Hi Jose,

It's nice to hear from you again. =)

Hmmm... In my opinion, Buddha is neither "divine" nor supernatural. In fact, Buddha never make the claim that he has created the physical world in the universe.

Regarding reincarnation, I think the most popular case of reincarnation is which happened in 1930.

"The internationally acclaimed Shanti Devi case is one of the most spectacular cases in the history of spontaneous past life recall. This was a case in India that began in 1930, long before Dr Stevenson began doing his own research. However, he did review the case from the available extensive documented information and stated that Shanti Devi made at least 24 accurate statements of her memories which matched confirmed facts (Reincarnation International, Jan. 1994 No 1 Lon).

At the age of four in 1930 in Delhi, India, Shanti Devi began to mention certain details about clothes, food, people, incidents, places which surprised her parents. Briefly, Shanti mentioned the following which were later verified to be true. She:

• identified herself as Lugdi who used to live in Muttra, 128 kilometres away
• spoke the dialect of that area without having learned it
• claimed to have given birth to a son and died ten days later, events which it was later found did happen to Lugdi
• when taken to Muttra recognized her husband of her former life, Kedar Nath, and spoke of many things they did together
• was able to identify with accuracy a number of landmarks where she used in live in the previous life in Muttra
• was able to correctly state how the furniture was placed when she used to live there in her home
• knew that in her former life where she had hidden 150 rupees in an underground corner of a room for safe keeping in the house. The husband of the previous life, Kedar Nath, confirmed that although the money was not there he was responsible for taking it himself
• correctly identified Lugdi's former parents from a large crowd.

This case was so impressive to the authorities that a committee of prominent persons, which included a prominent politician, a lawyer and a managing director of a newspaper, was formally organized to investigate it. The committee was more than satisfied that Shanti knew things that she could not have obtained knowledge about by cheating, fraud or in any illegitimate way. None of the members of the committee knew Shanti or had any connection with her in any way whatsoever. Their definitive verdict was in very clear terms that all the evidence was conclusive proof of reincarnation.

The case became internationally known and attracted the attention of many, many sociologists and writers. For example, in the 1950s a Swedish writer, Sture Lonnerstrand, traveled to India to meet Shanti Devi and to continue to investigate for himself the documented facts. He too came to an irreversible conclusion that the Shanti Devi case is a foolproof case for reincarnation (Reincarnation International, Jan. 1994 No 1 Lon)."

(Adapted from: [www.victorzammit.com])

Actually, many professors in western world were doing research on reincarnation, and many of them are atheists. For example, some of the more well-known professors are Dr. David Fontan, psychology professor of Liverpool John Moores University in England, Dr. Ernst Senkowski, professor of physics and electronics in Germany and Dr. Felice Masi (Italy) etc.

All the Best,
Wong

Hey Bryan,

<<Religious scripture is in the domain of the religious, or the Stage II folk. As are religious beliefs. Myself, I am in the process of eliminating all my beliefs (including religious, scientific, medical, etc), and instead relying on experience.>>

Those beliefs that you list are entirely different in nature though. Religious beliefs tend not to be supported by any evidence, whereas scientific beliefs, by their own definition, MUST be supported by evidence. There are of course various degrees of belief in scientific theories, since all theories have a different amount of evidence backing them up. So a theory that has been thoroughly and stringently tested is more believable than one which has only a little evidence to back it up. However, these beliefs are radically different to religious beliefs, since these latter ones require NO evidence for people to justify them, and generally GO AGAINST reason and the empirical evidence that we can see around us.

<<There is another place outside of religious beliefs, which I call spiritual experience, not based on belief, but based on personal experience.>>

It's not entirely clear what you mean by this, but if you are saying that you are making decisions based on reason and critical thought and evidence (experience), then I would agree that is a reasonable way to proceed. I think there is always a certain amount of belief involved in anything though, but when it comes to religious belief, this is rooted in irrationality rather than reason. So, for example, I believe (quite reasonably) that we understand electromagnetism well enough to construct a light switch such that the light will come on when I turn it on. This simple concept has been verified numerous (billions) of times, independently, and so is a reasonable belief to have. However, if I believe that the world is 6,000 years old because it says so in an old book, then that is not a reasonable belief since it is not supported by any evidence, but actually goes against ALL the evidence.

<<For yourself, in your experience of nature and the universe, do you recognize an intelligence or consciousness behind nature or the universe, or do you see life and nature as a haphazard random occurrence, without an intelligence or consciousness behind its form and behavior? I am not speaking of creationism versus evolution, but rather an order behind all of reality, based on some intelligence/consciousness. >>

This is quite a subtle question, and before answering I would just like to draw your attention to the last sentence. Whereas I would likely agree that there seems to be some order behind all of reality, such as scientific research has uncovered in the various mathematical theories describing Nature, that does not, to me, NECESSARILY mean that Nature is based on some "intelligence/consciousness". And this lack of "intelligence/consciousness" which is behind the order in Nature does not NECESSARILY mean that life and nature would have to be "a haphazard random occurrence". For example, most of the physical laws are deterministic, which would put into question the concept of "free will". This is what, for example, Einstein believed. However, there are also theories, such as quantum mechanics and chaos theory, which would put the deterministic nature of the world into doubt, and thus bringing it closer to what you described as "random haphazard". This question of order, chaos, deterministic laws, free will, etc... is an interesting and profound open question, and will remain so for some time I am sure. None of this, however, should even remotely suggest the possibility of a higher being/deity/intelligence. Finally, I would just like to add that there is always the possibility that we may never be able to comprehend the Universe fully, even if it is entirely rational and ordered, due to our inherent limitations. So in the same way that a dog, as far as we can tell, cannot understand the theory of general relativity, then we, as beings with a finite brain and capacity, might not be able to comprehend the full complexities of the Universe. That is certainly one possibility, but again that would not suggest any higher order being, etc...

<<There have been great men in our history, including Albert Einstein and David Bohm, who excelled in the sciences, but had a deep regard for the spiritual in the universe, that which is outside of the phenomena that is perceivable by human senses. >>

I agree, some things we just don't know at the moment, but are accessible to us with more effort and time and research, whereas others, like I touched upon in my previous comment, might be inaccessible from us completely. However, the stories of old religious books are demonstrably false, as of right now, so do not fall into these categories, as I'm sure you know.

