Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Death To Religion] Digest Number 430

Expand Messages
  • Dave D
    This is an incredibly stupid thing to do Mark. Religious faith is defined as BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE - that is faith. You are asked in religion to have faith
    Message 1 of 72 , Sep 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      This is an incredibly stupid thing to do Mark.
      Religious faith is defined as "BELIEF WITHOUT
      EVIDENCE" - that is faith. You are asked in religion
      to have faith in God / Jesus. In other words you DO
      NOT employ any kind of scientific method. THIS IS
      FAITH. Don't try to redefine the word.

      Your argument reminds me of something a friend of mine
      used to say back when we were both 7 years old. He'd
      say, "If you tell me what 3 + 3 is I'll give you a
      dollar." Of course I'd reply six, and he'd proceed to
      give me a "doll hair" from one of his sisters dolls.

      All you do is redefine the word, play a childish
      semmantic tap-tance, and claim victory. And I'm sorry
      for you. Your life must be difficult if you believe
      you are right, yet you are so misled. I can only
      imagine what kinds of personal issues this has led to.
      I suggest you get counseling and perhaps an education,
      and you will see your problems improve. (that's the
      best free-advice you've seen in years, Mark).

      As for your "there are repeatable yoga techniques"
      statement, again you have plunged your foot into your
      piehole. You need REPEATABLE RESULTS, and the results
      are not measurable, they're SUBJECTIVE, and rely on
      TESTIMONY ... Science don't DO testimony, you dig?

      A tiny bit of education would help you here Mark, and
      if you're thinking "I have an education!"

      DEMAND A REFUND!

      David A Dawson

      --- deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com wrote:

      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > --------------------~-->
      > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
      > Yahoo! your home page
      >
      http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/DzVolB/TM
      >
      --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
      >
      >
      > There is 1 message in this issue.
      >
      > Topics in this digest:
      >
      > 1. Re: Is science religious?
      > From: "Mark" <parashakti108@...>
      >
      >
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 1
      > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:02:11 -0000
      > From: "Mark" <parashakti108@...>
      > Subject: Re: Is science religious?
      >
      > --bestonnet_00 wrote:
      > > -- "Mark" wrote:
      > > > -M: Who's evidence? Is there faith in this
      > evidence? (I have been
      > > > through this one many times before.)
      > > >
      > > > Isn't the credible verbal testimony of the
      > philosopher-saints
      > > > evidence?
      >
      > >B: The only good evidence is scientific evidence.
      > For evidence to be
      > > scientific it has to come from experiment or
      > observation and has to be
      > > able to be repeated by others.
      >
      > -M: There are repeatable and observable yogic
      > techniques.
      >
      > >B: There's no faith in it, if you have good
      > evidence you just don't need to
      > have faith.
      > ---------------------------
      > Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
      > Main Entry: faith
      > [...]
      > 3 : something that is believed especially with
      > strong conviction;
      > [...]
      > Main Entry: re·li·gion[...]
      > 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to
      > with ardor and
      > faith [...]
      > -----------------------------
      >
      > -M: There is *strong conviction* in the employed
      > scientific methods. This is
      > why they are used. This is *faith* by the
      > operational definition.
      >
      > >B: Testimony of people that may not have existed
      > isn't usually considered
      > > to be evidence.
      >
      > -M: Abhinavagupta, Patanjali, Shankarachara,
      > Jnaneshwar all existed. Many
      > of their bodies still exist. And living Masters are
      > in existence right now.
      >
      > > > -M: If my defintion of faith is correct,
      > science, bein faith based,
      > > > would be religious - this is simply how logic
      > works.
      >
      > >B: Your definition is not correct. It is merely an
      > attempt to lower
      > > science down to your level.
      >
      > -M: I am using the current operational definitions.
      > Please give me competing
      > definition(s).
      >
      > shanti
      > Mark, Seattle
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      >
      >
      >
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      > deathtoreligion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
      >
      >




      __________________________________
      Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • Mark
      ... [...] ... -M: Science, yes, but not material science for what I am aware. The only *God detectors* that I am aware of are biologicals, the best being
      Message 72 of 72 , Oct 17, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --bestonnet_00 wrote:
        > --n1n31nchn3rd wrote:
        [...]
        > > What, I can't use science and math?

        -M: Science, yes, but not material science for what I am aware. The
        only *God detectors* that I am aware of are biologicals, the best
        being mystics like saints, sages and siddhas.

        Math, logic and other languages are based upon *differentiation* -
        differentiation between objects and their contexts, and
        differeitiation between input and output.

        God is undifferentiated, so math doesn't work towards proving him.

        If you want proof of God, get involved in spiritual practice and
        meditate. If you want to understand the subsiquent religious
        experiences, this is what the scriptures of the philosopher-saints
        are for.

        >B: Science isn't a good thing to use to show that something which
        doesn't exist exists.

        -M: Can you prove this?

        shanti
        Mark, Seattle
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.