Creation >> DNA Code

[Nicolas]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Oh, and if I'm wrong and you really do know beyond all doubt, please show me the evidence. I really do want to know.

I don't know i'm done with this trhead.
If you want search in google 'Jesus saved me from', judge yourself if all those people are liers or are telling an experience.
A person testimony do not count anymore these days??

The theory is that for now, there is no explaining of the mechanism or how it works, also contradict something that crash with my head, chaos will continue like that and not transform in a complex system so well defined, i don't know. Man sent a rocket to the moon, oh good, world transformed itself from a cloud to what it is now, oh well.

[Sailor Steve]

A great many different people give "testimony" about a great many different things, many of them contradictory. Is the Christian's testimony more valid than the Muslim's? In a trial a person's testimony is about what he saw happen, when it is confirmed something actually happened, and is invalid without concrete evidence. Ten people swearing they saw Joe murder Bob is on enough to convict Joe if there is no body, and no other evidence that Bob is even dead. Perhaps Bob went into hiding. Perhaps Bob framed Joe. Perhaps Joe is very good at it. In the end, many accused criminals have gotten off for that very reason.

So no, testimony without concrete evidence is worthless. Maybe some are lying, maybe to themselves. More likely is that people assign motives to happenings that are really random chance. Without any real evidence it's kind of hard to tell

As I've said, I used to believe strongly, then began to see that happenings I attributed to Divine intervention were just as likely to be lucky accidents. I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying I don't know, and from what I can tell neither do you, or anyone else. Believing is fine for you, but I need some real evidence.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

testimony without concrete evidence is worthless.

Worthless maybe to you Steve. People have been convicted of crimes on eye witness testimony alone many times.

Maybe some are lying, maybe to themselves. More likely is that people assign motives to happenings that are really random chance. Without any real evidence it's kind of hard to tell

and

Believing is fine for you, but I need some real evidence.

Then why bother asking believers to try and explain their beliefs to you at all? If you're really not going to accept anything but hard evidence of Gods existence anyways then you're just toying with us and wasting our time. So you go ahead and believe what you want and we'll go ahead and believe what we want and then we'll all see who was closer to being right when we die.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Nicolas

The theory is that for now, there is no explaining of the mechanism or how it works, also contradict something that crash with my head, chaos will continue like that and not transform in a complex system so well defined, i don't know. Man sent a rocket to the moon, oh good, world transformed itself from a cloud to what it is now, oh well.

Just because man can't fully explain something (yet), doesn't mean that God
did it.

Richard Dawkins' youtube channel has many great videos about evolution,
as well as debates between evolutionists and creationists, you can check them out here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet

The debates especially are great to watch because you get both sides' view
of things.

EDIT: Actually, the debates aren't on RD's channel, but you can find them on YT easily.

[Nicolas]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Just because man can't fully explain something (yet), doesn't mean that God
did it.

If i don't understand something then God did it? You say that not me.

[antikristuseke]

No, he said the exact opposite.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Then why bother asking believers to try and explain their beliefs to you at all? If you're really not going to accept anything but hard evidence of Gods existence anyways then you're just toying with us and wasting our time. So you go ahead and believe what you want and we'll go ahead and believe what we want and then we'll all see who was closer to being right when we die.

Toying? I only ask this of those who ask me to believe. I still have Christian friends, and I don't talk to them about it at all, unless they bring it up first. And I don't bring it up here, unless someone else brings it up first. Nicolas started this thread with a very strange claim, and anyone is welcome to answer.

Toying with us? I thought you weren't a believer. As to your last comment, it's not about seeing who is right. I've also said that I wish I could believe. That's not a challenge. All I'm asking for is a concrete reason to. You seem to believe that I want to prove someone's faith wrong. I don't. I just want some real answers, and no one seems to have them.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Nicolas

If i don't understand something then God did it? You say that not me.

He means that just because you cannot explain a phenomenon, or your knowledge is limited, this does not allow a conclusion that a deity has done it.

It simply is something that you do not know.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I thought you weren't a believer.

Oh I am a believer in God, i'm just not religious.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

All I'm asking for is a concrete reason to. You seem to believe that I want to prove someone's faith wrong. I don't. I just want some real answers, and no one seems to have them.

Answers to questions that man has pondered since the dawn of time? That's what makes me wonder about your questions. You could hardly have expected an answer here at Subsim of all places.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Answers to questions that man has pondered since the dawn of time? That's what makes me wonder about your questions. You could hardly have expected an answer here at Subsim of all places.

