Martial Arts & Religion

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yes it can. Evolution of fruit is quite well understood thanks (selection pressure via herbivory on such plants producing fruit, thereby increasing that plant genetic reproduction via increased seed dispersal). We can also quite clearly explain why it tastes in such a way (chemical composition) and furthermore the benefits such a structure brings to both the plant (reproductive benefit via seed dispersal), in this case an orange tree, and those organisms which feed off it (nutrition). Additionally, we do understand why things taste the way they do from person to person (frequency of various chemical receptors on sensory cells of the tongue). None of these are even remotely abstract.

I think people are going in two different directions with their views, not that this is a bad thing but that causes people to think in terms of right and wrong as opposed to different but same.
We do know how our PERCEPTION of taste works, that doesn't mean the science can or should comment on WHY someone likes the taste of orange and someone doesn't.
Reality is based on our understanding and perception of it, we can NOT experience reality OUTSIDE how we perceive it.
While certain things are know to be real in our universe ( 1+1 = 2), there is no reason to believe that may be the case in any other universe, if there is any other(s).
And while we do have certain "certainties", we also do have to accept that the reality of today may not be the reality of tomorrow, just as the reality of 2000 years ago is NOT the reality of today.
Our understanding of how "things are and why" is ever changing and based on our understanding, perception and ability to rationalize the universe as we "know" it at any given point in time.

In short, the miracles of 2000 years ago, may be the reality of 500 years from now.
Heck, it took less than 2000 years to imitate the deed of the Holy Spirit in creating a "virgin birth", which we can do know through science ( a woman can get pregnant and give birth without ever losing her virginity).

[sanjuro_ronin]

All effects having been attributed to a deity have been more suitably explained in other, more rational ways.

And so?
A God working through Nature will always have his actions eventually being able to be explained by nature.
Even the ressurection of the dead can be explained "by nature" in theory ( the infusing of cosmic energy to re-energise "dead" cells and cause regeneration).

The more we know and find out about the universe the more we will be able to understand and know "God", but only to THAT extent and that is a "half baked" knowledge ( but certainly better than a "raw" knowledge).

[wenshu]

Just because a notable person comes up with a witty aphorism does not make their point undeniable.

It can just as easily be said, "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

Some of you semi-concrete thinkers here are apparently unable to make the distinction between a metaphor used to illustrate a phenomenon or principle and the phenomenon/principle it is meant to illustrate. That is all that is implied with the blackhole metaphor. Some here are confusing the finger pointing at the moon with the moon itself.

There is a clear distinction between the concrete/contrived world of matter and subjective experience. Both are real, but each are experienced differently. Our experience of life/creation is a function of a foundational belief system that influences our experience and limits what we allow ourselves to experience. For a well known metaphor that illustrates this point please refer to Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

You can argue about the nature of wit and maxims all you like but that is a straw man. The issue is burden of proof and refutability.

Failure to disprove an assertion is not proof of the assertion itself.

The metaphor thing is a cop out and you know it.

Disregard observational confirmation for a moment. The methods by which these phenomena are postulated is part of the metaphor. You simply cannot compare someone postulating the existence of God based on subjective spiritual experience to using rigorous mathematics to postulate the existence of singularities.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You can argue about the nature of wit and maxims all you like but that is a straw man. The issue is burden of proof and refutability.

Failure to disprove an assertion is not proof of the assertion itself.

The metaphor thing is a cop out and you know it.

Disregard observational confirmation for a moment. The methods by which these phenomena are postulated is part of the metaphor. You simply cannot compare someone postulating the existence of God based on subjective spiritual experience to using rigorous mathematics to postulate the existence of singularities.

Burden of proof is irrelevent to something like God that by its very nature IF it exists, is far beyond our ability to prove ( perhaps even comprehend) at this point in time.
Can you imagine someone trying to proof space travel 2000 years ago?
How about the very cell phone you use every day 100 years ago?
Doesn't change the FACT that they exist NOW because we can experience them NOW.
( You would still not be able to proof space travel or, if you didn't have a cell phone with you, its existence to a person in some illiterate person in some backward culture).

[taai gihk yahn]

it's a warm and fuzzy blanket within which I wrap myself...

[sanjuro_ronin]

it's a warm and fuzzy blanket within which I wrap myself...

Nice big word that means as much as any other big word, like:
Supercalifragalisticespaladocious.

[wenshu]

it's a warm and fuzzy blanket within which I wrap myself...

I prefer meta-agnostic.

I'm cannot be sure that I'm not exactly sure. . .

[Lucas]

ya, but when do i get to fight the honey badger?

[White_Ape]

People are different. Some people enjoy discussing ideas. If they also grew up in a school system and social climate that encourages testing ideas then they may enjoy it even more.

Someone else who may have grown up in a school system that teaches them to shut up and respect the teacher and repeat everything the teacher tells them by rote, and where they are beaten by their older siblings to learn not to stick out, talk back, or think they are anybody, might behave differently. Just as one example.

It's not a little bit ironic that you a criticizing other people for being different than you when your message is supposed to be just let people be what they are.

I'll leave it to others to decide which approach to discussing ideas that leads to intellectual and scientific progress.

Peace

I am not criticizing anyone at all. I am just saying I think its funny why these threads come about, and are usually all about trying to justify what you believe in and discredit what the others believe in.
There is nothing wrong at all with questioning why things are the way they are, being curious and seeking an answer..but most of the time threads like these aren't necessarily about seeking knowledge, its more about trying to display your own knowledge, seem as smart as you can and try to discredit someone you don't agree with....even if its done tactfully.
I don't see how this is progress.
It does make for good entertainment though. I was in a bit of a mood last night, hence the rant. My apologies

[wenshu]

I am not criticizing anyone at all. I am just saying I think its funny why these threads come about, and are usually all about trying to justify what you believe in and discredit what the others believe in.
There is nothing wrong at all with questioning why things are the way they are, being curious and seeking an answer..but most of the time threads like these aren't necessarily about seeking knowledge, its more about trying to display your own knowledge, seem as smart as you can and try to discredit someone you don't agree with....even if its done tactfully.
I don't see how this is progress.

Actually you are criticizing. And that's fine.

Maybe people simply enjoy spirited discussion and feel strongly about certain topics.

Oftentimes it leads to further investigation in a topic as people seek greater depth in the justifications of their arguments.

So you are the arbiter of what topics are okay to discuss and the proper ways to discuss them?
Who defines progress? You? Progress from what?

[kinggaruda]

I believe in religionless religion.

[Lucas]

drake are you backing out on me?!

[ShaolinDan]

Old school leather welder's outfit, cup, and combat boots, and my money's on Lucas.
Otherwise I'm betting on the honey badger.
But I'll pray for you to win the fight (there Gene, back OT), Lucas.

[Drake]

drake are you backing out on me?!

Go check your mailbox. I recommend doing so with thick leather gloves and a face-guard.

[Lucas]

Go check your mailbox. I recommend doing so with thick leather gloves and a face-guard.

that was you?!?! i thought that was a chipmunk on steroids!