India is about to spend a ridiculous $530 million on a statue in the middle of the Arabian sea

[zen]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

You commented about his title- i am saying that if he actually believed in Devas, then it'd be an illogical position.

It does not matter about 'domain'. Proof is proof. You are lying to yourself if you think proof changes standards depending on 'domain'. It doesn't. Whether  something exists or not, is a matter of empiric evidence.Not 'different strokes for different folks', thats called lying to yourself and forgetting the fact that just because you wish something to be true, doesnt make it so.

 

 

 

^ Repetitive points 

 

now could you show that the Islamic scholar who translated Ind medical journals was not religious

 

And please read the studies posted .... Let me know if you agree that Shakespeare does not alliterate

 

Thank you 

 

PS

 

 

Quote

But like i said, ancient man didnt have the resources they do now to see that God is a stupid concept. 

 

What resources? 

 

 

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/ 

 

• "Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population."

Edited January 11, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, zen said:

 

^ Repetitive points 

 

now could you show that the Islamic scholar who translated Ind medical journals was not religious

We don't know who translated it- it most probably were the Barmakids themselves, considering that in the era of Harun Al Rashid, there weren't many Arabs who could read Persian, let alone Indic languages. 

Regardless, what has translation got to do with innovation/creativity ?

 

Quote

 

And please read the studies posted .... Let me know if you agree that Shakespeare does not alliterate

 

You are comparing apples to oranges. Accepted definitions in literature are not the same thing as evidence for existence of something/someone.

Whether you are looking for a new species of creatures, an iron-ore deposit, the sun, God, etc. they are all the same benchmark of existence and use the same logic pathway. God doesn't get to be a 'different category', since it is still about material existence. 

And of that, God has failed to prove its existence/we have failed to prove God exists.

 

Quote

What resources? 

You do realize that the discoveries, inventions and theoretical breakthroughs we've had in science & material subjects, as well as in phenomenal existence, that have occurred since 1850s are orders of magnitude greater than rest of human history prior to that, yes ? So we have far more knowledge and thats why we find a far higher prevalence of education amongst atheists.

 

Quote

 

"Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population."

These projections are meaningless. In 1950s, nobody would've guessed that over 50% of Scandinavia or Germany would identify as atheist/non-practicing in 2016. 

Besides, even if the total % of atheists in the world keep declining, it still doesn't change the fact that God is an unproven & illogical concept. Even if 99.99999% of humanity professed any of the current religions, it still doesnt change the fact that God is only a belief, not an empirically observed & proven reality.

Not to mention, even if the current trends hold (which it think it will), its not the end for atheism or rationalism- take a look at historical literacy rates around the world. There were less literate people (% of the world population) in 1950 compared to 1940.

There was also no change in literacy rate for the world between 1970 and 1980. 

So these stats, don't mean much.

 

[zen]

13 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

We don't know who translated it- it most probably were the Barmakids themselves, considering that in the era of Harun Al Rashid, there weren't many Arabs who could read Persian, let alone Indic languages. 

Regardless, what has translation got to do with innovation/creativity ?

 

You are comparing apples to oranges. Accepted definitions in literature are not the same thing as evidence for existence of something/someone.

Whether you are looking for a new species of creatures, an iron-ore deposit, the sun, God, etc. they are all the same benchmark of existence and use the same logic pathway. God doesn't get to be a 'different category', since it is still about material existence. 

And of that, God has failed to prove its existence/we have failed to prove God exists.

 

You do realize that the discoveries, inventions and theoretical breakthroughs we've had in science & material subjects, as well as in phenomenal existence, that have occurred since 1850s are orders of magnitude greater than rest of human history prior to that, yes ? So we have far more knowledge and thats why we find a far higher prevalence of education amongst atheists.

 

These projections are meaningless. In 1950s, nobody would've guessed that over 50% of Scandinavia or Germany would identify as atheist/non-practicing in 2016. 

Besides, even if the total % of atheists in the world keep declining, it still doesn't change the fact that God is an unproven & illogical concept. Even if 99.99999% of humanity professed any of the current religions, it still doesnt change the fact that God is only a belief, not an empirically observed & proven reality.

