# Religion - first part of "Zeitgeist": The greatest story ever told



## min0 lee (Jan 28, 2012)

The Greatest Story Ever Told - Part 1 of 3






YouTube Video











The Greatest Story Ever Told - Part 2 of 3







YouTube Video












The Greatest Story Ever Told - Part 3 of 3







YouTube Video


----------



## Imosted (Jan 28, 2012)

Bible and all other religious books are  good written *fables.*


----------



## Ichigo (Jan 28, 2012)

^^FABLES^^ 

I always say this very thing, jesus never ever existed! That's why i walked away from that bullshit religion christianty.


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 28, 2012)

Ichigo said:


> ^^FABLES^^
> 
> I always say this very thing, jesus never ever existed! That's why i walked away from that bullshit religion christianty.



I don't think you can conclusively say that he didn't exist. Over time, the myth just transcended the actual man.


----------



## OfficerFarva (Jan 28, 2012)

YouTube Video


----------



## BillHicksFan (Jan 28, 2012)

Just to be fair I thought I'd post.


Zeitgeist: The Movie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*Regarding the origins of Christianity*

"Skeptic magazine's Tim Callahan criticizing the first part of the film (on the origins of Christianity) wrote that "some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberally — and sloppily — mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus. […] Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids."[28]

Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, severely criticized Part I of the movie, asserting that it has no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, and that it relies on amateur sources that recycle frivolous ideas from one another, rather than serious academic sources, commenting, "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."[29] Similar conclusions were reached by Dr. Mark Foreman of Liberty University.[30]

Acharya S (aka D.M. Murdock), a source and consultant on the the film, responded to Callahan's critique[31] (to which Callahan responded[32]), and also rebutted Forbes' statements insisting that the primary sources used in her research support the ideas in her writings.[33]"

Zeitgeist: The Movie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Carl touches on the the history of Christianity [among other things] in this interview. It makes me sad when I watch this, but also very greatfull that he graced this planet in the era that would have suited him the most, the dawn of space travel.






YouTube Video
















YouTube Video
















YouTube Video


----------



## Ichigo (Jan 28, 2012)

^^ Nice find ^^


----------



## KelJu (Jan 29, 2012)

maxpro2 said:


> I don't think you can conclusively say that he didn't exist. Over time, the myth just transcended the actual man.



I can conclusively say that the King James bible is bullshit just as easily as I can conclusively say that there aren't magical trolls living in my asshole that do my taxes for me if I eat a high fiver diet.


----------



## carmineb (Jan 29, 2012)

the Zeigeist movement or religion is basically making claims that are fabricated, misleading. If you were to do a search on the zeigeist movement you would see how everything in the first 3 videos goes against any and ALL unbiased research....

Here is video 1 of 5 disproving zeigeist claims and ther own religioin...

Zeitgeist Proven False (Part 1 of 5) - YouTube

if any of you thought to waste 30 minutes of your time listening to first videos, 10 more minutes wont hurt, particularly when you see how deceptive the first videos are


----------



## KelJu (Jan 29, 2012)

carmineb said:


> the Zeigeist movement or religion is basically making claims that are fabricated, misleading. If you were to do a search on the zeigeist movement you would see how everything in the first 3 videos goes against any and ALL unbiased research....
> 
> Here is video 1 of 5 disproving zeigeist claims and ther own religioin...
> 
> ...




That video is a stupid waste of time. It nit picks over small details within interpretations to try and discredit the claims that zeitgeist makes about the similarities. 

I don't give a fuck either way, but how pathetic and self delusional do you have to be to go into pain staking detail about the difference between a virgin conceiving a child from holy sperm sent by god and some woman sticking a holy almond up her cunt to conceive a child? Both stories are equally fucking retarded, and in that, I see all the similarities I need to.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

KelJu said:


> That video is a stupid waste of time. It nit picks over small details within interpretations to try and discredit the claims that zeitgeist makes about the similarities.
> 
> I don't give a fuck either way, but how pathetic and self delusional do you have to be to go into pain staking detail about the difference between a virgin conceiving a child from holy sperm sent by god and some woman sticking a holy almond up her cunt to conceive a child? Both stories are equally fucking retarded, and in that, I see all the similarities I need to.



Can I just say I love the flair with which you deliver your ideas.    If only my sensibilities were so forthright.

