Religion vs. Reason

[Vic]

Atheism is not "reason." It is yet another faith trying to pass itself off as the absolute truth. Reason involves recognizing the fact that the knowledge of absolute truth is unattainable to humans. Reason involves recognizing that the truth is something that only individuals, not groups, can find, and that all on their own and for themselves, for it is different for each person. In other words, reason involves understanding the limits of the human condition, and not pretending to know that which cannot be known.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
With regard to the source of human rights in our Constitution as compared to the Declaration, even if the rights are God given they must be interpreted by man. God will not come into the court house in any visible way and pass judgment on our laws. We have to do that and we have to do it based on the reason God gave us to do that ourselves, no? Man is forced, is he not, to be the measure of all things. In the end, all we have is our judgments. We have to apply them but when we do and think they are absolutes do we not run into danger?

You're confusing the difference between reality and perception. The idea of Natural rights found in the Constitution, is that they are God-given (through creation). There is no interpretation required. The fact that we do not uphold or protect those rights does not make them any less so.

I thought we had left behind the God given as being in the Constitution. And if rights are indeed God given as you claim, their interpretation certainly ain't. You may think you understand all the deepest truths in life just fine and without any mental effort on your part, but I certainly don't want to be bound by your absolute certainty. Please give me a court of reasonable people where I can argue against you if I have a need. You seem to be a fundamentalists and that's what we want to get away from, no?

The concept of rights used in the Constitution is that of "Natural Rights". I've basically explained what they are, but you are welcome to read on them.

I said nothing about my personal knowledge of what those rights are, but the founders certainly seemed to think that they were "self-evident truths".

For myself it is rather comforting to believe that there are such rights, rather than a soulless universe where the strong are the ones who decide what is really right.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: hscorpio
The problem I see is that those who have 'felt God' can only identify the experience and believe it is what they think it is because such a book has planted that seed in their minds. If the book was somehow erased from mankinds collective knowledge these experiences would cease to be God experiences and would be attributed to whatever popular explanation arises to explain such experiences.

This is clearly false. If what you say were true, then the Bible (or, at the very least, the Torah) never would have been written. At some point, the first religious text was written, which means the search for divinity does not stem from the texts. The fact that you think these experiences could be attributed to something else simply tells me that you have not had such an experience. The experience comes from actively seeking the truth, and is difficult/impossible to experience if you have already closed your mind to certain possibilities as to the source of said truth.

It is only false if you assume that all the various holy books (that happen to be somewhat conflicting) were actually written after a legitimate vision/message from God. If on the other hand you assume that all the holy books were written by clever leaders at the time who realized what a great idea it would be to create and use a guide/rulebook that claims to be divinely inspired and therefore infallible and unquestionable. I hate to pick on anyones religion, but I can't help but think of Joseph Smiths 'experience' as a recent example of how all religions and holybooks could have came into existance.

You are correct that I have not had such an experience, at least nothing that I would identify as 'feeling God' in the typical way a religous person would describe it. I have certainly had experiences that I think a fundamantal person in my shoes would likely ascribe to God even though I did not, but the fact that such an experience can not even be adequately defined makes it hard to say though. Is it something that actually has measurable effects, like say if we were monitoring someone who was 'experiencing God' would we see something happen to that persons brain activity, blood pressure, heart beat, etc? Or is it more like a dream that can't really be detected? Either way and I still think that identifying the experience as having anything to do with God is a result of being raised in such an environment that suggests this is possible and the most appropriate explanation.

An example of this idea is the alien abduction/interaction phenomenon that only recently appeared in popular culture. If you've ever read Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World then you should be familar with this. Until about the 1950's aliens and ufo's were pretty much absent from our collective knowledge, and there were practically no accounts of abductions and sightings. Then once science fiction stories and the space race make the idea of extraterrestrials popular, all of a sudden we see a huge increase in 'extraterrestrial experiences'. The notion spread like wildfire throughout popular culture and before long there were millions of people claiming to have had an 'extraterrestrial experience', when only a few decades ago such a thing was unheard of. In the past before such an idea was part of our consciousness many of the people that associate their experience with extraterrestrials, might have instead attributed them to whatever was a popular explanation at the time be it God, demons, ghosts, nymphs, fairies, etc.

However if your the kind of person that atributes a power outage from a storm, as the work of God then its not very likely you'll be able to see where I'm coming from.

I think there is some evidence that the lamas of Tibet can produce some pretty weird brain activity as they do strange stuff, or that at least is what I have heard. As 1prophet mentioned in another thread, there might be some hope in recognizing the bogus from the real in their fruits. The problem then of course becomes what really are good fruits. The classic answer to this problem, it seems to me, is in the expression, 'He who tastes knows." This would imply an experience of such a caliber that it leaves no doubt. One such possibility on can read about here and there is the state of 'cosmic consciousness' just as a term label, where duality suddenly stops with ego death and a person enters fully into the timeless now or perhaps even more accurately where one brings ones heart along on entry.

But I am not sure about some of these things. I have heard often that there are three known paths to the truth and a fourth that's rather secret described in the story of the horse, the carriage, and the driver, or the way of the monk, through the heart, the way of the fakir, through the body, and the yogi, the way of the mind. Perhaps the fourth way has something to do with a passenger, hehe. Maybe these people are nuts but maybe they are up to something, no? A good scientist would have to walk the walk to really know, it seems to me. These people may have a science of steps that if you take them will take you somewhere expected by those who've gone that way before. But in the East, especially, they have this notion of a guide, a person who knows the way and can help you because of that fact. Of course nobody can guide anybody who doesn't want to be led and nothing at all about not wanting to be led has to be conscious.

