It is impossible to believe in one God or consider God as the only source of truth.

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 97
#91
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,853
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
Some authors say what some authors want to say.

Though in this instance, I would say that you have conflated your question erroneously.

As I stated previously, religions are, and do not need scientific approval.

And as I also suggested, Buddhism is not  a religion in the typical deistic sense.
#92
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,791
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Which religion is most scientifically proven?


Well, all religions are, so require no scientific approval.

And science has never proven the existence of a specific deity or specific deities.

Though old style theocracies (and modern ones I suppose), were/are the chief sponsors of scientific research.

That aside, I would suggest that Buddhism is not a deistic religion, but promotes a ritual adherence to a sort of naive sociological fantasy philosophy, based upon the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, a sort of South Asian Jesus type mystic.

So, I'm not sure that such lifestyle choices require scientific approval, or that the Buddha sought to scientifically prove their basis.

Though material and astrological sciences seem to be a human evolutionary requisite, irrespective of non-scientific theological or philosophical ideology
Which religion is most scientifically proven?


Buddhism. Buddhism and science have been regarded as compatible by numerous authors. Some philosophic and psychological teachings found in Buddhism share points in common with modern Western scientific and philosophic thought.


What did Einstein say about Buddhism?
If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism.” Einstein appears to have occasionally made passing references to the Buddha in conversation.

#93
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,421
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Shila

Hey, I didn't say that. Oh, you mean Albert Einstein, not DA's Einstein.
#94
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,791
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
Hey, I didn't say that. Oh, you mean Albert Einstein, not DA's Einstein
Stay retired.
#95
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,853
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
For sure.

One can simultaneously refer to oneself as both a Buddhist and a scientist.

Similarly one can refer to oneself as both a peach and a pear...Though this doesn't necessarily infer the existence of a tin of fruit salad.

A Muslim grocer would be better placed to prophesize the existence of canned food products.



Western people tend to get all gooey over Buddhism because it's all ace, mystically eastern with prayer wheels, flags and Kung-fu...And overlook the importance of Archimedes.
#96
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,791
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
For sure.

One can simultaneously refer to oneself as both a Buddhist and a scientist.


What is the truest religion in the world scientifically?
Parliament of the World's Religions, Chicago, United States, 1893. A commonly held modern view is that Buddhism is exceptionally compatible with science and reason, or even that it is a kind of science (perhaps a "science of the mind" or a "scientific religion").

#97
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,853
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
Anyone who ever scratched their chin and considered something, was a scientist.

And so people got together in Chicago in 1893 and got all gooey over mystical Boy Gods who go ohmmmmmmmmmm a lot.

Did  a Buddhist ever go to the Moon?

Yep I know, on another plane in another existence.

Nope, I'm no more impressed by Buddhist BS than I am by Catholic BS.

Other than for tourism purposes.

Though Rome is an overpriced, over populated nightmare. (Mind you, so is London)

And I'm sure that the Dalai Lama is a very nice chap, who says excitingly profound things.


And so if eminent World Atheists convened in Chicago next week and concluded that all religion was bollocks, would you believe them?

I doubt it.