I will say it bought tears to my eyes to see Carl Sagan, his Cosmos series was what motivated me to be a chemist, I wasn't smart enough to be a astronomer or physicist like my brother.  He is right in that anyone can be a scientist, ( look at me), it's just a way of life where you skeptically interigate the universe with the knowledge that humans are fallible.  

I do disagree with the interviewer where he said Sagan was pitted against another scientist ( the psychiatrist) regarding UFOs.  The latter believing in them. As a MD I can tell you, a medical degree is a training in solving puzzles using the tools of science and complex pattern recognition where you are a detective of the human body. It's not the same as being a scientist, although quite a few of us become medical sceintists, but for the most part, medical degrees don't necessarily mean we are scientists....


----------



## carmineb (Jan 29, 2012)

KelJu said:


> That video is a stupid waste of time. It nit picks over small details within interpretations to try and discredit the claims that zeitgeist makes about the similarities.
> 
> I don't give a fuck either way, but how pathetic and self delusional do you have to be to go into pain staking detail about the difference between a virgin conceiving a child from holy sperm sent by god and some woman sticking a holy almond up her cunt to conceive a child? Both stories are equally fucking retarded, and in that, I see all the similarities I need to.


 

just the idea that not everything set out in the name of scholarship is 100
% as it seems....

IF, and lets just say if for some reason, early man had received a truth, WHATEVER that means, it is possible for shades of that ruth to still be around, BUT surrounded in myth and allogory. There is NEVER, and I mean NEVER a time in history that we can find thru archeology, where the symbols of the constellations are not already embedded during that time of history somewhere. This means the origins of constellationsal symbols PREDATE recorded history. the constellations are the same but depending on the culture, the stories are slightly different... IF the constellations told a story (which later was mythologized and corrupted), then if that story was later fulfilled in Christ does not diminish its truth nor does it mean it borrowed from the mythologies, in fact, itwould mean the mythologies borrowed for an original extant story!

At any rate, if there is some force or divine guidance that directs an ultimate end or karma or destination for all of us, then I would have to believe that we are all part of that plan and altho we dont always or ever fully understand, doesnt invalidate it, just means we are getting closer.... Science teaches big bang. Imagine being  small auto part in an automated manufacturing plant. You can study all the workings of how the car parts work (the universe) and never have reason to have a hint that there was a creator believing somehow no matter how far back you can see, (the evidence) since you cant go beyond the cr itself to see outside it ever, trapped in this bubble we call a universe... it always points furthur and furthur back. So what was before the big bang? ok energy but wehre did it come from? Science will NEVER ever ever be able to prove first cause, it is outside it's scope, religions call this first cause God.a power outside and before the very beginning of this universe.

Anyway, I can see how people are sarcastic and have issues with taking sides and wanting to prove every religion is false under the guise of scholarship but regardless of how man wants to describe it, or mythologize it (is that even a word?), it doesnt change what intuitively, when we are quiet, we know..... These seigeists for instance, are trying to hail a new messiah of the age of aquarius, a matreiya, the water bearerer who comes to replace Christ the fisherman they have mythologized their story and corrupted the truth of the others they battle with.

Dont beleive everything you read, it is so easy to demoniZe something if you so intend to do so.


----------



## hoyle21 (Jan 29, 2012)

A great deal if time and energy for a remedial post.   If everything HAS to have a beginning, where did God come from?

Funny how religious people also exclude god from that hypothesis, because they are foolish enough to believe that god is the one thing that has always been.    When applied to energy or matter however, well that just make sense to them


----------



## KelJu (Jan 29, 2012)

carmineb said:


> just the idea that not everything set out in the name of scholarship is 100
> % as it seems....
> 
> IF, and lets just say if for some reason, early man had received a truth, WHATEVER that means, it is possible for shades of that ruth to still be around, BUT surrounded in myth and allogory. There is NEVER, and I mean NEVER a time in history that we can find thru archeology, where the symbols of the constellations are not already embedded during that time of history somewhere. This means the origins of constellationsal symbols PREDATE recorded history. the constellations are the same but depending on the culture, the stories are slightly different... IF the constellations told a story (which later was mythologized and corrupted), then if that story was later fulfilled in Christ does not diminish its truth nor does it mean it borrowed from the mythologies, in fact, itwould mean the mythologies borrowed for an original extant story!
> ...