'He who tastes knows' doesn't seem to work in this situation. The mind is capable of some pretty weird stuff. There are people out there that will swear on their lives that they've experienced some crazy thing like their dog talking to them just as a made up example. Just because one person thinks they have experienced something does not necessarily mean it was real, especially if it is something that can not be verified by anyone else.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
With regard to the source of human rights in our Constitution as compared to the Declaration, even if the rights are God given they must be interpreted by man. God will not come into the court house in any visible way and pass judgment on our laws. We have to do that and we have to do it based on the reason God gave us to do that ourselves, no? Man is forced, is he not, to be the measure of all things. In the end, all we have is our judgments. We have to apply them but when we do and think they are absolutes do we not run into danger?

You're confusing the difference between reality and perception. The idea of Natural rights found in the Constitution, is that they are God-given (through creation). There is no interpretation required. The fact that we do not uphold or protect those rights does not make them any less so.

I thought we had left behind the God given as being in the Constitution. And if rights are indeed God given as you claim, their interpretation certainly ain't. You may think you understand all the deepest truths in life just fine and without any mental effort on your part, but I certainly don't want to be bound by your absolute certainty. Please give me a court of reasonable people where I can argue against you if I have a need. You seem to be a fundamentalists and that's what we want to get away from, no?

The concept of rights used in the Constitution is that of "Natural Rights". I've basically explained what they are, but you are welcome to read on them.

I said nothing about my personal knowledge of what those rights are, but the founders certainly seemed to think that they were "self-evident truths".

For myself it is rather comforting to believe that there are such rights, rather than a soulless universe where the strong are the ones who decide what is really right.

I don't have to read on them because I believe that I understand them better than those who wrote on them. Sorry. I believe that the soul, the spirit, or the whatever-it-is-something in man seeks a higher expression because God and man are the same. The inalienable rights are absolutely real because they are of our true human nature. But they are of a reality that for most of us is completely invisible because we don't know who we are.

The universe is a reflection of man and man a reflection of the universe. It made us and we make it. When the illusion of duality disappears with the death of the ego, Man, God, and the Universe are One. Chimpanzees are crazy. They put themselves in the other's shoes and say hell no to the rule of the stronger, and the stronger they are the more they do that. We are chimps and the Universe is a banana. Let me know if you have any fleas.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: hscorpio
The problem I see is that those who have 'felt God' can only identify the experience and believe it is what they think it is because such a book has planted that seed in their minds. If the book was somehow erased from mankinds collective knowledge these experiences would cease to be God experiences and would be attributed to whatever popular explanation arises to explain such experiences.

This is clearly false. If what you say were true, then the Bible (or, at the very least, the Torah) never would have been written. At some point, the first religious text was written, which means the search for divinity does not stem from the texts. The fact that you think these experiences could be attributed to something else simply tells me that you have not had such an experience. The experience comes from actively seeking the truth, and is difficult/impossible to experience if you have already closed your mind to certain possibilities as to the source of said truth.

It is only false if you assume that all the various holy books (that happen to be somewhat conflicting) were actually written after a legitimate vision/message from God. If on the other hand you assume that all the holy books were written by clever leaders at the time who realized what a great idea it would be to create and use a guide/rulebook that claims to be divinely inspired and therefore infallible and unquestionable. I hate to pick on anyones religion, but I can't help but think of Joseph Smiths 'experience' as a recent example of how all religions and holybooks could have came into existance.

You are correct that I have not had such an experience, at least nothing that I would identify as 'feeling God' in the typical way a religous person would describe it. I have certainly had experiences that I think a fundamantal person in my shoes would likely ascribe to God even though I did not, but the fact that such an experience can not even be adequately defined makes it hard to say though. Is it something that actually has measurable effects, like say if we were monitoring someone who was 'experiencing God' would we see something happen to that persons brain activity, blood pressure, heart beat, etc? Or is it more like a dream that can't really be detected? Either way and I still think that identifying the experience as having anything to do with God is a result of being raised in such an environment that suggests this is possible and the most appropriate explanation.

An example of this idea is the alien abduction/interaction phenomenon that only recently appeared in popular culture. If you've ever read Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World then you should be familar with this. Until about the 1950's aliens and ufo's were pretty much absent from our collective knowledge, and there were practically no accounts of abductions and sightings. Then once science fiction stories and the space race make the idea of extraterrestrials popular, all of a sudden we see a huge increase in 'extraterrestrial experiences'. The notion spread like wildfire throughout popular culture and before long there were millions of people claiming to have had an 'extraterrestrial experience', when only a few decades ago such a thing was unheard of. In the past before such an idea was part of our consciousness many of the people that associate their experience with extraterrestrials, might have instead attributed them to whatever was a popular explanation at the time be it God, demons, ghosts, nymphs, fairies, etc.

However if your the kind of person that atributes a power outage from a storm, as the work of God then its not very likely you'll be able to see where I'm coming from.

I think there is some evidence that the lamas of Tibet can produce some pretty weird brain activity as they do strange stuff, or that at least is what I have heard. As 1prophet mentioned in another thread, there might be some hope in recognizing the bogus from the real in their fruits. The problem then of course becomes what really are good fruits. The classic answer to this problem, it seems to me, is in the expression, 'He who tastes knows." This would imply an experience of such a caliber that it leaves no doubt. One such possibility on can read about here and there is the state of 'cosmic consciousness' just as a term label, where duality suddenly stops with ego death and a person enters fully into the timeless now or perhaps even more accurately where one brings ones heart along on entry.