<<Many others have noted these disparities, and one writer in particular, Stephen Mitchell, has written a book called "The Gospel According to Jesus" - a new translation and guild to the essential teaching for believers and unbelievers.>>

It's always a pleasure to read Jefferson, and indeed I would agree with him in this instance. Like I said, Jesus, and other people like Buddha, etc... were probably quite intelligent and compassionate people, and their message is one that has enduring value. However, making a claim to their divinity, even if couched in language which avoids the crude falsehoods of the bible, torah, koran, etc..., is still not reasonable. They were intelligent and compassionate PEOPLE, period. That's the only reasonable thing that can be said of them I think. So in your article, when the author mentions "mystics" but qualifies it with religious undertones

Quote

Christian mystic, as with all other mystics, Sufi and Zen

in my opinion is trying to rehabilitate the notion of those religions in a more sophisticated framework, but with and equal amount of irrationality as is present in the standard religious texts. There is certainly a lot of wonder and mystery in the Universe, but it is not "Christian mystics" who will unravel some of it or even appreciate most of it. To completely do away with the religious connotations would be a great improvement, and then people could just be plain "mystics", which could just be another way of saying that they're in awe and wonder of Nature and it's magnificence.


<<But what do understand about how Stage IV people view reality or God for that matter? Because from what you write, it seems like you think they have the exact same viewpoint.>>

Since Stage IV is different from Stage II, where the "rationalists" lie, and since the author makes other references to comparisons between Stage II and IV, then it would seem like Stage IV is a more sophisticated version of Stage II (see for example the part that begins

Quote

While Stage IV men and women will enter religion in order to approach mystery,people in Stage II, to a considerable extent, enter religion in order to escape from it.

(see also,

Quote

Stage II people are not threatened by Stage I people, the "sinners." They are commanded to love sinners, but they are very threatened by the individualists and skeptics of Stage III, and even more by the mystics of Stage IV, who seem to believe in the same sorts of things they do but believe in them with a freedom they find absolutely terrifying.

). In essence, dropping all the obviously crude falsehoods from the scriptures, but still somehow maintaining a claim on the divine, couched in more ambiguous terms, but still connected with the religions themselves (such as in the reference to the christian, zen, etc... "mystics". It might be purely rhetorical for the author to describe themselves in this way, but phrases like

Quote

The Christian mystic, as with all other mystics, Sufi and Zen alike, through contemplation, meditation, reflection and prayer, see the Christ, Gods indwelling Spirit or the Buddha nature, in all people, including all the Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and so forth, recognizing the connectedness of all humanity with God,

would suggest to me that the connection to religion is held consciously, as a means to give it credence. So the author is in fact admitting that the "religious truth" those scriptures held is so obviously unsupportable that it is time to go back to the "mystery" of "God". For example, if I wanted to express a similar idea but with no attachments to religion, I could have written "The mystic, having studied in depth the grave shortcomings and falsehoods of the world religions and dogmatic belief systems as they pertain to the physical world, can nevertheless come away with something of value if they ignore large parts of the scriptures and focus on the teachings of Jesus and Buddha and other great teachers. In general though, she will have found that those old books reflect mostly the moral values of the time, most of which have not endured for good reasons. Having seated reason firmly on her seat, the mystic will therefore be able to find a few moral lessons in those books, but discard the rest as the product of political and class struggles of a bygone era. Once this mental and spiritual baggage has been removed, she will be free to explore the wonder and magnificence of Nature with an entirely open and rational mind, and accept reality for what it is, rather than for what someone else might like to impose on her. With her reason and scientific method she will come to appreciate more fully the mystery of Nature, and gaze into the inscrutable cosmos, in the knowledge that although she may not even one day in the future comprehend the entirety of what she is observing, at least she will be able to say that what she does understand and believe she does so for good reasons".


So to summarise, and from what the article says, it would seem Stage II people would be more sophisticated participants in the religious belief mentality that Stage II people. They don't take things literally, but still believe that their "God" (or a combinations of their religious gods) is ultimately responsible for the order behind Nature.

I would argue that only with an appreciation of reason and evidence, as it pertains to the scientific process, and in particular mathematics, which seems to be to a large extent the language of Nature, can one delve deeper into the true mysteries of the Universe. In terms of moral/ethical values, I also believe reason and evidence can best guide us to a more fair and just society. Whilst religious teachers have had something of value to say in the moral sphere, they are neither necessary (since one can learn morals/ethics from non-religious sources) nor original (since many moral teachings have been known long before modern religions emerged and are likely hard-wired into us due to our evolutionary process).

So if I may ask one question, do you think it is necessary to keep ANY ties to religion wen one talks about mysticism, or do you think it is always better to follow reason and evidence in order to peruse the depths of Nature? And if it isn't always better, why not?

Hey Omega,

<<Spiritual perception does not take place in the analytical section of the brain, therefore it is not possible for scientific analysis, evidence, and reasoning to lead one to that experience.>>

If you think about this statement a little bit, you might find that the reason you can even make such a statement is because of scientific research. It is reason and evidence that would even suggest "spiritual perception" does not take part in the "analytical part" of the brain. What we have learned about the brain through reason and evidence is what allows you to even contemplate making such a statement. More importantly though, if "spiritual perception" indeed occurs in the brain, as you admit that it does, and the brain is a physical organ, as I'm sure you'll agree, then there is no reason why science cannot study the brain and learn more about this "spiritual perception" that you speak of. Indeed science is the study of what occurs in the natural (and as far as anyone can tell, only) world, and if, as you claim, "spiritual perceptions" occur in the brain, an entirely physical organ, then those perceptions should be perfectly amenable to scientific research.

Hey Context,

<<Wikipedia knows almost nothing! It might have a clue, but science is always changing. At one time the world was flat, the techtonic plates did not shift, the universe revolved around the earth, the 5 minute mile could not be broken, nothing was smaller than the atom, and on and on and on. THe origins of the universe are nothing more than speculation, and for every scientific hypothesis... there is science that will refute it. I am not saying science is evil, I am saying that much of science is the egos way of trying to be in control. IE if I know how everything works then I am in control somehow.>>

