I rather expected you to say something like that.
My post was for information not defense.
I don’t live in ancient history.
I lived through those times. I agree that only about 5% might know calculus, so what, do we all need to know what we will never use? Each person will know different things that pertain to their job, nothing uncommon about that. I was trained in the printing/publishing field, how many know that field? You can’t prove what you say about God, so you really don’t know whether He is involved or not. That is the truth. You are preaching science doctrine.
I hope not, it would be a quick victory for religion. It is true that formal church religion is on the wane, but interest in spiritualism is rising rapidly, more books, TV, radio, and web sites all the time.
So far that belief does not contradict available scientific evidence , which means their beliefs are not self contradicting.
Why don’t you save your roll eyes until that happens.
You’re right, there’s no scientific evidence thus far that shows their founder isn’t the supreme manifestation of god. :rolleyes: I’ll await that information.
empty ridicule noted and duly ignored.
I think you’re overrating inspiration. After all, Ed Wood was inspired also. 
I don’t have spiritual experiences, since I don’t have that type of personality, but I’ve had plenty of experiences where a way of looking at a problem that changed the way I viewed a little part of the world came out of nowhere. I tend to think our subconscious is always coming up with random thoughts (stream of consciousness) filtering most of them, but throwing up ideas that once in a while connect. Those whose random thoughts connect more often than others, and who can act on them, are the geniuses of the world, in the non-IQ sense. If inspiration came from the spirit world, I’d hope it would be better than average. Or maybe the spirit world is populated by the equivalent of hack writers.
I agree that very few people know about printing. Do you think the processes used should be put to a vote of everyone, or determined by people like you who know what they’re doing? In a similar way, I don’t care what those who aren’t scientifically trained say about the process of science.
Anyhow, if you lived through the early 19th century, you must be the 2,000 year old man, and Carl Reiner should be interviewing you.
I agree that I don’t know for sure whether god is involved - but if he is, he’s hiding very effectively.
In the Congo, rebel soldiers tested their faith against bullets.
Faith lost big time.
What’s empty and ridiculous is proclaiming yourself the supreme manifestation of god as that founder did.
That empty, ridiculous quasireligion noted and duly ignored.
No, he’s not hiding at all he’s made himself known, you’re just not willing to see him, none so blind as those that will not see, blah, blah, blah, blah, BLAAAAAH! LOL
(I agree with you).
I agree that inspiration comes in various degrees. I’m a writer myself and am always interested in other writers talking about the process. I remember Neil Simon saying that when he was truly in the zone it felt like his muse was standing at his shoulder dictating the words from his characters and he felt like he should ask, “What happens next?” Another writer has said “Some songs you write, others you just write down”
I’ve had that feeling of tapping into some creative source and although I think it’s a similar experience, a truly profound spiritual experience is much stronger and more moving. It’s like the difference between a sip of wine and a shot of 100 proof whiskey. That’s why the individual is left with the feeling and perhaps the conviction that they have experienced something that transcends the self.
Reading about Gandhi he recounts an experience in prison when he was contemplating how to approach a certain problem. The answer came to him with such clarity that it seemed literally like another voice. He called it the voice of God although he never tried to insist anyone else accept his interpretation of that experience. For a diseased, irrational mind he did okay.
For myself I’ve had several of varied degrees that startled me and left me in wonder or awe. One in particular that I may have written of before.
I was extremely distraught about certain things. Lying in bed and unable to sleep I played out scenario after scenario trying to figure out what to do. Hours ticked by and eventually I just wanted to turn of my thoughts and sleep. I had a dream or a vision or whatever that explained to me what was going on and why, and how the web of our action and interaction works. I woke up a different person, completely at peace with the situation. I was so euphoric it almost felt like a really good high. A friend who knew nothing of my dream but a lot of my situation commented. “What happened? You’re almost glowing”
I can accept that maybe my anxiety triggered a release of some chemical in the brain to create a more positive feeling, but the vision itself remains a mystery.
You were speaking of our subconscious before {another thread?} It’s interesting to note that some religions teach of our personal awakening as becoming more fully conscious. We become aware of and discard the subconscious motivations and are able to make clearer more mature decisions.
You talk as if scientific methods are not voted on by scientists, that they are not responsible for “thinking up” what the methods should be, strange. If you don’t care about what others say, you isolate, and insulate yourself from the world at large as if what science says is all you need to know. A true believer/fundee for science. Suggest you broaden your world a bit, and get a real education.
The original post you responded to was intended to point out that there is a religion that teaches it’s followers to embrace education and science. Fact!
You commented and gave the ole roll eyes because they still taught god belief.
I pointed out that at this point in time, god belief and embracing science are not self contradicting.
You then cherry picked something of the web site to sneer at with what was evidently a cursory glance at what was actually being said. I think you even got that wrong. Reading the site I don’t see supreme there. {not that it matters much}Did I miss it or was it something you added?
Their founder is presented as one manifestation of God along with other spiritual figures such as Jesus and Buddha. He is referred to as a divine teacher. Their teachings are less about dogma and getting into heaven and more about
and
I don’t embrace everything they teach but I think the Bahai are a good example of how religion can grow and change and focus their energies as a group on working toward unity and improving mankind’s lot. A worthy goal even through their human imperfections.
So excuse me {or don’t} if your offhanded sneer at them strikes me as an example of your own petty bias.
What’s the point of this post? You said religion and science have lived in peace for centuries, and I merely pointed out a couple of examples of religion’s hostility toward science, Galileo and Copernicus being among the most notorious. I don’t think anyone who knows history can claim that the relation between religion and science has been an easy one.
You talk as if scientists conspire to make shit up, and we should regard their conclusions with healthy skepticism. Strange. And yet you write this post on a computer, and send it out over the internet for others to read. It’s almost as though what scientists were doing actually worked and produced functioning results. What could possibly account for that?
I can’t think of a proper response to this abject ignorance that doesn’t involve making you repeat the first twelve years of school.
It’s clear from your post that you have thoughts on the theory of evolution’s role in defensiveness about God. Look at the title of the thread where you posted it. Is there any chance you’ll address the more substantive part of my response?
Do you differentiate between the role of the theory of evolution and that of the germ theory of disease in light of the topic here? If so, how and why?