Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

  In other words, would it be fair to say that, in practicality, there is much that you have an opinion or belief about as to it's truth despite the fact that science has yet to prove it?
 

I can't think of anything I believe that is true that cannot be confirmed by science., which is why I am an Atheist. However, there are certain basic issues that don't require scientific confirmation. For example, humans have understood for ages, before the scientific method evolved, that sticking one's hand in a fire would cause extreme pain and damage. There are many other examples, such as jumping off a tall cliff onto the hard ground below, as opposed to jumping onto an ocean or lake.

 

"My point is that everyone harbours as-yet-unproven-by-science beliefs about most everything; with many of those beliefs personally accepted as being true." 

 

Not everyone.

 

"Would you agree that there are things you say you believe you know for sure?" 

 

I'm not sure 'believe' is the best word. I'd say there are things that I accept are true, with a high level of confidence. For example, if I were to drink a whole 750 ml bottle of whisky, I'm very confident I would get drunk. However, I wouldn't be totally, 100% sure, because there's a remote possibility that the bottle of whisky could be a fake with a very low alcohol content. ????
 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

21 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll need to address this in a separate post.

The sky is blue.  That statement is not a statement rooted in bias.  It's a statement which accurately reflects current reality.  Am I biased in my posts about Trump or am I accurately reflecting current reality?

If you want to take that question further I suggest we do that via PM.  I would be more than happy to enlighten.

Whether it is about religion or politics I judge someone on what they actually say and do and if they are in reality helping their flock.

I appreciate that all politicians are flawed - stories recently about the massive covid support fraud because of inadequate government systems shows that no one is focussed on the right things.

But there's flawed and then there's actual selfish efforts that can be a threat to democracy.

This is best addressed in the news forum. Some of those guys can probably make better arguments about this than my good self as they have done more research. I'll be happy to see you debate with them.

[VincentRJ]

23 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

The sky is blue.  That statement is not a statement rooted in bias.  It's a statement which accurately reflects current reality. 

This is an excellent example of the imprecision in the use of common words. I'm sure you've heard the expression, 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.

 

This is especially true for the perception of colour, which is always in the eye of the beholder. All objects absorb and reflect certain 'wave/particles' of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, of which light is a part. Each clolour is associated with a specific wave length, ranging from the human experience of 'red', which is associated with a comparatively long wave, to violet, which is associated with a comparatively short wave, within the visible spectrum.

 

Most people would agree that a leaf is green. However, in reality the leaf has no colour. The leaf simply reflects a particular wave length of light which produces a sensation in the human mind that we describe as 'green'.

 

The sky appears blue during the day when the sun is higher in the sky because the shorter wavelenths of light get scattered the most by the air molecules. However, when the sun is low on the horizon, the light takes a longer path through the atmosphere to the observer, and much of the shorter waves are scattered out of sight, resulting in the longer waves, which we experience as red and orange, becoming more prominent.

 

Got it? ????
 

[mauGR1]

23 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

This is an excellent example of the imprecision in the use of common words. I'm sure you've heard the expression, 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.

 

This is especially true for the perception of colour, which is always in the eye of the beholder. All objects absorb and reflect certain 'wave/particles' of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, of which light is a part. Each clolour is associated with a specific wave length, ranging from the human experience of 'red', which is associated with a comparatively long wave, to violet, which is associated with a comparatively short wave, within the visible spectrum.

 

Most people would agree that a leaf is green. However, in reality the leaf has no colour. The leaf simply reflects a particular wave length of light which produces a sensation in the human mind that we describe as 'green'.

 

The sky appears blue during the day when the sun is higher in the sky because the shorter wavelenths of light get scattered the most by the air molecules. However, when the sun is low on the horizon, the light takes a longer path through the atmosphere to the observer, and much of the shorter waves are scattered out of sight, resulting in the longer waves, which we experience as red and orange, becoming more prominent.

 

Got it? ????
 

Your post only proves that humans can only perceive a part of which is called reality, and science is the result of the observation of a tiny fraction of everything which surrounds us.

@Tippaporn was just pointing to a common perception that we have as humans with human eyes, human brain etc.

If 3 persons look at a blue sky, they will indeed agree that the sky is blue, but their perception, and the thoughts which derive from that perception can be totally different. 

That's is a living evidence of the fact that the physical body is just a vehicle, for the souls to experience the physical reality which is limited to our limited physical senses. 

However the souls are able, in various ways, to develop other tools of perception which are not limited to the physical world.

It's about expanding consciousness. 

Got it ?????

[ozimoron]

It's sad that people have the intellect to philosophize they use it to fantasize instead.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's sad that people have the intellect to philosophize they use it to fantasize instead.

