How many GODS do you have?

[Baruch]

Only 95 out of a total of the 731 posts in this thread were written by Arik?  Even better.  For a village idiot he sure elicits a large volume of responses--nearly an 800% ratio! [emoji106]

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Arik is a follower of Yoga (the religion).  Do you have something better to offer?  Please remind me.  After a hundred posts by you, I have lost track.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ5YN1Idvjo

I don't endorse or follow any yogis, but this one is as real as one gets.  I am my own yogi, and I accept no followers.

[Absolute_Agent]

Arik is a follower of Yoga (the religion).  Do you have something better to offer?  Please remind me.  After a hundred posts by you, I have lost track.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ5YN1Idvjo

I don't endorse or follow any yogis, but this one is as real as one gets.  I am my own yogi, and I accept no followers.

A hearty Shalom to you.
Jesus was also a yogi. https://youtu.be/Upj5U1jx_WA I highly recommend this discipline, although not a practioner as such. Islam is my religion, although I glean much from other traditions as well--which is consistent with my interpretation of the religion as being universalist and open-ended. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Absolute_Agent]

Atheists are always proclaiming their god-hood, or at least as fan boys of particular scientists.  Sophomoric really.  On the other hand, I don't think the nihilism of complete skepticism is good either.

Each atheist has a unique set of ideas and I wouldn't agree with the generalization, especially since they claim "no god exists." It is to be understood that in many cases this is more of a challenge than a genuine denial; an intellectual position rather than a belief.  As Dr. Zakir Naik likes to say to atheists, "congratulations on saying the first half of the shahada"--the value being in their rejection of false gods.  Many believers make the mistake of trying to prove God's existence when He's deliberately disguised Himself for wise purposes.  Rather my focus is on demonstrating that religious belief is natural, logical and has practical value.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[aitm]

The kid has been brainwashed pretty good. So much in love with his belief that he cannot see the simple nonsense of all religions. Problem with brainwashing is most the brain gets thrown out with the water.

[Baruch]

Each atheist has a unique set of ideas and I wouldn't agree with the generalization, especially since they claim "no god exists." It is to be understood that in many cases this is more of a challenge than a genuine denial; an intellectual position rather than a belief.  As Dr. Zakir Naik likes to say to atheists, "congratulations on saying the first half of the shahada"--the value being in their rejection of false gods.  Many believers make the mistake of trying to prove God's existence when He's deliberately disguised Himself for wise purposes.  Rather my focus is on demonstrating that religious belief is natural, logical and has practical value.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

I had forgot about you.  So how do you feel about Sufis, and more dissidents groups like the Bahais?

[Absolute_Agent]

As to your personal experimental evidence, I very much doubt that you have done experiments that have any significant power. If the effects of the immaterial are as subtle as you claim, the equipment costs alone would bankrupt your typical Joe Everybody.

I have something much more powerful than experiments: experience.   No intellectual or scientific information alone would ever satisfy the heart's longing for God. It must be experienced directly to be understood.  I have that experience, and nothing you or anyone might say could rob me of it.  It transcends all thought and material existence. 

There's no need for expensive equipment, as every human body is equipped with the necessary instrumentality to perceive the reality of Allah.  However it doesn't work unless you freely choose to exercise it.  It's called "faith".


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Absolute_Agent]

I had forgot about you.  So how do you feel about Sufis, and more dissidents groups like the Bahais?

I don't have any particular feelings about them.  Islam is one religion.  If you said la ilaha illa'allah, Muhammadar rasoulullah, then the rest is window dressing.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Arik]

Arik is a follower of Yoga (the religion).

Ehmmm.........

What you mean Yoga the religion?

[Baruch]

Ehmmm.........

What you mean Yoga the religion?

As opposed to Yoga the Hatha the girls doing bending exercises.  Yoga the religion technically being a part of orthodox Hinduism.  Ignorant people in the US need to have things lined up for them.

[Arik]

As opposed to Yoga the Hatha the girls doing bending exercises.  Yoga the religion technically being a part of orthodox Hinduism.  Ignorant people in the US need to have things lined up for them.

There are always people who try their best to vandalize the good things in life.
That is how most spirituality turn into religion but not all people fall in the trap.

It only need a little bit of intelligence to sort out the good from the bad.
Unfortunately most people just don't get it.

[Baruch]

There are always people who try their best to vandalize the good things in life.
That is how most spirituality turn into religion but not all people fall in the trap.

It only need a little bit of intelligence to sort out the good from the bad.
Unfortunately most people just don't get it.

Don't know how things are where you live.  But in the US, yoga is just Asana by beautiful young women (who are flexible enough).  Thinking in terns of connecting Asana to the rest of the Yoga system is considered so advanced, it takes a PhD ;-)  Though I hope the people who do Asana are getting something from it.  Tai Chi is more appropriate for my daughter, because of her illness.  I hope to do Tai Chi with her, when I finish moving.  But in doing Tai Chi, that is actually part of Chinese folk religion.  Ideally one should be thinking Chinese thoughts while doing Tai Chi, just as one should be thinking of Hindu thoughts while doing Asana.

