PROOF that GOD Exists......

[afrawfraw]

*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.

Yes, you're correct. Now look at increased practice of science, as opposed to increased religious practice. When we practiced only religion, how was the Human Condition? What was the life expentancy? How were politics handled? How was medicine? Education? Travel? Communication?

There was a long period in Human history when Religion ruled unquestioned over large Countries...

This would be the last memory of anyone opposing the Christians...
http://www.medievalweaponinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/crusader-shield-801508.jpg

 

[eye exaggerate]

Yes, you're correct. Now look at increased practice of science, as opposed to increased religious practice. When we practiced only religion, how was the Human Condition? What was the life expentancy? How were politics handled? How was medicine? Education? Travel? Communication?

There was a long period in Human history when Religion ruled unquestioned over large Countries...

This would be the last memory of anyone opposing the Christians...
http://www.medievalweaponinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/crusader-shield-801508.jpg

...hey man, I get that last part, I wouldn't have wanted to fck people up! To your point, in the bible there is a quote about 'praying in private', which is what most people are doing these days. The church represents a body, and people moving away from it is more indicative of people having less and less faith in people. The church has, but hasn't, changed.

 

[afrawfraw]

...hey man, I get that last part, I wouldn't have wanted to fck people up! To your point, in the bible there is a quote about 'praying in private', which is what most people are doing these days. The church represents a body, and people moving away from it is more indicative of people having less and less faith in people. The church has, but hasn't, changed.

I'm not pissing on the fence or anything, but folks never had faith in people. If we could put our faith in people, we wouldn't need Governments or Human Rights. Religion used to provide false hope, in a weary world when a lot of folks would just kill themselves. We've exhausted religious participation. It has yielded no results. Imagine if Science were given exclusive multi-hundred year rein? Imagine if scientists ran our government, not sell outs. Imagine scientists running your state. Brings a small tear to my eye. To command based on objective information, instead of what people feel. Not wasting countless years flip flopping on pointless issues like abortion and gay rights. Addressing homelessness and ignorance in America. But then the government would lose control, because it would not need it.

Each year millions of women and children are abused in America, but religion persists about Gays and Abortions, and birth control. And no one argues, because they can't, because their religious, and so on, and so on.

 

[kpmarine]

...hey man, I get that last part, I wouldn't have wanted to fck people up! To your point, in the bible there is a quote about 'praying in private', which is what most people are doing these days. The church represents a body, and people moving away from it is more indicative of people having less and less faith in people. The church has, but hasn't, changed.

The problem is that you have politicians calling for "national days of prayer", or concurring that gay people somehow warrant fewer rights than other people; that is not "praying in private". Every church I've been to (Only christian ones, so I'll grant you that my sample is limited to one religion.) preaches hellfire and damnation for the "unsaved". That may cause unity, but it's a unity based on unquestioning faith and fear of authority. My faith in people has increased greatly since I left the church. I came to the realization that you don't need church imposed morality to be a good person. For example, christian churches went on a crazy crusade against pokemon when I as a kid. They said it was encouraging acceptance of "cult and evolutionary practices in children.", or Harry Potter books for the reasons of "witchcraft". How is implying that people who continue to be interested in those things are bad people by god's standards fostering faith in people? Religion only fosters community amongst those who participate in their particular practices.

 

[cannabineer]

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?

I give metaphysics higher regard than outright superstition. Astrologers etc. are mystics: they rely upon a supernatural influence on the natural world with an indispemsable mediating agency: the soul. Mystics, the lot. Metaphysicists try to reach after the Big Questions while still trying to play as fair as possible. It's speculation v. outright animism. Jmo. cn

 

[cannabineer]

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 green. 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 experiment to suggest that we don't know actually 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?

It is my experience that sight and hearing are perhaps the two senses that are most standardized among physically healthy people. But I have been always fascinated by the subtle differences. A friend insisted that schoolbuses (which practically define Yellow for me) are closer to Orange. My xgf and I had a running playful squabble about "is that blue or purple". But the place where I seem to be an outlier is: star colors. The reddest stars appear caramel-yellow to my eyes, and the white stars distinctly blue. Blue stars, of course, are like welding arcs, so marvelously plasma-blue. Most stars are blue to my eyes. To my ex, they were yellow. To my sister, green. This was my lesson in the variability of even the most standardized sensual experience.

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

Just saw this. I suspect that the relations among colors remain intact, so what coordinates harmoniously for one will also do so for ... me, with my somewhat offset sense of color. cn

 

[kpmarine]

It is my experience that sight and hearing are perhaps the two senses that are most standardized among physically healthy people. But I have been always fascinated by the subtle differences. A friend insisted that schoolbuses (which practically define Yellow for me) are closer to Orange. My xgf and I had a running playful squabble about "is that blue or purple". But the place where I seem to be an outlier is: star colors. The reddest stars appear caramel-yellow to my eyes, and the white stars distinctly blue. Blue stars, of course, are like welding arcs, so marvelously plasma-blue. Most stars are blue to my eyes. To my ex, they were yellow. To my sister, green. This was my lesson in the variability of even the most standardized sensual experience.



