Karma

[SirJosephPorter]

Then I hold atheism as invalid because it fails to make a reasonable assumption to the cause of the big bang.

That certainly is your right, alley. And you don’t have to give any reasons for it either.

Why? Why can't my view be welcome in your lab? We recognize the flawed reasoning your prideful bunch have, and offer a logical thesis to the question.

By definition, God has no place in science. That is like asking why a devout Muslim cannot become a priest in a Baptist church. By definition, God is excluded from science. Science only deals with natural phenomena and natural explanations.

Whose talking about Adam and Eve?? ID scientist propose what was prior to the big bang, and their logic makes sense, while your department shrugs its shoulders and says "We don't know", but secretly in their hearts they say "I hate God! If he did exist, I can't be the god of my own world so eff him!".

They don’t talk about Adam and Eve in ID, that is why I said that it is a souped up version of Book of Genesis. ID proponents propose that there was God before the big bang. As such they are disqualified from laying any claim to science.

Also, saying ‘we don’t know’ is totally different from saying that ‘God created it’. ‘We don’t know’ is a valid attitude in science (and is unfortunately more common than we would like). ‘God created it’ is not.

If I caught you on a good day, as several atheists will, you'd admit that there is a 0.00000000000000001% chance that the universe came from some distant, un comprehensible, ultra higher intelligent being.

Sure alley. Since we don’t know how the universe came about, no explanation is totally impossible. However, science does not concern itself with supernatural explanation.

You hate God.

Hating God would be as illogical as hating the Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny.

Think about what your saying. When the cops show up to arrest someone for hurting your family, the cops aren't thinking "arrest him because his actions are entitled to imprisonment" instead its "arrest him because his actions were WRONG."

Not quite, alley. Cops are thinking ‘arrest him because his actions were illegal’. Cops are not concerned with right or wrong, but only with legal or illegal.

Thus many people would consider adultery wrong. But cops won’t arrest you for it, because it is not illegal.

The point is, you can claim that there is no moral absolutes, but once I tread on you, your REACTION PROVES you believe in absolutes. Your MORAL outrage PROVES you feel truly wronged when someone suppresses your freedom of speech.

Again, you are confusing what is legal with what is moral. The two are totally different things.

 

[L Gilbert]

Intelligent Design is another laugh and a half. If anything designed some of this stuff, it wasn't very intelligent.
The human eye, for instance;

Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

- Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

 

[Dexter Sinister]

It'e even worse than that. The light-sensing organs, the rods and cones, are on the back of the retina facing away from incoming light, and the nerves are in front of them, so we have a blind spot where the nerve bundle exits the retina. The eyes of cephalopods (squids and octopus's... octopi? octopussies? WTF is the plural of octopus anyway?) are much better. The rods and cones face forward, the nerves and blood vessels are behind them. What can we make of this, that god likes cephalopods better?

 

[L Gilbert]

It'e even worse than that. The light-sensing organs, the rods and cones, are on the back of the retina facing away from incoming light, and the nerves are in front of them, so we have a blind spot where the nerve bundle exits the retina. The eyes of cephalopods (squids and octopus's... octopi? octopussies? WTF is the plural of octopus anyway?) are much better. The rods and cones face forward, the nerves and blood vessels are behind them. What can we make of this, that god likes cephalopods better?

lol Maybe gods are cephalopods.

 

[china]

Sr.Joseph Porter,

By definition, God has no place in science. That is like asking why a devout Muslim cannot become a priest in a Baptist church. By definition, God is excluded from science. Science only deals with natural phenomena and natural explanations.

I will say that religious mind includes a scientific mind .A religious mind is free of all authority. And it is extremely difficult to be free from authority—not only the authority imposed by another but also the authority of the experience which one has gathered, which is of the past, which is tradition. And the religious mind has no beliefs; it has no dogmas; it moves from fact to fact, and therefore the religious mind is the scientific mind. But the scientific mind is not the religious mind. The religious mind includes the scientific mind, but the mind that is trained in the knowledge of science is not a religious mind.
A religious mind is concerned with the totality—not with a particular function, but with the total functioning of human existence. The brain is concerned with a particular function; it specializes. It functions in specialization as a scientist, a doctor, an engineer, a musician, an artist, a writer. It is these specialized, narrowed-down techniques that create division, not only inwardly but outwardly. The scientist is probably regarded as the most important man required by society just now, as is the doctor. So function becomes all-important; and with it goes status, status being prestige. So where there is specialization there must be contradiction and a narrowing-down, and that is the function of the brain.

 

[L Gilbert]

"A religious mind is free of all authority."

oooooookaaaaaaaaay Let me guess ... lysergic acid diethylamide? Psilocybe cubensis? Papaver somniferum?

 

[china]

A religious mind is free of all authority."

Indeed it is free.
To bad your mind is to weak to think and reason things out for themself. Resorting to the "QUOTE" below truly shows how shallow you are Mr. Gilbert.Believing this dogma and denying that dogma, going from church to church from temple to temple, doing endless puja, station of the cross whatever - all that is not a religious mind at all, it is merely traditional mind bound by fear.A religious mind is free of all of that including any kind of authority .

oooooookaaaaaaaaay Let me guess ... lysergic acid diethylamide? Psilocyiously you be cubensis? Papaver somniferum?

 

[Cliffy]

Indeed it is free.
To bad your mind is to weak to think and reason things out for themself. Resorting to the "QUOTE" below truly shows how shallow you are Mr. Gilbert.Believing this dogma and denying that dogma, going from church to church from temple to temple, doing endless puja, station of the cross whatever - all that is not a religious mind at all, it is merely traditional mind bound by fear.A religious mind is free of all of that including any kind of authority .