Hey, I'm on the same page as you. I am skeptical to the point of being skeptical about skepticism. I am willing to hear all ideas, but I am not willing to be spoon fed dogshit and told it is cheesecake. I would love for one the religions to be true. I wish for nothing more than for Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, ect, to appear in my living room with me right now, kick back on the couch, and have a discussion with me about my purpose in this universe. 

Until then, my deepest wish is for my consciousness to disintegrate into nothingness upon death, and this fucking nightmare will finally be over.


----------



## KelJu (Jan 29, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> A great deal if time and energy for a remedial post.   If everything HAS to have a beginning, where did God come from?
> 
> Funny how religious people also exclude god from that hypothesis, because they are foolish enough to believe that god is the one thing that has always been.    When applied to energy or matter however, well that just make sense to them



Even scientist can't explain the creation of matter and energy. The fact that we exist violates every rule of physics and thermodynamics. Honestly, I think the big bang theory is as bullshit as talking snakes and burning bushes. People are just too egotistical to admit that they don't fucking know.


----------



## hoyle21 (Jan 29, 2012)

I actually disagree.   The big bang is proving to be quite accurate.   The mathematical model, with the discovery of the Higgs Boson which will soon be verified, still holds true.


----------



## LAM (Jan 29, 2012)

KelJu said:


> I don't give a fuck either way, but how pathetic and self delusional do you have to be to go into pain staking detail about the difference between a virgin conceiving a child from holy sperm sent by god and some woman sticking a holy almond up her cunt to conceive a child? Both stories are equally fucking retarded, and in that, I see all the similarities I need to.



once I turned 16 and didn't have to be dropped off at church by my parents I found that driving to the mall to Timeout and playing Defender for a couple of hours was much, much more rewarding.


----------



## KelJu (Jan 29, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> I actually disagree.   The big bang is proving to be quite accurate.   The mathematical model, with the discovery of the Higgs Boson which will soon be verified, still holds true.



If Higgs Boson can prove the ability for mass to be created out of nothingness, then I am willing to rethink my position. But currently, the big bang was pulled out of someone's ass a long time before higgs boson, super symmetry, or string theory. Even if the hadron collider can show evidence of higgs bosen, it still doesn't explain a lot of other important shit fundamental to the the big bang theory like gravity.  

I'm not saying the big bang is wrong, I'm just saying as of yet, nobody knows.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

Quantum physics is the most accurate and most applicable field of science at the present , molecular biolgists , uranium dating of the earth's age by geologists, to nuclear physicists apply its tenets and predictions all the time, something from nothing is absolutely within the realties of quantum physics, (casimire effect), or the big bang , can happen.  The second law of thermodynamics don' t apply to the subatomic world, and only a closed system in the macroscopic world, does quantum physics explain everything, ( grand unification )? No, which is why they are still looking, ( and remember the superstring theory is just a mathmatcal theory, not a scientific theory yet, , I don' t believe it has generated any experimental data yet. ( unlike say quantum physics and general relativity)


----------



## troubador (Jan 29, 2012)

Notice how they throw in at the end 'btw it was all for political power'. I don't buy into the idea that religion was created by those in power to control people. I think it was the opposite but that's not a popular idea these days because now people see Christianity as the establishment power. While it's true it does have power now, it doesn't mean those who created it had the foresight to see that.
Game theory dictates that those who have the most to gain from an altruistic/cooperative society are the weak. Many of the biblical teachings are about how justice will be restored to the weak(the meek shall inherit the earth). Most of the moral principles also benefit the weak 'love thy neighbor as thyself'. 

Nietzsche called it slave morality. 
"As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it villainizes its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as 'good'. Slave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility:"

And what is the movement we see now? The weak see an association between chrisitanity and power, so these must be evil. And what is the morality taught by popular atheists of our day? Utility. 

