This Is Why I Believe.

[IregAt420]

Sorry but you own the dog, at least try to spell it close to the right way so it looks like a typo. You sound like the people that think they own a rockwilder.

So you come on my thread about God to correct my spelling? Wtf? And google my dog for me and tell me how to spell it, all im getting is DOTSON, which is how I spelled it originally.
Why not loosen up a little? Get laid, smoke...its a fuckin keyboard, not a highly sensitive control board for NASA, now gtf off my nuts about my dog.

 

[kronic1989]

So you come on my thread about God to correct my spelling? Wtf? And google my dog for me and tell me how to spell it, all im getting is DOTSON, which is how I spelled it originally.
Why not loosen up a little? Get laid, smoke...its a fuckin keyboard, not a highly sensitive control board for NASA, now gtf off my nuts about my dog.

lmfao! .............

 

[mindphuk]

So you come on my thread about God to correct my spelling? Wtf? And google my dog for me and tell me how to spell it, all im getting is DOTSON, which is how I spelled it originally.
Why not loosen up a little? Get laid, smoke...its a fuckin keyboard, not a highly sensitive control board for NASA, now gtf off my nuts about my dog.

You're a fucking ignoramus. I made one comment about your dog but the rest of my post was about the topic but you seem so hung up about the dog you just can't let it go. You're the one that decided the dog topic was more worthy of a response than the topic about imaginary beings. Why don't you loosen up a little and smoke a blunt.
It's dachshund you moron! It's not pronounced dot-sun but dock-sun. You would think that someone that owns the breed would know these things but I guess when you believe there is an invisible man in the clouds you are missing something in the brain-power area.

 

[karri0n]

Love is seen, its a chemical reaction in the brain. We now that the chemicals that make love are different from species to species as different ones had different uses during their (dreaded word) evolution. Chimps for example have more love than us humans to eachother. I also heard hummingbirds out do us for how much love they feel for another bird. Humans are actually shifting out of that love being necessary thus humans who feel little love are breeding because they marry for finances, sex, class, and a lot of other useless to passing on genes reasons for marrying. That being said, its true we dont know a lot about whats around us as we only have 5 senses. And it is true there seems to be an odd method to this madness. But that in itself does not prove a god to me. The more I learn the more I realizes the probability of us existing given what we mathmatically understand about universes (yes our universe is a bubble actually a petri dish shape and it is expanding, but the laws of physics here are not the same in the next galaxy as we are currently learning) is that YES our Universe should exist and YES consciousness should exist EVEN without a God. That being said I do have irrational theories myself, like that consciousness existing in our universe is actually dark energy leaking into our physical universe. (dark energy (which is still totally theoretical) seems to be a battery that fuels consciousness and seems to drain the more we the conscious look at it.) Irrational yes, more likely than God? yes.

Sorry bud, but religious experience has been measured in EEG scans as well. Electrochemical reactions in the brain are no more proof of the existence of love than they are proof of the existence of gods. You've also failed to say even one thing in this post that is correct. The laws of physics are different in other galaxies? Please, please, post a link to something corroborating this.

 

[april]

You can't see an emotion...I do not understand your points but it's your right to have them.

i see emeotion all the time, people laugh, smile, cry, frown, stick out their tongue.
When a new mother gives birth you can see the emotions in her face, glowing eyes, giant smile, sweat beading down her face. Or Pain, no one can tell me that i can't feel or see sadness, when my father passed when i was 9 and my mother had to tell me he was gone, i saw and felt pain. The emptyness and sadness in someones eyes, words can be felt, seen and heard.
Faith is believing in something, The other day while driving i was having a moment of self pitty (been a rough few years, had 4 people die in not natural ways, lost my job of 7 yrs) but at the moment i needed it the most some random old sign on the side of the road said " always follow your dreams, never ever give up" i was about to cry when the next sign was for a taxidermist lol it made me laugh ,something my father would have done.
Watch a 5 yr old open presents christmas morning, or and olympic athlete just win a race they trained their life for. Sorry but i can see and feel emotion all around me.