But I am not sure about some of these things. I have heard often that there are three known paths to the truth and a fourth that's rather secret described in the story of the horse, the carriage, and the driver, or the way of the monk, through the heart, the way of the fakir, through the body, and the yogi, the way of the mind. Perhaps the fourth way has something to do with a passenger, hehe. Maybe these people are nuts but maybe they are up to something, no? A good scientist would have to walk the walk to really know, it seems to me. These people may have a science of steps that if you take them will take you somewhere expected by those who've gone that way before. But in the East, especially, they have this notion of a guide, a person who knows the way and can help you because of that fact. Of course nobody can guide anybody who doesn't want to be led and nothing at all about not wanting to be led has to be conscious.

'He who tastes knows' doesn't seem to work in this situation. The mind is capable of some pretty weird stuff. There are people out there that will swear on their lives that they've experienced some crazy thing like their dog talking to them just as a made up example. Just because one person thinks they have experienced something does not necessarily mean it was real, especially if it is something that can not be verified by anyone else.

No of course not. But as I have heard tell, before the Prophet Mohamed, Mecca was a water hole. The 25th of December or Jan 6 if you prefer, for a billion and more, is, also, not just another day. Whatever it was in their Kool-Aid had some whopping big effects.

He who has tasted doesn't work for those who have not tasted and that is the point.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: hscorpio
The problem I see is that those who have 'felt God' can only identify the experience and believe it is what they think it is because such a book has planted that seed in their minds. If the book was somehow erased from mankinds collective knowledge these experiences would cease to be God experiences and would be attributed to whatever popular explanation arises to explain such experiences.

This is clearly false. If what you say were true, then the Bible (or, at the very least, the Torah) never would have been written. At some point, the first religious text was written, which means the search for divinity does not stem from the texts. The fact that you think these experiences could be attributed to something else simply tells me that you have not had such an experience. The experience comes from actively seeking the truth, and is difficult/impossible to experience if you have already closed your mind to certain possibilities as to the source of said truth.

It is only false if you assume that all the various holy books (that happen to be somewhat conflicting) were actually written after a legitimate vision/message from God. If on the other hand you assume that all the holy books were written by clever leaders at the time who realized what a great idea it would be to create and use a guide/rulebook that claims to be divinely inspired and therefore infallible and unquestionable. I hate to pick on anyones religion, but I can't help but think of Joseph Smiths 'experience' as a recent example of how all religions and holybooks could have came into existance.

You are correct that I have not had such an experience, at least nothing that I would identify as 'feeling God' in the typical way a religous person would describe it. I have certainly had experiences that I think a fundamantal person in my shoes would likely ascribe to God even though I did not, but the fact that such an experience can not even be adequately defined makes it hard to say though. Is it something that actually has measurable effects, like say if we were monitoring someone who was 'experiencing God' would we see something happen to that persons brain activity, blood pressure, heart beat, etc? Or is it more like a dream that can't really be detected? Either way and I still think that identifying the experience as having anything to do with God is a result of being raised in such an environment that suggests this is possible and the most appropriate explanation.

An example of this idea is the alien abduction/interaction phenomenon that only recently appeared in popular culture. If you've ever read Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World then you should be familar with this. Until about the 1950's aliens and ufo's were pretty much absent from our collective knowledge, and there were practically no accounts of abductions and sightings. Then once science fiction stories and the space race make the idea of extraterrestrials popular, all of a sudden we see a huge increase in 'extraterrestrial experiences'. The notion spread like wildfire throughout popular culture and before long there were millions of people claiming to have had an 'extraterrestrial experience', when only a few decades ago such a thing was unheard of. In the past before such an idea was part of our consciousness many of the people that associate their experience with extraterrestrials, might have instead attributed them to whatever was a popular explanation at the time be it God, demons, ghosts, nymphs, fairies, etc.

However if your the kind of person that atributes a power outage from a storm, as the work of God then its not very likely you'll be able to see where I'm coming from.

I think there is some evidence that the lamas of Tibet can produce some pretty weird brain activity as they do strange stuff, or that at least is what I have heard. As 1prophet mentioned in another thread, there might be some hope in recognizing the bogus from the real in their fruits. The problem then of course becomes what really are good fruits. The classic answer to this problem, it seems to me, is in the expression, 'He who tastes knows." This would imply an experience of such a caliber that it leaves no doubt. One such possibility on can read about here and there is the state of 'cosmic consciousness' just as a term label, where duality suddenly stops with ego death and a person enters fully into the timeless now or perhaps even more accurately where one brings ones heart along on entry.

But I am not sure about some of these things. I have heard often that there are three known paths to the truth and a fourth that's rather secret described in the story of the horse, the carriage, and the driver, or the way of the monk, through the heart, the way of the fakir, through the body, and the yogi, the way of the mind. Perhaps the fourth way has something to do with a passenger, hehe. Maybe these people are nuts but maybe they are up to something, no? A good scientist would have to walk the walk to really know, it seems to me. These people may have a science of steps that if you take them will take you somewhere expected by those who've gone that way before. But in the East, especially, they have this notion of a guide, a person who knows the way and can help you because of that fact. Of course nobody can guide anybody who doesn't want to be led and nothing at all about not wanting to be led has to be conscious.

