Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Vishal wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I agree, AJ, myths and stories do have great appeal. But the stories in myths (including extant religions) don't tell us where we came from, they tell us only the archaic beliefs of p..."I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but are you saying that religions should be treated just as sources of creative inspiration & a part of our cultural heritage, and oppose the literal, ahistorical interpretation of scriptures? I think that's a sort-of established consensus of most regular participants in this thread.
Xdyj wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I agree, AJ, myths and stories do have great appeal. But the stories in myths (including extant religions) don't tell us where we came from, they tell us only the archa..."
If this is the established consensus then what is here to argument about. Why putting two contradictory thoughts against religion or science. Why arguing about whether the world should be seen either from science or religion. Why arguing about whether the religion is a lie or science is truth. We all know religion is nothing but just the right way of living of man.
Instead, argue about what Jesus has said and what is happening. What Buddha has said and what is happening. Argue about how to reform the religion and what was wrong in Jesus preachings. And what is that use in this technological world. Who cares about religion or scientific explanation, we don't even time to take care of ourselves. We are more stricken with solving our real problems, food, place, clothes etcetera. But in this rush when someone has an accident we go to help them. This instinct and this thought of helping people is flowing in our blood vessels. This is the same as it was thousands of years before when Jesus told us to help others. Why not arguing about establishing such a way by which man's spiritual and bodily tumultuousness can be relaxed.
If this is the established consensus then what is here to argument about. Why putting two contradictory thoughts against religion or science. Why arguing about whether the world should be seen either from science or religion. Why arguing about whether the religion is a lie or science is truth. We all know religion is nothing but just the right way of living of man.
Instead, argue about what Jesus has said and what is happening. What Buddha has said and what is happening. Argue about how to reform the religion and what was wrong in Jesus preachings. And what is that use in this technological world. Who cares about religion or scientific explanation, we don't even time to take care of ourselves. We are more stricken with solving our real problems, food, place, clothes etcetera. But in this rush when someone has an accident we go to help them. This instinct and this thought of helping people is flowing in our blood vessels. This is the same as it was thousands of years before when Jesus told us to help others. Why not arguing about establishing such a way by which man's spiritual and bodily tumultuousness can be relaxed.
Vishal wrote: "I need more explanation. What exactly you are trying to say? Are you against the religion or its wrong doings or you are against the belief?"Both.
Most of the problems with religion come from placing belief before the opinions of others or the evidence seen. Sometimes this leads to conflict and oppression and sometimes this leads to ignoring evidence that could save someone's life.
Vishal wrote: "Are you more interested in Astro-Physics and giving a little valuation to say, 'Maths, biology, physics etc. are just small explanations of a greater whole'?"
If you try to read every book in the world, then you cannot do it in English. You need language as a tool to understand the book you are looking at. Yet all books are part of the set of "human knowledge". The same with science. The universe has lots of potential knowledge out there, but some is easier to understand in the language of physics and some in biology and some in neurobehaviourology. All sciences are just part of the toolset of science in general.
Vishal wrote: "Are you just searching the reason of this universe's existence only and if it has been solve then what?"
Why does the universe need a reason? Why would that reason have any relevance to a tiny amount of small creatures sat on a speck of rock orbiting an unremarkable star?
Do you know that if everyone alive left Earth to rule their own star, we could have up to ten each in this galaxy alone. If we wanted to rule a galaxy we could have ten of them each in the observable universe.
When I look at all this space and then hear a religious person say "all this was created for us" it seems incredibly ridiculous. Yet I realise that most people have no appreciation of just how huge the universe is.
Vishal wrote: "Are you seeing the religion from that stage or you are looking it from what you say 'small explanation' of the ground level?"
Neither. I definitely wouldn't be "looking at it with religion" as religion looks nowhere but within itself, and indeed ourselves. Neither would it be a "small explanation". It would be an explanation that combines the very small with the very large. Cosmology already has to do this. The tiny size of the early universe means the physics of the vanishingly small will effect the universe on the scale of thousands of galaxies.
Vishal wrote: "From your comment one thing I have found that you are in favor of evidence and against the any faith, am I right? Do you believe religion should support science and science should do the same or you believe science in itself does not need support and religion should be exterminated and science should be established in the world as one and only way to find truth or religion is in need of reformation and not extermination?"
You are still trying to treat science and religion as the same. Science is a method of seeking knowledge without presupposition. Religion is many different ideas and practices all based on presupposition of belief. If any religion is right then science would reveal this, so science would then lead to the "true religion" except then it wouldn't be religion because you wouldn't need belief.
Similarly we do not need to "exterminate" religion or anything so graphic. We did not destroy the religion of the Aten, we did not destroy Hellenistic polytheism, the majority of us just discarded them. In fact the only thing that tends to "destroy" religion is other religions. Like when the Taliban destroyed the statues of the Buddha.
Religion does not need to be stamped out, it needs to be discarded as a belief. There is no reason why people cannot enjoy the stories of Jesus or the beauty of Buddhist mantras, just as we may enjoy the tales of Hercules of Greek Mythology, or appreciate the beauty of a Qu'ran.
Any story or fable contains elements of truth. The problems only start when people believe that these stories are absolute truth.
Vishal wrote: "And by the way sorry for my terrible English as I'm not native and my background is more Hindi than English."
As I said, your English is far better than my Hindi so I cannot complain. I will do my best to try to understand and please forgive me if I do not comprehend your points.
Vishal wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I agree, AJ, myths and stories do have great appeal. But the stories in myths (including extant religions) don't tell us where we came from, they tell us only the archaic beliefs of p..."No, Vishal, you've got it wrong. If there were no stories of a imaginary god (and they are all of imaginary gods) then no-one would ever think of the need to find it. If people actually spend time looking for god scientifically, they're wasting their time. Its a cultural indoctrination, nothing more, and if an hypothetical objective outside observer came to this planet, and saw these claims about gods, they'd reject them due to lack of evidence, and wouldn't waste time trying to find them, instead they'd probably have to waste time working out why the hell people believe it in the first place.
BTW, religion very much says stop thinking, and in some cases actually teaches, for example, history that is completely false (see the Mormons teaching that the native Americans are descendants of a lost tribe of Israel), in many religions questioning the truth and validity of the religious claims is blasphemous.
And why doesn't religion provide any form of true answers? Because in every case where there is a disagreement on something about the natural world and the religious explanation is different or contradictory to the scientific one, the scientific one has been shown to be the correct one, every single time, and the religious explanation found to be incorrect. If you can name one thing in which that is not the case, I'd be interested to hear it.
Vishal wrote: "Xdyj wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I agree, AJ, myths and stories do have great appeal. But the stories in myths (including extant religions) don't tell us where we came from, they tell us o..."This post, no 5649, is that you essentially saying that religion is what makes us good? And that it is religion that makes us charitable? Because I'd say that 1.5 billion atheists in the world today show that is demonstrably not true, I'd say that studies that have shown that theists are over represented in prisons and atheists are under-represented in prisons compared to their proportions in the normal population makes this demonstrably not true (less than 1% of prisoners are atheist), I'd say that highly secular and atheistic countries having lower crime rates, better healthcare and better general happiness on the happiness scale makes this demonstrably not true, and that charitable donations as a percentage of GNP of secular and atheist countries being higher than theistic countries makes this demonstrably not true. Some people claim that the US is the most charitable, but those claims are on overall money given, not based on a percentage of the money the country has, which is the most telling way of showing it, as it shows that countries with less money than the US give a larger proportion of that money to charity, so countries like Sweden top the list.
Jesse wrote: "This method of learning suggests that every action has a reaction."That is a classical law that works fine at our scale, it doesn't mean quite the same at the Quantum scale though.
Jesse wrote: "There is a force behind everything."
And that gets the classical law wrong. Nowhere does it say "there is a force behind everything". In fact the law states that an object will continue at the same velocity unless a force acts on the object.