Not to mention, even if the current trends hold (which it think it will), its not the end for atheism or rationalism- take a look at historical literacy rates around the world. There were less literate people (% of the world population) in 1950 compared to 1940.

There was also no change in literacy rate for the world between 1970 and 1980. 

So these stats, don't mean much.

 

If translation has nothing to do with innovation and creativity, why use it as an example of that in Islamic era? You used that example, along with that of physician Ina, so show that these people were not religious 

 

About God's existence and proof, I have already made the points .... You are recycling your posts to the ones already addressed .... To recap - different domains, different methods .... you are judging things from a very narrow perspective .... and why should anyone give anyone proof about God when it is supposed to be a personal spiritual journey

 

I believe in God/Religion and as well as in Science. To me they are different domains, that require different mindsets and levels of understanding. Now you may believe in just one of them and that is fine, but there is no point in going around making unnecessary claims based on your limited understanding. If someone makes unnecessary claims against Science, I would try to reason with that person as well 

 

Ok so now projections conducted scientifically and provided by respected sources don't work for you .... Appears as if things that do not align with to your opinion, does not work - whether it is scientific, spiritual, art, etc for you .... The issue here probably is that you don't have a "beginner's mind" (google the term for more details). As they say:

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities,
but in the expert's there are few."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, zen said:

If translation has nothing to do with innovation and creativity, why use it as an example of that in Islamic era? You used that example, along with that of physician Ina, so show that these people were not religious 

I used it as an example to demonstrate that a big chunk of 'Islamic Golden Age' is a product of simply translating Indian/Chinese texts to Arabic/Persian, not creativity.

 

Quote

About God's existence and proof, I have already made the points .... You are recycling your posts to the ones already addressed .... To recap - different domains, different methods .... you are judging things from a very narrow perspective .... and why should anyone give anyone proof about God when it is supposed to be a personal spiritual journey

But your point is invalid. You are saying different fields use different benchmark of proof. And as a result, you are showing that what constitutes literary proof, is different from what is scientific proof. 
But my point, which refutes yours, is that its not about 'different fields' using different proofs, but different ideas requiring different proofs. Literature is not an empiric field, it is a field of consensus. What exists/doesn't exist on an existential basis, requires scientific proof. As I said, the proof for whether the sun exits, you exist, new species exist, mineral deposits exist- they are all the same type of empiricism based proof. because existence of something is proven by empiric evidence. God falls into the same category. 

The reason someone should give proof for God is because proving something exists differentiates reality from fiction.

 

Quote

To me they are different domains, that require different mindsets and levels of understanding. Now you may believe in just one of them and that is fine, but there is no point in going around making unnecessary claims based on your limited understanding. If someone makes unnecessary claims against Science, I would try to reason with that person as well 

Whether it is God, mineral deposits, Sun, moon, planets, you, me, your wife, my wife, cups, plates, aliens - they all require empiric evidence to be considered 'existing'. They are all material/claimed to be material, not a literary construct. 

 

Quote

 

Ok so now projections conducted scientifically and provided by respected sources don't work for you .... Appears as if things that do not align with to your opinion, does not work - whether it is scientific, spiritual, art, etc for you .... The issue here probably is that you don't have a "beginner's mind" (google the term for more details). As they say:

I didnt say the methodology of the projections are false- just that projections are simply that- projections. And if my experience in Engineering and being 40+ has taught me anything, is that it is hard enough to project inanimate matter for future material interactions as is (i.e., projecting the path of a cyclone for example) but human interactions & trends are a fool's quest. You might as well flip a coin, because no matter how much you want to accurately project, the end result is rarely following a scientific or phenomenal pattern, almost always subject to human whim.

What this means is, I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of the world turned religious 100 years from now or 99% of the world became atheist 100 years from now. Because those are human social dynamics projections, which as history shows us, can turn on a dime in the matter of just one or two generations.

 

[zen]

19 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I used it as an example to demonstrate that a big chunk of 'Islamic Golden Age' is a product of simply translating Indian/Chinese texts to Arabic/Persian, not creativity.