'He who tastes knows' doesn't seem to work in this situation. The mind is capable of some pretty weird stuff. There are people out there that will swear on their lives that they've experienced some crazy thing like their dog talking to them just as a made up example. Just because one person thinks they have experienced something does not necessarily mean it was real, especially if it is something that can not be verified by anyone else.

No of course not. But as I have heard tell, before the Prophet Mohamed, Mecca was a water hole. The 25th of December or Jan 6 if you prefer, for a billion and more, is, also, not just another day. Whatever it was in their Kool-Aid had some whopping big effects.

He who has tasted doesn't work for those who have not tasted and that is the point.

And before 1947 Roswell was just a small desert town no one had heard of. If a billion people are led(fooled?) to believe something that there is no proof of one way or another, does it make it true? If I convince a billion people to believe my dog talks to me without ever giving proof is it true?

The point really is that you can't taste something that is tasteless.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: hscorpio
The problem I see is that those who have 'felt God' can only identify the experience and believe it is what they think it is because such a book has planted that seed in their minds. If the book was somehow erased from mankinds collective knowledge these experiences would cease to be God experiences and would be attributed to whatever popular explanation arises to explain such experiences.

This is clearly false. If what you say were true, then the Bible (or, at the very least, the Torah) never would have been written. At some point, the first religious text was written, which means the search for divinity does not stem from the texts. The fact that you think these experiences could be attributed to something else simply tells me that you have not had such an experience. The experience comes from actively seeking the truth, and is difficult/impossible to experience if you have already closed your mind to certain possibilities as to the source of said truth.

It is only false if you assume that all the various holy books (that happen to be somewhat conflicting) were actually written after a legitimate vision/message from God. If on the other hand you assume that all the holy books were written by clever leaders at the time who realized what a great idea it would be to create and use a guide/rulebook that claims to be divinely inspired and therefore infallible and unquestionable. I hate to pick on anyones religion, but I can't help but think of Joseph Smiths 'experience' as a recent example of how all religions and holybooks could have came into existance.

You are correct that I have not had such an experience, at least nothing that I would identify as 'feeling God' in the typical way a religous person would describe it. I have certainly had experiences that I think a fundamantal person in my shoes would likely ascribe to God even though I did not, but the fact that such an experience can not even be adequately defined makes it hard to say though. Is it something that actually has measurable effects, like say if we were monitoring someone who was 'experiencing God' would we see something happen to that persons brain activity, blood pressure, heart beat, etc? Or is it more like a dream that can't really be detected? Either way and I still think that identifying the experience as having anything to do with God is a result of being raised in such an environment that suggests this is possible and the most appropriate explanation.

An example of this idea is the alien abduction/interaction phenomenon that only recently appeared in popular culture. If you've ever read Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World then you should be familar with this. Until about the 1950's aliens and ufo's were pretty much absent from our collective knowledge, and there were practically no accounts of abductions and sightings. Then once science fiction stories and the space race make the idea of extraterrestrials popular, all of a sudden we see a huge increase in 'extraterrestrial experiences'. The notion spread like wildfire throughout popular culture and before long there were millions of people claiming to have had an 'extraterrestrial experience', when only a few decades ago such a thing was unheard of. In the past before such an idea was part of our consciousness many of the people that associate their experience with extraterrestrials, might have instead attributed them to whatever was a popular explanation at the time be it God, demons, ghosts, nymphs, fairies, etc.

However if your the kind of person that atributes a power outage from a storm, as the work of God then its not very likely you'll be able to see where I'm coming from.

I think there is some evidence that the lamas of Tibet can produce some pretty weird brain activity as they do strange stuff, or that at least is what I have heard. As 1prophet mentioned in another thread, there might be some hope in recognizing the bogus from the real in their fruits. The problem then of course becomes what really are good fruits. The classic answer to this problem, it seems to me, is in the expression, 'He who tastes knows." This would imply an experience of such a caliber that it leaves no doubt. One such possibility on can read about here and there is the state of 'cosmic consciousness' just as a term label, where duality suddenly stops with ego death and a person enters fully into the timeless now or perhaps even more accurately where one brings ones heart along on entry.

But I am not sure about some of these things. I have heard often that there are three known paths to the truth and a fourth that's rather secret described in the story of the horse, the carriage, and the driver, or the way of the monk, through the heart, the way of the fakir, through the body, and the yogi, the way of the mind. Perhaps the fourth way has something to do with a passenger, hehe. Maybe these people are nuts but maybe they are up to something, no? A good scientist would have to walk the walk to really know, it seems to me. These people may have a science of steps that if you take them will take you somewhere expected by those who've gone that way before. But in the East, especially, they have this notion of a guide, a person who knows the way and can help you because of that fact. Of course nobody can guide anybody who doesn't want to be led and nothing at all about not wanting to be led has to be conscious.

'He who tastes knows' doesn't seem to work in this situation. The mind is capable of some pretty weird stuff. There are people out there that will swear on their lives that they've experienced some crazy thing like their dog talking to them just as a made up example. Just because one person thinks they have experienced something does not necessarily mean it was real, especially if it is something that can not be verified by anyone else.

No of course not. But as I have heard tell, before the Prophet Mohamed, Mecca was a water hole. The 25th of December or Jan 6 if you prefer, for a billion and more, is, also, not just another day. Whatever it was in their Kool-Aid had some whopping big effects.

He who has tasted doesn't work for those who have not tasted and that is the point.

And before 1947 Roswell was just a small desert town no one had heard of. If a billion people are led(fooled?) to believe something that there is no proof of one way or another, does it make it true? If I convince a billion people to believe my dog talks to me without ever giving proof is it true?

