Notices
Results 1 to 46 of 46

Thread: Definition

  1. #1 Definition 
    Forum Junior Artemis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    297
    Since the religion threads are pretty popular somebody might know:

    What is the definition of (a) religion? Is it when you believe in (a) god or something like that? (Wicca?) Or is it something like following rules and sharing your believes with other people?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Guest
    http://www.answers.com/religion&r=67

    As far as I can tell it seems to be an illogical unscientific alternative to the big bang and evolutionary theory, :wink:


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior Artemis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    As far as I can tell it seems to be an illogical unscientific alternative to the big bang and evolutionary theory, :wink:
    So I noticed. I’m not religious my self either, but that’s just because I see no use of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Artemis
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    As far as I can tell it seems to be an illogical unscientific alternative to the big bang and evolutionary theory, :wink:
    So I noticed. I’m not religious my self either, but that’s just because I see no use of it.
    It does have it's uses, A great many people have drawn comfort in their dying moments believing in a God would be there to 'scoop them up'

    If those who believed in it were to actually practice it as it is written, the world would be a far better place. In other words it is a pretty good moral code - but that's as far as it goes.

    There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that in many parts of the world 'sun worship' was widely practised. Sun worshiping is without doubt the most practical of all the relgions - if I were forced to select a god it would be SOL I think I could learn to prostrate myself before him :wink: . Without the sun - no human race, if it dissappeard then things on earth would start to suffer after 10 minutes or so. Seeing how much the sun was revered and feared, how much 'power' the sun had... If only I could command that power... so we went through a phase of living gods, then when these 'gods' 'died' they could some how continue to control us from 'heaven' where they have been ever since. If you cannot make it on your own merit, run up a mountain, singe your whiskers, come down, look wide-eyed and say "I just saw God and he told me..." result- you'll never have to buy a meal again.

    Scientists? many over the centuries have lived in poverty, dedicated their lives to a particular topic, suffered ridicule and persecution, died for their cause - yet given us medicine and technology only for some pratt to turn around and say "It was not you it was god" I would very much like to see these guys try living without technology and medicine. Just look at how many people's lives must have been saved by the invention of the mobile phone. Look at how many religious people carry MK47's around.

    Finally (well almost finally),ANY GOD who demands worship or sacrifice is guilty of vanity.Rather than spend time talking to a lump of Stone, I refer to help myfellow humans in whatever way I can. Religions are man-made there is no doubt of that, new ones are turning up all the time. Gods are man -made there is also ample proof for that.

    In the UK, the churches own somewhere around 20-30%? of the land - all stolen from the people under the guise of unpaid taxes, Henry VIII got some of it back (Well done our 'enry). Religions have always sought to dominate by force and terror and now in the west where they can no longer do this, they will rightfully dissappear, and be smitten from the face of the Earth and reality shall reign forever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Definition 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Artemis
    Since the religion threads are pretty popular somebody might know:

    What is the definition of (a) religion? Is it when you believe in (a) god or something like that? (Wicca?) Or is it something like following rules and sharing your believes with other people?
    Religion is a way of life through which one can come to the platform of understanding oneself, and God. Religious practices vary, due to the fact that there are different types of people, in differring circumstances, at different times. Throughout time God either comes himself, or sends his devotees to impart religious instruction which are compatible with the peoples at that particular time, but the essential content of the instruction always remains the same, that is Religion. :wink:

    So I noticed. I’m not religious my self either, but that’s just because I see no use of it.
    How do know you've no use for it if you don't know what it is? :-D

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    In the UK, the churches own somewhere around 20-30%? of the land - all stolen from the people under the guise of unpaid taxes,
    A tiny, tiny piece of evidence for this astonishing claim would be most welcome.
    A full and comprehensive retraction would be even more delightful.

    That's a roundabout way of saying "rubbish".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    I'm kind of curious about that fact too. I haven't a clue whether or not it's true but I've always gotten the impression from UK posters that the UK isn't especially religious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Definition 
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Religion is a way of life through which one can come to the platform of understanding oneself, and God.
    I mostly agree with that.

    There are many definitions for religion and it all has to do with the context in which it is being used. I could have a religious practice that has nothing to do with God. Or I could practice religion (meaning, go to church or something). It all depends.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    In the UK, the churches own somewhere around 20-30%? of the land - all stolen from the people under the guise of unpaid taxes,
    A tiny, tiny piece of evidence for this astonishing claim would be most welcome.
    A full and comprehensive retraction would be even more delightful.

    That's a roundabout way of saying "rubbish".
    "In the UK, the churches own somewhere around 20-30%? of the land - all stolen from the people under the guise of unpaid taxes, Henry VIII got some of it back (Well done our 'enry)."

    Yes you are quite right it IS rubbish, for some reason OWNED became OWN. as vastly attenuated signals approached the digits..

    I was of course referring to pre-reformation land ownership (hence our enry getting most of it back), and recalling what I was taught at school. I had always believed this was true. I did a quick check on the net and offer the following .edu site with a short quote from it.


    "Between 1/3 and 1/4 of the land in England was Church Land! This desire to retain money and regain land that the English viewed as theirs brought them into direct conflict with the Papacy. The Pope wanted to retain the land and money and so the French were called to service; and they served well. "
    http://www.theology.edu/h371.htm

    I note this article puts the 'actual' figure higher - I'll stick to my original.

    Thankyou Ophiolite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Definition 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Religion is a way of life through which one can come to the platform of understanding oneself, and God.
    I mostly agree with that.

    There are many definitions for religion and it all has to do with the context in which it is being used. I could have a religious practice that has nothing to do with God. Or I could practice religion (meaning, go to church or something). It all depends.
    Quite right. And that religious practice would by definition be irreligious, but if you became the ruling power, it would become the state religion. And so it goes on.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior Artemis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    297
    How do know you've no use for it if you don't know what it is?
    It might have use, I don't believe it hasn't. I just haven't come across something that'll make me see that religion is useful.

    Personally I think that religion may have many definitions. For example: some people believe Wicca to be a religion, others just find it a way to do bullshit and other kinds of animal shit :x .

    Jan: question to you? (And others who would like to give their view) Is Satanism in your eyes a religion or only something irreligious. How do you make the difference? Could it be that the term religion means something else for Christians and such then for Buddhists or Muslims?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Artemis
    How do know you've no use for it if you don't know what it is?
    It might have use, I don't believe it hasn't. I just haven't come across something that'll make me see that religion is useful.

    Personally I think that religion may have many definitions. For example: some people believe Wicca to be a religion, others just find it a way to do bullshit and other kinds of animal shit :x .

    Jan: question to you? (And others who would like to give their view) Is Satanism in your eyes a religion or only something irreligious. How do you make the difference? Could it be that the term religion means something else for Christians and such then for Buddhists or Muslims?
    Anything can have as many definitions as you wish to put to it, but it makes no difference to what it actually is. The ultimate aim of religion is God, there is nothing higher, this is corroberated in all scripture. Whether or not you believe it, is a different matter.

