Martial Arts & Religion

[Drake]

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

Easy mistake. Only a few non-technical differences.

[Scott R. Brown]

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.

No one tried, but having said that, if you do not understand that the objective world is based upon subjective assumptions that cannot be demonstrated to exist, then you do not truly understand the argument.

Geometry itself admits unprovable assumptions as its foundation: point, line and plane, do NOT exist inherently. They are concoctions, conventions, of the mind, that are assumed to exist for a specific purpose and from these geometry is created, The basis of "concrete" mathematics are imaginary/subjective principles.

2+2=4 does not truly exist in nature. It is a concoction of mind. Without mind to construct and perceive it, it does not exist. Mathematics is nothing more than a artificial mental construct, created for a purpose and thus self-limits what it is able to demonstrate by limitations imposed upon it by mind.

Describing the universe by mathematical means alone is like telling a person they can only communicate the taste of an orange to others using pastel paints and a brick wall as the canvas. This forces artificial limitations upon the knowledge obtained about the taste of an orange. Then when another cannot understand the painting and says, see that is NOT what an orange tastes like, they fail to recognize the foolishness of their statement. They fail to recognize the artificial boundaries that were used to limit the expression and thus their own understanding. And confuse this as REAL knowledge!

If one does not look for the imaginary origins of their mental constructs of the world system, they will not know they exist. This is because the imaginary constructs are ingrained in our minds from the earliest age, to the point that most people never question them.

Existence is essentially holistic, there are no inherent distinctions. Distinctions are an artificial creation of the mind. Distinctions organize what we think we know and believe about reality, but are based upon artificially constructed principles. When we accept certain principles as TRUE, these principles color/determine/control our perceptions.

When we allow this to happen we become locked within a Matrix of our own construction. We think we KNOW things that we simply have created out of our own contrivances and forget we have done so.

[SoCo KungFu]

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).

Too busy atm to respond to everyone but...

Its wonderful this self defense mechanism of religion, the ability to hijack every natural occurrence and throw it under the umbrella of divine will, every wonder of human experience and claim it as "spiritual." Its also utter BS. And considering how offensive I find such thievery to be, that's about as polite as I can put it.

You cling to tightly to a middle man that really has no use in the story. The fact is, events go on without any necessity to include a mystical being. If there is a god, its a lazy POS that serves no viable faculty in the order of things.

Cut out the middle man.

[Drake]

Too busy atm to respond to everyone but...

Its wonderful this self defense mechanism of religion, the ability to hijack every natural occurrence and throw it under the umbrella of divine will, every wonder of human experience and claim it as "spiritual." Its also utter BS. And considering how offensive I find such thievery to be, that's about as polite as I can put it.

You cling to tightly to a middle man that really has no use in the story. The fact is, events go on without any necessity to include a mystical being. If there is a god, its a lazy POS that serves no viable faculty in the order of things.

Cut out the middle man.

"This is the excellent foppery of the world, that,
when we are sick in fortune,--often the surfeit
of our own behavior,--we make guilty of our
disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars: as
if we were villains by necessity; fools by
heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and
treachers, by spherical predominance; drunkards,
liars, and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of
planetary influence; and all that we are evil in,
by a divine thrusting on: an admirable evasion
of *****master man, to lay his goatish
disposition to the charge of a star!"
- William Shakespeare, King Lear, 1.2.132

Shakespeare beat you by a few centuries.

[Scott R. Brown]

Too busy atm to respond to everyone but...

Its wonderful this self defense mechanism of religion, the ability to hijack every natural occurrence and throw it under the umbrella of divine will, every wonder of human experience and claim it as "spiritual." Its also utter BS. And considering how offensive I find such thievery to be, that's about as polite as I can put it.

You cling to tightly to a middle man that really has no use in the story. The fact is, events go on without any necessity to include a mystical being. If there is a god, its a lazy POS that serves no viable faculty in the order of things.

Cut out the middle man.

Or is your opinion merely your own self-defense designed to keep you from perceiving reality in a fashion that makes you uncomfortable?

Try not to confuse organized religion and their descriptions of theology and God with the reality of it. This occurs with most people. Their own opinion of God is colored by their limited exposure and understanding of the artificial constructs held by others.

When you artificially limit your own experiences you trap yourself in a self-constructed prison of a world view and do not perceive the trap or that it is made of your own choosing.

Our experience of life is based upon the assumptions we accept as true.

There is inherently no middle man! There is only what is. Any separation of reality into little measurable bits is an artificial division performed by an action of mind. This applies to both those who attribute everything to God and those who don't. Each system of thought is an artificial construct that limits and thus controls what we will perceive and experience.

Real B.S. occurs when one cannot see that they are afflicted with the same disease they so readily point out infects others.

[wenshu]

No one tried, but having said that, if you do not understand that the objective world is based upon subjective assumptions that cannot be demonstrated to exist, then you do not truly understand the argument.

Geometry itself admits unprovable assumptions as its foundation: point, line and plane, do NOT exist inherently. They are concoctions, conventions, of the mind, that are assumed to exist for a specific purpose and from these geometry is created, The basis of "concrete" mathematics are imaginary/subjective principles.

