Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe you're expecting material, tangible, and physical proof. Spirituality though works on a completely different level and dimension. It is sensed and "measured" internally, within oneself. One must open oneself to new ways of seeing life and the universe. It requires a moving beyond the common, usual, and grounded that is man's typical limitation. I'm sure you won't agree, and that's okay.
Yes, I am. Because the supposed events in the bible were material, tangible, and physical.
But you're right, many of the spiritual experiences I have had in Buddhism are not of a physical nature. But then again, I don't walk around like a dullard saying, "I can prove every word in the Tipitaka, and you don't believe it you're going to Buddhist hell".
Jesus never showed, nor advocated, a way of life that revolves around a petty confronting of how people live their lives, and insulting them.
He made himself available, and people chose to come to him as they desired; not him going to people and forcing his views on them.
The whole noisy confrontational stuff comes from the Old Testament and ways of the old approach with Jews. Jesus moved beyond all of that nonsense, and showed a better way. Many fake "Christians" though have never truly moved into the New Testament.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 06-29-2018 at 01:06 PM..
Jesus never showed nor advocated a way of life that revolves around a petty confronting of how people live their lives, and insulting them. He made himself available, and people chose to come to him as they desired, not him going to people and forcing his views on them.
I think you are making a huge and wrong assumption. Scientists never think they know everything and never stop searching. What the do however is formulate theories based on observations and tests. They then publish their findings. What you believe is a person publishing his or her findings because they think they know everything whereas the reason to publish the findings in order for others to repeat it to find flaws or to add to it. This is the very opposite of being closed minded. I think it was Newton who said that if he could see farther it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants. Scientists progress by using existing knowledge to test and disover.
You over estimate how much science is thrown out replaced by new theories. Einstein did not throw out Newton and Gould did not throw out Darwin. Embrassing possibilities while ignoring evidence that leads the other direction is not open minded. Some scientists, as all humans, are blind to somethings. Agassiz demonstrated the glaciers not a flood was responsible for European landscape however could not accept evolution as it went against his personal religious beliefs. Science as a discipline is father from this and opening accepted both ice ages and evolution when presented with the evidence.
Evolution is actually a good example for open mindless of science. Many believed that there was evolution but science did not accept it until Darwin. And tgat was because until Darwin, N9 one had come out with a process under which it could occur. Once Darwin provided a very detailed explanation of natural selection, evolution was accepted. Since the days of Darwin, much of what we know about evolution has changed as new evidence, techniques and ideas have come out and it will continue to change as time goes on. But evolution through natural selection is still the core of the subject.
So is it the scientists who keep researching to find out more of the details and processes about evolution or those who firmly state that God created man are the open minded ones?
Thoreau doesn't give a fig what Newton (or any other scientist) thought (pun intended) or the progression of science over the centuries. He cannot see -- or cannot admit -- that with science it's two steps forward and one step back. Oh, he doesn't mind the advancement of science that has provided him with a better, longer life, but he doesn't understand the beauty of science...that's it's about actually learning new "stuff". Instead, he turns backward to old texts written 2,000 years ago; it's a constant retreat to what used to be, rather than an evolving future.
^ Funny there, especially considering that I've worked in engineering and scientific fields all of my life. And with no issue, I might add.
Go ahead and make up whatever "reality" you want about me. If that makes you happy; slandering others. I'm thankful I don't lower myself to your tactics...
Last edited by Thoreau424; 06-29-2018 at 02:41 PM..
^ Funny there, especially considering that I've worked in engineering and scientific fields all of my life. And with no issue, I might ad.
Go ahead folks, and make up whatever "reality" you want about me. If that makes you happy; slandering others. I'm thankful I don't lower myself to your tactics...
I just read about a recent scientific discovery that says we may be alone in regards to life in the universe.
But what if we are just living in the matrix, or a computer simulation, we are all just 1's and 0's created by the "future us" and they decided, in this simulation that is playing out before our eyes, that the only intelligent life in the universe is on our planet?
When in reality there is plenty of intelligent life out there in the universe, but we don't know that, because the simulation doesn't allow us to see it.
I say, just live every day the best you can in this computer simulation we call reality!
But what if we are just living in the matrix, or a computer simulation, we are all just 1's and 0's created by the "future us" and they decided, in this simulation that is playing out before our eyes, that the only intelligent life in the universe is on our planet?
When in reality there is plenty of intelligent life out there in the universe, but we don't know that, because the simulation doesn't allow us to see it.
I say, just live every day the best you can in this computer simulation we call reality!
great post.
lol, I know you are messing. but 1's and 0's aren't enough for us to "look alive". But you have a point, everything is an illusion, so by default, its as real as it gets.
If life is ever found elsewhere in the universe does that mean that religious folks are further from reality than no believers? Would it prove that there is no God or that God is even more wonderful? Or would it prove that there is life other than on Earth and nothing more?
I think you are making a huge and wrong assumption. Scientists never think they know everything and never stop searching. What the do however is formulate theories based on observations and tests. They then publish their findings. What you believe is a person publishing his or her findings because they think they know everything whereas the reason to publish the findings in order for others to repeat it to find flaws or to add to it. This is the very opposite of being closed minded. I think it was Newton who said that if he could see farther it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants. Scientists progress by using existing knowledge to test and disover.
You over estimate how much science is thrown out replaced by new theories. Einstein did not throw out Newton and Gould did not throw out Darwin. Embrassing possibilities while ignoring evidence that leads the other direction is not open minded. Some scientists, as all humans, are blind to somethings. Agassiz demonstrated the glaciers not a flood was responsible for European landscape however could not accept evolution as it went against his personal religious beliefs. Science as a discipline is father from this and opening accepted both ice ages and evolution when presented with the evidence.
Evolution is actually a good example for open mindless of science. Many believed that there was evolution but science did not accept it until Darwin. And tgat was because until Darwin, N9 one had come out with a process under which it could occur. Once Darwin provided a very detailed explanation of natural selection, evolution was accepted. Since the days of Darwin, much of what we know about evolution has changed as new evidence, techniques and ideas have come out and it will continue to change as time goes on. But evolution through natural selection is still the core of the subject.
So is it the scientists who keep researching to find out more of the details and processes about evolution or those who firmly state that God created man are the open minded ones?
that's not what I see him saying. all he pointed out is that some people, who rush to conclusions, may have closed minds. he is right. But, like you did with me, you changed his claim a bit. I wonder if you will run away when caught, like you did with me ... lmao.
oh yeah, god did it through evolution ends that god thing. But we know what the anti-religious sect of atheism will do with that statement don't we.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
