Reply With Quoteco-sign
You misunderstood the message when you said "hide your good deeds"...
that is one of the problems with relying on any "so-called" holy book...everyone interprets it differently...it ends up being not as it is written but as YOU see things...and people end up seeing the world not as it is- but rather as THEY are...
It wasn't about "hiding" your good deeds as it was about being conscious of doing it...in other words...if you are in a state of love...your right hand won't know what your left hand is doing because it is an unself-conscious act...
As sufi once said..."A saint is one until he or she knows it."
this is what was meant....
co-sign
While trodding over ground well-trodden, and while beating a dead horse, there are always quotes that I have not seen before and are delightful.
Thanks to the contributors.
I get this message. Apparently you don't get how this contradicts the other message.
agreed that nobody should rely on "so-called" holy books.that is one of the problems with relying on any "so-called" holy book...everyone interprets it differently...it ends up being not as it is written but as YOU see things...and people end up seeing the world not as it is- but rather as THEY are...
Generally I really don't care if people rely on such holy books, unless it's politicians forming public policies.
Wow, you aren't following. I believe in the Big Bang theory. I believe that it came about by God. That before God started the Big Bang, there was Nothingness. Nothingness = The absence of anything (even dark matter).
So when I pose the question to those who don't believe in God, I ask, how did the Universe come out of Nothing ? What existed before the Big Bang ? If ANYTHING existed at all to spark the Big Bang, how did it get there ? Who made it possible ? What were the origins ?
Some have said, "I don't know, but eventually science will give us the answer."
I don't agree.
God is a lie.
Duncan is the truth.
BTW, his religion is BASKETBALL.
If you fear people being in power who believe as I do , you should be very afraid. If you have no faith in God, you are the minority (maybe not on this board, although people who reject belief in God are often loudest on message boards) and its not even close. Take a quick look or do some research at how many people believe in some sort of deity. I guess you'd label them as ignorant or uneducated. Most atheists seem comfortable do so.
And why exactly do you think I'm so irrational ? I believe in science, medicine, technology, math, etc. If I get sick, I'm going to the doctor, not staying home and praying for miracles. I don't believe in waiting or relying on God to fix things that are wrong in my life or on this planet.
I'm a big believer in prayer. I just happen to believe that God is very real,exists and is the reason I'm here. I do my best to follow his guidance (although I'm pretty damn weak when it comes to not returning the vitriol and insults that get thrown my way.) I'm not perfect. I have a long ways to go.
Son of Sam did his best to follow that dog's guidance.
Same concept.
You are trying to address 2 different arguments. One, is the belief that God created the Universe. I've responded that the "How" really doesn't matter to me. However, I did propose that God was the spark for the Big Bang. You say prove it, I say I can't, but I believe he did and here's why. I ask you to prove otherwise, and it can't be done.
I would believe you were wrong and let it go. I wouldn't insult you for your beliefs and would hope that if you find peace in what you believe, good for you.
Sam Harris' analogies are awful. Can proof be attained in the two cases you gave ? Of course it can. If there was no Bible, if Jesus didn't walk the Earth and preach his word then I wouldn't just believe in a God for the sake of believing in a deity. If you are familiar with Christianity, you know that I believe God sent his son to this world to share his message. His son was crucified and resurrected. These are things I believe to be true. I believe the Bible was divinely inspired and to be the word of God. This is my evidence. God said he created the world. I believe he exists, therefore its good enough for me.
Look, I get it. If you gave me a math problem to figure out and there was never a way to know if the answer was right, I'd be frustrated to no end. You need proof, scientific proof that God exists. I don't. I don't view my faith as a math question. In order to believe in God, it takes faith. Some people don't have it. Fine with me.
Nice. So now you're likening me following moral guidelines of God with a homicidal lunatic. Is that what those with faith are to you ? You need serious help man.
You receiving guidance from "God" makes about as much sense as SOS receiving orders from a dog.
At least we can see the dog though, so his (original) story is actually more plausible.
The question you have to ask is, what are the ways of knowing? This is the basic question of epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge.
These are the generally accepted ways of knowing:
Authority
+Easiest, fastest way
-Sources often disagree among themselves
-Sources change their minds
-Sources can be wrong
Logic
+A formal system
-The basis for reasoning could be false or only relatively true (see embodied cognition)
Common Sense Intuition
+Practical for mundane things
-Changes with time and place
-Unable to make predictions
Mysticism
+Taps into alternate states of consciousness, admittedly worth exploring
-Difficult to describe and agree on experiences
-Not immediately available to everyone
Science
+Available to everyone
+Objective, repeatable
-Doesn't describe subjective experience (but see Neurophenomenology)
-Still makes certain assumptions about the external world
Most people in the 21st century accept science as the most objective way of arriving at truth. But please be careful with interpreting this statement. Many people mistakenly believe that "science" is a body of facts, but it is not. Rather, science is a methodology for acquiring those facts. What makes the scientific method more objective than other methods? A short list:
1) Probabilistic conclusions - Real science does not deal with certainties. Read any (experimental) scientific report, and you will find every conclusion supported with an inferential statistical test and, critically, a "p-value" which represents the probability of a Type-I error, or the probability that the result was obtained by chance alone.
