Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

Just now, KhunLA said:

You'll fit right in, as I've yet to meet a good Christian. IMHO  Just go to confessions on Sunday, and you'll get a clean slate ...

... till next Sunday 

Modern Christians don't go to church, we prefer natural beauty. 

We have also learned to look deep into ourselves without the aid of a priest.

As for your hate for divisive opinions, which is respectable, do you also have any opinions about some kind of unity ?

I don't see any wrong with divisive opinions, as far as they stay opinions. 

A coercive unity is much worse imho.

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

More labels to divide ... Christian soldier unite.

Misogynist, homophobe, racist, xenophobe, white supremacist, fascist, deplorable, birther, drump, extremist, fringe, nutjob, radical, insurrectionist.

Are those divisive labels?  I don't know many Christians that throw those around like candy.

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Modern Christians don't go to church, we prefer natural beauty. 

We have also learned to look deep into ourselves without the aid of a priest.

As for your hate for divisive opinions, which is respectable, do you also have any opinions about some kind of unity ?

I don't see any wrong with divisive opinions, as far as they stay opinions. 

A coercive unity is much worse imho.

When I was a Christian, I was a bit anti religion/church myself. 

 

I've yet to find anything or group I truly unify with, except those that will A2D, and few of those folks about, in my experiences. 

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Misogynist, homophobe, racist, xenophobe, white supremacist, fascist, deplorable, birther, drump, extremist, fringe, nutjob, radical, insurrectionist.

Are those divisive labels?  I don't know many Christians that throw those around like candy.

We certainly differ on that opinion as I know more that do than don't use such descriptive labels.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

When I was a Christian, I was a bit anti religion/church myself. 

 

I've yet to find anything or group I truly unify with, except those that will A2D, and few of those folks about, in my experiences. 

I googled A2D, is that an aircraft?

????

I disliked the church too, until i was old enough to disobey my parents and skip the whole thing, but jesus's philosophy is great imho, if properly understood. 

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I just had a funny thought....One way to really shake things up in the old, ineffective belief systems, would be CONTACT with (advanced) ALIENS! ???? That would be interesting and fun to watch. Imagine a far more advanced civilization telling us that there is a Higher Power, that it's not found in books, but within us and accessible to everyone. That science and technology play an important part in life, but are not the answers to humankinds deepest questions. 

 

How many would actually change their minds? How many would rebel against it?  How would such a revelation change the dynamics of our society? 
Someone should make a movie of this. 555

I read a comic book when I was about 6 which had a huge impact on me.  The story line was about aliens who arrived on earth to help humans with their advance knowledge.  The army surrounded the aliens and their spaceship and were given the command to open fire.  Of course they couldn't hurt the aliens because of their advanced technology.  The aliens just filed back into their spaceship and took off.

Another quote I had run across long ago was that if Jesus Christ were to return to earth and spoke the truth he'd be crucified again in a nanosecond.  By his own followers, too.

The above is quite illustrative, in my opinion, about where we stand presently as a race.

Aside from that, I'll throw a few questions out there.  Couldn't advanced information come to us from sources other than aliens?  And has it already happened?

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Aside from that, I'll throw a few questions out there.  Couldn't advanced information come to us from sources other than aliens?  And has it already happened?

Yes, although the definition of alien may be hugely debatable. 

For example, if aliens are already here, can we call them aliens ?

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

I googled A2D, is that an aircraft?

????

I disliked the church too, until i was old enough to disobey my parents and skip the whole thing, but jesus's philosophy is great imho, if properly understood. 

A2D ... Agree to Disagree.

 

Jesus's Philosophy ... agree, it's great, now if there was proof that he even existed.  Would think someone of such importance would have more of a recorded history, instead of just 2 questionable notations of existence.  Besides a book written some 400 ish yrs after the fact.

[Tippaporn]

36 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

All it takes for me is to see that posters name and I'm OUT ????. Tho I do happen to somewhat agree with that first sentence, sans the Judeo part, you qouted. White Evangelicals is more accurate and a big part of MAGA and support for The Orange Con-man. 

 

Surveys of early voters and exit polls this year showed between 76 and 81% of white evangelical and "born again" voters supporting Trump, according to the National Election Pool and AP/Votecast.

"We essentially have White evangelicals, somewhere around 8 in 10, supporting the president, standing by their candidate, standing by their man," says Jones.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/30/most-white-americans-who-regularly-attend-worship-services-voted-for-trump-in-2020/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/06/white-evangelical-christians-supported-trump

This ain't a political thread.  But if it were . . . 