The point really is that you can't taste something that is tasteless.

Let's talk again when you convince a billion people.

If experience is required to know something there is no experience to be had from my words. I can point to the possibility you don't know something that can be known, but I can never make you know it. And the more you don't want to know it the more you won't. Expressions like, you can lead a horse to water........exist because of human experience.

 

[1prophet]

How does one prove to a two dimensional flatlander the existence of a third dimension since they are not capable of perceiving anything greater than the two dimensional world they live in?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
How does one prove to a two dimensional flatlander the existence of a third dimension since they are not capable of perceiving anything greater than the two dimensional world they live in?

By entering and exiting their would in ways in miraculous ways that transcend there reason you will draw the attention of some of the brighter of them, perhaps.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Where Religion goes astray is when it gets hijacked by its' own members. They'll go beyond the Message and begin to justify their own evil by the very writings that condemn it. They'll blow up innocents at a coffee shop, assasinate Doctors at home, blow up patrons at a Pub, or even assasinate leaders of Nations all in the name of what condemns them to begin with.

The misappropriation here is assessing these actions to religion rather than people. People are human. Humans are insane. As a result, people do insane things. These things include, but are not limited to, starving other people, burning other people alive, wrecking planes into buildings, nuking cities, bombing abortion clinics, and other seemingly random acts of violence. The flaw is not 'religion', though a 'religious' teaching might incite such behavior. The flaw is with the individual who carries out the action. Clearly, the individual's reasoning faculties (or conscience) have broken down at some point, allowing them to perform said actions.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
It is only false if you assume that all the various holy books (that happen to be somewhat conflicting) were actually written after a legitimate vision/message from God. If on the other hand you assume that all the holy books were written by clever leaders at the time who realized what a great idea it would be to create and use a guide/rulebook that claims to be divinely inspired and therefore infallible and unquestionable. I hate to pick on anyones religion, but I can't help but think of Joseph Smiths 'experience' as a recent example of how all religions and holybooks could have came into existance.

No, what you stated is categorically false. You said that no one would experience God without having a holy book indoctrinating them to put God in their head. This is logically flawed as, at some point, someone obviously conceived a thought of God and wrote it down, generating the first 'holy text'. You can debate the origins and validity of the contents of holy books until you're blue in the face, but that won't compensate for the fact that your previous statements were utterly incorrect.

You are correct that I have not had such an experience, at least nothing that I would identify as 'feeling God' in the typical way a religous person would describe it. I have certainly had experiences that I think a fundamantal person in my shoes would likely ascribe to God even though I did not, but the fact that such an experience can not even be adequately defined makes it hard to say though. Is it something that actually has measurable effects, like say if we were monitoring someone who was 'experiencing God' would we see something happen to that persons brain activity, blood pressure, heart beat, etc? Or is it more like a dream that can't really be detected? Either way and I still think that identifying the experience as having anything to do with God is a result of being raised in such an environment that suggests this is possible and the most appropriate explanation.

Not all things that are real are measurable. For example, I cannot hook a machine up to your body and determine your desires. Does this mean you have no desires? I would argue that you do, indeed, have desires. In fact, these desires may be some of the most real things about you, forming part of the substance of your being. Sure I can look at you, quantify your skin color, hair color, eye color, height and weight, but these things are merely accidentals that we perceive. Are you your hair color? No. You are your thoughts, desires, feelings, and personality - you are your substance, and you are very real. Yet we cannot measure or 'see' any of these things about you. This is where many people want to blur the distinction between the realm of science and the realm of philosophy or spirituality, but there is clearly a difference.

However if your the kind of person that atributes a power outage from a storm, as the work of God then its not very likely you'll be able to see where I'm coming from.

I am expertly qualified to model the rain storm in all aspects, from the evaporation of the first water droplet in the Pacific to the tornado. I could construct a model that would give every detail of the storm (given enough time and money, of course). Yet these things would never tell me the why behind the storm, if a why even exists. I merely suggested a why and you come back at me with a personal attack, but it's in the form of a how, not a why. I know damn well the how - I've spent the last seven years of my life learning the how. But how is not the important question in life, as it only addresses the accidentals of our world. The why is the important question and the one no one else can answer for you - you can't learn why in school.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
And before 1947 Roswell was just a small desert town no one had heard of. If a billion people are led(fooled?) to believe something that there is no proof of one way or another, does it make it true? If I convince a billion people to believe my dog talks to me without ever giving proof is it true?

The point really is that you can't taste something that is tasteless.

Your reasoning is specious, as it assumes that there is nothing to be tasted. If there is something to be tasted, then the fool is you. As for myself, I'm happy playing the fool - it tastes great.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
How does one prove to a two dimensional flatlander the existence of a third dimension since they are not capable of perceiving anything greater than the two dimensional world they live in?

A point in a two-dimensional system is capable of perceiving its third dimensionality. This has been mathematically proven. The point simply needs to know how to look. Intrinsic Curvature

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: hscorpio
It is only false if you assume that all the various holy books (that happen to be somewhat conflicting) were actually written after a legitimate vision/message from God. If on the other hand you assume that all the holy books were written by clever leaders at the time who realized what a great idea it would be to create and use a guide/rulebook that claims to be divinely inspired and therefore infallible and unquestionable. I hate to pick on anyones religion, but I can't help but think of Joseph Smiths 'experience' as a recent example of how all religions and holybooks could have came into existance.