 

[PhilosopherKing]

Your God is just a philosophy, pretty much a paradox when we get down to it's core. For a myth is a myth and if you try to question a myth that's very much alive today, it has it's own survival instinct and thus the myth will live on.

But be a Christian, it's absolutely fine with me, you don't seem to be hurting anyone with your religious poetry and such

 

[karri0n]

pretty much a paradox when we get down to it's core.

Can you explain? The "core" of most religions comes down to a source of divine energy, the very base of what reality is built upon. Science has shown this to be true. Where is the Paradox?

 

[ayr0n]

i dont have time to read all the posts so i might b pointin out something someones already said..

There's no proof of love, and love is not proof of god. This "love" people refer to is just a bond or emotional connection you feel with someone, which the majority of is caused by chemical balances in your head and how You /your body/ mind react when with this person , or how past experiences have created the image of thsi person inside your head...Its not a magical god sent force, it's science.

 

[LightningMcGreen]

Can you explain? The "core" of most religions comes down to a source of divine energy, the very base of what reality is built upon. Science has shown this to be true. Where is the Paradox?

The heaven paradox, for one. For instance, my parents live "christian" lives, at least to the point of saying that God is real. I however, am an atheist, though I live a pretty good life. I help others in need, I don't do anything wicked to my knowledge, I go to work, take care of my kids, and just sit at home with a bong and peace and quiet in my spare time.

So if the bible is true, and heaven does exist, and it's supposed to be perfect in every way imaginable, how will my parents achieve nirvana and serenity if they're mourning for me not being able to make it with them? (posted earlier by myself and padawanbater)

Btw, theres no scientific evidence of "divine" power...maybe in the pseudoscience area, but not real science.

 

[mindphuk]

Can you explain? The "core" of most religions comes down to a source of divine energy, the very base of what reality is built upon. Science has shown this to be true. Where is the Paradox?

I must have missed this. What exactly has science shown to be true about divine energy?

 

[karri0n]

The heaven paradox, for one. For instance, my parents live "christian" lives, at least to the point of saying that God is real. I however, am an atheist, though I live a pretty good life. I help others in need, I don't do anything wicked to my knowledge, I go to work, take care of my kids, and just sit at home with a bong and peace and quiet in my spare time.

So if the bible is true, and heaven does exist, and it's supposed to be perfect in every way imaginable, how will my parents achieve nirvana and serenity if they're mourning for me not being able to make it with them? (posted earlier by myself and padawanbater)

Btw, theres no scientific evidence of "divine" power...maybe in the pseudoscience area, but not real science.

That's not the core of religious belief, and if you were simply trying to debunk the judeo-christian mindset, there are FAR better points to make than this(such as how the earth is only 6000 years old maybe?). This straw man argument is pretty much nonsense.

It doesn't take a brain scientist or a rocket surgeon to figure out that the modern Christian orthodox is a bunch of political garbage and has very little spiritual value. You're talking about something that a few wealthy, powerful people made up to control the masses, not a true, spiritual message akin to what Jesus or Buddha tried to relate to their followers.

Once again, I ask you to relate to me how the *core* of spiritual belief is a paradox. In case you missed it the first time, the core of any true spiritual practice or belief rests on the fact that there is a driving force, a source of energy, responsible for life and all existence. Anything beyond this, such as the creation of specific deities, are just means of personifying this so that "normal people" who don't sit around and meditate for 5 hours a day can have some form of understanding and something to latch on to.

Are you going to debunk the Big Bang now? Physics tells us it couldn't have happened without some kind of energy input.

The only difference between what the leading edge of science is doing now and what people have been doing for ages is that scientists are trying to measure it with instrumentation, while wiser folks know that the human brain already has the capacity to access it.

I must have missed this. What exactly has science shown to be true about divine energy?

Just that all matter, space, and time rest on top of a nearly limitless pool of energy, and that all matter is made of energy when broken down to its smallest components. This is pretty simple stuff, bro, and is precisely what crazy mystics and shamans have been babbling about for eons.

