PROOF that GOD Exists......

[Doer]

I think this quote demonstrates the need for objectivity.

With all respect, this to me, is also a red herring. The quote says as it's point, "They can't all be right, and that's proof enough that personal experience is an unreliable way to learn practically anything."

Sure, I agree, but emphasis on "unrelaible" (not impossible) and on "practically" (does not rule out All learning)

And I will say it is also, an elegantly overloaded term in this context. And all the definitions I can think of for "practical" I totally agree with. Eye witness testimony is "practically" considered non-evidence these days if two will disagree. The mind fools easily when events move fast. So, that itself rules out most of the tales of religion. And since we eye witness our lives, are we perfect in sorting our quantum un-certainty? And when we eye witness these quantum experiments it changes them, such that we must consider the emerging consensus of Many Worlds.

I wonder if these Worlds could reconcile the schism of the old science and old religion as move to a better understanding of these Observer/Creator aspects that are being proposed.

 

[afrawfraw]

It would seem by the fact that our founders did not ban religion outright they must have envisioned some acceptable level of religious practice. Rather than restrict the existence of religion, they created conditions in which could exist as many religions as wanted; a place where religion is totally free to spread or even be invented. They made clear the necessity to keep religion in check, and I agree they would probably be unhappy with the lack of separation we see in many areas today, but I think the claim that they would want God removed from society needs a lot of support before I would accept it as more than conjecture. I've seen only evidence that they wanted God removed from politics.

Of course they wanted Americans to be able to practice religion. But practicing it and injecting it into a culture are two different scenarios. I think it's confusing because until recently, society and religion went hand in hand. A secular society is unknown to most. What do most humans do when they encounter unknown situations?

Religion is a great tool to divide populations. THAT is why politicians argue it's relevance.

 

[afrawfraw]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201005/why-atheism-will-replace-religion

Weird stuff.

 

[afrawfraw]

I have no interest in what one delusional entity thinks it sees. My senses and thought processes are fallible. So I don't trust what I perceive, however "real" it may seem. Manipulate my emotions, manipulate my perception. Who can I trust? A practice which seeks information only. A population of all faiths and backgrounds, drawn together to discover common truths. Can I say, "There's no god."? Of course not. I can only say that everyone who looked at the problem, discovered we don't have enough information. So "?" will have to do for now.

 

[Zaehet Strife]

I have no interest in what one delusional entity thinks it sees. My senses and thought processes are fallible. So I don't trust what I perceive, however "real" it may seem. Manipulate my emotions, manipulate my perception. Who can I trust? A practice which seeks information only. A population of all faiths and backgrounds, drawn together to discover common truths. Can I say, "There's no god."? Of course not. I can only say that everyone who looked at the problem, discovered we don't have enough information. So "?" will have to do for now.

Be reasonable and not belief something that we cannot see, smell, taste, touch or hear. Great post.

 

[Dr.J20]

Speaking genuinely, I would be interested in seeing a specific real world example of the big A atheists.

I would think Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin would fit into the capital-A Atheist group you're discussing

 

[Dr.J20]

Be reasonable and not belief something that we cannot see, smell, taste, touch or hear. Great post.

So where does misperception fall into this? can you see, smell, taste touch or hear the subconscious mind? there are many phenomena which do not exist in a physical way such that man may perceive them but that does not mean they (a) don't exist, and (b) don't matter. I understand you're going to add all of the equipment and technological advancement that enables us to study things we don't immediately or directly perceive, but with each addition of machinery etc. you add another layer of accepted error; What i don't understand is why there is some great feeling that this point in time will never have its knowledge base rocked by some incredible discovery the way it has over and over throughout history.

 

[cannabineer]

In quantum speak, we actual change our world by Observation. Therefore the worldview in the past was not only different, the world was different, in that we were closer in our perceptions to the Many Worlds. That is scary and so we tried and tried to get to an Objective basic for Reality. But, the quantum case is practically closed, imo. There is no Objective basis for Reality.

We don't even know if dark matter was "there" before we observed the pans of galaxies rotating as if they were spheres. [Perception?] is Conception, I'm afraid.

Quantumspeak is speculative at best. It's metaphysics dressed up in the latest hard-science terminology. So I take it with the proverbial grain of salt.