No, what you stated is categorically false. You said that no one would experience God without having a holy book indoctrinating them to put God in their head. This is logically flawed as, at some point, someone obviously conceived a thought of God and wrote it down, generating the first 'holy text'. You can debate the origins and validity of the contents of holy books until you're blue in the face, but that won't compensate for the fact that your previous statements were utterly incorrect.

Not at all. If the first person created the concept of God without ever 'experiencing' God then your whole argument falls apart. Your assuming that first person to conceive God actually experienced God. I can conceive any number of supernatural entities, however that obviously doesn't mean I actually encountered or somehow experienced them and that they are in any way real. For all we know such experiences that are often contributed to God today could have been contributed to the spirit/ghost of a loved one or who knows what thousands of years ago.

You are correct that I have not had such an experience, at least nothing that I would identify as 'feeling God' in the typical way a religous person would describe it. I have certainly had experiences that I think a fundamantal person in my shoes would likely ascribe to God even though I did not, but the fact that such an experience can not even be adequately defined makes it hard to say though. Is it something that actually has measurable effects, like say if we were monitoring someone who was 'experiencing God' would we see something happen to that persons brain activity, blood pressure, heart beat, etc? Or is it more like a dream that can't really be detected? Either way and I still think that identifying the experience as having anything to do with God is a result of being raised in such an environment that suggests this is possible and the most appropriate explanation.

Not all things that are real are measurable. For example, I cannot hook a machine up to your body and determine your desires. Does this mean you have no desires? I would argue that you do, indeed, have desires. In fact, these desires may be some of the most real things about you, forming part of the substance of your being. Sure I can look at you, quantify your skin color, hair color, eye color, height and weight, but these things are merely accidentals that we perceive. Are you your hair color? No. You are your thoughts, desires, feelings, and personality - you are your substance, and you are very real. Yet we cannot measure or 'see' any of these things about you. This is where many people want to blur the distinction between the realm of science and the realm of philosophy or spirituality, but there is clearly a difference.

Of course all things can't be measured, hence why I mentioned dreams. These things that can't be measured are all things that are part of us and originate from within. But how are we to say that feelings related to experienceing God are not also generated from within as a means to some end such as some kind of security/defense mechanism? What if people want so badly to believe that they aren't just dust in the wind, here today and gone tomorrow that the mind generates these types of things? I think some God experiences are probably completely fabricated by the mind because the person wants to believe so desperately, almost like a mirage. But I'm not saying every God experience is the same type, I suspect some may be actual things that occur to people and somehow effect them be it measurable or not and these are the types I think would probably just as easily be attributed to something else if the notion of God/religion wasn't so popular. I think it will be interesting to see what kind of new discoveries will hopefully be made concerning how the human mind works that might shed some light on stuff like this.

However if your the kind of person that atributes a power outage from a storm, as the work of God then its not very likely you'll be able to see where I'm coming from.

I am expertly qualified to model the rain storm in all aspects, from the evaporation of the first water droplet in the Pacific to the tornado. I could construct a model that would give every detail of the storm (given enough time and money, of course). Yet these things would never tell me the why behind the storm, if a why even exists. I merely suggested a why and you come back at me with a personal attack, but it's in the form of a how, not a why. I know damn well the how - I've spent the last seven years of my life learning the how. But how is not the important question in life, as it only addresses the accidentals of our world. The why is the important question and the one no one else can answer for you - you can't learn why in school.

I didn't mean that last part to be a personal attack. I know people that are like how I suspect you are, that relate everything to God and I always get the feeling they have no idea how I can be so skeptical about something that is so obviously true to them and that there is this friction present where they don't want to really discuss/consider any of the points I bring up because their mind is set in stone. From that post I was refering to you said there were two types of people, but theres really three. The third type is the one who doesn't see God in every little event that occurs and doesn't need to try and credit or discredit the existence of God based on every day events. They don't interperet things like natural disasters as proof God doesn't exist just as they don't interpret good fortune as proof of Gods existence. This is the type that can admit their ignorance instead of feigning that they have any clue whatsoever why certain things happen. The fact that you left out this type just raised a little flag in my mind, but I probably shouldn't have posted it because I should have known it would offend you, so for that I apologize.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: hscorpio
And before 1947 Roswell was just a small desert town no one had heard of. If a billion people are led(fooled?) to believe something that there is no proof of one way or another, does it make it true? If I convince a billion people to believe my dog talks to me without ever giving proof is it true?

The point really is that you can't taste something that is tasteless.

Your reasoning is specious, as it assumes that there is nothing to be tasted. If there is something to be tasted, then the fool is you. As for myself, I'm happy playing the fool - it tastes great.

Im not assuming that at all, which is why I used the term tasteless instead of simply saying you can't taste that which doesn't exist.

If your happy, playing the fool or not, thats all that really matters. Actually thats one of the reasons I don't like to debate religion at all in 'real life' with friends and family, and why I generally view religion in a positive light as oppossed to so many athiets/agnostics that like to run around screaming about how religion is the root of all evil.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Let's talk again when you convince a billion people.

If experience is required to know something there is no experience to be had from my words. I can point to the possibility you don't know something that can be known, but I can never make you know it. And the more you don't want to know it the more you won't. Expressions like, you can lead a horse to water........exist because of human experience.

In my opinion most people that describe themselves as atheist or agnostic were at one point in time a member of some faith. Many of these people were/are hungry for knowledge and abandoned their faith after probably many years of frustration and dissapointment in never experiencing this truth we speak of. Are you going to honestly tell these people they just didn't want to know the truth? Are they just the unlucky bastards that God decided to leave in the dark while he blesses so many with his taste, some of which appear to me at least to be somewhat undeserving of such blessing?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sandorski
Where Religion goes astray is when it gets hijacked by its' own members. They'll go beyond the Message and begin to justify their own evil by the very writings that condemn it. They'll blow up innocents at a coffee shop, assasinate Doctors at home, blow up patrons at a Pub, or even assasinate leaders of Nations all in the name of what condemns them to begin with.