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Jesus's Philosophy ... agree, it's great, now if there was proof that he even existed. 

Don't forget that 2000 yrs ago writing and reading books was a privilege for a tiny few.

Nowadays the technology is so sophisticated that who's in charge can falsify reality. 

That's a reason while, in a way, I trust more some unbelievable ancient legends than the TV news.

It's undeniable that technology is really advanced nowadays, and that includes the art of manipulating the people. 

Edited May 27, 2022 by mauGR1

[Tippaporn]

29 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

You do realize, you could have said that in 1 sentence.  

Typical of so many . . . just a snarky comment that isn't even clever as a retort to someone's post, with zero substance because they can't win a debate and can only petulantly take their bat and ball and go home.

That's 1 sentence. 

[KhunLA]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Don't forget that 2000 yrs ago writing and reading books was a privilege for a tiny few.

Nowadays the technology is so sophisticated that who's in charge can falsify reality. 

That's a reason while, in a way, I trust more some unbelievable ancient legends than the TV news.

It's undeniable that technology is really advanced nowadays, and that includes the art of manipulating the people. 

Them Romans were pretty impressive with recording things, hence the big ??? as why more isn't available.

 

TV news ... yikes.  Might as well stick with the comics.   Then again, then news is sometimes funnier.  The stuff they expect people to believe ... and many do.   That's too funny in itself.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

Them Romans were pretty impressive with recording things, hence the big ??? as why more isn't available.

Well, Josephus was the accredited Roman empire's journalist at the time, and he says something about Jesus too.

However, if you dig deeper, you can find more, it's easy to make an author "disappear " if you have the control of the media.

The apocryphal gospels are an interesting reading, and obviously totally disregarded, rightly,  or perhaps wrongly by the organized religion. 

.. I could go on for hours..????

[Tippaporn]

32 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, although the definition of alien may be hugely debatable. 

For example, if aliens are already here, can we call them aliens ?

I was thinking of sources outside of our physical reality.

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I was thinking of sources outside of our physical reality.

Yes, of course. 

In fact, one can say that most of the thoughts come from sources outside..

But that's not your point, I guess, so, even if we make a sum of all the human knowledge, it's still an infinitesimal fraction of the knowledge which pervades every single atom of the visible universe. 

Everything is possible.

[mauGR1]

36 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I was thinking of sources outside of our physical reality.

Actually, I was, years ago, reading about an interesting hypothesis, not sure if it was Von Daniken or Hancock, about the possibility of the DNA of humans having been engineered by aliens.

One of the clues was, that according to the parameters of the animal kingdom, our heads are "too big" to be the result of natural evolution. 

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Science obviously is not the answer either.  Science provides zero guiding principles to life.  In fact, science promotes a reality which is purely mechanistic and one in which the individual is completely powerless.  He may get lucky every once in a while, though.

 

 

As Mark Twain so perceptively quipped, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so."  And therein lies the trouble.  Convincing people that what they thought was true is in fact not true is not going to go over well. 

 

These are interesting issues to discuss and are very relevant to our progress, security, well-being, and prosperity. However, your idea the 'Science provides zero guiding principles to life', is plain wrong. However, I agree that convincing you that you are wrong will be very difficult, because of your religious type of beliefs, and apparent lack of understanding of the basic principles of the methodology of science.

 

If you read about the history of science, going back as far as the ancient Greeks, you might understand that the success of modern 'science and technology' is based upon a principle of verification through repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, which should also include methods of creating experiments to falsify a particular theory. This methodology was not formulated by the ancient Greeks, but was developed slowly over centuries. Plato, for example, believed that all knowledge could be obtained through pure reasoning, and that there was no need to actually go out and measure anything.

 

If it's not possible to devise experiments to falsify a particular theory, because of the complexity of interacting forces, and/or the long time scales involved, then there should always be some doubt about the veracity of the theory, even if it's only a slight doubt.

 

There are many examples of situations in certain scientific disciplines that cannot be subjected to the required falsification process. These apply mostly to the 'soft' scientific disciplines, such as psychology, psychiatry, pharmacology, and climatology, and so on..

 

The 'guiding principle of science' is that all issues should be questioned, if there is the slightest doubt. Also, the available evidence and data must be taken into consideration, when questioning an issue.

