Claims of miracles by Buddha do not prove his divinity. Do they? No - of course you are going to doubt those accounts. You are selective in what accounts you believe. You are, as they say, an atheist about all but one god, the Christian god. I only take it one god further. We are not far apart.

Crazy Anglican said: "It seems as if we're at the point that the evidence will be construed in a way to fit our liking rather than the other way 'round. Probably on both of our parts."

Yes - I can agree with that. I'm reminded of a quote: "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful." - George Box, statistician

I think I'll leave it at that for the moment. Cheers.

Dexter_Mortan - If you would like to read on Fatima (and the fact that some non-Christians reported seeing events there as well), it is here on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima

Your argument, then, is to state that matter "is." This of course implies the continuous expansion, contraction, etc., but we have discussed that in detail (and I have not had a chance to go look up what I wanted to find anyway).

My other question from earlier has not been addressed, however. What are your thoughts on free will?

Jings! (search for non-religious expletive successful)

I drive home and miss loads.

nola - actually, I disagree - before the Big Bang there was no space either. All the dimensions (4, or 11) were all wrapped up. As there is no 'before', there is no 'space'.

I'm going to step out now, but I'd just like to commend everyone for keeping the tone of this debate 'right'.

@nola2172, I am about to get offline... but I'll give you a quick answer about free will. I don't know. It is a useful model to assume that we do have free will... and if we don't then there is certainly nothing we can do about it. It seems like we do... but then I'm not sure how we would test it... as the idea of determinism based on physics down to the molecular level would be pretty hard to suss out. The probabilities involved in quantum physics ("randomness", if you will, as distinguished from determinism) seems to suggest at least that the future may not be determined... but that doesn't necessarily require free will... it could be probability and chance with us not at the controls, so to speak. That model seems all very odd to me - but then so does the fact that our bodies are mostly space between atoms and between electrons and nuclei... so my ability or inability to understand does not determine reality... of course.

I would disagee on Bhudda's part. He didn't claim divinity (or at least to be the son of God) and certain Bhuddist sect border on atheism in their beliefs. But ever the pragmatist, I look at it this way.

A) If the Hindus and buddists have it right (I'll get another chance) "My Hindu friends say I'm an old soul anyway"

B) If the atheists have it right - It dosen't matter

C) Taoism, Shinto, and Confucianism do not require exclusivity for enlightenment

D) Old forms of paganism tended to rely on physical forms for gods & are largely not practical anyway. Neo-paganism from what I've observed seems to be another "We really don't like Christians that much" club.

E) Judaism, Christianity & Islam most likely worship the same God. Of them, Christianity is the only one with eye witnesses that went to rather grisly ends without recounting a syllable of their story as to the divinity of their leader.


Top it off with Christianity being a good way to live life. Adding years and better health on average (empirical studies have backed up the benefits of personal faith). Being part of an institution that for the most part is trying to make positive changes throughout the world.

I'd say I don't have to be an atheist in any since, I just see the sense in my choice.

@Nola. A lot of things have been said since my last post, so I’ll just address your response to me.
To be clear, I never said reason and empiricism were the same thing. Most scientific theories use mathematical tools which where conceived through abstract (non empirical) reasoning independent from the “real” world. Most of the time, mathematical concepts precede the science theories. Actually I find it fascinating that abstract concepts always manage to find an application in the real world. However these non–empirical scientific theories have to be validated by direct or indirect observations at some point. This is what I meant by the “best we can do”. We can think that our perception of the world is flawed (this is a possibility I totally accept), and it is certainly limited, but we have to rely on something. This can also be true of our inner perceptions. The fact that they come from inside do not necessarily make them more truthful.
Science is aware of the limits of our observations, and sometimes more aware than religion (Quantum mechanics, for example, states that our act of observation modifies what we observe making it impossible to see the world in a neutral way). On the other hand, many religious concepts are based on what was observed/witnessed.
By the way, what surprises me is that, after accusing me of being confused about empiricism and reason, you state that “Jesus son of God” is REASONABLE because some (many?) people WITNESSED (meaning observed it with their own eyes) it. So you’re the one associating empiricism with reason here. You can not question and accept the reality of human observations whenever it suits you. Personally I think a reasonable observation is an observation that can be reproduced/verified. One can not reliably reason on facts that can not be verified. The witnessing you mentioned is not verified; it is just BELIEVED (as you said) to be true. Any policeman can probably tell you how many ways a single event can be witnessed by different people.
As for your misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, Dexter Morgan already addressed it. Confusing natural selection and eugenics is unfortunately pretty common.