I used to be sad for people who disregard imagination, which is perhaps the best gift we have as humans, if we make a comparison with the boring life of animals. 

However, i think that everyone has the right to live their life as they wish, so I'm not sad, as being sad for too long is too sad ????

[Tippaporn]

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

Whether it is about religion or politics I judge someone on what they actually say and do and if they are in reality helping their flock.

I appreciate that all politicians are flawed - stories recently about the massive covid support fraud because of inadequate government systems shows that no one is focussed on the right things.

But there's flawed and then there's actual selfish efforts that can be a threat to democracy.

This is best addressed in the news forum. Some of those guys can probably make better arguments about this than my good self as they have done more research. I'll be happy to see you debate with them.

"I'll be happy to see you debate with them."

Answer me this riddle:  How do you debate without a free flow of information?

Here's another riddle:  How is it possible for someone to reach a correct conclusion when they do not look at all of the available information?

And just a simple question:  What is propaganda?

I'll add a bonus question:  How capable are you at recognising propaganda?

All of the above can apply to this topic as well.

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Tippaporn

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

"I'll be happy to see you debate with them."

Answer me this riddle:  How do you debate without a free flow of information?

Here's another riddle:  How is it possible for someone to reach a correct conclusion when they do not look at all of the available information?

And just a simple question:  What is propaganda?

I'll add a bonus question:  How capable are you at recognising propaganda?

All of the above can apply to this topic as well.

 

Perhaps, due to the fact that spirituality is nowadays so underrated, and even ridiculed, there is more freedom of expression on this topic than other ones.

Just saying ????

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps, due to the fact that spirituality is nowadays so underrated, and even ridiculed, there is more freedom of expression on this topic than other ones.

Just saying ????

People retaliate when they feel threatened.  There are too many reports to list of the attacks on Christianity.  Spirituality?  Nah.  Not a threat.  We're good.

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Tippaporn

[mikebike]

27 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

There are too many reports to list of the attacks on Christianity.

Please do elaborate... Currently? Historically? Verbal? Physical?

 

Really not sure what u r on about.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

Please do elaborate... Currently? Historically? Verbal? Physical?

 

Really not sure what u r on about.

Take your pick, dude.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Church+burned&atb=v314-1&ia=web

It's too easy to find info.  I do know what you're on about.

[Tippaporn]

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The concepts of 'reason' and 'purpose' are human constructs and thought processes.  We use our capacity for 'reason' to determine what was the cause of an accident, for example, or the causes of 'changes in climate'.

 

'Purpose' is a quality that is fundamental to all life, even plants and trees.. The inanimate asteroid that hit the Earth about 65 million years ago and destroyed the dinosaurs, according to the application of science and reason, did not have a purpose. An asteroid is not a living organism.

 

Regarding your example of the car sliding on an icy road into another car. The application of reason determines that the cause of the accident was a patch of ice on the road which prevented the brakes from being effective.. Perhaps the car in front had stopped at traffic lights and the car behind was going too fast for the conditions and wasn't able to stop quickly enough because of the ice.

 

However, accidents have a cause, but not a purpose. If you want to attribute a purpose to the accident then you would have to describe it as an 'apparent' accident that was done intentionally. Perhaps the driver of the car behind was following the car in front and intended to smash into the car, using the icy road as an excuse.

"The concepts of 'reason' and 'purpose' are human constructs and thought processes."

One of the worst aspects of science, in my opinion, is given in your statement.  You don't believe in reasons for being or, I suspect, any purpose to life.  Only cause and effect.  The world you describe is sterile.  Lifeless.  We're only here to breed?  Is that it?  Really?

Reason and purpose are found everywhere.  How is it that you're able to blind yourself from such obviousness?  Tell me honestly that all of the actions you take in life are for no reason and serve no purpose to you.  What, are they all random?

The "accident" in which the guy who slid into the car in front of him caused him to miss his plane.  Later that evening he learned the plane went down and all aboard died.  I already know how you'll respond.  That's not "proof" that the accident spared his life and so served a purpose for him.  What an outlandish idea!

There's so much more to life than you are willing to admit.  Sometimes I get the feeling that your myopic views are meant to keep you safe from exploring the vast unknown.

"An asteroid is not a living organism."
 

Energy: Energy is the basis of the Universe.

 

The same "stuff" that we are composed of is the same "stuff" the asteroid  is composed of.  There is nothing which exists which is "dead."  Only to your current awareness, though.  Attempting to personify that form of life would be a mistake.  What's the reality of a virus like?  A cell?  An asteroid?

[Tippaporn]

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

  

On 8/23/2022 at 9:27 AM, Tippaporn said:

In other words, would it be fair to say that, in practicality, there is much that you have an opinion or belief about as to it's truth despite the fact that science has yet to prove it?

I can't think of anything I believe that is true that cannot be confirmed by science., which is why I am an Atheist. However, there are certain basic issues that don't require scientific confirmation. For example, humans have understood for ages, before the scientific method evolved, that sticking one's hand in a fire would cause extreme pain and damage. There are many other examples, such as jumping off a tall cliff onto the hard ground below, as opposed to jumping onto an ocean or lake.

 

"My point is that everyone harbours as-yet-unproven-by-science beliefs about most everything; with many of those beliefs personally accepted as being true." 

 

Not everyone.

 

"Would you agree that there are things you say you believe you know for sure?" 

 

I'm not sure 'believe' is the best word. I'd say there are things that I accept are true, with a high level of confidence. For example, if I were to drink a whole 750 ml bottle of whisky, I'm very confident I would get drunk. However, I wouldn't be totally, 100% sure, because there's a remote possibility that the bottle of whisky could be a fake with a very low alcohol content. ????
 

"I can't think of anything I believe that is true that cannot be confirmed by science., . . . "

 

That statement is so fantastically unbelievable that I truly don't know how to respond.

"Not everyone."

I can only conclude that a) you're not human or 2) I'll bite my tongue.

While we are all absolutely unique we do share commonalities.  Physical traits such as a body, a heart, a lung.  Those kinds of things.  Psychological traits would be feelings, imagination, creativity . . . thoughts.  The definition of a belief is a thought that is much repeated.  Are you trying to convince me that every single belief you hold is confirmed by science?

Excuse me but I have to pick my jaw off the floor right now.

[mauGR1]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The same "stuff" that we are composed of is the same "stuff" the asteroid  is composed of.  There is nothing which exists which is "dead."  Only to your current awareness, though.  Attempting to personify that form of life would be a mistake.  What's the reality of a virus like?  A cell?  An asteroid?

Fair questions, it's really difficult to understand why people who claim to have a "scientific mind" can claim that consciousness belongs only to humans. 

Consciousness is everywhere imho, inside and outside ourselves, and surely we are able to explore and enjoy different levels or stages of it.

[Hummin]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I used to be sad for people who disregard imagination, which is perhaps the best gift we have as humans, if we make a comparison with the boring life of animals. 

????

How do you know all animals have a boring life? If any of them have time to be bored at all?

 

Do not animals have a soul? Animals have language, fantasy, are creative, populate, have culture, singing, trade, 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

How do you know all animals have a boring life? If any of them have time to be bored at all?

 

Do not animals have a soul? Animals have language, fantasy, are creative, populate, have culture, singing, trade, 

Well, the natural world is in front of you, and you can see it in the way that's more convenient to you.

Yes, animals can do wonderful things, but they are more limited than humans. 

Of course, everything is relative, a life as a dog is surely less boring than a life as a worm.

I have never met a person who wish to be re-born as an animal though. 

As for the soul of animals, I've tried for 2/3 years to explain that they are a "collective soul", in opposition to humans being " individual souls " but i guess that you're not ready to understand the concept ????

[Tippaporn]

19 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, the natural world is in front of you, and you can see it in the way that's more convenient to you.

Yes, animals can do wonderful things, but they are more limited than humans. 

Of course, everything is relative, a life as a dog is surely less boring than a life as a worm.

I have never met a person who wish to be re-born as an animal though. 

As for the soul of animals, I've tried for 2/3 years to explain that they are a "collective soul", in opposition to humans being " individual souls " but i guess that you're not ready to understand the concept ????

I'd have to disagree with you, mauGR1.

Life is, basically, an expression of who we are.  The form we take is neither here nor there.  Human, animal, plant, whatever.  Life is also about value fulfillment.  Each creature, each life form, seeks it's own value fulfillment.  Each life form finds within it's own environment everything it needs to fulfill itself according to it's own unique characteristics.  One life form is neither higher or lower than another in terms of expression.

A soul is gestalt consciousness.  From that gestalt all life forms emerge.  The greater you sends out portions of itself.  These portions are individualised and each is eternally valid and free to pursue it's own fulfillment.  Therefore there is no collective soul versus an individual soul.

When you consider another creature's life as boring it is only from your perspective.

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Tippaporn

[Hummin]

15 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, the natural world is in front of you, and you can see it in the way that's more convenient to you.

Yes, animals can do wonderful things, but they are more limited than humans. 

Of course, everything is relative, a life as a dog is surely less boring than a life as a worm.

I have never met a person who wish to be re-born as an animal though. 

As for the soul of animals, I've tried for 2/3 years to explain that they are a "collective soul", in opposition to humans being " individual souls " but i guess that you're not ready to understand the concept ????

Nothing about me not being ready to see, nice try thow, but its more about your limited created reality. 
 