Guys like Hitchens and Dawkins have passed off their morality as science but it's just English utilitarianism(the principles of utility) and it doesn't take much research to find that out.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

I like sagans quote and I will paraphrase " Religion is about history,poetry literature, morality, compassion for the least fortunate, all of which I endorse, where I have a problem with it is when it claims to know science"


----------



## BP2000 (Jan 29, 2012)

Be still and know that I am God


----------



## KelJu (Jan 29, 2012)

troubador said:


> Notice how they throw in at the end 'btw it was all for political power'. I don't buy into the idea that religion was created by those in power to control people. I think it was the opposite but that's not a popular idea these days because now people see Christianity as the establishment power. While it's true it does have power now, it doesn't mean those who created it had the foresight to see that.
> Game theory dictates that those who have the most to gain from an altruistic/cooperative society are the weak. Many of the biblical teachings are about how justice will be restored to the weak(the meek shall inherit the earth). Most of the moral principles also benefit the weak 'love thy neighbor as thyself'.
> 
> Nietzsche called it slave morality.
> ...



I wouldn't really say that Dawkins passes his morality off as science, but more like using science to make his arguments.


----------



## BP2000 (Jan 29, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> Quantum physics is the most accurate and most applicable field of science at the present , molecular biolgists , uranium dating of the earth's age by geologists, to nuclear physicists apply its tenets and predictions all the time, something from nothing is absolutely within the realties of quantum physics, (casimire effect), or the big bang , can happen. The second law of thermodynamics don' t apply to the subatomic world, and only a closed system in the macroscopic world, does quantum physics explain everything, ( grand unification )? No, which is why they are still looking, ( and remember the superstring theory is just a mathmatcal theory, not a scientific theory yet, , I don' t believe it has generated any experimental data yet. ( unlike say quantum physics and general relativity)


 
Well the universe is all encompassing.  Meaning there are spiritual law's and material law's.  Science explain's the material law's and does a pretty good job at it, yet there is many law's we have not yet discovered. 

 However spiritual law's we hardly know anything about. I blame orthodox relgiion that does the same thing in church each day and is not creative enough.  Heck those guys at the Vatacin still were those pointy hat's they wore 500 years ago. 

 We just barely figured out matter and energy are one in the same.  Now we have to learn about the vibration of energy and how to detect it.  

Hint:  The higher vibrational energy comes from the spiritual world and then is progressively lowered until our physical senses can detect it. 

Another hint:  We have the power of our minds through our built in spiritual facilites to lower or raise energy.  This applies to even the energy of our spiritual selves. (we are spiritual being's not material for anyone wondering) 

A key is to know that our minds can detect these higher vibration's.  It is like a radio receiver and we can tune in to another station.  Just like I'm sure some of our greatest scientist did such as Nicholous Telsa.  He brought so much information to our earth that was useful for us.  Do you think he pulled all of this info from his material self?

And the kicker is:  We all have this power.  We just don't use it.  We have it turned off right now because people in power don't want you to know it.  They want you to just go to church and then be quiet.  They won't want you to be creative like your father.  Because if you were you would discover these thing's and would be free.  

I am here for you.  I have alway's been here.  To find me your have to go inside yourself.  For you and me are world's apart in consciousness but at the same time there is no space between us.


----------



## hoyle21 (Jan 29, 2012)

Sounds great!


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

BP2000 said:


> Well the universe is all encompassing.  Meaning there are spiritual law's and material law's.  Science explain's the material law's and does a pretty good job at it, yet there is many law's we have not yet discovered.
> 
> However spiritual law's we hardly know anything about. I blame orthodox relgiion that does the same thing in church each day and is not creative enough.  Heck those guys at the Vatacin still were those pointy hat's they wore 500 years ago.
> 
> ...



what you express is very much in line with some eastern religious practices and philosophies, unfortunately, the abrahamic religions, which are more dogmatic don't allow for  multiple truths as in eastern philosophical religions. As you must know,  there  is great healing power in meditation to laughing yoga, documented in peer reviewed journals, but when I bring these modalities up to my hardcore southern fundamentalists, they shirk it because they have roots in hinduism and buddism....strangely enough , some of my "christian scientists", will embrace these traditions because it doesn't involve administration of medicine........


----------



## troubador (Jan 29, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> unfortunately, the abrahamic religions, which are more dogmatic don't allow for  multiple truths as in eastern philosophical religions.



I'll take dogmatic over subjectivism any day. At least there's hope for them, subjectivist are content to be unreasonable.


----------



## BillHicksFan (Jan 29, 2012)

troubador said:


> I'll take dogmatic over subjectivism any day. At least there's hope for them, subjectivist are content to be unreasonable.




I don't know how you can honestly draw that conclusion. One set of beliefs actively ignore scientific evidence and the other embraces it. Western religions are more concerned with controlling the masses while eastern religions and philosophies are predominantly concerned with evolving human consciousness. 

