Martial Arts & Religion

[David Jamieson]

during American civil wars.

both the Confederate and the Union thought that

God was on their side.

oops.

There's Americans, Canadians, Brits and French who think god is on their side in Afghanistan and for sure there are Afghans who have no doubt that god is on their side.

If you're shooting at people with the intent to kill them, you aren't on god's side, period.

[Drake]

There's Americans, Canadians, Brits and French who think god is on their side in Afghanistan and for sure there are Afghans who have no doubt that god is on their side.

If you're shooting at people with the intent to kill them, you aren't on god's side, period.

I don't think god is on anyone's side over here.

[David Jamieson]

I don't think god is on anyone's side over here.

God doesn't take sides.

People do though. they can't help it and then, desperate to feel valid in their wickedness, they try to make attempts at selling the support of their god for their actions.

Just more sick minded humans do sick minded human stuff. In the name of god of course.

[bawang]

i thought when you shoot the brown peoples, their blood and tears give jesus power. this is not why america go to the iraq??

[wenshu]

i thought when you shoot the brown peoples, their blood and tears give jesus power. this is not why america go to the iraq??

You forgot the dinosaur poop.

[Drake]

Well, that or there is no "god" or "justice", but only abstract concepts of man.

[bawang]

Well, that or there is no "god" or "justice", but only abstract concepts of man.

i believe in guan yu. he is a real god.

[Scott R. Brown]

Well, that or there is no "god" or "justice", but only abstract concepts of man.

I have never seen a black hole, but apparently they exist!, Perhaps God exists too! To say outright God does not exist is almost as extreme as saying outright that he does exist.

Rational people usually require objective evidence, but just because there is no objective evidence is not proof something does not exist. The infrared spectrum existed regardless of whether mankind had the means to measure it objectively. But it could not be proven to exist without the objective means to demonstrate it.

[Drake]

I have never seen a black hole, but apparently they exist!, Perhaps God exists too! To say outright God does not exist is almost as extreme as saying outright that he does exist.

Rational people usually require objective evidence, but just because there is no objective evidence is not proof something does not exist. The infrared spectrum existed regardless of whether mankind had the means to measure it objectively. But it could not be proven to exist without the objective means to demonstrate it.

Uh.. black holes have been proven to exist. You can't see it because you don't work in astrophysics and have access to the findings and evidence. It's on you to get the degree and go see and assist with the research.

At any rate, you have just been penalized 5 points for invoking the burden of proof logical fallacy. On the basis of your flawed logic, god could just be a pantheon of homicidal badgers. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, right?

[xinyidizi]

Uh.. black holes have been proven to exist. You can't see it because you don't work in astrophysics and have access to the findings and evidence. It's on you to get the degree and go see and assist with the research.

Uh ...God has been proven to exist. You can't see him because you don't work in Xinyidizi's church and you don't have access to his qigong and esoteric findings.

[Scott R. Brown]

Uh.. black holes have been proven to exist. You can't see it because you don't work in astrophysics and have access to the findings and evidence. It's on you to get the degree and go see and assist with the research.

At any rate, you have just been penalized 5 points for invoking the burden of proof logical fallacy. On the basis of your flawed logic, god could just be a pantheon of homicidal badgers. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, right?

Uh there is a big difference between God and homicidal badgers.

The claim and experince of a Supreme Power/God is universal to nearly all cultures at all times throughout history. To be sure the experiences are interpreted differently according to culture and other factors, however at tje same time there are similar themes.

God can only be demonstrated through direct experience not through objective measurement (so far), just as happiness cannot be objectively measure.

You can tell me you are happy, but you cannot prove to me you are happy. Yet you would not argue that happiness does not exist. Happiness can only be understood by another who has been happy. If another has never been happy nothing can give them an u.derstanding of it. The same goes with other direct experiences such as pain, sadness, etc.

Experience of God is a direct experience only understood by others who have had the same experience. As with happiness, if one has no experience of God nothing can demonstrate its existence, yet there is no argument one can devise that will argue it away from those who have.

[rett]

I have never seen a black hole, but apparently they exist!, Perhaps God exists too! To say outright God does not exist is almost as extreme as saying outright that he does exist.

Rational people usually require objective evidence, but just because there is no objective evidence is not proof something does not exist. The infrared spectrum existed regardless of whether mankind had the means to measure it objectively. But it could not be proven to exist without the objective means to demonstrate it.

The difference is this. Is it, in theory, possible to disprove the existence of God? Does your idea of God lead to any perceptible and measurable results in the world (even in the future with more advanced instruments) that could let us set up an experiment?

If not, then the question of God's existence is entirely outside of science. When you speak of "knowing" things about God you are using the word "know" in a different way than when you talk about "knowing" whether there are black holes. Before black holes were proven, when they were just a theory, they were a very well-defined theory that could be expected to produce observable and quantifiable results. God, not so much afaik.

Creationists are a good example of people who in practice obfuscate the different meanings of the word "know". But as long as you do keep them separate there's no problem. Many scientists are also religious. They can even have religious experiences caused by scientific work. But they msut keep scientific epistemology and religious faith clearly separate in their minds.

[Scott R. Brown]

The difference is this. Is it, in theory, possible to disprove the existence of God? Does your idea of God lead to any perceptible and measurable results in the world (even in the future with more advanced instruments) that could let us set up an experiment?

If not, then the question of God's existence is entirely outside of science. When you speak of "knowing" things about God you are using the word "know" in a different way than when you talk about "knowing" whether there are black holes. Before black holes were proven, when they were just a theory, they were a very well-defined theory that could be expected to produce observable and quantifiable results. God, not so much afaik.

Creationists are a good example of people who in practice obfuscate the different meanings of the word "know". But as long as you do keep them separate there's no problem. Many scientists are also religious. They can even have religious experiences caused by scientific work. But they msut keep scientific epistemology and religious faith clearly separate in their minds.

Do you know what an orange tastes like? Do you know what happiness feels like?

Prove it! You cannot prove it using objective means yet you can tell me you know these things. How is this so? It is so because there is a knowing that is not objective. It is a form of knowing we all possess yet is rarely recognized.

It you go to sleep and have a dream and then relate the dream to me, can you prove to me you had the dream you told me you had? No you cannot. And I cannot convince you don't know what you clearly know about your dream, or your experience of the taste of an orange.

[wenshu]

God can only be demonstrated through direct experience not through objective measurement (so far), just as happiness cannot be objectively measure.

Experience of God is a direct experience only understood by others who have had the same experience. As with happiness, if one has no experience of God nothing can demonstrate its existence, yet there is no argument one can devise that will argue it away from those who have.

So then all you can say with any certainty is that God is an experience. Not a supreme being or divine creator any more than happiness is a tangible object.

The Dragon In My Garage
by
Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

[sanjuro_ronin]

There are any arguments for the existence of God, and one can argue based one those arguments for the existence of evidence for God.
But evidence does not = proof as any honest scientist or theologist would agree.
There are many things that science postulates based on "available evidence" that it can't prove - parallel universes, cosmic singularities and such.
Doesn't mean they don't exist, just that we can't prove they do but there is perhaps evidence for their existence.
In the same way we can argue the existence of God.
WHICH God of course is another matter.

Of course if God exists and is even remotely close to what we humans in our very infant stage can postulate then the "real" God is so far above and beyond our infantile ability to precieve "HIM" that it almost makes sense that the only way to contemplate God as what we do right now.