Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

You cannot hold a discussion or debate if you don't use a yardstick. So if your not asking for any kind of proof how can you even have a debate. Because if there is question about validity of a statement and you have to accept statements on face value there is no debate there is no information exchange. So for those who think that no proof is good. It kills a debate and only allows for opinions not facts. Then there might as well not be a debate.

 

Then its just stating opinions without any way to validate them. What is the point of that. If everyone can state what they want without any way to validate claims then there will never be any change or progress because you cannot challenge a belief as there has been no agreement on proof. So people can keep believing and stating what they want without them thinking of ways to validate their beliefs. That does not bring on change or insight. Just keeps things unproven and vague. 

 

I think a bike has a faster top speed then a plane. Without asking for proof i would never learn or change my opinion as my statement is accepted without proof. Kills a debate kills learning. Also will keep people from looking from common ground. 

 

If you don't question things and want to validate things then why debate or even put up your opinion.

 

There is something called spiritual science, where you can find many clues of the existence of supreme beings.

Yet, to have a glimpse behind that door one needs to get rid of prejudice. 

That is a work you can only do by yourself ????

[robblok]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

There is something called spiritual science, where you can find many clues of the existence of supreme beings.

Yet, to have a glimpse behind that door one needs to get rid of prejudice. 

That is a work you can only do by yourself ????

Sorry, but that is just for people who don't like logic. If there are clues then they can be validated. 

 

Without a yardstick there can be no discussion. 

 

Its not me who has prejudice but you guys who are basically killing debate and advancements of  knowledge as you don't accept things to be measured. How can you change an opinion if your proof is not validated. How can knowledge advance if you don't ask for proof. If you take things for true without validating things you stop the collection of knowledge and move to the real of fiction and make belief.

 

For example if you state that coal is the best fuel to burn and least polluting and i just accept what you say and don't validate your statement there will never be an advance in knowledge. Knowledge only ever happens if you challenge things with facts and challenge facts with new facts. Just accepting stuff without facts makes us stupid it hinders advancement.

 

If you were forced to find proof and you can't then you might review your opinion but if your opinion is accepted without challenge then you will never review anything and are stuck without ever knowing if your right. There is no advancement in anything without questioning things and using science as a yardstick.

 

Religious people have held us back for ages with superstition and witch hunts. Scientists were procecuted (Copernicus anyone). We advanced our knowledge by challenging beliefs and facts with new facts. That is how we still advance our knowledge yet believers seem to think this does not go for their ideas. Sorry that is just laughable. 

 

I think i should get out of here as there is no point if your not willing to question your beliefs and bring proof. I am happy to change my beliefs iff you come with proof they are wrong. The person who beliefs something is the one who needs to prove it. Basic science and debating one on one. 

[Sunmaster]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

You cannot hold a discussion or debate if you don't use a yardstick. So if your not asking for any kind of proof how can you even have a debate. Because if there is question about validity of a statement and you have to accept statements on face value there is no debate there is no information exchange. So for those who think that no proof is good. It kills a debate and only allows for opinions not facts. Then there might as well not be a debate.

 

Then its just stating opinions without any way to validate them. What is the point of that. If everyone can state what they want without any way to validate claims then there will never be any change or progress because you cannot challenge a belief as there has been no agreement on proof. So people can keep believing and stating what they want without them thinking of ways to validate their beliefs. That does not bring on change or insight. Just keeps things unproven and vague. 

 

I think a bike has a faster top speed then a plane. Without asking for proof i would never learn or change my opinion as my statement is accepted without proof. Kills a debate kills learning. Also will keep people from looking from common ground. 

 

If you don't question things and want to validate things then why debate or even put up your opinion.

 

Hold on a sec.

You ask for a yardstick, but in your opinion it must only be a scientific yardstick, all other yardstick are irrelevant according to you.

As I've written the other day, spiritual insights can not be measured in scientific terms, however hard you try or wish it to be so. Nobody will be able to give you the evidence you crave so much.