    Satanism is both a religious and irreligious, it depends on the conscious level of the individual.
    It is a religion to those who truly believe that Satan is the supreme being, in the same way people see God as the supreme being.
    It is also a religion because the power that be have legally made it one. The beliefs and actions of satanism, are irreligious, in that, they go against the presets of actual God-centered religion, which is the original religion, or just religion in its purest form.

    Religion can mean different things to different groups, but everything is in relation to God. God is central to everything.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    I believe religion was found to answer man's search for an understanding of nature and his own need for eternal bliss. In the long past scientific method was not established so people relied on observation and imagination. When there was rain, they did not know that it was condensed water, so they speculated some supreme being made it so. Hence GOD comes into being. At that time GOD must be a handy way to explain many natural phenomenon. And if GOD is that all-powerful he must be able to grant happiness to anyone who believed in him.

    Some people searched deeper into the nature of matters and came up with another kind of explanation that did not refer to any supreme being. And Buddhism was established.

    Prasit
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    prasit,

    I believe religion was found to answer man's search for an understanding of nature and his own need for eternal bliss.
    OK.


    In the long past scientific method was not established so people relied on observation and imagination.
    I bet you mean modern technology was not established, because you must be aware that the basis of the scientific method, is the natural way to understand the world we live in.

    When there was rain, they did not know that it was condensed water, so they speculated some supreme being made it so.
    Why would they want to do that?
    Why would they need to know that it is condensed water?

    Hence GOD comes into being.
    That was quick.

    At that time GOD must be a handy way to explain many natural phenomenon.
    Yeah they must have been really stupid.

    And if GOD is that all-powerful he must be able to grant happiness to anyone who believed in him.
    How does an explanation of matter become all-powerful?
    Why would it need to become all powerful?
    Do you think some atheists may have bought into this illusion?

    Some people searched deeper into the nature of matters and came up with another kind of explanation that did not refer to any supreme being. And Buddhism was established.
    Either that, or buddhism came about because of hypocrites claiming to be brahmin preists.
    The mind boggles.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Just so we are clear. Buddhism is nto a religion, at least not like any other religion. In Buddhims there are ideas. It is in most people's (if not all people's) interest to reach these ideas in their own life (whether or not they yet know it). The practices of Buddhism are just practices. They are not requirements. There is no blind faith in Buddhism. All beliefs are questioned and the practices are always evolving.

    "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
    Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
    Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
    Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books.
    Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
    But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
    --The Buddha

    “The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism....”
    --Einstein

    I hope this helps people understand Buddhism a bit more. It is beyond your simple "blind faith" religion. If more people were 'Buddhist' ADD wouldn't exist (thats a little off topic but, I just like to make the point).
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    In the long past scientific method was not established so people relied on observation and imagination.
    This is a very interesting thing to say. Isn't observation and imagination the current scientific method? I was always taught that it was. Oh yes, and you left one thing out. Experimentation!! If you think people didn't use experimentation in religion you are very much mistaking.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    jan wrote:
    you must be aware that the basis of the scientific method, is the natural way to understand the world we live in.
    No, I am not aware of that. Up till today I still observe many people ignore scientific method to solve problems. Even Aristotle still relied mainly on observation to deduce knowledge of the world, he did not experiment to gather more data. If you were much more primitive people you would not have many records of accurate observation to review, so you tend to exercise your imagination more.

    jan wrote:
    Why would they want to do that?
    Why would they need to know that it is condensed water?
    Water was important to their well-being. They wanted to find out how to make more rain when they needed it. They speculated that the Rain God caused rain on His whim. So they tried to please him, like dancing for him. (They still have dance-for-rain as a tradition in some countries nowaday).

    jan wrote:

    Yeah they must have been really stupid.
    No. They were just ignorant. They did not find that e=mc**2, but they found enough to live and breed. And we should be grateful for that.

    jan wrote

    How does an explanation of matter become all-powerful?
    Why would it need to become all powerful?
    Do you think some atheists may have bought into this illusion?
    (My speculation) In the distance past people believed there were Rain God, Thunder God, Fire God, Earth God etc. Then someone may think that hey, may be there is only one God who can do all these rain, thunderstorm and earthquake. This God must be VERY powerful. And who can prove that he is wrong? The Gods or GOD are behind the scenes. You can witness Their (or His) acts, but you cannot see Them (or Him).

    Jan wrote


    Either that, or buddhism came about because of hypocrites claiming to be brahmin preists.
    I am not sure what you mean. If you mean buddha is a kind of brahmin priests then you are wrong. Brahmin is a god in Hindu Religion. Buddha is not god. He was a man who (believed to) find the way to enlightenment. You cannot go to heaven by worshipping him, or even doing what he preached. You have to UNDERSTAND what he has learned.

    This much I can say about buddhism. But I cannot claim to understand it totally. I have not yet reach enlightenment. My point here is just that we should not lump all religions together in one category.

    daBOB wrote

    Isn't observation and imagination the current scientific method?
    Well, by current scientific I mean more discipline in observation and imagination. (here is my speculation again) In the past people observed the events, imagined the causes, and then observed again with the bias to fit the imagined causes. Actually I think most people still do that now.

    daBOB wrote
    If you think people didn't use experimentation in religion you are very much mistaking.
    If you mean people do experiment to find the truth about religion? Scientific experiment? I am pretty ignorant about this. Could you please tell me more?

    Prasit
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    prasit,

    you must be aware that the basis of the scientific method, is the natural way to understand the world we live in.
    No, I am not aware of that. Up till today I still observe many people ignore scientific method to solve problems.
    At some stage you have to use the scientific method regarding understanding the world we live in, even if you come to the wrong conclusion.

    Even Aristotle still relied mainly on observation to deduce knowledge of the world, he did not experiment to gather more data.
    There is always more you can do to find out truth, but it doesn't mean you have not used the scientific method.

    If you were much more primitive people you would not have many records of accurate observation to review, so you tend to exercise your imagination more.
    That's a relative statement. In 100 years from now it may be reasonable to assume that people who lived in these times were primitives in the same way you describe. Of course we know that would be a nonsense statement.

    Why would they want to do that?
    Why would they need to know that it is condensed water?
    Water was important to their well-being.
    Well thank god for science or we'd all die of hunger and thirst, in the stench of our unwashed bodies. :-D

    They wanted to find out how to make more rain when they needed it. They speculated that the Rain God caused rain on His whim.
    What makes you think they decided this at some point in their existence, and when do you think this subjective observation kicked in?

    So they tried to please him, like dancing for him. (They still have dance-for-rain as a tradition in some countries nowaday).
    You see, I don't get why they would dance for him. What made them think that dancing got his goat?

    [quote]
    Yeah they must have been really stupid.
    No. They were just ignorant. They did not find that e=mc**2, but they found enough to live and breed. And we should be grateful for that.
    No. Let's go with stupid. They decided out of nothing to dance for some imaginary being, for something they got in abundance anyway. Then at some point they decided to add more imaginary beings, then come up with a leader of imaginary beings. All the time not needing one. Not only must they have been stupid, but they must have had a lot of time on their hands.

    Why are we more advanced in this time, now that we understand this equation?

