• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

godnotgod

Thou art That
That's is because the modern man did not have the education to understand what was written. Your also talking about barbaric times.

today that is non sequitur

That's a ridiculous argument: fact is that Jesus spoke directly to the common man because he knew they understood what the educated could not. Shows how little you understand. Spirituality is not understood via education; it is transcendent of education.

Could you even make a sentence that is half coherent ????

Do you have any credible sources to go with these conspiracy type of unsubstantiated opinions?

It's common knowledge. Perhaps you need education to bring you up to speed.

I HATE SCIENCE AND EDUCATION would save bandwidth.

Just because science doesn't actually know what Quantum physics IS does not mean I hate science and education. But it is precisely BECAUSE of science and education that scientists, while they have a ****load of facts, still have not pierced into the true nature of Reality.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
I have, and you refused it all.

End of discussion.

Refused what? You haven't presented anything except conjecture. If you mean one small farm house, that does not constitute a town. The coin and pottery sherd arguments are BOGUS, as proven by Salm. A century of real archaeologists working the area did not detect either. All of a sudden, CHRISTIAN researchers (who aren't archaeologists) conveniently 'discover' sherds strewn across the TOP LAYER of the dig site and '1st century' coins. Three strikes. What else ya got?

You want to end the 'discussion' because you have zero credible content to present. You keep saying you have evidence, but then present nothing worth presenting.

Tell ya what: you go to Salm's site that I linked you to, and quote some of his arguments, and then pick them apart, OK? You won't because you can't.


Its exactly like debating evolution with YEC. The methodology is the same here. Historically uneducated people with uneducated sources arguing against all of academia as a conspiracy theory o_O

The only YEC-like argument here that resembles a consipiracy theory is that a 1st Century Nazareth existed, when there is no credible hard evidence of such a place. Your logic is flawed: YEC arguments are based on religious doctrine; Salm bases his on facts, something you should like, as you keep touting 'science and education', but then turn around and ignore when they are used to disprove your empty claims.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Physicists have no clue about quantum theory?

They have no clue about what Quantum findings point to. That is why paradox is the result. They continue to nibble around the edges of Reality.

If that's true (despite the fact that physicists came up with it in the first place),

The REALITY of the universe that Quantum theory points to was in place long, long before any scientist 'discovered' anything about it. Mystics, OTOH, have told us about it for centuries.

then nobody whatsoever has any business talking about it.

Unless you know what you're talking about.

But there are a lot of New Agers who like to bring up "quantum physics" to lend credence to various wild claims, regardless of whether what they're saying actually has anything to do with quantum theory or physics in general.

No one is saying anything about New Agers. But we do have bona fide researchers such as Sir Roger Penrose, Fritjof Capra, John Hagelin, Amit Goswami, Deepak Chopra (yep), Stuart Hameroff, and many, many others who have seen beyond the standard scientific view.


And why would one want to appeal to a scientific theory like quantum mechanics in support of a mystical theory anyway? Especially if one's attitude towards science is so dismissive?

I, like all mystics, accept science, but science, while a wonderful tool, is not the right tool as a means of understanding the true nature of Reality. But that is not my point, which is simply that science wants to exclusively own the knowledge it has about Quantum physics, claiming one needs special education in order to understand it, when they themselves are perplexed about their own findings. IOW, knowledge is not understanding. OTOH, the mystic gains understanding first, through which he understands the facts. Science has things backwards. You cannot get the music by dismantling the piano. Scientific fact can only be understood in light of Reality itself.


There is no jealousy or ferociousness, just a bunch of people who've done a lot of work on the subject shaking their heads and sighing to themselves as people who've put in zero work come along and think they know everything. It's something every scholar has to deal with. And yes, sometimes they might speak up and say, "No, that's not actually what this is about. Stop actively misleading people." But it's a catch-22, since pointing out that people don't know what they're talking about is just going to get you accusations of being part of a vast conspiracy to monopolize knowledge and cover up the truth.

I disagree. This is a hot issue between mystics and maverick scientists who have broken with the old paradigm, and those who continue to cling to it. For example, Deepak Chopra debates Richard Dawkins (in English w/some Spanish):


And no, mainstream archaeology isn't governed by religious beliefs or institutions. It's dominated by public research universities, and the practice of taking literary evidence as the basis for the archaeological record went out of fashion many decades ago. And the archaeologists I know aren't exactly the sort to take even the Bible at face value. Using it in isolation as evidence for much of anything would get one laughed out of a conference.

The Nazareth dig sites are run by CATHOLIC archaeologists who have agendas. Besides, Big $$$ is involved. See here:

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
The only YEC-like argument here that resembles a consipiracy theory is that a 1st Century Nazareth existed

ALL of academia and all of those with REAL education on this topic, ALL find enough evidence to claim without a doubt this small village existed.


Your the one bring conspiracy methodology by using unsubstantiated sources.

