Religions > Atheism > Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Carl Sagans billions" |
| Date: |
04 Feb 2007 10:01:11 PM |
| Object: |
Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
Simple Truths:
1. All religions and gods are 'man' made. Made and made
up by humans. Not necessarily to deceive, but conceived
as a product of new thinking and a deepfelt belief of a
(new) truth, the (new) true gospel, the (new) true religion.
2. The Christian concept and definition of a 'soul' is untenable.
Why? Evolution is a fact, but nowhere in the long line of evolution
was the 'soul' or something like the soul suddenly inserted in
a certain species at a discrete point in time.
If I assume that the soul was suddenly inserted in a living
being, e.g. 1 million years ago, we must then argue that his
or her father and mother (and so on) did not have a soul.
We cannot. This means:
All living beings have a soul or no living beings have a soul.
As I don't believe a worm has a soul, I conclude that the concept
of a soul in each human being can only be a manmade construct.
A manmade construct because we have a need to believe that
we (or at least our 'spirit' or our 'soul') will exist forever.
We want to deny death, we need to believe we are immortal.
Our fear of death forces us to deny permanent death.
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are man made, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are man made. They were created
when social groups evolved culturally, to keep individual behavior in
line and within boundaries so as to be beneficial to the group or to
its leaders. Heaven was a carrot, hell was the stick.
4. The Christian dogma of sin, with human beings having free choice
to obey or disobey, is untenable, as 'sin', killing, fighting, etc.,
already existed millions of years before human beings came about.
That means in the long line of evolution there was never a discrete
point where the 'first' human being suddenly had free choice to obey
or disobey. That also means the dogma of Christ's death at the cross
to atone for our sins is untenable. Human beings evolved and never
(suddenly) had free choice to obey or dis-obey =sin.
The manmade Christian God sacrificed his son to atone for all
sins forever for all times, but that idea arose from much older
pagan religions that had human sacrifices at their core. The ultimate
sacrifice for redemption was to offer your own son, as in the
Abraham-Isaac story.
As homo sapiens evolved over millions of years, there was
never an Adam and Eve 6000 years ago. That means Eve disobeying
God and eating from the fruit never happened. That means the 'fall'
in the garden of Eden never happened. That also means a 'fall' e.g.
a million years earlier never happened. That means the philosophy
of Christ having to die for our original sin, for disobeying God, does
not make sense. Our ancestors millions of years ago did not
have the brains nor choice to obey or disobey.
5. The Christian concept that you can only be saved through accepting
Christ as your savior is untenable. As over 4 billion on earth are
not Christians, it is illogical to assume that God automatically
condemns 4 billion (out of 6.5 billion) to hell = eternal suffering.
6. All religions are man made, which explains the huge variety of
religions. Any evolving human society develops beliefs about life and
death, which then often morph into absolute beliefs and then often
into structured beliefs = religion. That's why there are so
many religions, so many spin-offs of existing religions, and why so
many new spin-offs are created all the time, all over the world.
7. All religions and their spin-offs are man made, and the concept of
'God' including the 'God' of Christianity, Islam and Judaism is man
made.
As nowhere in the material world we see physical acts/actions by
a 'God' on matter, there is no reason to assume that an immaterial
god like the Christian God (who controls, guards, acts and
interferes) exists.
So we have to conclude that:
GOD IS ABSENT, IS DEAD OR DOES NOT EXIST.
As I find it illogical that if an all powerfull God existed, he would
decide to disappear from our material world = universe into some
other universe, or die, i.e. disappear from all possible universes,
there is only one conclusion left:
There is no God applying material forces on or into our physical
environment. That means all physical and chemical occurrances
can be explained (sooner or later) without having to introduce a
supernatural and 'immaterial' being capable of and actively
acting on matter. Therefore the Christian God does not exist.
One can only exist tied to matter. When tied to matter, one can
be observed, measured, etc.,and thus be proven to exist.
Example:
In the tsunami near Sumatra up to 100,000 innocent children
were killed in just one hour.
'God' did not do it.
'Satan' did not do it.
Humans did not do it.
The earth core is cooling, forcing huge plates to move,
which occasionaly rupture or fracture into earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, etc., which then cause terrible natural
catastrophes such as this tsunami.
Nowhere did or does the 'hand of God' act anywhere.
8. The mystery of matter and the most crucial question of all ---
'WHY WE (made of matter) EXIST' ----
does not mean we have to assume an all powerful being like
the Christian God who creates, controls, rules and monitors
everything.
In the last 1000 years more and more mysteries have been explained.
In the coming thousands of years many more mysteries will be
resolved. That means religious beliefs get pushed back more and
more, and away from the current simple absolute religious 'truths'
and beliefs as described in 'holy' books. Religions consist of a
huge mixture of man made philosophies, myths, theories,
taboos, legends, remnants of pagan religions, etc.,
and are being pushed back or voided by science and rational
explanations.
That also means a religion such as Christianity can only survive if
it develops a much better explanation and rationale for the mystery
of matter and life, and for our existence. However Christianity cannot
're-engineer' itself, it cannot offer a science-based explanation of
life, or reform itself into a much more rational philosophy of life.
So it will remain an anti-scientific belief system based on fixed
explanations for life and death, made by humans who lived
hundreds or even thousands of years ago.
So the contradiction between what we learn from science and
fixed explanations from hundreds and thousands of years ago
will grow.
So Christianity and other similar religions likely will slowly
die. The deep psychological human need for spirituality
will not disappear, but the dogmas and beliefs of religions such
as Christianity, Islam and Judaism will become less and less
acceptable to more and more people.
The core issue is a direct conflict between:
o the religious/emotional/non-scientific approach or persona and
o the scientific/rational approach or persona
Spirituality will stay, but dogmatic religions based on ancient
and mythical beliefs will slowly disappear or remain with smaller
and smaller groups of the uneducated or un-enlightened
or the desperate or the frightened.
There may be temporary religious revivals and reactions but there
is no doubt in my mind that on longer terms science and associated
education will (albeit slowly) void ancient belief systems.
(However religions can hang on for a long long time, despite
becoming unsatisfactory for more and more people, if and when
there are no other spiritual/social frameworks as replacements)
The basic conflict is also why so many religions, including
Christianity, in their core are so anti-science. They can never
embrace a much more rational belief system that so clearly
exposes the fallacies in their inherited belief system.
Michael M. Terra
.
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
05 Feb 2007 11:57:20 AM |
|
|
A very sound, logical and profound explanation of religion. Unfortunately
most religious types will close their blinders and flee from this logic.
"Carl Sagan's billions" <mm2terra@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1170648071.568107.61470@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Simple Truths:
1. All religions and gods are 'man' made. Made and made
up by humans. Not necessarily to deceive, but conceived
as a product of new thinking and a deepfelt belief of a
(new) truth, the (new) true gospel, the (new) true religion.
2. The Christian concept and definition of a 'soul' is untenable.
Why? Evolution is a fact, but nowhere in the long line of evolution
was the 'soul' or something like the soul suddenly inserted in
a certain species at a discrete point in time.
If I assume that the soul was suddenly inserted in a living
being, e.g. 1 million years ago, we must then argue that his
or her father and mother (and so on) did not have a soul.
We cannot. This means:
All living beings have a soul or no living beings have a soul.
As I don't believe a worm has a soul, I conclude that the concept
of a soul in each human being can only be a manmade construct.
A manmade construct because we have a need to believe that
we (or at least our 'spirit' or our 'soul') will exist forever.
We want to deny death, we need to believe we are immortal.
Our fear of death forces us to deny permanent death.
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are man made, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are man made. They were created
when social groups evolved culturally, to keep individual behavior in
line and within boundaries so as to be beneficial to the group or to
its leaders. Heaven was a carrot, hell was the stick.