Wikipedia is a good place to START, I would recommend journals, but as a starting point Wikipedia and references therein will do. The examples you cite are a symptom of the misunderstanding you have of science. You are thinking in terms of absolute terms, absolute knowledge, whereas I am arguing that science is the best way to acquire knowledge. So for example, it is true that once, before science was really around, people thought that the world was flat, but through reason and evidence we figured out it wasn't. We have even been able to photograph is from space, adding to our knowledge and only achievable through science and reason. So all our thoughts and hypothesis and claims are constantly being refined, amended and improved by the scientific process. This I see as something of great value. You say <<and for every scientific hypothesis... there is science that will refute it.>> and this is not really true. For example, do you know of any hypothesis nowadays that disputes the scientifically established fact that the earth is round and not flat? There will always be theories which are more established than others, which are more convincing that others, and which have more evidence to support them than others. So while we do understand some things extremely well, such as the shape of the earth, other things are not so well understood, and competing theories are formed in order to explain different phenomena. This is absolutely fine and a sign of a healthy science, since it is only evidence which should choose between different coherent hypotheses. There are, however, other claims which directly CONTRADICT the available evidence, such as creationism and most of what is says in the bible and other old books, and these hypotheses do not deserve much support for that precise reason. So in principle the earth COULD HAVE been created 6,00 years ago, but this hypothesis contradicts all the available evidence so it is not a reasonable belief to hold. Also, it is in principle possible for an alleged superior being to help others through prayer, but again all the available evidence points to that this is just not happening, so the hypothesis of a theistic god, such as in the Abrahamic faiths, is not favoured by the evidence.


Hey Wong,

Thanks for those references, they were quite interesting reads

<<In my opinion, Buddha is neither "divine" nor supernatural. In fact, Buddha never make the claim that he has created the physical world in the universe. >>

Absolutely, I agree with you, all I meant is that, like Jesus, a wise man was taken to be divine post facto due to special interests. So I would also doubt, if the historical Jesus even existed, that he made any divine claims whatsoever.

As far as the evidence provided for reincarnation, it is very interesting. It is certainly on the right track since if one wants to show it is true, then evidence must be provided. I can't say how convincing or not the evidence provided is, but the right way of going about it is certainly to apply the scientific process to this question, as reincarnation, since it purportedly takes place in the physical world, can certainly be tested quite throughly. So in the future, if they find promising cases for reincarnation, then they could study for example their brains, so as to learn where the memories came from, and also what kinds of processes where involved physically, so as to learn more about it. And after much such investigation can a more reasonable statement about reincarnation be made. Right now all we can say is that it appears that some people possess memories from other people whom they haven't met, but we don't know how that came about. The "reincarnation" hypothesis is just one among many possible reasons for that alleged phenomenon, and I hope you will agree with me that only scientific inquiry can determine the exact process by which one person can acquire another persons' memories. So in conclusion, I hope you'll agree that the scientific method can determine whether or not these cases are legitimate to being with, and if ture also determine the exact process by which it happens, therefore testing the reincarnation hypothesis. Thanks for the interesting links.


Finally, the following is the kind of folly that goes on in the world day in and day out when reason and evidence are abandoned. Of course, most people would simply laugh off this incident as an example of a "backward" religion, without realising that in fact ALL religions are in essence this backward in their disregard for reason and evidence. I believe we must, like in the link below, expose these irrational fears and embrace critical thought if we are to prosper as a society.

[www.rationalistinternational.net]

Cheers,
Jose

Edit for typos:


<<Since Stage IV is different from Stage II, where the "rationalists" lie, and since the author makes other references to comparisons between Stage II and IV, then it would seem like Stage IV is a more sophisticated version of Stage II (see for example the part that begins>>

Should mean

Since Stage IV is different from Stage III, where the "rationalists" lie, and since the author makes other references to compare between Stage II and IV, then it would seem like Stage IV is a more sophisticated version of Stage II (see for example the part that begins

<<So to summarise, and from what the article says, it would seem Stage II people would be more sophisticated participants in the religious belief mentality that Stage II people. They don't take things literally, but still believe that their "God" (or a combinations of their religious gods) is ultimately responsible for the order behind Nature. >>

Should say

So to summarise, and from what the article says, it would seem Stage IV people would be more sophisticated participants in the religious belief mentality that Stage II people. They don't take things literally, but still believe that their "God" (or a combinations of their religious gods) is ultimately responsible for the order behind Nature.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2008 05:44PM by Jose.

For some reason the link I provided doesn't go to the right place, here is the one I meant [www.rationalistinternational.net]

Cheers,
J

Hi Jose,

Yes I agreed with you that more scientific evidence are needed to convice people in believing the concept of reincarnation. Actually I have read a very long article based on a talk given on reincarnation that includes a lot of scientific research done on this topic. However, it's delivered in Chinese and my English is very poor to translate all of them.

Here are the links:
[ft.amtb.tw] (Part 1)
[ft.amtb.tw] (Part 2)
[ft.amtb.tw] (Part 3)
[ft.amtb.tw] (Part 4)
The title of the talk is "The Scientific Evidence of Cause and Effect and Reincarnation" and the speaker is Dr Maosen Zhong.

In his speech, Dr Zhong talked about Dr Brian Weiss, the author of "Many LivesCMany Masters", "Through Time into Healing" and "Mirrors of Time: Using Regression for Physical,Emotional, and Spiritual Healing". Until 6 years ago, Dr. Weiss has personally collected over 20,000 cases of reincarnation through hypnosis. Interestingly, Dr Weiss himself is not a Buddhist, but a Catholic.

On the other hand, there's another case of reincarnation conducted by Dr Irving Mordes which is also quite interesting and it was done in the year of 1980.

"The many lives of Alan Lee. This monograph of the same title by Ormond McGill and Irvin Mordes, published by the National Guild of Hypnotists, describes the most remarkable series of regressions ever recorded. The regressions were performed on Alan Lee at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. Seven physicians and researchers oversaw the procedures and signed affidavits to that effect.

Alan Lee is a Caucasian male born May 4, 1942. He never completed schooling beyond the tenth grade and never learned languages other than English. When regressed to sixteen of his ostensible past lives, he wrote and spoke in the language appropriate to the place and time. Half the languages are no longer taught. Language skills were checked for authenticity, where possible. In deep trance, Lee also provided a translation into English.

'Between lives,' his blood pressure dropped from 120/80 to 60/30, and his pulse decreased to twenty beats per minute. Normally, this would cause severe shock. Despite repetitions of this cycle, Lee experienced no harmful effects. Variations in writing style alone were strongly symptomatic of different personalities.

In his regressed state, he wrote and/or spoke with little hesitation in American English, rural English, ancient English, Italian, Cherokee (Tehalagic), Norman French, idiomatic Latin, classical Greek, Hebrew, Egyptian hieroglyphic, Egyptian demonic, Egyptian heretic, Atlantean, Lemurean, and Uranian. Of course, no independent checks on the last three languages are possible. However, linguists might find them mildly interesting. The audiotapes and written samples are a matter of record.

