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.
I was an atheist Buddhist, but I am now far more enlightened. It is that enlightenment that you reject and have difficulty with accepting.
Though I know the meaning of the word, reading this comment from you caused me to look it up. This is the first definition that popped up. The common definition I too am most familiar with...
"Enlightened, adjective, having or showing a rational, modern, and well-informed outlook."
Always seems to me your comments don't describe what it is to be enlightened too well, but the one thing about enlightenment I think we can all agree about is this. The more we are convinced about what we think (about any subject), the more enlightened we feel (about any subject).
Though I know the meaning of the word, reading this comment from you caused me to look it up. This is the first definition that popped up. The common definition I too am most familiar with...
"Enlightened, adjective, having or showing a rational, modern, and well-informed outlook."
Always seems to me your comments don't describe what it is to be enlightened too well, but the one thing about enlightenment I think we can all agree about is this. The more we are convinced about what we think (about any subject), the more enlightened we feel (about any subject).
Your unwillingness (because it purports to support the existence of God) to get into the science I reference in my extensive Synthesis and supporting explanations in my posts and blogs is why you ignorantly suggest my views are NOT "rational, modern, and well-informed." That suggests it is YOU who are not "rational, modern, and well-informed," IMO.
Your unwillingness (because it purports to support the existence of God) to get into the science I reference in my extensive Synthesis and supporting explanations in my posts and blogs is why you ignorantly suggest my views are NOT "rational, modern, and well-informed." That suggests it is YOU who are not "rational, modern, and well-informed," IMO.
Though I know the meaning of the word, reading this comment from you caused me to look it up. This is the first definition that popped up. The common definition I too am most familiar with...
"Enlightened, adjective, having or showing a rational, modern, and well-informed outlook."
Always seems to me your comments don't describe what it is to be enlightened too well, but the one thing about enlightenment I think we can all agree about is this. The more we are convinced about what we think (about any subject), the more enlightened we feel (about any subject).
Unfortunately, Mystic has decided the play the role of holy prophet. He sees what nobody else sees, and it is his role to spread what he has scene. Perhaps he should start his own church.
Your unwillingness (because it purports to support the existence of God) to get into the science I reference in my extensive Synthesis and supporting explanations in my posts and blogs is why you ignorantly suggest my views are NOT "rational, modern, and well-informed." That suggests it is YOU who are not "rational, modern, and well-informed," IMO.
Unwilling is it? You always want to go there instead of recognizing the gist of what these comments are really about. Forever deflecting with accusations such as these, and although this tactic seems to work well to your satisfaction, you don't seem to realize how it doesn't work for other people like me. Or why. People quite "willing" to consider your comments in a rational manner in fact. Are you willing to do the same?
In keeping with that effort, am I wrong to suggest or point out that you often argue most if not all you purport to know about God can't be known or understood at a rational level? In a rational manner? I'm not rational about how you explain all this you claim to know but beyond the realm of our consciousness?
If this is you being rational or your version of being rational, then what isn't rational? What can we know about what can't be known? Or how everything is one thing and one thing is everything? Not sure about rational, but when it comes to the inclination to invoke circular reasoning as well, this sort of rationale is no doubt necessary. You certainly know how to rationalize what you do, but rational? Two different things.
Either way, what you seem to think is rational is not what I would consider rational. Not factual either. Not sure to even give you modern, but that's about it. If I am unwilling about anything, I am unwilling to let someone dribble down my back and tell me it's raining.
Unwilling is it? You always want to go there instead of recognizing the gist of what these comments are really about. Forever deflecting with accusations such as these, and although this tactic seems to work well to your satisfaction, you don't seem to realize how it doesn't work for other people like me. Or why. People quite "willing" to consider your comments in a rational manner in fact. Are you willing to do the same?
In keeping with that effort, am I wrong to suggest or point out that you often argue most if not all you purport to know about God can't be known or understood at a rational level? In a rational manner? I'm not rational about how you explain all this you claim to know but beyond the realm of our consciousness?
If this is you being rational or your version of being rational, then what isn't rational? What can we know about what can't be known? Or how everything is one thing and one thing is everything? Not sure about rational, but when it comes to the inclination to invoke circular reasoning as well, this sort of rationale is no doubt necessary. You certainly know how to rationalize what you do, but rational? Two different things.
Either way, what you seem to think is rational is not what I would consider rational. Not factual either. Not sure to even give you modern, but that's about it. If I am unwilling about anything, I am unwilling to let someone dribble down my back and tell me it's raining.