    How does an explanation of matter become all-powerful?
    Why would it need to become all powerful?
    Do you think some atheists may have bought into this illusion?
    (My speculation) In the distance past people believed there were Rain God, Thunder God, Fire God, Earth God etc. Then someone may think that hey, may be there is only one God who can do all these rain, thunderstorm and earthquake. This God must be VERY powerful. And who can prove that he is wrong? The Gods or GOD are behind the scenes. You can witness Their (or His) acts, but you cannot see Them (or Him).
    That doesn't make sense, why not just think that the god who created rain is the one god? What made them think there must be more than one god?

    [quote]
    Either that, or buddhism came about because of hypocrites claiming to be brahmin preists.
    I am not sure what you mean. If you mean buddha is a kind of brahmin priests then you are wrong.
    Maybe you should do some research on the subject before wading in.

    http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/3/24/en

    Brahmin is a god in Hindu Religion.
    A brahmin is a member of the most intelligent class of men, according to the four vedic occupational divisions of society (known today as the caste system).

    Buddha is not god.
    The original Buddha is an incarnation of God.

    He was a man who (believed to) find the way to enlightenment. You cannot go to heaven by worshipping him, or even doing what he preached. You have to UNDERSTAND what he has learned.
    Do you have any litereature supporting this.

    This much I can say about buddhism. But I cannot claim to understand it totally. I have not yet reach enlightenment.
    But yet you feel qualified to speculate on the origins of God and gods?

    My point here is just that we should not lump all religions together in one category.
    What do you know about religion, why you make this point?

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Isn't observation and imagination the current scientific method?
    Well, by current scientific I mean more discipline in observation and imagination. (here is my speculation again) In the past people observed the events, imagined the causes, and then observed again with the bias to fit the imagined causes. Actually I think most people still do that now.
    Yes... It is strange to think about. Are we creating bias in science? If so would we know it? Is it possible things would be different if the biases were different? It does seem that modern scientific methods have advanced in there ability to control experiments but, I think the only way to truly know this is to look back from the future (if that).

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    If you think people didn't use experimentation in religion you are very much mistaking.
    If you mean people do experiment to find the truth about religion? Scientific experiment? I am pretty ignorant about this. Could you please tell me more?

    Prasit
    The atheist is a very good example. In Buddhsim you are asked to question and test every belief on your own. In other religions you may not be asked this but, it occurs nevertheless. It all depends on how a person is raised (in my oppinion). Some find it easier to simply believe because they always have some must tset things and see what works for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Buddha is not god.
    The original Buddha is an incarnation of God.
    Where did you here this. In Buddhism there is no 'God'. That is why many Buddhists are with other religions. The original Buddha (as far as I know) was a prince (or royalty) or some sort and meditated under the boddhi tree. He than became enlightened and was known as Buddha. Anyone can become a Buddha if they become enlightened.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    jan wrote
    At some stage you have to use the scientific method regarding understanding the world we live in, even if you come to the wrong conclusion.
    It seems that you are using the term scientific method in the loose sense, while I use it in the more stricted sense.
    Ancient people believed that the world was flat. What kind of scientific method did they use to find that?

    jan wrote
    That's a relative statement. In 100 years from now it may be reasonable to assume that people who lived in these times were primitives in the same way you describe. Of course we know that would be a nonsense statement.
    The word primitive is relative. We are certainly primitive in the eyes of the generation 1000 years from now.
    But I just want to point out that ancient people did not have the benefit of accumlated knowledge we take for grant. They may come up with many beliefs that are ridiculous in today's time, but may look plausible at that time.

    jan wrote
    You see, I don't get why they would dance for him. What made them think that dancing got his goat?
    They did consider whether to piss for him, dance for him, expose their arses for him, or die for him. They decided, by their limited intelligence and knowledge, that dance should be about right.

    jan wrote
    No. Let's go with stupid. They decided out of nothing to dance for some imaginary being, for something they got in abundance anyway.
    Rain is not always abundance. Some places are very dry. Some years people die of thirst. No tap water availabe for them.

    jan wrote
    Maybe you should do some research on the subject before wading in.

    http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/3/24/en
    This website is Hindu-based. After Buddhism prospered in India Hindu tried to take back its influence by including Buddha as one of its gods. Refering to get information of one religion from another religion website is surely wrong, like telling someone to read evolution theory in the ID website.

    There must be plenty of web sites about Buddhism. You can only start with Wikipedia to see how different the explanation is from your mentioned website.

    By the way I mistook Brahmin to Brahman. Brahmin is the top caste in Hindu people. Brahman is the Hindu Cosmic Spirit. My apology.

    But yet you feel qualified to speculate on the origins of God and gods?
    I do.
    What do you know about religion, why you make this point?
    Many times the discussion seems to equate religion with christianism or god-based religion. I just want to point out that there are more than that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    daBOB wrote
    The atheist is a very good example. In Buddhsim you are asked to question and test every belief on your own. In other religions you may not be asked this but, it occurs nevertheless. It all depends on how a person is raised (in my oppinion). Some find it easier to simply believe because they always have some must tset things and see what works for them.
    This does not seem to further clarify your statement on "If you think people didn't use experimentation in religion you are very much mistaking." What experiments have been done in religion?

    daBOB wrote
    Are we creating bias in science? If so would we know it?
    Scientific method is supposed to create non-biased finding, the same way as a judge is supposed to be fair. Actual results may deviate somewhat, but I hope not much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    prasit,

    At some stage you have to use the scientific method regarding understanding the world we live in, even if you come to the wrong conclusion.
    It seems that you are using the term scientific method in the loose sense, while I use it in the more stricted sense.
    That may be so, but it is still the scientific method.

    Ancient people believed that the world was flat. What kind of scientific method did they use to find that?
    Its easy to see how people could come to that conclusion without modern technology. If you keep walking foreward eventually you're going to fall off the edge. This observation can be tested on a smaller level.

    But I just want to point out that ancient people did not have the benefit of accumlated knowledge we take for grant.
    But they had accumalated knowldedge all the same.
    Do you think people were just like the animals, then along came the 20th century, and all of a sudden we became awash with mundane knowledge?

    They may come up with many beliefs that are ridiculous in today's time, but may look plausible at that time.
    Who are you to say that their beliefs were ridiculous, especially as you have not given any real thought to what you percieve as their beliefs?

    You see, I don't get why they would dance for him. What made them think that dancing got his goat?
    They did consider whether to piss for him, dance for him, expose their arses for him, or die for him. They decided, by their limited intelligence and knowledge, that dance should be about right.
    Okay, I see.

    Rain is not always abundance. Some places are very dry. Some years people die of thirst. No tap water availabe for them.
    (Water comes from water taps....I see.)

    In a few cases, I agree, but in general rain is in abundance, that's how people would have survived, no?

    This website is Hindu-based. After Buddhism prospered in India Hindu tried to take back its influence by including Buddha as one of its gods.
    That's interesting, got any links?

    Refering to get information of one religion from another religion website is surely wrong, like telling someone to read evolution theory in the ID website.
    The evolution theory is a theory, it doesn't matter where you read it, it has to be the same.

    Doesn't it strike you as weird that the buddhist way of life is so similar to what you term as the hindu way of life, but without the supreme being?