 

But your point is invalid. You are saying different fields use different benchmark of proof. And as a result, you are showing that what constitutes literary proof, is different from what is scientific proof. 
But my point, which refutes yours, is that its not about 'different fields' using different proofs, but different ideas requiring different proofs. Literature is not an empiric field, it is a field of consensus. What exists/doesn't exist on an existential basis, requires scientific proof. As I said, the proof for whether the sun exits, you exist, new species exist, mineral deposits exist- they are all the same type of empiricism based proof. because existence of something is proven by empiric evidence. God falls into the same category. 

The reason someone should give proof for God is because proving something exists differentiates reality from fiction.

 

Whether it is God, mineral deposits, Sun, moon, planets, you, me, your wife, my wife, cups, plates, aliens - they all require empiric evidence to be considered 'existing'. They are all material/claimed to be material, not a literary construct. 

 

I didnt say the methodology of the projections are false- just that projections are simply that- projections. And if my experience in Engineering and being 40+ has taught me anything, is that it is hard enough to project inanimate matter for future material interactions as is (i.e., projecting the path of a cyclone for example) but human interactions & trends are a fool's quest. You might as well flip a coin, because no matter how much you want to accurately project, the end result is rarely following a scientific or phenomenal pattern, almost always subject to human whim.

What this means is, I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of the world turned religious 100 years from now or 99% of the world became atheist 100 years from now. Because those are human social dynamics projections, which as history shows us, can turn on a dime in the matter of just one or two generations.

 

You need to refer to your post #143 (iirc) .... still waiting for the answer 

 

By being stuck on scientific proof argument, you are showing uni-dimensional thinking. For example, there are things that you feel from inside you (intangibles)  which cannot be measured. Say love or a parents inclination towards child A vs child B even though both of them show equal affection towards their parents, etc. You cannot express that through a scientific formula .... Now if you are comparing God with mineral deposits, it shows you have no clue on what you are talking about .... Please don't keep recycling your points, I know what you are saying about God and proof and have mentioned in other posts as well - "I believe in what I see, yadda yadda". You are not the first one to say this and will not be the last but the faith is God is as strong as ever  

 

Everyone understand projections are not accurate. But they serve as a guide. If the weather report says it is going to snow in two days and if you are going on a trip, will you not pack accordingly? Or because you dreamt about the trip to be in a sunny weather, you would go with sun in mind anyways? .... If you think that scientifically conducted projections are not accurate and your unscientific opinion is, well keep dreaming 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

7 minutes ago, zen said:

You need to refer to your post #143 (iirc) .... still waiting for the answer 

 

By being stuck on scientific proof argument, you are showing uni-dimensional thinking. For example, there are things that you feel from inside you (intangibles)  which cannot be measured. Say love or a parents inclination towards child A vs child B even though both of them show equal affection towards their parents, etc. You cannot express that through a scientific formula .... Now if you are comparing God with mineral deposits, it shows you have no clue on what you are talking about .... Please don't keep recycling your points, I know what you are saying about God and proof and have mentioned in other posts as well - "I believe in what I see, yadda yadda". You are not the first one to say this and will not be the last but the faith is God is as strong as ever  

 

Everyone understand projections are not accurate. But they serve as a guide. If the weather report says it is going to snow in two days and if you are going on a trip, will you not pack accordingly? Or because you dreamt about the trip to be in a sunny weather, you would go with sun in mind anyways? .... If you think that scientifically conducted projections are not accurate and your unscientific opinion is, well keep dreaming 

 

 

Yeah. I give up. You will simply not agree that for something to exist, whatever it is, it has to meet a common definition of existence presentable by our senses. 

You want to go into 'maybe it exists'. Well, the moment it goes into 'maybe', then it is not a fact, its a possibility. The dividing line between saying 'i KNOW so' and ' i BELIEVE so' 

Most of what you are describing,can easily be seen as psychology of a species (species homo sapiens).

I agree, we have digressed a lot, so i am going to leave it at, if we cannot even begin to agree on what constitutes proof for God, then the discourse is not going to be worth it for either one of us. 

[zen]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Yeah. I give up. You will simply not agree that for something to exist, whatever it is, it has to meet a common definition of existence presentable by our senses. 