The misappropriation here is assessing these actions to religion rather than people. People are human. Humans are insane. As a result, people do insane things. These things include, but are not limited to, starving other people, burning other people alive, wrecking planes into buildings, nuking cities, bombing abortion clinics, and other seemingly random acts of violence. The flaw is not 'religion', though a 'religious' teaching might incite such behavior. The flaw is with the individual who carries out the action. Clearly, the individual's reasoning faculties (or conscience) have broken down at some point, allowing them to perform said actions.

Religion is a man made book for a means of controlling the masses. The misappropriation here is assessing these religions immune to misconstruction for waging war. Any vehicle of control can be abused, especially government and religion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Not at all. If the first person created the concept of God without ever 'experiencing' God then your whole argument falls apart. Your assuming that first person to conceive God actually experienced God. I can conceive any number of supernatural entities, however that obviously doesn't mean I actually encountered or somehow experienced them and that they are in any way real. For all we know such experiences that are often contributed to God today could have been contributed to the spirit/ghost of a loved one or who knows what thousands of years ago.

Your premise was that no one could come up with the notion of God without the aid of a holy text. Obviously wrong, yet you're going to continue arguing it anyway. I'm not.

Of course all things can't be measured, hence why I mentioned dreams. These things that can't be measured are all things that are part of us and originate from within. But how are we to say that feelings related to experienceing God are not also generated from within as a means to some end such as some kind of security/defense mechanism? What if people want so badly to believe that they aren't just dust in the wind, here today and gone tomorrow that the mind generates these types of things? I think some God experiences are probably completely fabricated by the mind because the person wants to believe so desperately, almost like a mirage. But I'm not saying every God experience is the same type, I suspect some may be actual things that occur to people and somehow effect them be it measurable or not and these are the types I think would probably just as easily be attributed to something else if the notion of God/religion wasn't so popular. I think it will be interesting to see what kind of new discoveries will hopefully be made concerning how the human mind works that might shed some light on stuff like this.

You simply assume that God isn't real. Given this assumption, everything you say is correct. Problem is, you fail to acknowledge the contrary position as even a remote possibility. You're not debating - you're lecturing about how everyone who holds a contrary position is wrong. Not only that, but they're foolish for being so wrong. You can't believe so many people have been duped. 'So many people' are fine with where they stand and don't care if you think they're fools. I'm one of these fools.

I didn't mean that last part to be a personal attack. I know people that are like how I suspect you are, that relate everything to God and I always get the feeling they have no idea how I can be so skeptical about something that is so obviously true to them and that there is this friction present where they don't want to really discuss/consider any of the points I bring up because their mind is set in stone. From that post I was refering to you said there were two types of people, but theres really three. The third type is the one who doesn't see God in every little event that occurs and doesn't need to try and credit or discredit the existence of God based on every day events. They don't interperet things like natural disasters as proof God doesn't exist just as they don't interpret good fortune as proof of Gods existence. This is the type that can admit their ignorance instead of feigning that they have any clue whatsoever why certain things happen. The fact that you left out this type just raised a little flag in my mind, but I probably shouldn't have posted it because I should have known it would offend you, so for that I apologize.

I never attributed day-to-day events to God. I simply said that one event that I have experienced recently could be interpreted in this way in the context of this discussion. It is in your zeal to make everyone who believes in God feel a fool that you assumed this was my stance. Yet, in doing so, you completely neglected everything that I said. You don't know how or why and you don't even care why. I know the how, recognize that the how is trivial in the grand scheme of things, and seek the why - the only question that really matters.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Religion is a man made book for a means of controlling the masses. The misappropriation here is assessing these religions immune to misconstruction for waging war. Any vehicle of control can be abused, especially government and religion.

The logical flaw in your argument is known as begging the question, which has the following exposition:
1. You assume that you are right.
2. Given that assumption, here are consequences.

Problem is that your assumption is questionable. A bigger problem is that, even given that your assumption is correct, your conclusions still do not logically follow (i.e. a non sequitur), as you assign war as a result of religion. Unfortunately, had you considered the specific examples I gave previously, you would realize that some of them were initiated by non-religious.

That said, of course religion can be abused. I even said so in my post. Your failure is that you take this to mean that all religions are abuses and all actions that result are bad. Sure, our government has its share of misdeeds, but it has also performed good actions. You simply refuse to acknowledge any good coming from religion because your governing assumption is that they are an evil vehicle for control - the very issue that we were trying to address.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1prophet
How does one prove to a two dimensional flatlander the existence of a third dimension since they are not capable of perceiving anything greater than the two dimensional world they live in?

A point in a two-dimensional system is capable of perceiving its third dimensionality. This has been mathematically proven. The point simply needs to know how to look. Intrinsic Curvature

Sometimes the simplest answer is the best

Originally posted by: Moonbeam


By entering and exiting their would in ways in miraculous ways that transcend there reason you will draw the attention of some of the brighter of them, perhaps.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Sometimes the simplest answer is the best

And sometimes it's not. The right answer, however, is always the best answer.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Sometimes the simplest answer is the best

And sometimes it's not. The right answer, however, is always the best answer.