Jesse wrote: "With that in mind, both God and the big-bang theory are hypotheses made as to the creation of the world. Neither are very testable,"
Actually the Big Bang Theory is testable and has actual evidence. One of the most pristine results in science was the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background which is literally the glow of the "fireball" of the Big Bang. The glow was predicted and then observed (though the people that saw it first came across it accidentally). The glow was almost a perfect match for the Big Bang at 13.75 Billion years ago. In fact it was a little "too" perfect until the CMBE satellite discovered the tiny fluctuations in temperature that could then seed galaxies.
But you are right "God" has no empirical evidence.
Jesse wrote: "both come out of some odd reasoning for the earth and organisms to come into existence."
Actually the "God Hypothesis" doesn't contain any reasoning at all. It says the Earth and Organisms were "magicked" into existence because God can do that. Replace "God" with "Wizard" and the 'explanation' doesn't change a bit.
Jesse wrote: "In order to have religion, one must have the means of hypothesizing."
True, but the same goes for science. However, science then tests hypotheses and discards those that don't work, each religion picks one hypothesis and then claims it as truth and ignores or suppresses other hypotheses.
Jesse wrote: "I would say that I could live without organized religion, but not without love and spirituality of some sort."
Are you claiming that you could not love without believing in some god or other? What is spirituality other than the choice to be credulous about ephemeral claims?
Jesse wrote: "I suppose that means that I would choose religion over science, but religion without reason just sounds like instincts to me. "
Religion without reason would be little different. Once the religious hypothesis is arrived at through observation and reason, reason is no longer required and is in fact an anathema to religion. That fact is not just what some godless atheist thinks.
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason." ... ... "The damned whore Reason...." ... ... "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." - Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant Revolution, was behind much of Protestant theology.
Xdyj wrote: " "outsourcing" itself is sort of inevitable due to comparative advantage & perhaps shouldn't be treated as a bad thing."Well there are good reasons to outsource, one I can think of is outsourcing part of your 24 hour helpdesk to a country on the other side of the world so that you can have cover without using shifts.
Apart from that though, why are jobs outsourced? To save money. The most common way to save money like this is to hire a cheaper workforce. Why are certain workforces cheaper? Usually because either they need less money because their country is poor and therefore your wages literally have more bang per buck there, or people will work for less which means they have lower standards of living.
In either case we are talking about inequality for those workers, and that inequality has to be greater than the cost of transport of any products and administration.
Xdyj wrote: "Maybe the right answer is neither protectionism nor "competitive wages" as proposed by those right-wingers you mentioned, but more investment on education, R&D & other social programs to help ppl to embrace the structural change."
Embracing change is fine, but makes no difference if businesses aren't hiring in your area. A better educated workforce is good because intelligent and skilled workers are actually worth businesses investing in. Unfortunately the trend in the UK is to undermine free education forcing the poor into stark choices of leaving education early in order to earn money, or to stay in education and risk tens of thousands of pounds of debt to gain a qualification that may have a chance at securing a decent paid job.
So yes I think education will help, but only if access is improved instead of undermined for the holy grail of tax cuts.
I personally think that the government should offer targeted grants for the under-subscribed but vital subjects of science, mathematics and engineering.
Hazel wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I agree, AJ, myths and stories do have great appeal. But the stories in myths (including extant religions) don't tell us where we came from, they tell us only the archa..."Agreed.
A.J. wrote: "Can we have a world of Science and Mythology if religion is excluded? If a forced choice I would pick science over religion but I thinkt the power of Story and Myth is huge for people and that actually propagates a lot of religion along. We want to know where we came from, where we are going, hence great stories, great books have universal appeal. (Knauss, author of Room Four) "Stories and mythology are fine. I love both. The difference is "belief". When I read the words of Jesus or I see the heroism of Frodo Baggins, I do not need to believe in them to feel inspired.
The problems start when "belief" gets involved and suddenly things in these stories are "right" because they are in the story, not because they are reasonable.
Hazel wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Xdyj wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I agree, AJ, myths and stories do have great appeal. But the stories in myths (including extant religions) don't tell us where we came from,..."
I have understood your point but I suppose you have misunderstood my point. When I have said religion is only that is making us charitable? The work done out of compassion is neither charity not religion. My point was that we are tend to feel emotions and our heart feels alone so to feel this we need something. And then the desire of mind starts, whether you fill it with reasons or with religions, in both circumstances you are never going to fill it. In deep down both has no answers. When there was Jesus, what do you think he would not be searching truth? He was, whether the modern means were not invented then so he must have wondering inside to find the answers. I suppose his whole thinking would be to make a man true. True in its own nature and then decide what is right and wrong but the creation of church was to propagate his message which were on surface and not in deep down. The existence is in itself a God and God is not as most religious persons are believing as a body. But religion is propagating and atheist are crossing but both have misunderstood the meaning of religion. The people who are in authority of religion are in same confusion as atheist are. They don't even know what they are there for and what they are believing. Religion came in existence only because to find the truth but instead it became a matter of argument and hypocrisy and fanaticism. Real meaning has lost somewhere.
I have understood your point but I suppose you have misunderstood my point. When I have said religion is only that is making us charitable? The work done out of compassion is neither charity not religion. My point was that we are tend to feel emotions and our heart feels alone so to feel this we need something. And then the desire of mind starts, whether you fill it with reasons or with religions, in both circumstances you are never going to fill it. In deep down both has no answers. When there was Jesus, what do you think he would not be searching truth? He was, whether the modern means were not invented then so he must have wondering inside to find the answers. I suppose his whole thinking would be to make a man true. True in its own nature and then decide what is right and wrong but the creation of church was to propagate his message which were on surface and not in deep down. The existence is in itself a God and God is not as most religious persons are believing as a body. But religion is propagating and atheist are crossing but both have misunderstood the meaning of religion. The people who are in authority of religion are in same confusion as atheist are. They don't even know what they are there for and what they are believing. Religion came in existence only because to find the truth but instead it became a matter of argument and hypocrisy and fanaticism. Real meaning has lost somewhere.
Vishal wrote: "We all know religion is nothing but just the right way of living of man."Which religion is the right way? Why is it the right way? How does believing in something make it better than other things?
Oh and we don't "all know" that. I would disagree strongly with that statement.
Vishal wrote: Instead, argue about what Jesus has said and what is happening. What Buddha has said and what is happening. Argue about how to reform the religion and what was wrong in Jesus preachings."
How can you do that without conflict. If a Christian believes that their way is right and a Buddhist thinks their way is right, how do you arbitrate between them.
Belief means that you do not accept that you could be wrong.
Vishal wrote: "And what is that use in this technological world. Who cares about religion or scientific explanation, we don't even time to take care of ourselves."
Actually thanks to science and technology those in the developed countries have unprecedented amounts of free time. Many use that free time to visit gyms or even to practice meditation or yoga.
Vishal wrote: But in this rush when someone has an accident we go to help them. This instinct and this thought of helping people is flowing in our blood vessels."
Exactly, it has been demonstrated that ethical behaviour is intrinsic to us despite our culture or religion, not because of it. In fact similar (though less developed) principles of ethics and morality have been observed in our closest primate relatives.
Vishal wrote: "This is the same as it was thousands of years before when Jesus told us to help others. Why not arguing about establishing such a way by which man's spiritual and bodily tumultuousness can be relaxed."
Exactly. So again religion is not the answer. Reason and compassion lead to ethics and true morality. Religion attempts to subvert ethics and morality to serve and perpetuate itself.
Vishal wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Xdyj wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I agree, AJ, myths and stories do have great appeal. But the stories in myths (including extant religions) don't tell us where..."I interpreted what you wrote as saying that charity and goodness come from religion as it seemed to be what you were saying. This may be a language barrier problem, and I apologise for getting it wrong if that's the case. Like Gary has said, your English is far better than my Hindi, so please forgive me if I misinterpret what you're trying to say.
as for what we need to not feel alone, we need other people, at least other people are definitely real.
If people are only going to be charitable because it is for the religons sake it is not true and honest act. True charity has nothing to do with religion it should be human nature to care for others, unfortunately arguements about such things as religion have bought to this world a great deal of unkindness, death and sorrow. To be religious is not to be good, being good is what it is because that is whats right.
Gary wrote: "Jesse wrote: "This method of learning suggests that every action has a reaction."That is a classical law that works fine at our scale, it doesn't mean quite the same at the Quantum scale though.
