Thread: Convince me.

Religion is a tainted word for the mystery of mysteries. And the mystery of mysteries cannot be figured out or proven. That is what mystery means in this context: unprovable. Maybe mysticism is a better word. Or Shamanism.

Beyond the mind into the mystery of being we cannot show you but we can tell you what we see. Experience is the only proof you can get. And for the ones who ask for proof of the mystery cannot see it. They are looking in the wrong dimension.

Those who are on a Lucid Dream website I wonder have you had a Lucid Dream? Have you had a mystical experience? Have you ever had a transcendent moment when you forgot your ego and went beyond your mind and really lived with your heart naked and your eyes open even to take death's fire in ecstacy? And what is this dimension you find?

The scientist's tools are just made out of third dimensional matter and their brains are a fraction of the energy in this universe.But the human body is the perfect precision tool evolved for billions of years from a miraculous sponaneous manifestation of DNA.

If With open minds we examine the mind we break the yolk. Just look into the fourth dimension through your fourth dimensional eye. If at first you can't see don't give up and make up your mind for or against. Seek the guidance and advice of those you trust that have gone before you. Don't believe what they say because they say it but if you find it to be true.
The Buddha didn't believe anything, yet he came to know, by looking for himself. Buddha didn't believe in God, Buddha didn't believe in self. he didn't need to. He found the end of all suffering.

People like the Buddha and people here and me aren't here to give you a belief system. Anyone who gives you a belief system is your enemy because with beliefs your mind is closed to the truth of what is.

There are three:

1. THE KNOWN: That which we know. Like that the Earth is round.
2. THE KNOWN: That which we do not know yet, but which can be known or that other's know.
3. THE UNKNOWABLE: That which can never be known an will always be a paradoxical mystery.
   

Live the mystery, fall in love, make love, birth, death, dream. dream. dream.

Originally Posted by 27

.

I know this is a very difficult thing for you to grasp, but I was contrasting Religion and Science.

Not even naming similiarities, much less equating them.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Well...no. Few people in even the most bizarre fundamentalist sects believe that anyone in their institution knows the present surface temperature at the north pole of Uranus, and plenty of people building their worldview around science or science-derived narratives believe that scientists will someday figure out everything, or could given enough time.

I don't think we could ever figure everything out. There's simply too many things and processes in the universe. But we can figure out everything we can to the best of our ability.

The claims that religious institutions do make, of salvation from sorrow, a place to belong, and a source of strength in times of difficulty, are well-backed by all available data.

By data that has no basis in actual knowledge, except for... Books, written by humans... And people, telling you what to believe.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

So according to you, I realize I do not know everything and never will, however, what I do know I have hard evidence for.
And at the same time I claim to know everything, but with nothing to back it up.

No, I'm saying religion does, not individuals.
Seis said it better:
In science, explanations are drawn from proof.

In religion, proof is drawn from explanations.

Originally Posted by Sagea

By data that has no basis in actual knowledge, except for... Books, written by humans... And people, telling you what to believe.

...I was thinking more along the lines of sociological studies and critical analysis from fields like comparative mythology, history and psychology. The attempts you two make to contrast religion and science assume a professional scientist as the typical atheist and an evangelical zealot as the typical religious person. How is it different when you laud your own views and disparage others' with no regard for intellectual honesty, compared to when politicized evangelicals do the same?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

...I was thinking more along the lines of sociological studies and critical analysis from fields like comparative mythology, history and psychology. The attempts you two make to contrast religion and science assume a professional scientist as the typical atheist and an evangelical zealot as the typical religious person. How is it different when you laud your own views and disparage others' with no regard for intellectual honesty, compared to when politicized evangelicals do the same?

I can see your point, in that it gives people hope and a belief that things can and will be better.
I think we're talking more about which gives a better explanation of things, though, with more proof.

Taosaur I am not arguing people need happy thoughts-- I just want to know why fairy tales can't just stay as fairy tales!

And in all honesty, most religions ahve caused much more widespread harm than good.

Sure we have charities, but does that really make up for the billions killed because of religious quarreling?

Not even close!