Your screen name is misleading since you are averse to the intellectual effort necessary to learn why God exists. My Synthesis summarizes decades of learning with simplified analogies for a mass audience. There is no way to see the rationality of it without the effort you are predisposed not to employ on something you categorically reject for reasons you think are adequate and expressed in your Ten Truths.
Your screen name is misleading since you are averse to the intellectual effort necessary to learn why God exists. My Synthesis summarizes decades of learning with simplified analogies for a mass audience. There is no way to see the rationality of it without the effort you are predisposed not to employ on something you categorically reject for reasons you think are adequate and expressed in your Ten Truths.
"Just call 'em the way I see 'em" my friend...
Normally simplified analogies for a mass audience work for me too. I wonder why not in the case of your analogies, but of course since now too I also lack the "intellectual effort necessary to learn why God exists," I'm again in the dark. I can't argue there is any way for me to see the rationality you employ, but I might suggest you use another word to describe what you are forever employing to learn why God exists.
I must also admit I'm not sure I've ever had a good handle on what your synthesis summarizes, but if you care to offer a summary in this thread, perhaps no longer than mine, I'd be interested to have a good look. Either way I would consider your summary a worthwhile addition to this thread. Perhaps I am not the only one who hasn't seen it...
ONE: There are essentially two realities for all human beings. One reality is as we perceive it to be, our personal reality. The second reality is all that truly exists in the universe, the same for all of us. Our universal truth.
We are sometimes limited by our perceptions. However, other times, we see the universe and its truths.
TWO: Human beings cannot know all that exists in the universe. The universe is forever in flux, full of mystery that will forever be marveled and explored by Man as long as he survives.
True, we can't know all the exists - except on CD, of course.
THREE: The first reality for human beings manifests itself in all the great many beliefs and faiths throughout the world; from Astrology to Zoraoastianism. Many books also stem from these beliefs; the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, Speaking of Faith, The Celestine Prophecy, the Book of Mormon and others. These are the books about men such as Jesus, Mohammad, Moses and Joseph Smith.
Yes, there have been many different beliefs through history. However, not all beliefs are equal.
FOUR: The second reality, all that exists in the universe, known or unknown, is disclosed to Man most accurately and peacefully by way of well documented history (rather than religious books) and empirical science (rather than theology). Universal truth is all we can accept as reality, the truth, with the most certainty and least conflict. What we can all most reasonably accept as true for all concerned.
Religion is a two sided sword. Religions can bring war or peace.
Science can not exist without religious context - meaning how scientists perceive the natural world is depended upon their worldview or religion.
FIVE: Faith is spawned from the human inclination to speculate or suppose beyond universal truth as determined and defined by science. Such notions, religions, often involve spirituality or a belief in an energy, power or force. A belief in a deity, god or gods, the supernatural. These notions that go beyond common human awareness are typically based or recognized more by emotions and feelings rather than facts, reason and logic. They typically call for faith rather than proof, all stemming from personal experience rather than common observation or scientific verification.
There are cases of scientific verification of religion. For instance: Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared in Mexico as the pregnant Mother of God to Blessed Juan Diego, and Aztec Indian, on December 9, 10, and 12, 1531. She left a Miraculous Image of her appearance o his cactus fiber cloak, or tilma.
The image shows no sign of deterioration after 450 years The tilma or cloak of Juan Diego on which the image of Our Lady has been imprinted, is a coarse fabric made from the threads of the maguey cactus. This fiber disintegrates within 20-60 years.
There is no under sketch, no sizing and no protective over-varnish on the image.
Microscopic examination revealed that there were no brush strokes.
The image seems to increase in size and change colors due to an unknown property of the surface and substance of which it is made.
According to Kodak of Mexico, the image is smooth and feels like a modern day photograph. (Produced 300 years before the invention of photography.)
The image has consistently defied exact reproduction, whether by brush or camera.
Several images can be seen reflected in the eyes of the Virgin. It is believed to be the images of Juan Diego, Bishop Juan de Zummaraga, Juan Gonzales-the interpreter and others.
The distortion and place of the images are identical to what is produced in the normal eye, which is impossible to obtain on a flat surface.
The stars on Our Lady's Mantle coincide with the constellation in the sky on December 12, 1531. All who have scientifically examined the image of Our Lady over the centuries confess that its properties are absolutely unique and so inexplicable in human terms that the image can only be supernatural.
