Every logical point leads to the fact that there is no god.

So in my personal opinion anyone who belives in god is ignorant. (Don't take that the wrong way)

Every logical point leads to the fact that there is no god.

So in my personal opinion anyone who belives in god is ignorant. (Don't take that the wrong way)

I think it is ignorant to assume that people who believe in god are ignorant. ;)

I don't feel that I am in a place to say whether god does or does not exist. One thing I think that is worth understanding, is that believing in god is not about logic, reason, or knowledge. Its about Faith. Which is completely separate from logic, reason, and knowledge.

I am not a theist. But I'm also not an atheist. I lack faith in "God". But I feel that just because knowledge and logic can't prove gods existence, does not mean that he does not exist. Looking to knowledge to prove gods existence is contradictory. Its not an issue of knowledge. Its an issue of faith.

I think a better question would be "why do people have faith in god?" There are many things that I have faith in. Take gravity for example, thus far from my understanding, science has done little to explain gravity. We know a little about it, but not much. So while I have little knowledge about the workings of gravity, I have faith that if I jump off a ledge, I'm gonna fall.


I think that people believe in god for a number of reasons. One, it gives them hope. Hope that all will not be gone when life ends. Hope that their good deeds do not go unnoticed. Hope that their bad deeds will be forgiven. Some people think that it gives hope that ones enemies will receive their just punishments. But I have never known a religious person to feel this way, though I am sure that some do.
Two: It makes sense to some people. I think that some people have brains that are more equipped to be religious. From what I have read and understand, humans actually have a part of their brains that is responsible for belief in a higher power. Perhaps this part is undeveloped in some people, which results in atheism, or lack of faith. I would imagine someone who is this way would be more geared to science and logic. Like I said above, I lack faith in a higher power. But my mother is a very religious catholic. I have seen her and countless others get something out of going to church. They go in feeling down, and come out feeling much better. More power to them I say.
Three: Some people need religion to be good. I work in a treatment center for drug and alcohol addiction. I regularly attend A.A. and N.A. meetings for work. I have met some people who have such horrendous pasts. Its unspeakable! All of these people attest that the only thing that made them able to leave that kind of life and live a "good" crime free, drug free life, is to believe in a power high than them.

I don't think it is my place to say whether theists are wrong. I don't know very much at all. But one thing I do know is that I don't know shit! But I am almost more intolerant of atheists than I am of theists. An atheist that goes around trying to argue with theists and prove to them that there is no god is no different than a theist that goes around trying to convert others to their religion. And this new atheist movement crying for atheists rights and trying to convince society to change to suit them are equally as hypocritical as any theist I have ever met. But they do it in the name of "open mindedness", and "acceptance". All they are doing is turning non belief into belief. Atheism into a religion. Those people are no different in any way from a religious person.

I think it is ignorant to assume that people who believe in god are ignorant. ;)

Ya it is. Its hard to get something out of your head that has been pounded in your head with the force of practicly the entire world.


I don't feel that I am in a place to say whether god does or does not exist. One thing I think that is worth understanding, is that believing in god is not about logic, reason, or knowledge. Its about Faith. Which is completely separate from logic, reason, and knowledge.

No one is in the place to say wheter god exists. I belive that people can think whatever they want.

One example i can think of is evolution, Whether or not chritians belive it, it is a matter of fact, every single scientific discovory points to it.


"I am not a theist. But I'm also not an atheist. I lack faith in "God". But I feel that just because knowledge and logic can't prove gods existence, does not mean that he does not exist. Looking to knowledge to prove gods existence is contradictory. Its not an issue of knowledge. Its an issue of faith.

All logic suggests there is no god. Yes i understand about faith. You can have faith in the colts but that don't mean there gunna win. i can have faith in my pencil, but it will still break, its irrelvant.


I think that people believe in god for a number of reasons. One, it gives them hope. Hope that all will not be gone when life ends. Hope that their good deeds do not go unnoticed. Hope that their bad deeds will be forgiven. Some people think that it gives hope that ones enemies will receive their just punishments. But I have never known a religious person to feel this way, though I am sure that some do.
Two: It makes sense to some people. I think that some people have brains that are more equipped to be religious. From what I have read and understand, humans actually have a part of their brains that is responsible for belief in a higher power. Perhaps this part is undeveloped in some people, which results in atheism, or lack of faith. I would imagine someone who is this way would be more geared to science and logic. Like I said above, I lack faith in a higher power. But my mother is a very religious catholic. I have seen her and countless others get something out of going to church. They go in feeling down, and come out feeling much better. More power to them I say.
Three: Some people need religion to be good. I work in a treatment center for drug and alcohol addiction. I regularly attend A.A. and N.A. meetings for work. I have met some people who have such horrendous pasts. Its unspeakable! All of these people attest that the only thing that made them able to leave that kind of life and live a "good" crime free, drug free life, is to believe in a power high than them.

Ya i get that. I think that religion was created to fill all the holes in the things that people couldn't explain. But then it was warped from that to something to control the masses. It worked. But in an age where people are smart enough to know right from wrong without having it shoved in there brain, people don't need it.

Mabye the weak do....

I believe in God and I have a rational mind.

I wish for the day a mathemitician comes out of the laborotory and says "I have the answer... it's God!" I believe this is what science is the pursuit of.

Do you believe god created the world in 7 days?

Ya it is. Its hard to get something out of your head that has been pounded in your head with the force of practicly the entire world.
I disagree. I know a lot of people who decide to be theists, despite being raised as atheists.



No one is in the place to say wheter god exists. I belive that people can think whatever they want.


Good. So do you agree with my statement about about atheists turning atheism into just another religion?

Another thing I might ask, is if you believe that others are free to think what they want, what makes them more ignorant for believing in god than you are for not believing in god?


One example i can think of is evolution, Whether or not chritians belive it, it is a matter of fact, every single scientific discovory points to it.

I know a lot of Christians who believe in evolution. There are many denominations of Christianity that take the bible literally and do not believe in evolution. But there are also many that see the genesis story as symbolic. Who is to say that god did not create life to evolve? I would imagine that if there was a god, he would want us to be able to grow and change over time and become better. The bible doesn't say that evolution does not exist. Just because people interpret it to say that creationism is true, does not mean that the bible says that.


All logic suggests there is no god. Yes i understand about faith. You can have faith in the colts but that don't mean there gunna win. i can have faith in my pencil, but it will still break, its irrelvant.

Putting faith in the colts or a pencil is different than putting faith in god. A pencil and a football team are fallible. God is infallible. As is gravity. God will never fail to be god.



Ya i get that. I think that religion was created to fill all the holes in the things that people couldn't explain. But then it was warped from that to something to control the masses.

I agree to an extent. I believe that for the most part, most religions are in place to control. But the controlers are unwittingly controlling, as they too are being controlled. I think the original intent of all major religions was good. It was just warped by others. Mind you. This is also not a good argument against god. This is an argument against people.


But in an age where people are smart enough to know right from wrong without having it shoved in there brain, people don't need it.

DO you really think that we live in an age where people are smart enough to know right from wrong? Cause I think we are far from it! Take a look around son. Are you missing the news? Wars all over, a major holocaust only about 70 years ago... We as a species are far from being able to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong. You could point out that a lot of the people doing bad things are doing so in gods name. But there are also many who are doing it out of their own volition. Again, just because humans are doing bad things in gods name, does not mean that god is bad or non existent. It just means that those people are bad... and stupid.


Mabye the weak do....

Hmm... I've always wondered why people label religious people as weak. What is it about believing in god that makes a person weak? Also, you are yet again stooping to the level of those who believe. They label you as lost, you label them as weak. How are you any different than them?

I guess im not any differnt. I just have accepted that there is no afterlife, no heaven, no hell, only this world.

Isn't it true that most free thinking people come to the conclusion that there is no god?

From what I have read and understand, humans actually have a part of their brains that is responsible for belief in a higher power. Perhaps this part is undeveloped in some people, which results in atheism, or lack of faith


Yep atheists must have under developed brains :eek:

I guess im not any differnt. I just have accepted that there is no afterlife, no heaven, no hell, only this world.

Isn't it true that most free thinking people come to the conclusion that there is no god?

Again, you are making an assumption and judging people. You are assuming that people who don't believe in god are "free thinking".

And, I think your assumption is wrong. There are way more people on this planet who do believe in god than people who don't believe in god. That includes people who live in "free" countries where the are "free" to have "free thoughts".

How is your label as a nihilist and different from a theist calling themselves a christian?

Could not nihilism also be an invention to "control"?

How has your ascription to nihilism "freed" you?

How is Your ascription to nihilism any different to a theists ascription to a religion any different?

What constitutes someone who is "free thinking"?

What is "Free thinking"?

How does your ascription to nihilism make you more "free thinking" than a theist?


I have to go to bed. I'll read your responses in the morning.

From what I have read and understand, humans actually have a part of their brains that is responsible for belief in a higher power. Perhaps this part is undeveloped in some people, which results in atheism, or lack of faith


Yep atheists must have under developed brains :eek:

I did not say that their brains were underdeveloped. I said that maybe a part of their brain is underdeveloped. There is no negative connotation to that? What makes you interpret this as a short coming? I will willingly admit that the part of my brain for math is massively underdeveloped. As is the part of my brain for speaking. I have a stutter. This is not to suggest that they are less intelligent or less of a person. Why do you attach such negative meaning to what I said? Usually people with such black and white thinking suffer from insecurities.

You have a stutter?....Do you play music? piano? guitar?

Why do you attach such negative meaning to what I said?

I'm not. I kind of figure the higher power part of the brain is in the region of where the brain processes narcotics to tell you the truth.

Higher power?

Hi I'm Amygdala.....I'm powerless over my limbic system.....HI Amygdala



But that shouldn't tear you away from god. You can't let others ideas of god steal yours.

Again, you are making an assumption and judging people. You are assuming that people who don't believe in god are "free thinking".

You can't talk about people without judging them first off.


And, I think your assumption is wrong. There are way more people on this planet who do believe in god than people who don't believe in god. That includes people who live in "free" countries where the are "free" to have "free thoughts".

And by free thinking, i mean people who judge every aspect of what they are told. Example, like if everyone around me tells me that the world is going to end in 2 years, i would think about it, research it, etc. A non free thinking person would accept it as true because there are no alternatives.




Could not nihilism also be an invention to "control"?
lol, how could something that means nothing control anyone. By calling myself a nihilst i am simply stating that i have no faith. There is no "bible", no rules, no principles.


How has your ascription to nihilism "freed" you?
Anyone can be "free" even religious people, but most of them give themselves the burden of pleasing their "lord".


How is Your ascription to nihilism any different to a theists ascription to a religion any different?
Because nihilism litiarly means nothing. It is nothing. Its not even worth stating in my opinon. The only reason I write it is becasue it is the only term that describes my "lack" of faith.


What constitutes someone who is "free thinking"?

What is "Free thinking"?

That could be a 200-page debate. To me its not having to worry about pleasing anyone. (aka your lord, or even your fellow man, unless you wish)




How does your ascription to nihilism make you more "free thinking" than a theist?

Because my ears are always open, and if there even the smallest bit of proof that any religion has anything behind it but made up storys. I would listion, and examine it.

A christan hears that mabye one part of the bible may not be true and they shun it like its the devil. Just one example

Every logical point leads to the fact that there is no god.

So in my personal opinion anyone who belives in god is ignorant. (Don't take that the wrong way)

logic is based on knowledge.
logic produces different results when being "fed" different(in quality or quantity) knowledge.

while your personal point might be true (logic of believing is based on worse or less knowledge).
it can also be the inverse (logic of disbelieving is based on worse or less knowledge).
the only way to really know is to expand to the other side and know what they know.
:)

I guess im not any differnt. I just have accepted that there is no afterlife, no heaven, no hell, only this world.
:confused:
whoa, you're self contradicting yourself nihilist, why did you accept that this world exists?
what happened to your "nothing"?
don't facts require belief? faith?
where is the boundary where you and many others shut their belief\faith at? and why there?



Isn't it true that most free thinking people come to the conclusion that there is no god?
some people are so free they're caged in their idea of freedom..i think it's more of "loose thinking" (don't take this the wrong way);)

Every logical point leads to the fact that there is no god.

So in my personal opinion anyone who belives in god is ignorant. (Don't take that the wrong way)

If every logical point leads that their is a fact there is not God, explain to me every logical fact about how life begun.
And dont tell me that a bunch of things blew the hell up. Explain to me where the 'gasses' came from, how it happend, what caused it ect.
In my eyes, it takes more faith to believe there is not a God.


And P.S. Its ignorant to say something like "Every logical point leads to the fact that there is no god." and put no supporting facts :)

Oh boy, a god fight.
Heres some cool info.
There is a chemical called DMT (Dimethyltryptamine) that you can extract from A LOT of things on this planet. You can then take the chemical as a drug, it is a huge psychedelic that many say, gives you a sense of great well-being while visiting this strange type of human in the sky (universe).. Thats just the jist of it.

Weird thing is, your brain naturally creates this chemical and administers it to you at night during your REM stage. IE when your dreaming.

Even more cool is, your body naturally dumps mass amounts of it into your system right before you die..

So everyone who claims to of seen god were just dreaming/tripping.

Now imagine that we, all of us have been inbued with the relativistic mass of a singularity, that formed in a phase of preexistence we cannot have experienced since we were not an unchanging factor of an event before, but rather a part of the event, hence did not know anything of the question-type of event after we became the answer, nor the answer that became a new question. The singularity imbued us with the factor one, hence we are now gods, and know our questions and answers as from a third perspective, as from an unchanging factor and plane of existence. 1^2 is still one, and one can be derived from any factor that has still once been a factor of one.

So since 22 years back we are all gods, but we will all blow up from a singularity-photon in a black hole that heats it beyond gravitational influence.

People intuit that there is something more to living than their ordinary surface consciousness, they experience it sometimes, and they find it comfortable to attribute this to a quality other than themselves, because it is so different, so they call it God.

And I say we are gods since 22 years back, because a singularity has formed in a black hole. Questions?

You have a stutter?....Do you play music? piano? guitar?

Nope. I'm also tone deaf. My stutter isn't that bad actually. Most people cant even tell I have one.


Why do you attach such negative meaning to what I said?

It sounded like you were assuming that I was suggesting that atheists are underdeveloped people. Your statement may have been made in jest. Its hard to tell on the internet.


I'm not. I kind of figure the higher power part of the brain is in the region of where the brain processes narcotics to tell you the truth.

I've toyed with this idea too. Working in the field, I have come to learn a lot about addiction and drugs effects on the brain. There is some truth to this. Some drugs do stimulate the part of the brain that is responsible for feeling connected to something beyond our consciousness. A similar thing happens in the brains of monks who meditate for extended periods. However, its just a part of the high. Nearly all of the patients in my treatment center are atheists before they come in. This is why recovery encourages addicts, who wish to recover, to develop a relationship with a higher power. It doesn't have to be "god". It can be anything. Many people use the fellowship of A.A. as their higher power, since they are unable to make a connection to a "god". I've met some people with pretty interesting concepts of a higher power. One individual I met uses gravity as his higher power. Like I said above, its mostly not understood. Its beyond our understanding. Works for him!


Higher power?

Hi I'm Amygdala.....I'm powerless over my limbic system.....HI Amygdala
Nice :) Hey, if it worked to keep someone sober, all the better ;)




But that shouldn't tear you away from god. You can't let others ideas of god steal yours.

Im not understanding what your saying here...

Science has never had a major schism.
If one ever occurs, scientific belief will be become a religion.

You can't talk about people without judging them first off.

Well, are our judgments clouded by any biases? We need to check this as often as possible and make sure to stay on top of it.



And by free thinking, i mean people who judge every aspect of what they are told. Example, like if everyone around me tells me that the world is going to end in 2 years, i would think about it, research it, etc. A non free thinking person would accept it as true because there are no alternatives.

Who is to say that theists do not do this? I agree that there are a lot of people out there who accept things as truth that are just told to them by those in positions of authority. But I think it is unfair and inaccurate to assume that all theists suffer from this. I'm sure that there are many theists out there who have explored a plethora of options and different ways of thinking. Maybe through their own deductions, they have come to believe in god. Who am I to judge whether their conclusions are inaccurate?



lol, how could something that means nothing control anyone. By calling myself a nihilst i am simply stating that i have no faith. There is no "bible", no rules, no principles.

Having no faith, having no rules, and no principles is in itself a set of rules and principles.



Anyone can be "free" even religious people, but most of them give themselves the burden of pleasing their "lord".

Who is to say that it is "burdensome" to them? Maybe they enjoy it. They don't do it because it does nothing for them. Obviously they get something out of it. If it was burdensome, I don't think they would do it. It may look burdensome to me and you, because its not something we would want to do. Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean that everyone on the planet doesn't like it.


Because nihilism litiarly means nothing. It is nothing. Its not even worth stating in my opinon. The only reason I write it is becasue it is the only term that describes my "lack" of faith.

Why do you feel a need to state your opinion about your spiritual beliefs and preferences. Obviously it must be important to you. It must make up a large part of you identity. Instead of "being" a nihilist, why not just "be"? Be you first and a nihilist second, or rather than even being a nihilist t all, just be someone who lacks faith?


That could be a 200-page debate. To me its not having to worry about pleasing anyone. (aka your lord, or even your fellow man, unless you wish)

So someone who is married and in deeply in love and wishes to please their spouse is not free?






Because my ears are always open, and if there even the smallest bit of proof that any religion has anything behind it but made up storys. I would listion, and examine it.

Have you done this? Are you actively doing this? You can't possibly state that your ears are open to other ideas if you do not actively seek them out through any and every means available. You've already labeled yourself as a nihilist, which means you have ascribed to something, and limited your understanding of the world to this one form of understanding.


A christan hears that mabye one part of the bible may not be true and they shun it like its the devil. Just one example
All Christians do this? I know many Christians who don't take the bible as literal. They believe in Christ, but they also understand that the bible is old and was written in a time when symbolism was much more prominent. Granted, some Christians do as you say. And that is unfortunate.

I enjoy talking with you. Your a smart man! I hope we can keep this up. I'll be in and out throughout the day.

Oh boy, a god fight.

Not a fight. A well thought out and civil discussion!



So everyone who claims to of seen god were just dreaming/tripping.


Does this mean that what they saw was not real?

In answer to the topic's question I say yes they can believe in god because it gives us an answer to how we were created. If you read my thread having to do with creation and the theory of evolution, I discovered that a person can believe n both the theory of evolution and creation because the theory of evolution only goes back so far. It doesn't how we were put on earth only how we were formed from that point on.

Im not understanding what your saying here...

don't let others tell you what god does and doesn't do or did..they don't know

Earthlings believe in god because they are taught to do so by their parents and teachers from a young age. We are told that the bible is the word of god when in fact it is the word of the roman catholic church who wrote the bible.

We are now all gods, for we see all things for what they truely are. If we hadn't seen anything for what it truely is, we wouldn't have seen anything. Hence we see for real and only gods can do that. We can only see if we have a factor on the positive plain, and if we do we see all things for what they are. If we didn't have a factor one, we saw nothing.

Gods I tell you!

Every logical point leads to the fact that there is no god. So in my personal opinion anyone who belives in god is ignorant.Jung teaches us about archetypes, motifs that show up in nearly every culture in nearly every era. This universality suggests that these motifs are instincts, manifestations of pre-programmed synapses in our brains. Religions are collections of archetypes, most of which are based upon belief in the supernatural.

As evidence continues to amass that explains natural phenomena without recourse to interference by external supernatural forces and creatures, and as the justification for faith in the supernatural fades away, the persistence of religion clearly supports its origin in instinct rather than in reasoned and learned behavior based upon observation and experience.

Jung did not live long enough to integrate DNA analysis with psychology. Today we see instincts as behaviors (including thoughts) which are passed down genetically. Some instincts are obviously survival traits passed down by natural selection. For example, anyone without the instinct to flee from a large animal with both eyes in front of its face would be unlikely to live long enough to reproduce so his genes would die out. Indeed virtually all vertebrates are born with this instinct: a newborn gazelle will run from a lion but ignore the presence of a giraffe, with no prompting from its mother.

Other instincts are not immediately fathomable, but yield to study. Most cultures have a tradition of putting boys through a rite of passage, in which an elder of the tribe inflicts pain. Episcopal priests slap the boy, fraternity initiations do far worse. This is most likely a ritual going back to the Paleolithic Era, in which a man might have to endure pain in order to bring down a prey animal and feed the tribe. Or perhaps to a more recent era in which tribes made war against each other and warriors had to continue fighting even when wounded. Army basic training--a modern rite of passage--certainly supports the latter hypothesis.

But some instincts defy analysis. At this point we have to respect the phenomenon of the genetic bottleneck. When a single individual becomes the only member of his or her species whose descendants survive, certain portions of his or her DNA will be passed down to all of them forever.