You want to go into 'maybe it exists'. Well, the moment it goes into 'maybe', then it is not a fact, its a possibility. The dividing line between saying 'i KNOW so' and ' i BELIEVE so' 

Most of what you are describing,can easily be seen as psychology of a species (species homo sapiens).

I agree, we have digressed a lot, so i am going to leave it at, if we cannot even begin to agree on what constitutes proof for God, then the discourse is not going to be worth it for either one of us. 

As I said you have placed limits on yourself by not keeping a beginner's mind 

 

Before even pondering about asking for proof, the starting point is the question - why God even needs to give proof of existence? 

 

It is you who has recently learned science, which was always present. We probably still have a long way to go before we realize its full potential. Just because you understand only science, it does not mean everyone has to start proving things to you in a way what you believe is scientific. Tomorrow, you may ask your wife or parents to scientifically prove that they love you. As if love exist, per your theories, its existence needs to be proven like that of mineral deposits. Simply saying "ILU" would be a meaningless exercise in this case. Now if you are accepting "ILUs" as proof, you are moving away from seeking the evidences that you look for and opening new doors to understanding various concepts more holistically and/or from different perspective

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, zen said:

As I said you have placed limits on yourself by not keeping a beginner's mind 

 

Before even pondering about asking for proof, the starting point is the question - why God even needs to give proof of existence? 

 

It is you who has recently learned science, which was always present. We probably still have a long way to go before we realize its full potential. Just because you understand only science, it does not mean everyone has to start proving things to you in a way what you believe is scientific. Tomorrow, you may ask your wife or parents to scientifically prove that they love you. As if love exist, per your theories, its existence needs to be proven like that of mineral deposits. Simply saying "ILU" would be a meaningless exercise in this case. Now if you are accepting "ILUs" as proof, you are moving away from seeking the evidences that you look for and opening new doors to understanding various concepts more holistically and/or from different perspective

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because, as i said many times, proof is the difference between knowledge & belief, between imagination & reality. 

Love is not an entity unto itself. God is, by definition. Why are you equating the existence of an entity to that of a feeling or literary construct, i don't know. This is basic obfuscation. If you cannot differentiate between a being and a feeling, maybe thats why you cannot differentiate between real & imaginary.

 

[Tibarn]

On 1/10/2017 at 5:04 PM, Muloghonto said:

Learn to read :

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=slVobUjdzGMC&pg=RA1-PA99&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=9jb364g4BvoC&pg=PA32&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

These links have already been provided before and had you bothered to read them, you'd see Historians TODAY discrediting Ashokavadana, Mahavamsa, etc. as historical sources

I like how you used 2 books from 2010 (6 year old books) as TODAY.   You realize I quoted Ashoka by Allen (2012) and Ashoka in Ancient India by Lahiri (2015). If you're going to used flawed logic based on date of publication, then at least look at sources that someone else provided. Either way, your sources fail your argument, and it looks like you need to learn to read yourself :

 

1st book you cited, Controversies in World History:

Ashokavadana references 

1)

2)

3)

4)

This guy uses it as a source of information 4 times himself. The only thing he mentions to automatically discredit is the part about Ashoka offering gold to behead Jains and kill Ajivikas. The only reason that he says this is that he believes Ashoka is "tolerant of other faiths," for which he provides no evidence. He is using his own bias to discredit a source.  He's only assuming based on the rock edicts, there is nothing definitive. Some discrediting  

 

The fact that he uses it a number of times as a source of information itself shows that he at best questions certain parts, those relative to religious persecution, based solely on an assumption from the rock edicts. He doesn't question where Ashoka murdered his brothers, personally executed people, created a torture chamber, set prostitutes on fire, etc. All key ingredients of a mass murderer. Once again, composition fallacy.  

 

On to Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa

 

Every reference to Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa in the book. Where is the statement that both texts are discredited? In fact he specifically refers to both as "sources of information." He mentions them 10+ himself. So much for discrediting.  

 

Now all instances of "discredit"

 

Of the 6 times the word is used, it is not once linked to Ashoka, Ashokavandana, Mahavamsa, and Dipavamsa. 