..."
Gary, I respect your response to my post. I was simply shooting out ideas because I think it's fun to mess with labels like "science" and "religion" since really it's all pretty silly. These labels or terms are placed on certain things so that we can try to make sense out of things and then the labels take over the idea. Anyway, I guess I was playing with the philosopher's reasoning: "I think, therefore I am" and I think of God, therefore he is. The second is not a quote, but I recall something to that extent in past readings. Anyway, I do not claim to be right. As far as my own beliefs, I could care less how the world began. I do not think that it is my place to know that. Love is my God. I don't think of God as some figure or being, but I still believe that love is the "highest power" if you will and as long as I use my energy to try to share that love, I will be doing something that I perceive to be good.
Hazel wrote: "at least other people are definitely real"
I have some problem to get from your above statement. Please explain.
And sorry for my English. Diverting the Hindi mind in English is really a painful task. But I am trying. Thanks.
I have some problem to get from your above statement. Please explain.
And sorry for my English. Diverting the Hindi mind in English is really a painful task. But I am trying. Thanks.
Vishal wrote: "Hazel wrote: "at least other people are definitely real"I have some problem to get from your above statement. Please explain.
And sorry for my English. Diverting the Hindi mind in English is real..."
People are real, there is empirical evidence that people are real. In fact you can look around you and see that people are real. You cannot do the same for any deity, there is no empirical evidence, you cannot show it to me, you cannot show evidence of its effect on the world. There simply is no empirical evidence for any deity. People are better than a deity, because they are real, and its people that we all need in order to not feel alone, not a god concept.
Defiantly a world without religion.
Hazel wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I agree, AJ, myths and stories do have great appeal. But the stories in myths (including extant religions) don't tell us where we came from, they tell us only the archa..."
Yes absolutely agreed I am. Because as you have said if there would not be any assumption about God, no search would have been begun. Because if there is only reality then what is there to search more. Only because God theory came in existence, people started to search if there is God or not and in this search people have gone too far. Even everything is now on the verge where may be the mystery of existence would be solved.
But that answer is not going to solve problems of human. Human would be still the same. Same stricken with the whole ugliness. Why people do not understand simply that existence is alone in itself an evidence. A flower has a beauty and if I can feel that then what more evidence it needs. But we are tend to make reasoning. All the time searching a reason. Even if you are having dinner and suddenly you start reasoning that the real truth is not lies in the taste but in the tongue's biology and brain reasoning system and its mechanism from tongue to brain to hand. Now what is that. It is great that you know the truth but that does not mean you'd see every thing with that aspect. A person with a simple common sense can even say 'just shut up and enjoy the food'. But no. This is the problem with intelligent intellectuals, they see the whole of existence with just reasoning. Now we lose the beauty. An art of this existence. Every answer can be found simply going inside but we are depend on just books? These can be very helpful but not much as you have to find an answer yourself and when you find you have searched a way of living that is what I'm saying my religion and you find also a system of your body in this whole existence and can relate the existence to that system so you become scientific.
Your example of the creatures of outside this planet is exemplary but something can be happened different also. If somehow they would land up in America they will be very surprised. And rather asking for reason and an evidence they will say may be, 'what are you doing? You have been doing the same as we were. And now see we are full of reason and evidence and even these all are installed in our brain and we are no longer a human but just a programmed-human. You are doing the same mistake. Do not reject this existence, do not reject the means of beauty, do not reject the art and love. And stop reasoning with them. Instead just preserve them, just give this humanity every truth but do not snatch their way of celebration, their art, their beauty'.
And I suppose if they have to take something from here, they will take a best musician, a best painter, a best master of meditation, a best sculpt, a best dancer. And I don't think they would have any need of scientist their. It is not tough, one can be a scientist if the upbringing is right but not every one can be a great musician or a painter or dancer. It needs more self realization than a scientist. It needs more deep devotion and creativeness. Please do not think I am talking against scientists but I am just saying something more is there and it has to be understood.
No religion has any answer that is why they are not providing. Faith has no explanation. It is just a psychological condition. And psychology has also no answer how it works. And so called scientific people say, nonsense! what is their to keep faith when everything can be explained through reasoning. No! You can't explain faith through reasoning. And every one is wondering how it works. Even doctors take it as a way to treat people who just need faith and not medicine. And they call it placebo effect.
Do not stick with what these so called religious people say. After all in a very sense they are the most stupid, idiots. Why they burn books or protest against people who have their own belief system and their own way of life. Even to repress them these religious people are increasing the chance for the double impact result. You repress liquid, it becomes gas, more occupying space. That is seer stupidity, if they want people to come closer of them why they are advertising freely for them who not with them. I don't have idea who has propounded the theory of genetics but I still know Charles Darwin. You have to understand people have not changed in these thousands of years. Their outer has changed a lot but still inside they are the same people who were then when Jesus was crucified.
The whole process of argument is that it should to lead somewhere. Why it is needed to find the real date of something or what is myth and what is real. The simplicity is that you search your art, your way. And then that would be your religion not the imposition.
I suppose many times problem arises to comprehend my words when I say, I am religious and not following any others' philosophies. Because the main thing is that we are tend to see people in their belief system. You have to explain what is that, are you believer of mysticism, secularism, atheism, agnosticism, or believer of some present religions. And when anything comes beyond these, you have problems. Now if someone says I am not a religion believer but I am religious because I follow art of living then again you will ask a question in a sense of a belief system that, is it a different kind of system? But no, it is not a system but just a simple delving to understand the mind, body and nature. And waking at a perfect time is not strictly apply there. If you wish you can wake at 11 and if your body has need to wake up at 4, you can. It is just an art. just an art.
Yes absolutely agreed I am. Because as you have said if there would not be any assumption about God, no search would have been begun. Because if there is only reality then what is there to search more. Only because God theory came in existence, people started to search if there is God or not and in this search people have gone too far. Even everything is now on the verge where may be the mystery of existence would be solved.
But that answer is not going to solve problems of human. Human would be still the same. Same stricken with the whole ugliness. Why people do not understand simply that existence is alone in itself an evidence. A flower has a beauty and if I can feel that then what more evidence it needs. But we are tend to make reasoning. All the time searching a reason. Even if you are having dinner and suddenly you start reasoning that the real truth is not lies in the taste but in the tongue's biology and brain reasoning system and its mechanism from tongue to brain to hand. Now what is that. It is great that you know the truth but that does not mean you'd see every thing with that aspect. A person with a simple common sense can even say 'just shut up and enjoy the food'. But no. This is the problem with intelligent intellectuals, they see the whole of existence with just reasoning. Now we lose the beauty. An art of this existence. Every answer can be found simply going inside but we are depend on just books? These can be very helpful but not much as you have to find an answer yourself and when you find you have searched a way of living that is what I'm saying my religion and you find also a system of your body in this whole existence and can relate the existence to that system so you become scientific.
Your example of the creatures of outside this planet is exemplary but something can be happened different also. If somehow they would land up in America they will be very surprised. And rather asking for reason and an evidence they will say may be, 'what are you doing? You have been doing the same as we were. And now see we are full of reason and evidence and even these all are installed in our brain and we are no longer a human but just a programmed-human. You are doing the same mistake. Do not reject this existence, do not reject the means of beauty, do not reject the art and love. And stop reasoning with them. Instead just preserve them, just give this humanity every truth but do not snatch their way of celebration, their art, their beauty'.
And I suppose if they have to take something from here, they will take a best musician, a best painter, a best master of meditation, a best sculpt, a best dancer. And I don't think they would have any need of scientist their. It is not tough, one can be a scientist if the upbringing is right but not every one can be a great musician or a painter or dancer. It needs more self realization than a scientist. It needs more deep devotion and creativeness. Please do not think I am talking against scientists but I am just saying something more is there and it has to be understood.
No religion has any answer that is why they are not providing. Faith has no explanation. It is just a psychological condition. And psychology has also no answer how it works. And so called scientific people say, nonsense! what is their to keep faith when everything can be explained through reasoning. No! You can't explain faith through reasoning. And every one is wondering how it works. Even doctors take it as a way to treat people who just need faith and not medicine. And they call it placebo effect.