If the record withstands analysis, the case of Alan Lee promises to become a classic in reincarnation research. And if the idea of reincarnation continue to make both the theoretical and practical headway that this chapter suggests, Lee's ability will seem unusual but not extraordinary, the best efforts of CSICOP notwithstanding."

(Adapted from: [books.google.com.sg])

Besides, Alan Lee recalled that he was once an Egyptian King (Pharaoh) named Pharaok Kalikrates who ruled from 344 BC to 341 BC. He also recalled that he was once a south soldier in American Civil War named Jamie Brewster, born in 1847 in Georgia of US and killed in 1863 at war.

Therefore, researchers went ahead and investigated the existence of the two people he mentioned. Eventually they found out that they actually existed in the past, but they were not popular at all, how did Lee whose education level only as high as tenth grade knows about their existence?

Other than that, Lee said that in one of his past lives he was a Jewish Hebrew slave named Yosepheus who witnessed death of Jesus on the cross. Also, he was once an American Indian named Sequoya. Of course, there's no way we can prove these statements.

The most unbelievable claim he made was in one of his past lives which took place a very, very long time ago. At that time he was a life form on Neptune, who travelled to Earth and lived in the body of an unknown creature. He called himself 'Noran' and was able to speak a strange, high pitch language fluently. During that time there was still no signs of human on Earth yet and some time after that he died in a nucleus explosion.

Lastly, Jose, I hope that I'm not giving you any pressure on this, because the true religion is meant to give people happiness and not the other way round. So... have a nice day! =)

All the Best,
Wong



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2008 07:01AM by blue_sky.

Wikipedia is a good place to START, I would recommend journals, but as a starting point Wikipedia and references therein will do. The examples you cite are a symptom of the misunderstanding you have of science. You are thinking in terms of absolute terms, absolute knowledge, whereas I am arguing that science is the best way to acquire knowledge. So for example, it is true that once, before science was really around, people thought that the world was flat, but through reason and evidence we figured out it wasn't. We have even been able to photograph is from space, adding to our knowledge and only achievable through science and reason. So all our thoughts and hypothesis and claims are constantly being refined, amended and improved by the scientific process. This I see as something of great value. You say <<and for every scientific hypothesis... there is science that will refute it.>> and this is not really true. For example, do you know of any hypothesis nowadays that disputes the scientifically established fact that the earth is round and not flat? There will always be theories which are more established than others, which are more convincing that others, and which have more evidence to support them than others. So while we do understand some things extremely well, such as the shape of the earth, other things are not so well understood, and competing theories are formed in order to explain different phenomena. This is absolutely fine and a sign of a healthy science, since it is only evidence which should choose between different coherent hypotheses. There are, however, other claims which directly CONTRADICT the available evidence, such as creationism and most of what is says in the bible and other old books, and these hypotheses do not deserve much support for that precise reason. So in principle the earth COULD HAVE been created 6,00 years ago, but this hypothesis contradicts all the available evidence so it is not a reasonable belief to hold. Also, it is in principle possible for an alleged superior being to help others through prayer, but again all the available evidence points to that this is just not happening, so the hypothesis of a theistic god, such as in the Abrahamic faiths, is not favoured by the evidence.

IMO Wikipedia is based on science... much of science is bias through commerce and intent for gain. Greed is often the movtive. Therefore wikipedia is unpure... and trivial when it comes to anything regarding the big questions. And yes many things are common knowledge now... just on observation.

As for creationism... your referring Genesis as if it is literal. That is the problem with many people... they take it all literally. The book of genesis is full of symbolism... and is a very deep once you understand it. Trying to say there is no god because the bible contradicts itself is very silly. Refer to my first post please.

Here is one for you... Creationism and Evolution are one and the same. There is no begining... there is no bowling ball that started it all. You cant point out a moment... everything flows. Its always been that way... its always been this moment. When the human mind thinks in terms of life and death... it sees things in a linear fashion. But it isnt that way... creationism is happening this very moment... change is rule. It is always happening... and because of that everything changes... each moment we are adapting... evolving into something new. Each breath we take. Claiming that God doesnt exist because the bible contradicts science is very very silly.

If I can leave you with one thing to remember it would be this. Do not confuse the actions or thoughts of men with GOD. This seems to be something you do repeatedly... and you use this as justification for there being no God. It is very very silly and weak. Look to NATURE as your Guide to find God, look to your own NATURE. See the forces within and without. One of the creatures I enjoy looking at is the tortoise.

Everything you need to know you were born with... its not that difficult.

"I don't think theists are crazy, in fact most of them are quite good people. All I'm saying is that a dogmatic religious belief system hinders critical though, reason and a respect for evidence."

Wrong, wrong, wrong and more wrong. I know you are just going by what makes sense to you in your understanding and thus I am going against that idea and not you personally.

I can't speak for everyone, but I arrived at a believe in Christianity and creationism by logic and reason alone. People, stop leveling these baseless accusations that creationism "is not science" or "is dogma" or is "not based on reason." It is impossible for anyone to believe these things, unless they have never read the scientific research papers and technical journals that are put out by scientific creationists. I would love if any of you critics would actually, truthfully, and really take some time and READ at least...I don't know,say, ten good articles from a creationist or intelligent design perspective. You may not agree with the conclusions, or you may still feel evolution is more convincing, but you will at least drop the whole assertion that creationism is not based on science.

I HAVE read many, many, many evolutionary based papers. I was an avid reader of Science News, an avid Athiest and I lived my life accordingly. I was a nice person, except I made some pretty dumb decisions as I completely bucked many "traditional" morals and went against the grain. Not all Athiests are "rebellious" (and I am not arguing that point at all) but I was and was pregnant by the age of 17. After I became pregnant, I marveled at the life withing me and started searching for truth...was it Buddism? Catholisism? Christianity? What? Through a series of events, I visited a protestant church and a woman came to tell me about what they believed and give me the "gospel"...that Jesus came to save us from our sins and show us an example of the life we ought to live. As she was reading from the Bible and telling me all these things, I said to her, "Well, this is all very nice and everything, but how do I know the Bible is true? What about the dinosaurs? Evolution? The Bible claims that Adam and Eve started it all and Jesus himself referred to them and events like the flood as fact." She told me there was a mention of dinosaurs in the Bible and they were mentioned as living at the same time as man. (The word "dinosaur" was coined in the 1800's and plus the old testament was written in Hebrew and translated into English before that word was in use. Look up the word "behemoth" and dragon in the Bible (depends on what version you use) and see how these ancient people gave very descriptive language describing a type of brontosaurus type creature and fire breathing dragon...yes, I said fire breathing. Even evolutionary scientists have proposed that a type of cavity found in some dinosaurs skulls could have aided in a fire "breathing" function. If you think that sounds wacky, consider the Bombardier Beetle, which has two chambers holding two seperate gases that when mixed, produces a mini-explosion out it's rear end. Now tell me how that evolved without causing the extinction of the bug in the process! If one tiny part of the chamber design were off in that beetle, the gases would mix causing instant death).