4. The Christian dogma of sin, with human beings having free choice
to obey or disobey, is untenable, as 'sin', killing, fighting, etc.,
already existed millions of years before human beings came about.
That means in the long line of evolution there was never a discrete
point where the 'first' human being suddenly had free choice to obey
or disobey. That also means the dogma of Christ's death at the cross
to atone for our sins is untenable. Human beings evolved and never
(suddenly) had free choice to obey or dis-obey =sin.
The manmade Christian God sacrificed his son to atone for all
sins forever for all times, but that idea arose from much older
pagan religions that had human sacrifices at their core. The ultimate
sacrifice for redemption was to offer your own son, as in the
Abraham-Isaac story.
As homo sapiens evolved over millions of years, there was
never an Adam and Eve 6000 years ago. That means Eve disobeying
God and eating from the fruit never happened. That means the 'fall'
in the garden of Eden never happened. That also means a 'fall' e.g.
a million years earlier never happened. That means the philosophy
of Christ having to die for our original sin, for disobeying God, does
not make sense. Our ancestors millions of years ago did not
have the brains nor choice to obey or disobey.
5. The Christian concept that you can only be saved through accepting
Christ as your savior is untenable. As over 4 billion on earth are
not Christians, it is illogical to assume that God automatically
condemns 4 billion (out of 6.5 billion) to hell = eternal suffering.
6. All religions are man made, which explains the huge variety of
religions. Any evolving human society develops beliefs about life and
death, which then often morph into absolute beliefs and then often
into structured beliefs = religion. That's why there are so
many religions, so many spin-offs of existing religions, and why so
many new spin-offs are created all the time, all over the world.
7. All religions and their spin-offs are man made, and the concept of
'God' including the 'God' of Christianity, Islam and Judaism is man
made.
As nowhere in the material world we see physical acts/actions by
a 'God' on matter, there is no reason to assume that an immaterial
god like the Christian God (who controls, guards, acts and
interferes) exists.
So we have to conclude that:
GOD IS ABSENT, IS DEAD OR DOES NOT EXIST.
As I find it illogical that if an all powerfull God existed, he would
decide to disappear from our material world = universe into some
other universe, or die, i.e. disappear from all possible universes,
there is only one conclusion left:
There is no God applying material forces on or into our physical
environment. That means all physical and chemical occurrances
can be explained (sooner or later) without having to introduce a
supernatural and 'immaterial' being capable of and actively
acting on matter. Therefore the Christian God does not exist.
One can only exist tied to matter. When tied to matter, one can
be observed, measured, etc.,and thus be proven to exist.
Example:
In the tsunami near Sumatra up to 100,000 innocent children
were killed in just one hour.
'God' did not do it.
'Satan' did not do it.
Humans did not do it.
The earth core is cooling, forcing huge plates to move,
which occasionaly rupture or fracture into earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, etc., which then cause terrible natural
catastrophes such as this tsunami.
Nowhere did or does the 'hand of God' act anywhere.
8. The mystery of matter and the most crucial question of all ---
'WHY WE (made of matter) EXIST' ----
does not mean we have to assume an all powerful being like
the Christian God who creates, controls, rules and monitors
everything.
In the last 1000 years more and more mysteries have been explained.
In the coming thousands of years many more mysteries will be
resolved. That means religious beliefs get pushed back more and
more, and away from the current simple absolute religious 'truths'
and beliefs as described in 'holy' books. Religions consist of a
huge mixture of man made philosophies, myths, theories,
taboos, legends, remnants of pagan religions, etc.,
and are being pushed back or voided by science and rational
explanations.
That also means a religion such as Christianity can only survive if
it develops a much better explanation and rationale for the mystery
of matter and life, and for our existence. However Christianity cannot
're-engineer' itself, it cannot offer a science-based explanation of
life, or reform itself into a much more rational philosophy of life.
So it will remain an anti-scientific belief system based on fixed
explanations for life and death, made by humans who lived
hundreds or even thousands of years ago.
So the contradiction between what we learn from science and
fixed explanations from hundreds and thousands of years ago
will grow.
So Christianity and other similar religions likely will slowly
die. The deep psychological human need for spirituality
will not disappear, but the dogmas and beliefs of religions such
as Christianity, Islam and Judaism will become less and less
acceptable to more and more people.
The core issue is a direct conflict between:
o the religious/emotional/non-scientific approach or persona and
o the scientific/rational approach or persona
Spirituality will stay, but dogmatic religions based on ancient
and mythical beliefs will slowly disappear or remain with smaller
and smaller groups of the uneducated or un-enlightened
or the desperate or the frightened.
There may be temporary religious revivals and reactions but there
is no doubt in my mind that on longer terms science and associated
education will (albeit slowly) void ancient belief systems.
(However religions can hang on for a long long time, despite
becoming unsatisfactory for more and more people, if and when
there are no other spiritual/social frameworks as replacements)
The basic conflict is also why so many religions, including
Christianity, in their core are so anti-science. They can never
embrace a much more rational belief system that so clearly
exposes the fallacies in their inherited belief system.
Michael M. Terra
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
13 Feb 2007 01:35:18 AM |
|
|
On Feb 5, 9:57?am, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
A very sound, logical and profound explanation of religion. Unfortunately
most religious types will close their blinders and flee from this logic.
Why would anyone flee from logic?
It would make no more sense than fleeing from a screwdriver or a
level.
Logic is merely a tool of the intelligent mind. It does not substitute
for intelligence itself, nor does it claim to be self generated.
We are spiritual beings inhabiting a world comprised of spiritual
energy. One of the illusory organs in our illusory bodies is the
brain. Just as the human heart, the human stomach, and the human
kidney have limitations, so does the human brain. Our brains are
constantly evaluating the small portion of the world they are capable
of understanding, and logic is a self-validating tool that allows our
brains to enjoy the fantasy that they have made a full and proper
evaluation.
If I set out to be self critical in any field or enterpise where I
have written all the rules and established all the standards, (as in
the case of the human brain and logic), it is only natural that I will
judge myself a walloping success. "The human critical mind is
convinced that the human critical mind is the paramount entity!"
Yaaaaaaawwn....... on to the next stunning revelation, please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
13 Feb 2007 07:47:14 AM |
|
|
On 12 Feb 2007 23:35:18 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 5, 9:57?am, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
A very sound, logical and profound explanation of religion. Unfortunately
most religious types will close their blinders and flee from this logic.
Why would anyone flee from logic?
It would make no more sense than fleeing from a screwdriver or a
level.
Logic is merely a tool of the intelligent mind. It does not substitute
for intelligence itself, nor does it claim to be self generated.
We are spiritual beings inhabiting a world comprised of spiritual
energy.
There you go, fleeing from logic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
13 Feb 2007 10:53:42 AM |
|
|
On 13 Feb., 08:35, wrote:
On Feb 5, 9:57?am, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
A very sound, logical and profound explanation of religion. Unfortunately
most religious types will close their blinders and flee from this logic.
Why would anyone flee from logic?
It would make no more sense than fleeing from a screwdriver or a
level.
Logic is merely a tool of the intelligent mind. It does not substitute
for intelligence itself, nor does it claim to be self generated.
We are spiritual beings inhabiting a world comprised of spiritual
energy. One of the illusory organs in our illusory bodies is the
brain. Just as the human heart, the human stomach, and the human
kidney have limitations, so does the human brain. Our brains are
constantly evaluating the small portion of the world they are capable
of understanding, and logic is a self-validating tool that allows our
brains to enjoy the fantasy that they have made a full and proper
evaluation.
If I set out to be self critical in any field or enterpise where I
have written all the rules and established all the standards, (as in
the case of the human brain and logic), it is only natural that I will
judge myself a walloping success. "The human critical mind is
convinced that the human critical mind is the paramount entity!"