However, if you truly care about truth and can accept evidence when it's presented to you, why not use a yardstick that can really measure and validate the spiritual realm? Yes, it takes effort to step down from the high horse of scientific materialism, but doing so is infinitely rewarding. 
Prove to yourself that what the teachers said is true or not. It's just too easy to look at it from the outside, without ever making any effort to look within, and then say there is no proof, no evidence. Nobody can present those to you other than yourself.

 

You're absolutely right to be skeptical and demand proof. You just have to change the yardstick.
If you don't, well....then you have no authority in claiming whether Spirit exists or not. It remains an opinion based on insufficient data.

 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Sorry, but that is just for people who don't like logic. If there are clues then they can be validated. 

 

Without a yardstick there can be no discussion. 

 

Its not me who has prejudice but you guys who are basically killing debate and advancements of  knowledge as you don't accept things to be measured. How can you change an opinion if your proof is not validated. How can knowledge advance if you don't ask for proof. If you take things for true without validating things you stop the collection of knowledge and move to the real of fiction and make belief.

 

For example if you state that coal is the best fuel to burn and least polluting and i just accept what you say and don't validate your statement there will never be an advance in knowledge. Knowledge only ever happens if you challenge things with facts and challenge facts with new facts. Just accepting stuff without facts makes us stupid it hinders advancement.

 

If you were forced to find proof and you can't then you might review your opinion but if your opinion is accepted without challenge then you will never review anything and are stuck without ever knowing if your right. There is no advancement in anything without questioning things and using science as a yardstick.

 

Religious people have held us back for ages with superstition and witch hunts. Scientists were procecuted (Copernicus anyone). We advanced our knowledge by challenging beliefs and facts with new facts. That is how we still advance our knowledge yet believers seem to think this does not go for their ideas. Sorry that is just laughable. 

 

I think i should get out of here as there is no point if your not willing to question your beliefs and bring proof. I am happy to change my beliefs iff you come with proof they are wrong. The person who beliefs something is the one who needs to prove it. Basic science and debating one on one. 

Well, I tried to explain to you in short and simple way, but i  can't understand it for you.

If you say you don't have prejudices it's because you are in denial. 

Everyone has prejudices. 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

Hold on a sec.

You ask for a yardstick, but in your opinion it must only be a scientific yardstick, all other yardstick are irrelevant according to you.

As I've written the other day, spiritual insights can not be measured in scientific terms, however hard you try or wish it to be so. Nobody will be able to give you the evidence you crave so much.

However, if you truly care about truth and can accept evidence when it's presented to you, why not use a yardstick that can really measure and validate the spiritual realm? Yes, it takes effort to step down from the high horse of scientific materialism, but doing so is infinitely rewarding. 
Prove to yourself that what the teachers said is true or not. It's just too easy to look at it from the outside, without ever making any effort to look within, and then say there is no proof, no evidence. Nobody can present those to you other than yourself.

 

You're absolutely right to be skeptical and demand proof. You just have to change the yardstick.
If you don't, well....then you have no authority in claiming whether Spirit exists or not. It remains an opinion based on insufficient data.

 

Its  not my opinion its how the world operates and how we have advanced. Your way is actually the way that has held us back. By not scientifically validating stuff you get into superstition and stupid stuff. 

 

Do you disagree that humans are where we are today because of science and questioning things ? If you don't disagree then its only logically that this is the yardstick as it has helped people to get where we are now.

 

Why would you change a working system to something that has held us back in the past and has proven to be wrong. Religious dogsmas in the past could not be challenged. Copernicus for instance. So taking different yardsticks as dictated by spirituality and religion did not work then. Why do you think they work now.

 

You claim you like Spock. he would say its illogical to change a working system that has helped us put a man on the moon to a system where we cannot question things and have to accept non scientific proof.

 

 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, I tried to explain to you in short and simple way, but i  can't understand it for you.

If you say you don't have prejudices it's because you are in denial. 