    There must be plenty of web sites about Buddhism. You can only start with Wikipedia to see how different the explanation is from your mentioned website.
    What would wikipeda know about buddhism that shastra wouldn't know?
    That's like consulting a Mr. Reginald Perkins, a barrister who works in London, commuting back and forth from his home in Windsor, about the feel and depth of 'the Blues'.

    By the way I mistook Brahmin to Brahman. Brahmin is the top caste in Hindu people. Brahman is the Hindu Cosmic Spirit. My apology.
    Actually brahman is the individual spirit which pervades the entire body, whereas Param-Brahman is the (as you say) Cosmic Spirit, which pervades the entire material nature.

    But yet you feel qualified to speculate on the origins of God and gods?
    I do.
    Don't you think you're a tad arrogant?

    What do you know about religion, why you make this point?
    Many times the discussion seems to equate religion with christianism or god-based religion. I just want to point out that there are more than that.
    God is central to all religion though, wouldn't you agree?

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    daBOB wrote
    The atheist is a very good example. In Buddhsim you are asked to question and test every belief on your own. In other religions you may not be asked this but, it occurs nevertheless. It all depends on how a person is raised (in my oppinion). Some find it easier to simply believe because they always have some must tset things and see what works for them.
    This does not seem to further clarify your statement on "If you think people didn't use experimentation in religion you are very much mistaking." What experiments have been done in religion?

    daBOB wrote
    Are we creating bias in science? If so would we know it?
    Scientific method is supposed to create non-biased finding, the same way as a judge is supposed to be fair. Actual results may deviate somewhat, but I hope not much.
    It's all a question of threshold. There is a threshold of proof beyond which we believe things. If your threshold is at a level of 'seeing is believing' then clearly,if you cannot see it it does not exist, this is the hypothesised level of threshold for most animals. You can aim a little higher and say IF an elder or parent tells me a thing is true then I will believe it. This is the religious threshold - the world is as your religion tells you it is. Then there is the scientific threshold, A 'thing' is held to be true if it can be observed repeatably, by different beings and behaves with constancy. If it can be disproven or cannot be proven then it may be dissmissed ie non- fact but may be held as hypothesis or theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: Definition 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Artemis
    Since the religion threads are pretty popular somebody might know:

    What is the definition of (a) religion? Is it when you believe in (a) god or something like that? (Wicca?) Or is it something like following rules and sharing your believes with other people?
    I've found philosopher Daniel Dennett's definition the most useful: "social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought."

    Its simple and too the point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Jan,
    But they had accumalated knowldedge all the same.
    Do you think people were just like the animals, then along came the 20th century, and all of a sudden we became awash with mundane knowledge?
    No. People in the BC era did have accumulated knowledge. But theirs is tiny compared to current knowledge base. Without the knowledge of radio wave, they must have thought that wireless remote control is magic.

    In a few cases, I agree, but in general rain is in abundance, that's how people would have survived, no?
    By the same line of reasoning, food must be abundance, in general, too. But in reality it is not.

    Doesn't it strike you as weird that the buddhist way of life is so similar to what you term as the hindu way of life, but without the supreme being?
    I was born in the country of which Buddhism is the main religion. Its teachings and practices are very different from Hinduism.
    For an introduction to Buddhism, try http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/buddhaintro.html

    What would wikipeda know about buddhism that shastra wouldn't know?
    If shastra says something about Christianism that is different from Wikepedia, I would believe in the latter.
    Don't you think you're a tad arrogant?
    I try to match yours. :x
    God is central to all religion though, wouldn't you agree?
    I know that it is not for Buddhism. There may be some others.
    The evolution theory is a theory, it doesn't matter where you read it, it has to be the same.
    Nope. I can state here that "evolution theory is about the how man conquers god". It is not the same as in other website.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    prasit

    No. People in the BC era did have accumulated knowledge. But theirs is tiny compared to current knowledge base.
    Would you say the wealth of current knowledge we have today is useful to the human condition, and if yes, how?

    Without the knowledge of radio wave, they must have thought that wireless remote control is magic.
    I don't think they had wireless remote, but i'll check my old testament just to be sure.

    By the same line of reasoning, food must be abundance, in general, too. But in reality it is not.
    I disagree.

    I was born in the country of which Buddhism is the main religion. Its teachings and practices are very different from Hinduism.
    In what way.
    What would wikipeda know about buddhism that shastra wouldn't know?
    If shastra says something about Christianism that is different from Wikepedia, I would believe in the latter.
    Why?

    Don't you think you're a tad arrogant?
    I try to match yours. :x
    You're too modest. Lumping the whole world population in the category of dummies, at a time when they didn't have as much useless information as you do now, is a stroke of arrogantual genius.

    God is central to all religion though, wouldn't you agree?
    I know that it is not for Buddhism. There may be some others.
    Anyone who knows something about buddhism will know that there is no belief in God, as opposed to a belief in God, and yet it is described by you and others as a religion. God is 100% conspicuous by His absense.

    Nope. I can state here that "evolution theory is about the how man conquers god". It is not the same as in other website.
    I'm not quite sure wht you mean here, please a little more.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Jan
    Would you say the wealth of current knowledge we have today is useful to the human condition, and if yes, how?
    Your question is no longer relevant to the topic. If you like to discuss that please create a new one.

    You're too modest. Lumping the whole world population in the category of dummies, at a time when they didn't have as much useless information as you do now, is a stroke of arrogantual genius.
    So I am promoted from a tad arrogant to be arrogantual genius. Thank you. But I would rather discuss the plausibility of my speculation than my personality.
    By referring to useless information, are you implying that the ancient people have advantage over the present ones in term of information availability?

    Anyone who knows something about buddhism will know that there is no belief in God, as opposed to a belief in God, and yet it is described by you and others as a religion. God is 100% conspicuous by His absense.
    earlier you said
    The original Buddha is an incarnation of God.
    So you don't know anything about buddhism.
    If you insist that to be qualified as a religion it must have at least one god in it, then I will not include buddhism as a religion when I talk to you.


    I'm not quite sure wht you mean here, please a little more.
    My explanation responded to your statement:
    The evolution theory is a theory, it doesn't matter where you read it, it has to be the same.
    What I mean is that there be many information sources on the same topic, but the contents need not be the same. And we have to judge which sources are reliable, on that topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Prasit,

    Would you say the wealth of current knowledge we have today is useful to the human condition, and if yes, how?
    Your question is no longer relevant to the topic. If you like to discuss that please create a new one.
    On the contrary, you said;

    People in the BC era did have accumulated knowledge. But theirs is tiny compared to current knowledge base.
    Despite this technological age, and despite the accumilation of information, how as it made us any difference
    we still eat, sleep, shit, etc, we still have the same anxieties, we get ill, we still die....
    What difference has this so-called accumilation of knowledge made to our modern existence?
    You say people in the past
    just upped and danced for an imaginary being,
    to supply them with something that is naturally in abundance, and accumilated more imaginary beings, plus a special to rule
    over everything, and act as an answer to things they had no clue of, although they could observe phenomena with their senses.
    Nowadays we dance for sex, and our idols come ready wrapped and prepared, we don't even have to use our imaginations.
    So what is the difference.