SIX: Man's ability to theorize is a faculty that allows Man to advance toward greater awareness and understanding of universal truth. The theoretical guides Man to further scientific discovery. However, when conjecture about the supernatural leads to faith and religious inculcation rather facts, reason and logic, great harm can and does come to Man instead. This is because the great majority of people still today cannot accept the confines of science. Instead conjecture is continuously promoted as truth ultimately to the point of creating profound divisions between people resulting in great conflict, violence and war still raging to this day; the Crusades, Protestants v Catholics, Jews v Muslims, Shiites v Sunnis.
What in the "confines of science?"
Change the word religion to worldview or tribalism - which is a better description of the conflicts today.
SEVEN: The alternative skeptical challenge and test of faith to limit spiritual conjecture is to foster a greater respect for the truth as currently defined or understood by science. Science is the most universally accepted effort to arrive at truth with no agenda other than greater knowledge and understanding of universal truth for all human beings. This path or quest of scientific discovery offers the way to peace instead of the sure madness that arises from the significant amount of conflict between differing faiths. As Man learns to universally accept both the great promise and reasonable limits of what science can teach, the source of conflict between Man is diminished, the path toward progress cleared and the prospect of peace improved.
Communism wiped religion out of the Soviet Block countries, how did that work out?
EIGHT: Science fosters the peace of a universal patience and acceptance of our common condition and experience as humans. Faith forbids followers to question thus retarding Man's progress. Science encourages inquiry thus expanding Man's awareness and enlightenment. Faith typically deems any question about God's existence as evil in nature, not to be tolerated. Science has no such restrictions or judgement. Accordingly, there is no manner in which to reconcile these two competing approaches toward revealing Man's universal truth.
It was the Monks and Nuns of the middle ages which saved the knowledge of the Ancient World and its scientific discoveries and funded the first university in Europe. Until the 1900, many scientific discoveries where made by monks or funded by the Catholic Church
NINE: Faith can and does promote goodwill between some people. Creation of beautiful places of worship, help for those in need, community and comfort through difficult times. Even a code of conduct necessary for some to be moral. Yes of course, but with the good there is no need for the bad or falsehoods. Truth is best realized and peace most successfully promoted as more people patiently accept and embrace Man's common reality as revealed, defined and/or revised by science. The movement toward this patience and acceptance very slowly growing from one century to the next is the maturing of Man. His best chance for lasting peace and true understanding of all that exists in the universe, proven or yet to be proven.
TEN: People of faith will deny if not condemn these truths for many reasons; from fear of god to fear of no god. Fear of death to fear of Hell. Typically beginning with the significant influence of inculcation at a young impressionable age, the subsequent effects of confirmation bias over time, development of ego and bigotry all prevent objective reason and logic to prevail for Man as quickly as it should. Instead the condemnation persists even to this day much like when Galileo was even imprisoned for attempting to overcome these same obstacles centuries ago. Much like the Jesuits denounced Elvis Presley. Much like Harry Potter books are banned in Catholic schools today. The ignorance and intolerance persists. Much like the ongoing effort to overcome the ills of racism, sexism, xenophobia and homophobia that also still persist today, the effort to overcome these backward ways very slowly and painfully is the progress of Man that each generation represents better than the last.
Here's to facts! Indeed, and thank you for this contribution YorktownGal!
Unfortunately, I am running out of time this morning to consider all you have posted here, but I will do my best to get back to all this ASAP. I hope you will be back to further consider some of these facts too!
First, you may want to change the color of the red text, red is for moderators.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YorktownGal
Science can not exist without religious context - meaning how scientists perceive the natural world is depended upon their worldview or religion.
No, both religious and non-religious scientists perceive naturalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YorktownGal
Communism wiped religion out of the Soviet Block countries, how did that work out?
No, religion was tolerated for most of the time during Soviet times. Stalin even encouraged it during the second world war as he found it useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YorktownGal
It was the Monks and Nuns of the middle ages which saved the knowledge of the Ancient World and its scientific discoveries and funded the first university in Europe. Until the 1900, many scientific discoveries where made by monks or funded by the Catholic Church
No, many of the texts simply disappeared, because the religious of the middle ages disliked atomist theories, so they were simply not copied. We accidentally lost a lot of science because of Christianity. From the end of the middle ages to 1900, many scientific discoveries were made independently of religion.
As for universities, they are just a different version of educational schools that existed before Christianity even existed. And how many scientific discoveries can you name that came from Christian universites during he middle ages?
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.
