PROOF that GOD Exists......

Dr.J20 said:
is only has more appeal for you. that's a preference. and when you start questioning what is, and find there are aspects of that "is" outside of the physical, how will you approach those things?
Click to expand...

My question would be: How to explore and wring pattern and consequence from these nonphysical things of which you speak? The key to a scientific approach is not materialism (that is a current "best guess" by many scientists, and understood by the more subtle among them to be impoverished) but intellectual hygiene. The scientific method isn't "discard all magic" but "accept only that that can be meaningfully characterized and, with some small amount of luck or grace ... and consistency, reproduced. My opinion. cn
 
Dr.J20 said:
yes, absolutely. IF your proposition is that its a waste of time to do anything besides investigate physical reality.
Click to expand...

I'm almost positive the only reality other than this one that may be thoroughly investigated is the dream reality. And even the dream reality comes only from our minds, such as spiritual or religious ideas. They can be explored only as much as your imagination can take you, but remember, imagination is not truth... it is speculation of ideas without any basis for physical examination. Therefor these ideas always have some doubt behind them, as they cannot stand up to the burdens of proof required to perceive these ideas as real.

(Which is exactly why "faith" is a requirement when attempting to claim truth to an idea (yes, beliefs are IDEAS) without any truth value)

Whomever perceives these fantasy ideas as real is faced with an inner conflict, or contradiction. As the true self knows that these ideas have no basis in reality, nor have they been proved beyond reasonable doubt except in the mind of the individual. The individual does everything possible to keep from consciously acknowledging he/she is not certain of their "beliefs" as to not be faced with this inner conflict, or contradiction.

Though it is fun to think about these fantastical ideas and concepts, they must be left at the door of fantasy for us to keep touch with what is real in the only reality we can measure accurately, this one.

"Uncertainty in the presence of vivid hopes, dreams and fears is very painful... but must be endured if we wish to live our lives without the support of comforting fairy tales." -Bertrand Russell

Edit:
The greatest thing about science is that no one is required to believe anything! Regardless of what you do or do not believe, gravity exists. Take an object and hold it above your head, drop it, gravity. No need to believe.

With religion/spirituality, you are required to believe in order for it to be true or real... with science you do not. Point made.
 
Zaehet Strife said:
I'm almost positive the only reality other than this one that may be thoroughly investigated is the dream reality. And even the dream reality comes only from our minds, such as spiritual or religious ideas. They can be explored only as much as your imagination can take you, but remember, imagination is not truth... it is speculation of ideas without any basis for physical examination. Therefor these ideas always have some doubt behind them, as they cannot stand up to the burdens of proof required to perceive these ideas as real.

(Which is exactly why "faith" is a requirement when attempting to claim truth to an idea (yes, beliefs are IDEAS) without any truth value)

Whomever perceives these fantasy ideas as real is faced with an inner conflict, or contradiction. As the true self knows that these ideas have no basis in reality, nor have they been proved beyond reasonable doubt except in the mind of the individual. The individual does everything possible to keep from consciously acknowledging he/she is not certain of their "beliefs" as to not be faced with this inner conflict, or contradiction.

Though it is fun to think about these fantastical ideas and concepts, they must be left at the door of fantasy for us to keep touch with what is real in the only reality we can measure accurately, this one.

"Uncertainty in the presence of vivid hopes, dreams and fears is very painful... but must be endured if we wish to live our lives without the support of comforting fairy tales." -Bertrand Russell

Edit:
The greatest thing about science is that no one is required to believe anything! Regardless of what you do or do not believe, gravity exists. Take an object and hold it above your head, drop it, gravity. No need to believe.

With religion/spirituality, you are required to believe in order for it to be true or real... with science you do not. Point made.
Click to expand...

yes, i conceded.
you are right. I am wrong.
 
"My question would be: How to explore and wring pattern and consequence from these nonphysical things of which you speak?"


Is not the probem with difinition and more importantly, conception and preception? To "explore" ""wiring patterns" "consequences" are concepts of physical. Also, the difinition of physical is now pretty shaky, imo.

If the mind has quantum computing as the core of cognition, then we may be changing the rules of perception slightly over the generations. With new perception comes the abiltiy to conceive new quantum juxapositions and predict consequences, but in a non-causal way.

Our brain is wired, totally for suvival. By relieving survival pressures, we may be allowing the mind to grasp higher concepts al la Aldus Huxley.

Just a stab answer for a very important question. To me it is important, because it is a question. It's not just straight up denial of a preception beyond the thinking, survival lock, common mind.
 
eye exaggerate said:
...says the staunch atheist :)
Click to expand...