2) A system of checks and balances - When a discovery is made in science, it is not immediately accepted as true. In fact, it is assumed to be an anomaly until it is replicated by another researcher. At the very least, the initial researcher's results must be critically reviewed by several other experts in the field before it is allowed to be published. This is the "peer review" process.
3) Randomization and control of extraneous variables - In a true experiment, the variables of interest are isolated in a controlled fashion so as not to be confounded by other commonly occurring variables that do not bare direct interest in the study. Randomization refers to the process of eliminating unwanted variability due to chance (e.g., in psychological research, randomly assigning participants to groups or conditions so that factors such as age and gender play no role in the results). This is critically important and divides real science from pseudoscience.
For these reasons, science is considered more "objective" than other ways of knowing. The issue of objectivity is still very much an open question in philosophy of science. Some people say that science itself is merely a series of "paradigm shifts" that change our view of reality throughout time. While there is some merit to this, there is still a gradual ac ulation of stable knowledge that does not alter from one paradigm to another. For example, it is unlikely that the paradigm of "the earth is round and not flat" will be overthrown, or that the structure of DNA will be radically re-conceptualized.
Sorry if this was lengthy, but these are all issues that you must consider if you are going to assume that science can or cannot give us the answer to something. If you think science cannot answer certain types of questions, that in itself is a hypothesis that will be tested in time. There is reason to believe those gaps, too, are dwindling. In my field, cognitive scientists are beginning to shift from the "computational" paradigm to the "enactive" paradigm, which allows minds to be understood in the context of sensory-motor interaction with the world. Through this and other paradigms, even consciousness itself is beginning to appear amenable to scientific inquiry - something that was previously thought impossible.
Faith is an interesting concept, but if you examine it closely, it actually turns out to be two (or more) different concepts which become conflated in ordinary language.
Faith (1) - believing that a goal can be accomplished so as to motivate one to succeed; faith in action
Faith (2) - believing an abstract assertion without evidence; faith in abstractions
The two are quite different in terms of the ways they are employed in cognition. I would argue that religious dogma promotes Faith (2), and that is something I have a problem with. Faith (1), on the other hand, is perfectly fine.
I can see where you're coming from, but it's a general theme throughout the New Testament that Christians are to be a vessel for Christ to perform good works in them and therefore showing the world the light of Christ. This is more of a result of seeking God than actually intending to "do good." This also refers to letting others know about the good that Christ has done in one's life and not keeping it hidden.
The instruction to keep one's giving hidden (Matt 6:3-4) deals directly with the intention or motive of the giving as to honor God and not one's self interest - this also follows another theme throughout the New Testament that good deeds and obedience to God come from the heart and not from an outward display or religiosity. Jesus was criticizing many in his teachings for their hypocrisy of looking good on the outside, but being evil in their hearts. The practice of calling attention to one's self for the purpose of giving was a great example of this problem.
These verses that you quote are not a contradicition and that's not from my "interpretation" either - both themes are extremely prevalant in the New Testament and run parrallel to each other and not contrary.
You can't apply math or formulas to him either!
Weird thread.
Doesn't really belong in the Spurs forum at this point.
To put it nicely...you are being ridiculous.
The way I see it, nobody has proof. I get a kick out of "science" and the "crap" they come up with. If these geniuses are so freakin smart in solving problems a million light years away with blips on screens or random data spewing out on a screen, then they should switch careers and solve some real problems like diseases, new energy and world economy.
Non-believers try to rationalize with their minds, they must have empirical proof. Believers follow their hearts.. that's why it's call FAITH. The chances of atheists changing a Believers mind is moot, don't bother trying, in fact you are probably increasing their Faith as you try to ridicule them.
woof woof, godmonger
Anyone else love the irony of posting this using technology (computer, internet, possibly wireless, etc. etc.) that represents the culmination of hundreds of years of scientific progress?
Newsflash, you're posting on some of the "crap" that science and the scientific method has come up with using hundreds of years of the same methodology that it uses for big bang cosmology.
You're driving (assuming you have a car or take public transportation) some of the "crap" that science has come up with using hundreds of years of the same methodology that it uses for big bang cosmology.
You're talking (cell phone) on some of the "crap" that science has come up with using hundreds of years of the same methodology that it uses for big bang cosmology.
It's actually quite difficult to think of an aspect of your life that isn't in some way the product of scientific progress.
My heart pumps blood.Non-believers try to rationalize with their minds, they must have empirical proof. Believers follow their hearts..
Whose "interpretation" is it if it's not yours?
Giving to the needy is a good deed. God says he wants others to see this but then later he says he doesn't. It's a contradiction.
If you want another alleged contradiction to try to debunk, just ask.
Fascinating research, imo....
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds........
...religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0224132655.htm
So you don't believe in what the bible literally says, you have your own personal religion, in which the christian god and the big bang that has happened some 14 billion years ago, co-exist. Gotta say that's a strange type of heresyWow, you aren't following. I believe in the Big Bang theory. I believe that it came about by God. That before God started the Big Bang, there was Nothingness. Nothingness = The absence of anything (even dark matter).
So when I pose the question to those who don't believe in God, I ask, how did the Universe come out of Nothing ? What existed before the Big Bang ? If ANYTHING existed at all to spark the Big Bang, how did it get there ? Who made it possible ? What were the origins ?
Some have said, "I don't know, but eventually science will give us the answer."
I don't agree.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