Do not stick with what these so called religious people say. After all in a very sense they are the most stupid, idiots. Why they burn books or protest against people who have their own belief system and their own way of life. Even to repress them these religious people are increasing the chance for the double impact result. You repress liquid, it becomes gas, more occupying space. That is seer stupidity, if they want people to come closer of them why they are advertising freely for them who not with them. I don't have idea who has propounded the theory of genetics but I still know Charles Darwin. You have to understand people have not changed in these thousands of years. Their outer has changed a lot but still inside they are the same people who were then when Jesus was crucified.
The whole process of argument is that it should to lead somewhere. Why it is needed to find the real date of something or what is myth and what is real. The simplicity is that you search your art, your way. And then that would be your religion not the imposition.
I suppose many times problem arises to comprehend my words when I say, I am religious and not following any others' philosophies. Because the main thing is that we are tend to see people in their belief system. You have to explain what is that, are you believer of mysticism, secularism, atheism, agnosticism, or believer of some present religions. And when anything comes beyond these, you have problems. Now if someone says I am not a religion believer but I am religious because I follow art of living then again you will ask a question in a sense of a belief system that, is it a different kind of system? But no, it is not a system but just a simple delving to understand the mind, body and nature. And waking at a perfect time is not strictly apply there. If you wish you can wake at 11 and if your body has need to wake up at 4, you can. It is just an art. just an art.
I'm sorry that I'm ignoring the vast majority of what you wrote here, but existence itself is evidence of what?
Hazel wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Hazel wrote: "at least other people are definitely real"
I have some problem to get from your above statement. Please explain.
And sorry for my English. Diverting the Hindi mind in ..."
That is what exactly my view is and I am not believer of a creation like God. People are real and that is where I see the nature godliness exist in people and that godliness is needed. The same results can be attained what we get to believe in God from loving people. But do we love people? Even if we believe in the truth of existence or believe in God, it is not gonna solve any problem. We are faulty enough that we created idols, statues and said God is there. But we denied that very fact God is not there but just in us. We have forgotten loving, and our love if we say we have love, is more burdened with authority and we still feel envious, desirous, ambitious towards the love. And now we have made it a slave and forgotten the meaning of freedom. Just following the meaning of freedom we attain love without fighting with it.
I am not dealing the religion with the mere outer prospective but what is its way.
I have some problem to get from your above statement. Please explain.
And sorry for my English. Diverting the Hindi mind in ..."
That is what exactly my view is and I am not believer of a creation like God. People are real and that is where I see the nature godliness exist in people and that godliness is needed. The same results can be attained what we get to believe in God from loving people. But do we love people? Even if we believe in the truth of existence or believe in God, it is not gonna solve any problem. We are faulty enough that we created idols, statues and said God is there. But we denied that very fact God is not there but just in us. We have forgotten loving, and our love if we say we have love, is more burdened with authority and we still feel envious, desirous, ambitious towards the love. And now we have made it a slave and forgotten the meaning of freedom. Just following the meaning of freedom we attain love without fighting with it.
I am not dealing the religion with the mere outer prospective but what is its way.
I think I get what you're saying, but you need to stop using the word god, or godliness, to refer to the innate goodness and loving nature of people, it makes it confusing. A better term would be human nature, or empathy. In fact yes, our "innate empathy" is a better term than godliness.
April wrote: "I agree with you about the lesson for A&D, to not be an extremist with what you believe. I wouldn't want to live in a world without religion OR science. Because I think they work together. We never..."I totally agree with you, both science and religion have made a difference ib the world in their own way. For me its important to don't be so closed up about this kinds of subjects.
Gary wrote: "Which religion is the right way? Why is it the right way? How does believing in something make it better than other things?"
Again you are tend to know the noun. If your English has a meaning then it does not mean others meaning is meaningless. You ask which religion, and there is no religion as in your meaning has a right way but who are we to decide what is right or what is wrong. When I say 'right way', my meaning is only centered to me. But suppose if you remove out the religion (you have not given me an explanation what I had asked about in comment 5640)
something you would have to fit there. Other wise people will get mad. What are you going to fit there? And evidence? And explanation? Who are you to ask me a question 'how does believing'? Do you even ask me how much salt you need to use? And suppose I give you a high amount, will you accept? Your need is different, so just search your need and your answers. You say religion is a belief, then what about your secularism? Is it not a belief? Believing in something and not believing in something, both are believe. In one you believe, in another simply believe that I have not belief.
Again you are tend to know the noun. If your English has a meaning then it does not mean others meaning is meaningless. You ask which religion, and there is no religion as in your meaning has a right way but who are we to decide what is right or what is wrong. When I say 'right way', my meaning is only centered to me. But suppose if you remove out the religion (you have not given me an explanation what I had asked about in comment 5640)
something you would have to fit there. Other wise people will get mad. What are you going to fit there? And evidence? And explanation? Who are you to ask me a question 'how does believing'? Do you even ask me how much salt you need to use? And suppose I give you a high amount, will you accept? Your need is different, so just search your need and your answers. You say religion is a belief, then what about your secularism? Is it not a belief? Believing in something and not believing in something, both are believe. In one you believe, in another simply believe that I have not belief.
Gary wrote: "How can you do that without conflict. If a Christian believes that their way is right and a Buddhist thinks their way is right, how do you arbitrate between them."
Are you the right person who can keep the religion in witness box? It is just your frustration that your whole meaning of science is not making a little change in their views. You better argument with a Christan, a Hindu, a Muslim, I am none of them. Enough has been said. I have told you what I believe and why but how can I reason with the present form and English meaning of religion? And if I do so my first comment that my religion is universal would be found wrong.
Are you the right person who can keep the religion in witness box? It is just your frustration that your whole meaning of science is not making a little change in their views. You better argument with a Christan, a Hindu, a Muslim, I am none of them. Enough has been said. I have told you what I believe and why but how can I reason with the present form and English meaning of religion? And if I do so my first comment that my religion is universal would be found wrong.
Gary wrote: Actually thanks to science and technology those in the developed countries have unprecedented amounts of free time. Many use that free time to visit gyms or even to practice meditation or yoga.
So you think only science and technology has made the free time. How ridiculous! Do you think when there was no technology, people had no free time?
Gary wrote:Exactly, it has been demonstrated that ethical behaviour is intrinsic to us despite our culture or religion, not because of it. In fact similar (though less developed) principles of ethics and morality have been observed in our closest primate relatives.
Yes you are right. Many experiments with animals have shown that they are expressing the same behavior as human. But at least these animals have not grown economy, not made government, not created money. Do you think they can do the same? May be because if their emotions are getting matched by ours then it is shame to say we are human. Our art is our, I am not in favor of the religion but at the same time I am also not in favor of establishing science and technology as only ways and means of life. Think, what will happen then? Your intellectual scientists would be keeping us in the lab and testing us, why we believe in something and then creating a whole thesis of truth the relation between human and animal and if we have some feeling about love, they will surely say, 'Oh! that is just the form of body chemistry and don't worry, even that monkey can feel love so come out from this dream and accept the body chemistry.'
Gary wrote:Exactly. So again religion is not the answer. Reason and compassion lead to ethics and true morality. Religion attempts to subvert ethics and morality to serve and perpetuate itself.
I understand compassion but that reason? Is it only reasoning can carry you to ethics and morality? To reason the gun we have arrived to the protection of man. And if bomb and gun can be reasoned, why can't a religion reason with its own killing. When religion kills you say it is faulty but when science kills you say it is just for protection? Killing is bad and no killing should be taken place whether you defend it just saying it a protection from others or you kill from the help of religion. Both are bad. So I understand compassion that out of compassion you can at least choose an ethics and morality as you say but including reason, I have no idea.
So you think only science and technology has made the free time. How ridiculous! Do you think when there was no technology, people had no free time?
Gary wrote:Exactly, it has been demonstrated that ethical behaviour is intrinsic to us despite our culture or religion, not because of it. In fact similar (though less developed) principles of ethics and morality have been observed in our closest primate relatives.