"You can not question and accept the reality of human observations whenever it suits you. Personally I think a reasonable observation is an observation that can be reproduced/verified."

I saw Comet Hale Bopp. It cannot be reproduced and the only verification is that some people saw it with me, and can attest to the fact that I saw it. Is that not enough?

@Crazyanglican. This not the only verification. You probably know it was a comet because scientists said it was. Besides I am sure there are plenty of pictures taken by different people from various backgrounds. Also it was probably expected and the calculations made should correlate your witnessing.
If you had been the only one in the world to see it (with your friends), with no other scientific evidence, we could just conclude that you saw something that you interpreted as being a comet (assuming you did not lie). I would not assume that it was in fact a comet.

But by the same token you're taking my word for it because you know it to be possible. There is no real evidence that I saw it, only evidence that it was there to be seen. In this case you're choosing what to believe based your prior idea of its possibility. The converse is true with the eye witness accounts of miracles. You believe miracles to be impossible, and therefore dismiss any account of them as inaccurate.

If I assume you told the truth, I just admit that the comet is a possibility since many other comets have been seen and accounted for. At the same time, I also said that you could have been lying. I also said I would not assume it was a comet, so, no, I am not taking your word for it. I would start big theories based on your sole statement.
I never said miracles were impossible, or they never happened. However, since they are not reproducible and there are not enough evidences (otherwise everybody would admit they exist), I can not reasonably assume they happened. One can believe they happened, but that would be a matter of Faith, not reason.

I meant I would NOT start big theories.

So your position is that they might have happened?

It is a possibility among others, yes.

"The presence of the Holy Spirit, largely is a feeling that he is there. Christians point to evidence of the phenomenon and interpret it according to the feeling they have in just the way that you point to love and interpret it according to the feeling you have. It doesn't follow that love is unreal. So it shouldn't of necessity follow that God is unreal. According to he same evidence that you accept with regard to other.

Before you say that it's purely internal and subjective, wait for just a second. Love by necessity has an object. Even in the absence of an object of love people feel the desire for it. Hence the desire leads to the object. Why wouldn't the same be true for God? Isn't it making up special rules for him to say that this is the impulse that really doesn't have an object?" THE OBJECT CAN BE FALSE. I CAN LOVE SOMETHING I PERCEIVE TO BE REAL THAT IN FACT IS NOT REAL. A PERSON THAT I LOVE HAS A CHARACTER AND INTERACTS WITH ME AND SHARES THOUGHTS. GOD IS AN ABSTRACT IDEA THAT DOES NOTHING FOR ME. I DO NOT LOVE SELFISHLY OR FROM FEAR, WHEREAS GOD IS FOLLOWED PRIMARILY FOR SELF INTEREST AND BECAUSE OF FEAR OF THE DEVIL, HELL, ETC... THOUGH THERE MAY BE SINCERE SELFLESS LOYALTY TO GOD, IT IS BY AND FAR THE MINOR MOTIVATION FOR WORSHIP

So, I take it you're disavowed of the notion that Jesus Christ is a copy of Siddhartha Gautama?


Anyway no need to shout, We're well aware that you don't believe. You are, however, falling into the fallacy of omniscience if you ascribe motives to people that you don't know. It may seem perfectly reasonable to you that fear is the major motive (or a motive at all) and the selfless loyalty and love to God isn't a major factor,but I suggest that you cannot with any authority speak for a large group of people the overwhelming majority of whom you've never met.

It's also not necessary to love selflessly at all times. Infants are very selfish (having raised three I can attest to the fact that they are not patient at all when it comes to their needs) Yet they may love their parents as sincerely as an adult who is no longer dependant upon them. In my opinion, it would be the height of hubris to look upon the Almighty and say "You can do nothing for me, but I love you still".

Have we got off the point here?

I don't think we were ever actually on point in this one. One or two posts perhaps, but that was about it.