As I've said ad infinitum, I only say that to people who claim to have answers. If they truly know something is factual, then they should be able to provide the evidence requested. I don't claim to know the answers, and I don't think they do either. It's only when they claim they do that I start asking.

[Skybird]

"Variablenkontrolle" is a term repeatedly coming to my mind when reading this thread.

"Intermittierende Variable" and "Falsification of alternate explanations" were two more.

[Platapus]

Theists and non-theists will always have a hard time discussing this issue because they approach it from different viewpoints.

The theist has an apriori belief that there is a god and asks for proof that there is no god. Lacking any proof that there is no god, leads the theist to believe that their original position (there is a god) is true.

The non-theist has an apriori belief that there is no god and asks for proof that there is a god. Lacking any proof that there is a god, leads the non-theist to believe that their original position (there is no god) is true.

Each side treats the lack of contrary proof as evidence that supports their belief position. And that is simply not logical. But it does illustrate some of the difficulty that theists and non-theists have in discussing this issue.

[Skybird]

I think atheism is more precisely described not as an existing quality (believing that there are no deities), but a simple absence of something (namely the absence of the belief in theistic conceptions). This may sound like just a small and unimportant difference, but it isn't - it is paramount. Seeing atheism as just another belief like any theistic belief, always was absurd to me. The people I learned to be atheists in my life all aimed at saying something like I do: believing in deities does not compensate for lacking knowledge on the origin and essence of things, since it is just a belief, making it a "joker" that is played when one lacks the correct card and thast claims to represent knowledge that in fact is not there. Thus, theistic belief has no explanatory value. From all people I knew in my life being atheists, this describes best their - and mine - attitude. And thus we do not like to be seen as believers of atheist-something. What characterises us is that we accept to not know everything, and that we refuse to simply believe something in place. What we do hope, though, is that with time moving on we - and man - step by step learn a little bit more. What we just believe to know, is not knowledge but is still just this: belief.

Maybe even a theistic believer can see by this explanation why to us there is no need to believe in deities. It would do nothing for us, give no credible answers, does not increase our proven knowledge, gives us no peace of mind, no contented heart.

Most atheists simply do not actively care for existential questions (though I am sure this is only possible to a certain, individual degree), or they learn to accept and live with the existential uncertainty and possible discomfort that results from that we do not know everything.

It is possible, though, that there may be movements by atheists that actively campaign, pretty much the same like relgious extremists do, and that such "atheists" display their thoughts in a messiianic attitude. This seems to be more a probklem in the Us than in Germany or Europe, if I may trust the media. In Germany for example I am not even aware of any such movement. In America it may result from the fact that relgious groups press with much more furor into the public space and try to influence legislation and education curricula with their dogma. Just think of creationism versus evolution, abortion versus feminism, etc. Where there is pressure implied by the relgious groups, there forms counterpressure by those not wanting to be limited by the dogmas of the religious that they do not believe in.

It'S also worth to remind of that atheists must not be areligious. They can, but must not be uncaring for relgious questions, and also there are atheist religions as a matter of fact: Buddhism for example. Originally, Buddhism does not know of deities and gods, and it is kept like this in the essential traditions that base on the ancient Chinese schools that were called Ch'an. The Tibetans on the other hand implemented a whole Olymp of dhakas and dhakinis that should represent impersonifications of various abstract positive and negative qualities, whether that is symbolism only or not I never really figured out - what I do not like about it is that it made a whole people of simple farmers focussing on these personal realisations, comparable to Christian angels and Catholic saints, spending their time with rites and rituals then. This is not what Buddha's teaching is about, this is not the path to realise your mind. I'm very much with the ancient Ch'an patriarchs there. They were very clear about the value of such ritualised stuff, often finding extremely harsh words for it.

I think that any mind that has sufficient awareness to realise its own mortality, necessarily asks the exitential questions, in any form and way, depending on the quality and freedom it's own self-awareness and self-reflection is capable of: where do I come from, where do I go, how much time do I have, why is all this? This is what I call spirituality, where I use the term religion for petrified dogmas of institutionalised religious clubs mostly: that'S why I differ between the teaching of Jesus or Buddha (spirituality) and church/dogma (religion). Fundamentalism emerges where the dogma is being taken literally and is spread fanatically with missionary attitude. Thus, to me spirituality and religion are antagonistic concepts/terms. The more spiritual you are, the less religious you are, the less in line with the dogma you are. The more religious you are, the more you believe, the less spiritual you can be. Spirituality needs freedom. religion wants to take your freedom. Both Buddha and Jesus suffered a fate of that their followers for the most turned them into institutions, transforming a spiritual message into a religious dogma. This was to corrupt power for themselves and to reserve rights for their priviliges and their power over the masses.