Perhaps a certain number of individuals have that opinion. It is a
rather strange one.
Yaaaaaaawwn....... on to the next stunning revelation, please.
That our bodies are illusory, or that we are spiritual beings for
example; both of which are unsupported opinions in the minds of some
people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
14 Feb 2007 05:00:36 PM |
|
|
On Feb 13, 8:53?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
That our bodies are illusory, or that we are spiritual beings for
example; both of which are unsupported opinions in the minds of some
people.
Let's hope you never lose a leg in an accident. But, say that you did.
A leg is probably close to 1/4 of your body mass. Would the essence of
what makes you a unique human being with specific thoughts, emotions,
talents, etc be reduced by 25%? If you lost both legs, would you be
reduced by 50%?
Two legs and an arm- are "you" then only 30% left? Of course not.
Now this line of examination *appears* to break down rapidly when one
considers the brain. You can have all of your arms, legs, etc and if
there is no brain function you are indeed reduced in your ability to
interact with the physical world.
But if we look beyond the brain, we can see that it is merely a
circuit breaker box. A place where wires and circuits come together so
that energy can be used in different rooms or locations throughout a
dwelling or system. Consider the computer you are reading this on; it
wouldn't work without wires and circuits, or even a central processing
unit (like a brain). But it is not the wires, the circuits, nor even
the circuit breaker panel or the CPU that makes the computer work- all
of those things are useless with electrical energy. The essence of our
communication is the transfer of energy, packaged by the tools on the
transmitting end and deciphered by the tools on the receiving end. It
is the energy, not the tools, that has meaning and is actually "real".
We are not our bodies, anymore than our thoughts are the computers
that make it possible to communicate them. Our bodies and brains are
communication tools. At the immutable core, we are spiritual beings
who live in a spiritual world.
It's interesting that so many of the "scientists" who claim that God
cannot be real because man hasn't figured out a scheme to weigh or
measure God have no problem believing in electricity. I know for a
fact that nobody has ever really seen electricity, yet nearly
everybody believes in electricity because we can see what electricity
does. We will accept cause and effect as proof of electricity, but
when we experience in our own personal lives the spiritual effects of
a cosmic source somehow the argument always gets back around to
"show me electricity, so that I may believe".
God said, "let there be light......" and spiritually created/authored/
gave birth to energy. Everything else was made from that primary
source- a point upon which advanced quantum physicists are now
beginning to agree with the ancient sages who wrote the book of
Genesis. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "shriven leper" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
14 Feb 2007 09:59:36 PM |
|
|
On 14 Feb 2007 15:00:36 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:53?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
That our bodies are illusory, or that we are spiritual beings for
example; both of which are unsupported opinions in the minds of some
people.
Let's hope you never lose a leg in an accident. But, say that you did.
A leg is probably close to 1/4 of your body mass. Would the essence of
what makes you a unique human being with specific thoughts, emotions,
talents, etc be reduced by 25%? If you lost both legs, would you be
reduced by 50%?
Two legs and an arm- are "you" then only 30% left? Of course not.
Now this line of examination *appears* to break down rapidly when one
considers the brain. You can have all of your arms, legs, etc and if
there is no brain function you are indeed reduced in your ability to
interact with the physical world.
But if we look beyond the brain, we can see that it is merely a
circuit breaker box. A place where wires and circuits come together so
that energy can be used in different rooms or locations throughout a
dwelling or system. Consider the computer you are reading this on; it
wouldn't work without wires and circuits, or even a central processing
unit (like a brain). But it is not the wires, the circuits, nor even
the circuit breaker panel or the CPU that makes the computer work- all
of those things are useless with electrical energy. The essence of our
communication is the transfer of energy, packaged by the tools on the
transmitting end and deciphered by the tools on the receiving end. It
is the energy, not the tools, that has meaning and is actually "real".
We are not our bodies, anymore than our thoughts are the computers
that make it possible to communicate them. Our bodies and brains are
communication tools. At the immutable core, we are spiritual beings
who live in a spiritual world.
It's interesting that so many of the "scientists" who claim that God
cannot be real because man hasn't figured out a scheme to weigh or
measure God have no problem believing in electricity. I know for a
fact that nobody has ever really seen electricity, yet nearly
everybody believes in electricity because we can see what electricity
does. We will accept cause and effect as proof of electricity, but
when we experience in our own personal lives the spiritual effects of
a cosmic source somehow the argument always gets back around to
"show me electricity, so that I may believe".
God said, "let there be light......" and spiritually created/authored/
gave birth to energy. Everything else was made from that primary
source- a point upon which advanced quantum physicists are now
beginning to agree with the ancient sages who wrote the book of
Genesis. :-)
Nice post, Chuck. What most religion critics don't realize, or at
least admit, is that they are attempting to quantify nonmaterial
categories by material methods. Their liberal Enlightenment tradition
requires lip service to a humanistic willingness to listen to
religious arguments and to be persuaded by evidence. Yet they limit
the arena of argumentation to _material_ evidence only, which
vitiates their question.
Religious knowledge-acquisition proceeds in the same manner as any
other kind, namely, by injunction, experimentation, and verification
among those who have correctly performed the injunction and the
experiment.
Religion critics are frequently in the position of the churchmen who
denied Galileo's discoveries. Many of those clerics refused to even
look through a telescope to view normally invisible objects. Jupiter's
moons are invisible to the naked eye. It requires a special
instrument, a telescope, to view Jupiter's moons. Similarly,
religion's "objects", invisible to the eye of sense/flesh and to the
eye of mind. In order to "view" religion's "objects", a special
instrument, the eye of spirit or eye of contemplation - and their
concommitant methods - is required.
Religion critics who refuse to look through spirituality's
"telescope" have no right to deny the spiritual realities claimed by
those who do look through the "telescope". There is no more reason to
listen to them than there is to someone who denies the existence of
Jupiter's moons but who refuses to personally validate or invalidate
their reality by looking through a telescope.
As in other fields of knowledge-acquisition, spirituality's
injunction is: "If you want to KNOW X, then DO Y. If you want to
KNOW such and such, then DO such and such." If you want accurate
physics data, study mathematics and physics formulas. If you want
accurate spiritual data, perform the adequate and appropriate
injunctions and experimentation.
If you haven't performed the injunction demanded by physics, you
have no business expounding on physics. If you haven't performed the
injunction demanded by spirituality, you have no business expounding
on its claims.
- sl -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
15 Feb 2007 05:15:47 AM |
|
|
On 15 Feb., 04:59, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 15:00:36 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:53?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
That our bodies are illusory, or that we are spiritual beings for
example; both of which are unsupported opinions in the minds of some
people.
Let's hope you never lose a leg in an accident. But, say that you did.
A leg is probably close to 1/4 of your body mass. Would the essence of
what makes you a unique human being with specific thoughts, emotions,
talents, etc be reduced by 25%? If you lost both legs, would you be
reduced by 50%?
Two legs and an arm- are "you" then only 30% left? Of course not.
Now this line of examination *appears* to break down rapidly when one
considers the brain. You can have all of your arms, legs, etc and if
there is no brain function you are indeed reduced in your ability to
interact with the physical world.
But if we look beyond the brain, we can see that it is merely a
circuit breaker box. A place where wires and circuits come together so
that energy can be used in different rooms or locations throughout a
dwelling or system. Consider the computer you are reading this on; it
wouldn't work without wires and circuits, or even a central processing
unit (like a brain). But it is not the wires, the circuits, nor even
the circuit breaker panel or the CPU that makes the computer work- all
of those things are useless with electrical energy. The essence of our
communication is the transfer of energy, packaged by the tools on the
transmitting end and deciphered by the tools on the receiving end. It
is the energy, not the tools, that has meaning and is actually "real".