Our species has gone through two genetic bottlenecks. Mitochondrial Eve, who lived about 200KYA, is the female ancestor of all living humans. (That doesn't mean she was the only woman alive, merely that the descendants of all other women died out.) Since the mitochondria in our cells is passed down exclusively from our mother, a small but complete piece of mtEve's DNA lives in all of us--subject of course to mutation. Y-Chromosome Adam lived about 60KYA, shortly before the diaspora out of Africa. Only males have a Y-chromosome, so YcAdam's DNA lives in every man on the planet.

Since belief in the supernatural is not confined to one sex, it appears that it goes back to our common female ancestor. Belief in God is, therefore, an instinct that is at least 200,000 years old.

Again, mutations do take place, and 10,000 generations is plenty of time for several to have occured. Both of my parents and both of my mother's grandparents were raised without religion, and none of them had an "epiphany" later in life, begging God's forgiveness for doubting him. The same is true of me. I didn't even know what religion was until I was about seven, and when a kid told me about it I assumed it was just one of those funny stories kids like to make up; I couldn't understand why he got angry when I rolled on the ground with laughter at his immensely clever, amusing and preposterous joke.

For five people in one bloodline to resist the instinct to believe in the supernatural is a small statistical probability. It's rather likely that we simply lack the DNA and don't have the instinct in our synapses.

Unfortunately we were never a close family so I don't know enough about my aunts and uncles to know whether they too lacked this instinct. Unlike my parents, every one of them married someone who was not an atheist, so they all attended church services; I have no idea if they were sincere. And I have no siblings to compare notes with.

I have no children. If when I was younger I had realized that I might be carrying a crucially important gene, I might have overcome my reluctance and become a father.
(Don't take that the wrong way)I'm not sure how you want people to take it. Fortunately this website is a haven for science so we are free to insult religion and religious communities. Just be sure not to insult any individuals because personal insults are a violation of the rules, regardless of their validity.

In any case, I think you're being a little hard on the rank and file of religionists. Most of them, especially in less developed nations, are not well enough educated to know that there is no respectable evidence for religion, or even that evidence should be required to support a belief. I suppose you may call them "ignorant," but they may have all the knowledge that was made available to them so that seems unnecessarily unkind.

The people who deserve our wrath are the educated ones who lead their communities, and allow religion to be promulgated. And for them, "ignorance" just doesn't seem like a strong enough word.

Me, speaking for this god, thinks that the prestadium of godhood is precious and essential to make the best of worlds for all. Even though the prestadium sees not what truely is, nor thereby see anything. They are precious so I want them.

Me, speaking for this god, thinks that the prestadium of godhood is precious and essential to make the best of worlds for all. Even though the prestadium sees not what truely is, nor thereby see anything. They are precious so I want them.That certainly sounds like instinct speaking, rather than reasoning and learning.

Q.E.D.

Why would a god of true seing ever bother reasoning and learning when everything is so excellent?

Is it fair to say Q.E.D. twice in a row?

Well, are our judgments clouded by any biases? We need to check this as often as possible and make sure to stay on top of it.


I know I'm bias, I try not to but i do it subconsciously.


Who is to say that theists do not do this? I agree that there are a lot of people out there who accept things as truth that are just told to them by those in positions of authority. But I think it is unfair and inaccurate to assume that all theists suffer from this. I'm sure that there are many theists out there who have explored a plethora of options and different ways of thinking. Maybe through their own deductions, they have come to believe in god. Who am I to judge whether their conclusions are inaccurate?

Yes its not true that all of them are that way. When I'm talking about this I'm talking about your crazy "Everything is a lie unless its in the bible" type people. Who there are a lot of in this world. I don't have a problem with these people (there are quite a few in my family actually).


Having no faith, having no rules, and no principles is in itself a set of rules and principles.


You could say that. As long as no idiot stands up and says he is the pope of the nihilists. :roflmao:


Who is to say that it is "burdensome" to them? Maybe they enjoy it. They don't do it because it does nothing for them. Obviously they get something out of it. If it was burdensome, I don't think they would do it. It may look burdensome to me and you, because its not something we would want to do. Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean that everyone on the planet doesn't like it.

Ya i get this. Ignorance is bliss may have something to do with it. Sometimes I feel bad for people who dedicate there lives to god, But then i waste my life doing things just as meaningless, so its a double edged sword.


Why do you feel a need to state your opinion about your spiritual beliefs and preferences. Obviously it must be important to you. It must make up a large part of you identity. Instead of "being" a nihilist, why not just "be"? Be you first and a nihilist second, or rather than even being a nihilist t all, just be someone who lacks faith?


Thats like if i asked a Christian why don't they call them selfs god-fearing lunatic. Its just a title, its meaningless.

And the reason i state that i am one is because, i don't like being preached to. Its like my shield of ignorance.


So someone who is married and in deeply in love and wishes to please their spouse is not free?


I guess you could say that, but they were free when the choose to be with that person. So if they are no longer free, it was there choice.


Have you done this? Are you actively doing this? You can't possibly state that your ears are open to other ideas if you do not actively seek them out through any and every means available. You've already labeled yourself as a nihilist, which means you have ascribed to something, and limited your understanding of the world to this one form of understanding.

I have done this, actively? No. My ears are open, if someone says they have proof that the bible is not a collection of lies, i would listen. But no one is stupid enough to claim that. I feel that science has disproved a majority of the bible. Some parts may be the truth just stretched and altered.


All Christians do this? I know many Christians who don't take the bible as literal. They believe in Christ, but they also understand that the bible is old and was written in a time when symbolism was much more prominent. Granted, some Christians do as you say. And that is unfortunate.

No they aren't all that foolish, and I'm glad.


I enjoy talking with you. Your a smart man! I hope we can keep this up. I'll be in and out throughout the day.

I enjoy talking as well.


Not a fight. A well thought out and civil discussion!


As long as no crazy christian soccer moms get on here. :bugeye:


Does this mean that what they saw was not real?

I don't know much about psychology, and drugs effect on the brains. But many cultures used drugs as a way to "Meet there gods" or "seek council"


Earthlings believe in god because they are taught to do so by their parents and teachers from a young age. We are told that the bible is the word of god when in fact it is the word of the roman catholic church who wrote the bible.

Earthlings? Really?

But yes most people are thought there believes by the ones who came before them. Its been that way since roman times.

Do you believe god created the world in 7 days?

I believe in God. I take everything else with a grain of salt. My belief in God comes from my rational mind- it was not something hammered into my head since I was a kid because I dismissed almost all religions and the dogmas they carry early on in my life.

I believe that God cannot be described in words so all religions sooner or later fall flat. But God persists.

As Fraggle touched on, I believe the predisposition to believe in the mythology common to your tribe is adaptive; it helped with the social cohesion necessary for groups of humans to survive in hostile environments. Humans most deadly enemies have usually been other groups of humans, and the tribe that stuck together survived. Accepting that the mysteries of life were adequately explained by the god(s) your tribe believed in allowed you to fight bravely in battle (god is with you, and a better place awaits if you die), and in general freed your mind from excessive brooding about the meaning of it all, and instead concentrate on the business of surviving, and raising the next generation to do the same.

Just as sickle call anemia was a selected advantage against malaria that has become more of a disadvantage in a different time and place, so I think the human tendency to follow charismatic leaders, and demand dogmatic certainty have outlived their usefulness. But that doesn't mean they will just go away. We are stuck with them for the foreseeable future.

I believe in God. I take everything else with a grain of salt. My belief in God comes from my rational mind- it was not something hammered into my head since I was a kid because I dismissed almost all religions and the dogmas they carry early on in my life.

I believe that God cannot be described in words so all religions sooner or later fall flat. But God persists.

What is your concept of god? Does the god you believe in care about the fate of humans? Or is it a distant, impersonal god?

I'm a strong atheist when it comes to anthropomorphic gods such as the Greek and Roman gods. But I can admit that there might be some purpose to the universe (I certainly cannot prove that there isn't) I'm just unaware of any good reason to think so, or to think we might know what it is. A god that physically resembles us, only with superpowers, seems laughably unlikely to be anything other than an egocentric creation from the fevered imaginations of near prehistoric humans.

Yes its not true that all of them are that way. When I'm talking about this I'm talking about your crazy "Everything is a lie unless its in the bible" type people. Who there are a lot of in this world. I don't have a problem with these people (there are quite a few in my family actually).

So do you retract your statement that all people who believe in god are ignorant?




You could say that. As long as no idiot stands up and says he is the pope of the nihilists. :roflmao:
That is funny. But you would be surprised how many religions don't have an equivalent to a pope. One I know of for certain is Jehovahs Witnesses. There was a Kingdom Hall (J.W. church) just down the street from where I grew up, and I knew and went to school with a few of them and worked with one. They have no central authority, no ruling elite so to speak. Even the individual Halls don't have ministers. All of the congregation is involved. People take turns every week doing the sermon. But they are not obliged to. Every person decides their own level of involvement. While I disagree with many of their tenets, I have always liked this approach to religion.



Ya i get this. Ignorance is bliss may have something to do with it. Sometimes I feel bad for people who dedicate there lives to god, But then i waste my life doing things just as meaningless, so its a double edged sword.

Well again, your assuming that they are all ignorant. You agreed above that many of them do actively seek out something on their own accord and decide to join something that makes sense to them. I don't think that what they are doing is meaningless. It obviously has meaning to them.




Thats like if i asked a Christian why don't they call them selfs god-fearing lunatic. Its just a title, its meaningless.

They don't call themselves this because it is inaccurate. And its ot how they see themselves.


And the reason i state that i am one is because, i don't like being preached to.

I can accept that. Though part of the reason that I NEVER tell people about my spiritual beliefs is because others (particularly Christians) tend to see it as their duty to preach to non-believers. I hate being preached to. But I find that Christians are far less likely to proselytize if I don't tell them a single word about who or what I am. Tell them you are an atheist, or nihilist, and they feel it is their duty to "save" you.


Its like my shield of ignorance.

Your not ignorant son ;)


I guess you could say that, but they were free when the choose to be with that person. So if they are no longer free, it was there choice.

Whose to say that theists weren't free when they decided to be theists?

Does your statement mean that you will never allow yourself to fall in love? If people who are trying to please god or please a spouse are not free, then I am to conclude that they are "slaves". But one could argue that someone who does not want to please a god, or please a spouse or be in love for that matter is a slave to loneliness or emptiness.




I have done this, actively? No. My ears are open, if someone says they have proof that the bible is not a collection of lies, i would listen. But no one is stupid enough to claim that. I feel that science has disproved a majority of the bible. Some parts may be the truth just stretched and altered.

Supporting evidence? Can you at least give a few examples? From what I understand, much of it doesn't seem to match up. But archaeological studies have found some things that do match up. But I guess I really can't comment cause I don't have any support for this.


I enjoy talking as well.


Excellent!


As long as no crazy christian soccer moms get on here.

Bring them! I would love to have this same conversation but with someone on the other side.

Is it fair to say Q.E.D. twice in a row?

Is it fair to say that your sympathy bears no consequence?
I am still a god of true sight; I do see reality, else I wouldn't for instance be able to shy and delight, and live with nothing but my environment. People need to speak to the betrayer over and over again. Well I loath betrayal and do not communicate with them once I know that I am truely betrayed, nor did I think that many were good. So I don't communicate with them, but I still feel no loss, for I can truely see, and there is no greater comfort.

So do you retract your statement that all people who believe in god are ignorant?


Pretty much. Well when I said it wasn't saying they were ignorant in the traditional sense. I just personally believe that there is absolutely no proof of gods existence. But then again its pretty much impossible to disprove god ether.


That is funny. But you would be surprised how many religions don't have an equivalent to a pope. One I know of for certain is Jehovahs Witnesses. There was a Kingdom Hall (J.W. church) just down the street from where I grew up, and I knew and went to school with a few of them and worked with one. They have no central authority, no ruling elite so to speak. Even the individual Halls don't have ministers. All of the congregation is involved. People take turns every week doing the sermon. But they are not obliged to. Every person decides their own level of involvement. While I disagree with many of their tenets, I have always liked this approach to religion.

I don't see why they would need a leader, god is there leader in there eyes, correct?


Well again, your assuming that they are all ignorant. You agreed above that many of them do actively seek out something on their own accord and decide to join something that makes sense to them. I don't think that what they are doing is meaningless. It obviously has meaning to them.


If something has meaning to that person, it may not have meaning to another. So to me religion is pointless, and to them listening to slayer while driving 100mph in a school zone is pointless. ( I don't do that, just thinking of example is making my head hurt.)


They don't call themselves this because it is inaccurate. And its ot how they see themselves.

That was me god-bashing again, i tell you i do it subconsciously!


I can accept that. Though part of the reason that I NEVER tell people about my spiritual beliefs is because others (particularly Christians) tend to see it as their duty to preach to non-believers. I hate being preached to. But I find that Christians are far less likely to proselytize if I don't tell them a single word about who or what I am. Tell them you are an atheist, or nihilist, and they feel it is their duty to "save" you.


I'll admit that im not a very "good" person.

But i find it entertaining to be labeled as a heathen in there eyes.

Heathen is not a good word, it literately means non Christan....Boring

Too put it short, i enjoy being labeled as a heretic.


Whose to say that theists weren't free when they decided to be theists?

Does your statement mean that you will never allow yourself to fall in love? If people who are trying to please god or please a spouse are not free, then I am to conclude that they are "slaves". But one could argue that someone who does not want to please a god, or please a spouse or be in love for that matter is a slave to loneliness or emptiness.



People check into mental institutions right?

True, Freedom is not really something that can be described.


Supporting evidence? Can you at least give a few examples? From what I understand, much of it doesn't seem to match up. But archaeological studies have found some things that do match up. But I guess I really can't comment cause I don't have any support for this

There is not one piece of evidence that supports that god exists. (or doesn't exist)

Personally i don't doubt that Jesus was real. (Only he was a man) He was most likely real, the stories are most likely just totally inaccurate by the time they were written the bible.


Bring them! I would love to have this same conversation but with someone on the other side.

Ya bring on the conquistadors.


I believe in God. I take everything else with a grain of salt. My belief in God comes from my rational mind- it was not something hammered into my head since I was a kid because I dismissed almost all religions and the dogmas they carry early on in my life.

I believe that God cannot be described in words so all religions sooner or later fall flat. But God persists.

I was once in your position. At a younger age, my family never forced religion on me, but i was curious. I read pieces of the bible, researched various religions, tried to learn about religion as a whole.

I came too my own personal conclusion that religion as a whole is a bunch of crap.

Thats how i came to be like you. Still believing in god, but not any single religion.

Then something happened, i don't know what, but i just don't believe in god, it seams crazy to me. Just outright crazy.

No one can be all seeing and all knowing, its against the laws of physics.
According to all the states of matter and what the universe is made up of, only organic life is capable of thought (True thought, something that A.I. will never attain) There for there there is no god. But this is my personal thought not an argument to try to convert anyone.

And I say we are gods since 22 years back, because a singularity has formed in a black hole. Questions?
*************
M*W: Let me guess... you're 22 years old?

The idea of God drives the race of humanity towards order and function to replace the chaos that would otherwise consume this world if there were not a set of laws and law codes to rule man. Therefore the Law of Moses was instituted. The belief in a god is not control (as Christians, we have free will), but one could have a much better ruled life, if the belief in God is in your records.

Every logical point leads to the fact that there is no god.

So in my personal opinion anyone who belives in god is ignorant. (Don't take that the wrong way)The only wrong way for a theist to take a statement like that would be to view it as somehow neutral, rather than what it is: an insult.

The only wrong way for a theist to take a statement like that would be to view it as somehow neutral, rather than what it is: an insult.

Oh I don't know about that.
If anything, his two statements there are an insult to himself.

First, logical points [whatever they may be...] don't lead to facts. Facts are empirical matters, not logical ones.


Second [and perhaps more importantly], his second statement is triply inane:


It doesn't follow remotely from the first.


He states that it is his opinion [and thus, neither a matter of fact, nor one of logic].


With respect to 'god', it can only be said that we are all ignorant.



It's thought-lacking verbiage like this that gives atheists a poor name...

If we all didn't have an idea of god in are heads already and we all believed in the absence of a god. The idea of a god would sound crazy. But we live in a world filled with people who believe in god.


Oh I don't know about that.
If anything, his two statements there are an insult to himself.

Oh Yea?


First, logical points [whatever they may be...] don't lead to facts. Facts are empirical matters, not logical ones.

It is impossible for something (a.k.a. "god") to control the forces of nature. You can believe all you want but its simply impossible.

Therefor If there is a god he is just a man. Which makes him not a god. Too me that would mean he is nothing.

Why should I have do try to disprove when not a single person can even try to prove there is a god. Its impossible.


The idea of God drives the race of humanity towards order and function to replace the chaos that would otherwise consume this world if there were not a set of laws and law codes to rule man. Therefore the Law of Moses was instituted. The belief in a god is not control (as Christians, we have free will), but one could have a much better ruled life, if the belief in God is in your records.

You sir are smart. But i still have to argue, religion is still the number one way of mass control.


The only wrong way for a theist to take a statement like that would be to view it as somehow neutral, rather than what it is: an insult.

We can insult each other all day. But ether way there is no proof of god.

If we all didn't have an idea of god in are heads already and we all believed in the absence of a god. The idea of a god would sound crazy. But we live in a world filled with people who believe in god.So you know what things would be like if they were radically different.


It is impossible for something (a.k.a. "god") to control the forces of nature. You can believe all you want but its simply impossible. This argument has the following structure:

A is impossible
A is impossible


Therefor If there is a god he is just a man.

This is like the argument....

If it is not an orange it must be a bicycle.


Which makes him not a god. Too me that would mean he is nothing.
And the same logic is used again. Here we go from bicycles to nothing, as if this were logical.


Why should I have do try to disprove when not a single person can even try to prove there is a god. I don't think Glaucon has said you should try to disprove, so this is a strawman.


You sir are smart. But i still have to argue, religion is still the number one way of mass control.State. You have stated this, you have not argued it.


We can insult each other all day. But ether way there is no proof of god.

In the comparative religion forum I think your coining of the phrase

'Ether way'

is really quite wonderful.

Could be a metaphor for some religious phenomenon - the soul rising to heaven, for example.

Or it could be a metaphor for our universe from a poetic scientific viewpoint.

As Fraggle touched on, I believe the predisposition to believe in the mythology common to your tribe is adaptive; it helped with the social cohesion necessary for groups of humans to survive in hostile environments. Humans most deadly enemies have usually been other groups of humans, and the tribe that stuck together survived.It's been suggested that the supernaturalist instinct may indeed have been an asset to humans in the late Paleolithic Era. The population had reached a level that there was competition between tribes for resources, and deadly violence was common. (One report I saw of a study of late Paleolithic bones using modern instruments indicated that more than half of adult human deaths were due to violence.)

If the technology of language were developed around this time (and we have absolutely no idea when it was developed, except to say that it is at least 10,000 years old, which puts it precisely at the Paleolithic/Neolithic cusp), members of competing tribes might have been struck by the discovery that they believed in the same gods and legends. (Pre-Abrahamic religions were polytheistic and Jung tells us that they all had the same basic pantheon of 23 gods and goddesses, a very rich and stable collection of archetypes.) This could have inspired them to cooperate.

The invention of the technologies of farming and animal husbandry--agriculture in combination--was right around the corner. Agriculture requires people to gather in somewhat larger groups than the extended families of a few dozen adults and children that comprised the average hunter-gatherer tribe. Tribes that could cast aside their suspicions and cooperate because of a shared mythology could have facilitated the Neolithic Revolution: the permanent settlements, division of labor, surplus productivity and social organization among people who had not known each other intimately since birth, which put us on the path to civilization.

Unfortunately religion eventually reached its limit as a facilitator of civilization and now acts as a brake. Religions grew beyond their archetypes and their accretions became codified. As they grew apart, rather than reinforcing one population's similarity and kinship to its neighbor, they reinforced their differences, stalling humanity in a standoff of tribalism.
Heathen is not a good word, it literately means non Christan* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *

"Heathen" means "non-Abrahamist": anyone who is not Jewish, Christian or Muslim.
The idea of God drives the race of humanity towards order and function to replace the chaos that would otherwise consume this world if there were not a set of laws and law codes to rule man. Therefore the Law of Moses was instituted. The belief in a god is not control (as Christians, we have free will), but one could have a much better ruled life, if the belief in God is in your records.This is something that might have seemed true ten thousand years ago when our tribes first learned to live together in peace and grow their own food. However today, as I noted above, religion has become a divisive force and is a motivator of strife and violence, i.e., an engine of chaos.

Of course I am speaking specifically of the Abrahamic religions. Their built-in superiority complexes inspire entire sects to rise up in war against each other every few generations. Jung said, "The wars among the Christian nations have been the bloodiest in human history." He overlooked Genghis Khan, but with that one exception he was right. He also didn't live long enough to see the spectre of a three-way nuclear war among Christians, Jews and Muslims.