She suggested I read "More Than a Carpenter." by Josh McDowell and "Many Infallible Proofs: Evidences for the Christian Faith" by Henry Morris. "More Than a Carpenter" deals with the claims of Jesus and the accuracy of the Bible, while "Many Infallible Proofs" deals with evidences for the Biblical flood (billions of dead things,buried in rock layers, all over the earth, even on mountain tops. Fossils of creatures that were created in an obviously catasrophic fashion...such as being immediately buried in mud as might occur in a flood), textual and historical accuracy of the Bible, logical proofs for Jesus being who he said he was, and many other proofs for the Biblical creation account. Is anyone here game to read Henry Morris' book? You can get a brand new copy on amazon for 13 bucks or so. I highly recommend that book (just make sure you get a newer version with updates). It's been awhile since I read it and I don't remember if I agree with all his theology or not, but the creationist evidence was superb and thorough.

For those not interested enough to buy the book, there are free papers online you can read, from a layman's level to a technical level. Who here will take the challenge and read some? My goal is not necessarily to convince anyone to change their beliefs, but I want those who claim that creationism is not based on science to understand that it is. What is your definition of "science?" Science simply means "knowledge." Are you referring to scientific method? Well, creation science use scientific method as does evolution. But you CANNOT apply scientific method to events that happened long ago in history!!!! We cannot go back in time. We can only observe what we see in the present. Evolutionists also rely on uniformitarianism, which is the belief that certain natural processes we see in action today have gone about in the same exact fashion as they did in the past. That is a VERY presumptious proposition when we are talking millions and billions of years!!! We already know from the fossils that we had giant versions of the animals we see today. Why is that? Huge plants, huge dinosaurs, giant kangaroos, etc...We don't really find giant humans or apes (that I know of anyway, other than in varying scales we see today). Interestingly, the Bible records people in the beginning as living hundreds of years! How could that be possible? Did you know that many reptiles keep growing all their lives? Some creationists propse a vapor or water canopy that originally sheilded the earth from solar rays and other harmful effects from space and produced a sort of greenhouse effect. This, as well as the possible presence of a much greater abundance of oxygen and zero to nil pollution could have produced much longer life spans in people, plants and animals. That would explain why we don't have such giant alligators anymore, cause they can't live as long to grow so big! People die at a much younger age than they may have used to. There is a disease TODAY where a thirteen year old child looks JUST like a 90 year old human being. What if all suffer the same rapid aging disease except we burn out at 90 instead of 900 years? After the flood, when presumably the vapor or water canopy was destroyed (or as the Bible says, "the floodgates of heaven were opened" man's lifespan declined very rapidly.

Even us raw food people know the importance of oxygen! When we eat oxygen-rich foods, get lots of fresh air and things like that, we can live longer! Brian Clement and the Hippocrates Institute uses oxygen beds as a part of their therapy. He says that getting a stroke patient into an oxygen bed immediately can reverse the damage caused by the stroke! Imagine an oxygen rich earth as well as all the other benefits in a purer world. Things may have been very different in the past.

Am I theorizing you ask? Where is my proof? Well, evolutionists, what about all your theories of how dinosaurs ruled the earth, before man, and how dinosaurs died out? You are interpreting the evidence and theorizing as best you can based on the evidence you have today and your presumption of things going on the same millions of years ago as they do today. A different type of atmosphere and pressure and any other number of variables could greatly influence natural processes.

I am just scratching the surface of the scientific viability of creationism. I am not an expert, though this subject is of great interest to me. I wish I had the time and expertise to just lay out all the facts for you that I have learned over these years. Maybe some day I will have time to do just that. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati is a very good creation and intelligent design author. Carl Weiland has written some excellent stuff. And I really like Ken Ham, though I can't remember if his articles are quite as technical as the others. Who will rise to the challenge of googling and reading their articles? Reading brief excerpts from evolutionist sites filled with evolutionist refutations won't cut it. Read ten in depth articles with an open mind, by those writers before going to hear what the evolutionists say. Or do something close to that. Remember you aren't reading to be convinced, you are reading to see that they use bona-fide scientific reasoning in their statements. I believe that the evidence for creationism is overwhelmingly more convincing that evolution, but I grant that evolutionists use very well thought out scientific reasoning to make their points. Evolutionists, if they have heard it from our side must admit the same.
Forget about the implications of what belief in a creationist system would be (ie that there could really be a God, or whatever) just look at the merits first. True science does not stifle opposition and nurtures exploration into ALL possibilities.

I recommend these topics: Evidences of a world wide flood (did you know the Bible gives the dimensions of the ark and scientific computer models have proven it's viability? The tiny boats with animal heads used to depict Noah's Ark are ridiculously out of proportion. The real ark was barge-like and larger than a football field in size.) The limitations of carbon and radiometric dating. "Superbugs" and the creationist explanations behind the alleged "evolution in action" of bacteria and viruses. Inconsistencies in rock layers and their supposed representation of periods of time (for instance fossilised trees standing straight up through these "layers of time." Did anyone read the latest Reader's Digest? The "Best of America" issue with the photo of the Wave Rock in Arizona? Wow, look at those layers and how they undulate and swirl in every which direction. There are many other such formations that defy the classic "geologic time scale".


Sometimes when you read an article from a creationist site, they say something like, " Well you've heard that dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago, but we know from the Bible that that is not true, so let's examine that claim." You may, from a statement like that, think, "Well! They obviously are so closed minded and won't even consider the other side!" But that's not accurate to say, because it implies that they are going by blind faith and not examining anything, when really the creationist just used belief in a Bible as a starting point and then proceeds to GIVE evidence! Evolutionists do the same thing when they start from the standpoint of accepting say, millions of years and then fitting new data into that presumption. So again, look at the data and don't worry about their worldview. These people are indeed using the Bible as a starting point FOR investigation! They are scientists in as true a form as any. No one is unbiased, it's impossible. We all have starting presumptions.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2008 05:01PM by musicbebe.