    So I am promoted from a tad arrogant to be arrogantual genius. Thank you. But I would rather discuss the plausibility of my speculation than my personality.
    Prasit, calm down, I was being sarcastic. But I do sense some arrogance in you, and you do in me, that's fine.

    How can your speculation be plausible, you make the whole world out to be idiots, up until the introduction of modern science. You imply that the great religious scriptures, the puranas, the koran, commentaries of great saints
    and prophets, are nothing but a bunch of imaginary concepts, penned by ignorants fools, to act as
    answers to things people didn't know.
    That, my dear sir is disrespectful.

    By referring to useless information, are you implying that the ancient people have advantage over the present ones in term of information availability?
    That would depend on what you regard as "an advantage", and/or upon how you veiw your life.

    Anyone who knows something about buddhism will know that there is no belief in God, as opposed to a belief in God, and yet it is described by you and others as a religion. God is 100% conspicuous by His absense.
    earlier you said

    The original Buddha is an incarnation of God.
    So what's your point?

    So you don't know anything about buddhism.
    That's a silly statement to make, of course I know something about buddhism, and I know also that there are different types of buddhism. But the buddhism I am interested in are the teachings
    Buddha himself. :wink:

    What is the essential
    difference between the Buddha mentioned in the bhagavata purana, and
    Buddha?

    If you insist that to be qualified as a religion it must have at least one god in it, then I will not include buddhism as a religion when I talk to you.
    That's alright, I regard religion as a
    way of life, and all forms of buddhism are a way of life, therefore a religion. IMO.

    mean is that there be many information sources on the same topic, but the contents need not be the same. And we have to judge which sources are reliable, on that topic.
    I understand that but I don't
    get this;

    Nope. I can state here that "evolution theory is about the how man conquers god". It is not the same as in other website.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    evolution theory is about the how man conquers god
    Evolution is to explain the variation of species on this planet. It accurate since all living things(most of them) share the same basic design. and specieses closly related share DNA aswell.
    We humans shall not stand on the same spot and walking on it over and over again. Show that we are better than most species. That we are able to think. Don´t stay behind beliving in things created by primitive needs our ancestors had. If we keep staying at those humans will have to be forced on their salvation
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    evolution theory is about the how man conquers god
    Evolution is to explain the variation of species on this planet. It accurate since all living things(most of them) share the same basic design. and specieses closly related share DNA aswell.
    We humans shall not stand on the same spot and walking on it over and over again. Show that we are better than most species. That we are able to think. Don´t stay behind beliving in things created by primitive needs our ancestors had. If we keep staying at those humans will have to be forced on their salvation
    Evolution is a theory developed by athiests to explain the miracles of creation to the infidels. It cannot be proven as we are unable to travel back in time and check it out.

    Creation just blames everthing on some mythical being.

    Evolution does NOT explain how life began, and creation does not
    explain anything.

    I reckon IF god did create the world then God was a woman. Just look at it what bloke EVER worked six days in a row?
    only a superior lifeform could create a whole world :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Evolution is a theory developed by athiests to explain the miracles of creation to the infidels. It cannot be proven as we are unable to travel back in time and check it out.
    we can prove it since we can see how species changes

    Evolution does NOT explain how life began, and creation does not
    explain anything.
    it isn´t quite right. it acctualy partly tell how it began. Just instant of organisms you talk about chemicals and molecules

    I reckon IF god did create the world then God was a woman. Just look at it what bloke EVER worked six days in a row?
    only a superior lifeform could create a whole world
    On the first day humanity said "let earth be" and earth was
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    evolution theory is about the how man conquers god
    This statement is originally put by me. But it is intended to be an example of weird interpretation (of a sound theory) that may be taken seriously by some reader. The example is the response to jan statement that"The evolution theory is a theory, it doesn't matter where you read it, it has to be the same.", which implies equal level quality of contents in all websites.

    Jan
    What difference has this so-called accumilation of knowledge made to our modern existence?
    Again, this is off-the-topic. But I will indulge you. The differences are longer life-span, better health, more choices, more information available at less cost to let you decide what to believe or to act upon.
    How can your speculation be plausible, you make the whole world out to be idiots, up until the introduction of modern science. You imply that the great religious scriptures, the puranas, the koran, commentaries of great saints
    and prophets, are nothing but a bunch of imaginary concepts, penned by ignorants fools, to act as
    answers to things people didn't know.
    That, my dear sir is disrespectful.
    I did not say the whole world were idiots. You insist to use the word 'stupid' when I said 'ignorance'. When the Vikings worshipped Thor, the god of thunder, I think they were not stupid, just ignorance. But with my advantage of accumulated knowledge, I can confidently say that thunder is not caused by Thor.
    My speculation of people in the past goes further back to the pre-historic time, when men still lived as hunters-gatherers.
    I respect people. I do not believe God exists, I have no respect or disrespect about thing that does not exist.
    I gather that you think my speculation is too simplistic and insult people's intelligence to see things objectively. People just danced around to get the abundant rain falling. But there is evidence that they did (only when it was very dry. The 'abundance' was inserted by you) So what is your theory?
    By the way, Great Works does not automatically mean that they convey the truth. Once upon a time the great church said the sun revolved around the earth. At that time there were great scriptures and prophets already.


    That's a silly statement to make, of course I know something about buddhism, and I know also that there are different types of buddhism. But the buddhism I am interested in are the teachings
    Buddha himself
    I just refer to your two statements and use logic to come up with the conclusion.

    You said 'Buddha is an incarnation of God'
    Then You said 'Anyone who knows something about buddhism will know that there is no belief in God'
    Hence: Your first statement excludes you from the member of 'Anyone' in the second statement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    prasit

    evolution theory is about the how man conquers god

    .....it is intended to be an example of weird interpretation (of a sound theory) that may be taken seriously by some reader.
    So in what way is an IDists interpretation of the theory of evolution any different to any other interpretation?

    The differences are longer life-span,
    You mean there are more people living longer?
    A longer life-span indicates that whereas people today live on averge 70 years, people, pre-modernscience lived, say, 40 years. Then why are there people who have no access to western medicines or technology live to ripe old ages?

    better health,
    Better health for those who are fortunate enough to afford it, I suspect this would always have been the case.

    ..more choices, more information available at less cost to let you decide what to believe or to act upon.
    You are refering to a very small section of the worlds population, this hardly constitutes a better "human condition".

    I did not say the whole world were idiots. You insist to use the word 'stupid' when I said 'ignorance'.
    Being ignorant is one thing, but then to start dancing to an imaginary being (as you said) in the hope of rainfall, is idiotic. You purposely make them sound idiotic IMO.

    When the Vikings worshipped Thor, the god of thunder, I think they were not stupid, just ignorance. But with my advantage of accumulated knowledge, I can confidently say that thunder is not caused by Thor.
    How do you know your information is the actual cause?
    Do you think it is possible that there may be another cause?
    I understand that you accept the information on the basis that that's what has been observed, but I wish to know if you think this information is absolute.

    I do not believe God exists,
    Why not?