 

Once more, this time the word unreliable: 

 

 

On to the second book, Buddhist Architecture: You actually did a quarter decent job on this one, but: 

 

He claims that the Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa are not entirely reliable, but he doesn't say on what basis. He even cites them numerous times again in his book. That is called bias, picking and choosing what is one wants to consider valid. Either way he doesn't even mention the Ashokavadana. 

Cool, so in regards to the Mahavamsa, he mentions it 5 times. This hardly makes the entire thing discredited.  The one part he attempts to discredit, where Ashoka killed his 99 brothers, he doesn't give a factual reason to discredit it. He doesn't have any evidence that it is made up. Sounds like bias rather than "discrediting." It should not surprise anyone that the author isn't a historian:

Now architect is going to discredit the sources.  As he doesn't mention the Ashokavadana, it doesn't discredit that text either. 

 

On 1/10/2017 at 5:04 PM, Muloghonto said:

The pyramids have writings in them, saying which king built them. So if we can question ashokan inscriptions as 'propaganda, he didnt do any of it, just claimed so', we can then say the same for pyramids 'those kings didnt build it, just claimed credit for it'.

 Strawman,  try to read an argument before responding to it next time.

Quote

Also show a source where archaeology is supposed to be blindly followed.

Show a source where Historians dictate/claim to follow a policy that archaeology is supposed to be 100% accepted, but texts aren't. You try to decide when and where to discredit Ashokavadana, Dipavamsa, and Mahavamsa, based on your biases, and then pull made up rules for studying history out of thin air. You have no basis for discrediting the entire Ashokavadana, Dipavamsa, or Mahavamsa, anymore than anyone else can completely invalidate the edicts.  Historians consider all 4 to be sources. 

On 1/10/2017 at 5:04 PM, Muloghonto said:

Except Sanyal is not a historian, he is an economist.

Sure, and neither is anyone in this thread, including you, a software engineer, but he has actually written history books  somewhat objectively by using sources, which is something you refuse to do. You are the one with an agenda, selectively validating  and invalidating sources based on your bias in order to reach a predetermined conclusion. 

 

 

 

I think I put the link for the wrong article by Sanyal, here is the right one:

http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-commentary/why-india-needs-to-no-longer-be-an-ashokan-republic-but-a-chanakyan-one/

 

 

 

 

[zen]

14 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Because, as i said many times, proof is the difference between knowledge & belief, between imagination & reality. 

Love is not an entity unto itself. God is, by definition. Why are you equating the existence of an entity to that of a feeling or literary construct, i don't know. This is basic obfuscation. If you cannot differentiate between a being and a feeling, maybe thats why you cannot differentiate between real & imaginary.

 

That is more like saying "I" want proof ..... It does not answer why God needs to give proof 

 

For proof, the path is laid out. Since Buddhism was discussed, we know what Siddharta did to enlighten himself and be called the Buddha  

 

Future science and religion, both are paths that lead to God, who is after all the greatest scientist 

 

It is upto you to take the initiative by following either or both the paths. Just asking for proof from those who believe in God is not the way out. As I said, this is not an easy path 

Edited January 12, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

11 hours ago, zen said:

That is more like saying "I" want proof ..... It does not answer why God needs to give proof 

 

For proof, the path is laid out. Since Buddhism was discussed, we know what Siddharta did to enlighten himself and be called the Buddha  

 

Future science and religion, both are paths that lead to God, who is after all the greatest scientist 

 

It is upto you to take the initiative by following either or both the paths. Just asking for proof from those who believe in God is not the way out. As I said, this is not an easy path 

When the existence of the destination is in question, the path to the destination is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Muloghonto]

18 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

This guy uses it as a source of information 4 times himself. The only thing he mentions to automatically discredit is the part about Ashoka offering gold to behead Jains and kill Ajivikas. The only reason that he says this is that he believes Ashoka is "tolerant of other faiths," for which he provides no evidence. He is using his own bias to discredit a source.  He's only assuming based on the rock edicts, there is nothing definitive. Some discrediting  

This critique you have, is of an ACTUAL historian. As i said, ACTUAL historians will always give precedence to archaeological evidence over 2nd hand sources. 'Assuming based on rock edicts' >> 'assuming based on 2nd hand books'. because rock edicts are first hand accounts.