We are not our bodies, anymore than our thoughts are the computers
that make it possible to communicate them. Our bodies and brains are
communication tools. At the immutable core, we are spiritual beings
who live in a spiritual world.
It's interesting that so many of the "scientists" who claim that God
cannot be real because man hasn't figured out a scheme to weigh or
measure God have no problem believing in electricity. I know for a
fact that nobody has ever really seen electricity, yet nearly
everybody believes in electricity because we can see what electricity
does. We will accept cause and effect as proof of electricity, but
when we experience in our own personal lives the spiritual effects of
a cosmic source somehow the argument always gets back around to
"show me electricity, so that I may believe".
God said, "let there be light......" and spiritually created/authored/
gave birth to energy. Everything else was made from that primary
source- a point upon which advanced quantum physicists are now
beginning to agree with the ancient sages who wrote the book of
Genesis. :-)
Nice post, Chuck. What most religion critics don't realize, or at
least admit, is that they are attempting to quantify nonmaterial
categories by material methods. Their liberal Enlightenment tradition
requires lip service to a humanistic willingness to listen to
religious arguments and to be persuaded by evidence. Yet they limit
the arena of argumentation to _material_ evidence only, which
vitiates their question.
Nonsense, the problem is the total lack of any testable, objective
evidence at all.
Religious knowledge-acquisition proceeds in the same manner as any
other kind, namely, by injunction, experimentation, and verification
among those who have correctly performed the injunction and the
experiment.
Religion critics are frequently in the position of the churchmen who
denied Galileo's discoveries. Many of those clerics refused to even
look through a telescope to view normally invisible objects. Jupiter's
moons are invisible to the naked eye. It requires a special
instrument, a telescope, to view Jupiter's moons. Similarly,
religion's "objects", invisible to the eye of sense/flesh and to the
eye of mind. In order to "view" religion's "objects", a special
instrument, the eye of spirit or eye of contemplation - and their
concommitant methods - is required.
Religion critics who refuse to look through spirituality's
"telescope" have no right to deny the spiritual realities claimed by
those who do look through the "telescope". There is no more reason to
listen to them than there is to someone who denies the existence of
Jupiter's moons but who refuses to personally validate or invalidate
their reality by looking through a telescope.
What kind of objective evidence can you produce? Instead of talking
about spiritual instruments etc., produce the objective evidence that
you claim exists. Otherwise, after one cuts through the attempted
analogy with science, you are talking about purely subjective
experiences; which are inherently unreliable.
Thomas P
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "shriven leper" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
15 Feb 2007 10:57:57 AM |
|
|
On 15 Feb 2007 03:15:47 -0800, wrote:
On 15 Feb., 04:59, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 15:00:36 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:53?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
That our bodies are illusory, or that we are spiritual beings for
example; both of which are unsupported opinions in the minds of some
people.
Let's hope you never lose a leg in an accident. But, say that you did.
A leg is probably close to 1/4 of your body mass. Would the essence of
what makes you a unique human being with specific thoughts, emotions,
talents, etc be reduced by 25%? If you lost both legs, would you be
reduced by 50%?
Two legs and an arm- are "you" then only 30% left? Of course not.
Now this line of examination *appears* to break down rapidly when one
considers the brain. You can have all of your arms, legs, etc and if
there is no brain function you are indeed reduced in your ability to
interact with the physical world.
But if we look beyond the brain, we can see that it is merely a
circuit breaker box. A place where wires and circuits come together so
that energy can be used in different rooms or locations throughout a
dwelling or system. Consider the computer you are reading this on; it
wouldn't work without wires and circuits, or even a central processing
unit (like a brain). But it is not the wires, the circuits, nor even
the circuit breaker panel or the CPU that makes the computer work- all
of those things are useless with electrical energy. The essence of our
communication is the transfer of energy, packaged by the tools on the
transmitting end and deciphered by the tools on the receiving end. It
is the energy, not the tools, that has meaning and is actually "real".
We are not our bodies, anymore than our thoughts are the computers
that make it possible to communicate them. Our bodies and brains are
communication tools. At the immutable core, we are spiritual beings
who live in a spiritual world.
It's interesting that so many of the "scientists" who claim that God
cannot be real because man hasn't figured out a scheme to weigh or
measure God have no problem believing in electricity. I know for a
fact that nobody has ever really seen electricity, yet nearly
everybody believes in electricity because we can see what electricity
does. We will accept cause and effect as proof of electricity, but
when we experience in our own personal lives the spiritual effects of
a cosmic source somehow the argument always gets back around to
"show me electricity, so that I may believe".
God said, "let there be light......" and spiritually created/authored/
gave birth to energy. Everything else was made from that primary
source- a point upon which advanced quantum physicists are now
beginning to agree with the ancient sages who wrote the book of
Genesis. :-)
Nice post, Chuck. What most religion critics don't realize, or at
least admit, is that they are attempting to quantify nonmaterial
categories by material methods. Their liberal Enlightenment tradition
requires lip service to a humanistic willingness to listen to
religious arguments and to be persuaded by evidence. Yet they limit
the arena of argumentation to _material_ evidence only, which
vitiates their question.
Nonsense, the problem is the total lack of any testable, objective
evidence at all.
Nonsense, the problem is the total presence of quite a bit of
testable, subjective evidence. You've proved my point: you will only
accept externals and surfaces as evidence. Also you're putting words
in my mouth: I never said that spiritual evidence is objective. I did
say that it is testable. Apparently you're just not willing to
perform the injunctions and the testing.
Religious knowledge-acquisition proceeds in the same manner as any
other kind, namely, by injunction, experimentation, and verification
among those who have correctly performed the injunction and the
experiment.
Religion critics are frequently in the position of the churchmen who
denied Galileo's discoveries. Many of those clerics refused to even
look through a telescope to view normally invisible objects. Jupiter's
moons are invisible to the naked eye. It requires a special
instrument, a telescope, to view Jupiter's moons. Similarly,
religion's "objects", invisible to the eye of sense/flesh and to the
eye of mind. In order to "view" religion's "objects", a special
instrument, the eye of spirit or eye of contemplation - and their
concommitant methods - is required.
Religion critics who refuse to look through spirituality's
"telescope" have no right to deny the spiritual realities claimed by
those who do look through the "telescope". There is no more reason to
listen to them than there is to someone who denies the existence of
Jupiter's moons but who refuses to personally validate or invalidate
their reality by looking through a telescope.
What kind of objective evidence can you produce?
Spirit/god/dharma/nirvana are by nature not objective, are not
external material objects and therefore applying to them the
"objective evidence" ploy is completely inappropriate. And, again, I
never claimed that the evidence is objective. In fact, I am claiming
the opposite.
Instead of talking
about spiritual instruments etc., produce the objective evidence that
you claim exists.
Instead of talking about objective evidence, etc., perform the
spiritual injunction, the spiritual experimentation, and communicate
the spiritual conclusion.
Again, you misrepresent about "the objective evidence that you claim
exists". I never made such a claim, and have shown why the objective
evidence standard is misapplied to the spiritual injunction.
Otherwise, after one cuts through the attempted
analogy with science,
The analogy was with knowledge-acquisition, which includes but is
not limited to science.
you are talking about purely subjective
experiences; which are inherently unreliable.
Name one "scientific fact" that does not exist in the subjective
realm, namely in the minds of scientists. Name one "scientific fact"
that is not the result of injunction, experiment, and communal sharing
of the results (peer review).