My analysis, and one that a couple of Jungians agree with, is that since religion, as a collection of instinctive archetypes, is a model of our own unconscious or "spirit," the polytheistic model is a rich multi-dimensional representation of our spirit, and helps us understand ourselves. Whereas monotheism is a one-dimensional model, which attempts to squeeze all of that richness onto a pathetic linear scale where everything falls somewhere on a line between "good" and "evil."

Much of our nature simply can't logically fit onto the "good" end of that scale, so we submerge it into our unconscious and try to deny it, where it festers in what Jung calls the "shadow" until one day it erupts into truly "evil" behavior.

Abrahamic culture has an uncanny way of synchronizing the submerging and festering of entire communities, so their evil behavior erupts in coordination, overwhelming the secular institutions that normally keep order by ostracizing, locking up or simply executing evildoers. Thus we have Holy Wars.

Civilization is stalled right now, with the three sects of Abrahamism prepared to erupt into one of these periodic cycles of violence all at once, and this time with nuclear weapons.

Religion is indeed an engine of chaos.

So you know what things would be like if they were radically different.

This argument has the following structure:

A is impossible
A is impossible


If its impossible then its not possible. Right? Or in the world of god is everything possible? :roflmao:


This is like the argument....

If it is not an orange it must be a bicycle.


And the same logic is used again. Here we go from bicycles to nothing, as if this were logical.

I don't think Glaucon has said you should try to disprove, so this is a strawman.

State. You have stated this, you have not argued it.



In the comparative religion forum I think your coining of the phrase

'Ether way'

is really quite wonderful.

Could be a metaphor for some religious phenomenon - the soul rising to heaven, for example.

Or it could be a metaphor for our universe from a poetic scientific viewpoint.

And you haven't said one thing worth listening to.

Just criticizing my every word.


* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *

"Heathen" means "non-Abrahamist": anyone who is not Jewish, Christian or Muslim.

The definition read not jewish, christian or muslim. My main arguement is against christians. So i didn't think it was relevent.

Thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes:

What is your concept of god? Does the god you believe in care about the fate of humans? Or is it a distant, impersonal god?

God- not "my God" but God- is with me every moment of my life. He is like an invisible buddy next to me. Yeah- I know how nuts it sounds but God is also an invisible buddy for you too... He is not some abstract concept- He is right there next to me with me like a best buddy.

As such, Karma plays a big role in my life- being nicer more than not.

Sounds more like your consisous that a god to me. I'm not here to degrade or judge you. It was my believe that most people believe in a all seeing all knowing god.

...
And the same logic is used again. Here we go from bicycles to nothing, as if this were logical.

...
I don't think Glaucon has said you should try to disprove, so this is a strawman.

...
You have stated this, you have not argued it.



As usual, Doreen is quite insightful.




And you haven't said one thing worth listening to.

Just criticizing my every word.



You however, continue to demonstrate your lack of insight.
These statement are pretty indicative of how ignorant you are.




Oh Yea?

Indeed.





It is impossible for something (a.k.a. "god") to control the forces of nature. You can believe all you want but its simply impossible.


Nice reasoning.

lol

Not that you paid any attention to my critique, which is another example of your ignorance, here you introduce notions that weren't even mentioned by you before. Attributing alleged properties to the subject in question and thereby simply stating it's inability to exist is fallacious.

As another poster noted, your problem [beyond your inability to reason..] isn't with 'god', or even the concept of god, but rather with the way in which believers make use of god.

Slow down, and try thinking sometime.

and you continue to annoy me.

Prove to me there is a god right now.

and you continue to annoy me.

Prove to me there is a god right now.

And you continue to evade the topic.
Surprisingly enough, a topic chosen by you.

Do try an follow along a little better.

Your not even on topic, your topic is telling me I'm ignorant.

Don't post if your not going to add to the topic.

Your not even on topic, your topic is telling me I'm ignorant.

Don't post if your not going to add to the topic.

Ah, I see. You need to be treated like a child.
Here, I'll hold your hand and walk you through the discussion:

True or false: do people believe in god?

I said don't post if your not going to add to the topic. Now go fuck off.

why do you try soo hard, to prove to who beleive in god, that there's no god???
why do you have to do all that effort to proove that you're right,
you don't beleive in god, i or he/she beleive in god,
end of story, :)
see, it's soo simple,
you don't need to prove that you're right and they're wrong, or they're right, and you're wrong,
ever heard of free thoght??you should try it
:D

Because its a discussion.

Because its a discussion.

hmm, yeah, hehehehe
well;, about my personeel answer,
about why i beleive in god,
simple, i cant prove it to you, what convince me, don't convince you, also, i cant convince atheist, i'm not too relegious, so, it's hard for me, to convince who don't beleive in god, to beleive in god,

I don't have a problem with people who believe in god first of all.

Personally I don't believe, because i see no reason too, and i see no proof.

I don't have a problem with people who believe in god first of all.

Personally I don't believe, because i see no reason too, and i see no proof.

:D
i didnt said that you have a prob. with who beleive, :p
and after all, every one have hes logic, some people, their logic tell them not to beleive, some other, their logic, tell them to beleive,
as for me, my logic tell me to beleive, and your logic tell you not to beleive
:)

Yea thats true. But it dosesn't get to the root of why you believe.

Have you always believed?

why do you try soo hard, to prove to who beleive in god, that there's no god???
why do you have to do all that effort to proove that you're right,
you don't beleive in god, i or he/she beleive in god,
end of story, :)
see, it's soo simple,
you don't need to prove that you're right and they're wrong, or they're right, and you're wrong,
ever heard of free thoght??you should try it
:D

i have come to terms with that some people believe in an imaginary friend that there is no "hard" evidence of whatsoever of.. the reason i participate in conversations is to try to understand what makes a person believe in god.. expecially the theists that believe there is no other life besides ours

Yea thats true. But it dosesn't get to the root of why you believe.

Have you always believed?

yup, first, when i was a kid, small kid, i just, knowed it, rased with it,
but when i started to think by my own, and analyse everything,
i'm very convinced in the existence of god, even that i have a scientific mind, and i know alot about science, astronomy, economies, and other stuff, i still beleive in god,

i have come to terms with that some people believe in an imaginary friend that there is no "hard" evidence of whatsoever of.. the reason i participate in conversations is to try to understand what makes a person believe in god.. expecially the theists that believe there is no other life besides ours


we do beleive that there is other life outside of ower planets,
also other intelligent life, we do also beleive, that there are another intelligent, life, on this planet, we call them "djin" they are non-material being, we cant see them, and we cant feel them,
we do also beleive, that one of the judgement day signs, that humans will discover, avery very different life form, from ours, also, aliens, will invade us, will come threw a wormwhole, some sat wormwhole, soem other say that they are trapped somewhere, i don't know, those invaders are called "hijuj and mijuj'" that they will distroy every living thing, and people will runawya to mountains, and other things... but not related to the life on other planets,
we do also beleive, that there was other being existed on earth, look like us, but they don't have the same DNA, we have two words in arabic, bachar wich it means, and refer to, every living thing, existed on earth, walked on two feet, and had an intelligence, and the second word, is "insen" that refer to us, the modern human,

i have come to terms with that some people believe in an imaginary friend that there is no "hard" evidence of whatsoever of.. the reason i participate in conversations is to try to understand what makes a person believe in god.. expecially the theists that believe there is no other life besides ours

you can find topics of myne, that talked about life on other planets, by the point of view of islam

you can find topics of myne, that talked about life on other planets, by the point of view of islam

islam is ALOT more openminded then christianity, i can respect that.. alot of christians believe god created the earth universe all that but some firmly believe there is no other life outside earth, a guy at work debated with me on it... his reason is we know what 9 planets and have found over 450 and none have life on them, i say so you can tell if theres life on another planet thru a telescope? we have only visited 1 other one sent probes to a few others.. untill we walk on thoes planets we wont know if there is life.. he stuck by his we found over 450 with no life so ignorant i just said theres no point in arguing with you id get further if i tried to convience a bolt to tighten itself

islam is ALOT more openminded then christianity, i can respect that.. alot of christians believe god created the earth universe all that but some firmly believe there is no other life outside earth, a guy at work debated with me on it... his reason is we know what 9 planets and have found over 450 and none have life on them, i say so you can tell if theres life on another planet thru a telescope? we have only visited 1 other one sent probes to a few others.. untill we walk on thoes planets we wont know if there is life.. he stuck by his we found over 450 with no life so ignorant i just said theres no point in arguing with you id get further if i tried to convience a bolt to tighten itself

i wonder what will they say when they discover life one day,
anyway, islam do beleive in many other itelligent life forms, on other planets, but, God, says, that he maked it very far from us, that we cant reach, there's something like, a cover, or, a shield, anyway, something that seperate us, to don't meet, cause they are soo soo far from us,
but one day, human will discover a weird, life form, very different,
also, it would be more resnebal to think, that we cant be unique, the only in the hall existence, there are millions of galaxies, each galaxy, have millions of solar systems, each solar system, have many planets, let's just say, in each galaxy, in each solar system, in must be there a planet, that have conditions for life, just a guess, i was wonderign also before about an existent life on other plnaets, effcorse, not because of UFOs, sure not, but i just wondered, and, i found the answer in my relegion, :p
in mater fact, in quran, there are so so many stuff about teh univerce, the big bong, we beleive, that another one, will happen to end everything, then you'll hear a voice like a scream, a scream, in science, is that big noise and sounds of the explitions that we can still hear it by radars today, the sound that still repeat in the universe, like you yell at an empty cave, then you'll hear your voice repeating, there's also, a kidn of start, that make a very massive waves of radiations, i think it's called in science, by something related to hammer, cause it maked sounds like hammer, that those radiatons and signals, can destroy everything it meets,
i will make a topic about this one another time, i cant explain in here, i'll go off-topic, wich i think i'm already off-topic,
:D

islam is ALOT more openminded then christianity, i can respect that.. alot of christians believe god created the earth universe all that but some firmly believe there is no other life outside earth, a guy at work debated with me on it... his reason is we know what 9 planets and have found over 450 and none have life on them, i say so you can tell if theres life on another planet thru a telescope? we have only visited 1 other one sent probes to a few others.. untill we walk on thoes planets we wont know if there is life.. he stuck by his we found over 450 with no life so ignorant i just said theres no point in arguing with you id get further if i tried to convience a bolt to tighten itself

well, he propably don't want to be convinced, cause if he did, wich life on other planets is not existent, buy his relegion point of view, so, he beleive that it's true, and there's no otehr life but on earth, so, if he have been convinced, or human found other life, he will propibly become an atheist, or choose another relegion, just when he knew that his relegion wasn't right,
:p

I said don't post if your not going to add to the topic. Now go fuck off.

Ah.
So you are a child.

Thanks for the QED.

I doubt too many people would continue to worship God if this God didn't offer them life after death. I mean, suppose there really was a God. This God, for whatever narcissistic reasons, wanted you to venerate and worship It. But, you don't get to live after you die. You get everything God is giving you now (aka nothing) and you ALSO do NOT get to live after you die.

The history of theistic faith suggests that if a person is not offered Life after Death, they will not worship Gods, Goddesses, Buddhas nor Alien Overlords.

So, that IMO, is the main reason for most people.

*************
M*W: Let me guess... you're 22 years old?

No, but when I think about it now, it was 19 years ago, really, I allways aproximised wrong. I am however, older then both those times.

So how do I prove that I'm god? Well, probably I can... But that is nothing that I do. You'll just have to be content with that I am a god. In a human vessel. Now you probably have a question. I suppose no vessel rejects me. Questions? Answers?

I doubt too many people would continue to worship God if this God didn't offer them life after death. I mean, suppose there really was a God. This God, for whatever narcissistic reasons, wanted you to venerate and worship It. But, you don't get to live after you die. You get everything God is giving you now (aka nothing) and you ALSO do NOT get to live after you die.

The history of theistic faith suggests that if a person is not offered Life after Death, they will not worship Gods, Goddesses, Buddhas nor Alien Overlords.

So, that IMO, is the main reason for most people.

Life after death should not be given, it should be obtained from becoming eternal. 2 shared lifes takes twice as long to grow together then one does, and would infact be an abomination. Questions? Answers?

Life after death should not be given, it should be obtained from becoming eternal. 2 shared lifes takes twice as long to grow together then one does, and would infact be an abomination. Questions? Answers?

What does this have to do with why people believe in god.

But Yes that is many people selling points on god..

Personally i have met a few people who doubt that god exists, but still follow all of his ways and go's to church and all that. Just because the chance that they can get in heaven(if there is one)

What does this have to do with why people believe in god.

But Yes that is many people selling points on god..

Personally i have met a few people who doubt that god exists, but still follow all of his ways and go's to church and all that. Just because the chance that they can get in heaven(if there is one)

Anyway... Maybe I'm wrong, maybe 2 gods would've grown as fast as one, given the same amount of fuel. Yes definitely, but that's still beging the question; shouldn't both gods be too young, given they are split into 2 amounts? So I shall think before I act and live a life that I prefer, that should solve all problems. Questions? Answers?

Besides, I'm not the god which you refer too anyway, beyond that a god may break any deal in two without fasing any consequences; Questions?

You completely lost me.........What are you talking about?

2 gods? Don't jews,christans, and islam people belive in the same god. Just very differnt ways of going about there religion.

What do I care what you believe in, I said I am a god, everywhere I am is my church, and I don't need anyone who stones people etc. Infact I am very picky. I like my cat, snow, water and food. I like mice, they are nice. I like cold and some sun, I like herbs that are not poisonous, I like air and oranges. I like small things that doesn't hurt you.

What do I care what you believe in, I said I am a god, everywhere I am is my church, and I don't need anyone who stones people etc. Infact I am very picky. I like my cat, snow, water and food. I like mice, they are nice. I like cold and some sun, I like herbs that are not poisonous, I like air and oranges. I like small things that doesn't hurt you.

lol, ok,
but first, before saying that you are a .. uuh...
you sould know, that God, is who created everything,
but, you didnt creat every thing, you, you're defferently not a God,
if you are, so, tell me, how is life on the other planets, tell me, all, alll, the species of plants and animals, tell me, how to creat a life, from non organic maters, in a completly cloes place, that don't have any kind of microbs or anything, tell me, how will you make this life, in this room, and make it evolved, tell me, every species that existed at the age of dinosors, and i mean, ever every specie, and name of plants,
you don't know effcorse, why cant you just say "that you don't beleive in God" you don't have to say that you're ... a ...uuh...
i beleive in god, and you don't, see simple
it's your mind, not myne, you don't beleive,
you don't have to prove to people whi beleive in god, with your poing of view that god don't exist,
just accept their beleifs, and accept their thoghts, accept teh divercity of thoght and arts.

What do I care what you believe in, I said I am a god, everywhere I am is my church, and I don't need anyone who stones people etc. Infact I am very picky. I like my cat, snow, water and food. I like mice, they are nice. I like cold and some sun, I like herbs that are not poisonous, I like air and oranges. I like small things that doesn't hurt you.


i think that you're kinda mocking of him, so stop it, and speak respectfully,
you cant mock of people's beleifs,
so, i can also mocke of you, cause you don't beleive in god,
so, just discuss respectfully,

I thought god was defined as one of the eternal, that which can feel and sence, that which is the highest rank of existence. That is how I define god. Now ofcourse there are higher things then me, but there is no object with more dimensions. However, I don't see how he could've done everything, since that is infact contradictive.

Suppose he did not, for instance, create me. Secondly, suppose he did become real, he could never have finished it and been aware of it, since there is an eternity in it. An eternity, you see, is sticky, in the minds sence; It is impossible to experience, when you have once become real. If you are not real and create the world, you did not, by definition, create the world, for you did not exist. That is why it is blasphamy to say so.

Imagine that it did infact take an eternity for him to have done eternity; he wouldn't ever have finished, suppose he did it faster then an eternity, he was then created by a black hole, and is separate to existence. Suppose he did grow to the size of the universe there, he still wouldn't have done it himself, he still wouldn't be finished. For it takes the existence of all things to make the existence of all things, and that is why, Since I am here that he hasn't finnished doing it. Questions? Answers?

Im pretty sure i wasn't mocking him. Because i don't know what he is talking about.

If he thinks he is god thats great. But it has nothing to do with why people believe in god. Go be and egotistical freak somewhere else.

But it's true though, that I am a god. supposed to say you wanted to know why you believe in him?

How about that he exists?

I thought god was defined as one of the eternal, that which can feel and sence, that which is the highest rank of existence. That is how I define god. Now ofcourse there are higher things then me, but there is no object with more dimensions. However, I don't see how he could've done everything, since that is infact contradictive.

Suppose he did not, for instance, create me. Secondly, suppose he did become real, he could never have finished it and been aware of it, since there is an eternity in it. An eternity, you see, is sticky, in the minds sence; It is impossible to experience, when you have once become real. If you are not real and create the world, you did not, by definition, create the world, for you did not exist. That is why it is blasphamy to say so.


in islam, God, is not from mater, we cant know how God is, you can never know how God is, islam beleive in non-material life, wich it's djin, an intelligent life form, live on earth, also otehr intellegent life on other planets, but defferently not UFOs, anyway, in islam, we can olny know God, by his cracteristics, by his description, like, the creator, the great, the ( the word of murcy) ... there 99, we also, can say for God, he, or she, or it, as i said, we don't know how he is,
how can you judge, that God don't exists, and say if he exists he must be from mater, while you don't even know everythign about the mater in this existence, there are about 26 forms for mater, and still more, every day, they discover a new form,
also, there are a non material things, maybe you can call it ghosr matter, we don't know nothing, nothing about this existence it self,
how could quran, wich it's written 1400 years ago, know about wormholes, know about space expantion, the bigbang, life on other planets, also intelligent life, know about the gravity, or the relation between all the planets and univerces in the existence, how could it know, the way human born, exactly like science description,you know the part of the woman, egg or something, don't know it's english name, and the something animal, that men shoot it, lol, i don't know it's english name, that those two joing together, and make the baby, 1400 years ago, did they knew all that 1400 years ago,
also, how you can you say, that god don't exist, while you don't know, what more does it exists in this existence, the creator, God, when he creats this where you live, why do you think that God should be from mater or something from this existence, how do you know?
who are you, to judge like that, how can you explain, those things mentioned in the quran, how can you prove, that God don't exists, how can you prove, that we started from nothing, wich we didnt,
the univerce was a hall thing, stucked together, also quran, mentioned this, that the univerce before the bigbong, was stuck together in a one thing, or group, or something (sorry for my english) what about that big ball of everything, how do you think it formed, did it just exist, how did it form, from noithing, could anything be created from nothing by itself, let's say that there's more after the univerce, how did the other part existsed, let's say there's also another source behind it, also tanother source behind that one, intell we reach the first source, who created that source??? and why should God, be on the descriptions, the material world, of this existence? God created us, so, why God should be like us, or why God should have the caracteristics of this existence? the material world, wich is univerce, is not everything, you can never judge, we don't even know anything about our own univerce, so, how can you judge? why do you think, that the non-material world, don't exists?
can you answer those questions ?

Im pretty sure i wasn't mocking him. Because i don't know what he is talking about.

If he thinks he is god thats great. But it has nothing to do with why people believe in god. Go be and egotistical freak somewhere else.

i werent saying you are mocking, i meant him, cause he's kidna mocking on who beleive in God,
:D
so, i asked him to talk respectfully

But it's true though, that I am a god. supposed to say you wanted to know why you believe in him?

How about that he exists?

if you are a God (wich you're not) answer, on my privious question, at the page 4, and don't forgot the question of the page 5,
God know everything,
so
if you are a God (wich again you're not) answer on each question i asked,
and wait for more,


also, why are you keep mocking:confused:
are you ok? you must learn how to respect people's beleifs, who are you so you can judge like that, and tell people what they should think or how to act,
you're way, that you're mocking, is like, trying to make people, think, what you want them to think, and act, like you want them to, well, that's soo, dictoric,if you didnt get my point, and respect what i said,

don't forgot to answer allll my question, good luck with that ;)
:cool:

Here is my respect, a god can't make eternities of atoms that are equal, for he feels what he do, hence all that is too much burns his hands and is done by preexistence.

The feelings are too strong for any a god to do something big, If you are real you can't do much. I am a god, but I can't create a universe, for if I had ever gotten to choose I'd choose variety.

Your questions are boring, let preexisting things handle them, if they want.

Questions? Answers?

if you are a God (wich you're not) answer, on my privious question, at the page 4, and don't forgot the question of the page 5,
God know everything,
so
if you are a God (wich again you're not) answer on each question i asked,
and wait for more,


also, why are you keep mocking:confused:
are you ok? you must learn how to respect people's beleifs, who are you so you can judge like that, and tell people what they should think or how to act,
you're way, that you're mocking, is like, trying to make people, think, what you want them to think, and act, like you want them to, well, that's soo, dictoric,if you didnt get my point, and respect what i said,

don't forgot to answer allll my question, good luck with that ;)
:cool:

Who is to say he isn't a god. I can't tell all these Smart christans that there is no god, so why him?

