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.
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.
OK, if that's all you've got. I don't know how the speed if light is measured, but I've never heard of using darkness as a standard. I assumed you had something more to base that claim on beyond your own opinion.
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.
It requires motivated discipline and patience. My youthful motivation did not stem from religion or belief in God. I diligently practiced various meditation approaches and techniques (eschewing most of the hocus pocus and "woo") for over 18 years. Biofeedback provided the conscious control of my autonomic system needed to deepen my altered state. That is when I unexpectedly encountered God (a conscious Reality). The full consciousness-to-consciousness contact does not happen in simple meditation but you can get deep enough to have glimpses of it. I meditate daily without reaching that depth of altered state but the presence has never left me. I call it quantum entanglement.
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).
What problem is perhaps not there? I did not understand that sentence. What angles to consider? Perhaps you can be clearer?
I said NO problem for scientists who are in it for their career and paycheck, also for the love of what they do with science, who excel in it, many teach science, science and their religion sit very well together, without any problem of conflict. Is that clearer? I know several of them who chant religious verses with a group on weekends, worship together, and are very devoted. Most of the group are scientists - engineer, pharma, technology, PhDs. They are also very nice, cheerful and friendly people. Did I make it clearer?
Can you clarify No problem with politics and what exactly? How do you fill in the blanks? Poetry? I don't get it.
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...
Again science does not have the tools or methodology to validate religion. It also has no tools to invalidate religion. That is not the business of science, science is.
Perhaps we define religion differently. If all you are talking about is the mythological stories and "history" as religion, then we are far apart. Religion is not that, it is a way of understanding your own inner essence and its relationship to the world. You, LearnMe, is only a mirage, your existence is the only truth, and there is only One Single Existence. This can be validated by your own experience and logic if you have the proper tools.
You never answered my question. Have you read anything by Rupert Spira? I know you said you read a lot. Try it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008 View Post
Good point. Science does not have the means to measure or analyze the God-mind.
No one would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008 View Post
Many scientists are also religious, so there is no problem.
That is why they compartmentalize the two, or argue a god behind the curtain that is our reality, precisely because there is often a problem between belief and what the evidence says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008 View Post
Some scientists are not and THEY may have a conflict-or not. It is a problem only if one sees it as such.
And when someone is honest with themselves.
Well, Harry, don't you see a handful of our christians right here on our forum who successfully analyze the god-mind everyday? They're so special.
When I was a geology major in college, all of my geology professors (who taught evolution, etc.)were practicing christians...who did not believe in any literal interpretation of christianity.
Can you please point to where exactly you picked up this quote from the Pew research information you offer up here? The read is rather lengthy, and I tried to find the quote after scanning over all of it, but I couldn't find what you have in quotes here.
I'm not Tzaphkiel ("Oh no, far from it" to borrow from Bob Seger). But just in case she doesn't see this request, I did find the statistic you asked about in the Pew report. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion...the-afterlife/
If you scroll down to the major subheading that states "Fewer than half of Americans believe in reincarnation, fate," you will find two tables. The second table contains the survey result in question, and the last para of text in that same section reads:
Quote:
An even larger majority of Americans (83%) believe things happen that cannot be explained by science or natural causes. Atheists are again a notable exception, with only a third (34%) saying they believe things happen that cannot be explained by science or natural causes.
Having found it, I'd be interested in knowing exactly how the survey question was worded... and how the respondents understood it? For example, I might well answer YES if I thought I was being asked about things that cannot CURRENTLY be explained by science or natural causes, of which there are many. That doesn't mean I think they could never be explained, as more information becomes available. Using an example from the present thread, I would put NDEs in that category of not currently explainable, but with no reason to think that equates to supernatural causes.
Some interesting comments posted in this thread since I started it, and I'm tempted to address each and every one, but mostly my overall or most significant impression after reading each one is the diverse reaction and/or perspective that is well represented by all the comments. From flat out "no problem with Religion and Science" to how the two are incompatible, and a fair amount of comment somewhere in between those two extreme ends of the perspective scale.
The problem I had more in mind when I started this thread is the one for so many religious naturalists long before science was any kind of thing like it is today. For these poor curious people, it had to be somewhat difficult to follow what the evidence seemed to be telling them contrary to what their religious upbringing and beliefs otherwise dictated. In particular to put into question anything written in the Bible. Which of course in the earlier going was considered the ultimate word with respect to explaining how everything came to be. The ultimate word in the western sphere of the globe anyway. Darwin's world.
This is more the problem or maybe challenge I have read a good deal about over the years, and now again in this book I am reading about where Charles Darwin traveled and what he did. What he began to theorize contrary to what theologians would take great exception to at the time. Contrary to "what is written" in the Bible. The challenge or problem of dealing with the backlash from religious quarters at the time and long afterward is part of what I had in mind as well. In some cases a problem still to this day. Though fortunately not nearly as profound or stifling of efforts to advance our knowledge of the natural world and our place in the cosmos like back in Darwin's day.
I think mankind has shifted -- to a large degree -- from looking to god for almost every explanation to, thankfully, emphasizing man's knowledge and comprehension. For the individual that still varies to a great degree, but as a culture we turn to science more than to god, even though many may not admit that.
Can you please point to where exactly you picked up this quote from the Pew research information you offer up here? The read is rather lengthy, and I tried to find the quote after scanning over all of it, but I couldn't find what you have in quotes here.
What I DID find as a lot of very interesting information about all the different beliefs people have and the demographics related to those beliefs which suggest much about what people believe has a good deal to do with "where they come from." Politically, regionally, religious wise.
What should we conclude from all this information? I certainly don't think it helps us understand what the actual truth of these matters may be, and I'm not sure how much stock we should put into what this sort of research tells us what atheists think or believe generally speaking.
Do this to see what I mean. Read each headline in bold as Pew takes you through what their research says about what all these different categories of people believe. Read each headline in bold and compare to what you believe. Does most of it reflect what you believe? Are your beliefs in line with the majority of other people?
All this information really tells us is what we all already know. People all over the world believe all kinds of things for all kinds of different reasons, but they all surely can't be right about what they believe, so where does this leave us?
"To each his own" I suppose, but for me it's not about what I WANT to believe. It's about what the facts, evidence and "clues" tell us we SHOULD believe. Just as the early naturalists felt was the best way to arrive at the truth of these matters. Wherever that truth may lead...
"An even larger majority of Americans (83%) believe things happen that cannot be explained by science or natural causes. Atheists are again a notable exception, with only a third (34%) saying they believe things happen that cannot be explained by science or natural causes." is a little more than halfway down the third page of the article, right below a chart.
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...
Pretty much what I was thinking.
What I think has changed is the [what I will call] 'depth of religion' that the average feels. And I've given this example before of my home town where the Methodist Church has simply gone out of business and the catholic church now has 1 mass a week instead of the 16 masses that they had when I was a kid.
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.