Yes you are right. Many experiments with animals have shown that they are expressing the same behavior as human. But at least these animals have not grown economy, not made government, not created money. Do you think they can do the same? May be because if their emotions are getting matched by ours then it is shame to say we are human. Our art is our, I am not in favor of the religion but at the same time I am also not in favor of establishing science and technology as only ways and means of life. Think, what will happen then? Your intellectual scientists would be keeping us in the lab and testing us, why we believe in something and then creating a whole thesis of truth the relation between human and animal and if we have some feeling about love, they will surely say, 'Oh! that is just the form of body chemistry and don't worry, even that monkey can feel love so come out from this dream and accept the body chemistry.'
Gary wrote:Exactly. So again religion is not the answer. Reason and compassion lead to ethics and true morality. Religion attempts to subvert ethics and morality to serve and perpetuate itself.
I understand compassion but that reason? Is it only reasoning can carry you to ethics and morality? To reason the gun we have arrived to the protection of man. And if bomb and gun can be reasoned, why can't a religion reason with its own killing. When religion kills you say it is faulty but when science kills you say it is just for protection? Killing is bad and no killing should be taken place whether you defend it just saying it a protection from others or you kill from the help of religion. Both are bad. So I understand compassion that out of compassion you can at least choose an ethics and morality as you say but including reason, I have no idea.
Vishal, how can not believing be considered a belief? It is by definition a lack of belief. Saying that not believing is a belief is completely contradictory.
Hazel wrote: "I think I get what you're saying, but you need to stop using the word god, or godliness, to refer to the innate goodness and loving nature of people, it makes it confusing. A better term would be h..."
Thank you that you have got my point but I am unable to drop this word even words are just words but my whole being has repeated this word many times so to use innate-empathy would be a difficult one. And what is there to get confused about! Godliness is the perfect positive nature. The children are born with their true innate nature that is why they are pure and innocent and somewhat there your word has perfect assimilation as 'innate-empathy' but then we see in a grown man, there is hardly any innate nature. His studious brain has lost this innate behavior. But it can be grown to godliness. Because godliness is just a positive energy form. If there is godliness, evilness can also come. But going to the innate nature has a deep meaning. If a man goes to that nature, he becomes enlightened, that's why Jesus has said, 'children are the first enlightened being'. I am not going in deeper meaning but just living one step back from that innate nature.
Thank you that you have got my point but I am unable to drop this word even words are just words but my whole being has repeated this word many times so to use innate-empathy would be a difficult one. And what is there to get confused about! Godliness is the perfect positive nature. The children are born with their true innate nature that is why they are pure and innocent and somewhat there your word has perfect assimilation as 'innate-empathy' but then we see in a grown man, there is hardly any innate nature. His studious brain has lost this innate behavior. But it can be grown to godliness. Because godliness is just a positive energy form. If there is godliness, evilness can also come. But going to the innate nature has a deep meaning. If a man goes to that nature, he becomes enlightened, that's why Jesus has said, 'children are the first enlightened being'. I am not going in deeper meaning but just living one step back from that innate nature.
no, words are not just words, words have meaning, when you use them they convey that meaning, so it is important to use the correct words.An adult hasn't lost any of their innate empathy, I have no idea where you're getting these ideas from.
Hazel wrote: "Vishal, how can not believing be considered a belief? It is by definition a lack of belief. Saying that not believing is a belief is completely contradictory."
That is the contradiction. Yes how you can't say this is not you believe that you are not believing? This is just the two opposite contradiction. If there is believing, then there would be not believing. If you really have nothing then the whole believing and not believing would be ended and then there would be just remain the mere existence. But to invent a non believe, you'd have to invent first the believe otherwise what is need to say I am not believing. You can't make one and keep opposite of it vacant, it is not possible. If there is one side, there must be another. And to really to see the nothingness, you'd have to vacant the both. Then there is no problem.
That is the contradiction. Yes how you can't say this is not you believe that you are not believing? This is just the two opposite contradiction. If there is believing, then there would be not believing. If you really have nothing then the whole believing and not believing would be ended and then there would be just remain the mere existence. But to invent a non believe, you'd have to invent first the believe otherwise what is need to say I am not believing. You can't make one and keep opposite of it vacant, it is not possible. If there is one side, there must be another. And to really to see the nothingness, you'd have to vacant the both. Then there is no problem.
Hazel wrote: An adult hasn't lost any of their innate empathy, I have ...
Okay. Then you are saying what is correct word today, should be used always in in that form? I suppose then you'd have to change first the thoughts of Americans and then you should to establish the Shakespearian language again or you have to drag the informal into formal way.
So you are basically saying man does not have any change its innate nature, then it means man is always in its naturalness and then their should be no conflict between man and man? If your meaning of innate is in its superficial term then I apologize that I have said that but If your meaning is also about man's deeper nature then somewhat I am getting my way.
When I say existence is in itself an evidence, then I am saying, every thing that we find, prove by different aspects if it has no real interaction with eyes is an existence. Because our mind is also has an appearance so we say mind is also an existence. If you can see the whole beauty of nature what more evidence is needed there. Just finding the plant there as you are not satisfied and you ask whether it is there or not just give explanation. Now how that plant can tell you about its existence. It is already exist. Your presumption and thesis and experiments and research has nothing to do with the existence and these we have created for ourselves for our own benefit. You first create a global warming and then you do research and say environment is in danger but is there environment is in danger or you are in danger? You have first cut down trees and then you say because of your reasoning and science now you are capable to save these trees. Are you saving trees or you just saving your existence? You deal with evidence otherwise there is no effects are going to meted out over the nature. It has proven evidence. Nature will balance itself. From thousands of years it has been happening. There would be existence and it is an evidence that it is there.
By the way, truly I don't like meta-physics. It has a lot mind tensioning terms and explanations. I am just the being who more like enjoying life with what I have than arguing the right or wrong. I dropped in here accidentally and then I had seen it is more contradictory and heading nowhere. So really I have got bored with it.
Thanks!
PS- By the way what that mean to say where are you getting these ideas from? Ideas are ideas whether it is ridiculous or essential, with meaning or meaningless. You are completely being rude to say that. If you does not have an idea what they are saying you need not to say at least in the sense that their ideas have coming from no where. You can ask how and why and that will I suppose give an idea a new way to test it or may be it has been already tested but what is there to say 'I have no idea where are you getting these ideas from. And to putting 'these' you have said in a very decent way that the whole arguments are of no-avail. Oh that hurts.
Well don't consider too seriously.
Okay. Then you are saying what is correct word today, should be used always in in that form? I suppose then you'd have to change first the thoughts of Americans and then you should to establish the Shakespearian language again or you have to drag the informal into formal way.
So you are basically saying man does not have any change its innate nature, then it means man is always in its naturalness and then their should be no conflict between man and man? If your meaning of innate is in its superficial term then I apologize that I have said that but If your meaning is also about man's deeper nature then somewhat I am getting my way.
When I say existence is in itself an evidence, then I am saying, every thing that we find, prove by different aspects if it has no real interaction with eyes is an existence. Because our mind is also has an appearance so we say mind is also an existence. If you can see the whole beauty of nature what more evidence is needed there. Just finding the plant there as you are not satisfied and you ask whether it is there or not just give explanation. Now how that plant can tell you about its existence. It is already exist. Your presumption and thesis and experiments and research has nothing to do with the existence and these we have created for ourselves for our own benefit. You first create a global warming and then you do research and say environment is in danger but is there environment is in danger or you are in danger? You have first cut down trees and then you say because of your reasoning and science now you are capable to save these trees. Are you saving trees or you just saving your existence? You deal with evidence otherwise there is no effects are going to meted out over the nature. It has proven evidence. Nature will balance itself. From thousands of years it has been happening. There would be existence and it is an evidence that it is there.
By the way, truly I don't like meta-physics. It has a lot mind tensioning terms and explanations. I am just the being who more like enjoying life with what I have than arguing the right or wrong. I dropped in here accidentally and then I had seen it is more contradictory and heading nowhere. So really I have got bored with it.
Thanks!