Here is my respect, a god can't make eternities of atoms that are equal, for he feels what he do, hence all that is too much burns his hands and is done by preexistence.

The feelings are too strong for any a god to do something big, If you are real you can't do much. I am a god, but I can't create a universe, for if I had ever gotten to choose I'd choose variety. Questions?

pff, ok, that your PO
but still not answered ALLLL my questions
one by one

pff, ok, that your PO
but still not answered ALLLL my questions
one by one

Then ask them one by one.

Who is to say he isn't a god. I can't tell all these Smart christans that there is no god, so why him?

i didnt get your question,
do you mean, that he beleive in god, and you cant tell him that God don't exist,

you don't need to,
every one is free with his mind
also, i said he's mocking, cause he's saying that his a God (wich he's not) not just because he thinks he is, but because he don't think that God exists, and he's mocking from who beleives in God. he thinks that everyone shouldnt, it's like, he wants to force them somehow,

Then ask them one by one.

you already saw them, if you readed my replyies,
the question is, every phrase, that have a question mark with it, like this one "?"
also, if you don't beleive in God, just say, that you don't, and it's easy,
why mocking from who beleives, who are so you can judge, certenly, you don't know everything, and certenly, you're not the best human in the world

God sure do exist for I for instance am one, now whoever is another god sure is one, would he exist. And if you exist you don't do big things for they hurt.

I force no one, I didn't back then don't do now, supposed to say forcing hurts. Questions?

Mister kuaran reader. If eternity was in gods mind, has he enough wits to feel it? Because if you feel eternity, it takes an eternal time, if you feel 3 eternities it takes 3 eternities of time, and if he had felt all of eternity, it had taken all that time, and that is not finished, until eternity is finished.

Questions? Answers?

i didnt get your question,
do you mean, that he beleive in god, and you cant tell him that God don't exist,

you don't need to,
every one is free with his mind
also, i said he's mocking, cause he's saying that his a God (wich he's not) not just because he thinks he is, but because he don't think that God exists, and he's mocking from who beleives in God. he thinks that everyone shouldnt, it's like, he wants to force them somehow,

I'd go for the fact that we are all gods. Every human on this planet. A race of gods. What do you think about that? What exactly is the definition of a 'god'

I'd go for the fact that we are all gods. Every human on this planet. A race of gods. What do you think about that? What exactly is the definition of a 'god'

what definition of the word God that you're using,
God, is who created everything who knows everything, after all God created everything, who created us, humans, there are two words in arabic referto humans
bachar=for all species of humans, of all times
insen= just for teh modern human, since the roman and the egyptian civilisation, teh civilisations that we know,
we beleive, that god, created other life forms before us, that walk on two feets, and have an intelligence,
and have bones, look liek ours,
we belive that God created all humans,
and everything, and all the life forms,
also we belive that God created other intelligent life forms on other planets, many others
and we belive, that one, day, a specific kind, 'hijuj and mijuj" will invade us, and almost destroy all kinds of life, they will come threw a wrom hole,
so, God, is who created every every thing,

so, what difinition of word God are you using
you can say, you're the god of your family, it means, the family head, who take kare of it's buinsness and needs, the father,

God sure do exist for I for instance am one, now whoever is another god sure is one, would he exist. And if you exist you don't do big things for they hurt.

I force no one, I didn't back then don't do now, supposed to say forcing hurts. Questions?

Mister kuaran reader. If eternity was in gods mind, has he enough wits to feel it? Because if you feel eternity, it takes an eternal time, if you feel 3 eternities it takes 3 eternities of time, and if he had felt all of eternity, it had taken all that time, and that is not finished, until eternity is finished.

Questions? Answers?


hmm, actually, i don't read quran alot, but i do see the explinations some time, i do see the scientific stuff in it, i don't memorize it, just some of it, but i do know what's in it,
and about your question, i didnt even udnerstand it, lol
:D

I'd go for the fact that we are all gods. Every human on this planet. A race of gods. What do you think about that? What exactly is the definition of a 'god'

that depends on the defintion of the word that you use,
and its musr be clear, that peopel can understand it's real tense, in the phrase
like saying
god father,

God sure do exist for I for instance am one, now whoever is another god sure is one, would he exist. And if you exist you don't do big things for they hurt.

I force no one, I didn't back then don't do now, supposed to say forcing hurts. Questions?

Mister kuaran reader. If eternity was in gods mind, has he enough wits to feel it? Because if you feel eternity, it takes an eternal time, if you feel 3 eternities it takes 3 eternities of time, and if he had felt all of eternity, it had taken all that time, and that is not finished, until eternity is finished.

Questions? Answers?

oh , why do you always say "
Questions? Answers? " in front of every reply, lol

oh , why do you always say "
Questions? Answers? " in front of every reply, lol

Because then I get questions and answers.

Now unless your god is sacriligeus, tell him not to enter my church, my church is allways where I am.
All those who enter my church must believe in that I am a god.

Because then I get questions and answers.

Now unless your god is sacriligeus, tell him not to enter my church, my church is allways where I am.
All those who enter my church must believe in that I am a god.

I don't know if your mocking religion as a whole or just yourself lol.

Taken your add meds this week?

As appropriate for all beings.

I don't know if your mocking religion as a whole or just yourself lol.

Taken your add meds this week?

lol, he's just bluffing,
don't take his sayings seriously,
that's bovious that he have some confusion,
but he'll live
lol

hey no offence,
:D

lol, he's just bluffing,
don't take his sayings seriously,
that's bovious that he have some confusion,
but he'll live
lol

hey no offence,
:D

No, I'm serious. Besides a god of the real dimension cannot blow up. So I'm safe to live on earth. I am the factor 1, and it does not do anything special but twist reality the way it wants it. I'm not a black hole, I don't suck things in: You are safe with me. Now seriously, how many infinities take how many infinities? God cannot chue more then one infinity per infinity, is there something with that you don't understand?

No, I'm serious. Besides a god of the real dimension cannot blow up. So I'm safe to live on earth. I am the factor 1, and it does not do anything special but twist reality the way it wants it. I'm not a black hole, I don't suck things in: You are safe with me. Now seriously, how many infinities take how many infinities? God cannot chue more then one infinity per infinity, is there something with that you don't understand?

wow dude, your mind is mixed around,
okay, that's your PO, anyway,
so, you don't have to prove to me, or to make me think, that God don't exists,
:)
good luck with your safety ;)

What about it? Where are the real things gonna be if not here;

Look up! far up: That is a long distance. If a human can't move up there... Then a god definitely can't.

Besides: If there is a sound in a wood without reality, who hears it? Ain't reality supposed to be everywhere in space, does not all wanna be for real?

What about it? Where are the real things gonna be if not here;

Look up! far up: That is a long distance. If a human can't move up there... Then a god definitely can't.

Besides: If there is a sound in a wood without reality, who hears it? Ain't reality supposed to be everywhere in space, does not all wanna be for real?

okay... now i'm worried on your mind health,
good luck dude
;)
and let's just stop talking about this,
you win ok? are you happy?
goshh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Every logical point leads to the fact that there is no god.

So in my personal opinion anyone who belives in god is ignorant. (Don't take that the wrong way)

I'm torn between laughing about this or actually answering it.

Mainly because people are told there is a god when they are too young to think independently or critically. Children will believe anything you tell them.

Also, we have a natural inclination to ascribe agency to things. If something bad happens and we don't know why, we automatically assume that some kind of intelligent being is doing it. Think about how we personify objects like our cars and computers as if they are intelligent things. It probably comes from the fact that we're a hopelessly social species. We automatically assume things are alive and have intentions and it's only with our higher faculties that we realize, Well, no, it's not a person, it's a stupid computer or rock, or tree, or whatever it is. So when something happens to you, there's obviously some great celestial being doing it.

Some people believe because they want to, some because it makes sense to them, and some because god has rocked their world to the point where they would have to be completely insane not to.

and why not to beleive in god,

well, i beleive in god, cause i go, (i dont mean by god jesus, i mean who created everything)

and why not to beleive in god,

well, i beleive in god, cause i go, (i dont mean by god jesus, i mean who created everything)

First of all, it's spelled believe. Second... what? You believe because you go? What does that even mean? I mean, I guess I go also. I go to pee, I go to watch a movie, I go to Arizona. We all go. So what? What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

First of all, it's spelled believe. Second... what? You believe because you go? What does that even mean? I mean, I guess I go also. I go to pee, I go to watch a movie, I go to Arizona. We all go. So what? What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

lol
?
i just said i beleive in god cause it make sense to me

G-d just makes no sense.

In judaism I find it makes slightly more sense and I will explain why later

G-d loves us right?

So why make an eternal pit of fire and damnation if, "he loves us"?

G-d is perfect right? That means he created the stars perfect, the world perfect, the animals perfect. So how in the world did he manage to screw up human beings?

Human beings kill, rape, steal, lie, and cheat. Yah we can think, but that does a pretty sad job of offsetting those.

If you have children would you create a place where they will burn in pain for all time? Your a pretty messed up parent if you say yes.

The reason judaism makes slightly more sense is that there is no hell. But even than G-d makes no sense whatsoever.

G-d just makes no sense.

G-d loves us right?

So why make an eternal pit of fire and damnation if, "he loves us"?

Human beings kill, rape, steal, lie, and cheat. Yah we can think, but that does a pretty sad job of offsetting those.


um...you just answered your own question here.

lol
?
i just said i beleive in god cause it make sense to me

Saying it or believing it? It makes more sense to say it only if not saying it will get keep you from being outcast or even worse, killed outright. Believing it makes sense if you don't really know for sure.

Why do people believe in god? I think they do it just to piss off atheists.

Why do people believe in god? I think they do it just to piss off atheists.

I'm okay if they just want to believe, it's all the other unnecessary bullshit that accompanies it.

and why not to beleive in god,

well, i beleive in god, cause i go, (i dont mean by god jesus, i mean who created everything)
*************
M*W: Why is it everytime you say you "believe in god" have to qualify it by saying you don't mean "jesus?" You've already said you were Muslim, so there's no point (i.e. it's redundant) that you keep reminding everyone you don't mean "jesus." I don't believe jesus is god either, but I'm not a christian. You are Muslim, so you don't need to even mention "jesus's" name, since you don't believe.

I'm just trying to help you out here.

Why do people believe in god? I think they do it just to piss off atheists.
*************
M*W: I'm an atheist, but I don't think people who believe in god do it just to piss us off. I don't take it personally. They are delusional. If they only knew how most of the world sees them. Anyhow, christianity is dying worldwide. When it does, that will make three less gods in the dying demigod savior pool. Only a million to go.

lol?
i just said i beleive in god cause it make sense to me
*************
M*W: You believe in god, because you were indoctrinated to do so. You were born atheist, and your parents (or whoever reared you) made you believe in Allah. Therefore, you still believe in Allah, because you're afraid to think for yourself. It makes sense to you to believe in god, because that's all you've ever known. You are a follower not a free-thinker. You believe in a god who is not there.

people beleive in god because it is safer to have faith, then not to have faith.

i mean who is there to say there is no god, can you prove there is no god ?

id rather take my chances, and have faith, it doesn't cost nothing, it doesn't hurt me?

and if there is a god id rather be on his side after death.

people beleive in god because it is safer to have faith, then not to have faith.

i mean who is there to say there is no god, can you prove there is no god ?

id rather take my chances, and have faith, it doesn't cost nothing, it doesn't hurt me?

and if there is a god id rather be on his side after death.
*************
M*W: That's a rather childish answer. How do you know it is safer to have faith, than (yes, it's spelled t-h-a-n, not then) not to have faith. I don't see where having faith is any safer than not having faith. I have faith the the sun will come up tomorrow. I have faith that I will pay taxes this year. I have lots of faith in lots of things, but a god is not one of them.

When you prove to me there is a god, then I will prove to you there isn't. Since there is no evidence of any god, there's not much to go with to prove a god really isn't there. You have faith that there is a god. I have faith that there isn't.

You believe having faith doesn't cost anything, but are you sure?

DerrekJ gave this answer to that question on Yahoo! Answers:

"Christianity IS a mental illness much like paranoid schizophrenia. Those afflicted hear voices, believe, speak, and try to communicate with people who aren't there, believe they are being watched and are detached from reality."

I agree.

*************
M*W: That's a rather childish answer. How do you know it is safer to have faith, than (yes, it's spelled t-h-a-n, not then) not to have faith. I don't see where having faith is any safer than not having faith. I have faith the the sun will come up tomorrow. I have faith that I will pay taxes this year. I have lots of faith in lots of things, but a god is not one of them.

because it in no way hurts me to have faith, i mean i don't really recognize any religion for say, but i do feel, and wish for something more after death, and for the sake of saying there is really a god, wouldn't you want to have faith which is harmless, (depending on how extrema you take it), to me it is harmless and if there is a god and he is willing to let me into heaven because i had faith then then i call that playing it safe, and if there is no god then there was no harm done.


When you prove to me there is a god, then I will prove to you there isn't. Since there is no evidence of any god, there's not much to go with to prove a god really isn't there. You have faith that there is a god. I have faith that there isn't.

that is you're decision, i will say a prayer for you just in case there is a god, to have faith does not have nothing to do with proof.


You believe having faith doesn't cost anything, but are you sure?

positive, it never ever cost me a cent, maybe an hour or two of my time here and there but thats all.


DerrekJ gave this answer to that question on Yahoo! Answers:

"Christianity IS a mental illness much like paranoid schizophrenia. Those afflicted hear voices, believe, speak, and try to communicate with people who aren't there, believe they are being watched and are detached from reality."

I agree.

again that is your decision and if there is life after death and there is a god, i hope he/she or it, takes pity on your soul, and if there isn't there is no harm in me having faith, and i will feel better when i am on my death bed knowing that i had faith then knowing i was naive in thinking there was no god just because it can not be proved, nore dis proved.

I think it is ignorant to assume that people who believe in god are ignorant. ;)I don't know, read some of these stories about Xenu and wonder how people can believe this crap. An intergalactic warlord :bugeye: And then I realize, well, THAT crap actually is more believable than the Christian's stories ;)

because it in no way hurts me to have faith, i mean i don't really recognize any religion for say, but i do feel, and wish for something more after death, and for the sake of saying there is really a god, wouldn't you want to have faith which is harmless, (depending on how extrema you take it), to me it is harmless and if there is a god and he is willing to let me into heaven because i had faith then then i call that playing it safe, and if there is no god then there was no harm done.So you don't believe there is a god but just say and act as though there is on the off-chance that there actually is?
'Cos that's how it comes across from what you wrote above.

You don't think that this god you say you believe in would actually realise that you actually don't believe in him and were just paying lip-service?



that is you're decision, i will say a prayer for you just in case there is a god, to have faith does not have nothing to do with proof.This further suggests that you genuinely don't have faith - and that you are just going through the motions.


again that is your decision and if there is life after death and there is a god, i hope he/she or it, takes pity on your soul, and if there isn't there is no harm in me having faith, and i will feel better when i am on my death bed knowing that i had faith then knowing i was naive in thinking there was no god just because it can not be proved, nore dis proved.Do you actually believe that god exists - or is god merely a possibility to you on which you are taking Pascal's wager?

Bear in mind that I am not sure paying lip-service is the same as having genuine faith.

"No, dear, your bum does not look big in that dress!"
You can act as though it doesn't, but you know deep down that it's just lip-service.

one problem theists have in my own experiences is that they look down on thoes of other religions and thoes who dont believe there is a god until proof is given. which inturn makes them hypocrits

People believe in all sorts of silly things, because they haven't found Science yet. Go out and spread the Good News about what Science did to save humanity from certain death.

because it in no way hurts me to have faith, i mean i don't really recognize any religion for say, but i do feel, and wish for something more after death, and for the sake of saying there is really a god, wouldn't you want to have faith which is harmless, (depending on how extrema you take it), to me it is harmless and if there is a god and he is willing to let me into heaven because i had faith then then i call that playing it safe, and if there is no god then there was no harm done.
************
M*W: How can you be sure your "faith" doesn't hurt you? I think you're afraid to not have faith based on your fear of not having faith. Tell me, how is that not mentally hurtful?

What is the point of wishing for "something more after death?" Have you ever known anyone who has come back from the dead and said, "Thank God I believed in Him, because Heaven is such a great place to retire!" No, and you also haven't known anyone to come back to tell you how horriblly hot hell is so you don't want to go there."

What you call "playing it safe," I call "perpetuating the fear" of punishment after you die. Wasn't life hard enough for ya? Now you fear getting punished forever after.

Now tell me how that can be healthy and productive for anyone alive? Here are some books that explain why faith is dangerous:

References:

Ward, Keith (2006-09-01). Is Religion Dangerous?. London: Lion Hudson Plc. ISBN 978-0745952628.

Ward, Keith (2007-03-01). Is Religion Dangerous?. Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-4508-5.

Branden, N. (1963), "Mental health versus mysticism and self-sacrifice," The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism.

http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/mental.htm


that is you're decision, i will say a prayer for you just in case there is a god, to have faith does not have nothing to do with proof.
*************
M*W: The difference is that you feel you need to say a prayer for me "just in case there is a god." I wish you well, too, but I do that from my own feelings. I want what's best for you, and I don't need a god nor a religion to be resposible for my wishing you well.



again that is your decision and if there is life after death and there is a god, i hope he/she or it, takes pity on your soul, and if there isn't there is no harm in me having faith, and i will feel better when i am on my death bed knowing that i had faith then knowing i was naive in thinking there was no god just because it can not be proved, nore dis proved.
*************
M*W: If there is a god, we would all know it. It would be obvious. We would all believe. There would be no doubt. Isn't god capable of that? Why would he want to play mind games with us? If there is a heaven, why can't we see it before we go. Don't you think if we knew all of this, there would still be people who don't believe it?

When I'm on my death bed, all I will be thinking about is leaving my family behind. But, at that time, I probably won't even be conscious as death closes her dark door.

Why?

Massive. Cognitive. Dissonance.

A hallmark of humanity.

People believe in all sorts of silly things, because they haven't found Science yet. Go out and spread the Good News about what Science did to save humanity from certain death.Where does one find Science and how does one know one has found it? Once you've found it, do you have it? What if science is silent on a certain issue?

you make good points, mw.
and i wish you all the best too.


religion in it's own way a primative form of science.

I think some of them do that because it is one plausible explanation (http://powertoxins.blogspot.com/2010/02/religious-doctrine-for-toxins-of-power.html) for the corruption of mind that is leading the human species (http://powertoxins.blogspot.com/2010/02/ecocide-evidence-of-toxins-of-power.html) toward extinction. :shrug:

Since luminaries such as Penrose warn us (http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/11/memes-of-penrose.html) that we do not understand all we think we do, we ought not get so high up on the high horse so as to want to burn some witches doncha know.

Where does one find Science and how does one know one has found it?Science is a methodology, not a collection of theories. Science is the derivation of theories by applying reasoning and experimentation to empirical evidence. The scientific method is used to test a hypothesis. If it is consistently supported by evidence, it becomes a theory describing the behavior of the natural universe.

The fundamental theory that underlies all others, in my own words, is that the natural universe is a closed system (using the layman's definition of that phrase) whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical evidence of its present and past behavior. But this theory is no different from any other; it is recursive. It was derived by reasoning from empirical evidence. In the five centuries since the dawn of science, all evidence has supported it.
Once you've found it, do you have it?You don't find science, so much as learn it. The methodology has been in place for centuries.

Even the fine tuning that makes science easier, without compromising its accuracy, is old. The Rule of Laplace (extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence) goes back 200 years, and Occam's Razor (test the simplest explanations first) is actually older than most of the rest of science.

So perhaps what you're asking is, once you've learned science, do you have it? Well, science is also an attitude. You have to be logical, you have to be methodical, you have to be reasonably intelligent, and perhaps above all you have to be honest. If you have those traits and you've learned the basics of science--either in a formal educational environment or through the efforts of a mentor--then all that's left is practice.:)
What if science is silent on a certain issue?Kind of depends on the issue, doesn't it? Science is the analysis of the natural universe for the purpose of predicting its behavior. It's incorrect, or at least defeatist, to say that many of the things that are most important to us such as love, politics and philosophy are beyond science. But it's correct to say that science at this time has not yet made a lot of progress in placing those things in the context of the natural universe.

What goes on inside our heads as influenced by our endocrine systems (to avoid going too woo-woo on you by using the metaphor "and in our hearts") is clearly a collection of phenomena occurring within the natural universe. We just haven't figured out their structure yet. But not to worry, a hundred years ago we hadn't figured out the structure of DNA and now we're mapping it. Not long before that, we hadn't figured out the structure of atoms.