    By the way, Great Works does not automatically mean that they convey the truth. Once upon a time the great church said the sun revolved around the earth. At that time there were great scriptures and prophets already.
    Did the great scriptures and prophets say the sun revolved around the earth, or was it based on sensual perception?

    I just refer to your two statements and use logic to come up with the conclusion.

    You said 'Buddha is an incarnation of God'

    Then You said 'Anyone who knows something about buddhism will know that there is no belief in God'

    Hence: Your first statement excludes you from the member of 'Anyone' in the second statement.
    Have you not read the link I gave which gives understanding to my point?

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Jan
    So in what way is an IDists interpretation of the theory of evolution any different to any other interpretation?
    As I said, this is an example to explain my point that information from various sources can not be treated as equal credibility. Do you still believe otherwise?
    A longer life-span indicates that whereas people today live on averge 70 years, people, pre-modernscience lived, say, 40 years. Then why are there people who have no access to western medicines or technology live to ripe old ages?
    Do you mean you believe that medicine or technology does not help people to live longer?
    You are refering to a very small section of the worlds population, this hardly constitutes a better "human condition".
    Do you mean most mankind suffer from having the accumulated knowledge?
    Being ignorant is one thing, but then to start dancing to an imaginary being (as you said) in the hope of rainfall, is idiotic. You purposely make them sound idiotic IMO.
    Of course, in their opinion God is not an imagination. They believe he exists, (almost) like scientists believe dark matter exists.
    How do you know your information is the actual cause?
    Do you think it is possible that there may be another cause?
    I understand that you accept the information on the basis that that's what has been observed, but I wish to know if you think this information is absolute
    Nope. I have been waiting for some time now for your alternative theory on this subject. So far I received just cross-examination of my theory, and sometime an indirect insult.

    Quote:
    I do not believe God exists,


    Why not?
    You stray off the topic again. You question is fully discussed in another thread.
    Have you not read the link I gave which gives understanding to my point?
    I apply a simple logic: if A implies B, You imply 'not B' so you are not A. If you cannot explain in simple term -in this thread- why I am wrong, then I won't put any more effort to understand you point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    prasit

    So in what way is an IDists interpretation of the theory of evolution any different to any other interpretation?
    As I said, this is an example to explain my point that information from various sources can not be treated as equal credibility. Do you still believe otherwise?
    I am asking you to explain how explanations differ, not whether some believe it is true or not. Can you you explain?

    A longer life-span indicates that whereas people today live on averge 70 years, people, pre-modernscience lived, say, 40 years. Then why are there people who have no access to western medicines or technology live to ripe old ages?
    Do you mean you believe that medicine or technology does not help people to live longer?
    No, I am asking you to explain why people who do not have access to information, technology, or modern medicine, live to a ripe old age.

    You are refering to a very small section of the worlds population, this hardly constitutes a better "human condition".
    Do you mean most mankind suffer from having the accumulated knowledge?
    No, I mean only a small percentage of the worlds population have access to information, technology, free marketism ect.. Yet the human condition overall is very bad, and getting worse all the time. Isn't it suppose to be improving?

    Of course, in their opinion God is not an imagination.
    Why? From your understanding, they clearly imagined it. So why would they believe it is real? What is the purpose of this illusion?

    How do you know your information is the actual cause?
    Do you think it is possible that there may be another cause?
    Nope.
    So what makes you so sure?

    I have been waiting for some time now for your alternative theory on this subject.
    So you're saying its a theory now? What is your theory based on?
    I don't have a theory, and I never said I did.

    So far I received just cross-examination of my theory, and sometime an indirect insult.
    Your so-called theory, is a little elitist (without reason) for my liking, and I am always interested in what makes people like you tick.

    Quote:
    I do not believe God exists,
    Why not?
    You stray off the topic again.
    Not really, your "Definition(s)" of religion may become clearer once you state why you don't believe God exists. Otherwise your claims are baseless.

    You question is fully discussed in another thread.
    But I am talking to you in this thread.

    I apply a simple logic: if A implies B, You imply 'not B' so you are not A.
    I haven't implied anything, you've done the implying, if you haven't already noticed.
    Don't you think it is possible that God incarnated as Lord Buddha to stop the atheists from killing animals whimsically, in the name of Vedas? And did this by proclaiming the Veda is not to be followed, just follow me (Buddha), thereby tricking the atheist into performing base religious principles.

    If you cannot explain in simple term -in this thread- why I am wrong, then I won't put any more effort to understand you point.
    You don't understand my point (by own admission), therefore you don't know, or even care, if my point is valid, this implies close-mindedness. If you are close-minded then you cannot discriminate properly, therefore what you regard as knowledge is most likely the result of a close-minded approach to your analasys. Right? Wrong? Who knows? Untrustworthy? At present I'd have to say yes.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Jan
    I am asking you to explain how explanations differ, not whether some believe it is true or not. Can you you explain?
    This starts from my reply to your statement that "The evolution theory is a theory, it doesn't matter where you read it, it has to be the same." I said that it should not be. By asking how, do you mean you still believe that the explanations of a particular theory in various websites must be the same, or you can see that they differ but still wonder how?
    No, I mean only a small percentage of the worlds population have access to information, technology, free marketism ect.. Yet the human condition overall is very bad, and getting worse all the time. Isn't it suppose to be improving?
    That human condition overall is very bad and getting worse all the time is debatable. To have a meaningful discussion on this need the agreement of specific measurements and specfic time of measurement. And I don't want to delve into that. Back to my point: I have stated the benefits of accumulated knowledge, and you said that not all people have access to that knowledge. So you accept that there are benefits. And I accept that not all people have the access. Done.
    No, I am asking you to explain why people who do not have access to information, technology, or modern medicine, live to a ripe old age.
    If people live to ripe old age without the help of modern medicine, will this contradict my statement that medicine help people to live to ripe old age? Or should I just say help MORE people?
    I don't have a theory, and I never said I did.
    I see. You still wonder how religions come into the world. And you are looking for a good explanation.
    So what makes you so sure?
    Have I said that I am so sure?
    Not really, your "Definition(s)" of religion may become clearer once you state why you don't believe God exists. Otherwise your claims are baseless.
    Which part of my definition is still not clear enough?
    But I am talking to you in this thread.
    Do you mean I should answer everything you ask in this thread, even though it is not relevant to the topic of this thread?
    I haven't implied anything, you've done the implying, if you haven't already noticed.
    When you say 'Buddha is an incarnation of God' I imply that you also mean that Buddha believes in God. Do you mean otherwise?
    Don't you think it is possible that God incarnated as Lord Buddha to stop the atheists from killing animals whimsically, in the name of Vedas? And did this by proclaiming the Veda is not to be followed, just follow me (Buddha), thereby tricking the atheist into performing base religious principles
    Do you mean at that time, in India, there were a lot of atheists that Vedas wanted to convert, but could not do so by traditional means so he invented another person preaching the same doctrine without god in it? Was he doing this TRICK all the time, around the world? Do you ask me this because you believe it so? Do you mean Buddha lied to his disciple that his teaching is the ultimate truth, not just base religious principles?
    You don't understand my point (by own admission), therefore you don't know, or even care, if my point is valid, this implies close-mindedness.
    Do you mean is someone say 'men should shit twice a day, sometime' and I don't understand, then I must be careless and close-minded?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    prasit,


    This starts from my reply to your statement that "The evolution theory is a theory, it doesn't matter where you read it, it has to be the same." I said that it should not be. By asking how, do you mean you still believe that the explanations of a particular theory in various websites must be the same, or you can see that they differ but still wonder how?
    The theory supposes that all life emerged from a single cell, it doesn't matter how you say it, it boils down to the same thing. If you like I can post a christian link which explains the theory of evolution.

