What planet are you from? Where have I made that statement? These things you mention are of your own ignorant ideas of your personal perception of what you want to believe, Please do not confuse what I state with your own perceptions of what you believe. If you wish to gain a better understanding (and be less ignorant of your statements) then you may possibly consider reading the new testament for yourself, Then you'll be able to use an informed dialog
@R29k: meditation doesn't require thinking. Contemplation doesn't require thinking. The eye cannot see itself without the help of a mirror; a finger can't touch itself only other fingers or objects; the mind cannot think itself only about an idea of self, which is different. @Joe C: I know the Dead Sea Scrolls, but churchianity don't approve them. Churchianity any other sect out there base their "beliefs" (read superstitions) on Paul's writings which contradict not once the sayings of Jesus. And have no idea what the Revelation book is about and use that to instill fear in followers.
Delivered: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/nt_list.html Again, if you don't stand by these statements in the book you defend, how do you make the distinction what you exercise and what you don't? Start to think already. It's embarassing to defend a crap book from 2000 years ago for any moral value. It's a man-made story, a s**tty one at that. You're better than that. Edit: Religion only ever serves to divide people into "us" vs. "them". If you think you're better than that and don't see it that way, you've already made the first step to leave religion behind. If you only preach the good stuff from the bible, you acknowledge that you have your own moral values by which you choose, and the bible becomes nothing more than a bland book, because if you believe in the Christian God of the bible, you can't by definition question it. Simply acknowledge that you're a humanist rather than a Christian.
I do not read what you consider biblical, I would read from an actual bible instead of some web site that boasts of skeptical views to get a real message of inspiration...Please give us a break. No wonder you have such a screwed up view. Nobody is holding a gun to your head, you are welcome to believe in whatever you like but to believe in ignorance from hearsay instead of what is reality makes you give misleading reply's, either out of pure malice or ignorance @Socrate, Church doctrine is not always biblical either. One must break away from church doctrines if you want to set yourself free to the truth. Some churches are very spiritual but no truth and other churches are truthful (in doctrine) but we do not hear about them. And it's those damn tv televangelists that spread fear and swindle the poor
Says the bible thumper. I'm cracking up. Edit: But seriously, are you saying they are misquoting the NT? After checking some quotes, they seem to roughly check out, even though some wording is slightly off. But the general idea of the sentence is intact. They must have used a different translation, which raises an interesting point about which version _you_ are reading. I don't suppose it's the original untranslated version, now is it? So you have a book based on hearsay and the need to dramatize, written 2000 years ago, by ordinary people with an agenda, translated by who knows how many people, proclaiming questionable ethics and you talk about "reality" in this day and age. How can anyone be this absurd?
Must you continue with this ignorance? Read about the Dead Sea Scrolls Your web page is just like the first quote from Titus, It is taken out of context in order to misguide. No other reason and I already went through this from Sid_16's "cherry picking" comment. Enough already I'm done with this foolishness
If they are consistent with what anyone would call the bible, then the whole point stands. If they are not consistent with the bible, then that is even more reason to question _any_ of it, the bible _and_ the scrolls as factual descriptions of actual events 2000 years ago. If they already contradict each other at the point of writing, how can anyone be sure at all about the actual events back then? And even if you had completely accurate descriptions (but still by humans!) of actual events, that _still_ doesn't prove a god. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Human hearsay is the weakest kind of "evidence" in science. Scientists go to extraordinary lengths to remove the human bias from experiments and you want to base a whole belief system on the mumblings of cave dwellers who can't even be consistent with themselves in their own timeframe. Maybe you could address the point about how you are choosing moral guidelines from whatever writing you prefer. If there are good things and bad things in the book, how do you decide what is only written in the context of ancient times and what is still relevant today? If you choose to ignore certain parts, what enables you to do so? How did you decide that the bible translations were actually inferior to these dead sea scrolls? If there are contradictions, how do you decide which is the right one if it's all supposed to be the word of God?