Science is a methodology, not a collection of theories. I was really challenging the wording of the person I quoted. (and the potential conceptual oddities behind the wording)

The real reason people believe in God is because the human brain is a raging inference machine which tries to find connections between everything it sees or hears or learns about. It takes quite a bit of practice to stop it from doing this and to control it enough to only make inferences about things for which there is actual justification. Most people don't have this training, so they are far more likely to be led to make invalid inferences. Even people who do have this training can have trouble controlling their natural inference instincts, so it's no surprise that most people end up believing all sorts of crazy things.

because until man kind can explain everything with positively no doubt this is defiantly how everything works. having a god is the best way to explain everything from life, to the stars in the sky, up until man proves without a doubt the origins of the universe its self.

because until man kind can explain everything with positively no doubt this is defiantly how everything works. having a god is the best way to explain everything from life, to the stars in the sky, up until man proves without a doubt the origins of the universe its self.So it's not sufficient to say "I don't know", but rather to fill that gap with "God did it"?

So it's not sufficient to say "I don't know", but rather to fill that gap with "God did it"?

It's like when we talk about the past and say 'I did it.' When, in fact, it was a rather different organism made of different matter that did it.

It's like when we talk about the past and say 'I did it.' When, in fact, it was a rather different organism made of different matter that did it.Unless I'm missing some sarcastic/humourous viewpoint, it's nothing like it, from what I can see.
Your example is merely one of terminology for who/what we know performed an action (whether we can say "I did it" or "the organism that led to the current me did it").

Or are you saying that "God did it" and "I don't know" are the same thing and that it is just a matter of terminology used?

So it's not sufficient to say "I don't know", but rather to fill that gap with "God did it"?

correct, what harm can come from it, for all we know there may be some strange energy out there responsible for all of our creation, and it may have a conscious.

what harm can come from it

I think history has shown that quite a lot of harm can come from it. In fairness the general concept itself need not cause harm, it just seems extremely prone to abuse. So since it comes from a bunch of unjustified inferences we'd be better off without it.

with ppl in general they tend to have a tendancy to put themselves into a position of control where ppl will listen to them,with god there is no solid or specific doctrine that can be taken as a rule so there is potential to create control without any evidence, this leads to abuse of responsibility in the hierarchy of religious organizations..

then there are those who seek god to seek a better way of life,to create a community where one gets treated with respect, no matter what their station in life, as with the world ppl tend to classify a person as being worthy or not,with this concept there is none worthy..hence ppl turn to god who claims we are all worthy..unfortunatly ppl's humanity has a tendancy to seek out that worthyness at the expense of others worthyness, so religion ends up being self defeating cause of this..ie believe like this or you aint sh*t..

there are a few churches in existence that avoid this trap..but those churches are hard to find and must be hunted for, for someone to have an honest relationship with god they cannot just join the first church they find,when it comes to churches a few sayings come to mind..

test all things hold onto what is good..
believe half of what you read and none of what you hear..
think for yourself, not do as your told
the pastor is a person too and is just as screwed up as the rest of us..
there is no such thing as perfect..
noone has all the answers..
etc,etc,etc

Unless I'm missing some sarcastic/humourous viewpoint, it's nothing like it, from what I can see.
Your example is merely one of terminology for who/what we know performed an action (whether we can say "I did it" or "the organism that led to the current me did it").Well, the latter formulation is radically different from what most people believe to be true. It counters the existence of a self with duration. A posited entity is a hallucinated one based on faulty interpretation of experiences. Which I think is in fact a parallel.


Or are you saying that "God did it" and "I don't know" are the same thing and that it is just a matter of terminology used?I think actually you must made a case similar above in regard to the persistent self, that it is a mere difference in terminology, rather than the latter formulation being a non-acceptance of a posited entity.

But, in any case, no.

Answer is simple:

The Devil makes people believe in God. He only gets to collect the sinners. If you don't believe in God, you cannot sin. The Devil can't take you when you die.

I can't be sure, but suppose that is why God made the devil and keeps him around. - The Devil is doing "God's work."

Next question.

lol

Even most theists wouldn't accept such a silly answer..

Welcome me back every other person here.

Hmm. I have been interested in the issue of dmt. And I have found that the color it has is white, and it is smoked, and can seem a lot like a religious or if maxed out- and it would be a dreadfully lonely place with it existing per the existence of the potentiality of god itself- it would imply- that although there appear to exist far more religious experiences than DMT- that there is another drug for that... Do you see what I mean.

So like if I were to say I want to go get high on kites and fly through the skys with paper air planes and guys, well then I could do that- no one suggests or persists in knowing what would make someone fly and if it's dmt that is insane- because i know that people can fly.

If I was the first person on the planet to fly through the air I wouldn't be asking any questions when I say "i told you so" because dmt was the defination of gods existence. People have been suggest that dmt have nothing to do with no god- that mean that you can no over dose, and that it is a mystical experience. People do see many intellectual thing on dmt and make many intellectual debate real debunk but not anything like what would mean when it come to answer to intellectual question like determinism or free will like god. So what I can say is that it would not silence them if they have not a idea of what it mean to make knowledge.

That what I think.

I think that if I want to fly not purpose of dmt. That good right yes it is.

I also think that my knowledge is not confined to god or that it has a lot to do with god. I do not know what people experience on dmt with conceive of god. I can not say. But it is said that some people experience some thingas about god on dmt- for example- they yexperience they see god or some other demension. That do not mean that they see the transfiguration or the absolute answer of god if it do then it would be best to have everyyone on planet take in dmt over doses every day to make sure they can fly. But I disagree in that they see god. I disagree, because I feel some other substance or material would allow someone to see what is real god. Maybe dmt is like a stone, but it nothing like testicles or men priate area.

My topic for this is that in men private area you get thisr eseult.

Yous ay to you self you say you self you say:

The ball are purple and origionate from place where dmt or other drug not real.

Like the grass is greener on the other side arguement.

Dmt users need to get a grip sure they expeience psychic states and the psychic is one of the most debaed things.

Think though if people got ahold of forbidden information and made us useless. If the result is fully positive with only positive possibilitis- that is good - but it would not allow somoene to have a reason to stop in their search for their religion or their beliefs because they know themselves that the answer is too confined to truths which are far beyond the reach of any other prior speculation. This is a fact and is not disproven.

Irregardless, it is not suggest that psychic expeirence is exact in dmt but that dmt is a good way to see many thing like for example you can see what ppl think of god or alien or some good experience. But that is not what dmt is fully about. Some crystaline drug not like dmt or some plant like substance or material different then dmt that exist in nature that ppl probably dont know about probably exist but dmt is not the answer. Dmt does not have the same effect which allows us to experience the truth.

The truth can no be experience is my suggestion and dmt have a pointless effect so it scientifically unregarded as being even related to any physical attribute and is speculated to exist as way of dangerous speculative drug- like opium.

Crystal meth doesnt equate though, nor does crack rock or any other. And dmt is not the same thing as other drugs might exist. I woul take a lick of some podium tree and get a sap infestation- before touch dmt- kuz that is what dmt is NOT.

About got my belif in god is about the sap on the bark arguement for the eixstence of drug. DMT is NOT the same thing- this i have already sated why i believe that.

DMT is only useful in showing off what you got as compared to what a girl doesnt got so that is embarassing to me as a girl.

But i believe god is all around us the psychic have nothign to do with dmt.

I have a you tube video i can no find a guy use his hand to ge a girl off use psychic power to do it. He no have dmt and he have sexy penis and balls. I wonder what dmt user say about that. Probably go lick a candy cane.

And if anybody on existence want to judge someones "right" may they rot in the infernal pits of socratese's right jaw in his mouth for the eternity in all existence.

amen?

amen.

Hmm. I have been interested in the issue of dmt. And I have found that the color it has is white, and it is smoked
Then you should get more interested.
It can vary in colour.

may appear yellow, orange, or salmon in color
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine).
And it can be smoked, drunk or injected, as well as appearing naturally in the body.


and it would be a dreadfully lonely place with it existing per the existence of the potentiality of god itself- it would imply- that although there appear to exist far more religious experiences than DMT- that there is another drug for that... Do you see what I mean.
No. You're being as incoherent as usual.


because i know that people can fly.
In an aeroplane, yes.


People do see many intellectual thing on dmt
Not really.


Maybe dmt is like a stone, but it nothing like testicles or men priate area.
Drivel.


My topic for this is that in men private area you get thisr eseult.
Huh?


The ball are purple and origionate from place where dmt or other drug not real.
No.


Dmt users need to get a grip sure they expeience psychic states and the psychic is one of the most debaed things.
Psychic cannot be debased because it doesn't actually exist.


Think though if people got ahold of forbidden information and made us useless. If the result is fully positive with only positive possibilitis- that is good - but it would not allow somoene to have a reason to stop in their search for their religion or their beliefs because they know themselves that the answer is too confined to truths which are far beyond the reach of any other prior speculation. This is a fact and is not disproven.
It might be a fact if it were in any way comprehensible.


The truth can no be experience is my suggestion and dmt have a pointless effect
Like your posts...


DMT is only useful in showing off what you got as compared to what a girl doesnt got so that is embarassing to me as a girl.
If only your posts were as equally embarrassing to you.


But i believe god is all around us the psychic have nothign to do with dmt.
Belief is one thing, god is not provable. And psychic has nothing to do with anything - it doesn't exist.

Then you should get more interested.
It can vary in colour.
Okay, if you want me to get interested in criticisms which are directed soley as personal attacks, I am prepared.

And it can be smoked, drunk or injected, as well as appearing naturally in the body.[/quote]
Hello to you too.
I am sure that it can be just about anything, and I have already read about over doses. I would not send a retard link such as you, but I would state what I know. And what I know is that people do not over dose on the drug- it is not known to cause over doses in the regards of psychic entities beyond the existence of flying cows my opinion- that there is hope and that my position is perfectly defensible, is cogent and far more useful than the uglyness I see in your position. Watch as I go on because there is about to be a food fight.

No. You're being as incoherent as usual.



In an aeroplane, yes.
I often get the feeling in physical reality that I am about to fly- that is to say- in the sky- and that is not to assert piss on myself or any other. In my dreams, I have been known to litterally fly. If that is a recordable event scientifically , look in to it. Because I have litterally "flied" in my dreams before. That is to say traveled around the neighboor hood, and the extent that somebody can fly is a matter of dispute. If you'd like to refrence this little thought of mine feel free to refute.



Not really.
They see God. They see "PIE" which is the number 3.14 over in times tables so strung out that they could litterally be proven the existence of god just by refrence to the existence of dmt- if somoene experiences what Freud has called- and after sartre has called- the four legged chair, as an evil witch flying high in the sky (if you'dl ike to refute this get to work pal).

So "yes really" would have been better.


Drivel.
Maybe it is. Maybe it's less like a stone which has nothing in commen with testicles.


Huh?
Below


No.
Dis prove it.


Psychic cannot be debased because it doesn't actually exist.
The psychic is one of the most intellectual atmospheres of discussion, people are only intrigued by what interests their intelelct, and write primarially about what their intellect suggests to them is most positive- this is stated in a very casual way and in no way to defend my arguement from fraud.

The psychic is far more existent than you'd think. A dead sperm cell or any peson who is said to exist via way of the psychic is known to always be conscious. There are states of rem sleep and also other states (comas etc) where people are fully conscious but cannot be awakend.
So it is not proven that consciousness is to be stated as the existence which in the psychic is disproven (or whatever).
Consciousness and psychic are similar- and to refrence them by way of refuting them is quite silly.

If a person is dead, he wont have a psychic, but as long as he exists himself, he is always aware.
Refute that as I know you are incapable of doing so- because the statement is incorrect.


It might be a fact if it were in any way comprehensible.
Please see above.


Like your posts...
I am sorry my friend. You fail me here.


If only your posts were as equally embarrassing to you.
My posts I am proud of. I not defend an arguement unless I am defending the arguement. I do not stop for a criticism and I never will. I have no reason to debase a negetive arguement nor step outside for commentary that has a pointless suggestion.



Belief is one thing, god is not provable. And psychic has nothing to do with anything - it doesn't exist.
Prove that "god is not provable" before you state in any way that he "is". This is simply an arguement as you know god is like the big holey god you know like the holy omega. So don't refute him. Ever.

The psychic is the most fundamental aspect of human behaviors.

There are many things in it inherant which people are beginning to describe.

Maybe some "fact" exists afterall they state.

And then they run around rampant and do not know.

I suggest that you read over your post clearly and carefully if you want to have a positive chance in responding to what I have wrote here.

jessc

Okay, if you want me to get interested in criticisms which are directed soley as personal attacks, I am prepared.
I don't see why you should, since none of what I wrote was a personal attack.


I am sure that it can be just about anything, and I have already read about over doses. I would not send a retard link such as you, but I would state what I know.
Actually if you'd bothered to read the forum rules you're supposed to provide links. Nobody will take your word for it


And what I know is that people do not over dose on the drug- it is not known to cause over doses in the regards of psychic entities beyond the existence of flying cows my opinion- that there is hope and that my position is perfectly defensible, is cogent and far more useful than the uglyness I see in your position.
Wrong again: there is nothing cogent about claims of "psychic entities".


I often get the feeling in physical reality that I am about to fly- that is to say- in the sky- and that is not to assert piss on myself or any other. In my dreams, I have been known to litterally fly.
That's a dream, not the real world.


If that is a recordable event scientificallyIt isn't.


That is to say traveled around the neighboor hood, and the extent that somebody can fly is a matter of dispute.
No it's only disputable (that they can't) if you're a crackpot. People can't fly.


They see God.
They claim to see god.


They see "PIE" which is the number 3.14
It's spelt "pi".


Maybe it is. Maybe it's less like a stone which has nothing in commen with testicles.
More drivel.


Dis prove it.
Things can't "originate from where they aren't real".


The psychic is one of the most intellectual atmospheres of discussion
Wrong. Psychic doesn't exist.


The psychic is far more existent than you'd think.
None at all.


Consciousness and psychic are similar- and to refrence them by way of refuting them is quite silly.
There is no similarity. One exists, the other doesn't.


If a person is dead, he wont have a psychic, but as long as he exists himself, he is always aware.
Refute that as I know you are incapable of doing so- because the statement is incorrect.
The statement is incorrect? So it doesn't need refuting?
And the last part is also wrong: When someone is unconscious he exists but is unaware.


I am sorry my friend. You fail me here.
No, you fail yourself.


Prove that "god is not provable" before you state in any way that he "is". This is simply an arguement as you know god is like the big holey god you know like the holy omega. So don't refute him. Ever.
Are you on drugs or something?
There is no proof of god.


The psychic is the most fundamental aspect of human behaviors.
No it isn't.


I suggest that you read over your post clearly and carefully if you want to have a positive chance in responding to what I have wrote here.
I suggest that you actually learn English and start to use it.

If you think that I am not speaking english- you really need to speak up because I can not hear you. My english is perfect, and I am not going to change it. Nor do I have a reason to. If you cannot understand english... then try to read a persons post when they post. Usually when somebody makes a post to a forum such as this one, they are writing in the english language for themselves and nobody else, and when you write in the english langauge where you can understand what you are writing and no body else is able to understand what you are writing but yourself, and you cannot understand what that person is saying to you because you would have to sit and read each and every little word to comprehend it's meaning- do NOT expect somebody to sit back and explain each and every little thing that they mean, so that you can undersand it, because a lot of the times, english is written, so that when you write it- it is easy to understand- and that when you are able to understand it- then it does not need to be explained.

Did I make myself clear?

Get prepared.


I don't see why you should, since none of what I wrote was a personal attack.
Hi again.
Everything you wrote was derrorgitory. Not only was it insulting but it was also physically abusive. Learn some manners go back and read the last dozen posts you've made to this forum.



Actually if you'd bothered to read the forum rules you're supposed to provide links. Nobody will take your word for it
If it is to your enjoyment to post what you will call a "link"- feel free to research that informatoin- because posting of links is not required- I don't like that no body else does either. So if you have a problem with someone not desiring to post links - go find a link somewhere else and wrap it around your chest real tightly and get sexy.



Wrong again: there is nothing cogent about claims of "psychic entities".
Psychic existences -- entities are preferable as they exist as realities.
Cogency in regard psychic entities is irrelevant.



That's a dream, not the real world.
Refute the existence of said dream. Send a link. Send entire testominal. Prove that it is nothing but a dream. And guess what I shall do?

It isn't.
Then you need some lipstick. Put some on right now because I am off.


No it's only disputable (that they can't) if you're a crackpot. People can't fly.
Well it has not been refuted that people are capable of flying.



They claim to see god.
They see god. End of story.



It's spelt "pi".
Begin to use the word 3.14 when you spell the word pi because pie is much more prefered to pi with quotes. Pi. is capitol usually and ugly lower case. You do not have forum ettiquet and demanding to change my spelling wont help your case.



More drivel.
Yes, from you.



Things can't "originate from where they aren't real".
Okay, well where are they real? In the existence of sperm cells?



Wrong. Psychic doesn't exist.
Prove


None at all.
Prove.



There is no similarity. One exists, the other doesn't.
Prove.



The statement is incorrect? So it doesn't need refuting?
And the last part is also wrong: When someone is unconscious he exists but is unaware.
Prove.



No, you fail yourself.
Prove.



Are you on drugs or something?
There is no proof of god.
Prove.


No it isn't.
Prove.



I suggest that you actually learn English and start to use it.

This is disproven.

I probably have at least a 12 th grade reading level, but it's been a while since I've used it.

Maybe People believe in god, because it is better then believing in man? :shrug:

Maybe people believe in man, because it's better than believing in God is probably what you meant to say, you wont find a easily discoverable trace of residue which exists anywhere easy to find of what god would leave for us.

And not only that, since when did the words of lilith (I would send a youtube video of liliths words of pronounciation of not in hebrew), but if she is "not" then what would she imply. That is what I get out of your post. But most answers to the contrary do not seem to fit, hence, my suggestion.

And my question...

Maybe you're right but who is to say either of us is Wrong?

I see nothing but greed and death among modern man as of late.

If you think that I am not speaking english- you really need to speak up because I can not hear you. My english is perfect
On the contrary, your English is so abysmal that either it's not your first language (by a long shot) or you're spending an inordinate amount of time to garble it so that it appears that way.


Usually when somebody makes a post to a forum such as this one, they are writing in the english language for themselves and nobody else
There's another fundamental error: if you're posting on a forum you are, of necessity, posting for others to read, not yourself. If you want to write purely for your own benefit go buy a diary.


Everything you wrote was derrorgitory. Not only was it insulting but it was also physically abusive.
What I wrote was physically abusive? How does that work?


So if you have a problem with someone not desiring to post links - go find a link somewhere else and wrap it around your chest real tightly and get sexy.
If you aren't prepared to post links then all we have is your unsupported word - hardly worth taking into account.


Psychic existences -- entities are preferable as they exist as realities.
Incorrect. There is no verifiable report of psychic phenomena.


Refute the existence of said dream.
Why would I need, or want, to refute the existence of dream?


Well it has not been refuted that people are capable of flying.
It doesn't need to be refuted: it's up to those that claim it happens to show it does.


They see god. End of story.
You really must learn to distinguish between claims (which may or may not be true) and reality.


Begin to use the word 3.14 when you spell the word pi because pie is much more prefered to pi with quotes.
The quotes are not part of the word. Pi is the correct spelling for the number, pie is the spelling for something you eat.


Okay, well where are they real? In the existence of sperm cells?
Huh? Are you losing tack of your own inane "argument"?


Prove
Again you miss the point. It is up to those that claim the existence to prove it. So far no-one has shown genuine psychic abilities.


Prove.
See above.


Prove.
Prove.
Prove.
Prove.
Prove.
And for these five.


This is disproven.
Your delusion is deeper than I thought. Every single post you make displays your poor grasp of spelling, grammar, syntax and overall command of English.


I probably have at least a 12 th grade reading level
Whatever that means. You probably have that level?


but it's been a while since I've used it.
That much is highly evident.

*************
M*W: That's a rather childish answer. How do you know it is safer to have faith, than (yes, it's spelled t-h-a-n, not then) not to have faith. I don't see where having faith is any safer than not having faith. I have faith the the sun will come up tomorrow. I have faith that I will pay taxes this year. I have lots of faith in lots of things, but a god is not one of them.

When you prove to me there is a god, then I will prove to you there isn't. Since there is no evidence of any god, there's not much to go with to prove a god really isn't there. You have faith that there is a god. I have faith that there isn't.

You believe having faith doesn't cost anything, but are you sure?

DerrekJ gave this answer to that question on Yahoo! Answers:

"Christianity IS a mental illness much like paranoid schizophrenia. Those afflicted hear voices, believe, speak, and try to communicate with people who aren't there, believe they are being watched and are detached from reality."

I agree.

So now someone who is a Christian is not a Christian, but someone who is mentally ill? Just because they choose to try to communicate with what they believe in that makes them chemically imbalanced?
Very Judgemental.

Answer is simple:

The Devil makes people believe in God. He only gets to collect the sinners. If you don't believe in God, you cannot sin. The Devil can't take you when you die.