- sl -
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
15 Feb 2007 02:49:15 PM |
|
|
On 15 Feb., 17:57, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2007 03:15:47 -0800, wrote:
On 15 Feb., 04:59, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 15:00:36 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:53?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
That our bodies are illusory, or that we are spiritual beings for
example; both of which are unsupported opinions in the minds of some
people.
Let's hope you never lose a leg in an accident. But, say that you did.
A leg is probably close to 1/4 of your body mass. Would the essence of
what makes you a unique human being with specific thoughts, emotions,
talents, etc be reduced by 25%? If you lost both legs, would you be
reduced by 50%?
Two legs and an arm- are "you" then only 30% left? Of course not.
Now this line of examination *appears* to break down rapidly when one
considers the brain. You can have all of your arms, legs, etc and if
there is no brain function you are indeed reduced in your ability to
interact with the physical world.
But if we look beyond the brain, we can see that it is merely a
circuit breaker box. A place where wires and circuits come together so
that energy can be used in different rooms or locations throughout a
dwelling or system. Consider the computer you are reading this on; it
wouldn't work without wires and circuits, or even a central processing
unit (like a brain). But it is not the wires, the circuits, nor even
the circuit breaker panel or the CPU that makes the computer work- all
of those things are useless with electrical energy. The essence of our
communication is the transfer of energy, packaged by the tools on the
transmitting end and deciphered by the tools on the receiving end. It
is the energy, not the tools, that has meaning and is actually "real".
We are not our bodies, anymore than our thoughts are the computers
that make it possible to communicate them. Our bodies and brains are
communication tools. At the immutable core, we are spiritual beings
who live in a spiritual world.
It's interesting that so many of the "scientists" who claim that God
cannot be real because man hasn't figured out a scheme to weigh or
measure God have no problem believing in electricity. I know for a
fact that nobody has ever really seen electricity, yet nearly
everybody believes in electricity because we can see what electricity
does. We will accept cause and effect as proof of electricity, but
when we experience in our own personal lives the spiritual effects of
a cosmic source somehow the argument always gets back around to
"show me electricity, so that I may believe".
God said, "let there be light......" and spiritually created/authored/
gave birth to energy. Everything else was made from that primary
source- a point upon which advanced quantum physicists are now
beginning to agree with the ancient sages who wrote the book of
Genesis. :-)
Nice post, Chuck. What most religion critics don't realize, or at
least admit, is that they are attempting to quantify nonmaterial
categories by material methods. Their liberal Enlightenment tradition
requires lip service to a humanistic willingness to listen to
religious arguments and to be persuaded by evidence. Yet they limit
the arena of argumentation to _material_ evidence only, which
vitiates their question.
Nonsense, the problem is the total lack of any testable, objective
evidence at all.
Nonsense, the problem is the total presence of quite a bit of
testable, subjective evidence.
Testable subjective evidence is like dry water.
You've proved my point: you will only
accept externals and surfaces as evidence. Also you're putting words
in my mouth: I never said that spiritual evidence is objective. I did
say that it is testable. Apparently you're just not willing to
perform the injunctions and the testing.
Very well describe an experiment that does not require one to assume a
conclusion and that will produce precise, predictable results.
Religious knowledge-acquisition proceeds in the same manner as any
other kind, namely, by injunction, experimentation, and verification
among those who have correctly performed the injunction and the
experiment.
Religion critics are frequently in the position of the churchmen who
denied Galileo's discoveries. Many of those clerics refused to even
look through a telescope to view normally invisible objects. Jupiter's
moons are invisible to the naked eye. It requires a special
instrument, a telescope, to view Jupiter's moons. Similarly,
religion's "objects", invisible to the eye of sense/flesh and to the
eye of mind. In order to "view" religion's "objects", a special
instrument, the eye of spirit or eye of contemplation - and their
concommitant methods - is required.
Religion critics who refuse to look through spirituality's
"telescope" have no right to deny the spiritual realities claimed by
those who do look through the "telescope". There is no more reason to
listen to them than there is to someone who denies the existence of
Jupiter's moons but who refuses to personally validate or invalidate
their reality by looking through a telescope.
What kind of objective evidence can you produce?
Spirit/god/dharma/nirvana are by nature not objective, are not
external material objects and therefore applying to them the
"objective evidence" ploy is completely inappropriate. And, again, I
never claimed that the evidence is objective. In fact, I am claiming
the opposite.
Objective evidence is no a ploy. If the evidence can be tested and it
produces predictable results without requiring belief before the
results, the evidence is objecive. If it cannot do that, it is
useless.
Instead of talking
about spiritual instruments etc., produce the objective evidence that
you claim exists.
Instead of talking about objective evidence, etc., perform the
spiritual injunction, the spiritual experimentation, and communicate
the spiritual conclusion.
Please be precise. Describe the experiment.
Again, you misrepresent about "the objective evidence that you claim
exists". I never made such a claim, and have shown why the objective
evidence standard is misapplied to the spiritual injunction.
I agree. That is my point. Subjective experiences are not evidence
and are inherently unreliable.
Otherwise, after one cuts through the attempted
analogy with science,
The analogy was with knowledge-acquisition, which includes but is
not limited to science.
You used an example from the history of science.
you are talking about purely subjective
experiences; which are inherently unreliable.
Name one "scientific fact" that does not exist in the subjective
realm, namely in the minds of scientists. Name one "scientific fact"
that is not the result of injunction, experiment, and communal sharing
of the results (peer review).
And just what do you think is being reviewed? It is objective data
and objective results.
Galileo produced objective, observable facts not just ideas in his
head. His facts did not exist in the "subjective realm". Peer review
does not review subjective ideas. Your argument is absurd.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shriven leper" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
15 Feb 2007 04:33:16 PM |
|
|
On 15 Feb 2007 12:49:15 -0800, "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
On 15 Feb., 17:57, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2007 03:15:47 -0800, wrote:
On 15 Feb., 04:59, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 15:00:36 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:53?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
That our bodies are illusory, or that we are spiritual beings for
example; both of which are unsupported opinions in the minds of some
people.
Let's hope you never lose a leg in an accident. But, say that you did.
A leg is probably close to 1/4 of your body mass. Would the essence of
what makes you a unique human being with specific thoughts, emotions,
talents, etc be reduced by 25%? If you lost both legs, would you be
reduced by 50%?
Two legs and an arm- are "you" then only 30% left? Of course not.
Now this line of examination *appears* to break down rapidly when one
considers the brain. You can have all of your arms, legs, etc and if
there is no brain function you are indeed reduced in your ability to
interact with the physical world.
But if we look beyond the brain, we can see that it is merely a
circuit breaker box. A place where wires and circuits come together so
that energy can be used in different rooms or locations throughout a
dwelling or system. Consider the computer you are reading this on; it
wouldn't work without wires and circuits, or even a central processing
unit (like a brain). But it is not the wires, the circuits, nor even
the circuit breaker panel or the CPU that makes the computer work- all
of those things are useless with electrical energy. The essence of our
communication is the transfer of energy, packaged by the tools on the
transmitting end and deciphered by the tools on the receiving end. It
is the energy, not the tools, that has meaning and is actually "real".
We are not our bodies, anymore than our thoughts are the computers
that make it possible to communicate them. Our bodies and brains are
communication tools. At the immutable core, we are spiritual beings
who live in a spiritual world.
It's interesting that so many of the "scientists" who claim that God
cannot be real because man hasn't figured out a scheme to weigh or
measure God have no problem believing in electricity. I know for a
fact that nobody has ever really seen electricity, yet nearly
everybody believes in electricity because we can see what electricity
does. We will accept cause and effect as proof of electricity, but
when we experience in our own personal lives the spiritual effects of
a cosmic source somehow the argument always gets back around to
"show me electricity, so that I may believe".