 

Quote

 

The fact that he uses it a number of times as a source of information itself shows that he at best questions certain parts, those relative to religious persecution, based solely on an assumption from the rock edicts. He doesn't question where Ashoka murdered his brothers, personally executed people, created a torture chamber, set prostitutes on fire, etc. All key ingredients of a mass murderer. Once again, composition fallacy.  

 

If you read the book, you will see that he is referencing Ashokavadana not as a source- which he discredits categorically as unreliable. He is quoting Ashokavadana to show what the text claims. Something simple word searches won't show you.

 

Quote

 The one part he attempts to discredit, where Ashoka killed his 99 brothers, he doesn't give a factual reason to discredit it.

He may not state the reason, but the reason is obvious : Mahavamsa uses the term 'Kalasoka', which historians have established, is Kalasoka Kakavarna, the son of Shisunaga, not Ashoka Maurya, son of Bindusara. The accounts of Mahavamsa are impossible to tell who is what because of the mishmash of two kings into one account. The term used for Ashoka was Chandasoka, not Kalasoka.

 

Quote

Now architect is going to discredit the sources.  As he doesn't mention the Ashokavadana, it doesn't discredit that text either. 

Quote

Sure, and neither is anyone in this thread, including you, a software engineer, but he has actually written history books  somewhat objectively by using sources, which is something you refuse to do.

 

So an architect is invalid in refuting 2nd hand sources, but an economist is valid in refuting first hand sources ? 

We can see who has the bias !!

 

Quote

 Strawman,  try to read an argument before responding to it next time.

No, not strawman, its an analogy. If you can question first hand sources for Ashoka by saying 'we don't know if he ACTUALLY did what he claimed', then someone else can also question first hand sources and say ' we don't ACTUALLY know if those who claimed to build the pyramids actually built it'. 

But nice job running away when exposed for your inability to differentiate between level of evidence.

 

Quote

You have no basis for discrediting the entire Ashokavadana, Dipavamsa, or Mahavamsa, anymore than anyone else can completely invalidate the edicts.  Historians consider all 4 to be sources. 

Except edicts are 1st hand sources, Ashokavadana, Dipavamsa etc are 2nd hand sources. I've already posted a historian who is quite reputable and discredits the 2nd hand sources when in conflict with first hand sources, proving my point.

 

Quote

You are the one with an agenda, selectively validating  and invalidating sources based on your bias in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.

Sure.

Pointing out that The Ashokavadana is full of errors, such as the Dinara controversy, Pushyamitra-Kanva controversy, etc. or that you can't tell from Mahavamsa whether its talking about Ashoka Maurya or Kakavarna Kalasoka, is 'bias'.

But having an architect, posting in a magazine self- described as 'right of centre', with a stated agenda (exposing Nehru for idolizing an alleged Nehruvian emperor), cooking up fabrications such as 'none of the inscriptions are close to populated sites', despite MOST of the inscriptions sitting smack next to major population centres of 2000+ years ago, is not 'bias'.

 

Quote

You are the one with an agenda, selectively validating  and invalidating sources based on your bias in order to reach a predetermined conclusion. 

Sandal already exposes himself as a guy with pre-determined conclusions when he states Nehru was looking for a Nehruvian figure. 

Completely ignores the FACT that Ashoka's nanny state was closer in economic model of Scandinavian economy (where its a nanny state with free market capitalist corporations called Srenis) than it is to a poor socialist country. 
 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

When the existence of the destination is in question, the path to the destination is putting the cart before the horse.

 

Then don't take the journey .... who is forcing you? .... It is you who goes around asking for proof and when a solution is offered you quote the above 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

41 minutes ago, zen said:

Then don't take the journey .... who is forcing you? .... It is you who goes around asking for proof and when a solution is offered you quote the above 

 

 

Solution offered is blind faith. Which brings us back to square one. Which is, go on, believe in whatever you want- its your right. But then qualify if with 'belief', not factual. When we say God is unproven, it means God isn't factual. No evidence. 

[zen]

49 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Solution offered is blind faith. Which brings us back to square one. Which is, go on, believe in whatever you want- its your right. But then qualify if with 'belief', not factual. When we say God is unproven, it means God isn't factual. No evidence. 