Then why are you here? Can you read? It says clear: love thy neighbor as you love YOURSELF. Now, the problem is that humanity has no idea how to love itself...at all, then how can a human who doesn't love itself can love another? If humanity would love itself there would be no crimes, no religions, no borders, no governments, no poor people, no rich people. It would simply be...paradise. Humans consume a lot of energy to hate and destroy instead of using that energy to love and create. Ego needs hate, anger, competition in order to exist and society feeds that ego from the 1st moment. It's a vicious circle: society feeds on the ego and ego feeds on society. Unless the shift in consciousness and shift in society happen, ego will devour humanity like a tumor.
Because I am an eternal optimist and I have some faith in people... Not everyone, of course - but most people are not beyond hope... So, to answer your Q directly: I am here because of people like you! Please, don't let me down...
Btw, here's a good 'un... to think about... Or the one on Buddhism and Japanese imperialism and barbarism or.... [Said during a debate when his opponent ridiculously asserted that atheism and belief in evolution leads to Nazism] "Atheism by itself is of course not a moral position or a political one of any kind, it simply is the refusal to believe in a supernatural dimension. For you to say of Naziism, that it was the implementation of the work of Charles Darwin is a filthy slander, undeserving of you, and an insult to this audience. Darwin’s thought was not taught in Germany; Darwinism was derided in Germany along with every other form of unbelief that all the great modern atheists, Darwin, Einstein and Freud were alike despised by the National Socialist regime. Now, just to take the most notorious of the 20th century totalitarianisms, the most finished example, the most perfected one, the most ruthless and refined one, that of National Socialism, the one that fortunately allowed the escape of all these great atheists, thinkers and many others, to the United States, a country of separation of church and state, that gave them welcome, if it’s an atheistic regime, then how come that in the first chapter of Mein Kampf, that Hitler says that he’s doing God’s work and executing God’s will in destroying the Jewish people? How come the fuhrer oath that every officer of the Party and the Army had to take, making Hitler into a minor god, begins “I swear in the name of almighty God, my loyalty to the Fuhrer?” How come that on the belt buckle of every Nazi soldier it says Gott mit uns, God on our side? How come that the first treaty made by the Nationalist Socialist dictatorship, the very first is with the Vatican? It’s exchanging political control of Germany for Catholic control of German education. How come that the church has celebrated the birthday of the Fuhrer every year, on that day until democracy put an end to this filthy, quasi-religious, superstitious, barbarous, reactionary system. Again, this is not a difference of emphasis between us to suggest that there’s something fascistic about me and about my beliefs is something I won't hear said and you shouldn't believe.” ―Christopher Hitchens
Or this: The more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to men, the more widespread is the decline of religious belief. Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion (1927)
@gorski: people "like me" @gorski & TCM: unable to prove anything, you resort to the "pointing the finger" tactics... The religion you blame so much for doin' crap in society was and IS backed up by the same people who push in front the sterile science. They are having a good laugh, give a Nobel prize here and there, have another good laugh... There's a saying: when two fight, the third always wins.
The problem is simply child abuse. Every religious parent that indoctrinates their children with religious beliefs is mentally abusing their child. If children were left alone by superstition until their 18th birthday and on their 18th, they were told "By the way, we are part of this club that believes in an all-powerful all-knowing being that watches over you and if you are good, you go to heaven. But if you are bad, he will hate you and you go to hell for eternity. Wanna join?", then we would eradicate religion and stupid superstition in 2 or 3 generations. Few people manage to overthrow a thought system that they get hammered in from children's age on. The lack of education and critical thought makes it almost impossible for them to get rid of it on their own, because Hell and temptation is such a big part of the thought process. If you tell them what they think is bulls**t unless they prove it, they think you are trying to deceive them "to the dark side" or something. If religion didn't have this "if you're bad, you go to hell" part, it would probably also be eradicated by now. No one needs religion to be good. Edit: Messed up the quote. Here it is in full: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg
You have this really infantile thought process of a child. We don't have to prove anything. We're not making the claim that an invisible being exists. Unless you show some evidence, it's just not likely for it to exist because of what we currently know about how the world operates. That's all. The fact that you say "sterile science" speaks volumes about your thought process and how you understand nothing of science.
