jesus in india

[whitewind]

qualia's suggestion of Buddha seems a much better historical analogy to Jesus than Hitler.

 

Perhaps it is! But the basic premise remains the same, that the further back in time you go the murkier the history gets, and the less likely the evidence available will survive.

[Change]

JC rose from the dead.

As if anyones gonna forget the name of the guy who did that...

 

[chilli]

http://www.ideacente...ails.php/id/858

http://en.wikipedia...._From_Darwinism

chilli don't forget it was Albert who said, "I refuse to believe that god plays dice with the Universe"

This coming from a man who helped formulate quantum theory. Who himself formulated both the special & general theories of relativity....a religious fanatic..?

I don't care what you believe at the end of the day, it has no affect on my life in anyway whatsoever. Your zealot type of belief in science, is in reality no different to the blind ignorance portrayed by orthodox religious fanatics. The point that I am trying to convey to you, is that belief in something because somebody says so, no matter how qualified they may be, is "blind", regardless of how much proof they say they may have. The only reality an individual knows for certain is their own perception & this in itself can be bought to question in itself. What is reality..? Maybe one of your psych professors has the answer, or maybe it's in Jung's collective consciousness, or the repressed sexual mind of Freud..?

You are right, Hitler was not a good example, Buddha is a way better choice.

 

I used to be a religious fanatic who had blind faith in my beliefs. When I began to look for evidence to support my beliefs, such as young earth creationism, or the resurrection of Jesus I found that there was none, so you using 'Intelligent Design' to dispute evolution just seems laughable to me, and makes me suspect your attempts to relativize all knowledge and compare science to religion are religiously motivated.

It seems the problem here is that you do not understand the scientific method, because you keep claiming that people have 'blind faith' in science. As I have explained to you before, if you understood what science was you would not say this. Faith is required for things that are not proven, science only speaks about things that can be proven. Faith is believing in something without evidence, blind faith means believing in spite of evidence, whereas science relies entirely on evidence! Science assumes certain things: that things obey rules, and that we can observe these rules and make predictions based on them that actually work.

Trust is different from blind faith. I trust my wife because I have gotten to know her and to the best of my knowledge she has always been faithful. I trust this chair because whenever I sat on it before it always held me up. I trust science because it results in things that work, in technology we all rely on every day, in predictions that are shown to be accurate over and over again or are discarded or altered when they fail. I trust the scientific method because it has integrity and has been shown to be reliable and I can investigate the evidence for myself to see that it is true. Can I trust someone without any evidence? Sure, but I would be foolish to do so.

It is in no way blind faith to trust in science, because the scientific method has proven itself to all of us on so many ways we just take it for granted now. The success of the scientific method surrounds you and intimately informs your life in so many ways. You trust it to design a computer chip and a car, to cook your food and keep it fresh, to predict the weather, to take away a headache, to fix your heart and help you live longer. We trust it in all these ways and many more so it is in no way 'blind faith' for even a common person completely ignorant of the scientific method to trust the expertise of scientists when they have no relevant knowledge or qualifications.

But for those who do care to investigate for themselves, science is completely open to changing but only on the basis of reason and solid evidence. People can believe whatever crackpot theories they like but if they have no evidence they should not expect to be taken seriously by anyone with even a shred of rationality.

I trust science because I know if I care enough to look into it myself, I can check out the evidence and propose my own theories. I trust it because I know millions of people have already done these investiagtions many times before, and have come to the same conclusions. If they do not then the theories change and new investigations are carried out, and this process goes on and on until a more and more accurate understanding of reality emerges. We know it is accurate because it has the best and most parsimonious explanatory power and, cucially, because it works. Exactly how is any of this blind faith or zealotry?

Edited August 30, 2012 by chilli

[space cadet swami]

Well articulated chilli, except for your assumptions as to what I do or don't know, or do or don't believe in. My reference to the word faith is in the sense of truth & as I stated earlier "truth is relative". See you assume that I use the word faith as in a religious sense & as the saying goes "assumption is the mother of all fuck ups"...