Staunch Atheist? Please define. Someone who REALLY, REALLY doesn't believe in Santa Claus, compared to someone who just doesn't believe in Santa Claus? I'm staunchly standing by my claims that I have no claims, other than you shouldn't waste your time on things the world can't agree even exists. Maybe Staunch Skeptic? I would accept this description of myself.
 
afrawfraw said:
Staunch Atheist? Please define. Someone who REALLY, REALLY doesn't believe in Santa Claus, compared to someone who just doesn't believe in Santa Claus? I'm staunchly standing by my claims that I have no claims, other than you shouldn't waste your time on things the world can't agree even exists. Maybe Staunch Skeptic? I would accept this description of myself.
Click to expand...

It appears in spite of participating in numerous threads over many, many months, some people (eye), are unable to correctly define atheist and continue to conflate it with rational skepticism, just as others conflate atheism and science. :sad:
 
Doer said:
"My question would be: How to explore and wring pattern and consequence from these nonphysical things of which you speak?"


Is not the probem with difinition and more importantly, conception and preception? To "explore" ""wiring patterns" "consequences" are concepts of physical. Also, the difinition of physical is now pretty shaky, imo.

If the mind has quantum computing as the core of cognition, then we may be changing the rules of perception slightly over the generations. With new perception comes the abiltiy to conceive new quantum juxapositions and predict consequences, but in a non-causal way.

Our brain is wired, totally for suvival. By relieving survival pressures, we may be allowing the mind to grasp higher concepts al la Aldus Huxley.

Just a stab answer for a very important question. To me it is important, because it is a question. It's not just straight up denial of a preception beyond the thinking, survival lock, common mind.
Click to expand...

I meant "wring" as a verb, implying the work would not be easy. I didn't want to introduce materialist prejudice as "wiring" most certainly would. cn

But I must say that for a question I didn't ask, your answer is quite considered.
 
mindphuk said:
It appears in spite of participating in numerous threads over many, many months, some people (eye), are unable to correctly define atheist and continue to conflate it with rational skepticism, just as others conflate atheism and science. :sad:
Click to expand...


Not correct when we have taken pains to define the difference. There are religions and sceptics. You, me, Mr. H., etc. are sceptics. Then there are Militant Atheists that have corrupted the concepts of healthy scepticism. It begins to apprear like Cult which are subversive cadres against the social order. There are cultish forces in science, that are not indicitive of science and there are cultish forces in society that are not indicitive of society. Indeed, there are cultish forces in Religion, that are not Religion.

Rewiting of history and using the arguments behind Religion, Science, Society, or Scepticism, is the mark of Cult. Big Atheism is not the same as just being sceptical. Sceptism is very personal. Atheism obviously and publically against organized religion. Denials don't matter.

The Atheist see the religious as confused and somewhat mentally inferior, though they may deny that. The Atheist assumes the sceptics are supportive.

I am not.
 
To be categorized i would fall into place well with the existential nihilist. Religious/spiritual human animals have a physiological disorder, sometimes willed, sometimes not.

The hard atheist is in the same category as the theist. One who knows god does or doesn't exist is a liar, because no one can know these things.

The agnostic atheist (i don't believe in god but i am not certain of its existence or non existence) or agnostic theist (i believe in god but i am not certain of its existence or non existence) are the truthful humans. Each can understand that no one knows, but choose to give an opinion on the subject based on their experiences throughout life.

It is when someone claims certainty in the absence of it when insanity begins to take hold, the hard atheists and theists face this dilemma more so than others.

Atheist is nothing but a short word to describe "i don't believe in god" some don't understand that just because one does not believe in an omnipotent all powerful creator of the universe, that they do not hold onto other fantasy based beliefs... because many still do.

When coming to terms with absurdity, sometimes it can be so psychologically overwhelming for the beginner atheist, they will choose to replace the beliefs prior with another more preferable belief system that does not use god as a requirement for the belief.

Examples:
Buddhism
Starchild
Collective consciousness

Pretty much any belief that gives one a sense of meaning or purpose in his/her existence. Something that makes them feel special or unique.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the existential nihilist perceptions about existence, here is a very short summery. I also have a few threads on the subject going into more detail.

Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism posits that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence. According to the theory, each individual is an isolated being "thrown" into the universe, barred from knowing "why", yet compelled to invent meaning.The inherent meaninglessness of life is largely explored in the philosophical school of existentialism, where one can potentially create his or her own subjective "meaning" or "purpose".