Its clear which set of beliefs show signs of hope, IMO.


----------



## LAM (Jan 29, 2012)

troubador said:


> I'll take dogmatic over subjectivism any day.



not much of a choice there.  although it seems many people enjoy living in the bizzaro world that they create in their mind


----------



## troubador (Jan 29, 2012)

BillHicksFan said:


> I don't know how you can honestly draw that conclusion. One set of beliefs actively ignore scientific evidence and the other embraces it.



Knowing what science is quickly rectifies this issue. 

"Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify a scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation."


----------



## KelJu (Jan 29, 2012)

troubador said:


> Knowing what science is quickly rectifies this issue.
> 
> "Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify a scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation."



That isn't correct. Not all religions are closed minded to science. The Dalai Lama is a big proponent of science. He has taken part in numerous scientific projects to enhance the working knowledge of Buddhism by bridging eastern philosophy with western medical science and research.

He and many of his most devoted monks were involved in joint research projects with respected western medical doctors and neuroscientist to help shed light on some of the unusual abilities of their people. By the conclusion of the project, the Buddhist taught the scientist more than the scientist taught the Buddhist.  

It is a great example of the potential for a religion to be helpful as opposed to harmful under the correct leadership. I don't believe in 90% of the Buddhist beliefs, but I do believe in results. The current state of the Buddhist faith is a beautiful thing if they don't get wiped about by the Chinese. I talk a lot of shit about religion in general, but I really should preface every one of my rants with, "oh yeah, Buddhism in it's current form isn't too bad, but all the other is shit"!


----------



## troubador (Jan 29, 2012)

KelJu said:


> That isn't correct. Not all religions are closed minded to science.



My comments were regarding the absurd notion of 'multiple truths'. This belief is antithetical to science. I'm not really interested in which eastern religions believe in that or not but if they do their beliefs oppose science even if they think otherwise. Sometimes it seems people's desire to believe in the mystical or spiritual is so strong they'll find anyway to do it.


----------



## KelJu (Jan 29, 2012)

troubador said:


> My comments were regarding the absurd notion of 'multiple truths'. This belief is antithetical to science. I'm not really interested in which eastern religions believe in that or not but if they do their beliefs oppose science even if they think otherwise. Sometimes it seems people's desire to believe in the mystical or spiritual is so strong they'll find anyway to do it.



What do you mean by multiple truths?


----------



## troubador (Jan 29, 2012)

KelJu said:


> What do you mean by multiple truths?



Look at post #27.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

I think he did not understand me.  Engineers work with "multiple truths" all the time.  We now know general relativity has supplanted Newtonian physics as the most accurate description of gravitational fields, ( until a better theory comes along of course) but let's face it, we still use newtonian physics to launch a rocket, they really don't care to go through the contortions of relativistic physics to calculate the force needed to reach escape velocity.  However, we do use general relativity ( and SR) when we launch the GPS satellites.  The space time continuam is such that time closer to the heavy mass ( earth)  is slightly slower than time away from the heavy mass ( gps satellites.) so much so that if they did not calculate the difference between the gps satellite and earth, the gps satellites would all be off by "X "miles a day, ( this was something newtonian physics would never have taken into account) if einstein had not figured this out almost a century ago, we would probably have the experimental data from launching these gps satellites...this poses a problem for those trying to use a single truth to apply to the world around us...( which theoretical physicists are trying to do with the grand unification theory) but in the meantime, scientists and engineers are much more practical...molecular biologists really don't care that space time curvature explains the world around us, they just like to use the crystallography data ( thanks to quantum physics) for determing the shape of the D.N.A as a double helix.....

in another branch of science, quantum physics, has proven that subatomic matter exists in a  probablistic wave that collapses into a singularity when the observer affects it's destiny, until then, it can exist in multiple places at the same time ( wave particle duality, quantum entanglement etc.), in fact,  quantum physics allows for multiple universes.  Interestingly enough,  some sects of hinduism and buddism  believe  our world and universe  are in an endless cycle of birth, death and rebirth of our universe, approximating what some quantum physicists also believe, abrahamic religions are completely deterministic, all of quantum physics goes against this visceral common sensical perception, but to rally against teaching it is to not accept plasma t.vs, ipads, silicone chips so religions ( mostly fundamental muslims and christians)  go after another prey, without understanding that it has more experimental proof than gravitational theory......