I can't be sure, but suppose that is why God made the devil and keeps him around. - The Devil is doing "God's work."

Next question.


Glaucon
Even most theists wouldn't accept such a silly answer..

Actually glaucon..read Job..it says the devil is under gods command..he cant do anything unless god lets him..
so he is correct when he says the devil is doing gods work..

and Jessc dont let dyw get under your skin, he likes to collect goats..and it seems he got yours..
unless you like to argue...then..nevermind..

Actually glaucon..read Job..it says the devil is under gods command..he cant do anything unless god lets him..
so he is correct when he says the devil is doing gods work..



And for some reason I'm supposed to take a piece of fiction as an explication of fact??

Wake up.

Christianity is a mental illness much like paranoid schizophrenia. Those afflicted hear voices, believe, speak, and try to communicate with people who aren't there, believe they are being watched and are detached from reality.Wikipedia's definition of mental illness is pretty straightforward and uncontroversial: "A psychological or behavioral pattern that occurs in an individual and is thought to cause distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture."

Given that Christianity was the norm in Western civilization within my lifetime and a large majority of Americans still identify themselves as Christians, I don't see how we can say that any of its side effects are not expected as part of normal culture.

As for normal development, Jung teaches us that religion is a collection of archetypes or instinctive beliefs. Since it's virtually universal (notwithstanding the differences among the various religions, they all look pretty much the same from the outside), the instinct must have been passed down from our most recent common ancestor, Y-Chromosome Adam, more than 60,000 years ago. To have lived with this for three or four thousand generations must certainly qualify it as "normal."

So now someone who is a Christian is not a Christian, but someone who is mentally ill? Just because they choose to try to communicate with what they believe in that makes them chemically imbalanced? Very Judgemental.
*************
M*W: First, you don't make any sense. I don't set the guidelines on who's a Christian and who is mentally ill. There are a lot of christians out there who don't reek of mental illness. But there are more who do. That's not judgmental. I've already listed the scientific studies on this one, babe.

I'm all for everyone communicating what they believe. No problem there. I believe everyone has the right to communicate... but I listen very well to what they're saying. Again, I didn't set the bar as to who is chemically imbalanced and who isn't. It's been studied by others. I only report.

BTW, you might want to loosen the loop in your Bible Belt.

Wikipedia's definition of mental illness is pretty straightforward and uncontroversial: "A psychological or behavioral pattern that occurs in an individual and is thought to cause distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture."

Given that Christianity was the norm in Western civilization within my lifetime and a large majority of Americans still identify themselves as Christians, I don't see how we can say that any of its side effects are not expected as part of normal culture.

As for normal development, Jung teaches us that religion is a collection of archetypes or instinctive beliefs. Since it's virtually universal (notwithstanding the differences among the various religions, they all look pretty much the same from the outside), the instinct must have been passed down from our most recent common ancestor, Y-Chromosome Adam, more than 60,000 years ago. To have lived with this for three or four thousand generations must certainly qualify it as "normal."
*************
M*W: Christianity was the norm in my own lifetime, too, but not now. Christianity is dying worldwide (with the exception of Africa and South America), but who's counting? People are more education, therefore, relying less on the mysticism of religion.

Just because they've found the bones of what they think is a male progenitor, his name could be Fred and not Adam. Scientists have familially called him Adam, but that doesn't mean squat. That just gives the bones an identity, but it may not be the right identity. I would go with Joe or Frank. His wife probably called him Oogah Boogah.

Christianity was the norm in my own lifetime, too, but not now. Christianity is dying worldwide (with the exception of Africa and South America), but who's counting?The only large population among whom Christianity is waning significantly is Europe. In the USA it's made a huge comeback since the Religious Redneck Retard Revival of the late 1970s. Sure it's dying out in New Zealand (see the thread on the "Poor Joseph: God Was A Hard Act To Follow" billboard that was erected by an Auckland church), and that's encouraging, but in hard numbers New Zealand is statistically insignificant. Latin America and Africa, with their enormous, fast-growing populations of old-time Christians, are rather large "exceptions." ;)
People are more educated, therefore, relying less on the mysticism of religion.I thought you lived in America. Ain't too many well-edjamakated folks 'round here. Those sheepskins that our dumbed-down universities (remedial English for high school graduates???) are giving out like grocery coupons ain't worth spit. They can't make change for a dollar without a POS terminal, they can't read anything more challenging than the sports page, they believed the sales pitch about sub-prime mortgages, and they built a museum of evolution denial in Kentucky.
Just because they've found the bones of what they think is a male progenitor . . . .No fossils. All they've found is his DNA in all Y chromosomes, which BTW makes it certain that he was male. ;). His lifetime hasn't been dated any more precisely than 60-100KYA.
Scientists have familially called him Adam, but that doesn't mean squat.That seemed fair after naming our earliest common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve. For all we know, the DNA that forms the synapses for the instincts that comprise the archetypes of religion could be from her, since no one has actually identified the specific genes. ;) That would make religion even older, since she lived two or three times as long ago as Y-C Adam.

And for some reason I'm supposed to take a piece of fiction as an explication of fact??

Wake up.

who or what to you believe as the knowledge base of who/what god is?

if you are gonna argue about god then you have to consider both side of the issue..in order to consider both sides of the issue you have to compare one sides expertise to the other sides expertise..if you discount the other sides documentation as to expertise then you are just argueing on a emotional basis and have no desire to consider the other sides position as being true..
the bible is to most ppl the documentation of expertise, to dismiss it as fiction is to dismiss any truth that it contains..sure there is some erroneuos content in the bible but to dissmiss it as a whole because of some errors in it is the same as throwing your child in the dumpster because they didnt meet with your expectations..IOW don't throw the baby out with the bathwater..

as far as your comment 'wake up'..i can say the same to you..cause apperantly you do not want to consider both sides of the issue..

this is an excerpt from a book i am studying..
it talks about who jesus is..


Would you see how rational he is,study his attitude to life. There is a widespread impression,especially among young people of a certain age,that jesus is unreasonable,and that christianity is a religion which constantly makes war on reason.Young men sometimes say,"I do not want to join the church because i want to use my reason."
How strange such a language when Jesus from first to last pleads for the use of reason. Christianity is the one religion of the world which demands the continuous and daring exercise of the intellect.Men often think they are using their reason when in fact they are exercising their predjudices or are suffering from paralysis of the brain.I have heard men rail at christianity as unreasonable because a certain Christian man had said a certain thing,as though Jesus of Nazareth must be held responsible for everything that every follower of his may think or say.Other men have been hopelessly estranged from christianity because of certain statments they have read in certain books.How unreasonable! It surely is not fair to hold Jesus of Nazareth responsible for everything which men who bear his name may think or publish. If men want to know whether Christianity is reasonable or not, why do they not read the Gospels?..They are short and can be read through at least once a week and yet men go right on refusing to read the Gospels--The one source of all authentic information as to what the christian religion really is.
Many think nothing of reading a novel of four hundred pages who stager under the task of readin the four gospels.It is just such a person who like to talk about the unreasonableness of christianity. Why not be reasonable? Christianity has but one authoritative volume. Why not read it?




this is just one paragraph in this book and i think it applies to alot of ppl here who argue against god..they are stuck in their own opinion and refuse to hear any other contradictory information and dismiss it as fiction without even reading the bible..( granted that alot of christians also fall into this catagory..) so both these types of christians and nonchristians are being unreasonable..

*************
M*W: People need to believe in a god, because they're too afraid to believe in themselves.

Because they can. I have no idea..I can't really relate to that thought, but all in all there's nothing really intriguing about someone believing in god/s, but what I find intriguing is how people are pandering to a certain religious organisation, e.g. Roman Catholics, Lutherans, etc., and how they all try to follow a little book full of contradictions. How can you become willingly a part of a certain organisation which destroyed thousands of lives, treated non-believers like scum, and on it goes. Why would anyone want to be part of such a baneful history?

*************
M*W: People need to believe in a god, because they're too afraid to believe in themselves.While I think that is true, I also think that Freud's idea of transference plays a big role. I.e. when very young, you know your parents are omnipotent but before you were a teenager, you learn that was false, yet the desire to be able to trust that there was someone omipotent to whom you can turn to when in need is both well established in you and conforting. God is where you transfer this need.

It is very convenient that he can not be seen, but still some pass thur a "teenage realization" about God not being omnipotent also a few years later, especially when they wonder why God did not at least give Hitler a heart attack, etc. Others have been better indoctrinated and cannot even think about things that question God's power.

I think I was about 10 years old and still believed God was omnipotent, but then an older friend ask me if God could make a rock so heavy that God could not lift it? That logically started me to think that there were limits to God's powers. From my POV, it has been down hill for God ever since, especially when older and WWII ended, I learned what God allowed Hitler to do to the Jews. Already I admired them for their love of learning. My best friend was the rabbi's son.

Why do intelligent people still believe in religion? 11: Paradigm shifts are harsh! anubis2814

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31xaZw2J-3Y

a decent video (none scientific), but along the lines of this thread i like it.

who or what to you believe as the knowledge base of who/what god is?

Please rephrase so it can be understood.



if you are gonna argue about god then you have to consider both side of the issue..

It's a simple question of epistemology.
Tell me, would you ask me to attempt to see the 'side' of those who believe in the Tooth Fairy??



the bible is to most ppl the documentation of expertise, to dismiss it as fiction is to dismiss any truth that it contains..


Incorrect.
It is a tale, written by humans.
That is a fact.

So we might be able to understand why some people strangle hookers
*************
M*W: All that proves is that there are a lot of delusional people; those who believe in god, and those who strangle hookers. I certainly hope you're an atheist. In either case, you don't need to be here.

*************
M*W: People need to believe in a god, because they're too afraid to believe in themselves.

obviously for good reason.

but ultimately what i've realized is that we are all accountable. it seems to me that a lot of religious people think there's going to be some magical solution or fix that makes this world a better place, and i think they're naive. bibbity bobbity boo does sound a lot easier than a conscious choice to do the right thing all the time.

but the truth is that the bible doesn't suggest any bibbity bobbity boo at all. the bible actually mandates accountability in light of knowledge in truth. and chances are, god will continue to develop the human race the same way he always has, and the ignorant and evil will not survive. :)

obviously for good reason.

but ultimately what i've realized is that we are all accountable. it seems to me that a lot of religious people think there's going to be some magical solution or fix that makes this world a better place, and i think they're naive. bibbity bobbity boo does sound a lot easier than a conscious choice to do the right thing all the time.

but the truth is that the bible doesn't suggest any bibbity bobbity boo at all. the bible actually mandates accountability in light of knowledge in truth. and chances are, god will continue to develop the human race the same way he always has, and the ignorant and evil will not survive. :)
*************
M*W: One such "bibbity bobbity boo" is, 'take this all of you and eat from it, it is my body which will be given up for you...'.

This is one example of the gospel's "bibbity bobbity boo," as you call it. The list is endless.

We are all accountable for ourselves, and god has nothing to do with continuing "to develop the human race...". We've evolved, and with technology that man has developed, we will hopefully overcome "the ignorant and evil." They will just probably die out, and the fittest will survive.

Ultimately, there is no god, and as long as humankind believes in this magical thinking, it will hold onto the darkness and evil that it had created.

It's a simple question of epistemology.
Tell me, would you ask me to attempt to see the 'side' of those who believe in the Tooth Fairy??
he didnt get santa's speed so he takes a little longer to get to everyone,did he forget you?..

no one ever argues so much about the tooth fairy..

i also believe god can utilize you wether you believe in him or not...
also... he cant utilize us if we are all the same, you are allowed your disbelief just so you can be different..


Incorrect.
It is a tale, written by humans.
That is a fact.

true..but humans can be smart sometimes...
sometimes one has to sort through the humanity to find the wisdom..
my arguement (about the bible) is do you really think god taught us all we need to know in that one little book?

I think people believe in God is that they need to believe in something.

he didnt get santa's speed so he takes a little longer to get to everyone,did he forget you?..

I know it's not exactly your forte, but you really should try to make sense more often..



no one ever argues so much about the tooth fairy..


You say god, I say tooth fairy...

Or are you unable to understand metaphor??




i also believe god can utilize you wether you believe in him or not...
also... he cant utilize us if we are all the same, you are allowed your disbelief just so you can be different..

You believe.



.... in a deity that uses people like tools...




true..but humans can be smart sometimes...
sometimes one has to sort through the humanity to find the wisdom..

Totally irrelevant to the point I made.



my arguement (about the bible) is do you really think god taught us all we need to know in that one little book?

Well, now this, I agree with, and comes much closer to my original point.
Regardless of what one chooses to believe, and regardless of whether or not a god exists, documents written by human hand cannot be taken as evidence for any deity.

I think people believe in God is that they need to believe in something.
*************
M*W: Well, before they believed in this god they created, they believed in the elements as their gods. Those gods either blessed them with good crops or poor crops. The daytime was a good god, but the night was ruled by an evil god.

It's simple, really. Man has created the gods he thinks needs.

... Man has created the gods he thinks needs.Yes that is correct. Would you join me tonight in some worship of Baucus?

From what I have read and understand, humans actually have a part of their brains that is responsible for belief in a higher power. Perhaps this part is undeveloped in some people, which results in atheism, or lack of faith


Yep atheists must have under developed brains :eek:

This idea sounds underdeveloped. Show me proof.

Yes that is correct. Would you join me tonight in some worship of Baucus?
*************
M*W: I'd love to join you tonight, but are you talking about extoling Max Baucus (D-Montana) or Philemon's husband? Or were you referring to Bacchus, the god I believe in? Oh, there were the nights I heartily prayed at his altar. I've sort of become an a-bbachus these past few years as it were, but I do worship those memories.

*************
M*W: I'd love to join you tonight, but are you talking about extoling Max Baucus (D-Montana) or Philemon's husband? Or were you referring to Bacchus, the god I believe in? Oh, there were the nights I heartily prayed at his altar. I've sort of become an a-bbachus these past few years as it were, but I do worship those memories.I never heard of the first two, but I will be happy to covert you back to wonderful worship of the Bacchus, earlier known as Dionysus by the Greeks.

Given the current troubles in Greece, we should have a big crowd at this eve's celebration in Bacchus / Dionysus's honor. If we can find a few minutes alone in that crowd, I'll let you have a swig from my jug in good old W Va style, supported in the elbow bend. - I am sure you, a good old gal of the mountain state, know how.
I'm getting a head start, right now: Montani Semper Liberi !!!

PS After a few swigs each, we can break out in song - "Give me that old time religion" And I do mean Old Time, nothing to do with the modern christian nonsense.

http://msp88.photobucket.com/albums/k193/dospolloslocos/Moon_goddess_Diana.jpg Diana, another Goddess I worship from the good old days when Gods were useful.

People believe in God to soothe the pain of existence.

I never heard of the first two, but I will be happy to covert you back to wonderful worship of the Bacchus, earlier known as Dionysus by the Greeks.

Given the current troubles in Greece, we should have a big crowd at this eve's celebration in Bacchus / Dionysus's honor. If we can find a few minutes alone in that crowd, I'll let you have a swig from my jug in good old W Va style, supported in the elbow bend. - I am sure you, a good old gal of the mountain state, know how.
I'm getting a head start, right now: Montani Semper Liberi !!!

PS After a few swigs each, we can break out in song - "Give me that old time religion" And I do mean Old Time, nothing to do with the modern christian nonsense.
*************
M*W: Okay, now yer a'talking my language! Is it okay if I come barefooted? I'll bring my geetar, and you bring yer jug. Make sure you wear bell bottoms (to accommodate all those extra bottles of hooch!). We'll sing renditions of "Country Roads, Take Me Home," and "Hannah From Montana," until we're blue in the face. A good time will be had by all.

Speaking of Montana, I could totally use about two months in a cabin there without the loud calamity of the rest of the world withering me.

It's almost impossible to effectively separate "God" from "religion" in any discussion, but I'd like to try. To this end I'm going to replace the word "God" with "something". I don't know what this "something" is, but that's the point. Id like to be as non-specific as I can be in an attempt to do away with as many preconceptions as possible.

I believe in the principle of cause and effect. This is nothing startling of course. But I'm not limiting myself to known physics and our current definition of reality. As anyone who has been paying attention in the "something from nothing" thread will hopefully realize, reality is a greater "something" than current physics is able to describe. I do however maintain that anything that actually exists, that possesses the quality of being actually real, is indeed scientific. Anything that is real must be, even if it is beyond our current understanding. Please believe me when I tell you that this is fundamental and central to my thinking. Something either exists and is scientific, or it doesn't and it isn't. Reality can't be any other way. (Please forgive me if you understood that the first time. I find it necessary to to be repetitive to the point of the possible irritation of some readers for the sake of bringing as many people with me as possible.) After all, is that not exactly what science has taught us? That things that were once thought to be supernatural are eventually found to have a scientific explanation as a result of scientific progress and the application of the scientific method? I believe that this is now and will always be true of all things. In this sense, although I am not a scientist at work, I am the truest of scientists at heart.

One thing I have always been however, is a philosopher. Not one of the greats of course, but a philosopher nonetheless. This is what I live and breathe, no matter what other activities I find myself engaged in. I also strive to be as rational as possible. Rationality is perhaps the tool I rely upon the most because I seek truth. I want to appreciate reality for what it is. Because this is an important goal for me, I am indeed naturally concerned about being led astray. Truth to me can not be whatever makes me feel safe and secure, truth needs to be what is true. Interestingly I have never had a problem building a meaningful existence this way, which is exactly what some people seem to suggest isn't possible for a scientific and rational thinker. Anyway, enough about me. I just felt it was important to share a few things so people know where I am coming from. Let's talk some more about this "something".

I don't know what it is. All I can say about it for sure is that it forms part of the chain of cause and effect. There is a reason that the universe as we know it exists. When I use the word "reason" I don't mean in it the same sense as someone typically would if they were to say "There is a reason that we bumped into each other today." I mean it in the sense that someone would if they said "There is a reason why this mountain has formed here." A scientific reason. A cause. A catalyst. As far as the universe is concerned, I'm thinking further back than the Big Bang. I'm talking about the "something" that existed before that. Or the "nothing" that existed before that as some people would insist that it was. But these people only insist on calling it "nothing" because it does not satisfy the definition of "something" within the realm of current physics rather than because it is absolutely nothing at all. As I have contended in the thread I referenced previously, something is still something even if it beyond our current ability to describe. And as I have previously contended in this post, it must necessarily be a scientific something. At least that is how I believe everyone will see it once we have progressed far enough to see it for what it actually is.

But is this "something" the ultimate "cause" in the chain of cause and effect? I don't know. But if it's not, something else is. As the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides once pointed out, "ex nihilo nihil fit", or "out of nothing comes nothing". Whether the "something" that existed before The Big Bang is the ultimate something, or whether that something formed some part of an even greater even more fundamental something is an interesting but tricky question. But regardless of which is true, let's finally talk about the "something" that is the fundamental catalyst for all things. Let's finally talk about what it could possibly be.

This is of course well beyond the realm of current physics. It therefore goes without saying that nothing I'm about to say has any real merit outside of philosophical consideration. It also means that I'm not particularly attached to any specific idea as it can not satisfy my criteria for what I consider to be an acceptable foundation on which to build anything. Better to describe everything that follows as a rough sketch that someone might draw on a napkin of some wild idea to amuse themselves while waiting on hold, or during a somewhat boring telephone conversation. Anyway, without further ado...

Consciousness. What is it? Where does it come from? Is it actually real or is it merely an illusion? Whatever the answer to these questions, we are all experiencing it right now. At least I am, anyway ;) One thing that most people don't tend to typically do however is properly consider consciousness in terms of it being a feature of reality, or the universe; whatever term you prefer. But it is. We know this because it's here. For me, this fact does meet my criteria for being a cornerstone from which I can potentially build something grounded in truth. Aside from what I consider to be less useful philosophical ideas such as the possibility that absolutely everything is an illusion (in which case this entire discussion and indeed all of physics is essentially pointless anyway), I don't believe one can legitimately dispute the existence of something that is the very thing that gives you the ability to dispute it in the first place. "I think therefore I am" is all the proof that anyone should need. You exist, and that is the result of natural physical processes that have occurred within the physical universe in which we exist. To look at it another way, the physical universe can manifest itself in such a way as to allow such a thing as consciousness to exist. Dispute that if you wish, but I wont engage you except to clarify. It's an obvious fact.

At this point it is, in my opinion, only a small leap to suggest that it may be possible for consciousness to exist on a greater scale, as part of a greater reality. If you think about it, all I am suggesting is that it is possible for a known feature of reality to also manifest itself, perhaps even more completely or more pervasively, as part of whatever fundamental "something" may exist, and further to my previous contentions, that this something may also be the fundamental "cause" in the chain of cause and effect. If we can explain consciousness, and if we can one day expand our definition of what constitutes physical reality to include this "something" that existed before The Big Bang, then we can explain God. I mean seriously, if God does indeed exist, whoever or whatever God may be, then staying true to my belief that anything that actually exists must be scientific, God is as well.