    No, I am asking you to explain why people who do not have access to information, technology, or modern medicine, live to a ripe old age.
    If people live to ripe old age without the help of modern medicine, will this contradict my statement that medicine help people to live to ripe old age? Or should I just say help MORE people?
    The sentiment of your statement was that modern accumilations are somehow a cause for life longevity, that in the corridors of pre-modern science people naturally lived short periods of time.
    So have you changed your stance?

    I don't have a theory, and I never said I did.
    [quote]I see. You still wonder how religions come into the world. And you are looking for a good explanation.[quote]

    No. There is no need to wonder how or when religion came into the world, like there is no need to wonder when the scratching of itches, or back-rubs came into the world. It is simply part and parcel of humanity.

    Not really, your "Definition(s)" of religion may become clearer once you state why you don't believe God exists. Otherwise your claims are baseless.
    Which part of my definition is still not clear enough?
    Your simple description does not explain 'religion' it is basically a cliche concocted by ignorant explicit atheists desperately seeking to degrade religion, to justify their wantoness. It appears you have bought into it.

    But if you insist that that is your definition, then you need to explain why primitives felt the need to worship a being, born of their own imagination, why this being became greater than themselves, why they decided this being was real.
    What kind of society did these primitives have, or were they just scattered about the place. There is so much I wish to ask, but I would apreciate answers to those points for the time being.

    Do you mean I should answer everything you ask in this thread, even though it is not relevant to the topic of this thread?
    I don't think it is off-topic. The thread is entitled 'definitions', and quite frankly your definition is seriously lacking information. My question are an attempt to bring out the fullness of your definition. So yes, I believe you should answer all my questions, as I answer all yours.

    When you say 'Buddha is an incarnation of God' I imply that you also mean that Buddha believes in God.
    Why? Belief in God is neither here nor there. I can believe in God today, and tommorow I decide I don't, then the next day I do.....belief is an individuals perogertive.

    Do you mean otherwise?
    I mean what I say.

    Do you mean at that time, in India, there were a lot of atheists that Vedas wanted to convert, but could not do so by traditional means so he invented another person preaching the same doctrine without god in it?
    The atheists in question were very powerful, which is why God intervened. They were slaughtering animals in the name of vedas, even though they were not qualified brahmanas.
    Buddha is not God, but an incarnation of God, namely shakti-veyshya incarnation.

    Was he doing this TRICK all the time, around the world?
    No. Just at that place and junction, the ending of one age (yuga) and the begining of another.

    Do you ask me this because you believe it so?
    No, I ask because I want to see if you think there could be a possibility of Lord Buddha being and incarnation of God.
    Belief doesn't really matter.

    Do you mean Buddha lied to his disciple that his teaching is the ultimate truth, not just base religious principles?
    No. Buddha acted out his role perfectly.

    Why don't you read the link I posted, it explains it far better than I ever could?

    Do you mean is someone say 'men should shit twice a day, sometime' and I don't understand, then I must be careless and close-minded?
    What are you talking about?

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Prasit, may I sincerely compliment you on the tenacity, focus, precision and perception you have employed while engaging Jan. It is a delight to see someone taking the time to deal with his off topic remarks, gratuitous insults, refusal to answer any question directly, and complete avoidance of saying what he thinks. May I say you have handled his intellectual obfuscation and dishonesty remarkably effectively. Congratulations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Prasit, may I sincerely compliment you on the tenacity, focus, precision and perception you have employed while engaging Jan. It is a delight to see someone taking the time to deal with his off topic remarks, gratuitous insults, refusal to answer any question directly, and complete avoidance of saying what he thinks. May I say you have handled his intellectual obfuscation and dishonesty remarkably effectively. Congratulations.
    Please demonstrate my obfuscation and dishonesty, as it seems you always accuse of.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Please demonstrate my obfuscation and dishonesty, as it seems you always accuse of.
    Jan.
    You have to admire my consistency. I shall give asingle example of each, though others abound.
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Please demonstrate my obfuscation and dishonesty, as it seems you always accuse of.
    Jan.
    You made this statement
    So in what way is an IDists interpretation of the theory of evolution any different to any other interpretation?
    This has been discussed with you before. You are well aware that the scientific consideration of the theory of evolution is subject to continual evaluation, is falsifiable, and has repeatedly been validated by observation and experiment. In contrast the ID interpretation is not subject to amendment, has not been validated in any way, and is not falsifiable.
    Knowing these facts to be the case, yet still placing this question in here as a red herring is dishonest.
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Please demonstrate my obfuscation and dishonesty, as it seems you always accuse of.
    Jan.
    Here is another quote of yours.
    No, I am asking you to explain why people who do not have access to information, technology, or modern medicine, live to a ripe old age.
    You know perfectly well that prasit is talking about skew in the bell curve that increases the number of people living to greater ages. He is not talking about the outliers we may expect to see in random sampling. Being deliberately obtuse is a well established method of obfuscation.

    The only viable alternative explanations I can see for these two examples is that you are not very bright. I know that is not the case. We are left, therefore, with dishonesty and obfuscation. Your posts are redolent with both. In a sick and twisted way I have almost come to admire the gall with which you employ these. Expertise, even in the dark arts, has a certain fascination for the casual observer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Ophiolite,

    Please demonstrate my obfuscation and dishonesty, as it seems you always accuse of.
    You have to admire my consistency.
    Not really. I find it tedious because I know, either you have not understood my points, or you haven't attempted to understand them.

    You sometimes seem wrapped up in how posts look as opposed to the essential quality.

    [/quote]You made this statement
    [quote]

    So in what way is an IDists interpretation of the theory of evolution any different to any other interpretation?
    This has been discussed with you before. You are well aware that the scientific consideration of the theory of evolution is subject to continual evaluation, is falsifiable, and has repeatedly been validated by observation and experiment. In contrast the ID interpretation is not subject to amendment, has not been validated in any way, and is not falsifiable.
    Knowing these facts to be the case, yet still placing this question in here as a red herring is dishonest.
    My point to Prasit was, that the basic premise of TOE is always the same, no matter who discusses it, in the same way the basic premise of religion is always the same.


    Here is another quote of yours.
    No, I am asking you to explain why people who do not have access to information, technology, or modern medicine, live to a ripe old age.
    You know perfectly well that prasit is talking about skew in the bell curve that increases the number of people living to greater ages. He is not talking about the outliers we may expect to see in random sampling. Being deliberately obtuse is a well established method of obfuscation.
    He could be, I don't doubt that. But given his definition of how God and religion came to be, it could also mean something else.
    To add to that, when asked what the benefits of information and modern medicine were, he mentioned longevity of life, which could imply a cause. If it is not a cause, and longevity of life exists anyway, then there was no need to mention it.