I agree with most of what you’ve posted. "Have you ever considered that the mind may be your illusion ?" If you mean mind = categorizing intellect. It is all about to unveil this illusion/limitation, yes. It is traditionally described as 'maya' Self-observation and introspection. The question now is: How do you do it? I am posting more details below of gorski’s quoted reply. “The observer can’t be object of observation” IS a result gained by introspection. And it points on a flaw created by the categorizing intellect. Buddha also got this and used a metaphor. All I can add is an analogy: A star emits spherically light to all directions, but the star can never reflect the own light. Or: The transmitter can never be the receiver of own transmission. The analogy with swimming. The important bit is: The swimmer has had the chance to be aware of swimming while swimming, the one who never has swum not. When swimming was over all are memories either way. I understand you. The question is 'which' instance of cognition creates the mystical nonsense. “…what the hell is this "awareness"?” Whatever you think about it. Hence the more important question is: How do I become aware? First there is a mental/intellectual approach: To examine the process of cognition. Goal is to become aware of as many ‘steps’ as possible. It ends when the object has got its name (recognition). The example with the ape should illustrate that the intellect relates objects after recognition. What ‘happens’ to the ape before it is recognized/thought as ‘an ape’? The order: Don’t think about X does not work. An answer from the categorizing intellect is invalid (too late) To avoid misunderstanding. The approach doesn’t have the goal to eliminate mind/Reason/intellect. It’s about to examine the effects of the predominate appearance of mind/reason. And to get insight about “Your mind functions on processes, which can be flawed initially” They are predominant as illustrated with the ape. I have posted I do not want to sell something (own curiosity of others should be sufficient to read more about somewhere) anyway more details. To make the predominant mind / reason ‘busy’ we have to offer an object of observation. This is the mentioned self-observation Two traditional ways: Pranayama: Object of focus is Odem, the breath. Vipassana: Object of focus is the physical body. The meditation itself is not an intellectual process. It is awareness of a present event. And yes one can say it are ‘sensations’ first. But therefore you need to think about again what we don’t want now! It is about to withdraw awareness from the constantly thinking intellect and use it for observation. One becomes aware of awareness. If concentration is great enough one can perceive without to get a response of ‘recognition’. The observer, the subject ‘finds out’ that anything that is observed is an object and self-observation successfully ends when remaining the Self. (Observation and observed object have not become yet). What should I say more? If I say more it becomes even more mystical. The predominant intellect will ‘understand’ it the way one categorizes it. The approach is actually purely scientific. To examine the process of cognition. To find out what predominance of, let me say some instances, are effecting/limiting. Since the process of perception also creates physiological time, the relativity can let appear the ‘entire’ process of cognition from ‘relative’ quick as relative slow…. One becomes aware of that anything is created now, 'from' a source that is not different to 'my' Self. I better stop here.... I don't post new info. I don't post mystical stuff, the words I am using might be...if you mean... What I post is available to anybody, because one is one-self.
Yen, they are all reflecting, which involves thinking... As for "feeling" - there's Hegel's level of vorstellung - a lower level of... so go figure... When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life. - Sigmund Freud
What's your point. First of all, you have stated nothing more than your opinion, had you ever tried to refute those comment/s you would have been more plausible.
You don't know kids... I don't claim anything. It's you who assumes that... It's your wishful thinking...you know nothing of how the world operates. You just...assume, theorize...that's not knowledge. Real science will heal this world one day of all this...naivety and your so-called "scientists" will be put in "Museum of science infantry".