So, why do people believe in God? There are many reasons of course. But there are those among us who while not believing in any specific God, or necessarily in any God at all, certainly do entertain on a purely intellectual level the possibility of "something" like that.

Thanks for reading, if you did indeed get through this long post. Food for thought I hope, or perhaps more aptly, food for wild speculation.

I don't know what this "something" is, but that's the point.

Something isn't out there.

... At this point it is, in my opinion, only a small leap to suggest that it may be possible for consciousness to exist on a greater scale, as part of a greater reality. ...Rather long winded but I am often guilty of the same so I read it, in part because you are relatively new here and thus not known to be full of BS.

As consciousness is only known to exist when supported by a material substrate, the brain, I think that postulating it could exist before matter did is a huge leap, not a small one.

so I read it

I appreciate that :)


As consciousness is only known to exist when supported by a material substrate, the brain, I think that postulating it could exist before matter did is a huge leap, not a small one.

I'll give you that. But I have what I hope is an interesting perspective on it which I will share once I get home from work. It wont be quite as long winded I promise ;) Remember however that by my own admission this is all just wild speculation. Even that is an understatement. I'm fully aware of this fact and my motivation here is nothing more than a desire to explore outrageous possibilities for the sake of enjoyment.

The idea of Gods and Goddesses exists in such a wide ranging and diverse number of human societies to suggest there may be a strong genetic component. Maybe not. But, maybe?

But is this "something" the ultimate "cause" in the chain of cause and effect?

Personally I am beginning to doubt the fundamentalness of causality. If spacetime itself is emergent in some way (from quantum foam or whatever) that tends to imply it's entire causal structure is emergent too, although the word "emerge" itself carries enough causal connotations for the idea to be damn confusing.

It's almost impossible to effectively separate "God" from "religion" in any discussion, but I'd like to try.

it is easier to separate that in my head..ive tried to communicate such..dunno how effectively..


To this end I'm going to replace the word "God" with "something". I don't know what this "something" is, but that's the point. Id like to be as non-specific as I can be in an attempt to do away with as many preconceptions as possible.

some ppl treat the word 'god' as a four letter word..


I believe in the principle of cause and effect.
But I'm not limiting myself to known physics and our current definition of reality.



Something either exists and is scientific, or it doesn't and it isn't.
reality is a greater "something" than current physics is able to describe.

either; god exists and is scientific, if god doesn't exist he isn't scientific..

maybe: god only exists if he can be measured..if god doesn't exist then what would we have to measure?


I do however maintain that anything that actually exists, that possesses the quality of being actually real, is indeed scientific.

Reality can't be any other way. After all, is that not exactly what science has taught us? That things that were once thought to be supernatural are eventually found to have a scientific explanation as a result of scientific progress and the application of the scientific method?

Anything that is real must be, even if it is beyond our current understanding.

so just because we don't know how to measure god now..maybe when we have enough information we will know how to measure him?


I am indeed naturally concerned about being led astray.
who are you following?


Truth to me can not be whatever makes me feel safe and secure, truth needs to be what is true.
is this a referance to god making one all warm and cozy?


But is this "something" the ultimate "cause" in the chain of cause and effect? I don't know. But if it's not, something else is.

so did that proton not collide with that anti-proton so that it could butterfly the chain of events to bring about this limited time edition of Humanity..was that caused by an unforseen hand or purely a random act of the cosmos.
(just cause i don't understand a thing does not mean that thing does not exist.)


As the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides once pointed out, "ex nihilo nihil fit", or "out of nothing comes nothing". Whether the "something" that existed before The Big Bang is the ultimate something, or whether that something formed some part of an even greater even more fundamental something is an interesting but tricky question. But regardless of which is true, let's finally talk about the "something" that is the fundamental catalyst for all things. Let's finally talk about what it could possibly be.

now this is a reasonable request..lets not get hung up on somantics just because some of us call it god..



Consciousness. What is it? Where does it come from? Is it actually real or is it merely an illusion? Whatever the answer to these questions,
One thing that most people don't tend to typically do however is properly consider consciousness in terms of it being a feature of reality, or the universe; whatever term you prefer.

ahh something else that can't be measured.....does that mean it doesn't exist?


I don't believe one can legitimately dispute the existence of something that is the very thing that gives you the ability to dispute it in the first place.

god(oops sorry).. if Something gives one the ability to choose,we can even choose to try and prove that something does not exist...(how does one prove that something does not exist?)


At this point it is, in my opinion, only a small leap to suggest that it may be possible for consciousness to exist on a greater scale, as part of a greater reality. If you think about it, all I am suggesting is that it is possible for a known feature of reality to also manifest itself, perhaps even more completely or more pervasively, as part of whatever fundamental "something" may exist, and further to my previous contentions, that this something may also be the fundamental "cause" in the chain of cause and effect. If we can explain consciousness, and if we can one day expand our definition of what constitutes physical reality to include this "something" that existed before The Big Bang, then we can explain God.

personal consciousness or collective? hmmm..maybe both..what if our collective conscious is where we find god?


I mean seriously, if God does indeed exist, whoever or whatever God may be, then staying true to my belief that anything that actually exists must be scientific, God is as well.

we still get to choose..whether we have all the info or not..


So, why do people believe in God? There are many reasons of course. But there are those among us who while not believing in any specific God, or necessarily in any God at all, certainly do entertain on a purely intellectual level the possibility of "something" like that.


isn't that how we learn to measure?


Thanks for reading, if you did indeed get through this long post. Food for thought I hope, or perhaps more aptly, food for wild speculation.

i think i just doubled yours..:cool:

The way I see it (and I have no way of proving my own theories, and will undoubtedly change my own beliefs in good time), people believe in God for one reason and one reason alone: hope. The fear of the unknown, of things that we cannot rationally understand, has us begging for answers. Since the human mind feels uncomfortable not knowing, the idea of an almighty, all knowing, powerful, supreme being (god) was created to fill in that gap. Ever wonder why people prey when faced with uncontrollable situations such as death? Only when we lose charge of our lives do we turn to "god" for answers, which basically consists of us begging to the sky.

I realize that there are plenty of people who do not view/practice religion in this way, who love God with all of their hearts and try to improve themselves accordingly. Still, my pessimistic side forces me to post the way I truly feel about the whole situation :)

On religion...
Somewhere along the line of history, some brilliant leaders decided to use this passive fear of the unknown to create religion, and form it into something that could control the masses. While civilizations have seen extremely positive results from religion (such as love, unity, peace, laws to live by, etc.), it has also caused an astounding number of people to commit unforgivable atrocities, all in the name of their god.

When used correctly, the fear of god/the unknown can be an awe inspiring thing. Living your life according to the laws of a religion can give you true happiness and hope for the future, and give you goals of self-improvement for your whole life. I'm sure that if the whole world had one deep religion, there would be no war. Still, that is never going to happen, so I guess we will just have to live with what we have right now.

consciousness is only kynown to exist when supported by a material substrate

We understand quite a lot about the brain and the physical processes that occur within it. Glia, axons, neurons, synapses, complex molecular structures and elaborate interactive architectures of electrical and chemical signalling. It is all quite incredible. But what is even more incredible, to me at least, is what emerges from this highly sophisticated web of intercommunication. Consciousness and self-awareness.

Self-awareness, specifically, is of particular relevance to this discussion because I believe that it is the single most profound and important aspect of our existence. Much can be learned by reflecting deeply upon the concept of self as seperate and apart from all other aspects of consciousness. I believe that what makes each of us truly unique in this universe is not the thoughts we think or the things that we do, but the fundamental uniqueness of each individual self in the sense that each self exists independantly of every other self, even if they were to exist behind identical personalities.

To properly appreciate this, if you don't already, imagine that it is possible to make an exact copy of yourself, right down to the most fundamental quanta of the fabric that makes you what you are. Which of you would you be? To anyone else you'd be indistinguisable from one another. But even though you'd both lay claim to being you, you could only be one of you. You would still be unique in the sense that you exist independantly of your other self.

Now I can of course identify a number of absurdities with the above hypothetical scenario, but it was designed only to further illustrate what I believe to be the fundamental uniqueness of self. Sitting here in front of this computer, more focused on such considerations than I normally am and therefore experiencing a heightened sense of my own self, it is perfectly clear that what makes me different from everyone else is not just my personality, it is the fact that I am the only self that is this self. I am unique in the sense that I know that I exist, but the only way that I could be absolutely certain that anyone else does, indentical or not, is if I was that self.

In spite of the shortcomings of my hypothetical in which I make a copy of myself, thinking through the possible implications inevitably tends to lead me to the same conclusion. That the self cannot emerge from a purely classically deterministic system. If it could, it would be theoretically possible to duplicate it by recreating the requisite classical physics. I can not reconcile this with my hypothetical, which at least in terms of exploring the question of which you you'd be if there were two of you, seems valid enough. Surely we can not conclude that you'd end up existing in some state of dual self? If this was the case then the act of duplication has resulted in both the original and the copy being fundamentally different from the original before the duplication took place, which means that the duplication was a failure. What follows from this if you're up for the thrill of diving head first into purely speculative waters (yep, we've been swimming around in this pond for a while already, but now we're heading for the deep end) is that if at least some aspect of self is quantum in nature, might it not be possible for some form of self to exist without what you might describe as a material substrate?

I am aware at this point that there's going to be some of you out there that are rolling your eyes. But I'm not a quantum quack I promise you. I'm not one of those largely ignorant people who believe that they can apply the fundamentals of quantum physics to every other aspect of life. I don't believe in quantum consciousness as it is distorted and defined by new age pseudoscientific spiritualists. But speaking of more serious inquiry into the possibility of a quantum aspect to consciousness, the only real criticim is that there is no real compelling scientific evidence. Certainly the brain itself is too large and too hot to be a quantum device, but there is still the possibility that one day we will discover that beneath this amazing organic classical machine there is at least a quantum influence, and perhaps a much more significant one than our current knowledge permits us to appreciate.

We understand quite a lot about the brain and the physical processes that occur within it. Glia, axons, neurons, synapses, complex molecular structures and elaborate interactive architectures of electrical and chemical signalling. It is all quite incredible. But what is even more incredible, to me at least, is what emerges from this highly sophisticated web of intercommunication. Consciousness and self-awareness. ...With man's current knowledge, consciousness is impossible to explain, if its is distinct from self-awareness as I believe and think you do also. Consciousness is particularly difficult to fit within the currently framework commonly accepted in the cognitive science community. (If it can be it equally well is a possible property of sufficiently advanced computational machines.) Most cognitive scientists now lean towards the Computational Theory of Mind. For why I think that the CToM is wrong see:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2502342&postcount=12

And also read the post linked therein for an alternative theory of minds (and of perceptions, including self awareness.)

-------------
I agree with most of your post, but note that both the original and your "perfect clone" would initially have the same self, but they would rapidly become divergent as their future experiences are different. Also it is not sufficient to merely make exactly the same, atom by atom, molecule by molecule, clone to have a perfect clone. Every atom, etc. must not only be in the same relative geometric relationships to all the others but also have identical velocities.

For example, it is the diffusion of neuro-transmitters across synaptic clefs (a velocity / temperature dependent) effect that determines your every thought and action. Even if this could be done too, the clone although having a self awareness would not even initially have the same self awareness as you do.

This is be cause this diffusion is essentially a biased random walk process driven by the existing concentration gradient. Although quantum uncertainty effects are small, they would be large enough to cause significant difference in the attachment of some neuro-transmitters that coming to the receptive sites of post synaptic nerves. I.e. the exactly corresponding nerve in one clone may fire (generate an Na ion depolarization wave traveling down its axon) and the other not do so because of the quantum effect accumulated in the many random walk steps a neurotransmitter molecule requires in crossing the synaptic gap.

As a final comment there was one very well versed neurophysicist, Sir John Eccles, who did have quantum mechanics play a significant role in the self. He wrote a book which I have read called "The self and it consciousness (or brain?)" or something like that. Search his name to learn more - I am pretty sure I have spelled it correctly.

After you have read the above link you will understand that I do know a few things about the neurophysiology of the brain. If you also read the post that is linked therein we can discuss my alternate theory of how perception, self awareness, even free will, may work.

but note that both the original and your "perfect clone" would initially have the same self, but they would rapidly become divergent as their future experiences are different.

Experiences differ and obviously play a part in shaping our personalities and our perceptions, but the self is always the same. You are the same self now that you were 10 years ago, even though you may now be a somewhat different person.


Also it is not sufficient to merely make exactly the same, atom by atom, molecule by molecule, clone to have a perfect clone. Every atom, etc. must not only be in the same relative geometric relationships to all the others but also have identical velocities.

I tried to keep my post as short as I could which is why I didn't go into too much detail. When we create a duplicate person in my hypothetical, we are indeed recreating all of the same physics which includes everything you've mentioned and more. This is of course currently impossible, and may always be impossible. But as I said, if the self can emerge from a purely classical system then it should be possible to recreate exactly the same self because you could (only theoretically at this stage) recreate exactly the same physics. This is the very foundation of my hypothetical and is what leads to the central question of which you you'd be if you duplicated yourself, which in turns leads me to the seemingly inevitable conclusion that you can't duplicate a self. In other words, my hypothetical seems impossible, but it's designed precisely to demonstrate that. Each self is unique and owes it's uniqueness to something more fundamental than classical physics.

At a glance we are way off topic here, but from my perspective we are exploring a fundamental aspect of the question at hand. Why do people believe in God? Everything I have discussed here is in support of my position that it is possible to accept that something like that may exist without being in direct opposition to anything we currently understand about the universe. While it may not seem possible to many people here that some sort of greater consciousness or self could exist without a physical body, it certainly doesn't seem impossible to me. I mean seriously, the self might owe it's uniqueness to something even more fundamental than quantum mechanics. That unique aspect of consciousness may be a piece of something that is absolutely fundamental. Perhaps it is a product of a particular configuration of quanta of energy oscillating at particular frequencies in x number of different dimensions. Or perhaps string theory is not just the theory of everything that makes up our universe, but is an interface between our reality and whatever reality might exist beyond or apart from it, such as the unphysical state that some physicists and mathematicians believe existed before the explosion of time and space that we call the Big Bang. We call this is an unphysical state because we can not assign any properties to it that fall within the current definition of "physical". But it is a state nonetheless.

It's also possible of course that nothing I've said here is even close to the truth. But that's OK because I'm not seriously invested in any of it. It's a lot of fun to think about though, that's for sure.

(1) Experiences differ and obviously play a part in shaping our personalities and our perceptions, but the self is always the same. ... (2) it should be possible to recreate exactly the same self because you could (only theoretically at this stage) recreate {with} exactly the same physics. ...I am confused (perhaps you are too?) as to what is your concept of "self."

Your (1) & (2) are self contradicting in that (1) states self is always the same and (2) strongly implies self would be different if the molecules were different (did not "recreate exactly the same physics").

Not one molecule of you when a 10 year old is the same, in the same relative location, etc. as when you are a 50 year old.

Which is it: (a) Self is invariant with time's physical changes in your body OR
(b) Self is highly dependent upon the physical configuration of your body's atoms and molecules? (Must have "exactly the same physics" to be the same self.)

Please try to define self. Or at least tell what factors make self change (in one individual) OR if (1) is true (self never changes) then tell why self is unique. I.e. tell what makes self of person A differ from self of person B. (It can not be that they have entirely different physical constitution, life experiences, etc. as so do you when 10 years old vs. 50 years old.)

Is your concept of self, just that everyone has the understanding that they are unique? If that is your definition of self, then everyone has the same "self" by this definition. What makes the "self" of A differ from the self of B? (yet not your self as 10 year old differ from your self as 50 year old)

I agree the discussion o self only superficially appears to be off thread. Belief in God or not is a very central part of your self, IMHO.

As I said: You seem confused. You need to think more clearly to avoid self contradiction.

Which is it: (a) Self is invariant with time's physical changes in your body OR (b) Self is highly dependent upon the physical configuration of your body's atoms and molecules? (Must have "exactly the same physics" to be the same self.)

The self doesn't change. You're the same self now that you were when you were 10 years old. That's why you have always been having your experiences rather than someone elses. Your self has always been attached to your life. I can't reconcile this with classical deterministic physics and my original hypothetical was designed to highlight the nature of problem.


Please try to define self. Or at least tell what factors make self change (in one individual) OR if (1) is true (self never changes) then tell why self is unique. I.e. tell what makes self of person A differ from self of person B. (It can not be that they have entirely different physical constitution, life experiences, etc. as so do you when 10 years old vs. 50 years old.)

Again, the self never changes. You are always you, no matter much your experiences influence your personality. You are intrinsically aware of this on some level even if you don't realize it. The uniqueness of the self is staring every one of us right in the face. The problem is that it takes some people a lot of reflection and philosophical exploration to finally recognize it for what it really is and then even more time to properly appreciate the implications. I'm not sure I can at this point offer any new arguments to demonstrate this. If this changes I'll come right back here with one.



Is your concept of self, just that everyone has the understanding that they are unique? If that is your definition of self, then everyone has the same "self" by this definition. What makes the "self" of A differ from the self of B?

If self A is you, then self A differs from self B in the sense that you are self A, not self B. If self A and self B were identical, you'd be both. But alas, you'll either intuitively understand this or you wont. I'm going to go and try to hunt down a great albeit lengthy exploration of this subject by a writer who's name I can't recall right now that I enjoyed reading many years ago. I'll post a link if I can eventually find a digital copy somewhere.

The self doesn't change. You're the same self now that you were when you were 10 years old. That's why you have always been having your experiences rather than someone elses. Your self has always been attached to your life....
If self A is you, then self A differs from self B in the sense that you are self A, not self B. If self A and self B were identical, you'd be both. ...I am begining to understand that your think the self is something attached to your body - sort of like some think of the soul being attached. - Is that correct statement, or at least consistent with your POV about "self"?

That whatever processes (or whoever) attaches it does so before you were born. -Is that correct?

That if one could make a perfect physical duplicate of A, called B, it would not have any "self" attached. - Is that correct? or would it get a self identical to A's self? I think in either case B would have experiences. For example hurt, experience pain, if stuck with a knife. This "self " of yours seems to do nothing, have no role to play in life etc. - Is that correct?

As far as why your experiences are yours, it seems total nonsense to think that is because you have an attached self, instead of because these experiences were sensed by your body's neural system, (including a memory system for possible future recall of the experience).

I.e. A will experience pain if I stick A's body with knife, and B does not. Nor can B remember the knife pain, but A very likely can. IMHO every experience you have ever had was sensed by your nerves (including the processing in your brain) with nothing to do with some postulated soul or self, as you seem to be using the term self.

How does your "self" differ from the common concept of an attached soul?

One difference may be that your self can not be changed by changes in my ideas but the soul can be. For example if i come under the influence of a terrorist group, accept their POV and then successfully send airmail altitude triggered bombs on a dozen airplane to kill 3000 people (more than 9/11) my previously "bound for heaven" soul would get its destination changed but not your self, which can not change.

Hello National security computer - nice to have you reading my posts. :D If that last paragraph does not cause you to bump this up to "human read" level - you need to be reprogrammed.

http://msp88.photobucket.com/albums/k193/dospolloslocos/Moon_goddess_Diana.jpg Diana, another Goddess I worship from the good old days when Gods were useful.

God is still useful, Billy. You just think you don't need him.

http://spiritlessons.com/Documents/Jesus_Pictures/Jesus_021.jpg http://spiritlessons.com/Documents/Jesus_Pictures/Jesus_070_small.jpg http://spiritlessons.com/Documents/Jesus_Pictures/Jesus_059_small.jpg Give me 10% of all you earn to go to heaven.

It is this shave needing hippy bum that is not useful. Diana, pictured in prior post, is a very useful goddess.*
Can't you see the difference? What can he do that she can not do better? I need her*, not him.
Which would you like to worship?

----------------------
* She gives us our "daily bread" and the spice of life and the excitement of the hunt for it.
Neptune is needed, useful, too: He gives us fish and other “fruits of the sea” plus safe passage over it, usually.

I am in favor of the “old time religion.” Not the more modern deviations / heresies that mainly want me to give money to them.

Gods that specialize are more efficient - know and do their jobs better than one "jack of all trades."
Of that there is proof, by Henry Ford and hundreds of others. What proof do you have for the converse?

BTW - The hoedown** with Medicine Woman and dozens of Greeks was so successful that we will make it every full moon (Best day for Diana Worship)***.
You are welcome to convert to the old time religion. Come and join in. ** Dress etc. details here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2538364&postcount=181

*** Especially if the worship is a joint celebration of Bacchus too. Lovers knew this before they knew their names!

The church used to collect 10% for public works. Mainly from the wealthy in the community. Ted Turner gave 2% of Profits one year (1 billion) to the UN and was acclaimed a hero. I imagine most people worshipped God because that's the only force on Earth (or in Heaven) that could prize the coin from the tight grip of most wealthy people back in the day for public works. Now-a-days, forget about it :)

Another way to think about the OP is this:
Why do some people believe in God but not Gods?
Why do some people believe in Gods but not a single God?

