Idea is.

You give a moron an opening and he’ll run with it, all the way into the absolute.

 

[spidergoat]

So, Light, I'll explain why personal experience of God is not a reliable guide to discovering the truth. What if (as is the case), many people all claim to experience different things? What if they all spent alot of time in obscure religious study? They can't all be right.

 

[VitalOne]

Scientific observations are observable by anyone, the means of collecting data isn't obscure. The data is independent of the observer, therefore it is more reliable than data collected through "spiritual" means.

Are you familiar with the QM double-slit experiment and the observer effect? Why do you think most experiments are now double-blind experiments...?

 

[spidergoat]

Yes, but in this case the effect is reproducable no matter who (or what) is doing the observing.

 

[lightgigantic]

spidergoat

Scientific observations are observable by anyone, the means of collecting data isn't obscure.

So why can't you collect the data to confirm or deny the kreb cycle?

The data is independent of the observer, therefore it is more reliable than data collected through "spiritual" means.

Data, regardless of its origins, is dependant on the perception of suitably qualified persons - this explains why NASA doesn't hire green grocers to design their satellites and doesn't hire an electrical R&D team to head up the caferteria - in other words its only when persons who are stationed in inappropriate positions that suffering persists, like for instance when persons not familiar with the relevant proceedures attempt to pass judgement on the conclusions

I did not need to accept scientific explanations on faith, as there are many simple experiments you can do with common household equipment.

unfortunately none of these backyard experiments can indicate scientific truths that you hold as sacred cows, such as evolution, abiogenesis, the origins of the universe etc - none of the backyard experiments can even indicate a whole range of axioms and scientific defintions, such as the kreb cycle, the rest mass of a proton, planck constant etc - so it sstill not clear exactly whatyou are relying on if not the faith of authorities established in the field

Lightgigantic is an example of the failure to educate our children on the basics of science.

And I would say you are an example of the failure of science to educate its adherants in philosophy

Professor Lewis Wolpert, erudite biologist at London's University College, writes that most scientists today are ignorant of philosophical issues. Though at the beginning of the twentieth century a professional scientist normally had a background in philosophy,
Today things are quite different, and the stars of modern science are more likely to have been brought up on science fiction ... the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic.*
Wolpert admits that the fundamental assumptions of science may not be acceptable as philosophy, but speaking as a scientist, he finds that irrelevant. If scientists don't care about the concerns of philosophy, then why, my readers might ask, should a philosophical book like Substance and Shadow be at all concerned with what scientists say specially if the author admits he is not very well-versed in what they say? I offer this, from a noted journalist in the field of cyber technology, as an answer:
Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything.*

Evolution is a fact, fossils are directly observable, and anyone can visit a museum and see how different classes of animals are found in different layers, showing a progression of evolution. suhottra

I am familiar with religion,

I've yet to hear you offer one argument in line with scripture so it seems that your familiarity with religion is only of the animalistic mixing variety (ie your parents probably forced you to go to church, which you resented, so you just sat on your brains everytime you went)

but you are not familiar with science, therefore this conversation amounts to educating you on basic science, something I don't have the patience for.

On the contrary I have offerered numerous arguments based on science with numerous quotes from authoratative sources - I would argue that it is more a case of you having a strong emmotional response to religion, perhaps due to your parents, and that blinds you to coming to the platform of logic which is the fluid medium of all progressive discussions

(oh, and I know where I am in relation to certain landmarks)

so does a donkey

 

[lightgigantic]

So, Light, I'll explain why personal experience of God is not a reliable guide to discovering the truth. What if (as is the case), many people all claim to experience different things? What if they all spent alot of time in obscure religious study? They can't all be right.

You assume that the perception of god is arrived at through some logical suppositioning of book knowledge or field data (similar to the basis on which theories such as abiogenesis gain credibility) - this is not the case - it is direct perception.

Like for instance if a researcher somehow managed to create life from dull matter that would be direct perception