Then there is the question of cultural appropriation.  I think it is mind expanding, to be multicultural, as long as one doesn't lose sight that one cannot be Hindu or Chinese just because of physical or spiritual practices.

[Simon Moon]

People here don't rely on the authority of Catholic priests saying Latin.  They rely on scientists saying maths.  The difference is less than they think.

Oh, please...

If you are unable to detect the difference between what religious leaders say; based on ancient texts, 'feelings', flawed arguments, poor evidence, etc, with the kinds of scientists say, based on verifiable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence, for their theories, then that's a big problem.

We rely on what scientists say, because, guess what? They are using a method that is reliable. Demonstrable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic will beat whatever 'method' you or Arik are advocating, constantly.

Scientists do not speak in absolutes and certainty, unlike Catholic Priests. Scientists are capable of having their minds changes, if new evidence is presented, Catholic priests aren't. If you ever want to go hear some of the most humble people speak, go to a scientific conference. You will hear phrases like, "Others may know more than I do on this subject than I do", "These are our findings so far, if anyone has anything to add, please do", etc.

Ancient texts, 'feelings', flawed arguments, poor quality evidence, are not reliable. How could they be? They all lead to mutually exclusive beliefs. They lead Muslims to believe in Allah, Jews to believe in Yahweh, Christians to believe in Yeshua, Yogis to believe in NDE's, etc, etc.

The difference could not get any further. Just because you can't understand that others don't have a religious mindset like you have, doesn't mean we do have that mindset.

So, nice equivocation fallacy you have there.

[trdsf]

I have something much more powerful than experiments: experience.   No intellectual or scientific information alone would ever satisfy the heart's longing for God. It must be experienced directly to be understood.  I have that experience, and nothing you or anyone might say could rob me of it.  It transcends all thought and material existence. 

There's no need for expensive equipment, as every human body is equipped with the necessary instrumentality to perceive the reality of Allah.  However it doesn't work unless you freely choose to exercise it.  It's called "faith".

Personal experience can never be anything more than anecdotal evidence.  It can be blindingly convincing to the person experiencing it, but it is by definition utterly meaningless to anyone who has not had the exact same experience, and therefore is useless in any evidentiary manner.

Experimentsâ€"which are independently repeatable, with results that are independently verifiable (or not)â€"are always more powerful than any claim of personal enlightenment because they can demonstrate the probable truth, the definite falsity, and perhaps sometimes even the undecidability of a proposition to any independent observer's satisfaction.

Claiming that something has reality means you can demonstrate something's existence concretely and independently of opinion or belief.  I will without debate accept that you believe your god is real, but I reject your claim that your god is real.  You have a massive and unmet burden of proof laid upon your shoulders to make that statement, and saying 'you have to have faith' is an abdication of that responsibility.

[Simon Moon]

People here don't rely on the authority of Catholic priests saying Latin.  They rely on scientists saying maths.  The difference is less than they think.

Oh, please...

If you are unable to detect the difference between what religious leaders say; based on ancient texts, 'feelings', flawed arguments, poor evidence, etc, with the kinds of scientists say, based on verifiable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence, for their theories, then that's a big problem.

We rely on what scientists say, because, guess what? They are using a method that is reliable. Demonstrable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic will beat whatever 'method' you or Arik are advocating, always.

Scientists do not speak in absolutes and certainty, unlike Catholic Priests. Scientists are capable of having their minds changed, if new evidence is presented, Catholic priests aren't. If you ever want to go hear some of the most humble people speak, go to a scientific conference. You will hear phrases like, "Others may know more than I do on this subject than I do", "These are our findings so far, if anyone has anything to add, please do", etc.

Ancient texts, 'feelings', flawed arguments, poor quality evidence, are not reliable. How could they be? They all lead to mutually exclusive beliefs. They lead Muslims to believe in Allah, Jews to believe in Yahweh, Christians to believe in Yeshua, Yogis to believe in NDE's, etc, etc.

The difference could not get any further. Just because you can't understand that others don't have a religious mindset like you have, doesn't mean we do have that mindset.

So, nice equivocation fallacy you have there.

[Simon Moon]

Atheists are always proclaiming their god-hood, or at least as fan boys of particular scientists.  Sophomoric really.  On the other hand, I don't think the nihilism of complete skepticism is good either.

There may be some atheists that think this way, but if so, they are most likely a small minority.

But to say "atheists are always proclaiming their god-hood, or at least as fan boys of particular scientists" is just plain wrong.

Please describe "complete skepticism", because that phrase does not really make sense to me.

When it comes to existential claims (gods, ghosts, bigfoot, supernatural, miracles, etc), I am extremely skeptical, always. I cannot understand the mindset that would allow one to believe in any of this category of claims, without requiring demonstrable and falsifiable evidence.

Am I a "complete skeptic", by your definition? If so, why have I not become a nihilist yet?