Like YEC fighting evolution, your going up against education and knowledge with hands over your ears and eyes.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
ALL of academia and all of those with REAL education on this topic, ALL find enough evidence to claim without a doubt this small village existed.


Your the one bring conspiracy methodology by using unsubstantiated sources.

Like YEC fighting evolution, your going up against education and knowledge with hands over your ears and eyes.

So why can't you present some actual evidence to support a 1st Century Nazareth? So far, all you've said is: farm house, coins, pottery, the first of which is far far short of constituting a town, and the rest proven bogus. Now c'mon. Produce or get off the pot.
 

Vishvavajra

Active Member
I'm not particularly fond of Dawkins as a personality, but he ran circles around Chopra in that debate. Chopra's method of thinking is entirely backwards; he starts with his conclusion and then redefines terms until he forces all the evidence to fit it. Dawkins is frequently an ***, but in this case he was getting frustrated for very good reasons: he was trying to have a logical debate with someone who refuses to define his terms and instead insists on keeping his language fuzzy so that he can equivocate at will.

If you have to redefine "consciousness" as "the ability to react to things," then "consciousness" has been reduced to a meaningless term. But that's what Chopra has to do in order to support his view that everything is conscious. So then atoms and I guess even electrons are conscious. But that reduces consciousness to meaninglessness; it only sounds good because it seems very appealing to think of the entire cosmos as being basically like us on an elemental level. But that's nothing more than a conceptual model; it's not an objective statement about the cosmos and shouldn't be mistaken for one.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
I'm not particularly fond of Dawkins as a personality, but he ran circles around Chopra in that debate. Chopra's method of thinking is entirely backwards; he starts with his conclusion and then redefines terms until he forces all the evidence to fit it. Dawkins is frequently an ***, but in this case he was getting frustrated for very good reasons: he was trying to have a logical debate with someone who refuses to define his terms and instead insists on keeping his language fuzzy so that he can equivocate at will.

If you have to redefine "consciousness" as "the ability to react to things," then "consciousness" has been reduced to a meaningless term. But that's what Chopra has to do in order to support his view that everything is conscious. So then atoms and I guess even electrons are conscious. But that reduces consciousness to meaninglessness; it only sounds good because it seems very appealing to think of the entire cosmos as being basically like us on an elemental level. But that's nothing more than a conceptual model; it's not an objective statement about the cosmos and shouldn't be mistaken for one.

Funny, my take is that Chopra ran circles around Dawkins, and that is why Dawkins was always on the defensive. The primary issue here was whether the universe is conscious or not. Dawkins makes the fatal error in logic when he insists that things IN the universe are conscious, but the universe ITSELF is not, failing to realize that the universe IS those very things. The universe is not a vessel that CONTAINS conscious things; it IS those conscious 'things'.

"The universe IS the [conscious] Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'

Vivekenanda

As for conscious atoms, the physicist Freeman Dyson says as much. This is the physicist Chopra was referring to in the debate, to which Dawkiins came unglued:


“It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.”

Freeman Dyson

If you don't think the universe is conscious, then tell me where consciousness leaves off and the un-conscious universe begins.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
If you have to redefine "consciousness" as "the ability to react to things," then "consciousness" has been reduced to a meaningless term.

Only if you have predefined consciousness as brain dependent. It isn't. The brain is consciousness dependent. If you think consciousness is brain dependent, then explain how non material consciousness emerges from the material brain.


The 'ability to react to things' ie; stimuli, is dependent upon first SEEING those things. It is SEEING, without thought, that is consciousness. IOW, consciousness is a form of knowledge, or rather, knowing, beyond the spheres of Reason, Logic, or Analysis. It SEES rather than THINKS. And because it SEES, it has the ability to react, whereas THINKING takes time and therefore creates a delay in reaction. Ask any accomplished martial artist, where delay can be a matter of life or death.
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
C'mon outhouse: you can do better than that.

Ill argue with Rene himself over his work, his minions are not worth the time.

But ill tell you this. We go to Professors and Scholars for historical information, not hack job clowns with no education and no experience what so ever! other then tearing someone else's work down they know little about. Much like YEC try and tear down evidence to evolution.

Find me someone educated besides Price and Neil, that makes this claim, because even Carrier has stated in emails he thinks it was there.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
What's funny is how they ran Salm out the last forum he tried to frequent. He could not even stand up to amateur's questions, and when the scholars got into him, he tucked tail and ran.

You have not been around this scene long enough, nor hung out where these people frequent.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
We go to Professors and Scholars for historical information, not hack job clowns with no education and no experience what so ever! other then tearing someone else's work down they know little about. Much like YEC try and tear down evidence to evolution.

.

You continue to use flawed logic in comparing YEC to Salm. There is no analogy here. YEC has a RELIGIOUS agenda; the Catholic archaeologists on the Nazareth dig site have RELIGIOUS agendas; Salm has no such agenda. In fact, he has no archaeology credentials nor religious doctrines he needs to defend. He's just using simple logic to poke holes into the paradigm that everyone has accepted as true for centuries.
 
Top