Religion = Blind Faith ?

[Penumbra]

First of all, anything that can occur is based on laws of nature. So even if scientists cannot currently understand a phenomenon, does not mean they never can.

The issue is that there is very little attention given to eastern religion. There have been some studies involved with Buddhist monks and meditation, but even that has been limited. When something truly phenomenal occurs, it's generally very quickly dismissed by scientists. And when some scientists do try to study a mystical phenomenon, the rest of them immediately dismiss the findings, making some excuses (usually that the people involved are cheating or corrupt, which is a highly unfair and unprofessional assumption).

I've read of some studies on monks. I recall one where they analyzed brain patterns of buddhist monks and catholic nuns when they mediate and pray, respectively, and found similar brain activity.

I think saying that scientists dismiss truly phenomenal things that they find is dishonest. Any genuine scientist would LOVE to find, document, and prove something phenomenal, either for the sheer love of it or even just to make a name for their self.

Another problem we face is that there are a lot of frauds around. So you can go to India, find some levitating yogis, and almost guarantee that they are cheating. But you do also come across instances of mysticism, that I absolutely believe are genuine. But the people who devote their lives to Yogic practice don't tend to show off. You are more likely to find them in caves up in the Himalayas meditating. Some remain in trance states for years without moving, eating, drinking etc.

I think that this is something one has to go see and experience for themselves to believe.

Have you gone and seen them meditating in caves of the Himalayas?

What did you see among them that showed they had something truly phenomenal?

 

[crimsonlung]

No, not since the merger.

The religion still incorporates many parts of the bible in its teachings.

The difference being?

The difference being



I said NON-theistic neopaganism.

So, basically, you're arguing that since religion requires blind faith, religions that don't must not be religions? Do you see the flaw in that?

What I'm saying is, there is a difference in a set of beliefs and a religion. A religion is trying to get you to believe something, a belief is a set guidelines for a common goal.

What reason is there to doubt?

Well, I think its unfair your answering a question with a question, but, there is no proof he existed. My point is, your taking a blind leap into believing such a man existed. I'm not saying its a bad thing, my point here wasn't to admonish the legitimacy of religions, I am saying that a certain amount of faith needs to be invested blindly in order to bring yourself closer to it. If you looked logically at Buddhism, there is a lot of mentioning of Serpents (nāgas), none of those exist today, this is one example, but if you were to pull out every piece that could not be proven, you would not have much of a book at all. So why believe?

Edit:

I know Buddhism doesn't have a centralized book, but I am referring to scriptures.

 

[Penumbra]

Well its not the fact that you will burn or not be considered a part of that religion if you don't believe in something, because as we all know, there are different levels (or rungs) of integrity in religions. You can be the know it all who goes to church 5 times a week Christian or the "I'm only going to church because my wife is dragging me and the kids" Christian. But regardless, you call yourself a Muslim, or a Jew or a Christian for a reason, but how do you know its true?

What religion can you say does not require a leap of faith?

Some religions claim that effects can be seen with practice. So for instance they might argue that a bit of faith may be necessary at first but then overtime their faith will be exchanged with knowledge and experience.

I'd argue that the things they experience are likely not supernatural, but regardless, it shows that faith plays less of a role.

Faith plays a big part in most religions, and I do agree that it's undesirable. The flawed process by which religious people come to what they consider knowledge is more important, in my opinion, than the conclusions they actually come to (at least for the ones of high integrity, to use your phrase.)

But not all religions or religious people have the same degree or level of faith. Some rest on blind faith while others make less errors (though as an atheist I'd argue that they are still likely making errors).

 

[Storm]

The religion still incorporates many parts of the bible in its teachings.

No. We don't.

The difference being

That's not an answer.

I said NON-theistic neopaganism.

No reply to this?

What I'm saying is, there is a difference in a set of beliefs and a religion. A religion is trying to get you to believe something, a belief is a set guidelines for a common goal.

And I'm saying the difference is only in your mind. Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism are all recognized as religions, except by people with an ax to grind.