Hey wong,

No pressure, it's cool

Hey context,

Quote

much of science is bias through commerce and intent for gain. Greed is often the movtive. Therefore wikipedia is unpure...

The thing about science is that it's open and actually encourages criticism and experimental evidence. Dogmatic religious belief, on the other hand, is the complete opposite, taking what some people a long time ago said for granted. As to science being biased... I would propose that the mainly political religious scriptures are a lot more biased than any scientific enterprise, which by it's very definition is welcoming to criticism.

Quote

Trying to say there is no god because the bible contradicts itself is very silly.

Quote

Claiming that God doesnt exist because the bible contradicts science is very very silly.

Let me try to illustrate the problem I have with this kind of reasoning. You see, if I tried to publish a scientific paper which contradicted itself, I'm afraid it just wouldn't get very far, or taken very seriously, and quite rightly so. Yet, when it is a religious text which is involved, which supposedly should have a far higher accuracy (since it is supposedly divinely inspired or the word of God, as a lot of people actually believe) than anything a lowly scientist could come up with, the standards are lowered and the contradictions are taken to be examples of "symbolism", and "metaphor" and "mystery". For the divine word of God, I find the accuracy and insight of the religious texts very underwhelming. Perhaps it is time for you to judge those texts as stringently as you seem to judge scientific texts? You'll find the result quite surprising I should think.

Hey musicbebe,

Firstly, I appreciate that you may have found comfort in believing in a deity, and possibly also strength in a time of need. I would only suggest that gaining comfort and consolation from a belief does not imply that belief is true, one thing does not logically imply the other. For example, you state:

Quote

She told me there was a mention of dinosaurs in the Bible and they were mentioned as living at the same time as man.

Even if you don't believe in rock dating as a means to deduce the age at which the dinosaurs were around, why is it that the fossils of a human and a dinosaur have never been found together in the same rock strata? Or that of a dinosaur and a rabbit? Or any other example which would directly contradict the theory of evolution?

Quote

I can't speak for everyone, but I arrived at a believe in Christianity and creationism by logic and reason alone. People, stop leveling these baseless accusations that creationism "is not science" or "is dogma" or is "not based on reason." It is impossible for anyone to believe these things, unless they have never read the scientific research papers and technical journals that are put out by scientific creationists. I would love if any of you critics would actually, truthfully, and really take some time and READ at least...I don't know,say, ten good articles from a creationist or intelligent design perspective. You may not agree with the conclusions, or you may still feel evolution is more convincing, but you will at least drop the whole assertion that creationism is not based on science.

I have read said "articles" by creationists, and again there is no science involved at all. There is simply NO EVIDENCE to back those claims, and if you think differently I would encourage you to provide some. And religion IS dogma, that is the whole philosophy of it: There is only one true God, believe in this list of things, do these other things, and you shall be rewarded/punished, etc.... Just don't ask questions, since that is the word of the Lord, for ever and ever, amen.

The point is that even you reject 99.99999% of the Gods that are out there. If you think about it, there's been thousands of Gods throught history, yet you reject them all except one. The only difference between a theist and an atheist is that an atheist rejects one more God than a theist does. It's quite a small difference when you think about it in that way, but it makes quite a big difference in the general psyche of people.

Quote

Some creationists propse a vapor or water canopy that originally sheilded the earth from solar rays and other harmful effects from space and produced a sort of greenhouse effect. This, as well as the possible presence of a much greater abundance of oxygen and zero to nil pollution could have produced much longer life spans in people, plants and animals. That would explain why we don't have such giant alligators anymore, cause they can't live as long to grow so big! People die at a much younger age than they may have used to. There is a disease TODAY where a thirteen year old child looks JUST like a 90 year old human being. What if all suffer the same rapid aging disease except we burn out at 90 instead of 900 years? After the flood, when presumably the vapor or water canopy was destroyed (or as the Bible says, "the floodgates of heaven were opened" man's lifespan declined very rapidly.

Don't you see that this is all groundless speculation? The composition of the atmosphere can be checked by looking at old trees, ice cores, etc... You suggest all these speculative theories, yet give zero evidence to back them up. For example, I suggest that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, way before mankind. For evidence, look at the fossils that have been formed, and the actual dinosaur bones collected, etc... Do you see my point?

Quote

You are interpreting the evidence and theorizing as best you can based on the evidence you have today and your presumption of things going on the same millions of years ago as they do today. A different type of atmosphere and pressure and any other number of variables could greatly influence natural processes.

And where is your evidence to support all of these statements? One can't just make assertions and expect other people to believe them because "they are written in the Bible/Torah/Koran/etc..."

Quote

I believe that the evidence for creationism is overwhelmingly more convincing that evolution,

There is no evidence for creationism.

Many times people provide as "evidence" simply gaps in our scientific knowledge, for example: creationists will say this creature must be designed because there is no way we can think of that it evolved to that form. This is not evidence, and is not a logical argument for creationism. It is arguing from ignorance, claiming anything that we do not yet know of, and there are many such things, directly supports "creationism". Ignorance is not evidence. Also, creationism is saying that "God did it". That is not a scientific theory, and I would suggest it kind of suppresses scientific research and natural curiosity about the world.

Quote

Evidences of a world wide flood (did you know the Bible gives the dimensions of the ark and scientific computer models have proven it's viability? The tiny boats with animal heads used to depict Noah's Ark are ridiculously out of proportion. The real ark was barge-like and larger than a football field in size.)

There's been many many floods over the years, and the oceans covered most of the earth for a long long time. I would argue that no boat, even if it is the size of a football field or ten football fields, could carry all the living beings of the world. Just in insects alone, I would doubt you could get them all in such as boat, let alone all the other living beings. Think about it. A very conservative estimate of the number of species on the planet is about 5 million. Try getting that onto a football field sized boat. It's not likely to work. Let alone all the food, etc.. to keep them all alive, the amount of manure they would produce, etc... I hope you see the impossibility of it all. The point is that when those people wrote all those stories ages ago, they only knew of a very small part of the world, and certainly didn't know there are over 5 million species on the planet.

Quote

Sometimes when you read an article from a creationist site, they say something like, " Well you've heard that dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago, but we know from the Bible that that is not true, so let's examine that claim." You may, from a statement like that, think, "Well! They obviously are so closed minded and won't even consider the other side!" But that's not accurate to say, because it implies that they are going by blind faith and not examining anything, when really the creationist just used belief in a Bible as a starting point and then proceeds to GIVE evidence! Evolutionists do the same thing when they start from the standpoint of accepting say, millions of years and then fitting new data into that presumption.