Science assumes certain things

 

You can continue on with this discourse if you wish, but I don't see the sense myself. You've totally misconstrued what it was that I was trying to convey, as cbl has also. This dialogue was never meant to be about science or religion, but more about truths & belief systems, as this was what the narrator of the 1st video was trying to impart.

Good luck on your journey my friend...

[CβL]

You have assumed I missed what you said, but what actually happened was I disagreed but wasn't quite up to the task of writing a detailed rebuttal.

Your fatal mistake is that while you have identified that truths are relative, you have implicitly assumed that they are all equal. They are not, and far from it. The truths of mathematics and formal logic are absolute for all time in their domains. Their application, to the real world might not be truthful. e.g. a basic population model of growth being proportional to the current population size (dy/dt = ky) results in exponential growth and exponential population levels; the mathematics is entirely sound - but using this example to model a real population is incorrect, as it doesn't take into account finiteness of resources.

A truth such as "the world is flat", arrived by consensus and assumption, is now regarded as completely false but was once a truth. Most of the other truths we have are transitory too. Except not all of them will go out of fashion so quickly. Some can conceivably last until the end of the universe (or the beginning, whichever comes first).

Similarly the 'truths' of religion are at best - not the most applicable to the universe.

[nabraxas]

another example of bias against the christian faith clouding your judgement.

i don't have a bias against the Xtian faith, just some 'so-called' Xtians.

i couldn't care less if JC existed or not.

if he did exist, it still wouldn't make me believe in the Xtian god; but i have no bias against those that choose that path, just as long as they don't try to force their morals on society in general.

[space cadet swami]

You have assumed I missed what you said, but what actually happened was I disagreed but wasn't quite up to the task of writing a detailed rebuttal.

Your fatal mistake is that while you have identified that truths are relative, you have implicitly assumed that they are all equal. They are not, and far from it. The truths of mathematics and formal logic are absolute for all time in their domains. Their application, to the real world might not be truthful. e.g. a basic population model of growth being proportional to the current population size (dy/dt = ky) results in exponential growth and exponential population levels; the mathematics is entirely sound - but using this example to model a real population is incorrect, as it doesn't take into account finiteness of resources.

A truth such as "the world is flat", arrived by consensus and assumption, is now regarded as completely false but was once a truth. Most of the other truths we have are transitory too. Except not all of them will go out of fashion so quickly. Some can conceivably last until the end of the universe (or the beginning, whichever comes first).

Similarly the 'truths' of religion are at best - not the most applicable to the universe.

 

Ok...obviously I'm not doing a very good job at explaining myself if 2 people miss the point.

CBL, the truth I speak of is an individuals truth, as there is no absolute truth. An individuals truth differs from person to person & is subject to that persons experiences & belief system...my apologies for any confusion.

[CβL]

No worries man.

I agree with you there. However there's again the notion of usefulness that comes into it. There's a system of individual beliefs called (strong) solipsism that essentially cannot be argued to be false, but is almost entirely unuseful.

Solipsism (ⁱ/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

To paraphrase it, it's the idea that you're basically in "the matrix", except your mind is the one making the matrix, and you're just travelling around your own mind, interacting with your own mind mimicking the idea of other people. You might never know that if you went round a corner everyone disappears...

It's worthwhile to be familiar with that concept. Now what I'm sort of saying, is that many other individual belief systems are very similar to strong solipsism in that while they might be true to the individual - they are not very useful, even as much of a coping mechanism for fear of death.

[space cadet swami]

^^^ YES...

The narrator in the first video was referencing belief systems & the limitations that they can & do place on the individual. These belief systems create a truth that is relative to the individual & as u say no-one person can truly know another persons truth. Definitely a coping mechanism. Although I wouldn't go as far as to take the egocentric view of "metaphysical solipsism" as stated above, but more regarding the limitations of individual truths. This is a personal process that really is only useful for the individuals personal growth.

Fuckin' Bingo!!!

[SunChaser]

chilli don't forget it was Albert who said, "I refuse to believe that god plays dice with the Universe"

This coming from a man who helped formulate quantum theory. Who himself formulated both the special & general theories of relativity....a religious fanatic..?