Well, I think its unfair your answering a question with a question, but, there is no proof he existed. My point is, your taking a blind leap into believing such a man existed. I'm not saying its a bad thing, my point here wasn't to admonish the legitimacy of religions, I am saying that a certain amount of faith needs to be invested blindly in order to bring yourself closer to it. If you looked logically at Buddhism, there is a lot of mentioning of Serpents (nāgas), none of those exist today, this is one example, but if you were to pull out every piece that could not be proven, you would not have much of a book at all. So why believe?

I think I'll let Tathagata handle this bit of nonsense. opcorn:

 

[crimsonlung]

First of all, anything that can occur is based on laws of nature. So even if scientists cannot currently understand a phenomenon, does not mean they never can.

The issue is that there is very little attention given to eastern religion. There have been some studies involved with Buddhist monks and meditation, but even that has been limited. When something truly phenomenal occurs, it's generally very quickly dismissed by scientists. And when some scientists do try to study a mystical phenomenon, the rest of them immediately dismiss the findings, making some excuses (usually that the people involved are cheating or corrupt, which is a highly unfair and unprofessional assumption).

Another problem we face is that there are a lot of frauds around. So you can go to India, find some levitating yogis, and almost guarantee that they are cheating. But you do also come across instances of mysticism, that I absolutely believe are genuine. But the people who devote their lives to Yogic practice don't tend to show off. You are more likely to find them in caves up in the Himalayas meditating. Some remain in trance states for years without moving, eating, drinking etc.

I think that this is something one has to go see and experience for themselves to believe.

Don't you think these people in the Himalayas would be all over TV? With the internet and social media as rampant as ever, don't you think they would at least allow themselves to be seen so that other people can join their religion? Don't you think somebody would of seen something like this and brought it to media attention?

 

[Tathagata]

I know Buddhism doesn't have a centralized book, but I am referring to scriptures.

Well, the centralized book would be the Tipitaka, but then there's the later Mahayana Sutras. You can think of the Tipitaka as the Old Testament and the Mahayana Sutras as the New Testament (without all the doctrinal contradictions).

Well, I think its unfair your answering a question with a question, but, there is no proof he existed. My point is, your taking a blind leap into believing such a man existed. I'm not saying its a bad thing, my point here wasn't to admonish the legitimacy of religions, I am saying that a certain amount of faith needs to be invested blindly in order to bring yourself closer to it. If you looked logically at Buddhism, there is a lot of mentioning of Serpents (nāgas), none of those exist today, this is one example, but if you were to pull out every piece that could not be proven, you would not have much of a book at all. So why believe?

The Nagas is a reference to an extraterrestrial race. How can you say "none of those exist today." Have you searched every planet and concluded that they don't exist? The notion of extraterrestrial life is a notion supported by most scientists and is a very plausible assertion at that.

 

[Madhuri]

I've read of some studies on monks. I recall one where they analyzed brain patterns of buddhist monks and catholic nuns when they mediate and pray, respectively, and found similar brain activity.

I think saying that scientists dismiss truly phenomenal things that they find is dishonest. Any genuine scientist would LOVE to find, document, and prove something phenomenal, either for the sheer love of it or even just to make a name for their self.

Unfortunately, I've come across quite a lot of instances where the scientific community has quickly dismissed studies done by scientists other than themselves. The excuses/reasonings are generally speculative. I've become rather cynical of mainstream scientists as a result.

Have you gone and seen them meditating in caves of the Himalayas?

What did you see among them that showed they had something truly phenomenal?

You weren't supposed to ask me that
No, I haven't. But it is my intention to eventually. I only know people close to me who have been to the amazing places and had amazing experiences.

 

[Penumbra]

Unfortunately, I've come across quite a lot of instances where the scientific community has quickly dismissed studies done by scientists other than themselves. The excuses/reasonings are generally speculative. I've become rather cynical of mainstream scientists as a result.

What examples do you have?

You weren't supposed to ask me that
No, I haven't. But it is my intention to eventually. I only know people close to me who have been to the amazing places and had amazing experiences.

Why is it, do you think, that people with such phenomenal abilities stay hidden?

If they were altruistic, would they not want to share their knowledge and abilities with the world in an undeniable fashion? Aren't they being rather selfish by staying away from sight and focusing on their self?