No evidence to those who don't get it 

 

Those who have evidence are not obliged to provide it .... it is a journey than an individual has to take either through advanced science, religion or both 

 

Now if you take this as a profit or loss type of proposition where you are not sure where you will end up, you have missed the point 

 

As I said before, people who have questioned the existence  of God have come and gone (no one even remembers their names), God is still here 

Edited January 12, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, zen said:

No evidence to those who don't get it 

 

Those who have evidence are not obliged to provide it .... it is a journey than an individual has to take either through advanced science, religion or both 

 

Now if you take this as a profit or loss type of proposition where you are not sure where you will end up, you have missed the point 

 

As I said before, people who have questioned the existence  of God have come and gone (no one even remembers their names), God is still here 

The only difference between calling something evidence and fabrication,is actually producing said evidence. 

If you are not obliged to provide evidence, then i am obliged to label it for what it is : a fantasy. Because thats what 'evidence which is not provided' is - just a claim, a fantasy.

Don't provide evidence. Nobody is pointing a gun to your head and telling you to provide evidence. Nobody is even stopping you from believing you have evidence. But until you provide evidence for others, a claim cannot graduate to being a fact, that is the definition of the word 'fact'. So if you are happy to claim there is a God but God is not a fact, i don't see what we are quarrelling about.

Its not about profit or loss, its about being misled versus pursuing what is true. God isn't here. People who fantasize about God is here. God never showed up and went 'i was here' any more than a personal delusion of charlatans and delusionals. God exists only through the books of those who claim only they know God/God's messenger/message and stories told about those people. Ie, no difference between a scam & God. Scams also claim things, but never produce evidence. 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

The only difference between calling something evidence and fabrication,is actually producing said evidence. 

If you are not obliged to provide evidence, then i am obliged to label it for what it is : a fantasy. Because thats what 'evidence which is not provided' is - just a claim, a fantasy.

Don't provide evidence. Nobody is pointing a gun to your head and telling you to provide evidence. Nobody is even stopping you from believing you have evidence. But until you provide evidence for others, a claim cannot graduate to being a fact, that is the definition of the word 'fact'. So if you are happy to claim there is a God but God is not a fact, i don't see what we are quarrelling about.
 

A reminder - it is you here who is going around asking for proof  .... Nobody is trying to prove anything to you or asking you to believe in God 

 

Quote

Its not about profit or loss, its about being misled versus pursuing what is true. God isn't here. People who fantasize about God is here. God never showed up and went 'i was here' any more than a personal delusion of charlatans and delusionals. God exists only through the books of those who claim only they know God/God's messenger/message and stories told about those people. Ie, no difference between a scam & God. Scams also claim things, but never produce evidence. 

Your points are based on the assumption that because you haven't seen / felt / etc God, those who believe in God haven't too .... And appear to be confused by people who scam in the name of God and religion 

 

Already posted the "world is flat" example ....  Good to know that there is not much difference b/w religious fundamentalists and scientific fundamentalists 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, zen said:

A reminder - it is you here who is going around asking for proof  .... Nobody is trying to prove anything to you or asking you to believe in God 

Whether someone is going around asking for proof or whether someone is trying to crap something down your throat without proof is not the issue here. The issue is you are claiming something to be a fact when it isn't.

 

Quote

Your points are based on the assumption that because you haven't seen / felt / etc God, those who believe in God haven't too .... And appear to be confused by people who scam in the name of God and religion 

No, my point is based on the fact that having only feelings for existence of something is not evidence. It exists in side your head until there is evidence of its existence outside of. I am not confusing anything, i am simply saying there is no difference of evidence between scammers who claim God and religion versus those who think God exists. Those who have 'felt God' simply are acknowledging what is imagined in people's mind only.

No difference from mass delusion.

Quote

 

Already posted the "world is flat" example ....  Good to know that there is not much difference b/w religious fundamentalists and scientific fundamentalists 

 

Except that is not a valid comparison, because whether something exists or not, is a different question from the attributes of that which exists.

