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.
You can't prove the intangible and you can't convince people who don't believe in the intangible so why bother ?
When you/we can prove something, we have developed a very high level of confidence about the truth of the matter. When you/we cannot prove something, we remain with a much lower level of confidence about the truth of that matter, down to even no confidence whatsoever (depending on who is doing the assessment). This is pretty much where your insight leaves us.
Also I don't think we can help but consider what not being able to prove something also forces us to suspect if/when we are not allowing our biases to get in the way of fair, reasonable and objective reasoning. It's fair and reasonable to suspect that if something can't be proven, it just might be because it's not there in the first place. How does one rule out that possibility from a reasonable and intelligent standpoint?
Is believing in the "intangible" just another way to allow us to believe whatever we wish? Regardless of any evidence, proof or rationale to the contrary?
Good point. Science does not have the means to measure or analyze the God-mind. Many scientists are also religious, so there is no problem. Some scientists are not and THEY may have a conflict-or not. It is a problem only if one sees it as such.
There is perhaps not that problem you describe. Though I think your comment is somewhat problematical as well, but again, to suggest there is NO problem considering the many angles from which this issue can be considered is something like saying there is NO problem with politics and ________ (fill in the blank).
I was taking exception to your statement that: "I think science has basically killed religion".
I think we're still a long ways from that.
Science certainly hasn't "killed" religion, but it sure has tended to put the truth about religion into question, and of course science is not the only influence that has provided reason to question the truth or validity of religion.
Not "killed" but certainly not validated religion. In fact more of the opposite. A good deal more...
When I was a kid I remember playground conversations (5th graders) about science versus religion and back then I believed and spoke out that "Science is proof of god", I beleive that is a Jesuit stance on the study of science. I am no longer a believer in any religion, though I don't doubt that we are all more than the sum of our physical parts and part of something bigger than we think of ourselves in human bodies on planet earth. Science is a tool to learn how the universe works and in using it we are still infants with biased expectations and the ability to ignore what we don't want to accept.
I suspect just about everyone has a sense about how we humans are "all more than the sum of our physical parts." I mean if all my parts were carefully separated from my body, all my parts and my body may all be there right in front of you, but I dare I am something more when I am put together rather than taken apart. You might say the same of a car and a good many other things that are more than simply the sum of their parts.
Where the truth about this ends or what it has to do with religion and/or the existence of a god, I'm not sure, but I don't see or understand how this truth does much of anything for us. Nothing other than opting to keep ourselves together rather than be taken apart.
Science certainly hasn't "killed" religion, but it sure has tended to put the truth about religion into question, and of course science is not the only influence that has provided reason to question the truth or validity of religion.
Not "killed" but certainly not validated religion. In fact more of the opposite. A good deal more...
I think most people who are scientifically-minded or rational/analytical don’t take religion seriously anymore.
Some people will still go along with religion because it is part of their culture or heritage or their family believes in it.
But any kind of deep investigation into religion will cause people to question and doubt pretty much everything about it because the evidence is so lacking and filled with smoke and mirrors.
The Scientist claims to measure the speed of light, and in doing so, claim darkness as their constant. They must also stand in complete darkness outside of light, as light being something separate from them to make their claim and for them light is always fleeting away from them and the beginning point they have chosen in complete darkness in which they remain, as to them light is always fleeting away as they must remain in darkness to make their calculations. While they claim to be light.
I look to the eternal light God spoke in that One Verse on Day One as the constant to live in, eternally more constant than sun light, and of which material objects cannot block or impede the view of for those who know and love what God shared on Day One and the Life revealed in that gate opening moment in all its goodness as the constant in their hearts in looking to and following God's word.
The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light (the constant). But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness (the constant). If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness...
Not "killed" but certainly not validated religion. In fact more of the opposite. A good deal more...
I told you on the other thread that I come from a communist country. No God there during communism, just pure evil, torture in jails for political opponents, no real police on the street...imagine that to be the case for decades and decades. High corruption everywhere, the most impotent/incapable people/sociopaths put in the highest political positions in government and so on.
I didn't believe in anyone to tell me about their God. I listened to so much BS during communism so I don't believe s&%t when I hear it. I need to test for myself to believe. I have to use my rational mind, that's the way some people are, I guess. Others have more devotion, I was not the devotional type, that's for sure. I like math so I wanted to do some experiments to get results, a form of scientific experiments.
So, I found a type of ancient yoga, from India, the real yoga from Bhagavad Gita. And I started practicing it, different breathing techniques, Pranayama, Hong-Sau, Aum, Kriya technique, using mantras/affirmations etc. It took me a few years using all these (plus meditation) to get some form of results. Yes, there is a God. A higher intelligent energy. I had two people recommend this to me and one is a computer programmer (with a very math mind, rather cold rational mind) and the other one a linguist, (again, highly intelligent person, no BS there) none of them into religion. They had results and I could tell, they changed for the better as people.
You asked for suggestions on the other thread and I posted a link for you. You can test it too, to see ...is there a God or not. I also posted about a book, "The Holy Science". It's a book for a rational cold mind person. No religion needed. I think it's a good book.
But you have to want to do it. You, personally. No one can do it for you. You can read about it, you can talk about it, you can argue about it forever, for the rest of your life. And future incarnations, thousands and thousands, you can talk about it all you want.