 

[mindphuk]

Just that all matter, space, and time rest on top of a nearly limitless pool of energy, and that all matter is made of energy when broken down to its smallest components. This is pretty simple stuff, bro, and is precisely what crazy mystics and shamans have been babbling about for eons.

It sounds like you're mixing science with pseudoscience. What limitless pool of energy are you referring to? How is any energy considered divine? The matter/energy equivalence is not something I have ever heard from any religious group. Tell me what religion, shamans, or mystics believed that energy and matter were interchangeable prior to Einstein? It sounds a lot like you're stretching beliefs to make them fit with modern science in much the same way some people here have tried to claim the bible is full of scientific truths.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Im not a religion freak either, I used to be Southern Baptist, but I choose to just believe in God. As simple as that. As much as religion has been messed around with, its hard to know what is true in their teaching. So I choose to just simply believe He is up there.

You don't get to "choose" what you believe in. I don't know why so many religious people think they just get to pick and choose between what they think is reality and what's not. That isn't how LIFE works. REALITY is REALITY because there is no other way for it to be. That is what makes it REALITY. It is objective, even though your interpretation of it is subjective. That is why science is so useful, it takes all the subjective bits out of discerning what reality actually is.

Think of it like this. An orange is sitting on top of a counter, OK, can you choose to believe the color of the orange is purple? No, you can't. Because whether you believe it's purple, blue, black, red, green, yellow or brown, it doesn't change the REALITY that the color is actually orange.

Beliefs are not chosen. Please try to understand that and spread the word amongst religious people. That's honestly probably the 24th or 25th time I've sat here and explained online to someone (different person each time) why you don't get to choose your beliefs.

Sorry bud, but religious experience has been measured in EEG scans as well. Electrochemical reactions in the brain are no more proof of the existence of love than they are proof of the existence of gods.

...what? Completely wrong and obviously so. "Religious experiences" are founded on emotional responses. It's what religion IS. So it would seem pretty obvious to me that if you stick an EEG helmet on someone believing they're speaking to God or meditating or praying or whatever, you'd pick up exactly the same kinds of measurements as someone experiencing some strong sense of emotion.

EEG's are instruments designed to pick up low electrical impulses emitted by the brain and translate the information. We know emotions exist because we feel them everyday. This is completely different than measuring God. Emotions come from within, and the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate how God influences EEG scanners.

Can you explain? The "core" of most religions comes down to a source of divine energy, the very base of what reality is built upon. Science has shown this to be true. Where is the Paradox?

You're using semantics and it feels to me like you're also being purposefully disingenuous about it.

Skip the one LMG and I brought up... how bout this one...

1. If God exists, Satan exists
2. If God is eternally good, Satan is eternally evil
3. God rewards the good/righteous in the afterlife
4. Satan punishes the bad/unrighteous in the afterlife
5. Someone punishing a bad act is a form of justice and could be considered a good deed.
6. If Satan punished the good in the afterlife this would be evil but he punishes the wicked making him good
7. Satan does good acts.

 

[Ragoozo]

Well, think of it like this. Everyone wants some sort of physical proof that there is a God. Something you can see, touch, smell, taste whatever. You cannot see,touch, smell, or taste emotions, but they are there! We cannot see them, but we feel them none the less. Which proves to me that there are things beyond our knowledge and beyond us period.

Emotions are created by yourself, a 3rd eye depicting *waves* of life energy. Humans can create a religious experience by applying electricity to a certain lobe of the brain. If it can happen in an experiment without 3rd party interference, it WILL happen in real life. It's a(n) feeling/emotion that people do not understand yet. There isn't somebody looking down on you. It's yourself, your subconscious. What better coping mechanisim is there? Don't let everyday life depict your personality. Remember you were taught about religion by another human, God hasn't done anything for you.

 

[karri0n]

...what? Completely wrong and obviously so. "Religious experiences" are founded on emotional responses. It's what religion IS. So it would seem pretty obvious to me that if you stick an EEG helmet on someone believing they're speaking to God or meditating or praying or whatever, you'd pick up exactly the same kinds of measurements as someone experiencing some strong sense of emotion.