Considering this all together, there is no contradiction in saying that I describe myself as a spiritual atheist. And the atheist people I knew in my life, all more or less went along this road, too. We do not actively believe in a special concept like "atheism" or "no-God". Leave it to say that we refuse to just believe theistic tales. That is what Steve means, I assume, when he says: give me evidence. And once there is evidence, you are not left to just needing to believe something anymore - if you have evidence, then you KNOW. The God you just believe in, is just an imagined God. He dies, when you die. In other words: he never was.

And when others claim to know and to be enlightened - of what value could their "success" be for you? Does it make yourself enlightened, too? More likely that it makes your purse lighter, and your will less free, and your mind less able to ask questions.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

We do not actively believe in a special concept like "atheism" or "no-God". Leave it to say that we refuse to just believe theistic tales. That is what Steve means, I assume, when he says: give me evidence. And once there is evidence, you are not left to just needing to believe something anymore - if you have evidence, then you KNOW. The God you just believe in, is just an imagined God. He dies, when you die. In other words: he never was.

In one paragraph you go from not having enough evidence to make a determination to telling others that their beliefs are crap. Sounds like you've made a determination to me. Maybe is why people don't tend to like atheists very much.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

In one paragraph you go from not having enough evidence to make a determination to telling others that their beliefs are crap. Sounds like you've made a determination to me. Maybe is why people don't tend to like atheists very much.

Not in my little part of the world.

However, my argument that you just quoted is different. And now while I need the right word and it is on my tongue, I cannot name it. What I mean is that there is a difference in knowing about for example the deity to trust in, or just assuming it is there. It is a methodological argument - wrong word, I struggle to get the right one - it is no theologicla argument in this context where you quote me. It is like with a signer. He has an individual voice, that makes him unique. He learns to sing, and use his voice. The voice is in the world, he gets recognised by it. Then he dies, and his voice along with him. His voice, his singing is no more. You could as well say: the thoughts of a person die along with that person'S death. A thought-out God (or maybe better zusing: imagined God) is just a thoiught God, and dies when the mind thinking the thought dies.

There is a reason why it probably is wise to refuse that the Divine, the Essence, the creating God as you would prefer to call "it", the Tao, can be given a name. A name is a label by which you identitfy something. It often represents a conceptions, an idea - your idea. By calling God "God" you already have unavoidably connected the object of your adress with your conceptiuon of what it is. But do you really think that this "IT" bows to the conceptions of human ideas, and that man is given the power to submit the Divine to his own thinking by giving it names? The sixth patricach of Ch'an is said to have been struck by sudden enlightening. The first thing he did, weas running into the library of the monastery where he stayed, and burn it down, together with all scriptures there were. Because all those theological disputes, wise thoughts, those many intellectual theories anc ocnpetions - just mislead you, let you go missing in the realm of ideas and images and theories about what the Divine, what God is. But you cannot name God. The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao, the name that can be given is not the image of the eternal. The only thing you can do is: saying what it is NOT. And it is noth everything you could ever say and think and imagine.

That's why said Ch'an patriarch said: "The spirit is of shining clarity, so throw away the darkness of all your terms.Free yourself from everything." Every idea. Every image. Every theory. Every conception. Every name. It is anything but a mere call to avoid responsibility! It is a call for realising that there is nothing to be realised, for "it" all is already there. There is nothing to gain. What is needed is to go beyond belief. Beyond the symbol. For as they say in Zen: the finger pointing to the moon, is not the moon.

Some quotes, since I do have them at hand, on my HD, from an essay I wrote some years ago. It'S just paste&copy for me. It'S so helpful to have plenty of stockpiled ammunition!

Note that they do not have any content that tells you to believe anything, or that want to convince you of something.
I give them for illustration only, they do not offer me the option to missionise you or somebody else. I just think they may be helpful to illustrate what I am after.
No claims are raised by these quotes that you should believe, so they must not give evidence for anything. The only question is whether or not they make sense to you, or not. To me, they do. (All my own translations from the German).