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Taosaur I am not arguing people need happy thoughts-- I just want to know why fairy tales can't just stay as fairy tales!

And in all honesty, most religions ahve caused much more widespread harm than good.

Sure we have charities, but does that really make up for the billions killed because of religious quarreling?

Not even close!

If someone wants someone killed, he will find an excuse. Religion is usually that excuse. It is not religion that kills, but bigotry and scapegoating.

Originally Posted by Maestro

If someone wants someone killed, he will find an excuse. Religion is usually that excuse. It is not religion that kills, but bigotry and scapegoating.

True. It would be better if there were no excuses period, however. Unfortunately, that is impossible.

I don't think those Muslims would've taken their lives by flying into a couple of skyscrapers if they weren't convinced they were going to paradise as a result.

So no, that's wrong really. Religion is often the sole reason for some.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't think those Muslims would've taken their lives by flying into a couple of skyscrapers if they weren't convinced they were going to paradise as a result.

So no, that's wrong really. Religion is often the sole reason for some.

Again, bigotry and scapegoating. In this case simply bigotry.

You see, in the Qu'ran, nowhere does it mention any of these suicidal, violent, perverted acts you see on TV. Nowhere does it mention seventy-two virgins, nowhere does it mention that to kill infidels is a way to Heaven. Who told you this? Not the Qu'ran. Find me a verse in the Qu'ran that isn't taken out of context, and I'll concede my point.

This happened not because of religion, or because of Muhammad or Allah or the Qu'ran or anything else. This happened simply because the Middle East is, at the moment, an uneducated, angry, and fundamentally religious area. When people are uneducated they don't know who to believe. When people are angry they will believe anyone. When people are religious they are committed to what they believe. When people are uneducated, angry, and religious.. what are they? They are willing to believe anyone, because they don't know who to believe and why to believe them, and they are violently committed to whatever cause they are told to follow.

Bin Laden, Zarqawi, Saddam... do you really think these men believe the lies they tell the brainwashed men and women who follow them? Maybe, but if so, then they have brainwashed themselves as well. They are smart enough to know religion is close to the hearts of their kinsmen, and because of this and a lust for power they are willing to exploit it.

Unfortunately any Holy Book is written in imperfect language and hence does not have a true meaning, only a series of interpretations. Just like poetry. You can't try to treat the Qu'ran like there's some sort of solid, universal, objective truth behind it, that'll get you nowhere.

Originally Posted by Maestro

If someone wants someone killed, he will find an excuse. Religion is usually that excuse. It is not religion that kills, but bigotry and scapegoating.

No.

Religion is often the sole reason. I mena just look at the Holy Wars, the Crusades, Modern Muslim Terrorists.

Originally Posted by Xei

Unfortunately any Holy Book is written in imperfect language and hence does not have a true meaning, only a series of interpretations. Just like poetry. You can't try to treat the Qu'ran like there's some sort of solid, universal, objective truth behind it, that'll get you nowhere.

I don't treat it like that. I don't believe in the Qu'ran, nor any other Holy Book ever written by mankind. What you say is true, in a sense, but you distort it out of context to suit your point. That's not a good thing. That's apologetic.

Like poetry, I can take the Qu'ran, or any other book on the planet for that matter, and distort it into what I wish.. but human beings are not all that stupid, and can usually realize, when educated, if they are being deceived.

If I said, "The dog ran inside because it began to rain.", you would probably take it literally. You wouldn't go off on some wild tangent and come out with, "He really means that his self-confidence went inside when the girl he liked tried to hold his hand." That's just stupid. That's obviously not what it's saying, but if twisted enough it can seem that way, and you and I both know that.

But, then again, you did just prove my point.

"It is imperfect and does not have true meaning, only a series of interpretations.", you said.

Who interprets the imperfect book? The reader, not the writer. Therefore, is it the writer or the reader who is responsible for what damage is caused from this book? You might say that the common reader isn't some kind of literary genius who can easily understand the truth behind the words, and you're right. So who do we put the blame on, if this reader commits suicide after reading this book that never even told him to die in the first place? The men this reader sees as influential, as great, as noble, who become a part of him because subconsciously that is someone he wants to become.