I disagree about your point on hubris, and no I'm not completely giving up on my connection between the Buddha and Jesus of Nazareth, because only a fool would overlook the similarities. I had sticky keys stuck on while I typed that btw, that's why the caps were like that, it was my last post of the night and then I turned off my computer, so yeah. Human nature's not all that difficult to grasp. However, you've given in to the same fallacy when you've made assumptions about all atheists persectives which you've done numerous times in previous threads. We are way off the point. I believe though that this thread can focus on creationism v evolution, because while science and religion obviously aren't completely opposed, though I still hold that science erodes many superstitious beliefs that prop up Christianity because I know this is true by just simply looking at changing beliefs over time within the Church (ie witches for the obvious one, although many people still believe in witches, sadly). I don't think this question has been addressed yet though: Do you honestly believe that the Earth was created in six days and that a ubiquitous all-powerful force got pooped so on the seventh day decided to take a rest? (maybe he wasn't pooped, I don't really think this part matters at all). I think this is an over simplified way of viewing the underlying explanation for anything, and it seems obsolete and foolish to me. I realize that you accept evolutionary principles, but do you allow these to coexist in your view with creationism? Just curious. Obviously, it is perfectly possible for the whole seven days and then Adam and Eve thing to have occured, I wasn't there, but on the same note, is just seems illogical and stupid to me.

Are you real, Otto?

I don't know. I may in fact be an illusion. It's difficult to tell. Sometimes my half-conscious semi-being is uncertain. What constitutes the real? Is anything real? At the very least I just got us back on track to the whole where we come from topic instead of a pointless debate between science and religion that ought not to be.

@ otto

You think I'm a fool?

That hurts my feelings :-(

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate it though. I took the liberty of looking the idea up independently, and it seems to come down to six items. Four from the "Gospel of Infancy". A quick look into any Holy Bible will show you that this book isn't there. An assertion that the "description of the light" in the Simeon story appeared to be a direct copy from a Bhuddist text. Perhaps you can help me with this one as there are a lot of Simeons in the Bible. The one that came to mind was Christ's presentation at the Temple, but it doesn't mention a light.

All in all it seems, rather than plagiarize Sidharthata Gautama, the items seem to show carefulness upon the part of the church fathers during the canonization process in rejecting these items as non-canonical.

The sixth item (having to do with baby Jesus reaching out his hand and a palm tree bowing down for him to take a date) doesn't even show up in literature at all until the Twelfth Century. This one shows up in religious art (especially Scandinavian art from about the fourtheenth century), but it's not in the Holy Bible.

I apologize I forgot to cite the source on this one and I haven't found it again. I'll keep looking so that you can check it out.

I'd like to see that. I think you're vastly overlooking the immaculate conception stories though. And writing off the common element of temptation with (but aren't we all) just doesn't cut it for me. And while these elements may not be directly stolen, there seems to be a connection, or borrowing of some of the ideas. Of course, I'm not saying that the Buddha was real, any more than Jesus in terms of his divinity or enlightenment.

@ otto (again)

I'm glad you asked about my religious veiws in relation to evolution.

Here's a quote from Stephen J. Gould

"Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his religious beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G. G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic. Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_darwin-on-trial.html


The stance that I take is called Theistic Evolution, and it's similar to the stance I've seen from the Christians who posted in this thread, aside from S.S. Reichsguy. I don't deny any of the evidence of the Theory of Evolution. Neither do I deny the validity of Christianity. I've held the stance since oh about 1979 or so (about when I learned what evolution was). As to the biblical stories of Creation I've always wondered how we could be expected to take two different stories as the literal truth (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2) If you read it there man was created twice. Also the stories come from two different groups. One called God "Elohim" (I think) and the other called him Yahwe. Hence two creation stories. Also It made a lot of sense when I asked me Suday School teacher about it and he replied quite sensibly "It's a creation story, who was there to take notes?".

rants from page 4 stuff...

"Christians can be smart and do good things, our Chirstianity actually helps us do so according to most of us." - i disagree with the second part here. You seem to suggest tha without your christianity you would find it harder to do good things; and maybe that is your personal expierence. However it is certainly not mine, and i hope, i trust that humans are capable of good - whetehr they happen to be Chritsian or not.