EEG's are instruments designed to pick up low electrical impulses emitted by the brain and translate the information. We know emotions exist because we feel them everyday. This is completely different than measuring God. Emotions come from within, and the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate how God influences EEG scanners.

I didn't claim an EEG proves the existence of gods. That would be ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what I said. Deep meditative trance, communion with spirits, astral projection, all of these appear different on an EEG. What I said was that the response within the brain when someone communes with gods, prays, or THINKS they are communing with gods or praying can be quantified with a modern tool, the same as the one that has officially quantified and measured "love" according to the OP. If we are using this alone as the quantifying device, then neither love or religious experiences are any more real than one another and to claim anything else would be a complete fallacy against science.

You're using semantics and it feels to me like you're also being purposefully disingenuous about it.

I'm not arguing semantics at all. The poster obviously had no concept of what the core of spiritual practice was about. All these atheists are just as bad as the Christians proclaiming there is ONLY ONE TRUE WAY TO LIVE YOUR LIFE when they say things like "well obviously this miniscule part of one religion in a world of thousands of religions is obviously wrong, so all religion is complete and utter shit". On the surface, Christianity contains many paradoxes. This is what happens when you take the works of hundreds of different people, all talking about something subjective, and combine it into one volume,l change things around to suit your own(1500 year old) political needs, and then tell people to accept it objectively. This is not its core, and I hardly consider arguing the exact opposite of something to be "arguing semantics". I have a couple other friends who immediately say we're arguing semantics once they are shown that they are wrong too.

Skip the one LMG and I brought up... how bout this one...

1. If God exists, Satan exists
2. If God is eternally good, Satan is eternally evil
3. God rewards the good/righteous in the afterlife
4. Satan punishes the bad/unrighteous in the afterlife
5. Someone punishing a bad act is a form of justice and could be considered a good deed.
6. If Satan punished the good in the afterlife this would be evil but he punishes the wicked making him good
7. Satan does good acts.

No argument here.

He fulfills an important need - that of the primal instincts and self preservation, vs. the morality and social obligatory functions of a Jesus/Yahweh archetype. He also provides a pretty good cop-out when Christians don't feel like owning up to their selfish animal actions. The few Satanists I've spoken with in my years were some of the most engaging and intelligent conversators that I've met, and certainly weren't "evil".

I certainly wouldn't consider yahweh "eternally good". If we take his book to be entirely true, just a small snippet of what we see is: The destruction and death of millions at soddom and gomorrah, the slaughter of all land-based life on earth barring the two of every species, The supposed instruction to his followers to destroy, rape, and convert every culture that didn't bow specifically to Him, Show me a being that is Jealous, wrathful, and possibly a bit insecure regarding his "omnipotence".

Satan: Go ahead and steal, survival of the fittest baby!

Yahweh: How DARE you steal from a wealthy merchant to prevent your family from starvation? Burn in eternal torment, you vile sinner!

Which of these is more "evil"?


The concept of "Satan" in and of itself is a bastardization and an attempt by the Roman Catholic Church to get the pagans at the time to turn on their old gods when they were forcefully converted. There is a "Horned god" in essentially every pre-christian culture, almost unanimously linked with the animals of the forest as well as man's more primal instincts, the latter of which he is linked with even to this day in his most modern from, that being "satan". Cernunnos, Pan, Herne, Pashupati, Freyr, and countless others existed long before a concept of Satan. Even Carl Jung lists The Horned One as one of the important psychological archetypes, essentially hard-wired into our brains. People have seen this Horned One in dreams and visions for milennia, and his properties are, if slightly varying, always along the same core meaning, even in those that have no cultural frame of reference to have ever seen or heard of him.


Neither of the points that you addressed to me are contradictory to the position that I'm standing in, actually. You took the incorrect meaning from the first quote(where I stated that quantifying love has absolutely no bearing on whether or not gods exist), and then made a straw man about God and Satan. Not to mention, your straw man did not present any evidence to disprove their existence. It seems almost like you just assumed that I'm christian and thought that if you could somehow prove that satan was good, I would become an atheist? Not really sure where you were going with that, but I appreciate the dialog that it brought forth.