And who does this reader see with those characteristics, when he has nobody to cling to but his anger, his hate, his fear? The men who can blindside him into it, and they are the ones to blame, not the book or the God who claimed to have sent it.

Er, have you read any of the Holy Books?

They are worded very, very vaguely. Nothing direct at all.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Er, have you read any of the Holy Books?

They are worded very, very vaguely. Nothing direct at all.

Yeah, front to back, many times. I come from a household where religion comes first, and the Bible is drilled pretty hard into every new child that pops up.

I suspect, if you're making a comment like that, that you have never read any of them, and are simply playing on the stereotype that these books are vague, when in fact there is nothing vague about them. They're books filled with tens of thousands of phrases and parables, and because of this, every once in a while you'll come across a vague one. If you cataloged all of these into one small article on the internet it might seem like a lot, but when in context of the book it came from, it couldn't be farther from the truth.

Uh, no.

I have KJV version and an NIV w/ Footnotes version and are quite familiar with the bible.

The Koran not so much because I can't find one anywhere.

If you ahve read them then you would know how vague they are.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Uh, no.

I have KJV version and an NIV w/ Footnotes version and are quite familiar with the bible.

The Koran not so much because I can't find one anywhere.

If you ahve read them then you would know how vague they are.

Now you're trying to argue a point that doesn't even exist, simply because you don't want to lose this "battle" as you may see it. I don't say that in a spiteful way, it is simply the truth and you'll know it a few hours or days or even weeks from now when you read back on this post with your ego already crushed and admitted to defeat.

I've got to go to work, so I won't respond if you reply to this message. If anyone thinks the Bible is vague, just pick one up or go to Google and search for "online bible" or something. Read for yourself, and you'll see.

It was a nice discussion, or debate, or whatever you'd like to call it, Seismosaur and Xei. I hope we both expanded our horizons a little bit.

"Win"?

Are you off your rocker?

The bible is soo vague.

I'll post up some verses when I'm done making my dinner and eating.

An example of WTFism I found while reading through Luke:

Originally Posted by Luke 9:50

Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side.

and

Originally Posted by Luke 11:25

He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

Umm... What?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

An example of WTFism I found while reading through Luke:



and



Umm... What?

Thank you Seismo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just what was needed at the right moment

The synchronicity is astounding...........

You are welcome; from five to seven, of course.

wow...nice debate

I'm not too sure what i beleive...thats what makes this thread so interesting...so many interesting opinions.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

"Win"?

Are you off your rocker?

The bible is soo vague.

I'll post up some verses when I'm done making my dinner and eating.

About the first two sentences - I'm not off my rocker. Think about it in a week, like I said. Ego can cloud judgment. We all have a problem with it. Me and you.

About the third sentence - you already said that. It doesn't make your point any more valid, and it just shows your insecurity in your position in this argument. No one runs around screaming "The sun is going to come up tomorrow!", because we all know it's going to come up whether they scream or not. Nobody tries to reassure themselves of the fact, because their faith in the sun is that strong.

About the fourth sentence - It doesn't really matter if you post vague verses, because I already addressed that in a reply I made earlier. You can post countless verses like that, but just like any other book that has sentences which require a little more depth of knowledge than "See Spot run.", it doesn't mean the book itself is vague. I'm saying that there are going to be verses like that, but they are heavily outweighed by the number that are not. Do you want me to start at Genesis chapter 1 and post the endless verses that are along the lines of, "God created Heaven.", "God created Earth.", "God created Light.", "God created Dark."? What would be the point? It's not vague at all. You know it's not.

About the verses.. well, they'd make a good argument if we were arguing the validity of the Bible, but we're not. I don't believe in the Bible, and neither do you. We are arguing whether it's vague or not, and those verses are clearly not vague. They're contradictory, sure, but they're very "in your face" contradictions.

edit: Sorry, I said I wouldn't respond but I did. When I said that, I meant that I wouldn't respond for a while, because I had work, not that I would stop responding all together.

Yes they are.

They are vague because you can take either one a million different ways.

If you cannot see that then you are doomed to see a singl eside of anything.