Everyone has prejudices. 

No you tried to change the yardstick as it does not fit. You fail to accept that the computer you are using today is there because of people like me. Not people like you who want to change the yardstick and don't accept science.

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

No you tried to change the yardstick as it does not fit. You fail to accept that the computer you are using today is there because of people like me. Not people like you who want to change the yardstick and don't accept science.

Lol, ok thanks to people like you there are computers..

Should I also thank you because the sky is blue and the clouds are white ?

Oh, what a wonderful world ????

[Sunmaster]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Its  not my opinion its how the world operates and how we have advanced. Your way is actually the way that has held us back. By not scientifically validating stuff you get into superstition and stupid stuff. 

 

Do you disagree that humans are where we are today because of science and questioning things ? If you don't disagree then its only logically that this is the yardstick as it has helped people to get where we are now.

 

Why would you change a working system to something that has held us back in the past and has proven to be wrong. Religious dogsmas in the past could not be challenged. Copernicus for instance. So taking different yardsticks as dictated by spirituality and religion did not work then. Why do you think they work now.

 

You claim you like Spock. he would say its illogical to change a working system that has helped us put a man on the moon to a system where we cannot question things and have to accept non scientific proof.

 

 

 

I'm not saying we should deny the scientific achievements at all. I'm saying that if you want to find out how spirituality works, you have to use the tools pertinent to spirituality.
Meditation works on the physical and mental level (which you agree since it's been validated by science). But meditation goes much further than that. How can you validate those claims? Easy, sit down, meditate and see for yourself.
Too much effort? Well, that's up to you of course, but then don't come crying that there are no benefits and truth in that.

And by the way, in the past, when there still was no science as an established field, it was monks who were the explorers of the natural world. Of course, they had to work within the confinement of the religious dogma of the time and if they stepped out too far, they were prosecuted and worse. That doesn't change the fact that without their efforts, there would be no science as we know it today. 

Re Spock....he was a science officer and logic was the base of his thinking (which I greatly admire), but he also meditated!

[robblok]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Lol, ok thanks to people like you there are computers..

Should I also thank you because the sky is blue and the clouds are white ?

Oh, what a wonderful world ????

No you should not I did not create the world im not Rob Almighty, there once was a Bruce Almighty though.

 

Point is that we advanced because of scientists following scientific method. That is how we got computer, healthcare, flight and so many other things. By following science. 

 

What your doing is destroying science, by not accepting the method that has brought us where we are now, but wanting an other yardstick then the one that is most successful because it does not suit your goals.

 

Your yardstick kept us in the dark ages, can't question can't ask for scientific proof. Get burned on the stake ect. Why would we want to go back to that yardstick ?

 

Why not use what works ?

 

Secret anwser of religious/spiritual people " Because it does not support my beliefs so i like to change the yardstick" 

 

Its just illogical to disregard the best tool we have.

 

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Why not use what works ?

 

Secret anwser of religious/spiritual people " Because it does not support my beliefs so i like to change the yardstick" 

 

Its just illogical to disregard the best tool we have.

Exactly, it's illogical to keep hammering that square peg in the round hole!

Why not use what really works? 

[robblok]

Just now, Sunmaster said:

 

I'm not saying we should deny the scientific achievements at all. I'm saying that if you want to find out how spirituality works, you have to use the tools pertinent to spirituality.
Meditation works on the physical and mental level (which you agree since it's been validated by science). But meditation goes much further than that. How can you validate those claims? Easy, sit down, meditate and see for yourself.
Too much effort? Well, that's up to you of course, but then don't come crying that there are no benefits and truth in that.

And by the way, in the past, when there still was no science as an established field, it was monks who were the explorers of the natural world. Of course, they had to work within the confinement of the religious dogma of the time and if they stepped out too far, they were prosecuted and worse. That doesn't change the fact that without their efforts, there would be no science as we know it today. 

Re Spock....he was a science officer and logic was the base of his thinking (which I greatly admire), but he also meditated!