What I'm hearing from the two of you (mindphuk and padawanbater) is you truly believe that people are nothing more than pus-filled automatons, whose sheer existence is nothing more than a reactionary process to various physical, chemical, and electrical stimuli. That is fine and well, as science has yet to quantify consciousness in any meaningful way. However, if you do choose to adhere to this school of thought, can you tell me the origin of spontaneous creative thought?

 

[karri0n]

It sounds like you're mixing science with pseudoscience. What limitless pool of energy are you referring to? How is any energy considered divine? The matter/energy equivalence is not something I have ever heard from any religious group. Tell me what religion, shamans, or mystics believed that energy and matter were interchangeable prior to Einstein? It sounds a lot like you're stretching beliefs to make them fit with modern science in much the same way some people here have tried to claim the bible is full of scientific truths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

a. being the "pool"

b. being the current model, demonstrating that all matter exists as energy in its most basic state

Regarding the divinity of said energy, this depends on your world view. Some view everything as divine. I was speaking from a spiritual standpoint, in which said energy is viewed as divine. In science it is viewed as "existent".

As far as other cultures before the advent of modern science knowing that the physical world sits on top of an energetic world, crazy people have been babbling about spirit worlds and lands that have no form other than wisps of energy and vacant space for as long as there have been people. The understanding is different and in some ways more thorough now, yes. The point is, the singular existence of one three dimensional plane with nothing that cannot be seen by the waking, naked eye has been thoroughly challenged by modern science, and there have been societies across millennia that have various different means of understanding this simple, fundamental truth that reality is far more complex than western science ever thought possible.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I didn't claim an EEG proves the existence of gods. That would be ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what I said. Deep meditative trance, communion with spirits, astral projection, all of these appear different on an EEG. What I said was that the response within the brain when someone communes with gods, prays, or THINKS they are communing with gods or praying can be quantified with a modern tool, the same as the one that has officially quantified and measured "love" according to the OP.

The EEG is measuring the emotion, not where it comes from or how you get it. You are saying God influences peoples lives, the machine reads it, so it must be God. That's retarded, and I know you can see why. Like I said, the source of the emotion isn't what is being measured, it's the emotion itself. Whether or not God plays a roll is unknown. Burden of proof, again, lies with you to demonstrate it does. Till then, it doesn't.

All these atheists are just as bad as the Christians proclaiming there is ONLY ONE TRUE WAY TO LIVE YOUR LIFE when they say things like "well obviously this miniscule part of one religion in a world of thousands of religions is obviously wrong, so all religion is complete and utter shit".

Dude, atheists don't lobby congress to get laws based on their own skewed perverted vision of morality passed. They don't make up 85% of the vote.

And that's exactly what believers do, pick out piltdown man and scream "Evolution is FALSE!! That proves it!!" so give me a break with that one..

On the surface, Christianity contains many paradoxes. This is what happens when you take the works of hundreds of different people, all talking about something subjective, and combine it into one volume,l change things around to suit your own(1500 year old) political needs, and then tell people to accept it objectively. This is not its core, and I hardly consider arguing the exact opposite of something to be "arguing semantics". I have a couple other friends who immediately say we're arguing semantics once they are shown that they are wrong too.

You tell me what you consider to be the "core beliefs" of Christianity.

I certainly wouldn't consider yahweh "eternally good". If we take his book to be entirely true, just a small snippet of what we see is: The destruction and death of millions at soddom and gomorrah, the slaughter of all land-based life on earth barring the two of every species, The supposed instruction to his followers to destroy, rape, and convert every culture that didn't bow specifically to Him, Show me a being that is Jealous, wrathful, and possibly a bit insecure regarding his "omnipotence".

You seem to be taking some kind of "on the fence" sort of position. If Christianity isn't right, then it's wrong.

It can't be both, so which is it?

 

[mindphuk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

a. being the "pool"

b. being the current model, demonstrating that all matter exists as energy in its most basic state

Regarding the divinity of said energy, this depends on your world view. Some view everything as divine. I was speaking from a spiritual standpoint, in which said energy is viewed as divine. In science it is viewed as "existent".