PS- By the way what that mean to say where are you getting these ideas from? Ideas are ideas whether it is ridiculous or essential, with meaning or meaningless. You are completely being rude to say that. If you does not have an idea what they are saying you need not to say at least in the sense that their ideas have coming from no where. You can ask how and why and that will I suppose give an idea a new way to test it or may be it has been already tested but what is there to say 'I have no idea where are you getting these ideas from. And to putting 'these' you have said in a very decent way that the whole arguments are of no-avail. Oh that hurts.
Well don't consider too seriously.
Hazel wrote: "no, words are not just words, words have meaning, when you use them they convey that meaning, so it is important to use the correct words.
An adult hasn't lost any of their innate empathy, I have ..."
So when a child feel hungry it says if it knows words or it makes you to think that child is hungry but I have seen man (the only people I've interacted are assumed here and not outside this assumption. May be more seeking is hidden there and to more I'll meet and may be my views would be changed but not now) does not express what is naturalness, instead it hides this feeling only to show that more civilized he is. If a child fights then its anger is meant to be disappeared very soon but I have not found yet a man whose anger is getting disappeared very soon. Even if they show they are very patient but inside the real work goes on. How do you say this is innate nature? If this is your innate nature then just godliness is enough then. Because when you express your real beauty then there comes the godliness and it is not a matter for others to decide who has getting. It is just a tool to you to measure yourself where is hidden the god and evil.
Well if I am not articulating something clearly then I am sorry for that. But I'd have to ask, 'have you read any one of Osho's books yet?
An adult hasn't lost any of their innate empathy, I have ..."
So when a child feel hungry it says if it knows words or it makes you to think that child is hungry but I have seen man (the only people I've interacted are assumed here and not outside this assumption. May be more seeking is hidden there and to more I'll meet and may be my views would be changed but not now) does not express what is naturalness, instead it hides this feeling only to show that more civilized he is. If a child fights then its anger is meant to be disappeared very soon but I have not found yet a man whose anger is getting disappeared very soon. Even if they show they are very patient but inside the real work goes on. How do you say this is innate nature? If this is your innate nature then just godliness is enough then. Because when you express your real beauty then there comes the godliness and it is not a matter for others to decide who has getting. It is just a tool to you to measure yourself where is hidden the god and evil.
Well if I am not articulating something clearly then I am sorry for that. But I'd have to ask, 'have you read any one of Osho's books yet?
No, can you link to them here on goodreads so I can have a look? I have a massive to be read list at the moment, I have about 6 books sat next to my bed waiting to be read, another dozen on my shelves, and then a list of books to get from the library.
I have no idea how to link anything up. I am very poor in technological sense. Just googling of Osho can do something. Well starting with his videos which are in abundance, is a good way.
Been gone for a while....have I missed anything interesting? Anyone claiming "no morals without religion" that I need to give my stock response to?
Cerebus wrote: "Been gone for a while....have I missed anything interesting? Anyone claiming "no morals without religion" that I need to give my stock response to?"Just the usual 'religion and science are two sides of the same coin' type stuff with the occasional bit of 'we need religion, as science doesn't have all the answers'.
and very few Sean Bean updates.
Hazel wrote: "No, can you link to them here on goodreads so I can have a look? I have a massive to be read list at the moment, I have about 6 books sat next to my bed waiting to be read, another dozen on my shel..."Six books on the bedside table and another twelve as back up...?
amateur.
Travis wrote: "Just the usual 'religion and science are two sides of the same coin' type stuff with the occasional bit of 'we need religion, as science doesn't have all the answers'.and very few Sean Bean updates. "
Cheers, I won't bother going back through the thread then, I'll just pick it up from here :)
Gary wrote: "Jesse wrote: "This method of learning suggests that every action has a reaction."
That is a classical law that works fine at our scale, it doesn't mean quite the same at the Quantum scale though.
..."
"Ephemeral claims"? Gary how you decided spirituality is an ephemeral claims? There is no claim Gary. It is just the feeling as the feeling we have for our mother. To love mother do you prepare any reasoning Gary? Do you also see the whole humanity through scientific explanation, if you do so I suppose you are not there to take advantage of any human emotions. So simply you have to drop the love, because you can't love someone and can possess the believe of just a chemical reaction. Now define love if you have a scientific explanation, and definition of the believe on god can easily come to the same explanation what you will explain for love. Now you are asking for this belief on god, an perfect evidence. Why not you give the belief in love, an evidence? The same evidence will be bounced back. And if you are believing that there is no love and it is just a theory then may be you are standing in the favor of a programmed man. Every thing in human you define with science. And it is true that some sort of science is working, but tell me Gary what exactly it benefits to tell a person that this is happening from this science. Reality is that too much complications are getting involved in human through just understanding. We don't need more complications Gary, we just need relaxation and connectivity with our own original naturalness. Gary how could you feel the beauty in the flower and explain its reason at the same time.
If you say that spirituality is just the ephemeral claims then it means you are also rejecting every prospect of man's other feelings and just propagating about a science fiction's robotics. Only because you are not feeling to kill somebody, mutilate his body or you are not getting the feeling of rape, it does not mean you can say it is just ephemeral claims. It is happening and always happening around the world. People who feel spirituality are not claiming something. And if they do so they will exactly lose the beauty of this feeling.
Yes, you are right when you say, 'similar effects can be attained through some drugs', and it is not you who know only. Everybody has an idea of meditation when the first time they take drugs or alcohol. But you can't get the similar results even from the LSD for longer. Its use for one time is good but its habitualness can cause a great danger to the body and mind. But meditation is not giving you any side effect. It is just the art that can give the same similar results and more than better of that.
That is a classical law that works fine at our scale, it doesn't mean quite the same at the Quantum scale though.
..."
"Ephemeral claims"? Gary how you decided spirituality is an ephemeral claims? There is no claim Gary. It is just the feeling as the feeling we have for our mother. To love mother do you prepare any reasoning Gary? Do you also see the whole humanity through scientific explanation, if you do so I suppose you are not there to take advantage of any human emotions. So simply you have to drop the love, because you can't love someone and can possess the believe of just a chemical reaction. Now define love if you have a scientific explanation, and definition of the believe on god can easily come to the same explanation what you will explain for love. Now you are asking for this belief on god, an perfect evidence. Why not you give the belief in love, an evidence? The same evidence will be bounced back. And if you are believing that there is no love and it is just a theory then may be you are standing in the favor of a programmed man. Every thing in human you define with science. And it is true that some sort of science is working, but tell me Gary what exactly it benefits to tell a person that this is happening from this science. Reality is that too much complications are getting involved in human through just understanding. We don't need more complications Gary, we just need relaxation and connectivity with our own original naturalness. Gary how could you feel the beauty in the flower and explain its reason at the same time.
If you say that spirituality is just the ephemeral claims then it means you are also rejecting every prospect of man's other feelings and just propagating about a science fiction's robotics. Only because you are not feeling to kill somebody, mutilate his body or you are not getting the feeling of rape, it does not mean you can say it is just ephemeral claims. It is happening and always happening around the world. People who feel spirituality are not claiming something. And if they do so they will exactly lose the beauty of this feeling.
Yes, you are right when you say, 'similar effects can be attained through some drugs', and it is not you who know only. Everybody has an idea of meditation when the first time they take drugs or alcohol. But you can't get the similar results even from the LSD for longer. Its use for one time is good but its habitualness can cause a great danger to the body and mind. But meditation is not giving you any side effect. It is just the art that can give the same similar results and more than better of that.
Gary wrote: Religion without reason would be little different. Once the religious hypothesis is arrived at through observation and reason, reason is no longer required and is in fact an anathema to religion. That fact is not just what some godless atheist thinks.
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason." ... ... "The damned whore Reason...." ... ... "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." - Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant Revolution, was behind much of Protestant theology.