2+2=4 does not truly exist in nature. It is a concoction of mind. Without mind to construct and perceive it, it does not exist. Mathematics is nothing more than a artificial mental construct, created for a purpose and thus self-limits what it is able to demonstrate by limitations imposed upon it by mind.

Describing the universe by mathematical means alone is like telling a person they can only communicate the taste of an orange to others using pastel paints and a brick wall as the canvas. This forces artificial limitations upon the knowledge obtained about the taste of an orange. Then when another cannot understand the painting and says, see that is NOT what an orange tastes like, they fail to recognize the foolishness of their statement. They fail to recognize the artificial boundaries that were used to limit the expression and thus their own understanding. And confuse this as REAL knowledge!

If one does not look for the imaginary origins of their mental constructs of the world system, they will not know they exist. This is because the imaginary constructs are ingrained in our minds from the earliest age, to the point that most people never question them.

Existence is essentially holistic, there are no inherent distinctions. Distinctions are an artificial creation of the mind. Distinctions organize what we think we know and believe about reality, but are based upon artificially constructed principles. When we accept certain principles as TRUE, these principles color/determine/control our perceptions.

When we allow this to happen we become locked within a Matrix of our own construction. We think we KNOW things that we simply have created out of our own contrivances and forget we have done so.

Yes, that's very convenient Phil Jackson.

We can argue semantics and epistemology all you like. But. . .

Mathematical models of the natural world can be developed by one person, handed to another who with no foreknowledge of what is being modeled can employ the model to predict future phenomena.

That doesn't exactly work out so well with things like prayer and spiritual experiences.

[Scott R. Brown]

Yes, that's very convenient Phil Jackson.

We can argue semantics and epistemology all you like. But. . .

Mathematical models of the natural world can be developed by one person, handed to another who with no foreknowledge of what is being modeled can employ the model to predict future phenomena.

That doesn't exactly work out so well with things like prayer and spiritual experiences.

It is not about semantics it is about reality as it is perceived as opposed to reality as it is described.

Mathematical models are merely one small manner of "describing" reality, it does not provide any experience. A description of the taste of an orange does not provide another with the experience of the taste.

Life is experience, NOT the description of experience. The descriptions are less than a shadow of reality.

When one limits their experience according to an artificial description, they do not have a true experience. They have an artificially determined construct that traps their perception according to that artificial construct's limits.

[Drake]

That is such bull****.

That just opens the doors to make up **** as you go along, and if someone disagrees, you tell them that's just that particular reality.

If I shoot you in the head, you die. That's reality. No argument, no dispute. You = dead.

If I drop a piano on you from atop a building...you die. No discussion of reality or any of that nonsense. You die.

[Lucas]

if you drop a piano on me from the top of a building...film that sh!t. i want a legacy

[Scott R. Brown]

That is such bull****.

That just opens the doors to make up **** as you go along, and if someone disagrees, you tell them that's just that particular reality.

If I shoot you in the head, you die. That's reality. No argument, no dispute. You = dead.

If I drop a piano on you from atop a building...you die. No discussion of reality or any of that nonsense. You die.

I see, so someone getting shot in the head is reality, but another having a transcendent experience is not? Hitting your finger with a hammer is reality because it hurts, but having a nightmare is not because it only occurs in your mind? Even though the effects are felt and truly experienced?

Are they not all experiences? Which ones are more valid?

Bullsh!t occurs when reality is defined for others according to our own narrow perspective.

[Syn7]

uh they are black holes nothing escapes from them. they affect the space around them. that is how they are perceived.

i love how people who do not believe in God consider themselves experts on the matter. when you want to understand a topic you go to the experts on the matter not people who don't know anything about it.

if you want to know about god read the writings of mystics who have made it their life's work to investgate the matter, not scientists who research only objectively measurable phenomena and know nothing about the topic.

Wow, a lot of assumptions in there. You have no idea what I know about spirituality or what books I've read or what leaders or scholars I have engaged with. I never actually gave you much of an opinion for you to even run with.
Because I question your knowledge of physics you in turn question my knowledge of god? wtf? I based my words on what you wrote, not what I think you may or may not know about physics. You may know a ton about some things, but you have made wrong statements about black holes. In turn you have decided I know nothing about god because you think I don't believe in one. You made a huge assumption and then made more assumptions based on that assumption. I don't know why I even bother answering this sh1t. What's the point, right. You've obviously made up your mind and no matter what is said I just don't see you backing down from anything.

I'm a realistic person, my views change accordingly as new data is gathered. Some views remain unchanged because of no new data, some change daily, hourly. Depends what we're talking about.

Oh and for the record, "uh they are black holes nothing escapes from them." is also an incorrect statement.

[Syn7]

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

Yes, but can you remember how the song goes?

[Syn7]

I prefer meta-agnostic.

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

But can you be sure that you aren't sure about what you aren't sure about? Ya never can be sure!

[Syn7]

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

Honey Badger don't care about you!

[Syn7]

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

Honey Badger don't know you!