Since all we have is our perception, cognition, experience and memory ... I have no difficulty with the idea that everything one knows is subjective. I consider objectivity to be an abstraction, a boundary condition. cn

 

[Heisenberg]

I would think Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin would fit into the capital-A Atheist group you're discussing

Below is my standard response to this idea, although I originally wrote it to someone who was claiming this idea as hard truth, which you are not, so it may sound a bit harsh. BTW, I was responding to the Big A atheists as a hypothetical idea. I do not believe atheism is the root of any problem.


Equivocating non-belief in God with committing heinous acts is a blatant duplicity and no intelligent person here is going to tolerate it.


We have said it, over and over and over in many threads. Pick any name from that list, any example, and ask yourself. Was the problem here that these people were being too rational?


Lets take Jim Jones. Did this atrocity occur because Jim and his followers applied too much critical thought? Did they demand too much evidence and were too consistent in their logic? Was the problem that they wanted things to make too much sense?


Lets take Kim Jong. Is the problem with this situation that he and his people apply too much analysis? Are they being too careful in their thinking and being too reasonable in their actions? Are they too concerned with being conscientious and precise?


Lets take Jeffrey Dahmer. Was his rape, murder and cannibalistic acts a result of being too focused on legitimacy? Was he requiring too much validation and keeping his thoughts too organized? Was he too involved with accuracy and fastidious inquiry?


Do I need to go through the entire list? Skepticism is essentially what every atheist here is promoting. We advocate applying critical examination to the claim of a deity. Is this what lead Alfred Kinsey to exploit children for sex?


The atheist posters in this sub forum are simply promoting rational skepticism. We are trying to discourage dogmatic adherence to an ideology, which was the engine of Hitlers reign. Knowing that we do not believe in God tells you nothing about what we do believe in or what our intentions are.

Religion has been defended in 3 ways in this thread.


Religion is true - We've shown that can't be proven or even supported.


Religion does good things - We've shown nothing good religion provides is unique to religion itself, although the potential evil religion holds is indeed unique and all too easy to unleash.


Atheism leads to bad things - As stated, we are promoting skepticism. Atheism is a term vested on us by theists. The same thing we can find wrong with atheistic regimes are the same things we find wrong with religious regimes; dogmatic adherence. Rational thinking, evidential accountability, and enlightened attitudes helped us overcome fascist and communist dogmas. We should let these forces of sophistication eradicate religious dogma as well.

 

[dashcues]

^Great post!
We should all seek to attain this level of communication.(Which many here already do).
Easily understood Heisenberg.

 

[Derple]

I just thought of something, maybe the 'bright light' that people see when having a near death experience, is actually them just about to be born again, and the light is just the exit of the vagina?
Food for thought.

 

[Heisenberg]

I just thought of something, maybe the 'bright light' that people see when having a near death experience, is actually them just about to be born again, and the light is just the exit of the vagina?
Food for thought.

Interesting thought, but what about those that see light and come back? Are they born dead, or go back inside?

 

[cannabineer]

Interesting thought, but what about those that see light and come back? Are they born dead, or go back inside?

"Aw, Mom, just five more minutes ... " cn

 

[eye exaggerate]

"Aw, Mom, just five more minutes ... " cn

...hehe

 

[Doer]

Quantumspeak is speculative at best. It's metaphysics dressed up in the latest hard-science terminology. So I take it with the proverbial grain of salt.

Since all we have is our perception, cognition, experience and memory ... I have no difficulty with the idea that everything one knows is subjective. I consider objectivity to be an abstraction, a boundary condition. cn

Yes, it is speculation. Mathmatical speculation, however, at least. If folks can see a metaphysical interpretation, that is certainly not in the math.
The salt grains are free to take. I can not accept the statement phrased that way. It is not metaphysics cloaked.

Metaphysics may be trying to borrow it. But, the cloak of hard science is real. What it actually covers is yet, unknown. I don't think you meant to say that it's a bunch numerolgists, astroloigers, and tarot readers, influencing the Quantum Math, are you?

 

[Doer]

Be reasonable and not belief something that we cannot see, smell, taste, touch or hear. Great post.

And yet if I told that my experirence with, Self not bound in thought, also contained new sensations of sight, hearing, and taste, you would say that's Subjective and that I can't expect to be able prove anything like this in the arena of ideas.

So, are these senses you speak of as so concrete, Objective experiences? No.