---

While he entered the assembly hall, master Huang-Po said: ***8220;The possession of many kinds of knowledge does not compare to giving up searching for them ***8211; that is the best of all things. There are no different kinds of mind, and there are no teachings that could be expressed in words. Since there is nothing more to say, the assembly is closed.***8220; - Huang Po

---

We read in the holy Gospel that our Lord went into the temple and began to throw out those who bought and sold there.(***8230 He unambiguously gives to understand that he wants to see the temple pure and unsullied. He declares: ***8220;I have a right on this temple, and I alone shall rule in it!***8221;
Now, what is this temple, where God wants to have all rule and power to His own will? That is man***8217;s ***8220;soul***8221;, which he formed and created to His own image. (***8230 Therefore, for this reason God wants to see His temple pure, so that nothing else shall be in it than He alone.(***8230
So there was no one else left inside of it than Jesus alone, and now he starts to speak inside this temple of the soul. But if someone else wants to speak in this temple, He falls silent, because the soul has foreign guests. If Jesus shall speak inside the soul, soul must be silent and all alone, shall it be able to listen to him. - Meister Eckhart: Intravit Jesus in templum et coepit eicere vendentes et ementes. Matthei 21,12

---

There exists only one spirit and not a single particle of something different to which one could cling to. Because this spirit is Buddha-nature. If you students that you are on the search, can not awake to this substance of spirit, then you will overlay the spirit with conceptual, abstract thinking, search for Buddha outside of yourself, and you will stay bound to external form, religious exercises and more things that are only harmful and are not the way of highest insight. [***8230;] Even the smallest thought of clinging to this or that, already creates imaginary symbols that lead you back into diverse rebirths.***8221; Huang Po

---

The law of Buddha does not need endeavours. It consists of the ordinary life and has no goal: to **** and to piss, getting dressed, eating and sleeping when one is tired. The simple-minded may laugh about me ***8211; the wise know about it. [***8230;] My friends, I tell you: there is no Buddha, no teaching, no training, and no insight. What are you chasing for so bitterly? Do you want to put a second head on top of your own, you blind idiots? Your head is exactly where it should be. What are you missing, then?***8221; (Lin-Chi)

---

If you meet Buddha, kill Buddha. - Buddhist saying

---

Do not put faith in traditions, even though they have been accepted for long generations and in many countries. Do not believe a thing because many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on the authority of one or another of the sages of old, nor on the ground of statements as found in the books. Never believe anything because probability is in its favour. Do not believe in that which you yourselves have imagined, thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe nothing merely on the authority of the teachers or the priests. After examination, believe that which you have tested for yourself and found reasonable, which is in conformity with your well being and that of others. - Kalamas Sutra

---

Master Jui-yen, while sitting at his desk, let the monks wait for a while, and then spoke: ***8220;I must admit that I do not have anything special. But if you have come here anyway just to listen to my voice and follow my explanations, then it would be so much better to go back into the great hall and warm yourself at the fire. Oh monks, good night!***8221;

---

From the TaoTeking, these two, my (scanty) translation into English from a version I once translated and reworked myself into German:

The One Essence that could be known,
Is not the Essence of the Unknowable.
The idea that could be imagined,
Is not the image of the Eternal.
Nameless is the all-One, is inner essence.
Known by names is the all-Many, is outer form.
Resting without desires means to learn the invisible inside.
Acting with desires means to stay by the limited outside.
All-the-One and all-the-Many are of the same origin,
Different only in appearance and name.
What they have in common is the wonder of being.
The secret of this wonder
Is the gate to all understanding
- verse 1

One who thinks: Beauty, by that causes: Ugliness.
One who thinks: Good, by that causes: Evil.
Being and Non-Being are contingent upon each other.
Difficult and Easy are contingent upon each other.
High and Low are contingent upon each other.
Loud and Quiet are contingent upon each other.
Now and Then are contingent upon each other.
Therefore the wise man:
He let***8217;s himself cause, without wanting to do,
And lives, without wanting to name the many things.
Innumerable forms rise from the void,
But he lets them, and does not attach himself to them.
Creating, without wanting to possess,
Living, without clinging to life,
Causing, without dwelling on it.
Because he does not attach himself to it,
He suffers no loss.***8221;
- verse 2

---

And in German, (becasue I messed up the translation into English, I fear, it sounds horrible):
Darum, ich bin die Ursache meiner selbst meinem Sein nach, das ewig ist, nicht aber meinem Werden nach, das zeitlich ist. Und darum bin ich ungeboren, und nach der Weise meiner Ungeborenheit kann ich niemals sterben. Nach der Weise meiner Ungeborenheit bin ich ewig gewe-sen und bin ich jetzt und werde ewiglich bleiben. Was ich meiner Geborenheit nach bin, das wird sterben und zunichte werden, denn es ist sterblich; darum muß es mit der Zeit verderben. - Meister Eckhart: Traktate
---