    Its not my fault he chooses to be vague with his definition.

    We are left, therefore, with dishonesty and obfuscation. Your posts are redolent with both.
    Science is unable to prove whether God Himself exists, we know that right? So don't you think it is dishonest of someone who knows this, to argue that God does not exist because there is no scientific evidence to support this notion?
    Yet this is the basis of all atheistic argument. Why don't you ever label them as dishonest, and accuse them of obfuscation, BIG TIME. It is this dishonesty that allows them to get away with remarks not dissimilar to Prasits, without ever being questioned, or worse still, not being allowed to be questioned. Yet you accuse me of these things. Remarkable.

    In a sick and twisted way I have almost come to admire the gall with which you employ these. Expertise, even in the dark arts, has a certain fascination for the casual observer.
    LOL!
    Well, i'm always glad to make someone happy, but it is quite sad that you choose to view me in this way. Dark arts is really not my bag, I'm into straight-forwardism, the name of my new religion.

    Say what you're saying, don't beat around the bush, for who knows what tommorow may bring.

    Jan.
    [/b]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Jan,
    I am sure these asides are of little or no interest to the rest of the forum membership. With your agreement I shall pm you from time to time when I see an especially glaring example of what I take to be obfuscation or dishonesty. Perhaps I am not the only one that misinterprets your intentions. (Since I know this is the case the perhaps may be construed as dishonest.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Ophiolite,

    Thanks for your compliment. I also enjoy reading your comments in other threads. They have clarity and I learn something new.

    Jan
    Quote:
    This starts from my reply to your statement that "The evolution theory is a theory, it doesn't matter where you read it, it has to be the same." I said that it should not be. By asking how, do you mean you still believe that the explanations of a particular theory in various websites must be the same, or you can see that they differ but still wonder how?

    Jan wrote:
    The theory supposes that all life emerged from a single cell, it doesn't matter how you say it, it boils down to the same thing. If you like I can post a christian link which explains the theory of evolution.
    You still have not answered to my direct question. Do you have difficulty in understanding it? (I'm afraid to deduce the answer from your response, lest you will say that I'm 'implying')

    The sentiment of your statement was that modern accumilations are somehow a cause for life longevity, that in the corridors of pre-modern science people naturally lived short periods of time.
    So have you changed your stance?
    I have a friend who recently had a serious accident that broke his collar bone, spleen and left leg (among other things). He had gone to two operations, been in ICU for 2 weeks. Now he is recovering. I told him about your question. He said you may have a point.
    I think he also had a head concussion.
    No. There is no need to wonder how or when religion came into the world, like there is no need to wonder when the scratching of itches, or back-rubs came into the world. It is simply part and parcel of humanity.
    That is one of our differences. I wonder how the scratching of itches came into the world. And I see that it is also a part and parcel of dog-ity.
    I don't need to wonder how religion came into the world and I don't want to wonder how religion came into the world. But I do wonder. Why? I wonder.

    The atheists in question were very powerful, which is why God intervened. They were slaughtering animals in the name of vedas, even though they were not qualified brahmanas.
    Buddha is not God, but an incarnation of God, namely shakti-veyshya incarnation.

    Quote:
    Was he doing this TRICK all the time, around the world?


    No. Just at that place and junction, the ending of one age (yuga) and the begining of another.
    I consider two possible alternatives:

    A: The Hindu god is the greates trickster the world ever has. He tricked millions of people to follow Buddhism, which teaches just base religious principles (The advanced course is, of course, Vedas). The trick is so successful that now the number of buddhists far exceeds the number of hinduists.
    Buddha is also the greatest liar the world ever has. He lied to his disciples about the ultimate truth, while one of the five basic practices he preached is DO NOT LIE.
    Buddhists are also the most gullible people in the world, following a false teachings and blindly believing that they have followed the path to eternal bliss.

    B: It is the propoganda of some Hindu people to try to retain the people who were moving away from them to Buddhism.

    With unwavering certainty I choose Alternative B.
    Prasit wrote:
    Do you mean is someone say 'men should shit twice a day, sometime' and I don't understand, then I must be careless and close-minded?

    Jan wrote:
    What are you talking about?
    Just forget it. It is beyond my capability to convey it clearly enough to make you understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    prasit,

    Quote:
    This starts from my reply to your statement that "The evolution theory is a theory, it doesn't matter where you read it, it has to be the same." I said that it should not be. By asking how, do you mean you still believe that the explanations of a particular theory in various websites must be the same, or you can see that they differ but still wonder how?
    You still have not answered to my direct question. Do you have difficulty in understanding it? (I'm afraid to deduce the answer from your response, lest you will say that I'm 'implying')
    The theory always remains essentially the same. My explanation wasn't a particularly good one, but it was correct. If I say TOE is the study of washing machines, then I am no longer talking about TOE.

    I think he also had a head concussion.
    I'd like to think he came to his senses.

    I wonder.
    I don't. I read somewhere wondering causes piles.

    A: The Hindu god is the greates trickster the world ever has.
    I don't know about "Hindu", but you are correct God is the greatest trickster.

    He tricked millions of people to follow Buddhism, which teaches just base religious principles (The advanced course is, of course, Vedas).
    No, I didn't say that. He tricked the brahmanas of the day because they had become atheists, being influence by kali-yuga.
    The brahmanas are the mouthpiece for the vedas, hymns, sacrifices, practices, and so on.
    Their condition meant that religious principles would be lost, so the principles to start from the begining again.
    Religious principles start with the understanding that we are not this material body.
    Veda, means knowledge.

    The trick is so successful that now the number of buddhists far exceeds the number of hinduists.
    "Buddhists", "Hinduists", these are just names. The reality of a person is his/hers actions.

    Buddha is also the greatest liar the world ever has.
    The Greatest anything the world ever has, is God.

    He lied to his disciples about the ultimate truth, while one of the five basic practices he preached is DO NOT LIE.
    An example of his lies would suffice.

    Buddhists are also the most gullible people in the world, following a false teachings and blindly believing that they have followed the path to eternal bliss.
    Can you explain the teaching?

    B: It is the propoganda of some Hindu people to try to retain the people who were moving away from them to Buddhism.
    The scripture I presented predates the arrival of the buddha, and the concept of Hindu and Hinduism.

    With unwavering certainty I choose Alternative B.
    From my perspective it wouldn't have mattered which one you chose.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Jan,

    OK. Thanks for your contribution. Thus end our conversation. It nice to read your comments, to learn of different perpective, different attitude. and different social manner. But one session is sufficient.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Jan,

    OK. Thanks for your contribution. Thus end our conversation. It nice to read your comments, to learn of different perpective, different attitude. and different social manner. But one session is sufficient.
    I don't believe you are thankful, I don't believe you want to learn of what you term, my, perspective, attitude, and social manner.
    Personally, I think you are rude, and insulting, which you try to hide under a veil of pseudo intellect. I for one am not fooled by you.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •