Do you believe in God and why

[TropicalGuy]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Btw...

If you'd like to know more about Spiral Dynamics, I recommend the YouTube channels, "Actualized" and "Shores of Infinity". 

Superstition, Pseudo - Science & Hokum….????????

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I believe religion is a minor question of reality as it is today to be true, but it seems to be so manifested in us, and that is hard to explain. 

You are missing the point. 

I'm not discussing the pros and cons of religion. 

I'm just stating that it exists, in the same way patriotism, communism, capitalism, and humanism and nihilism and many more ideas and concepts exist. 

If you say that none of those exist, then let's agree to disagree. 

 

 

 

[Hummin]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

You are missing the point. 

I'm not discussing the pros and cons of religion. 

I'm just stating that it exists, in the same way patriotism, communism, capitalism, and humanism and nihilism and many more ideas and concepts exist. 

If you say that none of those exist, then let's agree to disagree. 

 

 

 

As an idea and concept that is practiced, I agree  religion existing, for those who feel, see and know, I also agree for them it is real. Why, I cant tell, but they are convinced, and therefor for them it is a real thing. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Hummin

[TropicalGuy]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I checked the oxford definition, nothing obscure there.

Thing is, as you said, churches exist, they are the results of

religious thoughts, to make it simple, so churches exist in the material reality, and thought exists in another plane of reality. 

I find a bit childish your disregard of imagination, without imagination there would not be any form of art, and no scientific and technological discoveries. 

If you want to say that religion is the result of bad imagination, we can argue about that, but to deny the existence of religion and imagination is plainly wrong. 

Agree. Religion & Trappings physically exist ( Books, Temples, Priests, Congregation). It’s the BASIS of all that which remains imagination only as zero scientific evidence. 

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, Hummin said:

As an idea and concept that is practiced, I agree  religion existing, for those who feel, see and know, I also agree for them it is real. Why, I cant tell, but they are convinced, and therefor for them it is a real thing. 

That's more or less what I'm trying to explain to mr tropicalguy.

It's not rocket science, is it. ????

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Agree. Religion & Trappings physically exist ( Books, Temples, Priests, Congregation). It’s the BASIS of all that which remains imagination only as zero scientific evidence. 

Finally !

I'm glad that in the end at least we agree on something. 

Of course i disagree with the terrible image you have of religion and spirituality, but i can understand and accept  that as your free opinion. 

I've had my years when i was really detesting and even despising anything religious too.????

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

you showed that before. It is not a credible article, it give no information and no sources, You don't even provide a link. I said exactly this last time why do you persist in not following the rules of the forum?

You're not making any sense. What sort of a link are you referring to? I've provided a link. If you can't see it, then there's some sort of internet or software problem. It's true I have recently downloaded the graph from the same article before, in another thread, but the link to that article was initially provided by a believer in 'human caused climate change' who posted the link to support his own belief.  In my response to his post, I copied and pasted the graph from his own linked article and also stated in my response that the graph was from his own link.

 

You responded by criticising me for not providing a link to the graph, when I'd already stated in my response that the graph was from the link provided by the person I was responding to (Placeholder).

 

In my response to you in this thread, I have provided the internet link as well as the graph contained within the article. Are you not able to see the link?

 

What I think is not credible about the article is the headline-assertion that there is a "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature". Their own study shows that only about 31.2% of the papers examined, expressed an opinion on the issue. Therefore the evidence presented can only supports a consensus of approximatey 31%.
 

[Sunmaster]

34 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Superstition, Pseudo - Science & Hokum….????????

Spiral Dynamics is a model that analyses values and categorizes them into stages. It's got nothing to do with religion per se.

Religion is just one things being categorized. But I doubt you will understand the difference. 

 

I've indulged your nonsense for far too long, so I will say my goodbyes now.

 

 

[Hummin]

30 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Finally !

I'm glad that in the end at least we agree on something. 

Of course i disagree with the terrible image you have of religion and spirituality, but i can understand and accept  that as your free opinion. 

I've had my years when i was really detesting and even despising anything religious too.????

As long you are in control (very few are) it is great, but as once people are being taken advantage of in the name of religion (most is even on the other scale being spiritual is taken advantage of) it is not good for the individuals, even it can be beneficial for society.
 

Simple rules can make a difference for society, but can also be crucial for individuals. 

 

Many strict rules came during times where it was important to stop pandemics for an instance, keep families and tribes together, and many more examples why rules we do not see the benefit of as much in a more modern society, since we have more understanding of what is happening and why it is happening. Covid could have been explained as a punishment from god, and precautions taken based on religious premisses to stop it, as well stds can be stopped by simple but difficult rules to obey, alike no sex before marriage, and no adultery. 
 

No pork meat because of swine flue transmitting to people, and of course escalating to more political use when they experience how effective it is explained and used the fear of a angry god. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Hummin

[TropicalGuy]

9 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Spiral Dynamics is a model that analyses values and categorizes them into stages. It's got nothing to do with religion per se.

Religion is just one things being categorized. But I doubt you will understand the difference. 

 

I've indulged your nonsense for far too long, so I will say my goodbyes now.

 

 

Snake Oil & It’s Promotion takes many dishonest forms.???? 

[mauGR1]

14 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Simple rules can make a difference for society, but be crucial for individuals.

These are very complex concepts, and many books have been written about it.

To find a proper balance between the rights of the society and the rights of every individual surely is a tough job.

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

29 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Snake Oil & It’s Promotion takes many dishonest forms.???? 

If you look at the detail posted a few pages back, on different thinking and ideas about the past and how we got here, it was kind of interesting and made sense. As I noted, I may not concur with the theory for the upcoming period, but it is interesting to see what people are thinking. 

I think there is an argument that this thread should as much as possible be welcoming to new ideas and not shut them down. The only time I get defensive is if posters, in discussing their own ideas, blame science for not giving such ideas more legitimacy or credence.  

[TropicalGuy]

2 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

If you look at the detail posted a few pages back, on different thinking and ideas about the past and how we got here, it was kind of interesting and made sense. As I noted, I may not concur with the theory for the upcoming period, but it is interesting to see what people are thinking. 

I think there is an argument that this thread should as much as possible be welcoming to new ideas and not shut them down. The only time I get defensive is if posters, in discussing their own ideas, blame science for not giving such ideas more legitimacy or credence.  

Ideas without substance & evidence must be challenged & rejected though.the rise of science and humanism should be displacing superstitious ignorance like religion but thats happening only in civilized rational nations.

[mauGR1]

15 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

Ideas without substance & evidence must be challenged & rejected though.the rise of science and humanism should be displacing superstitious ignorance like religion but thats happening only in civilized rational nations.

Without offence, but that sounds as intolerant as the Spanish inquisition ???? or perhaps it's the start of another season of witch-hunting?

[ozimoron]

20 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

You're not making any sense. What sort of a link are you referring to? I've provided a link. If you can't see it, then there's some sort of internet or software problem. It's true I have recently downloaded the graph from the same article before, in another thread, but the link to that article was initially provided by a believer in 'human caused climate change' who posted the link to support his own belief.  In my response to his post, I copied and pasted the graph from his own linked article and also stated in my response that the graph was from his own link.

 

You responded by criticising me for not providing a link to the graph, when I'd already stated in my response that the graph was from the link provided by the person I was responding to (Placeholder).

 

In my response to you in this thread, I have provided the internet link as well as the graph contained within the article. Are you not able to see the link?

 

What I think is not credible about the article is the headline-assertion that there is a "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature". Their own study shows that only about 31.2% of the papers examined, expressed an opinion on the issue. Therefore the evidence presented can only supports a consensus of approximatey 31%.
 

Can't the evidence speak for itself? Does the author have to provide a personal opinion? Which papers were studied. And you did not provide a web link to the article on either occasion when you posted the graphic.

[TropicalGuy]

5 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Without offence, but that sounds as intolerant as the Spanish inquisition ???? or perhaps it's the start of another season of witch-hunting?

Perfectly rational statement made yet response is utter drivel. Speaking for progress is hardly “ intolerant” or “ witch- hunting” ????????

[ozimoron]

5 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Without offence, but that sounds as intolerant as the Spanish inquisition ???? or perhaps it's the start of another season of witch-hunting?

Would you support the return of animism among native populations since it was largely repressed by mainstream religions?

[TropicalGuy]

22 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

If you look at the detail posted a few pages back, on different thinking and ideas about the past and how we got here, it was kind of interesting and made sense. As I noted, I may not concur with the theory for the upcoming period, but it is interesting to see what people are thinking. 

I think there is an argument that this thread should as much as possible be welcoming to new ideas and not shut them down. The only time I get defensive is if posters, in discussing their own ideas, blame science for not giving such ideas more legitimacy or credence.  

Bad ideas will be challenged and eventually ridiculed with scientific evidence. Nobody “ shutting down” anything here. Better that idiocy in all forms is out there repeatedly to be knocked down endlessly.
Science cannot not give “credence” to unscientific or pseudo-scientific “ ideas”. 

[Hummin]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Would you support the return of animism among native populations since it was largely repressed by mainstream religions?

Religion or not, there have never been any better alternatives, all of the the cultures had its flaws and  the same brutality because that's the nature of humans. 

 

Anyone think living in the Viking area was better for the people? We like to colour the past being wild and free, but that is as far from truth as it possible can be. Any celtic tribe ? No matter religion or any paganism humans is humans for good and bad! 

 

Nothing else would had made any difference is my best guess. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Hummin

[Fat is a type of crazy]

2 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Bad ideas will be challenged and eventually ridiculed with scientific evidence. Nobody “ shutting down” anything here. Better that idiocy in all forms is out there repeatedly to be knocked down endlessly.
Science cannot not give “credence” to unscientific or pseudo-scientific “ ideas”. 

If someone says there is definitely a god, or are judgemental because you don't believe in god, or their beliefs impact your life,  or they say science is nonsense, then go for it.

If people are just putting forward ideas, then I think it can be interesting, and to simply say you have no evidence, so don't have an opinion, could be a bit useless. Not saying you were necessarily doing this. 

The ideas I was referring to were mostly not religious but just about how thinking individually and as a  society may be changing over time. 

Do you have  moments when you consider that there might be other than what is known. You may call it good or bad luck, or serendipity, or feel that fate paid a part. It's hard to be rational and science based 24 hours a day. That's not to say it is correct to do so but as others said it may be part of the human condition. 

 

Some look into it deeper, and it may end up that they are wrong in thinking there is a spirituality or god,  but still they may be discovering new aspects to themselves.

Or not. 

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Would you support the return of animism among native populations since it was largely repressed by mainstream religions?

No, why would i ?

But thanks for asking, i have a lot of respect for the animist point of view. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

If someone says there is definitely a god, or are judgemental because you don't believe in god, or their beliefs impact your life,  or they say science is nonsense, then go for it.

If people are just putting forward ideas, then I think it can be interesting, and to simply say you have no evidence, so don't have an opinion, could be a bit useless. Not saying you were necessarily doing this. 

The ideas I was referring to were mostly not religious but just about how thinking individually and as a  society may be changing over time. 

Do you have  moments when you consider that there might be other than what is known. You may call it good or bad luck, or serendipity, or feel that fate paid a part. It's hard to be rational and science based 24 hours a day. That's not to say it is correct to do so but as others said it may be part of the human condition. 

 

Some look into it deeper, and it may end up that they are wrong in thinking there is a spirituality or god,  but still they may be discovering new aspects to themselves.

Or not. 

You're correct that people deserve the right to believe in whatever they like without having to provide any justification but if they wish to convince others of the veracity of their position then it won't fly.

[ozimoron]

5 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Without offence, but that sounds as intolerant as the Spanish inquisition ???? or perhaps it's the start of another season of witch-hunting?

 

Just now, mauGR1 said:

No, why would i ?

But thanks for asking, i have a lot of respect for the animist point of view. 

Your position appears to be contradictory here. You decry those who won't support your right to believe whatever you want but don't appear to consider other religions. Your actual reply is also contradictory. You don't support the right to animistic beliefs which were forcibly taken away (like the Spanish Inquisition) but claim to respect them..

[mauGR1]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

Your position appears to be contradictory here. You decry those who won't support your right to believe whatever you want but don't appear to consider other religions. Your actual reply is also contradictory. You don't support the right to animistic beliefs which were forcibly taken away (like the Spanish Inquisition) but claim to respect them..

Sorry??

You can believe what you like, and i support your right to do that.

I'm a bit sick of intolerance too, and i try not to be intolerant myself. 

As for animism, I don't support it, and i don't support any religion. 

I would support meditation, if someone asked me for advice. 

.. and, when i said that I respect animism, I could have said that I'm an animist myself. 

Any other accusations? ????

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

You're correct that people deserve the right to believe in whatever they like without having to provide any justification but if they wish to convince others of the veracity of their position then it won't fly.

It works both ways - if someone says they know something definitively then face the Ozimoron express but if it is put forward as a discussion then have a discussion. The climate change discussion is different because that is simply about science.

In my  opinion when it comes to religious or spiritual matters no need to just say science doesn't back it up, as when it comes to these matters, it is obvious. Religion and spirituality is closely linked to our feelings and thoughts and who knows we might learn something about ourselves. This is not the Lancet or a forum to prove that a theory is definitively correct.  

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

It works both ways - if someone says they know something definitively then face the Ozimoron express but if it is put forward as a discussion then have a discussion. The climate change discussion is different because that is simply about science.

In my  opinion when it comes to religious or spiritual matters no need to just say science doesn't back it up, as when it comes to these matters, it is obvious. Religion and spirituality is closely linked to our feelings and thoughts and who knows we might learn something about ourselves. This is not the Lancet or a forum to prove that a theory is definitively correct.  

Well that's true but it just sounds like it's sailing close to the argument that we can't have morality or discover our inner selves without religion. I know that's not your intention.

 

The topic is "do you believe in God and why?". I'm looking for the why which precludes statements like "I have the right to believe in God but don't need to say why?" That's off topic.

Edited May 29, 2022 by ozimoron

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Can't the evidence speak for itself? Does the author have to provide a personal opinion? Which papers were studied. And you did not provide a web link to the article on either occasion when you posted the graphic.