----------



## troubador (Jan 29, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> I think he did not understand me.  Engineers work with "multiple truths" all the time.



This just sounds like a misuse of the word truth. It's common for subjectivists to attempt to dilute the meaning of the 'truth' by misusing in various ways. Using Newtonian physics or general relativity does not result in multiple truths. Using different equations to calculate the area of a function may result in different values but the actual area of the function is objective. 

Quantum physics does raise some questions and there certainly is multi-valued logic in math but I've yet to see this translated into anything that would support subjectivism.

"When pressed, quantum theorists usually fall back on what is known as the Copenhagen interpretation. The idea was promoted in the 1920s by Danish physicist Niels Bohr and his protégé German physicist Werner Heisenberg. In their view, we do not see quantum effects in the everyday world because the act of observation changes everything, fixing the many possibilities allowed by quantum mechanics as one. As a result, when we look, we only see one version of events, with every object firmly anchored to one position at a time.
The flaw in the Copenhagen interpretation is that it has no basis in theory—it is more like a story that scientists tell to make sense of facts that otherwise would seem nonsensical. It also suggests that the universe does not become fully real until someone observes it. Einstein found this idea abhorrent. “I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it,” he fumed in response to Bohr. Nevertheless, the Copenhagen interpretation was voted the preferred explanation of quantum weirdness by physicists at a conference in 1997." If an Electron Can Be in Two Places at Once, Why Can't You? | Subatomic Particles | DISCOVER Magazine

Even in the many worlds example, there is always an observer. At no point in your life will this ever create an issue. To the observer two valued logic will continue to work the exact same. So even if Schroedinger's cat's life really is in some third indeterminate value at some point, once you open the box it doesn't matter anyway. Of course Schroedinger used this as a reductio ad absurdum to show how QM doesn't apply to real life.


----------



## BillHicksFan (Jan 29, 2012)

troubador said:


> Knowing what science is quickly rectifies this issue.
> 
> "Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify a scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation."




Can you imagine the Pope taking part in an open discussion with scientists and announcing that the doctrine would need to change when confronted with conflicting evidence?

As stated, the Dalai Lama actively works with science in order to achieve a better understanding of reality. Buddhist philosophy has an intimate relationship with Hinduism and both offer some extremely realistic arguments as to what it means to exist and why we are fallible in our understanding.

The teachings of Jesus also project a very Buddhist-like philosophy if you can get past the metaphors that were not meant to be taken in the literal sense. Its quite possible that Christianity was not supposed to be a monotheistic religion. 

The intergity of these two individuals in the video below make up for its poor visual quality.






YouTube Video


----------



## carmineb (Jan 30, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> what you express is very much in line with some eastern religious practices and philosophies, unfortunately, the abrahamic religions, which are more dogmatic don't allow for multiple truths as in eastern philosophical religions. As you must know, there is great healing power in meditation to laughing yoga, documented in peer reviewed journals, but when I bring these modalities up to my hardcore southern fundamentalists, they shirk it because they have roots in hinduism and buddism....strangely enough , some of my "christian scientists", will embrace these traditions because it doesn't involve administration of medicine........


 

multiple truths? you mean humanism? everyone chooses a ruth relative. That is where those philosophies are wrong and should not be embraced. Truth is truth, period, regardless of where it is found and it does NOT conradict itself, otherise truth would be hypocritical, (says one thing to one person, another to a different person)

Abrahamic religions, removing the veil (judaism and christianity) teach what NONE of the other religions of the eastern world taught, that is honoring a creator with your full heart sould and mind AND to LOVE your neighbor as you do yourself. Christianity did not but reaffirm what judaism stated in its essence.. do unto others as you would ahve them do unto u.

the eastern mysticism relgions either teach shame, (NOT guilt which means NO conscious to develop) Shame means you got caught and people know what you did, dont get caught, its not wrong, they are a shame cuture vs judaio-christian is a guilt based culture, (guulot means you consider your actions based on conscious within, not external , what people think).

the indian and others believe in reincarnation that can go forward and back. this is also why there is a caste system where the elite were reincarnated by karma to enjoy the lavish life they have and all us suckers fucked up somewhere in the past to live out lives. In some eastern cultures, they teach dont HELP your neighbor you will mess with their karma, let them SUFFER so they wont have to go thru this again! So much for spirituality of the eastern thoughts.