Just saw this. I suspect that the relations among colors remain intact, so what coordinates harmoniously for one will also do so for ... me, with my somewhat offset sense of color. cn

Everyone has slight differences on how they see a shade of color, some to the point where we have created a term for it. I would speculate that we have slight variations in our color receptors. much like how nothing else is physically identical from person to person; which causes us to pick up slightly more or less of a certain pigment.

 

[eye exaggerate]

The problem is that you have politicians calling for "national days of prayer", or concurring that gay people somehow warrant fewer rights than other people; that is not "praying in private". Every church I've been to (Only christian ones, so I'll grant you that my sample is limited to one religion.) preaches hellfire and damnation for the "unsaved". That may cause unity, but it's a unity based on unquestioning faith and fear of authority. My faith in people has increased greatly since I left the church. I came to the realization that you don't need church imposed morality to be a good person. For example, christian churches went on a crazy crusade against pokemon when I as a kid. They said it was encouraging acceptance of "cult and evolutionary practices in children.", or Harry Potter books for the reasons of "witchcraft". How is implying that people who continue to be interested in those things are bad people by god's standards fostering faith in people? Religion only fosters community amongst those who participate in their particular practices.

...thanks. Do you think that any form 'nationalism' should be disregarded?

Insofar as the church situation goes, my experiences have been different. I guess it may be a denominational difference, I don't know.

Someone reads some scripture, someone else gives a current day example or interpretation. No fire and brimstone, even when I was a kid. *shrugs* If the passage happened to be on the more severe side, the interpretation was always clear in relaying the symbolism.

 

[Dr.J20]

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.

Heisenberg, I agree with this but I want to make perfectly clear that I was not attempting to insinuate a causative correlation between the acts committed by Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., and the fact that none of them believed in a God. I recognize that there are many theists who would want to go down that slippery slope without recognizing that it gets nowhere: Popes have committed heinous acts and atrocities, right?--they have, if any of you think this was a sarcastic remark, read some history.

My interest in this line of questioning is largely to reveal that the claim, made by some atheists here, "the world would be better without religion," is just plain old unprovable. I just don't like the reductive, puerile understanding that says, "world religions have been the cause of so much suffering, we'd be better off without them all" especially when the person making that statement has only the most cursory experience with only the slimmest cross-section of a particularly western religion. By the same token, they are being as provincial as someone who thinks that because hitler and pol pot called themselves atheists that the world would be a better place if everyone believed in God. I only advocate a diversity of perspectives, a respect for communication, and an honest attempt at peaceful coexistence. Skepticism, rational thought, and sophistication certainly are necessary for this, but I would like to just ask if we can remove the adjective "religious" from its appendage to dogma. Until we have a firm definition of what "religion" is to everyone, we need not to discuss it as if it is a broad and largely homogenous category.

I would also offer that anyone who looks at these lists could say that it is extremely dangerous to apply harsh rationale to insufficient understanding, as these men all did. Hitler was using a certain sense of logic when he decided that gregor mendel's work with genetics and darwin's work with evolution could be taken to mean that the perfection of man can be achieved through selective breeding; this would be an example of someone working from an incomplete understanding. It would, incidentally, be an iteration of a mythology intervening to inhibit that understanding as he was applying the Aryan myth to the Germanic peoples. I would argue that religious fervor which precipitates the same kind of fascist behavior is just another iteration of the same corruptibility of man. We can all point to people claiming to be Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist who have achieved both great good and great evil. I think the endgame here is to agree that we're all trying to figure out the best way for everyone to live as happily as possible. So those theists out there who see some Baptist fascistically advocating the harming of homosexuals, you need to stand up and say "no, this is wrong, Jesus loved everyone, blessed are the meek, fuck off you fascist preacher" and whenever an atheist hears another atheist saying something like "let's corral all these moron religious people into one area so we can get rid of them," it is the moral and ethical responsibility of the hearing atheist to correct his fascist cohort, and ensure him that the truth will win out and ignorance will be vanquished through peaceful and respectful communication and interaction.
be easy

 

[eye exaggerate]