"Obviously, evolution isn't understood as well as the seasons" - I know this isn't what i'm argueing, but seasons are reaaly complicated by solar outputs, and interesting phenomina, how the weather pattrens changed (in say India between now and the last ice age) may be understood, but why, what drove those changes is more difficult.

The fact that in evolution we understand the driving force (if not the specific changes) means i think we have a better grasp of it in the general sense.

"Science suggests evolution, however it doesn't exclude creationism." - yeah sure, but Science class is where we teach science, and within the science we do consider the theory of evolution to be the best theory we have right now. You can bring your children to creationist museums all you like on your own time, but there is no reason to waste time in a science class with Creationism or Flying Spagetthi Monsterism.

How can you argue for one but not both?

"This can not be proven, but it also can't be disproven." - which is why it isn't science, some string theories get the same criticism. Science is
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Test
4 . Revise hypothesis - repeat 3 and 4

If you can't test it, not only does it not provide any useful predictions, it can't be distinguished from any other competing theory. You can prove Science wrong, a specific theory can't be proved, but you CAN find evidence which requires a reworking of the hypothesis. Otherwise the theory is not useful or interesting - and definetly not Science (so it doesn't belong in the Science classroom) Seriously, Science has been VERY successful because it pulls apart it's own ideas and reworks them, it builds on past evidence and helps us understand a bit more about the Universe - Christians care about it because it reveals the beauty and complexity in God's creation (if you don't believe in God, it is just Creation, and Science still reveals the awesome beauty and complexity. If you don't stop in awe every so often when thinking about Creation then you don't really understand the first thing about it.... well maybe the first thing.)

re: "I met a girl once...."
@paralleopiped - that is so strange, my wife was your wifes friend who the Russian Ambassador was fooling around with, but we have this arrangment where she can sleep with who-so-ever she pleases, so long as she doesn't borrow coats from her friends. (we took non-standard wedding vows too - something about me providing for all her needs...) So i was very upset to see she was wearing YOUR wife's coat. Logic, nah Honour dictates that I kill those who would so insult me as to help my wife - implying that i have not done my duty as a husband and father to provide for her.

- see i can make up stories too, and in my world honour is more important than anything else. It may be logical, it may seem irrational if you don't understand the polyamourous, honour based binding of our wedding ceremonies, but by golly it works!

RE: The stance that I take is called Theistic Evolution

Yeah, it is possible to interpret the Bible in such a way that it agrees with other things we understand to be true. It is also possible to come up with ideas based on the bible which are consistant with the bible and still explain the evidence we see (but not scientifically)

So as to the war between Science and Religion, well some Religious minority in the US (very specifically) is very loud. We don't have the same arguements in Europe.

That is a seperate political issue, which if we just ignore will hopefully go away. You Christians should be ashamed they bring your name into disrepute with their nonsense, but I not being a Christian will refrain from disparaging you or them for fear of insulting those reasonable Christians who i want to be my friends.

No war her, we're just trying to advance our understanding one aspect of the universe at a time.

these are the same kind of crazy people who instigated this: "Backwards messages, known as Backmasking, in songs have been around since the Beatles (Tomorrow Never Knows is the first known song to contain a backwards message) and were at times surrounded by incredible media and public hysteria. In early 1982, the Praise the Lord Network’s Paul Crouch hosted a show William Yarroll, who argued that rock stars were cooperating with the Church of Satan to place hidden subliminal messages on records. Also in 1982, fundamentalist Christian pastor Gary Greenwald held public lectures on dangers of backmasking, along with at least one mass record-smashing. During the same year, thirty North Carolina teenagers, led by their pastor, claimed that singers had been possessed by Satan, who used their voices to create backward messages, and held a record-burning at their church."

Lol backmasking .... that was a long time ago. Let me see um .... it's backwards, I'm not going to hear it, and I'm certainly not going to screw up my turntable by trying to play it backwards. Not to mention when it got played on NBC's Nightline whatever the album it sounded like ""bubblrl lektwo izkslkrtlak" and then the guy would say "Ya See! It clearly said '<insert freaky cult message here> '". As a very insightful friend of mine said at the time, "I'm a lot more interested in what the songs say forewards than backwards".