You ignored the questions skirted around everything. Well done.

 

Monks, so Archimedes was a monk. I think he pre dated Christianity as did many other scientists. That is a a fact. There were many scientists before Christianity. 

 

I understand it now. You only want to use science and its method when it validates what you want but when it does not you don't like to use it. 

Sorry i think we are done, i give up. I should never have come here. I forgot my own rule that i should not argue with people who are religious or in your case spiritual and don't accept the scientific method. 

 

You never explained to me why the yardstick that works needs to be replaced by one that did not work and kept us back. Its illogical as Spock would say. 

 

Im out of here thanks for the replies everyone but this futile.

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

What your doing is destroying science, by not accepting the method that has brought us where we are now, but wanting an other yardstick then the one that is most successful because it does not suit your goals.

 

Science and spirituality are not opposites like you think. They complement each other. 
Science investigates the natural/material world and the scientific method is a great tool for that.

Spirituality investigates the subtle realm of consciousness, and meditation/introspection is the appropriate tool to do that.

Once doesn't exclude the other at all.

[Sunmaster]

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

You ignored the questions skirted around everything. Well done.

 

Monks, so Archimedes was a monk. I think he pre dated Christianity as did many other scientists. That is a a fact. There were many scientists before Christianity. 

 

I understand it now. You only want to use science and its method when it validates what you want but when it does not you don't like to use it. 

Sorry i think we are done, i give up. I should never have come here. I forgot my own rule that i should not argue with people who are religious or in your case spiritual and don't accept the scientific method. 

 

You never explained to me why the yardstick that works needs to be replaced by one that did not work and kept us back. Its illogical as Spock would say. 

 

Im out of here thanks for the replies everyone but this futile.

I think I addressed all your points in a civilized and rational manner.

I did explain also that your scientific yardstick doesn't work when it comes to spirituality. If you can't accept that and prefer to throw a tantrum, well....what else is there to say?

Btw, modern science with the scientific method started in the 17th century. There were no "scientists", as you understand it, before that.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Sunmaster

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

No you should not I did not create the world im not Rob Almighty, there once was a Bruce Almighty though.

 

Point is that we advanced because of scientists following scientific method. That is how we got computer, healthcare, flight and so many other things. By following science. 

 

What your doing is destroying science, by not accepting the method that has brought us where we are now, but wanting an other yardstick then the one that is most successful because it does not suit your goals.

 

Your yardstick kept us in the dark ages, can't question can't ask for scientific proof. Get burned on the stake ect. Why would we want to go back to that yardstick ?

 

Why not use what works ?

 

Secret anwser of religious/spiritual people " Because it does not support my beliefs so i like to change the yardstick" 

 

Its just illogical to disregard the best tool we have.

 

How wrong you are... you think I'm against science but it's exactly the opposite. 

Science is among the highest qualities of humans, but then we would probably disagree on the definition of science. 

 

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

peter,really ?  Zen vs two hundred years of western scientific method , right.....

any Zen (or whatever else is being smoked) induced “feelings” of euphoria or enlightment are long since proven as chemical brain reactions......as is love, marvellous as these emotions are are of course..... even the wonderful

“human spirit” is an evolutionary outcome.....

 

to Peter and others, I shall conclude “on topic” with this ; 

ALL the scientific proof so far very strongly indicates No God so then the question “what are the odds?”must be asked, millions to one perhaps, same odds as the Flying Spaghetti Monster orbitting a distant star  ? certainly in the realm of Narnia-like childish fantasy.....

 

“but you cannot disprove God” say the believers..... their ultimate weapon..

response being “that’s an impossible test ....and I dont have to “.........

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

Zen (or whatever else is being smoked) induced “feelings” of euphoria or enlightment are long since proven as chemical brain reactions

This clearly shows that you have no idea what Zen is about. If you think Zen gives you "feelings of euphoria" or that enlightenment is merely a chemical reaction in the brain, I suggest you study the subject a bit more. It's always a good thing to know the subject you're debating and it will save you a lot of embarrassment. 