People today are so caught up in their two dimensional world that they lose sight that there may be something greater or different especially if they feel their right or best answers might come into question, and as such become easily offended and are quick to condemn and in some cases seek to kill those that they feel have offended them.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Not at all. If the first person created the concept of God without ever 'experiencing' God then your whole argument falls apart. Your assuming that first person to conceive God actually experienced God. I can conceive any number of supernatural entities, however that obviously doesn't mean I actually encountered or somehow experienced them and that they are in any way real. For all we know such experiences that are often contributed to God today could have been contributed to the spirit/ghost of a loved one or who knows what thousands of years ago.

Your premise was that no one could come up with the notion of God without the aid of a holy text. Obviously wrong, yet you're going to continue arguing it anyway. I'm not.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that no one could come up with the notion of God without a book. What I said was that the experience, or taste as moonie likes to say, that so many people claim as their proof that they absolutely know that God exists is only identified as God because some authority said so. That was my whole beef with the taste to know phrase. If you taste some tasteless substance how are you to identify it without someone telling you what it is? Then there's the question of why it's tasteless in the first place, since it could actually exist and be tastless or it could not exist at all. But as long as it remains tasteless no one can know.

Of course all things can't be measured, hence why I mentioned dreams. These things that can't be measured are all things that are part of us and originate from within. But how are we to say that feelings related to experienceing God are not also generated from within as a means to some end such as some kind of security/defense mechanism? What if people want so badly to believe that they aren't just dust in the wind, here today and gone tomorrow that the mind generates these types of things? I think some God experiences are probably completely fabricated by the mind because the person wants to believe so desperately, almost like a mirage. But I'm not saying every God experience is the same type, I suspect some may be actual things that occur to people and somehow effect them be it measurable or not and these are the types I think would probably just as easily be attributed to something else if the notion of God/religion wasn't so popular. I think it will be interesting to see what kind of new discoveries will hopefully be made concerning how the human mind works that might shed some light on stuff like this.

You simply assume that God isn't real. Given this assumption, everything you say is correct. Problem is, you fail to acknowledge the contrary position as even a remote possibility. You're not debating - you're lecturing about how everyone who holds a contrary position is wrong. Not only that, but they're foolish for being so wrong. You can't believe so many people have been duped. 'So many people' are fine with where they stand and don't care if you think they're fools. I'm one of these fools.

You assume I assume God isn't real. The only assumption I make is that its possible God is or isn't real. More accurately you could say I assume that what most people consider their own personal proof of God may not be real. In doing so I have not ignored the contrary position at all, I just consider it much less likely given the things we know about the human mind. We could be discussing that, which I think is pretty interesting, but instead you seem to be too personally offended and went into defensive mode assuming I'm trying to declare you and everyone that disagrees with me a fool.

I didn't mean that last part to be a personal attack. I know people that are like how I suspect you are, that relate everything to God and I always get the feeling they have no idea how I can be so skeptical about something that is so obviously true to them and that there is this friction present where they don't want to really discuss/consider any of the points I bring up because their mind is set in stone. From that post I was refering to you said there were two types of people, but theres really three. The third type is the one who doesn't see God in every little event that occurs and doesn't need to try and credit or discredit the existence of God based on every day events. They don't interperet things like natural disasters as proof God doesn't exist just as they don't interpret good fortune as proof of Gods existence. This is the type that can admit their ignorance instead of feigning that they have any clue whatsoever why certain things happen. The fact that you left out this type just raised a little flag in my mind, but I probably shouldn't have posted it because I should have known it would offend you, so for that I apologize.

I never attributed day-to-day events to God. I simply said that one event that I have experienced recently could be interpreted in this way in the context of this discussion. It is in your zeal to make everyone who believes in God feel a fool that you assumed this was my stance. Yet, in doing so, you completely neglected everything that I said. You don't know how or why and you don't even care why. I know the how, recognize that the how is trivial in the grand scheme of things, and seek the why - the only question that really matters.

You interpreted a power outage from a storm as the work of God so we could see mans good nature. And you declared that the only other primary interpretation for such a mysterious phenomenon is that God does not exist since he did not prevent the resulting suffering. The fact you saw these two as the primary interpretations was all I was pointing out. Sure it may not be a day-to-day event but its not like it was a freak occurrence. Once again I was not trying to call you a fool no matter how conviced you are that your under attack. I have given much attention and thought to everything you said, and judging by the false statements you have put in my mouth I would say you may be the one neglecting much of what I say in your zeal to declare me wrong.

Thanks to the progress of science we can explain how many processes in nature work. But you can always keep asking why until you run into a dead end and just have to say "We don't know yet, thats just the way it is for now and maybe forever." That doesn't mean you give up seeking, but you don't go create a supernatural why that you have absolutely no way of testing or prooving. Again you make more assumptions that I don't care why and can't comprehend the how :roll:.

This topic appears too personal for you to discuss without getting all defensive so I guess I'll just call it quits now.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
People today are so caught up in their two dimensional world that they lose sight that there may be something greater or different especially if they feel their right or best answers might come into question, and as such become easily offended and are quick to condemn and in some cases seek to kill those that they feel have offended them.

He who has the right answer and knows that it's right does not fear the question.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Stunt
First off; novon is correct, not believing in any higher power or supernatural is just as narrow minded as any hardcore religious person. Neither 'side' of the debate has obvious evidence supporting a lack of, or existance of a 'god'.

actually, no it isnt narrow minded, to not believe in something that you cant see

what is narrow minded is telling me what i need to believe in to not be narrow minded