I am very impressed that you quoted this. And that shows that fanatical organized religions are. To crush the man's own dignity and individuality, they think they are following religion. These religion have hardly any space for individualism. And the conditioning is so big that man's mind hardly see anything through it. That is the problem. They don't have even their own thinking and own behavior. All they have is just others impositions that they believe are theirs. But not only these religions, but all -isms are just the same. Even atheists take just the help of science as they are free to take advantage of science and reasoning, they only defend their believe system. So if someone goes against the religion, the noun is there for them. And they involve unknowingly in a belief system. But they hardly have their own thought. These are the thought of millions of others atheist too. Even secularism has a problem. Secularists are just trying vainly to merging different in one. In India a secularist says 'we are all brothers, whether we are Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christan. But this is not possible. Because one is a secularist, it does not mean he has no religion. He has something that he is sticking with. It can be Hindu or Muslim or other. His secularist mind is just seeing that only let people of different community to do what their system says, a communal peace can be estabilished so he is following secularism. But when there is clash with one community to other, his whole theory is in confusion. You can allow people to come and dine with you but how can you permit others to decide what you should to eat in dinner? Some will say to drink alcohol, some will say to eat meat, some will say to partake vegetarian food only, some will say not drink alcohol. Now real problem is there. And this happenes as soon as one becomes majority, it starts imposing its belief system. I suppose the true secularist are those who are just beggar, poor and homeless. They need food, clothes, a place to live so there is no difference if they change their identity. What difference it makes, nothing! First he has no idea in waht religion he is living and what its philosophy is. So what is the problem to accept others philosophy and religion. At least they will stick with it as far as the religion is providing them food, clothes and place. If it stops there is no problem to change. They are true in sense a secularist minded people. This all is really ridiculous.
Where your individuality has gone? Where your own freedom has gone? You are just getting entangled with one or other belief system. Again and again and this is nonsense, stupidity.
But when someone comes out of this stupidity and connects only with his own individuality. He find there is no no force applying, there is no belief system of others. There is just the freedom of decide what you wish. This would be then your art of living, this would be your religion not others. But this noun has a problem. As far as I say 'art of living' there is no problem but said religion, now again the old past starts bothering you. You start again seeing it with others. But it is yours not others and because you searched your own religion, that means you have really connected with the universe. So your religion becomes universal. Now to find this religion of yours you need science, a perfect science and reason so the science I'd follow, would be absolute other wise there is chances that I'll go somewhere else.
Once you have established your way, you don't need to go reason with the beauty of nature.
I have found that your are much sticking with the science and the scientific reason of everything. Although everything has a scientific reason but this will not bear you any fruit. Gary if you just stick with this, you will start finding reason of faith and love. So you'd have to leave the all other forms of existence. First you will have to abolish the marriage. Because what scientific is in that? You'd have to leave sex because what scientific is in that, why this pleasure is needed there. There is no science in that pleasure, it can be obtained by just stimulating the exact point of brain. And what is needed to bear a child, it can also happen in laboratory. You'd have to leave your mother, because what scientific is there. Just meeting, providing food and sending you her love? What is scientific is there? This can also be obtained through the advance technological systems. You'd have to destroy the whole garden, because what scientific is there? It is just the pleasures for the mind and any psychologist can provide you the same pleasure. You would have to destroy the all art forms because what scientific is there? Just the wastage of time and money.
I am sorry I am going too philosophical and may be there can be any point in your views also. But I am getting problem to find out your point.
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason." ... ... "The damned whore Reason...." ... ... "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." - Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant Revolution, was behind much of Protestant theology.
I am very impressed that you quoted this. And that shows that fanatical organized religions are. To crush the man's own dignity and individuality, they think they are following religion. These religion have hardly any space for individualism. And the conditioning is so big that man's mind hardly see anything through it. That is the problem. They don't have even their own thinking and own behavior. All they have is just others impositions that they believe are theirs. But not only these religions, but all -isms are just the same. Even atheists take just the help of science as they are free to take advantage of science and reasoning, they only defend their believe system. So if someone goes against the religion, the noun is there for them. And they involve unknowingly in a belief system. But they hardly have their own thought. These are the thought of millions of others atheist too. Even secularism has a problem. Secularists are just trying vainly to merging different in one. In India a secularist says 'we are all brothers, whether we are Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christan. But this is not possible. Because one is a secularist, it does not mean he has no religion. He has something that he is sticking with. It can be Hindu or Muslim or other. His secularist mind is just seeing that only let people of different community to do what their system says, a communal peace can be estabilished so he is following secularism. But when there is clash with one community to other, his whole theory is in confusion. You can allow people to come and dine with you but how can you permit others to decide what you should to eat in dinner? Some will say to drink alcohol, some will say to eat meat, some will say to partake vegetarian food only, some will say not drink alcohol. Now real problem is there. And this happenes as soon as one becomes majority, it starts imposing its belief system. I suppose the true secularist are those who are just beggar, poor and homeless. They need food, clothes, a place to live so there is no difference if they change their identity. What difference it makes, nothing! First he has no idea in waht religion he is living and what its philosophy is. So what is the problem to accept others philosophy and religion. At least they will stick with it as far as the religion is providing them food, clothes and place. If it stops there is no problem to change. They are true in sense a secularist minded people. This all is really ridiculous.
Where your individuality has gone? Where your own freedom has gone? You are just getting entangled with one or other belief system. Again and again and this is nonsense, stupidity.
But when someone comes out of this stupidity and connects only with his own individuality. He find there is no no force applying, there is no belief system of others. There is just the freedom of decide what you wish. This would be then your art of living, this would be your religion not others. But this noun has a problem. As far as I say 'art of living' there is no problem but said religion, now again the old past starts bothering you. You start again seeing it with others. But it is yours not others and because you searched your own religion, that means you have really connected with the universe. So your religion becomes universal. Now to find this religion of yours you need science, a perfect science and reason so the science I'd follow, would be absolute other wise there is chances that I'll go somewhere else.
Once you have established your way, you don't need to go reason with the beauty of nature.
I have found that your are much sticking with the science and the scientific reason of everything. Although everything has a scientific reason but this will not bear you any fruit. Gary if you just stick with this, you will start finding reason of faith and love. So you'd have to leave the all other forms of existence. First you will have to abolish the marriage. Because what scientific is in that? You'd have to leave sex because what scientific is in that, why this pleasure is needed there. There is no science in that pleasure, it can be obtained by just stimulating the exact point of brain. And what is needed to bear a child, it can also happen in laboratory. You'd have to leave your mother, because what scientific is there. Just meeting, providing food and sending you her love? What is scientific is there? This can also be obtained through the advance technological systems. You'd have to destroy the whole garden, because what scientific is there? It is just the pleasures for the mind and any psychologist can provide you the same pleasure. You would have to destroy the all art forms because what scientific is there? Just the wastage of time and money.
I am sorry I am going too philosophical and may be there can be any point in your views also. But I am getting problem to find out your point.
Vishal wrote: "I have no idea how to link anything up. I am very poor in technological sense. Just googling of Osho can do something. Well starting with his videos which are in abundance, is a good way."I've had as look at him, and really, he seems like he has some interesting ideas, that is spoiled only by the cult of personality he built around himself, and the fact that he used the same tactics as cult leaders to get people to agree with him.
Travis wrote: "Hazel wrote: "No, can you link to them here on goodreads so I can have a look? I have a massive to be read list at the moment, I have about 6 books sat next to my bed waiting to be read, another do..."shush, I have 640ish books in my house, those are simply the ones currently in my home that I haven't read yet.
Hazel wrote: "Vishal wrote: "I have no idea how to link anything up. I am very poor in technological sense. Just googling of Osho can do something. Well starting with his videos which are in abundance, is a good..."
Absolutely wrong. Don't see with cults and tactics. You can't make anything as on the base of others' saying. If you believe only that what others' are saying then there is no reason that you should not to believe on organised religion. And if you are agreeing with that he has some methods to make people agree on him then religion has also the methods to make you agree with it and science has also a methods. Means are different and what does it matter if there is scientific method or faithing methods. All these people are doing the same to make you agree on one thing. But where is your freedom and your thinking?
You just see, not superficially but internally what he is saying. If it attracts you then your whole thinking will take a new turn and mind, I am not saying to believe on him. I am just saying to be some more receptive and just think for a while in his way also. If it says something, you can take and leave that person behind.