Lightit, this is not drama, this is philosophy. It's not for everyone.
 
mindphuk said:
It appears in spite of participating in numerous threads over many, many months, some people (eye), are unable to correctly define atheist and continue to conflate it with rational skepticism, just as others conflate atheism and science. :sad:
Click to expand...


...if a person does not believe in God, are they not atheist? If the individual in question was raised in a secular environment, believes that 'belief' in God = fairy tales, etc, etc... what would you say is the case?

...go back over these threads and you'll see that the ones conflating science and atheism are the 'atheists and skeptics'. Not all of them (mind), but a lot.

(if by 'others' you mean all who conflate, I apologize :) )

:)
 
As we have seen since the beginning of time, religion will create and destroy the best of humanity. For religion we fight, kill, love, hate, build, destroy, suffer, rejoice, and in the end as the lights go dim, no matter what as an individual you believe in, we pray...........The power of belief is deeper than anyone can define, or understand.

I see the future of our society to do as all societies in the past have done.....fall apart to the brink of extinction and then rebuild on an idea of perfection and superiority, that like religion is just human nature, but that's just my opinion, and like we say, "Opinions are like assholes, we all have one, and most stink"

P.S: I did a search, typing strange religion, and this is what came up :About « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - Hopefully this will have you rolling on the floor, like it did me !!
 
eye exaggerate said:
...if a person does not believe in God, are they not atheist? If the individual in question was raised in a secular environment, believes that 'belief' in God = fairy tales, etc, etc... what would you say is the case?

...go back over these threads and you'll see that the ones conflating science and atheism are the 'atheists and skeptics'. Not all of them (mind), but a lot.

(if by 'others' you mean all who conflate, I apologize :) )

:)
Click to expand...


What would be the opposite of staunch atheist? A disloyal atheist?

To me this is further proof of the asinine label of atheism. Can someone be a staunchly unconvinced of gremlins? It's difficult to smoothly integrate the label into our language because it is not normal to label the rejection of a claim.

Some atheists have never heard the arugments, so they can be thought of as 'soft' atheists I suppose. Perhaps staunch atheism could mean, someone who has thought about it and solidified their position, but it didn't seem to be the way it was used here.
 
[video=youtube;g1jJ-ttrSd8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jJ-ttrSd8[/video]

This is a nice little music video from the Pastafarians, believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 

Attachments

  • ws_flying_spaghetti_monster_1920x1200.jpg
    ws_flying_spaghetti_monster_1920x1200.jpg
    77.2 KB · Views: 5
I think the confusion is that I had a couple debates over the value of science and it's position. Just because I use science to debate, doesn't mean it's my whole life. I have a sunburn from playing baseball with my family. While having fun with my family, I never considered science, theism, or atheism. I was busy living. So were my children, and wife.

I did however research consumer reports when selecting my gear. I didn't go into Big 5 and say, "Which gloves and bats are best?"
 
Heisenberg said:
What would be the opposite of staunch atheist? A disloyal atheist?

To me this is further proof of the asinine label of atheism. Can someone be a staunchly unconvinced of gremlins? It's difficult to smoothly integrate the label into our language because it is not normal to label the rejection of a claim.

Some atheists have never heard the arugments, so they can be thought of as 'soft' atheists I suppose. Perhaps staunch atheism could mean, someone who has thought about it and solidified their position, but it didn't seem to be the way it was used here.
Click to expand...

...here's one of those situations where a word takes on an unintended tone. Staunch, to me, is how I am toward my belief in God. The intent of my post to afrawfraw was a humorous one. Nothing to do with how I perceive him, or atheism :) I don't come from a tainted view of 'them', imagine if none of us had made any formal declaration of opinions - would we know the difference? (here, in the forum)

:D
 
eye exaggerate said:
...here's one of those situations where a word takes on an unintended tone. Staunch, to me, is how I am toward my belief in God. The intent of my post to afrawfraw was a humorous one. Nothing to do with how I perceive him, or atheism :) I don't come from a tainted view of 'them', imagine if none of us had made any formal declaration of opinions - would we know the difference? (here, in the forum)

:D
Click to expand...

Staunch to me, is simply "firm adherence." So, of course, someone can be seen as a staunch dis-bellever in Aliens, for example. Or gremlins, santa claus, on an on. It's a quibble to say it dosesn't count if it is untrue. If it's true, then you can staunchly believe the fact, I guess.

And, I like the think it's best to avoid all labels. Labels, even the "those people" label, is the most Subjective trap there is, imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top