Spirituality has ONE truth, regardless. that truth will lead you to a spirituality that will not cause you to come back but a final judgment of wrongs so as to correct them and move beyond this plane. WHAT churches do, how and why they argue with each other (various protestant sects, and others) just shows that when imperfect men get together, they can try to corrupt a truth. It doesnt mean their source book is wrong, just that they are using things to forward an agenda. And all religions do this cuz all have imperfect people.

To let people do what they think in their own heads is right usually means darkness is mixing with light. ex. I beat the crap out of some guy cuz he looked at me wrongly. (I didnt, this is an example)... I can justify whaqt I did cuz he anted to rob me, (in my own head)... or he looked at me with gay eyes or whatever.... justifying actions dont make them spiritual and truth! The better way is what spirtuality leads us all toward.

love your neighbor as yourself. give to others, walk 2 miles with those less fortunate, embrace all as your neighbor. AND when you pray, go into your room, shu the door and pray! your spirituality is not to gain benefit from those who see u but rather it is a personal relationshuip with your maker, that means it is a pesonal journey where there is ONE truth for all but various imperfections in all of us that require fixing.

NExt, the comment about the pope. Rome ahas one of the largest space telescopes out there. Rome teaches evolution. Rome teaches that religion and science will never be at odds.... However, theories of blah blah blah is NOT science, it is guesswork. When there is unrefutable data, proven, religion should not or does not go at odds. We know there is a God and if God's hand in this universe was manifest by and thru evolution, who is to say there is no God? Only cuz you cant see the hand doesnt mean there isnt an intelligent design behind it all, if there is a universe, there is a first cause which goes beyond the universe itself and since scinece can ONLY try to understand this universe and its laws, what created it is beyond that and cant be quantified by those laws since there was NO universe in the beginning to have laws which govern it!

But ya, people have made a mess of religion, besides government, religion is the second horn of power in this world....

the bible teaches that. the spirit of antichrist in the world is the spirit of humanism without God. It is our hoping to make a perfrect world with imperfect men, to get out of our own way. we have CENTURIES of proof that can and will never happen. Man will seek to control even that which is good to twist it for their own gain. Ghandi was a disciple of Christ , he he just wasnt a christian since most had corrupted the spiritual truths ....


Truth can be found, by a seeking person, on a mountain, next to a river bank, in a cave, in your room and if you really seek it, it will find you and in the end, your truth and my truth will be joined since they are the same....


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

you obviously have never studied buddism, they for the most part don't have caste systems, *as for the love your neighbor schtick and doing to others as you do unto yourself, buddism preached it 500 years before jesus, abrahamic religions don't have the monopoly on it. * buddism doesn't limit god's sensibilities to reward only those that worship his ego, in fact, his lack of vanity ( which is to be expected from such aewsome presence) is such he doesn't need to be worshipped and loved by his creation at all.    buddism doesn't go around telling people not to accept valid scientific theories, lets not confuse idealism with the reality and they don't go around for the most part saying how superior their belief system is, unlike the abrahamic religions, in fact , i agree with bill hicks, jesus was very buddist like which is why a buddist monk converted my mom to christianity, they don't buy the john 3:16 bit, as if god would be so exclusionary and they know it was written and canonized by man, not an unerring stenographer of god....


 as for schrodingers cat, , it is just an intellectual excericse, . quantum concepts frequently conflict with our sense of reality, but why should the atomic world conform to our belief system?  ( see how religion affects this lack of acceptance) .It describes reality as it is not what we think it should be, that is why so many people reject it, even though it has the most applications out of any field of physics!  *lasers would be impossible without quantum mechanics!

discovery.com/topic/applications-of-quantum-mechanics/10-real-world-applications-of-quantum-mechanics.htm




*also,  buddism has pretty much never waged a war in the name of it's religion, buddist kings conquor others for power, land, resources, but not over religious differences in minutae...

Jews = God
Christians =God + Jesus
Muslims= God + (jesus) + Mohammed


Mathmatically, the abrahamic religions look ridiculously alike

You would have to use interesecting venn diagrams and multivariable  calculus to explain the over 500 sects of buddism

As for misusing the words, if you can comminicate with me in my native languages, ( mandarin and Malay) I may not tend to misuse your words as often.....