I would also offer that anyone who looks at these lists could say that it is extremely dangerous to apply harsh rationale to insufficient understanding, as these men all did. Hitler was using a certain sense of logic when he decided that gregor mendel's work with genetics and darwin's work with evolution could be taken to mean that the perfection of man can be achieved through selective breeding; this would be an example of someone working from an incomplete understanding. It would, incidentally, be an iteration of a mythology intervening to inhibit that understanding as he was applying the Aryan myth to the Germanic peoples. I would argue that religious fervor which precipitates the same kind of fascist behavior is just another iteration of the same corruptibility of man. We can all point to people claiming to be Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist who have achieved both great good and great evil. I think the endgame here is to agree that we're all trying to figure out the best way for everyone to live as happily as possible. So those theists out there who see some Baptist fascistically advocating the harming of homosexuals, you need to stand up and say "no, this is wrong, Jesus loved everyone, blessed are the meek, fuck off you fascist preacher" and whenever an atheist hears another atheist saying something like "let's corral all these moron religious people into one area so we can get rid of them," it is the moral and ethical responsibility of the hearing atheist to correct his fascist cohort, and ensure him that the truth will win out and ignorance will be vanquished through peaceful and respectful communication and interaction.
be easy

...very well said

 

[afrawfraw]

It could easily be proven that Mankind is better off without religion. Good luck getting the grants for that experiment.

 

[dashcues]

We live in a time where religion still bear the sins of the fathers.And why not? The wounds are still fresh.Let's face it.Religious persecution in its time was the worst of the worst. The Crusades,Roman catholic conquests,Inquisition,etc.,etc.Pick your poison
These times still echo through what we know of as religion today.KKK,supremacist,Muslim extremist,etc.,etc. Again,pick a poison.There's plenty of them.

We bear a heavy cross.After all it is(of) religion that is attached forevermore to these events.Even if it was misrepresented,it will never change history.What's done is done.

So,we must bear the burden.It is the price we pay for the sins of the fathers.The price we pay for our beliefs.Maybe one day the wounds will heal over.For it is said that time heals all wounds.But we must agree that our religious forebears cut pretty deep.So it is not likely we'll see it healed within our generation,but we can work to the future.How?Don't ask me I'm just another guy on the internet.

But I would like to see it.I hope by the next generation.So that our descendants never have to bear the same burden.

 

[Dr.J20]

It could easily be proven that Mankind is better off without religion. Good luck getting the grants for that experiment.

how, exactly?

 

[kpmarine]

...thanks. Do you think that any form 'nationalism' should be disregarded?

Insofar as the church situation goes, my experiences have been different. I guess it may be a denominational difference, I don't know.

Someone reads some scripture, someone else gives a current day example or interpretation. No fire and brimstone, even when I was a kid. *shrugs* If the passage happened to be on the more severe side, the interpretation was always clear in relaying the symbolism.

There's too much in the bible that is outright hate, no matter how you try to look at it. Then there's the petty and selfish god that destroyed sodom and gomorrah, but was cool with Lot knocking up his daughters, after turning his wife into a pillar of salt for looking back at her now destroyed home. Or, there's the tale of Job; god torments poor Job to prove a point to the devil. Really? An all powerful god feels the need to prove a point to satan? Then there's the fact that it calls homosexuals an "abomination", no symbolism in there. Then there's the constant preaching against the rich in the new testament. Then, to top it all off, there's the fact that the "bible" was assembled by a bunch of people who got to pick for themselves what went in the bible. Even if there is some legitimacy to religion, christianity is definitely not where you will find it.

 

[Dr.J20]

Then there's the fact that it calls homosexuals an "abomination", no symbolism in there.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ SOMETHING LONG PLEASE, >>>

The bible does not say this. those leviticus quotes are translations taken out of context and reinterpreted by persons ill-equipped to do such intellectual work, then used selectively to incite anger and abhorrence towards homosexuals. The socio-historical context of Leviticus is just as important as what is written there, and those stories in the Bible have, for a very long time, been understood as teaching parables to help people understand fundamental concepts more easily: like love and respect your fellow man, be honest, be cognizant of your limitations. Yeah with hard work, study, and rational investigation we SHOULD all come to these understandings, but not everybody has been so fortunate to have the amount of wealth required to sit around and ponder this kind of thing. In one of these threads (maybe even this one) someone went down the "is religion natural to man?" line of questioning: in one sense, when man was fighting for his life daily, i'm not real sure whether he had time for the concept of religion, or anything else for that matter--seems like he'd be pretty busy trying to get food water and shelter.
not sure that one went anywhere but the bible doesn't say homosexuality is an abomination--that quote is more along the lines "for a man to lay with another man is an abomination" and, if my study of this isn't too terribly rusty, the proscriptions there are more pointedly about obedience and the protection of the jewish 'tribe.' So, your lambast against Christians falls flat as their claim to the Hebrew Bible usually rests with the fact that Jesus was a Jew and so, since he studied that i'm sure it seemed like a good idea to his followers to include that in the new religion they were going to build around his teachings, even though his teachings were radical "revisions" of those very strict and often contradictory rules of the Hebrew bible. Since they also thought only very learned men would be reading these books and would be very capable of sorting out the logical conundra found within, they did not take it upon themselves to make these texts very clear and reconciled.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>READ THIS:

I'm going to stop myself here because this is getting longwinded and out of hand. the point is, the bible is, whether you believe it is inspired or not, written by the hands of men. If you want to say its a horrible book and should be banned because of what is in it and how many people have done wrong things because of it, then you need to also ban any book that results in a similar outcome. once we get to banning books though, its a slippery slope to another dark age.
be easy

 

[kpmarine]

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ SOMETHING LONG PLEASE, >>>

The bible does not say this. those leviticus quotes are translations taken out of context and reinterpreted by persons ill-equipped to do such intellectual work, then used selectively to incite anger and abhorrence towards homosexuals. The socio-historical context of Leviticus is just as important as what is written there, and those stories in the Bible have, for a very long time, been understood as teaching parables to help people understand fundamental concepts more easily: like love and respect your fellow man, be honest, be cognizant of your limitations. Yeah with hard work, study, and rational investigation we SHOULD all come to these understandings, but not everybody has been so fortunate to have the amount of wealth required to sit around and ponder this kind of thing. In one of these threads (maybe even this one) someone went down the "is religion natural to man?" line of questioning: in one sense, when man was fighting for his life daily, i'm not real sure whether he had time for the concept of religion, or anything else for that matter--seems like he'd be pretty busy trying to get food water and shelter.
not sure that one went anywhere but the bible doesn't say homosexuality is an abomination--that quote is more along the lines "for a man to lay with another man is an abomination" and, if my study of this isn't too terribly rusty, the proscriptions there are more pointedly about obedience and the protection of the jewish 'tribe.' So, your lambast against Christians falls flat as their claim to the Hebrew Bible usually rests with the fact that Jesus was a Jew and so, since he studied that i'm sure it seemed like a good idea to his followers to include that in the new religion they were going to build around his teachings, even though his teachings were radical "revisions" of those very strict and often contradictory rules of the Hebrew bible. Since they also thought only very learned men would be reading these books and would be very capable of sorting out the logical conundra found within, they did not take it upon themselves to make these texts very clear and reconciled.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>READ THIS:

I'm going to stop myself here because this is getting longwinded and out of hand. the point is, the bible is, whether you believe it is inspired or not, written by the hands of men. If you want to say its a horrible book and should be banned because of what is in it and how many people have done wrong things because of it, then you need to also ban any book that results in a similar outcome. once we get to banning books though, its a slippery slope to another dark age.
be easy

I don't want to ban it, for the very reason you state. There's value to be found in any book, if you look hard enough. Plus, I've never been a fan of censorship in general. I like that people have a tenacious belief in their faith, it can truly be a great thing at times. Frankly, I wish I knew more people who looked at the bible in the same way you do.

 

[HeartlandHank]

I URGE you all to please go to youtube and type in "nde". There is PROOF what happens to us when we die. Go to youtube and type in "nde" which stands for Near Death Experiences and watch and listen to the hundreds of stories from people who have had heart attacks, cancer, car accidents, shot, stabbed, and listen to their stories of what happened to them. There are videos from people all over the world and their experiences ALL coincide with each other. You will see proof that God and Jesus are real, Angels are real, and Hell is real. Everyone needs to check it out seriously...

And these experiences are not all just from Christians, there are stories from atheists, muslims, every type of person walking this earth. Go to youtube and type in "nde"

Dimethyltrytamine, you don't have to get in a car accident to have one of the NDEs.

 

[thump easy]

i got a few stories that i cant explain but got dam thier good one day maybee ill tell you.. lolz

 

[HeartlandHank]

*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.

You cannot compare science and religion like that.
Science is about accepting nothing as fact. Building on understandings. A living neverending review of data. Reasoning.
Religion is about faith. Believing despite anything you might hear or see.

In my opinion, Science has no conflict with religion. Religion however, has quite the conflict with science.
Any belief that discourages from using reasoning... I don't know.
Maybe my simple, Taught beliefs - Reasoning = Faith , equation is over simplified, but...

I would to hear more about science being a spoiled kid. I wonder if you mean that in the way I am understanding you.

"

 

[HeartlandHank]

You really cannot even talk about religion in a way of evaluating it against science. What is there to measure the value, accuracy, or whatever of religion? Try putting faith, prayers and miracles on a scale. These things could be 13.9 billion years old and it's going to read 0.0.

I guess my point is, Science and Religion are different games. It's like the Yankees playing the Celtics. Either the Celtics have to show up and play baseball, or the Yankees have to trade in their cleats for high tops. Whoever the away team is will lose. If Kevin Garnett goes up to the pitchers mound and throws a basketball to home plate, (both sides trying to play their own sport) you are just going to have a fucking mess, and get nowhere.