 

[Madhuri]

Don't you think these people in the Himalayas would be all over TV? With the internet and social media as rampant as ever, don't you think they would at least allow themselves to be seen so that other people can join their religion? Don't you think somebody would of seen something like this and brought it to media attention?

They aren't exactly hidden away.
There are plenty of documentaries regarding mysticism in India and the east in general. There are plenty of claims. But people haven't grabbed onto it. People in the west seem to treat the east as something of lesser importance. I remember in high school, just about every civilisation in history was available for study in Ancient History class. But not India. Never India. There is so little focus on the history and religion of the Indian subcontinent, compared to other places in the world, and I am truly baffled by it.

 

[zenzero]

Friend crimsonlung,

Religion = Blind Faith ?

Firstly one needs to understand that RELIGION is only a PATH or WAY to merging with that entity one has labelled as God or Whole or Brahman or etc.

Since the merging happens only when the MIND is STILL and till the MIND remains active it may or may not require FAITH by the individual to reach to that state of No-Mind or still mind.
Faith is only required by few to allow the mind to have a grip or hold till it is able to release all inhibition to take that jump into No-mind. Others do so through understanding that everything is simply energy one is the universal energy which is there in everything that we see or not see and the individual is the individual energy and merging of the two energies is what religion as a way takes the individual towards.

Love & rgds

 

[crimsonlung]

And I'm saying the difference is only in your mind. Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism are all recognized as religions, except by people with an ax to grind.
:

Your saying recognized as a religion, who is recognizing this? I google up Taoism and the first sentence I see "philosophical and religious traditions," a tradition, which relates more to a belief than a religion. And results under that see it as a "Philosophical interpretation on life" which sounds fairly accurate.

 

[Storm]

Your saying recognized as a religion, who is recognizing this? I google up Taoism and the first sentence I see "philosophical and religious traditions," a tradition, which relates more to a belief than a religion. And results under that see it as a "Philosophical interpretation on life" which sounds fairly accurate.

Well, if the internet says so, it must be true!

 

[Tathagata]

Your saying recognized as a religion, who is recognizing this? I google up Taoism and the first sentence I see "philosophical and religious traditions," a tradition, which relates more to a belief than a religion.

I still don't understand your distinction between "belief" and "religion." Is religion not a belief?

 

[crimsonlung]

That doesn't make sense. How does Taoism being a belief separate it from religion? Religion IS a belief.

Taoism doesn't have a book that everyone follows, in fact, most Taoist associate themselves with other religions like Buddhism.

How can Theistic Neopaganism be considered in the same category as Taoism? I can see how Taoism can be considered a philosophy as opposed to a religion, but Theistic Paganism still involves the supernatural as well as gods, Taoism has neither.

I dont really know too much about this religion, but I was thinking nontheistic, my apologies on this.

How do you know any historical figure exists? There's manuscripts written about his life, tracings of his presence in the actual locations where he resided and traveled, the same evidence as any historical figure.

I know historical figures exist because we have a general understanding they exist. There is libraries that have books about their lives. But you will have to be specific as to which Historical figures. Do you mean George Washington? We have his bones and there is no real point in feigning his existance. Christopher Columbus may never of existed, we cant prove that, but he also didn't part an ocean or live with Serpents. If there was a story about him that seemed far fetched I wouldn't believe it.

Its just odd that with new technologies and methods of communication and historical interrogation that are popping up today that more people are questioning religion. Coincidence?

 

[Madhuri]

What examples do you have?

Child reincarnation claims or the guy who was studied for not eating of drinking. The Tibetan boy would was meditating for days on end and watched by large groups of people (and the video of him sitting in the fire without burning).

That's off the top of my head, and yes, I've read the arguments from the sceptics. With a lot of these claims, I'm also somewhat sceptical. But I don't appreciate many of the opposing arguments. For instance, the man who was not eating or drinking. The main arguments I was hearing were 1) he was allowed to wash his face once a day (or something like that) so he probably got water in his mouth and 2) the people studying him were probably biased and fraudulent.

Arguments against the kids with reincarnation claims: Some of them are liars, so they must all be. OR. This couldn't possibly be real. They must all be liars. Their parents too. DISMISSED

Arguments against the boy who meditated for days and sat in fire: That's physically impossible. It must be a scam. Here are a list of possible ways he got around being watched and burned.