 

That very belief is what caused his later work to be considered completely outdated and flawed. He never accepted quantum mechanics and instead preferred a static universe theory.

That’s the difference between science and religion. Our understanding of the scientific method is constantly expanding and advancing, where as religion is static and infallible.

[nabraxas]

where as religion is static and infallible

surely that should read "static & claims to be infallible"?

[chilli]

Well articulated chilli, except for your assumptions as to what I do or don't know, or do or don't believe in. My reference to the word faith is in the sense of truth & as I stated earlier "truth is relative". See you assume that I use the word faith as in a religious sense & as the saying goes "assumption is the mother of all fuck ups"...

You can continue on with this discourse if you wish, but I don't see the sense myself. You've totally misconstrued what it was that I was trying to convey, as cbl has also. This dialogue was never meant to be about science or religion, but more about truths & belief systems, as this was what the narrator of the 1st video was trying to impart.

 

It wasn't an assumption, it was an inference based on what you have said so far. I also don't assume you use the word faith in a religious sense. You said people have blind faith in science and compared my explanation of the scientific method to zealotry and blind religious ignoranc, so it seems like this was precisely the sense in which you were using it.

Now you seem to be equating faith with truth? This seems like an exercise in bizarre equivocation.

I'm fairly certain I understood your points adequately, it is just that it is not a very good argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I think it's silly when people try to dictate what a discussion is 'meant' to be about... you are the one who first mentioned science and compared it to religion! Anyway, Aren't science and religion exactly the kind of topics one would expect in a discussion about truth and belief systems?

[chilli]

surely that should read "static & claims to be infallible"?

 

NO! RELIGION IS INFALLIBLE! HEATHEN!

[qualia]

lies made baby jesus cry

[space cadet swami]

It wasn't an assumption, it was an inference based on what you have said so far.

 

Ahh chilli where would we be without ur scientific rhetoric...

FYI u were the one that 1st referenced biology, not me.

FYI the term zealot was originally a religious group active at the time of jesus, but I was using it in the sense of an extremist.

FYI notice the term "blind religious ignorance" & not "blind religious faith"

Did u even watch the 1st video & listen to what the narrator was talking about..?

Did u even notice that when I referenced jesus I did not write his name starting with a capitol...I thought this might be a giveaway towards my possible religious convictions...which by the way I have none.

Why is it that one brief couple of interactions with CBL & we can acknowledge & grasp each others discourse, but after multiples with you, ur still no closer to understanding that I'm not even talking bout religion or science & the comparative between the 2.

Ur like an ex smoker mate, get off ur high horse...oh mightier then...

Oh and do us a favour, buy a fuckin' dictionary will you.

I have nothing more to say to you on this matter, so if it tickles ur fancy, then continue to try an ellevate ur status by belittling me...

You are the supreme... all hail chilli the reformed religious fanatic.

Grow up, arguing for the sake of an argument accomplishes nothing.

[chilli]

Ahh chilli where would we be without ur scientific rhetoric...

FYI u were the one that 1st referenced biology, not me.

FYI the term zealot was originally a religious group active at the time of jesus, but I was using it in the sense of an extremist.

FYI notice the term "blind religious ignorance" & not "blind religious faith"

Did u even watch the 1st video & listen to what the narrator was talking about..?

Did u even notice that when I referenced jesus I did not write his name starting with a capitol...I thought this might be a giveaway towards my possible religious convictions...which by the way I have none.

Why is it that one brief couple of interactions with CBL & we can acknowledge & grasp each others discourse, but after multiples with you, ur still no closer to understanding that I'm not even talking bout religion or science & the comparative between the 2.

Ur like an ex smoker mate, get off ur high horse...oh mightier then...

Oh and do us a favour, buy a fuckin' dictionary will you.

I have nothing more to say to you on this matter, so if it tickles ur fancy, then continue to try an ellevate ur status by belittling me...

You are the supreme... all hail chilli the reformed religious fanatic.

Grow up, arguing for the sake of an argument accomplishes nothing.