But in order to get results, is this valid or not, you have to do it. To test it.
I gave you the tools, as I received them from others, you can test them now. Or not. It's up to you.
I told you on the other thread that I come from a communist country. No God there during communism, just pure evil, torture in jails for political opponents, no real police on the street...imagine that to be the case for decades and decades. High corruption everywhere, the most impotent/incapable people/sociopaths put in the highest political positions in government and so on.
I didn't believe in anyone to tell me about their God. I listened to so much BS during communism so I don't believe s&%t when I hear it. I need to test for myself to believe. I have to use my rational mind, that's the way some people are, I guess. Others have more devotion, I was not the devotional type, that's for sure. I like math so I wanted to do some experiments to get results, a form of scientific experiments.
So, I found a type of ancient yoga, from India, the real yoga from Bhagavad Gita. And I started practicing it, different breathing techniques, Pranayama, Hong-Sau, Aum, Kriya technique, using mantras/affirmations etc. It took me a few years using all these (plus meditation) to get some form of results. Yes, there is a God. A higher intelligent energy. I had two people recommend this to me and one is a computer programmer (with a very math mind, rather cold rational mind) and the other one a linguist, (again, highly intelligent person, no BS there) none of them into religion. They had results and I could tell, they changed for the better as people.
You asked for suggestions on the other thread and I posted a link for you. You can test it too, to see ...is there a God or not. I also posted about a book, "The Holy Science". It's a book for a rational cold mind person. No religion needed. I think it's a good book.
But you have to want to do it. You, personally. No one can do it for you. You can read about it, you can talk about it, you can argue about it forever, for the rest of your life. And future incarnations, thousands and thousands, you can talk about it all you want.
But in order to get results, is this valid or not, you have to do it. To test it.
I gave you the tools, as I received them from others, you can test them now. Or not. It's up to you.
farm, you throw me off just a bit with the beginning of your comment and a good deal else you explain, because nothing about what I believe has to do with the "good, bad or ugly" that different people, governments and/or countries have done in the past and/or are still doing today. Or if you really want to involve politics, there were no communists involved when Pope Urban VIII jailed Galileo. What part of history do you want to focus upon and how are we to ultimately draw proper conclusion with regard to what religion does or does not do? Separate or a part of whatever the politics of the day might also bring?
I appreciate all you suggest might help me or anyone do what you explain must be done on our own, and perhaps I will give your offering more consideration when time allows, but in the meantime you should know this. I have been given many similar offerings over my many years/decades of being an atheist, to the point I have grown somewhat weary of always explaining the same thing. Nothing I am being offered is at all new all considered to what I have been offered many times before in the past. It is wrong to suggest I don't want to know better. In fact the opposite, but how many times can the same sort of thing be repeated to me without anyone seeming to understand why the same sort of thing just doesn't work for me?
Tell you what I will do, however. What I am very interested to know. Please provide me the one, two or three, "nuggets" of insight that you feel should make a difference to me. That you feel would be something new to me, and I will consider what you pass along in that light. Just one or however many you would like to present in simple comment form. In your own words and/or copy/past whatever quotes or reading you believe would or should make a difference for me.
The Scientist claims to measure the speed of light, and in doing so, claim darkness as their constant. They must also stand in complete darkness outside of light, as light being something separate from them to make their claim and for them light is always fleeting away from them and the beginning point they have chosen in complete darkness in which they remain, as to them light is always fleeting away as they must remain in darkness to make their calculations. While they claim to be light.
I'm sorry, but I don't think this is correct. Please cite some reliable sources that show that scientists claim darkness is used in the measure of the speed of light. The rest of that paragraph makes no sense to me at all.
Quote:
I look to the eternal light God spoke in that One Verse on Day One as the constant to live in, eternally more constant than sun light, and of which material objects cannot block or impede the view of for those who know and love what God shared on Day One and the Life revealed in that gate opening moment in all its goodness as the constant in their hearts in looking to and following God's word.
The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light (the constant). But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness (the constant). If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness...
That is demonstrably incorrect. There are blind people that are full of love, and [figuratively] light up a room when they enter.
The Scientist claims to measure the speed of light, and in doing so, claim darkness as their constant. They must also stand in complete darkness outside of light, as light being something separate from them to make their claim and for them light is always fleeting away from them and the beginning point they have chosen in complete darkness in which they remain, as to them light is always fleeting away as they must remain in darkness to make their calculations. While they claim to be light.
I look to the eternal light God spoke in that One Verse on Day One as the constant to live in, eternally more constant than sun light, and of which material objects cannot block or impede the view of for those who know and love what God shared on Day One and the Life revealed in that gate opening moment in all its goodness as the constant in their hearts in looking to and following God's word.
The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light (the constant). But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness (the constant). If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
I'm sorry, but I don't think this is correct. Please cite some reliable sources that show that scientists claim darkness is used in the measure of the speed of light. The rest of that paragraph makes no sense to me at all.
That is demonstrably incorrect. There are blind people that are full of love, and [figuratively] light up a room when they enter.
It is explained in what I wrote, darkness is their ruler, their constant. If light was their constant, they could not claim to measure it.
A blind person can know the light of God in their heart, which is why I wrote, "the constant in their hearts in looking to and following God's word". The healing of the blind is a beautiful thing, especially when they can see and sense things that you can't.
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.