As for the dali lami, i love going to his lectures here at Emory...


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

By the way, the old testament never states there are no other gods, the ten commandment just says "you shall not worship other gods before me or shall have no gods before me".  He never said hey, I'm it, there is only one god,  capiche?  So don't make too much fun over hindus who see the old testament  god as just one of the more narcisstic and jealous manifestations of " the true one"...

as for the caste system, here is the reality for the smug westerners,http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Caste_System.htm

 I grew up with Hindus in malaysia who rose through the "caste system" from abject poverty to high intelluctual professors and businessmen, it can be abused, *western religions have historically also their version of caste, the restrictions imposed on  women so don't get on that high horse..and hinduism  like christianity has evolved in that sense...* because the caste, just like other  misrepresented tenets of islam and  christianity,can be abused by priests/imans/men/etc to keep their power....


----------



## LAM (Jan 30, 2012)

carmineb said:


> NExt, the comment about the pope. Rome ahas one of the largest space telescopes out there. Rome teaches evolution. Rome teaches that religion and science will never be at odds.... However, theories of blah blah blah is NOT science, it is guesswork. When there is unrefutable data, proven, religion should not or does not go at odds. We know there is a God and if God's hand in this universe was manifest by and thru evolution, who is to say there is no God? Only cuz you cant see the hand doesnt mean there isnt an intelligent design behind it all, if there is a universe, there is a first cause which goes beyond the universe itself and since scinece can ONLY try to understand this universe and its laws, what created it is beyond that and cant be quantified by those laws since there was NO universe in the beginning to have laws which govern it!



the church jumped on the bandwagon for many things and they also have crazy deep pockets so it's not like money is an issue in the Vatican. and with the crazy molestation that has been going on in the church it's hard to believe that many of them are still buying the shit they are selling, how could they?

every single religion in world history is based on faith.  there is no more or less proof that God exists than does Zeus.  written words are not proof of anything.  me writing 2 + 2 = 4 does not prove anything, I simply wrote it.  the proof is that 2 + 2 = 4 when using a base 10 numbering system.  facts are purely objective, they exist whether or not a person knows of them or believes in them, they are mind independent.


----------



## GFR (Jan 30, 2012)

Lets be honest here, Religion is loved for one reason and one reason only.....God gets revenge on all the cunts we have to deal with in life. That and the "I am better then you" feeling Religion gives people plays into that idea as well.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

That and humans are terrified of not having an afterlife....


----------



## KelJu (Jan 30, 2012)

troubador said:


> Look at post #27.



Fuck post #27! It is cryptic and intentionally worded to be complicated without actually saying anything plus quotes by mentally ill philosophers who have been dead for over 100 years. 

I said leaders of Tibetan Buddhist are making a good faith effort to me open minded and embrace science even when it contradicts their own practices and beliefs. At the very least, I consider it admirable. 

"Knowing what science is quickly rectifies this issue". Wtf?


----------



## troubador (Jan 31, 2012)

KelJu said:


> Fuck post #27!



You asked what was meant by 'multiple truths', in post 27 I quote bandaidwoman where she first brought it up. 

Here's the super simple version


> Me: I'll take dogmatic over subjectivism any day.
> 
> BillHicksFan: I don't know how you can honestly draw that conclusion.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zaphod (Jan 31, 2012)

KelJu said:


> I can conclusively say that the King James bible is bullshit just as easily as I can conclusively say that there aren't magical trolls living in my asshole that do my taxes for me if I eat a high fiver diet.



Maybe you just haven't eaten enough fiber, yet?


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Jan 31, 2012)

troubador said:


> This just sounds like a misuse of the word truth. It's common for subjectivists to attempt to dilute the meaning of the 'truth' by misusing in various ways. Using Newtonian physics or general relativity does not result in multiple truths. Using different equations to calculate the area of a function may result in different values but the actual area of the function is objective.
> 
> Quantum physics does raise some questions and there certainly is multi-valued logic in math but I've yet to see this translated into anything that would support subjectivism.
> 
> ...





The Observer and the observed are one.
We are all God in this respect.

Humans have no limitations that cannot be broken through pursuit of knowledge.

I think the rationalists are busy looking within for answers and the empiricists are looking without.

We need both.

Look up William James, and his essays on pragmatism.


----------