[thaibeachlovers]

34 minutes ago, robblok said:

You fail to accept that the computer you are using today is there because of people like me.

If computers didn't exist I wouldn't have wasted thousands of hours on forums. Thanks for nothing.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, robblok said:

Im out of here thanks for the replies everyone but this futile.

Bye then.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

 

Science and spirituality are not opposites like you think. They complement each other. 
Science investigates the natural/material world and the scientific method is a great tool for that.

Spirituality investigates the subtle realm of consciousness, and meditation/introspection is the appropriate tool to do that.

Once doesn't exclude the other at all.

God created the universe, ergo God created the laws of nature that science investigates. There is no contradiction, unless one chooses to believe that.

[Peter Denis]

49 minutes ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

peter,really ?  Zen vs two hundred years of western scientific method , right.....

any Zen (or whatever else is being smoked) induced “feelings” of euphoria or enlightment are long since proven as chemical brain reactions......as is love, marvellous as these emotions are are of course..... even the wonderful

“human spirit” is an evolutionary outcome.....

 

to Peter and others, I shall conclude “on topic” with this ; 

ALL the scientific proof so far very strongly indicates No God so then the question “what are the odds?”must be asked, millions to one perhaps, same odds as the Flying Spaghetti Monster orbitting a distant star  ? certainly in the realm of Narnia-like childish fantasy.....

 

“but you cannot disprove God” say the believers..... their ultimate weapon..

response being “that’s an impossible test ....and I dont have to “.........

 

Hi Unpigmented Tatanka

I posted this before but it remains highly relevant...

and it would also have cut short the last 3 pages of discussions on this thread, yes @robblok talking to you...

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Peter Denis

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Peter Denis said:

 

Hi Unpigmented Tatanka

I posted this before but it remains highly relevant...

and it would also have cut short the last 3 pages of discussions on this thread, yes @robblok talking to you...

 

 

Indeed i should have stuck to my own beliefs and not argue with fools that don't accept science as the yardstick. This is my last reply in the topic as you named me.

 

Its for me unimaginable to change the yardstick that brought us progress and got us where we are now. Just imagine if we had abandoned scientific yardstick and went for the religious one. We would not be as advanced as we are now as we would not have questioned things.

 

So changing a yardstick because it does not suit your beliefs as it does not validate them is a bad idea. Its been proven to be a bad idea because otherwise we would still be in the dark ages. This method brought is so much knowledge so much prosperity and progress and you guys want to change it because it does not validate your beliefs. That is not logical that is totally against science.

 

Now in your cartoon the wise one seems to be the indian guru or whatever but in reality its the scientists that brought is where we are now. Who are forever challenging old theories and trying to disprove them. While your kind wants to change the yardstick to suit your purpose. Simply illogical

 

Anyway this really shows me its impossible to argue with religious / spiritual people. They don't want progress they want to validate their beliefs. Id love to change my opinions but only through the scientific method as that is the gold standard. Its not bias its the same for everything. 

 

below sums it up quite nicely

 

 I’ll construe “science” as the set of tools we use to find truth about the universe, with the understanding that these truths are provisional rather than absolute. These tools include observing nature, framing and testing hypotheses, trying your hardest to prove that your hypothesis is wrong to test your confidence that it’s right, doing experiments and above all replicating your and others’ results to increase confidence in your inference.

 

https://theconversation.com/yes-there-is-a-war-between-science-and-religion-108002

[Sunmaster]

17 minutes ago, robblok said:

Anyway this really shows me its impossible to argue with religious / spiritual people. They don't want progress they want to validate their beliefs.

The pot calling the kettle black or what? ????
 

goodbye and good luck

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

so the “fools” are the science- accepters, following reason and logic, and the clever correct ones are the emotional spiritualist science- deniers proposing superstitous nonsense....... right, got it now.......just off to join the local ISIS and Flat Earth clubs.........