Science does not work that way, you just can't make up a conclusion and then try to fit the data to suit your tastes. A hypothesis is born from observing and experimenting, from which results one can make some kind of conclusion. If you read the story of Darwin on the Beagle, you won't find him trying to find evidence to support his theories, he didn't have any when he left England as young man. Only after countless observations of the natural world did he come to realise that natural selection could be a driving force in the evolution of all these disparate sets of living beings that he had witnessed during all those years. If one lets bias enter the hypothesis in the first place, before even looking at the data, then one is usually doomed to failure.

Like I've said before, to those that accuse people of not reading about both sides, all I can say is that I've read the Bible (quite thoroughly) so I would encourage you to read The God Delusion, for example.

Cheers,
J

did you even read my posts??? I put as much faith in science as I do into dogma.

Hey context,

Yes, I did, I quote from them in my reply. You don't need to put much faith in science, since you can check directly with the evidence to see if your theory makes sense or not. Whereas in matters of theistic religious dogma, where extremely extravagant claims are made with a complete lack of supporting evidence, faith is the only thing one can rely on. I am arguing that this runs counter to reason, which I think is the best asset humanity has.

Cheers,
J

Many of us on a raw food diet have set aside religion after having our eyes opened to the spiritual. We have no use for religious dogma; we've moved past it. The spiritual becomes not a matter of faith or belief, but of knowledge.

<Indeed science is the study of what occurs in the natural (and as far as anyone can tell, only) world, and if, as you claim, "spiritual perceptions" occur in the brain, an entirely physical organ, then those perceptions should be perfectly amenable to scientific research.>

This is true. Those who have activated the "spiritual awareness" sections of the brain could be studied (if they wanted to subject themselves to harmful brain imaging). My main point, however, was that an individual's ego-based intellectual analysis will never lead to spiritual experience, as the ego is the roadblock to that experience.

Hey omega,

For many people, religious dogma still dominates their lives, as they have not developed the necessary tools to critique it. I don't think it really necessary to provide numerous examples of this, as in the US it is actually a big minority of the population that believes in things like creationism, for example.

Quote

My main point, however, was that an individual's ego-based intellectual analysis will never lead to spiritual experience, as the ego is the roadblock to that experience.

I find that scientific enterprise is the furthest thing removed from an ego-driven process, since it speaks about objective data and rational deductions. There is no real room for the ego in scientific analysis, only the experimental evidence decides what is wrong or what is right. I feel that a rationalist approach with a deep respect of experimental evidence can most reliably allow someone to form a deep appreciation of the wonder of Nature, which is what I would describe as a "spiritual experience".

It is actually the religiously inclined who place themselves in a position where the whole object and goal of the Universe is to serve their needs. Where the whole object of God is to run their lives, their thoughts being that their God is actually interested in their own lives, in spite of the fact we are but a speck of dust in the magnificence of the cosmos. I find that it is this religious thought system which is to a great extent ego-driven, in great contrast with the scientific process I describe in the previous paragraph.

Here's some interesting quotes from Einstein:

Quote

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

- Albert Einstein, letter of February 5, 1921

Quote

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

Note the last sentence the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it, especially the part so far as our science can reveal it. This is the idea I am arguing in favour of.

Cheers,
J

a letter from the big E
[ca.news.yahoo.com]

"Yes, I did, I quote from them in my reply. You don't need to put much faith in science, since you can check directly with the evidence to see if your theory makes sense or not. Whereas in matters of theistic religious dogma, where extremely extravagant claims are made with a complete lack of supporting evidence, faith is the only thing one can rely on. I am arguing that this runs counter to reason, which I think is the best asset humanity has. "

EVIDENCE IS BIAS... I can look towards any statistics to prove this. I can look to any pharmaceuticals to see this when they get pulled off the shelves. Yes some things are obvious and are easy to see... but to rely solely on evidence is like relying solely on the bible. How many scientists who claim to know everything blow thier brains out each year.

YOUR SPINNING YOUR OWN DELUSIONS... I understand how you see the dogma in the bible as crap. And it is, it was doctored in many ways men who wanted to control the population. You only need to look to yourself/nature to see God. This is what I am getting at... but your so stubborn to see this. Aswell much of reason is CONVENTIONAL... what is reasonable to me, may not be reasonable to you. For all intents and purposes.... most marriges should work, but they dont. Where is the reason in that. How did Ghandi kick out britain without a bullet? Where is the reason or logic there? Convention says one thing... logic says one thing... both are nothing more than opinions made to look like reason/logic in many situations.

YOUR SAYING THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF MEN... I made this bold not to yell, but to make sure your seeing the point at hand. Saying that people should not have faith in God because of the controlling actions of men is ludacris. Yet this is all you can rely on... its stilly, its a stupid battle to be fighting. Its like two blind men fighting each other.... neither realy having a clue where the other is.

YOU WANT EVIDENCE OF GOD?

Start looking into the field of Quantum PHYSICS (your evidence based science) regarding the studies that focused on intent. Yes this is the science that is blowing up the newtonian paradigm. But even this barely touches on GOD. God is everything... you claim to be a man of science, get all the evidence before making your presumptions

My dear Jose, why do you wish to spar with an unarmed opponent?

I get it... If you don't like the arguments a person makes, or don't have the energy for the debate, just insult him (or her).

Moderator, doesn't that kind of post violate forum rules?

Omega, I don't think you'd disagree with my picking out all the flaws with context's responses but you are correct when you assert that I don't have the energy. Not for the whole thing at least. But here's a little bit:

"to rely solely on evidence is like relying solely on the bible.How many scientists who claim to know everything blow thier brains out each year."

This is a non sequitur. It's also denying the antecedent. It's also kind of rude and sloppy, if you ask me. There is some ugly imagery there that evidences at least a modicum of hostility towards this vague entity called a scientist.

I don't agree with Jose on every single thing he has ever posted but he does generally put thought and effort into his posts and he also tends to be polite. But these are not evident in context's response to him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2008 08:49PM by arugula.

<<EVIDENCE IS BIAS>>

Yes, evidence is certainly bias, it can point you away from a faulty theory to a more coherent one. It is however preferable to strive for this kind of bias, rather than bias coming from prejudice or bias coming from groundless speculation.