 

The problems in the world are due to a lack of 'quality education' which teaches these fundamental principles of skepticism, enquiry, and searching for evidence, which is the 'guiding principle of science'.

 

I became interested in Buddhism after I came across the 'Kalama Sutta'. Are you familiar with that story? In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha addresses a group of villagers who are skeptical about the teachings of various Gurus and Ascetics who had wandered through their village teaching various doctrines that are in conflict with each other.
The Buddha agreed that the villagers had good reason to be skeptical, and then gave the following advice.
 

"Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
nor upon tradition,
nor upon rumor,
nor upon what is in a scripture, 
nor upon surmise,
nor upon an axiom,
nor upon specious reasoning,
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
nor upon another's seeming ability (appeal to authority),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher."

 

In my view, this Sutta resonates with the 'true' modern principle of 'the methodology of science', and I can understand why this Sutta gets a lot of criticism from people who follow the Buddhist Religion. What religion would state, 'Do not go upon what is in a scripture'?

 

The problem today, with computer networks and iPhones providing a constant stream of conflicting opinions on all sorts of issues, is that most people don't have the ability, due to a lack of good education, to dig into the available data on the internet in order to confirm or refute, or cast doubt on a particular claim.

 

The current situation of potential 'Catastrophic Climate Change' due to mankind's CO2 emission, is an excellent example. Since most people, including politicians, seem incapable of understanding or questioning the details in any scientific article, they appeal to authority on the issue, and believe there is a 97%, or more, consensus on the isssue, and that the science is settled.

 

This general ignorance of the population at large, is of course exploited by certain scientists who have a career that is necessary to support their family, and/or gain wealth and fame. If telling the truth, as suggested by the evidence, or lack of evidence, results in a demotion or a sacking, then that's a personal problem that has to be addressed, and I suspect that most scientists working in a government-funded climate research centre understand that their careers are dependent upon maintaining a climate alarmism.

 

If there's a flood, or drought, or hurricane, or bush fire, that is claimed by the media to be the worst in a century and therefore caused by climate-change, driven by CO2 emissions, most people don't even have the rationality to understand if there was an even worse flood or drought 100 years ago when CO2 levels were much lower, then that implies that the current flood or drought reported in the news could be mostly natural, and that such events will not necessarilly be reduced by reducing CO2 emissions.

 

I could go on, but I'll leave it there.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

This general ignorance of the population at large, is of course exploited by certain scientists who have a career that is necessary to support their family, and/or gain wealth and fame. If telling the truth, as suggested by the evidence, or lack of evidence, results in a demotion or a sacking, then that's a personal problem that has to be addressed, and I suspect that most scientists working in a government-funded climate research centre understand that their careers are dependent upon maintaining a climate alarmism.

 

 

Perhaps then i am right when not trusting scientists and " well educated people " when they assert the non-existence of God and deities ????

[VincentRJ]

9 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps then i am right when not trusting scientists and " well educated people " when they assert the non-existence of God and deities ????

They don't assert the non-existence of God. They assert the 'lack of evidence', for the existence of God, that meets the requirements of the methodology of science. Even scientific hypotheses, such as the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, have to be based on some evidence before they can be investigated to confirm their existence, which is currently an ongoing process with regard to Dark matter and Energy.

 

Also, to investigate something scientifically, one needs to have a reasonably precise definition of what one is investigating, otherwise one doesn't know what the heck one is investigating. What's the precise definition of 'God'? ????

[mauGR1]

17 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

They don't assert the non-existence of God. They assert the 'lack of evidence', for the existence of God, that meets the requirements of the methodology of science. Even scientific hypotheses, such as the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, have to be based on some evidence before they can be investigated to confirm their existence, which is currently an ongoing process with regard to Dark matter and Energy.

 

Also, to investigate something scientifically, one needs to have a reasonably precise definition of what one is investigating, otherwise one doesn't know what the heck one is investigating. What's the precise definition of 'God'? ????

Fair enough,  my definition of God is the intelligent design, the set of rules which regulates the life of the visible ( and the invisible) in the universe .

We can study the laws of physics, but it's undeniable that they were there before the humans started studying them.

[TropicalGuy]

10 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Fair enough,  my definition of God is the intelligent design, the set of rules which regulates the life of the visible ( and the invisible) in the universe .

We can study the laws of physics, but it's undeniable that they were there before the humans started studying them.