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

Indeed i should have stuck to my own beliefs and not argue with fools that don't accept science as the yardstick. This is my last reply in the topic as you named me.

 

Its for me unimaginable to change the yardstick that brought us progress and got us where we are now. Just imagine if we had abandoned scientific yardstick and went for the religious one. We would not be as advanced as we are now as we would not have questioned things.

 

So changing a yardstick because it does not suit your beliefs as it does not validate them is a bad idea. Its been proven to be a bad idea because otherwise we would still be in the dark ages. This method brought is so much knowledge so much prosperity and progress and you guys want to change it because it does not validate your beliefs. That is not logical that is totally against science.

 

Now in your cartoon the wise one seems to be the indian guru or whatever but in reality its the scientists that brought is where we are now. Who are forever challenging old theories and trying to disprove them. While your kind wants to change the yardstick to suit your purpose. Simply illogical

 

Anyway this really shows me its impossible to argue with religious / spiritual people. They don't want progress they want to validate their beliefs. Id love to change my opinions but only through the scientific method as that is the gold standard. Its not bias its the same for everything. 

 

below sums it up quite nicely

 

 I’ll construe “science” as the set of tools we use to find truth about the universe, with the understanding that these truths are provisional rather than absolute. These tools include observing nature, framing and testing hypotheses, trying your hardest to prove that your hypothesis is wrong to test your confidence that it’s right, doing experiments and above all replicating your and others’ results to increase confidence in your inference.

 

https://theconversation.com/yes-there-is-a-war-between-science-and-religion-108002

This is my last reply in the topic as you named me.

Can we believe you this time?

You only lasted 11 posts before returning after saying you were departing for good.

 

Bye, again.

[covidiot]

7 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

messages on a ouija board

ouija board? really? wow ... 

thanks for sharing

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

so the “fools” are the science- accepters, following reason and logic, and the clever correct ones are the emotional spiritualist science- deniers proposing superstitous nonsense....... right, got it now.......just off to join the local ISIS and Flat Earth clubs.........

No, the fools are those who can't see beyond their own nose and expect everybody else to conform to their narrow worldview. 

 

[covidiot]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

Indeed i should have stuck to my own beliefs and not argue with fools that don't accept science as the yardstick.

Have you read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins?

Do you think it's "science" or "opinion disguised as science"?

 

Does God exist? Nobody knows and it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as your beliefs don't cause you to harm others. 

 

Here are some interesting comments from the indian guru with the long white beard. It's a 10 minute video, but well worth watching. 

 

 

[Sunmaster]

If the science fundamentalists and maximalists here were intellectually honest, all they could say is "At this point in time, science simply doesn't know whether there is a Cosmic Consciousness or not. Until science can find evidence for it, I choose not to believe." How refreshing that would be?!

But no, they prefer to equate the lack of (scientific) evidence with proof of non-existence, because even the smallest doubt would undermine their carefully crafted house of cards. 

Thankfully, there are real scientists out there who bravely push the boundaries of accepted knowledge and don't dismiss a priori, knowledge that doesn't fit the usual schemes. 

I think it's inevitable and natural that one day, science and spirituality will merge into one single discipline in the pursuit of truth. 
But until then, we have to listen to the maximalists banging on their drums. ????
Such is life.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Sunmaster

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, covidiot said:

ouija board? really? wow ... 

thanks for sharing

I think that part of the family had treated it as a sort of parlor game to be brought out once every few months .. there was an old lady down the road who would come over  ..we weren't religious at all  - part of the family was into the Theosophical society. 

It wasn't treated too seriously - ghosts and spirits were in fashion in the mid seventies  around the time the Exorcist came out. It did work..that thing moved around the board fast spelling stuff out.. I don't think it was a prank..I think it's probably someone  just subconsciously pushing it.. 

Now I look at that stuff as old wives tales type stuff 

[covidiot]

The Exorcist ... ha ha.