Sure, they could be right in all instances. But it's still highly speculative. Nobody seems to go out of their way to show that these people actually are frauds and scammers. It's so much easier to say that it's physically impossible and move on.

Why is it, do you think, that people with such phenomenal abilities stay hidden?

If they were altruistic, would they not want to share their knowledge and abilities with the world in an undeniable fashion? Aren't they being rather selfish by staying away from sight and focusing on their self?

I know I wouldn't. Can you imagine being the world's freak to poke and prod and never be left alone? Can you imagine the negative attention from sceptics and religious people who think you are Satan's creature? A person who dedicates his life to spiritual practice does not want that kind of distraction and hassle. But he does teach his methods and share his wisdom with pupils who are truly interested in following the same path.

 

[crimsonlung]

Well, if the internet says so, it must be true!

Thats not what I'm saying and you know it, its a general interpretation, your on the internet telling me that Taoism is a religion, so I better not believe that either.

 

[Storm]

Thats not what I'm saying and you know it, its a general interpretation, your on the internet telling me that Taoism is a religion, so I better not believe that either.

No. You shouldn't believe it just because I say so. You should believe it because those who understand it better than either of us say so.

I notice you dodged most of my points.

 

[crimsonlung]

No. You shouldn't believe it just because I say so. You should believe it because those who understand it better than either of us say so.

I notice you dodged most of my points.

Sorry if it seems that way, I thought I answered them in other posts, can you please tell me which questions I dodged.

 

[Storm]

Sorry if it seems that way, I thought I answered them in other posts, can you please tell me which questions I dodged.

The denial of UU as a branch of Christianity, primarily. I still maintain that my religion requires no blind faith.

 

[Penumbra]

Child reincarnation claims or the guy who was studied for not eating of drinking. The Tibetan boy would was meditating for days on end and watched by large groups of people (and the video of him sitting in the fire without burning).

That's off the top of my head, and yes, I've read the arguments from the sceptics. With a lot of these claims, I'm also somewhat sceptical. But I don't appreciate many of the opposing arguments. For instance, the man who was not eating or drinking. The main arguments I was hearing were 1) he was allowed to wash his face once a day (or something like that) so he probably got water in his mouth and 2) the people studying him were probably biased and fraudulent.

Arguments against the kids with reincarnation claims: Some of them are liars, so they must all be. OR. This couldn't possibly be real. They must all be liars. Their parents too. DISMISSED

Arguments against the boy who meditated for days and sat in fire: That's physically impossible. It must be a scam. Here are a list of possible ways he got around being watched and burned.

Sure, they could be right in all instances. But it's still highly speculative. Nobody seems to go out of their way to show that these people actually are frauds and scammers. It's so much easier to say that it's physically impossible and move on.

Part of the reason is that a lot of them don't want to be studied.

The kid that meditates in front of large groups of people has bodyguards that won't let cameras get too close. The Discovery Channel could only film from a distance and so things were not conclusive. That's the fault of the people that affiliate with the boy rather than the Discovery Channel camera people.

I do remember seeing the guy that went without eating and drinking for a while. The thing is, though, that experiments are repeatable. If something is truly phenomenal, hard proof is required. If different groups of scientists can study him or others like him and come to similar results, then they'd be onto something...

Lots of people claim stuff, whether it's past lives or seeing Jesus in a near death experience or being able to go without eating or whatever. For thousands of years people have been making claims like that, in both religions that are still around and religions that have passed away. With such a shaky track record of falsities, things that truly stand out need to be carefully studied, repeated, and proven before being labeled as something that truly astounds modern conceptions of physics.

I know I wouldn't. Can you imagine being the world's freak to poke and prod and never be left alone? Can you imagine the negative attention from sceptics and religious people who think you are Satan's creature? A person who dedicates his life to spiritual practice does not want that kind of distraction and hassle. But he does teach his methods and share his wisdom with pupils who are truly interested in following the same path.

I guess if I was that advanced, then other people's perceptions of me wouldn't bother me.

If I had some ability that totally astounds modern conceptions of physics, I would share it so that it can be helpful to the world.