Faith (unscientific “beliefs”) linked irrationally as unevidenced “proof” of Facts ????There is not one scrap of scientific evidence proving existence of “God”???? Just imaginings & “fairy tale” stories & “wanting” a divine dictator ????
 

All science in fact points away from, and tends to either disprove, “God”, or indicate “God” came from the minds of humans who had no other explanation then of natural events. That in turn laid the basis of organized religion as a profitable business.????

[Hummin]

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I hope you understand that you've just exposed your horse blinders to all.

We are easy to go shopping from left and wright and create our own belief these days, because we can! 

 

And that's why it is called believing, which we have an tendency to complicate in to long drivels to kind of make sense.

 

There is no absolutes except from one!

Edited May 27, 2022 by Hummin

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Faith (unscientific “beliefs”) linked irrationally as unevidenced “proof” of Facts ????There is not one scrap of scientific evidence proving existence of “God”???? Just imaginings & “fairy tale” stories & “wanting” a divine dictator ????
 

All science in fact points away from, and tends to either disprove, “God”, or indicate “God” came from the minds of humans who had no other explanation then of natural events. That in turn laid the basis of organized religion as a profitable business.????

Apart from the fact that you don't even understand my point, your post is the living proof that the line between education and indoctrination is indeed very blurred ????

[Hummin]

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, Josephus was the accredited Roman empire's journalist at the time, and he says something about Jesus too.

However, if you dig deeper, you can find more, it's easy to make an author "disappear " if you have the control of the media.

The apocryphal gospels are an interesting reading, and obviously totally disregarded, rightly,  or perhaps wrongly by the organized religion. 

.. I could go on for hours..????

He was a historian and he was born 40 years AD, and his work may have been of great value for the Romans especially Constantine to take advantage of Jesus and use his teaching for politics. 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

He was a historian and he was born 40 years AD, and his work may have been of great value for the Romans especially Constantine to take advantage of Jesus and use his teaching for politics. 

Well, the point i was debating was the existence of Jesus Christ, but thanks for your insight. 

[Hummin]

5 hours ago, KhunLA said:

A2D ... Agree to Disagree.

 

Jesus's Philosophy ... agree, it's great, now if there was proof that he even existed.  Would think someone of such importance would have more of a recorded history, instead of just 2 questionable notations of existence.  Besides a book written some 400 ish yrs after the fact.

Jesus teaching was not really any new at the time and easy to connect to other religions, philosophies and also early mythology. Jesus become what he is today, because of the myth people around him created as a rock star if you can say! 

Edited May 27, 2022 by Hummin

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, the point i was debating was the existence of Jesus Christ, but thanks for your insight. 

A journalist is someone irl at the same time it is happening. Great we can agree on that ☺️

[TropicalGuy]

17 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Apart from the fact that you don't even understand my point, your post is the living proof that the line between education and indoctrination is indeed very blurred ????

I understand your point as well as it was written. Not a mind- reader. 

You wrongly connect Divinity Faith with Scientific Principles. 

It is clearly Religious Fools & Simpletons who are “ indoctrinated” and who override reason & science with superstition & faith. 
 

Science is Truth & Required for Human Existence. Religion, with all its lies, Business & trappings, is not “required” at all. Strip all that nonsense away and what is left is Humanism which together with Science is all we ever needed. 

[Sunmaster]

46 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

All science in fact points away from, and tends to either disprove, “God”, or indicate “God” came from the minds of humans who had no other explanation then of natural events. That in turn laid the basis of organized religion as a profitable business.

This is simply not true and I will not stand by when this is passed off as a fact.
Not one single scientific fact has so far "disproven" the existence of a Higher Power. This is a fact. 
Before you make such baseless claims, you should first learn the difference between "God" and "religion". You don't even realize that there can be spiritual belief devoid of religious dogma.

There are several branches of science (Cognitive Neuroscience, Consciousness Research, Cognitive Psychology) that do indeed stretch beyond what is traditionally considered hard science and started to research consciousness. They are relatively new, but you gotta start somewhere. 
And guess what they are discovering? That there is mounting evidence that reality is more than what we consider real today.

This is the main problem with opinions here. Most of them are clueless about the topic, yet behave like the exact opposite.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Sunmaster

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

A journalist is someone irl at the same time it is happening. Great we can agree on that ☺️

I used the term "journalist " to subtly imply that, like modern journalists, many "historians" of ancient times were in the pocket of the rulers.

Glad you appreciate my subtlety, or maybe you didn't? ????