God said, "let there be light......" and spiritually created/authored/
gave birth to energy. Everything else was made from that primary
source- a point upon which advanced quantum physicists are now
beginning to agree with the ancient sages who wrote the book of
Genesis. :-)
Nice post, Chuck. What most religion critics don't realize, or at
least admit, is that they are attempting to quantify nonmaterial
categories by material methods. Their liberal Enlightenment tradition
requires lip service to a humanistic willingness to listen to
religious arguments and to be persuaded by evidence. Yet they limit
the arena of argumentation to _material_ evidence only, which
vitiates their question.
Nonsense, the problem is the total lack of any testable, objective
evidence at all.
Nonsense, the problem is the total presence of quite a bit of
testable, subjective evidence.
Testable subjective evidence is like dry water.
Testable subjective evidence is the result of injunction,
experiment, and communal sharing of conclusions.
You've proved my point: you will only
accept externals and surfaces as evidence. Also you're putting words
in my mouth: I never said that spiritual evidence is objective. I did
say that it is testable. Apparently you're just not willing to
perform the injunctions and the testing.
Very well describe an experiment
It appears that you are the person who needs to do some work,
namely, perform spirituality's injunctions and experiments. Then,
after you have thereby validated or invalidated religion's claim(s),
share it with the community of those who have similarly performed the
same tests.
that does not require one to assume a
conclusion and that will produce precise, predictable results.
Spirituality's claims do not assume any conclusions. Assumed
conclusions belong to religious faith. We are here speaking not about
faith, but knowledge acquisition.
snipped
What kind of objective evidence can you produce?
Spirit/god/dharma/nirvana are by nature not objective, are not
external material objects and therefore applying to them the
"objective evidence" ploy is completely inappropriate. And, again, I
never claimed that the evidence is objective. In fact, I am claiming
the opposite.
Objective evidence is no a ploy. If the evidence can be tested and it
produces predictable results without requiring belief before the
results, the evidence is objecive.
Spiritual claims are not a ploy. Its evidence has been tested and
it produces predictable results (some of which are scientifically
quantifiable, but that is irrelevant). That makes it evidence, but
not objective evidence, because the confirmation occurs in the
internal subjective realm, not in the realm of external objective
"fact".
If it cannot do that, it is
useless.
It's quite useful.
Instead of talking
about spiritual instruments etc., produce the objective evidence that
you claim exists.
Instead of talking about objective evidence, etc., perform the
spiritual injunction, the spiritual experimentation, and communicate
the spiritual conclusion.
Please be precise. Describe the experiment.
Following spirituality's methods for knowledge acquisition _is_
the experiment. There are several hundred of them.
Again, you misrepresent about "the objective evidence that you claim
exists". I never made such a claim, and have shown why the objective
evidence standard is misapplied to the spiritual injunction.
I agree. That is my point. Subjective experiences are not evidence
and are inherently unreliable.
If you don't subjectively _know_ who what and when you love, hate,
question, conclude, have a headache, then indeed all is lost.
Fortunately the situation is not nearly so bad as you paint it.
Otherwise, after one cuts through the attempted
analogy with science,
The analogy was with knowledge-acquisition, which includes but is
not limited to science.
You used an example from the history of science.
Yes, and I explained that the method is not limited to science,
although it includes science.
you are talking about purely subjective
experiences; which are inherently unreliable.
Name one "scientific fact" that does not exist in the subjective
realm, namely in the minds of scientists. Name one "scientific fact"
that is not the result of injunction, experiment, and communal sharing
of the results (peer review).
And just what do you think is being reviewed? It is objective data
and objective results.
Answer my question first, please: name scientific "facts" that do
not exist in the subjective realm, in the minds of scientists, their
readers, their students, etc. Scientific fact does not exist
externally in nature. It is a purely mental endeavor of the human
psyche, which is its sole proposer, theoriser, experimenter,
concluder, and conclusion-sharer. Instruments and experiments are
used and performed solely by their human inventors, and they are
validated or invalidated and communally shared by and in the
subjective human psyche. No subjective human psyche = no science.
Galileo produced objective, observable facts not just ideas in his
head. His facts did not exist in the "subjective realm". Peer review
does not review subjective ideas.
Religious peer review does review subjective experiences and their
predicted results, which are shared in the community of those who have
adequately performed the injunction, the experiment,
validated-invalidated and shared the conclusions.
Your argument is absurd.
Your ineptness vis a vis knowledge acquisition, combined with your
ignorance of basic spirituality is painful to behold.
- sl -
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
16 Feb 2007 07:36:51 AM |
|
|
On 15 Feb., 23:33, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2007 12:49:15 -0800, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
On 15 Feb., 17:57, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2007 03:15:47 -0800, wrote:
On 15 Feb., 04:59, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 15:00:36 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:53?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
That our bodies are illusory, or that we are spiritual beings for
example; both of which are unsupported opinions in the minds of some
people.
Let's hope you never lose a leg in an accident. But, say that you did.
A leg is probably close to 1/4 of your body mass. Would the essence of
what makes you a unique human being with specific thoughts, emotions,
talents, etc be reduced by 25%? If you lost both legs, would you be
reduced by 50%?
Two legs and an arm- are "you" then only 30% left? Of course not.
Now this line of examination *appears* to break down rapidly when one
considers the brain. You can have all of your arms, legs, etc and if
there is no brain function you are indeed reduced in your ability to
interact with the physical world.
But if we look beyond the brain, we can see that it is merely a
circuit breaker box. A place where wires and circuits come together so
that energy can be used in different rooms or locations throughout a
dwelling or system. Consider the computer you are reading this on; it
wouldn't work without wires and circuits, or even a central processing
unit (like a brain). But it is not the wires, the circuits, nor even
the circuit breaker panel or the CPU that makes the computer work- all
of those things are useless with electrical energy. The essence of our
communication is the transfer of energy, packaged by the tools on the
transmitting end and deciphered by the tools on the receiving end. It
is the energy, not the tools, that has meaning and is actually "real".
We are not our bodies, anymore than our thoughts are the computers
that make it possible to communicate them. Our bodies and brains are
communication tools. At the immutable core, we are spiritual beings
who live in a spiritual world.
It's interesting that so many of the "scientists" who claim that God
cannot be real because man hasn't figured out a scheme to weigh or
measure God have no problem believing in electricity. I know for a
fact that nobody has ever really seen electricity, yet nearly
everybody believes in electricity because we can see what electricity
does. We will accept cause and effect as proof of electricity, but
when we experience in our own personal lives the spiritual effects of
a cosmic source somehow the argument always gets back around to
"show me electricity, so that I may believe".
God said, "let there be light......" and spiritually created/authored/
gave birth to energy. Everything else was made from that primary
source- a point upon which advanced quantum physicists are now
beginning to agree with the ancient sages who wrote the book of
Genesis. :-)
Nice post, Chuck. What most religion critics don't realize, or at
least admit, is that they are attempting to quantify nonmaterial
categories by material methods. Their liberal Enlightenment tradition
requires lip service to a humanistic willingness to listen to
religious arguments and to be persuaded by evidence. Yet they limit
the arena of argumentation to _material_ evidence only, which
vitiates their question.
Nonsense, the problem is the total lack of any testable, objective
evidence at all.
Nonsense, the problem is the total presence of quite a bit of
testable, subjective evidence.
Testable subjective evidence is like dry water.
Testable subjective evidence is the result of injunction,
experiment, and communal sharing of conclusions.
As I said before, describe the experiment and the precise results that
will be achieved.
You've proved my point: you will only
accept externals and surfaces as evidence. Also you're putting words
in my mouth: I never said that spiritual evidence is objective. I did
say that it is testable. Apparently you're just not willing to
perform the injunctions and the testing.