Yes I did provide a link in my post in this thread. I've already stated that. I did not provide a link in my previous post in another thread because I was responding to a forum member who had already provided the link to the article that included the graph which I copied from the article. Since the link was already available in the post that I was responding to, I didn't think it was necessary to repeat the link.

 

However, because a link to the article wasn't available in this thread, I included the link when I reposted the graph. If you can't see the link, there must be something wrong with your computer system or software. 
Below is the link again, copied and pasted from the earlier post. Below the link is a higher-resolution image of the graph, which the article provided. I've also copied a quote from the article, above the graphic, which states that the researchers excluded 282 papers from the random sample of 3,000, because they were not climate related, which is of course very reasonable. 

 

What is not reasonable is to assume that the authors of the majority of papers that take no position on Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) actually do believe it's a major problem that could be catastrophic if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions. Some of the authors of those 1859 papers that take no position, might think the human contribution to climate change is a major problem but saw no reason to mention it. On the other hand, most of those authors might simply have the view that the human contribution to climate change is impossible to calculate with any accuracy, because they understand that climate is a chaotic and complex and non-linear system, and perhaps they also have an awareness of the proxy evidence from studies in Paleoclimatology which suggests that many rapid changes in climate have occurred in the distant past, both cooling and warming, that are not related to CO2 levels. So, here's the link to the article, immediately below. Can you see it?
 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

 

"Our random sample of 3000 papers revealed a total of 282 papers that were categorized as 'not climate-related'.  Hence, we excluded these papers in accordance with C13's approach. We then assessed the remaining total of 2718 papers in the data set and found four that argued against the scientific consensus of ACC."

 

 

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Yes I did provide a link in my post in this thread. I've already stated that. I did not provide a link in my previous post in another thread because I was responding to a forum member who had already provided the link to the article that included the graph which I copied from the article. Since the link was already available in the post that I was responding to, I didn't think it was necessary to repeat the link.

 

However, because a link to the article wasn't available in this thread, I included the link when I reposted the graph. If you can't see the link, there must be something wrong with your computer system or software. 
Below is the link again, copied and pasted from the earlier post. Below the link is a higher-resolution image of the graph, which the article provided. I've also copied a quote from the article, above the graphic, which states that the researchers excluded 282 papers from the random sample of 3,000, because they were not climate related, which is of course very reasonable. 

 

What is not reasonable is to assume that the authors of the majority of papers that take no position on Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) actually do believe it's a major problem that could be catastrophic if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions. Some of the authors of those 1859 papers that take no position, might think the human contribution to climate change is a major problem but saw no reason to mention it. On the other hand, most of those authors might simply have the view that the human contribution to climate change is impossible to calculate with any accuracy, because they understand that climate is a chaotic and complex and non-linear system, and perhaps they also have an awareness of the proxy evidence from studies in Paleoclimatology which suggests that many rapid changes in climate have occurred in the distant past, both cooling and warming, that are not related to CO2 levels. So, here's the link to the article, immediately below. Can you see it?
 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

 

"Our random sample of 3000 papers revealed a total of 282 papers that were categorized as 'not climate-related'.  Hence, we excluded these papers in accordance with C13's approach. We then assessed the remaining total of 2718 papers in the data set and found four that argued against the scientific consensus of ACC."

 

The article explicitly supports the assertion that 99% of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans.

 

We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

[TropicalGuy]

32 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

If someone says there is definitely a god, or are judgemental because you don't believe in god, or their beliefs impact your life,  or they say science is nonsense, then go for it.

If people are just putting forward ideas, then I think it can be interesting, and to simply say you have no evidence, so don't have an opinion, could be a bit useless. Not saying you were necessarily doing this. 

The ideas I was referring to were mostly not religious but just about how thinking individually and as a  society may be changing over time. 

Do you have  moments when you consider that there might be other than what is known. You may call it good or bad luck, or serendipity, or feel that fate paid a part. It's hard to be rational and science based 24 hours a day. That's not to say it is correct to do so but as others said it may be part of the human condition. 

 

Some look into it deeper, and it may end up that they are wrong in thinking there is a spirituality or god,  but still they may be discovering new aspects to themselves.

Or not. 

Spirituality is fine but anything not properly evidenced is just chemical brain reactions producing human imaginings. This process often results in meditative relaxation or indeed useful concepts & hypotheses later proved ….or disproved …..or music & poetry.

Flat Earthers & Moon Landing Conspiracists can take a hike though ???????? 

Yes it’s unnatural and difficult for humans to be rational & logical. for our entire existence until 300 years ago very few were ……

[TropicalGuy]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The article explicitly supports the assertion that 99% of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans.

 

We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

And therefore, like Evolution, is FACT.