I'll continue with this for a moment. You and afawfaw are not color blind (I hope) I hold up a card and the color is what? You both say Green! Correct. This color is defined as Greeen as it bounces green and absorbs the rest. You eye takes that frrequency and absorbs it. Collaspes the waves and detect the particles. That is the end of Objective.

Now, please think about this. There is no way for us to actually know, though we agree that the color we all see is the same.

In other words, I think I see green but I could be experiencing what you call orange and when we bounce that green light into your eyes, you see what I would call "blue" but you call it greeen. I see what you call orange, but I call that green.

This is not color blind where the colors can't be told apart. This is a detailed thought experiement to suggest that we don't know actaually what the other guy experiences because we don't have an internal absolute, we only have the consensus we built up slowly from birth about what others would call this color we see. Make sense?

 

[Doer]

Wrong. Try again, with the REAL text. Thanks. It says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by THEIR Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Their creator and OUR creator is a slight of hand to prove a point. Fail. My creator I define as my parents. My universe. MY creator. Possessive.

I didn't make the full QUOTE, fool. You tired to toss in garbage. It is the Creator, not the idiotic hairsplitting. I was stopping your concetual garbage. The garbage that the founding fothers tried to take God out and somehow we are putting it back in. Just lies. So, qubbile your little tap dance. You have already been revealed a militant, revisionist Athiest of the cult. No more dancing wih you.

 

[kpmarine]

And yet if I told that my experirence with, Self not bound in thought, also contained new sensations of sight, hearing, and taste, you would say that's Subjective and that I can't expect to be able prove anything like this in the arena of ideas.

So, are these senses you speak of as so concrete, Objective experiences? No.

I'll continue with this for a moment. You and afawfaw are not color blind (I hope) I hold up a card and the color is what? You both say Green! Correct. This color is defined as Greeen as it bounces green and absorbs the rest. You eye takes that frrequency and absorbs it. Collaspes the waves and detect the particles. That is the end of Objective.

Now, please think about this. There is no way for us to actually know, though we agree that the color we all see is the same.

In other words, I think I see green but I could be experiencing what you call orange and when we bounce that green light into your eyes, you see what I would call "blue" but you call it greeen. I see what you call orange, but I call that green.

This is not color blind where the colors can't be told apart. This is a detailed thought experiement to suggest that we don't know actaually what the other guy experiences because we don't have an internal absolute, we only have the consensus we built up slowly from birth about what others would call this color we see. Make sense?

Except, color coordination and combination would be impossible, were this the case.

 

[afrawfraw]

I didn't make the full QUOTE, fool. You tired to toss in garbage. It is the Creator, not the idiotic hairsplitting. I was stopping your concetual garbage. The garbage that the founding fothers tried to take God out and somehow we are putting it back in. Just lies. So, qubbile your little tap dance. You have already been revealed a militant, revisionist Athiest of the cult. No more dancing wih you.

Cop out. The part you quoted was inaccurate. The ENTIRE concept of your argument hinged on the OUR VS THEIR. Perhaps English is your second language. I'll admit, English is a twisted, sloppy language. You continue to attack me, claim it's in defense of some ghost post. OK. It's people like you who can't envision what the founding fathers were saying. We take no position on religion. We will not promote any religion over any other. The founding fathers knew religion could be used to corrupt the American Dream. THEIR is extremely important. Not to you. Splitting hairs!? If the founding fathers were so gung ho on religion, why didn't our currency have god on it? Why did the pledge mention nothing about God? We DID put god into America in the 1950's, after the founding fathers were long gone. Sorry you don't know your American History. The Fathers weren't Anti-religious, but they wanted it to be a private affair, not splashed onto every fucking court house!

You have been revealed as a liar. You claimed Faith was the Human Default. Proved wrong. You claim to be immersed in education, yet you have no knowledge of American History. Then you attack me to try to win pity, or something. Either you're clueless, or you're trolling me. Either way. This is probably the most offensive post I've thrown your way.

To each YOUR own.

 

[eye exaggerate]

*raises hand* I have a question.

...spiritual practice has been going on for a lot longer than scientific practice has. I hope this something we can agree on. Religion is on in years and 'wise'. Natural science is an adolescent in comparison. This is something we can 'prove' by going for a read down history lane. (Obviously, I don't mean religious fanaticism, thank you.)

Religion is a 'mother and a father' to the masses. I'm getting the impression that scientism is a spoiled kid. (?)

Sorry, I am being as objective as I can. I am not meaning to throw jabs or belittle anyone.