As far as other cultures before the advent of modern science knowing that the physical world sits on top of an energetic world, crazy people have been babbling about spirit worlds and lands that have no form other than wisps of energy and vacant space for as long as there have been people. The understanding is different and in some ways more thorough now, yes. The point is, the singular existence of one three dimensional plane with nothing that cannot be seen by the waking, naked eye has been thoroughly challenged by modern science, and there have been societies across millennia that have various different means of understanding this simple, fundamental truth that reality is far more complex than western science ever thought possible.

I had a feeling that's where you were going with this. Zero-point energy is hardly a 'limitless pool' of energy and quantum field theory has nothing to do with the ramblings of mystics and shamans. You are just regurgitating the same new-age crap that uses a misunderstanding of science to promote their belief in a spiritual world. The advances of science does not give any credence to any of the claims that you appear to be making. You are distorting science to suit your agenda. I asked you to show me what religion or spiritual belief held the notion of energy and matter being equivalent prior to Einstein and all you can come up with is that "societies across millennia" without ever once giving an example.

 

[mindphuk]

What I'm hearing from the two of you (mindphuk and padawanbater) is you truly believe that people are nothing more than pus-filled automatons, whose sheer existence is nothing more than a reactionary process to various physical, chemical, and electrical stimuli. That is fine and well, as science has yet to quantify consciousness in any meaningful way. However, if you do choose to adhere to this school of thought, can you tell me the origin of spontaneous creative thought?

And what I'm hearing from you is that you can't seem to refrain from creating a straw man. Where did I or Pad say anything about people being automatons? Do you really think that consciousness is impossible from a purely naturalistic perspective? Why do you feel the need to invoke unprovable assertions like the mind is separate from the brain and can exist outside of normal physical laws?

 

[karri0n]

The EEG is measuring the emotion, not where it comes from or how you get it. You are saying God influences peoples lives, the machine reads it, so it must be God. That's retarded, and I know you can see why. Like I said, the source of the emotion isn't what is being measured, it's the emotion itself. Whether or not God plays a roll is unknown. Burden of proof, again, lies with you to demonstrate it does. Till then, it doesn't.


Which is, once again, exactly what I said. The EEG results tell us nothing in this argument and that's the point I made by first mentioning it. I'm not sure why we're still on this one.


Dude, atheists don't lobby congress to get laws based on their own skewed perverted vision of morality passed. They don't make up 85% of the vote.

And that's exactly what believers do, pick out piltdown man and scream "Evolution is FALSE!! That proves it!!" so give me a break with that one..


Are you seriously trying to tell me that atheists don't have an agenda, and that they never use the laws to pursue it?

By "Just as bad", I mean the fact tthat both the atheist and the Christians seem to think that Christianity is the only faith in existence. Every argument you'vgiven me is something trying to debunk Christianity, which has nothing at all to do with the argument. This is akin to me claiming that all science is false and basing my arguments on debunking phrenology or alchemy.



You tell me what you consider to be the "core beliefs" of Christianity.


I've already stated this twice in the thread.... The core of any genuine spiritual practice lies in a connection with a pure and loving divine energy. Whether you consider this a collective consciousness, a god, a higher self, nirvana, heaven, or enlightenment isn't that important. Most genuine spiritual practices will also include some general guidlines for living your life such as being kind to others and basic moral and societal values.


You seem to be taking some kind of "on the fence" sort of position. If Christianity isn't right, then it's wrong.

It can't be both, so which is it?

Sure, from a fundamentalist staindpoint, your argument makes sense. Once again, you're painting the world black and white, and once again, just as bad as fundamentalist christianity. Christianity has some good messages behind it, but a lot of it comes from a really sideways direction because it has been so affected by politics and agendas over the years. There are some sects of christianity, such as evangelism, that don't fous on anything spiritual at all but rather focus on making other people know that they are going to burn in hell. This is wrong. Some sects focus on morality and being kind to others, and tell you to work on yourself in a spiritual aspect. There is nothing wrong with that because it's a good message.


Whether it's athiest, christian, or muslim, fundamentalism is a bad thing.