<<I can look to any pharmaceuticals to see this when they get pulled off the shelves.>>

If by this you are implying that the evidence provided for the evolution of the stars, earth, species, etc... is fundamentally incorrect then it is probably best that you point out specifically in which way the evidence is flawed. Once you point out the flaw of evidence or logic, then you can make refinements and improvements, and achieve a deeper and better understanding. This is how science works.

<<Aswell much of reason is CONVENTIONAL... what is reasonable to me, may not be reasonable to you.>>

Like I have said previously, if you have a particular criticism to make to some physical explanation or theory about the world, then by all means point it out. It is by being self critical that science and knowledge makes gains.

<<Convention says one thing... logic says one thing... both are nothing more than opinions made to look like reason/logic in many situations.>>

Not sure what you are referring to here, but there is a difference between opinion and fact. For example, it is a scientific fact that the earth is round. Whether you have the same opinion as this or not will not change that fact.

<<YOUR SAYING THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF MEN>>

No, if you listen you will understand that I am saying a theistic God does not exist because the evidence directly contradicts this hypothesis. Furthermore, the hypothesis for a "God" that does not directly intervene in this world is untenable and unverifiable, and therefore pure speculation. I prefer to avoid speculation whenever possible and base my ideas on evidence.

<<YOU WANT EVIDENCE OF GOD?

Start looking into the field of Quantum PHYSICS (your evidence based science) regarding the studies that focused on intent. Yes this is the science that is blowing up the newtonian paradigm. But even this barely touches on GOD. God is everything... you claim to be a man of science, get all the evidence before making your presumptions>>

I have looked into the field of quantum physics, but yet do not find any evidence for the claims that you are making. Like I alluded to in my previous post, a much deeper thinker and physicist than myself once said

"If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

If you understand what the scientific process is actually about, it is easy to realise the way to a deeper understanding of Nature is through this language.

In more recent news, as coco pointed out, arguably the best physicist of the last century said about the Christian Bible

""The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind"

and also the Jewish faith

""For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.

"And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

And he added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.""

Whereas in public Einstein was much more diplomatic and perhaps courteous, as I try to be as well, if you think about it, it is nevertheless true to a large extent that theistic belief systems share many similarities to the fairy tales it is customary to tell children. Many bold and mysterious claims are made, but no evidence supplied, and some of the claims actually contradicting the available and existing evidence.

Hey arugula, you're probably right in that I have been spending too much time on this, and I should be doing more productive things with my time. Sometimes I remember though, that many years ago I had a friend that was vegetarian, and back then I thought it completely impossible that I would ever become one. So perhaps he unwittingly planted a seed which later sprouted. Maybe others may come across these words and look at things differently as a result of a new understanding.

Cheers,
J

<<Hey arugula, you're probably right in that I have been spending too much time on this, and I should be doing more productive things with my time. Sometimes I remember though, that many years ago I had a friend that was vegetarian, and back then I thought it completely impossible that I would ever become one. So perhaps he unwittingly planted a seed which later sprouted. Maybe others may come across these words and look at things differently as a result of a new understanding.>>

That is so true. And you have a wonderful patience and respectfulness about you Jose. Those are attributes of a wonderful teacher.

Jose Wrote:

> Maybe others may come
> across these words and look at things differently
> as a result of a new understanding.

Or vice versa (like your experience with vegetarianism).

Hey pakd4fun, thank you.

Hey Omega, of course, in the process of discussion and the free flow of ideas, one should always be open to new perspectives, which is why I repeatedly call upon anyone making a claim which I consider dubious for their evidence, as well as calling for specific examples of flawed reason or faulty evidence when any claims I make are contested.

Cheers,
J

Here are a couple of scientific studies that show continued consciousness in some cardiac arrest patients after physical death:

Dutch study
[www.mikepettigrew.com]

UK study
[www.mikepettigrew.com]

Although in the 2nd study all four who had definitive near-death experiences (NDE's) were Christian, I do not regard this as a causal relationship in any way, since people of all religions (as well as atheists) have reported definitive NDE's.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2008 08:20PM by Omega.

Omega, I liken that to the fact that a chicken will still run around after its head is cut off. There are still some residual electrons buzzing around the neural pathways.

The detail, depth, and complexity of an NDE would require far greater brain activity than residual neural firing.

i like to call god the force(pet name) i see the force ever day.can i explain the force f##k no.it's there. but guess what life goes on. just relax and see.also you can use your will to create you world.if you don't believe your lost. sorry

My God is the flying spaghetti monster. In the Christian religious context there isn't even any solid conclusive proof Jesus even existed, nevermind performed all sorts of miracles then rose from the dead.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2008 09:31AM by Becka.

how does one define God

isn't God simply a word?


if not, what is God?
who is God?

can't see how God is a "delusion" if there has never yet been a consensus as to who God is?

It's easy to create a straw man argument to say that God is a delusion.

1) Define "God" as the God presented by religious dogma

2) Refute religious dogma

3) Therefore refute this particular definition of "God"

The other method is to say that there is no evidence that God exists, therefore God does not exist. However there is no evidence that God does NOT exist, and so logic would dictate a position of agnosticism, not atheism.

But what if there is a true spiritual power who was been wildly mis-represented by religious dogma? And whose true existence can only be perceived by humans when they strictly adhere to the laws of the universe?

Then all those who choose not to adhere to the universal laws will be "deceived," as their brain chemistry will prevent them from perceiving the spiritual dimension.

An analogy could be drawn to radio waves. Radio waves are invisible so it would be easy to assume that they don't exist. The scientist will say, "Wait! We can measure these radio waves with instruments, and prove that they exist." And it's true: just turn on a radio and their existence becomes clear.

However, science has not yet invented an instrument to measure spiritual "radio waves." And so what I am suggesting is that if you truly want to know whether spiritual "radio waves" exist, then turn yourself into a spiritual radio (by strictly adhering to the universal laws) and see for yourself whether anything is being broadcast.

Norman Walker, raw foods legend and scientist, in one of his books discusses the nature of these spiritual radio waves and how they are received by a virtual "transformer" (the pineal gland) in the brain.

Just found the book: [www.bevital.com]

la_veronique Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> can't see how God is a "delusion" if there has
> never yet been a consensus as to who God is?

Right. Which is why in such a discussion it would be helpful for each party to first provide their definition of God, so we are not discussing apples and oranges.

e.g., I may think that definition #1 of God does not exist but definition #2 does, etc.

Omega

excellent points u make
much appreciated
thank u