Very well describe an experiment
It appears that you are the person who needs to do some work,
namely, perform spirituality's injunctions and experiments. Then,
after you have thereby validated or invalidated religion's claim(s),
share it with the community of those who have similarly performed the
same tests.
See above. You seem strangely reluctant to describe the experiment.
that does not require one to assume a
conclusion and that will produce precise, predictable results.
Spirituality's claims do not assume any conclusions. Assumed
conclusions belong to religious faith. We are here speaking not about
faith, but knowledge acquisition.
Still waiting for the description.
snipped
What kind of objective evidence can you produce?
Spirit/god/dharma/nirvana are by nature not objective, are not
external material objects and therefore applying to them the
"objective evidence" ploy is completely inappropriate. And, again, I
never claimed that the evidence is objective. In fact, I am claiming
the opposite.
Objective evidence is no a ploy. If the evidence can be tested and it
produces predictable results without requiring belief before the
results, the evidence is objecive.
Spiritual claims are not a ploy. Its evidence has been tested and
it produces predictable results (some of which are scientifically
quantifiable, but that is irrelevant). That makes it evidence, but
not objective evidence, because the confirmation occurs in the
internal subjective realm, not in the realm of external objective
"fact".
Ah, you are talking about subjective experience not evidence.
If it cannot do that, it is
useless.
It's quite useful.
If you say so. I am still waiting for the experiment.
Instead of talking
about spiritual instruments etc., produce the objective evidence that
you claim exists.
Instead of talking about objective evidence, etc., perform the
spiritual injunction, the spiritual experimentation, and communicate
the spiritual conclusion.
Please be precise. Describe the experiment.
Following spirituality's methods for knowledge acquisition _is_
the experiment. There are several hundred of them.
Then it should be no problem to describe one of them.
Again, you misrepresent about "the objective evidence that you claim
exists". I never made such a claim, and have shown why the objective
evidence standard is misapplied to the spiritual injunction.
I agree. That is my point. Subjective experiences are not evidence
and are inherently unreliable.
If you don't subjectively _know_ who what and when you love, hate,
question, conclude, have a headache, then indeed all is lost.
Fortunately the situation is not nearly so bad as you paint it.
We were talking about evidence not about the fact that people have
feelings and that concepts exist in people's heads.
Otherwise, after one cuts through the attempted
analogy with science,
The analogy was with knowledge-acquisition, which includes but is
not limited to science.
You used an example from the history of science.
Yes, and I explained that the method is not limited to science,
although it includes science.
No it doesn't. Science deals with objective data. The theories can
be tested in the real world and are subject to being disproved.
you are talking about purely subjective
experiences; which are inherently unreliable.
Name one "scientific fact" that does not exist in the subjective
realm, namely in the minds of scientists. Name one "scientific fact"
that is not the result of injunction, experiment, and communal sharing
of the results (peer review).
And just what do you think is being reviewed? It is objective data
and objective results.
Answer my question first, please: name scientific "facts" that do
not exist in the subjective realm, in the minds of scientists, their
readers, their students, etc. Scientific fact does not exist
externally in nature.
Science does not deal in "proven" facts but with testable theories
subject to rejection or adjustment when and if new data is acquired.
It is a purely mental endeavor of the human
psyche, which is its sole proposer, theoriser, experimenter,
concluder, and conclusion-sharer. Instruments and experiments are
used and performed solely by their human inventors,
In their judgment of objective data and objective results, without
which it would not be science. In other words it is not purely a
mental endeavor.
and they are
validated or invalidated and communally shared by and in the
subjective human psyche. No subjective human psyche = no science.
And no objective data or objective results no science. The sharing is
done by other scientists studying the data and the claimed results and
then attempting to achieve the same results in the same way. Modern
science does not exist without objective data and without testing and
retesting. Calling it a purely mental endeavor is ignoring reality.
snip
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
16 Feb 2007 10:13:05 AM |
|
|
On 15 Feb., 23:33, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2007 12:49:15 -0800, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
On 15 Feb., 17:57, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2007 03:15:47 -0800, wrote:
snip
Your ineptness vis a vis knowledge acquisition, combined with your
ignorance of basic spirituality is painful to behold.
Take two aspirin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shriven leper" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
16 Feb 2007 11:55:11 AM |
|
|
On 16 Feb 2007 08:13:05 -0800, "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
On 15 Feb., 23:33, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2007 12:49:15 -0800, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
On 15 Feb., 17:57, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2007 03:15:47 -0800, wrote:
snip
Your ineptness vis a vis knowledge acquisition, combined with your
ignorance of basic spirituality is painful to behold.
Take two aspirin.
Since you refuse to answer the question I asked first, namely:
Name scientific facts that do not exist in the subjective psyches of
scientists, their readers, their students, etc., then I am under zero
obligation to answer your question about the specific nature of the
spiritual experiments, although I did indicate that since there are
hundreds of such methods available, it's easy enough to look up. Start
with Ken Wilber's _The Eye of Spirit_. You'll find there multiple
methods and categories, as well as references to scientific
quantification of certain aspects of spiritual states and stages.
And my original statement still holds: knowledge acquisition,
whether external/objective or internal/subjective, requires performing
injunction, experiment, shared-conclusion. Since you obviously have
not performed spiritual knowledge acquisition, you are disqualified
from making judgments about spirituality's claims.
I won't spend any more time attempting to communicate with someone
who claims knowledge about a subject that he refuses to investigate by
employing the normative knowledge acquisition method of injunction,
experiment, shared-conclusion.
Take two Tylenol.
- sl -
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
16 Feb 2007 03:32:41 PM |
|
|
On 16 Feb., 18:55, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 16 Feb 2007 08:13:05 -0800, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
On 15 Feb., 23:33, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2007 12:49:15 -0800, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
On 15 Feb., 17:57, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2007 03:15:47 -0800, wrote:
snip
Your ineptness vis a vis knowledge acquisition, combined with your
ignorance of basic spirituality is painful to behold.
Take two aspirin.
Since you refuse to answer the question I asked first, namely:
Name scientific facts that do not exist in the subjective psyches of
scientists, their readers, their students, etc., then I am under zero
obligation to answer your question about the specific nature of the
spiritual experiments,
Imagine my surprise and distress.
snip
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
26 Feb 2007 01:03:32 AM |
|
|
On Feb 15, 8:57=EF=BF=BDam, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
=A0 =A0Name one "scientific fact" that does not exist in the subjective
realm, namely in the minds of scientists. =A0Name one "scientific fact"
that is not the result of injunction, experiment, and communal sharing
of the results (peer review).
=A0 =A0 - sl -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Those "scientific facts" have a nasty habit of changing, entirely,
every once in a while. Odd, isn't it? After all the careful steps
involved in scientific analysis, things often turn out to be something
different than everybody thought for a long , long time.
In reality, there is very little that science can prove is an
unquestionable fact.
Of course there is a constant claim of such proof, but the scientists
are self valiating"Our science is correct because it's science!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "shriven leper" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
26 Feb 2007 01:31:06 AM |
|
|
On 25 Feb 2007 23:03:32 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:57?am, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
ame one "scientific fact" that does not exist in the subjective
realm, namely in the minds of scientists. ame one "scientific fact"
that is not the result of injunction, experiment, and communal sharing
of the results (peer review).
- sl -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Those "scientific facts" have a nasty habit of changing, entirely,
every once in a while. Odd, isn't it?
It's odd for those who hold that "fact" is permanent and
unalterable. However, for most scientists, fact is really a temporary
expression of "things as they are - up to this point". This temporary
expression is subject to change with the influx of new evidence or
data or the invention of new procedures.
After all the careful steps
involved in scientific analysis, things often turn out to be something
different than everybody thought for a long , long time.
In reality, there is very little that science can prove is an
unquestionable fact.