I suspect that you are talking about a spiritual mind. Religion is about dogma, tradition and fear. Spirituality is about an open, free mind. I think that is where the confusion is coming from.

 

[china]

I suspect that you are talking about a spiritual mind. Religion is about dogma, tradition and fear. Spirituality is about an open, free mind. I think that is where the confusion is coming from.

Though I don't agree with you 100% I thank You Cliffy.

 

[AnnaG]

Indeed it is free.
To bad your mind is to weak to think and reason things out for themself. Resorting to the "QUOTE" below truly shows how shallow you are Mr. Gilbert.Believing this dogma and denying that dogma, going from church to church from temple to temple, doing endless puja, station of the cross whatever - all that is not a religious mind at all, it is merely traditional mind bound by fear.A religious mind is free of all of that including any kind of authority .

I think you're confusing "religion" with some other word. Merriam-Webster says,

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

. If one isn't ruled by their causes, principles, beliefs, faiths, etc. then yes, I would agree that they are free. But if one is religious, one isn't free.
I'll leave the reply to your insults up to Les. But it looks to me like you just displayed a load of shallow and small-mindedness yourself, Mr. Pot.

 

[china]

Religion is something that includes everything, it is not exclusive. A religious mind has no nationality. It is not provincial; it does not belong to any particular organized group. It is not the result of ten thousand years of propaganda or two thousand years of propaganda. It has no dogma, no belief. It is a mind that moves from fact to fact. It is a mind that understands the total quality of thought - not only the obvious, superficial thought, the educated thought, but also the uneducated thought, the deep down unconscious thought and motives. When a mind enquires into the totality of something, when it realizes through that enquiry what is false, and denies it because it is false, then the totality of that denial brings about a new quality in that mind, which is religious
The religious mind has no authority. Authority implies imitation, authority implies conformity. And there is conformity because you want success, you want to achieve; and therefore there is fear. Without dissolving fear completely, how can you proceed to enquirer, how can you proceed to find out? These are not rhetorical questions. If you are frightened,you are bound to seek comfort, shelter, security in whatever that comes along, because fear dictates - not sanity, not clarity. Fear dictates conformity, fear dictates that I must imitate, that I must follow somebody in the hope I shall find comfort. The religious mind has no authority of any kind; and that is very difficult for people to accept, because you have been bred in authority. The Gita, , the Bible, the Koran and all the innumerable so-called sacred books have taken the place of your own thinking, of your own suffering ,glory or whatever; they give you comfort in illusion; they are not real at all. You make them into reality, because in them, in the dead words of others, you find comfort, in the authority of another you find light. How absurd it is really, if you examine it; and yet you call yourself so-called-"educated", sane, rational people .

 

[lone wolf]

Why don't you credit the sources of your quotes?

http://books.google.ca/books?id=-9v...esult&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[china]

lonewolf

Why don't you credit the sources of your quotes?

Ok, J .Krishnamurti

 

[L Gilbert]

Indeed it is free.
To bad your mind is to weak to think and reason things out for themself. Resorting to the "QUOTE" below truly shows how shallow you are Mr. Gilbert.Believing this dogma and denying that dogma, going from church to church from temple to temple, doing endless puja, station of the cross whatever - all that is not a religious mind at all, it is merely traditional mind bound by fear.A religious mind is free of all of that including any kind of authority .

Bullsh|t. You have no idea what religion is.
And if I am weak-minded and shallow, it doesn't matter because I am still far more than a match for you.

 

[Cliffy]

lonewolf



Ok, J .Krishnamurti

Krishnamurti had a fine mind but he wasn't the end all and be all when it came to authority on the subject. I have always objected to his use of the word religion because it doesn't fit into any definition I have ever heard. I still think spirituality would have more correct.

 

[china]

LGilbert

Bullsh|t. You have no idea what religion is.

Sure I do ...Bullsh|t .

And if I am weak-minded and shallow, it doesn't matter because I am still far more than a match for you.

When I,m back in Canada I'll let you know LG ,I'd want to see you .

 

[AnnaG]

Krishnamurti had a fine mind but he wasn't the end all and be all when it came to authority on the subject. I have always objected to his use of the word religion because it doesn't fit into any definition I have ever heard. I still think spirituality would have more correct.

That's pretty much my impression, too. But there will always be people that have their own definitions of things that don't coincide with the rest of the planet. That rather makes me wonder about the people who wrote/write texts like the Quran, the Bible, etc. Were they using the standard definitions or their own deviated definitions?

 

[china]

Krishnamurti had a fine mind but he wasn't the end all and be all when it came to authority on the subject.

Krihnamurti never was or never wanted to be an authority .To make it short ,he wanted you to think for yourself ,to investigate ,to inquire to learn to see "what is" for "what is".

I have always objected to his use of the word religion because it doesn't fit into any definition I have ever heard.

If you know Krishnamurti , Cliffy,then you know his famos statement ...."word is not the thing" you have to go beyond the word to grasp the meaning of what is being said.

 

[china]

AnnaG

But there will always be people that have their own definitions of things that don't coincide with the rest of the planet.

Yes ,and they stand tall and ALLONE

 

[AnnaG]

Actually, I think what he DID say was, "So when you are listening to somebody, completely, attentively, then you are listening not only to the words, but also to the feeling of what is being conveyed, to the whole of it, not part of it."