Because the high priests of Oilah Akbar! Oilah Akbar! (http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/05/you-rejected-your-only-savior-for-oilah.html) tell them to? :shrug:

After all, it is the state religion you know. :eek:

... Why do some people believe in Gods but not a single God?Answer already given:
{post 198}... I am in favor of the “old time religion.” Not the more modern deviations / heresies that mainly want me to give money to them.

Gods that specialize are more efficient - know and do their jobs better than one "jack of all trades."
Of that there is proof, by Henry Ford and hundreds of others. What proof do you have for the converse?...Note even Christians recognize this truth: They have many different highly specialized saints you can pray to.

Answer already given:Note even Christians recognize this truth: They have many different highly specialized saints you can pray to.Only the Catholics; protestant Christians tend to frown about Catholic saint veneration, since it does indeed seem to boarder on polytheism.

Please consider this:
if hypothetically lets say, a child is born in an island where no other human contact is made. and he is raised entirely without the concept of "God" or religion at all, and he grows to be a man and then die. Did it ever have any relevance the idea of Faith ? or God ? I believe no. the meaning of this is that God and religion are completely and 100% made out of the imagination of ancient humans who were not able to understand the world or the Universe. so, for this case this child could care less, or be affected because of any of this.
This child would be just a "human", free of imaginary stories, where even the word "faith" would have no meaning at all.
Why do We have to even question the existence of a God ?

. . . . if . . . . a child is born in an island where no other human contact is made. and he is raised entirely without the concept of "God" or religion at all . . . . Did it ever have any relevance the idea of Faith ? or God ? . . . . the meaning of this is that God and religion are completely and 100% made out of the imagination of ancient humans who were not able to understand the world or the Universe.Jung's model of archetypes (which I've surely posted before in this ever-growing thread), coupled with the modern study of DNA, implies that belief in the supernatural is an instinct, hard-wired into our synapses by the vagaries of evolution. It may be a remnant of a survival trait whose purpose we can't guess at, or it may be a random genetic drift.

Nonetheless, I illustrate your example. My family were all atheists and I was never exposed to the idea of gods and religion until I was about seven.

I thought it was all a big joke, but my mother explained that the child who told me about God really believed he existed. I said then it was something like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, but wasn't the kid a little old to still believe in that stuff? She was very uncomfortable with the question and finally had to admit to me that many adults "still believe in that stuff."

I have never regained my respect for adults. ;)

To believe in God/Higher Consciousness, or how the Bible interprets god? You say that every fact leads to NO god. You can also say "Every fact leads to, there is a God" as long as you open your mind to new ideas. The Bible is a book full or predictions, some true and some forced to come true. The real question is WHO/WHO has forced this book on us and where are all the scriptures that have been left out of the picture, and what are they being used for.
TFOSmusic.net

Every logical point leads to the fact that there is no god.
Not exactly. What one sees as logical or evidence varies from person to person; different people have different experiences and different perceptions of those events. Your "fact" that there is no god is truth to you, because that conclusion fits the evidence, or lack thereof, that you have thus far experienced.
Not everyone is you, though.

Nonetheless, I illustrate your example. My family were all atheists and I was never exposed to the idea of gods and religion until I was about seven.

I thought it was all a big joke, but my mother explained that the child who told me about God really believed he existed. I said then it was something like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, but wasn't the kid a little old to still believe in that stuff? She was very uncomfortable with the question and finally had to admit to me that many adults "still believe in that stuff."

I have never regained my respect for adults. ;)

lolz :D

personally I'm not sure. Religion fascinates me, my great grandparents and grandparents from my mother's side are Jewish, my mum married an atheist...she doesn't really care...nor does she expect me to care.
I've met quite a few muslims whom I've befriended, they were nice people, told me about their islamic history which is pretty cool and amazing. As is christian history. but the only close christian friend of mine is a jehovah's witness...and u know how they are haha ;)

usually it doesn't bother me, but sometimes I think about it, believe in god for a minute or so, then I forgot about it and continue with something else.
I wouldn't call myself an atheist like my dad but something between an unbothered theist/agnostic.

...
yeah.



















Now that's got me thinking about religion again...DANG IT!

Please consider this:
if hypothetically lets say, a child is born in an island where no other human contact is made. and he is raised entirely without the concept of "God" or religion at all, and he grows to be a man and then die. Did it ever have any relevance the idea of Faith ? or God ? I believe no. the meaning of this is that God and religion are completely and 100% made out of the imagination of ancient humans who were not able to understand the world or the Universe. so, for this case this child could care less, or be affected because of any of this.
This child would be just a "human", free of imaginary stories, where even the word "faith" would have no meaning at all.
Why do We have to even question the existence of a God ?

Because humans like good feelings more than the truth. I am truly convinced that deep inside themselves (and I know it's rather presumptuous) all "rational" theists are aware that it's just a bunch of bologna, but fear prevents them to admit it. I think the subconscious mind is a genius thinking apparatus and quite wise and perfectly honest, in contrast to our aware mind.

It might hypnosis and/or self hypnosis that lead to deeply rooted theist's believes. I certainly don't buy it that a part of the brain does that - kinda solely to enable us to believe in something unreasonable.

Because humans like good feelings more than the truth. I am truly convinced that deep inside themselves (and I know it's rather presumptuous) all "rational" theists are aware that it's just a bunch of bologna, but fear prevents them to admit it.

But see, I think it's more in line with your first reasoning: all about feelings. If a belief can be reinforced by either a good memory or, better yet, feeling, then that particular belief is set in stone for the believer. It takes a fantastic act of will / god in order to dislodge that sword from the stone.

Along with feelings, though, believers are constantly reinforcing their core beliefs with even more feelings, from their personal prayers, or attending church meetings, or watching evangelicals, or communing (always) with like-minded people. So, more than agnostics / atheists, theists are almost continually having their own set of beliefs reaffirmed within their own mind. This makes it nearly impossible to convince them otherwise or reason with them because they "know" and gives them a kind of "pain" that you (we) aren't as enlightened.

The interesting thing is that even though they must (in some way?) realize that their belief system is made up initially (and mostly) of good feelings about certain subjects, it is easier for them to discount similar or diametrically opposing feelings from others. So, one may believe in Catholicism devoutly while another believes in Mormonism but never the twain shall meet or see eye to eye on the doctrine. Sure, they both feel great and enriched and right, but the dogma is where they eventually differ. And heaven forbid a non-believer says he has a spiritual feeling that there is no god!

And heaven forbid a non-believer says he has a spiritual feeling that there is no god!
or even just a straight up feeling that there isn't ...
:o

But see, I think it's more in line with your first reasoning: all about feelings. If a belief can be reinforced by either a good memory or, better yet, feeling, then that particular belief is set in stone for the believer. It takes a fantastic act of will / god in order to dislodge that sword from the stone.

Along with feelings, though, believers are constantly reinforcing their core beliefs with even more feelings, from their personal prayers, or attending church meetings, or watching evangelicals, or communing (always) with like-minded people. So, more than agnostics / atheists, theists are almost continually having their own set of beliefs reaffirmed within their own mind. This makes it nearly impossible to convince them otherwise or reason with them because they "know" and gives them a kind of "pain" that you (we) aren't as enlightened.

The interesting thing is that even though they must (in some way?) realize that their belief system is made up initially (and mostly) of good feelings about certain subjects, it is easier for them to discount similar or diametrically opposing feelings from others. So, one may believe in Catholicism devoutly while another believes in Mormonism but never the twain shall meet or see eye to eye on the doctrine. Sure, they both feel great and enriched and right, but the dogma is where they eventually differ. And heaven forbid a non-believer says he has a spiritual feeling that there is no god!

Yes, I agree, except that there is that thing about the reasoning - that's turned off when it's inconvenient. I guess we all did that at some point or another. I'm too lazy to through the wrapper into the trash, so I tell myself that it's ok to litter - it creates jobs after all. Only by the end of the day, when I have time to relax I think it through and admit to myself that I was not trying to help society but instead was just lazy. I did experience people being in denial about many things in many degrees. I think the more open one is to deceive themselves, the more likely he/she is for any kind of manipulation.

I don't think humans can singly figure out what is the answer or question they seek. hypothetically, in the future, if it were ever possible for a central computer to map out every human brain alive and condense it, maybe some answers can be found. by the computer that is, not by a single individual that is unaware of the next person's thinking and wiring. besides humans are naturally subjective and biased.

perhaps this will answer at least a clue as to what we are or what makes us tick.

I don't think humans can singly figure out what is the answer or question they seek. hypothetically, in the future, if it were ever possible for a central computer to map out every human brain alive and condense it, maybe some answers can be found. by the computer that is, not by a single individual that is unaware of the next person's thinking and wiring. besides humans are naturally subjective and biased.

perhaps this will answer at least a clue as to what we are or what makes us tick.

I don't think its all that hard to figure out. Have a look at how a human experiences the world. From birth (when knowledge is almost at zero) to death. Consider the needs for a human - food, love and piece - and put one and one together. Questioning faith means risking at least social problems for many. Add to that the fear of the severe punishment and the lost immortality: there you have probably 75% of the reasons why faithful people don't even consider the possibility that it's not true.

I don't think its all that hard to figure out. Have a look at how a human experiences the world. From birth (when knowledge is almost at zero) to death. Consider the needs for a human - food, love and piece - and put one and one together. Questioning faith means risking at least social problems for many. Add to that the fear of the severe punishment and the lost immortality: there you have probably 75% of the reasons why faithful people don't even consider the possibility that it's not true.
One can also question atheism/moral relativism examining the needs and values it brings to the fore.

One can also question atheism/moral relativism examining the needs and values it brings to the fore.

One certainly can and does so plenty as a matter of fact, but it is irrelevant to the quest as to whether religion is true or false. I for one believe that being honest - at least to yourself - is healthy to yourself as well as to others. I therefor plead to you (you as in anyone) to do so.

One certainly can and does so plenty as a matter of fact, but it is irrelevant to the quest as to whether religion is true or false. I for one believe that being honest - at least to yourself - is healthy to yourself as well as to others. I therefor plead to you (you as in anyone) to do so.
and that's my point ... being honest to one's self can lead to a theistic outlook ... much like it can lead to an atheistic one.
It all depends on one's values (particularly as they pertain to "self", as in "be honest to your self")

My problem is with your suggestion that by being rational (or honest to one's self) the only viable option is atheism. If you qualified the statement by saying it was rational (exclusively) to you, I wouldn't have a problem. Instead you say that any view outside of yours is not rational, since it is exclusively true.

IOW philosophically speaking, you are totally neglecting an epistemological framework.

and that's my point ... being honest to one's self can lead to a theistic outlook ... much like it can lead to an atheistic one.
It all depends on one's values (particularly as they pertain to "self", as in "be honest to your self")

I agree with that. But I disagree that being an atheist is a matter of taste. I just put it right on the table now: Being an atheist (provided that conclusion is achieved with intellectual exploration) is an inevitable result, not a matter of taste, values or preferences. That can certainly not be understood by the faithful, because reason and doubt are discouraged ("faith" as opposed to "reason" or "logic").

I agree with that. But I disagree that being an atheist is a matter of taste. I just put it right on the table now: Being an atheist (provided that conclusion is achieved with intellectual exploration) is an inevitable result, not a matter of taste, values or preferences. That can certainly not be understood by the faithful, because reason and doubt are discouraged ("faith" as opposed to "reason" or "logic").
the classic proof for this being false (and that the topic of a/theism being a value ridden perspective ... although with theism there is the argument that perfection concludes in some irrefutable state of knowledge - eg samadhi, etc) is that one can go from being an atheist to a theist and vice versa.

Ironically enough, even some theists mirror your exact argument.
In short, if one is up front with issues of "intellectual exploration", they deal with epistemology ... what to speak of avoiding it.

the classic proof for this being false (and that the topic of a/theism being a value ridden perspective ... although with theism there is the argument that perfection concludes in some irrefutable state of knowledge - eg samadhi, etc) is that one can go from being an atheist to a theist and vice versa.

Ironically enough, even some theists mirror your exact argument.
In short, if one is up front with issues of "intellectual exploration", they deal with epistemology ... what to speak of avoiding it.

Nope, not avoiding it at all. If you take every wording perfectly serious (and I congratulate you for that) I rephrase my statement: atheism is the logical conclusion as it is most likely the truth. Just like gravity for example. The only thing we really do KNOW is that there is not nothingness. Everything else is certainly a matter of probability.

Nope, not avoiding it at all. If you take every wording perfectly serious (and I congratulate you for that) I rephrase my statement: atheism is the logical conclusion as it is most likely the truth. Just like gravity for example. The only thing we really do KNOW is that there is not nothingness. Everything else is certainly a matter of probability.
Gravity certainly doesn't require absence of evidence for a positive assertion.

Atheism is only logical in lieu of certain values being held as true ... none of which have anything to do with having a monopoly on rationalism.

I agree with that. But I disagree that being an atheist is a matter of taste. I just put it right on the table now: Being an atheist (provided that conclusion is achieved with intellectual exploration) is an inevitable result, not a matter of taste, values or preferences. That can certainly not be understood by the faithful, because reason and doubt are discouraged ("faith" as opposed to "reason" or "logic").

what i meant was that there are those who are attracted to religion and those who are not, even naturally. evidently, there is different wiring. what might be possible is if every human brain could be deciphered and condensed, there may be a unifying theory or clue which may have nothing to do with religion, god/gods, atheism etc. the blind spot.

Gravity certainly doesn't require absence of evidence for a positive assertion.

Atheism is only logical in lieu of certain values being held as true ... none of which have anything to do with having a monopoly on rationalism.

No, lightgigantic, claims without proof can be dismissed without proof. Or else I might challenge you to disprove any nonsense the creative mind can construct at a whim. We have reason, so let's just agree that it's a good idea to use it.

No, lightgigantic, claims without proof can be dismissed without proof. Or else I might challenge you to disprove any nonsense the creative mind can construct at a whim. We have reason, so let's just agree that it's a good idea to use it.
and proof finds it home in epistemology ... which brings us back to your whopper "atheism is the logical conclusion as it is most likely the truth" which, whatever way you take it, is certainly a construct of a creative mind.

and proof finds it home in epistemology ... which brings us back to your whopper "atheism is the logical conclusion as it is most likely the truth" which, whatever way you take it, is certainly a construct of a creative mind.

Please tell me, how does that statement make sense? Do you even know what epistemology is? I am talking about probability, logic and conclusion. Not about definite statements. I made that clear at least twice now. You are not arguing in a logical manner. Please stop doing that. It is getting annoying. If you aim at having me admit that denial of faith is a matter of personal taste, you need to reexamine the evidence surrounding the matter and ask yourself: What are the odds? Let's not waste time with rhetoric. I got better things to do with my time.

I don't think humans can singly figure out what is the answer or question they seek. hypothetically, in the future, if it were ever possible for a central computer to map out every human brain alive and condense it, maybe some answers can be found. by the computer that is, not by a single individual that is unaware of the next person's thinking and wiring. besides humans are naturally subjective and biased.

perhaps this will answer at least a clue as to what we are or what makes us tick.

if ppl would stop focusing on the rules and focus on the love..

Please tell me, how does that statement make sense? Do you even know what epistemology is? I am talking about probability, logic and conclusion. Not about definite statements. I made that clear at least twice now. You are not arguing in a logical manner. Please stop doing that. It is getting annoying. If you aim at having me admit that denial of faith is a matter of personal taste, you need to reexamine the evidence surrounding the matter and ask yourself: What are the odds? Let's not waste time with rhetoric. I got better things to do with my time.
I will lay it out on the table

You said : atheism is the logical conclusion as it is most likely the truth

Later you said : claims without proof can be dismissed without proof

The absence of proof that plagues all absolute negatives renders your first statement fallacious on the authority of your second statement.

IOW you have grave epistemological issues.
:shrug:

I will lay it out on the table

You said : atheism is the logical conclusion as it is most likely the truth

Later you said : claims without proof can be dismissed without proof

The absence of proof that plagues all absolute negatives renders your first statement fallacious on the authority of your second statement.

IOW you have grave epistemological issues.
:shrug:

Now let me lay it on the table for you: The statement we is not that atheism is true. The statement is that theism is true. You just try to turn it backwards. I don't give a statement, I deny a statement. For heaven sake, light, without theism there wouldn't even be atheism. Think it through. And stop using the word epistemology, you don't seem to understand it's meaning. It is not concerned with truth or logic but with the limits of knowledge.

Hey lightgigantic, I gotta hit the pillow now, but behind all the heated arguments, I thank you for an intelligent discussion. Have a good one and see ya soon.

Now let me lay it on the table for you: The statement we is not that atheism is true. The statement is that theism is true. You just try to turn it backwards. I don't give a statement, I deny a statement. For heaven sake, light, without theism there wouldn't even be atheism. Think it through. And stop using the word epistemology, you don't seem to understand it's meaning. It is not concerned with truth or logic but with the limits of knowledge.
I'll have to ask you to stop using the words probability, logic and conclusion since you think that these can somehow be discussed divorced from epistemology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology).


Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.

I'll have to ask you to stop using the words probability, logic and conclusion since you think that these can somehow be discussed divorced from epistemology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology).

I did address that with my math example and made sure to not state a knowledge but a probability. You strategically evaded that by bringing up apples and oranges. It's like talking to child with you. I will not waste my time arguing with you about the definition of Latin words. This is now becoming a pointless conversation divorced from the topic at hand. If that's how you defend your superstitious believes I suppose I have to thank you for affirming my suspicion that it's based on self betrayal.

I'm dyslexic, so I believe in Dog.

I will not waste my time arguing with you about the definition of Latin words. It seems more like you will not waste your time discussing the philosophy of knowledge ... which is kind of unfortunate since that's what you are primarily on about


This is now becoming a pointless conversation divorced from the topic at hand. If that's how you defend your superstitious believes I suppose I have to thank you for affirming my suspicion that it's based on self betrayal.
actually a pointless conversation is one that revolves around knowledge yet can't sport such standard terms as "epistemology"
:shrug:

Look lightgigantic, I just read through our entire conversation in both threads. We have now reached the point of insults. I wondered when things turned bad, so I went back and read it over and tried to see it from your point. I have to admit that you were a respectful partner here until I started to attack you. I want to apologize to you for that and reach out my hand in friendship. Never mind the topic, you seem like a smart and decent guy and I have respect for that.

They need something to explain what they cannot explain. Fear of the unknown as well.

They need something to explain what they cannot explain. Fear of the unknown as well.

this is why you believe in god?

We will know how many licks it takes to get to the Tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop before we'll know the answer to this question. Good luck!

Because they're afraid of death.

Because they're afraid of death.

i'm not afraid of death, and i believe in god.

You're not afraid of death because you believe in god. Do you believe in a heaven, or any kind of afterlife? Do you believe that upon your death you will be united with God?

I saw a poll a few years ago that indicated the people that feared death the most were the ones who were religious, not the atheists. food for thought.

KRR

"Why do people believe in God?"

Simple, out of fear.. What causes fear?..Ignorance..

Timendi causa est nescire..

Ignorance is the cause of fear.

You're not afraid of death because you believe in god. Do you believe in a heaven, or any kind of afterlife? Do you believe that upon your death you will be united with God?

how in the hell would i know what happens when i die? i'm not dead. what i do know is what has happened to me while alive, and that's why i believe in god.

"Why do people believe in God?"

Simple, out of fear.. What causes fear?..Ignorance..

Timendi causa est nescire..

Ignorance is the cause of fear.

are you speaking for yourself, or out of ignorance?

how in the hell would i know what happens when i die? i'm not dead. what i do know is what has happened to me while alive, and that's why i believe in god.

The question was 'do you believe in any kind of afterlife'.

I believe in an after-life.
After life, there is death, apparently.

You can only speculate that your conscious existence persists somewhere, but then you need to also speculate that there is a 'place' for this non-corporeal existence.

Fear of death and dissolution is probably mostly responsible for the formation of an equally strong conviction, that you will survive in some way.
And it might be a conscious reaction to the realisation that, realistically, your human life really isn't any more significant than an ant's, as far as planet earth is concerned.

I saw a poll a few years ago that indicated the people that feared death the most were the ones who were religious, not the atheists. food for thought. KRRThird stanza of Invictus, my favorite poem:

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

I think it true that the religious fear death more than the atheist or agnostics like me.

All four stanza are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invictus

I think it true that the religious fear death more than the atheist or agnostics like me.


Looks more like wishful thinking.

The question was 'do you believe in any kind of afterlife'.

yeah definitely. no offense but, i think you'd have to be kind of an idiot not to.

yeah definitely. no offense but, i think you'd have to be kind of an idiot not to.For what animal forms do you think it exists? At what point in evolution did our more Ape-like ancestors get the entry ticket?