Of course there is a constant claim of such proof, but the scientists
are self validating"Our science is correct because it's science!"
Honest scientists seek truth. Ideologue scientists are often
"scienticians", that is, practitioners of scientism - the notion that
science is, or will be able, to explain reality - examples of which
are Richard Dawkins and the late science popularizer C. Sagan.
Unfortunately, they refuse to perform the basic method of knowledge
acquisition as it applies to spirituality - they are only willing to
practice it as it applies to science. Since they refuse to perform
the method - namely, injunction, experiment, and shared conclusion -
to spirituality they really have nothing pertinent to say and no one
should take them seriously.
- sl -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
26 Feb 2007 08:43:20 AM |
|
|
On 26 Feb., 08:03, wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:57?am, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
? ?Name one "scientific fact" that does not exist in the subjective
realm, namely in the minds of scientists. ?Name one "scientific fact"
that is not the result of injunction, experiment, and communal sharing
of the results (peer review).
? ? - sl -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Those "scientific facts" have a nasty habit of changing, entirely,
every once in a while. Odd, isn't it? After all the careful steps
involved in scientific analysis, things often turn out to be something
different than everybody thought for a long , long time.
And it is science that makes that discovery.
In reality, there is very little that science can prove is an
unquestionable fact.
Of course there is a constant claim of such proof, but the scientists
are self valiating"Our science is correct because it's science!"
Of course there are no claims of proof from science. Science does not
makes claims of absolute fact; that is what religion does, and that is
why it is science that keeps advancing and producing results. It
seems that the only way fundy's can fight science is to lie about it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
26 Feb 2007 08:05:14 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:03:32 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:57�am, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
Name one "scientific fact" that does not exist in the subjective
realm, namely in the minds of scientists. Name one "scientific fact"
that is not the result of injunction, experiment, and communal sharing
of the results (peer review).
- sl -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Those "scientific facts" have a nasty habit of changing, entirely,
every once in a while. Odd, isn't it? After all the careful steps
involved in scientific analysis, things often turn out to be something
different than everybody thought for a long , long time.
In reality, there is very little that science can prove is an
unquestionable fact.
Of course there is a constant claim of such proof, but the scientists
are self valiating"Our science is correct because it's science!"
No, science is "correct" because it works.
Science is an open ended exploration of how the universe works. Which
means we're going to get it wrong sometimes because we don't start out
knowing the "correct answer."
Duh.
You sound like the type that insists learning is impossible because people
make mistakes and get bad grades along the way...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each
other. They slander each other constantly with the vilest
forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of agreement
in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the
head of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect
little pigs of those it wins over to its side."
- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kater Moggin" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. |
28 Feb 2007 04:50:17 AM |
|
|
[follow-ups set]
chuckgould.chuck@gmail.com:
God said, "let there be light......" and spiritually created/authored/
gave birth to energy. Everything else was made from that primary
source- a point upon which advanced quantum physicists are now
beginning to agree with the ancient sages who wrote the book of
Genesis. :-)
Not exactly the story in Genesis. The waters and darkness
seem to precede God's act of Creation, and he makes the
heavens and earth mainly by means of division. Yes, "Let there
be light" fits the _ex nihilo_ thesis, but light isn't the
source of everything else or the stuff the rest of the world is
made from.
-- Moggin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans. |
05 Feb 2007 08:21:51 PM |
|
|
Carl Sagan's billions expressed precisely :
Simple Truths:
1. All religions and gods are 'man' made. Made and made
up by humans. Not necessarily to deceive, but conceived
as a product of new thinking and a deepfelt belief of a
(new) truth, the (new) true gospel, the (new) true religion.
2. The Christian concept and definition of a 'soul' is untenable.
Why? Evolution is a fact, but nowhere in the long line of evolution
was the 'soul' or something like the soul suddenly inserted in
a certain species at a discrete point in time.
If I assume that the soul was suddenly inserted in a living
being, e.g. 1 million years ago, we must then argue that his
or her father and mother (and so on) did not have a soul.
We cannot. This means:
All living beings have a soul or no living beings have a soul.
As I don't believe a worm has a soul, I conclude that the concept
of a soul in each human being can only be a manmade construct.
I, on the other hand, believe that everything - everything right down
to atoms - have a (I don't use the word soul) "spark" of my deity.
Atoms is as small as I go as I am not knowledgeable about the structure
of atoms; but if it exists, it has its own "spark".
A manmade construct because we have a need to believe that
we (or at least our 'spirit' or our 'soul') will exist forever.
We want to deny death, we need to believe we are immortal.
Our fear of death forces us to deny permanent death.
MMT's beliefs about death - not mine. I do not fear death ... not one
iota. I do not believe that we as individuals exist forever - that
eventually we are joined with my deity ... melding into one whole.
3. There is no heaven and hell.
Agreed.
All religions are man made, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are man made. They were created
when social groups evolved culturally, to keep individual behavior in
line and within boundaries so as to be beneficial to the group or to
its leaders. Heaven was a carrot, hell was the stick.
4. The Christian dogma of sin, with human beings having free choice
to obey or disobey, is untenable, as 'sin', killing, fighting, etc.,
already existed millions of years before human beings came about.
Sin is a silly concept. Since the remainder of this post addresses
primarily christian religious beliefs, I have nothing more to say.
That means in the long line of evolution there was never a discrete
point where the 'first' human being suddenly had free choice to obey
or disobey. That also means the dogma of Christ's death at the cross
to atone for our sins is untenable. Human beings evolved and never
(suddenly) had free choice to obey or dis-obey =sin.
The manmade Christian God sacrificed his son to atone for all
sins forever for all times, but that idea arose from much older
pagan religions that had human sacrifices at their core. The ultimate
sacrifice for redemption was to offer your own son, as in the
Abraham-Isaac story.
As homo sapiens evolved over millions of years, there was
never an Adam and Eve 6000 years ago. That means Eve disobeying
God and eating from the fruit never happened. That means the 'fall'
in the garden of Eden never happened. That also means a 'fall' e.g.
a million years earlier never happened. That means the philosophy
of Christ having to die for our original sin, for disobeying God, does
not make sense. Our ancestors millions of years ago did not
have the brains nor choice to obey or disobey.
5. The Christian concept that you can only be saved through accepting
Christ as your savior is untenable. As over 4 billion on earth are
not Christians, it is illogical to assume that God automatically
condemns 4 billion (out of 6.5 billion) to hell = eternal suffering.
6. All religions are man made, which explains the huge variety of
religions. Any evolving human society develops beliefs about life and
death, which then often morph into absolute beliefs and then often
into structured beliefs = religion. That's why there are so
many religions, so many spin-offs of existing religions, and why so
many new spin-offs are created all the time, all over the world.
7. All religions and their spin-offs are man made, and the concept of
'God' including the 'God' of Christianity, Islam and Judaism is man
made.
As nowhere in the material world we see physical acts/actions by
a 'God' on matter, there is no reason to assume that an immaterial
god like the Christian God (who controls, guards, acts and
interferes) exists.
So we have to conclude that:
GOD IS ABSENT, IS DEAD OR DOES NOT EXIST.
As I find it illogical that if an all powerfull God existed, he would
decide to disappear from our material world = universe into some
other universe, or die, i.e. disappear from all possible universes,
there is only one conclusion left:
There is no God applying material forces on or into our physical
environment. That means all physical and chemical occurrances
can be explained (sooner or later) without having to introduce a
supernatural and 'immaterial' being capable of and actively
acting on matter. Therefore the Christian God does not exist.
One can only exist tied to matter. When tied to matter, one can
be observed, measured, etc.,and thus be proven to exist.
Example:
In the tsunami near Sumatra up to 100,000 innocent children
were killed in ju | |