Absolutely wrong. Don't see with cults and tactics. You can't make anything as on the base of others' saying. If you believe only that what others' are saying then there is no reason that you should not to believe on organised religion. And if you are agreeing with that he has some methods to make people agree on him then religion has also the methods to make you agree with it and science has also a methods. Means are different and what does it matter if there is scientific method or faithing methods. All these people are doing the same to make you agree on one thing. But where is your freedom and your thinking?
You just see, not superficially but internally what he is saying. If it attracts you then your whole thinking will take a new turn and mind, I am not saying to believe on him. I am just saying to be some more receptive and just think for a while in his way also. If it says something, you can take and leave that person behind.
Hazel wrote: "Travis wrote: "Hazel wrote: "No, can you link to them here on goodreads so I can have a look? I have a massive to be read list at the moment, I have about 6 books sat next to my bed waiting to be r..."
People have tendency to see others from their own eyes and their eyes are just the reflection of their own being so they are seeing just their own being. Where is to see others' has gone? Just to know the others' thoughts deeply and to bring it in our own eyes can solve the problem.
People have tendency to see others from their own eyes and their eyes are just the reflection of their own being so they are seeing just their own being. Where is to see others' has gone? Just to know the others' thoughts deeply and to bring it in our own eyes can solve the problem.
Jesse wrote: "These labels or terms are placed on certain things so that we can try to make sense out of things and then the labels take over the idea."While I appreciate your point it also illustrates the common problem with the discussion of religion. Word are indeed labels for a thing, but the reason to use them is so we can communicate ideas to one another. To communicate ideas we need to agree on what the words mean. Unfortunately because "faith" and "belief" are by their nature very personal, there is commonly a lot of 'wiggle' room with the concepts, so a person can always protect their unfounded claims with the claim that we do not agree on the terminology.
This is the common argument when people keep trying to equate science with a belief structure. However, a good scientist knows that as soon as you "believe" an idea, you are no longer being scientific.
Jesse wrote: "Anyway, I guess I was playing with the philosopher's reasoning: "I think, therefore I am" and I think of God, therefore he is."
Actually "Cogito ergo sum" only applies to oneself, as it is a demonstration of both pragmatism and the anthropic principle.
The idea being that if you doubt you exist, the fact that you are doubting means you are thinking so someone must exist to think. Now perhaps you have only been programmed to think that you exist but pragmatically speaking you may as well assume you exist as this gives definition to the concept of existence. This is why the term is often rendered "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" ("I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am")
The anthropic principle, simply put, means that our existence is only special because it has happened here. (If for example the Earth was too close to the sun then we would not have evolved here and therefore would not be here to wonder why conditions are so 'perfect', yet in hundreds of trillions of planetary systems we would have probably have evolved somewhere.
So the second part of your argument "Existimo ergo Dei est" is patently ridiculous unless you are actually claiming that you are god, therefore you experience god thinking because god is you. (Otherwise "I think of a huge grilled cheese sandwich that is about to eat the Earth, therefore it is.")
Jesse wrote: "Love is my God. I don't think of God as some figure or being,"
Then why use the label "god" when that communicates to others the idea of a persona or thinking being? Names and labels are important as this has been shown not only to communicate ideas to others but to also codify ideas in our own minds that can then be built upon.
(Recent experiments with bilingual & multilingual people have demonstrated that there are subtle alterations in a persons personality and cognitive abilities according to which language they have been thinking in.)
Jesse wrote: "but I still believe that love is the "highest power" if you will and as long as I use my energy to try to share that love, I will be doing something that I perceive to be good. "
That is a good sentiment and prospect, yet also I find it could be problematic. First of all, why does something valuable also need to be "the highest power"? This leads to ideas like "love conquers all" and other poetic and yet often disproved concepts.
The initial problem that "love" is one of those labels that covers a complex kind of human behaviour. "Love" can be a highly subjective emotion where someone who claims to feel it may actually be feeling something far more possessive and/or destructive. For example consider the fundamentalist Christian refrain of "Love the Sinner, hate the Sin" usually applied to homosexuals. Now personally I would say that if you loved someone you would accept them as they are and want them to be happy, but the kind of love that they are referring to is the love of an overbearing and dominating parent who actually loves their own sense of righteousness above their love for their child or charge.
Mutual respect and compassion is at the very root of ethical behaviour and yet if you assume it is all conquering then that lessens the impetus to actually protect and nurture that compassion.
To me love and compassion is fleeting, fragile and sometimes all too brief, yet is it not that which makes it all the more precious? Just like when you do believe that death is the end of a person, and there is no post-mortem justice for the weak and abused, that makes each human life all the more precious and it all the more important to make sure people's lives are filled with happiness, fairness and justice.
Vishal wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Vishal wrote: "I have no idea how to link anything up. I am very poor in technological sense. Just googling of Osho can do something. Well starting with his videos which are in abunda..."Vishal, this guru can spout as much as he wants, but if he has no peer reviewed evidence to back up his claims, then he's to be taken as seriously as any other religious leader, which is not very. I very much see cultish tactics. What I see is a man saying "organised religion is wrong, so instead, follow what I say". He's created cult of personality, ie a religion, and its the same as an organised religion, its a cult, and its all very Ayn Rand. The man declared himself as having Buddha status, for pities sake, and many experts feel he had narcissistic personality disorder.
Hazel wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Vishal wrote: "I have no idea how to link anything up. I am very poor in technological sense. Just googling of Osho can do something. Well starting with his videos whic..."
Wow ! I have not gone that far. So you are saying the man declared himself as having Buddha status, right? Then what is this Buddha status? Are you saying Buddha has some status? Or he was a cult personality too?
Wow ! I have not gone that far. So you are saying the man declared himself as having Buddha status, right? Then what is this Buddha status? Are you saying Buddha has some status? Or he was a cult personality too?
Buddha status = having achieved enlightenment, having achieved transcendence like previous Buddhas have been declared to do, only he made the claim himself.
Hazel wrote: "Buddha status = having achieved enlightenment, having achieved transcendence like previous Buddhas have been declared to do, only he made the claim himself."
My question is that if he made the claim himself, is there any possibility to get enlightenment? If he was not enlightened then possibly you are saying he was false. In the whole of this man's teaching and his personality we see he was such a peaceful being. And not a single human tumultuous emotion had bothered him. But I don't know a single being who has no desire. Do you believe enlightenment can be happened? Do not take medicine as example because medicine is not gonna to give you the peace for 24 hours and for the whole life.
My question is that if he made the claim himself, is there any possibility to get enlightenment? If he was not enlightened then possibly you are saying he was false. In the whole of this man's teaching and his personality we see he was such a peaceful being. And not a single human tumultuous emotion had bothered him. But I don't know a single being who has no desire. Do you believe enlightenment can be happened? Do not take medicine as example because medicine is not gonna to give you the peace for 24 hours and for the whole life.
His claims not to have been disturbed by human emotions is a lie, anyone with a bit of common sense would be able to work that out.In his paper The Narcissistic Guru: A Profile of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Ronald O. Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies at Oregon State University, argued that Osho exhibited all the typical features of narcissistic personality disorder, such as a grandiose sense of self-importance and uniqueness; a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success; a need for constant attention and admiration; a set of characteristic responses to threats to self-esteem; disturbances in interpersonal relationships; a preoccupation with personal grooming combined with frequent resorting to prevarication or outright lying; and a lack of empathy Clarke, Ronald O. (1988), "The Narcissistic Guru: A Profile of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", Free Inquiry (Spring 1988): Pages 33–35, 38–45, reprinted in Aveling 1999, pp. 55–89.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
But this archaic belief is good and pseudo-explanations are the good way to start seeking the truth. Do you believe only light should be prevail, without darkness how to know what light is. This is religion which has given the phenomenon of God, that is why man has brought a search if there is there God or not. They are good in the sense when they work as catalyst for man's finding nature. Religion does not say to stop thinking or searching, but establishment of truth is in the hand of people who get benefit from religion and if they do they fear they will lose the power but it is not as difficult as they think. Many people who are religious have accepted the truth of chemistry, physics or biology. Whole things happen when sticking with scriptures becomes strict. But people who created those scriptures were living in their time and with the time reform should to take place. But no, religion is sticking with one or two thousand years back or even more.