 

I'm not sure why you are so offended, but it's sad you choose to resort to insults instead of interacting with ideas. Look at my second response to you in this thread.. see how I conceded your point and admitted to my ignorance? I was wrong, and I learned something. That is the healthy response when something you said is shown to be wrong, not a torrent of fallacies and childish retorts.

To quote Jesus, I think it would be casting my pearls before swine to attempt tp carry this disucssion any further. Still, I am soooo curious why you think I need a dictionary! What words do you think I don't understand the meaning of?

Edited August 30, 2012 by chilli

[nabraxas]

lies made baby jesus cry

surely that should read "baby Jebus"?

Edited August 30, 2012 by nabraxas

[space cadet swami]

I'm not sure why you are so offended, but it's sad you choose to resort to insults instead of interacting with ideas. Look at my second response to you in this thread.. see how I conceded your point and admitted to my ignorance? I was wrong, and I learned something. That is the healthy response when something you said is shown to be wrong, not a torrent of fallacies and childish retorts.

To quote Jesus, I think it would be casting my pearls before swine to attempt tp carry this disucssion any further. Still, I am soooo curious why you think I need a dictionary! What words do you think I don't understand the meaning of?

 

Ok...for ur sake I'm going to try this again chilli. I apologise if I misunderstood ur rhetoric & took it as an insult on my ability to understand the scientific method. What I was trying to convey was the limitations & restrictions of an individuals truth & belief system. This is what the narrator in the 1st video was predominantly talking about.

The reason I referenced the need for a dictionary was because u misinterpreted the use of certain words I used...as I said for me this conversation is not about religion compared to science...as I stated above. Words can & do have multiple meanings. When I used the term faith, I meant an individuals truth or belief system. When I used the term zealot, I meant it as in zealousness or extremist.

Ok...so u say u "trust" in the method known as science & then state that I obviously don't understand it because of how "you" interpret my words.

You turned this into a science/religion discussion, because of ur truth & belief structure.

I gave u links regarding certain scientists who challenge the fact that Darwins theory of evolution is not complete. Which u did not comment on.

I probably should have gone into more detail with where I was going with questioning science & giving ur power away.

The quote goes "science is the new religion"...http://www.heidegger.org.uk/quotations_heid.htm

As you questioned religion before u chose to move away from it, what I was suggesting was that u/we should question mainstream science, because of mainstream academia being based more on consensus then actuality. Not that I'm saying that this is always the case, but, that it certainly can be & has been in the past.

I did not want to get into a science versus religion debate, as this wasn't what I was trying to convey & in doing so, it moved me further away from what it was, that I was trying to say.

I must say you are very hard to talk with, I get the feeling (I could be wrong) that you are selective with what it is that you want to here. This is not meant as an insult, but you come across as quite extremest with ur ideals regarding science. Are you sure that science isn't your new religion... This is not meant as a question to be answered, but more as a question to ponder on.

Feel free to PM me if you wish & once again I apologise for getting uppety, but I did find it insulting that you assumed to know what I do or don't comprehend, this is very condescending & as you can see is easily interpreted as insulting.

All the best...

Edited August 30, 2012 by space cadet 101

[BentoSpawn]

what do you consider hard evidence? what do you require to make you believe there was a person named jesus of Galilee that once existed?

 

2 or 3 really quality pieces of writing dated from when jesus was alive talking about his doings

[Xenodimensional]

Hory sheet. I'm in a jesus thread.

Science is good, it tells us stuff. It still has trouble coming to grips with some things however (plasma anyone).

As for Mary's magic hymen, Jeebus, Josef and friends. No idea. Incidentally a self proclaimed Jesus reincarnation lives near me. I wanted to challenge him to a Jesus-off.

I have more (self perceived) evidence that there is a higher power that resembles an 8-breasted insectoid crystal cat than I do about old cheesus but maybe I'm just crazy.

Luckily someone has made a pictogram that accurately depicts aspects of my (experiential) belief system. Click the link to see a really high resolution version.

http://zoom.it/kyrZ

Edited September 6, 2012 by Xenodimensional