 

You will find, whether it is the pygmies, amazon tribes,religious people, non-religious people, Romans, Indians, Chinese or Einstein, the proof for whether earth exists is all the same: we are standing on it, anyone can verify the existence of it. Same for the sun, same for the cup, same for everything that exists. They all have the same proof: can be verified with observation & evidence. 
Your God doesnt fit that category. It exists inside your head. Thats called imagination. When you supply proof, feel free to call it a fact. Till then, its not a fact, because you are not meeting definition of the word fact.

 

Oh and the difference between science fundamentalists, is we are not telling you what to think inside your head about what you cannot prove.

Religious fundamentalists, are.

As i said, feel free to believe in whatever you want to. 
But until you show proof, it is not a fact. The definition of the word 'fact', requires proof.

 

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Whether someone is going around asking for proof or whether someone is trying to crap something down your throat without proof is not the issue here. The issue is you are claiming something to be a fact when it isn't.

 

No, my point is based on the fact that having only feelings for existence of something is not evidence. It exists in side your head until there is evidence of its existence outside of. I am not confusing anything, i am simply saying there is no difference of evidence between scammers who claim God and religion versus those who think God exists. Those who have 'felt God' simply are acknowledging what is imagined in their mind only.

 

 

Except that is not a valid comparison, because whether something exists or not, is a different question from the attributes of that which exists.

Oh and the difference between science fundamentalists, is we are not telling you what to think inside your head about what you cannot prove.

Religious fundamentalists, are.

As i said, feel free to believe in whatever you want to. 
But until you show proof, it is not a fact. The definition of the word 'fact', requires proof.

Again, I have no issues if you think God does not exists .... My point is there is no point in questioning people as discussed  .... You asked for proof, I showed you the path while you are still recycling your posts 

 

An Islamic fundamentalist, for example, wants you to accept his religion and has a variety of arguments for it .... A scientific fundamentalist, who wants to show that God does not exist, comes up with a variety of unnecessary arguments to show it

 

As I said, I believe in both Science and God / Religion .... and so do prominent people of science such as Dr. Abdul Kalam. Below are few quotes by him:

 

“For great men, religion is a way of making friends; small people make religion a fighting tool.”

 

“This is my belief: that through difficulties and problems God gives us the opportunity to grow. So when your hopes and dreams and goals are dashed, search among the wreckage, you may find a golden opportunity hidden in the ruins''.

 

And we are all aware of the knowledge of science that people like Dr. Kalam possess 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, zen said:

Again, I have no issues if you think God does not exists .... My point is there is no point in questioning people as discussed  .... You asked for proof, I showed you the path while you are still recycling your posts 

 

An Islamic fundamentalist, for example, wants you to accept his religion and has a variety of arguments for it .... A scientific fundamentalist, who wants to show that God does not exist, comes up with a variety of unnecessary arguments to show it

 

As I said, I believe in both Science and God / Religion .... and so do prominent people of science such as Dr. Abdul Kalam. Below are few quotes by him:

 

“For great men, religion is a way of making friends; small people make religion a fighting tool.”

 

“This is my belief: that through difficulties and problems God gives us the opportunity to grow. So when your hopes and dreams and goals are dashed, search among the wreckage, you may find a golden opportunity hidden in the ruins''.

 

And we are all aware of the knowledge of science that people like Dr. Kalam possess 

 

 

 

1. Path you showed is belief. Not proof. I realize one can believe in anything and belief can be path to anything people want to believe.

2. Notice, Dr. Kalam calls it a belief. Not a fact. God is a belief, not a fact. Thats my point.  You believe in God, you THINK it exists. I don't believe in God, i don't think it exists. But whether you or I think it or not, the sun exists. Our 'thinking' is irrelevant to its existence. God doesn't meet that category.

i already said, believe whatever you want to, but there is a difference between fact & fiction, knowledge & belief. 

 

Quote

 

An Islamic fundamentalist, for example, wants you to accept his religion and has a variety of arguments for it .... A scientific fundamentalist, who wants to show that God does not exist, comes up with a variety of unnecessary arguments to show it

Sorry, thats backwards. For something to exist, it needs proof of existence. We point out that there is no proof of God's existence. We don't go around proving God doesnt exist- you cannot prove a negative. i.e., you can only prove something exists, not that something doesn't exist. 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Muloghonto