If humans was not bored, we would not been here, or made social media more wealth and have more power than any organization existed without so much as a blood drop  shed. 
 

We have given them control  businesses, politicians, countries, and each and one of us. Poor souls who never learn from past are we?7
 

 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

When you consider another creature's life as boring it is only from your perspective.

 

That's true, and i am sure that my life too is boring from many other perspectives. 

However,  hierarchies exist, so let's agree to disagree. 

You can learn many things from a dog, or a butterfly, even from a drop of rain, but you don't spend hours debating with them, do you?

[Hummin]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'd have to disagree with you, mauGR1.

Life is, basically, an expression of who we are.  The form we take is neither here nor there.  Human, animal, plant, whatever.  Life is also about value fulfillment.  Each creature, each life form, seeks it's own value fulfillment.  Each life form finds within it's own environment everything it needs to fulfill itself according to it's own unique characteristics.  One life form is neither higher or lower than another in terms of expression.

A soul is gestalt consciousness.  From that gestalt all life forms emerge.  The greater you sends out portions of itself.  These portions are individualised and each is eternally valid and free to pursue it's own fulfillment.  Therefore there is no collective soul versus an individual soul.

When you consider another creature's life as boring it is only from your perspective.

 

I like the idea where there is no discrimination, and we are all one, and equally important and have an function on this planet. 
 

I kind of dislike the superior idea and mislead to believe we are more worth, which is an human idea and a religious idea abused to long now, and we see the results of this idea as we coming to our end of our superior area. 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Nothing about me not being ready to see, nice try thow, but its more about your limited created reality. 
 

If humans was not bored, we would not been here, or made social media more wealth and have more power than any organization existed without so much as a blood drop  shed. 
 

We have given them control  businesses, politicians, countries, and each and one of us. Poor souls who never learn from past are we?7
 

 

When i talk about human creativity, of course i don't think about all the human miseries that you know so well.

I'm thinking more of human imagination who created amazing technology, i think about Michelangelo's paintings, Mozart's music, or the architects of angkor wat.

It's true as Oscar Wilde said." "We have our feet in the mud, but look at the stars ! "

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's true, and i am sure that my life too is boring from many other perspectives. 

However,  hierarchies exist, so let's agree to disagree. 

You can learn many things from a dog, or a butterfly, even from a drop of rain, but you don't spend hours debating with them, do you?

"However,  hierarchies exist, . . . "

No pecking orders.  No top to bottom or bottom to top.  Does the fact that different roles are played amongst group member give the impression that hierarchy is the absolute structure within all existence?

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I like the idea where there is no discrimination, and we are all one, and equally important and have an function on this planet. 
 

I kind of dislike the superior idea and mislead to believe we are more worth, which is an human idea and a religious idea abused to long now, and we see the results of this idea as we coming to our end of our superior area. 

You hit the nail on the head, Hummin.  Each and every indivualised part of creation is as vital to creation as each and every other individualised part.  A king is no more worthy or profound than a beggar.

[VincentRJ]

58 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

"I can't think of anything I believe that is true that cannot be confirmed by science., . . . "

 

That statement is so fantastically unbelievable that I truly don't know how to respond.
 

I'll advise you how you can respond. Use your imagination and give me some examples of concepts that you think I might believe in, that can't be validated by science. I can't think of any, but maybe I'm missing something. Maybe you can enlighten me by providing an example of a belief I hold, that I missed. ????

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

I'll advise you how you can respond. Use your imagination and give me some examples of concepts that you think I might believe in, that can't be validated by science. I can't think of any, but maybe I'm missing something. Maybe you can enlighten me by providing an example of a belief I hold, that I missed. ????

Easy.  What is your belief about death?  We know science hasn't proven that one.  But assuredly you have your own belief about what becomes of you, or not, at that moment.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

"However,  hierarchies exist, . . . "

No pecking orders.  No top to bottom or bottom to top.  Does the fact that different roles are played amongst group member give the impression that hierarchy is the absolute structure within all existence?

Did i say that hierarchy is "a absolute structure ".

No, i didn't. 

A higher consciousness implies a higher responsibility. 

You have the power to make the world a better, or a worse place to live, more power than a bird or an elephant. 

Mother earth has the power of making life possible or impossible, the sun as well, just to mention the most obvious, so why deny hierarchies?

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You hit the nail on the head, Hummin.  Each and every indivualised part of creation is as vital to creation as each and every other individualised part.  A king is no more worthy or profound than a beggar.

Both of you have completely missed my point.

[Hummin]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

When i talk about human creativity, of course i don't think about all the human miseries that you know so well.

I'm thinking more of human imagination who created amazing technology, i think about Michelangelo's paintings, Mozart's music, or the architects of angkor wat.

It's true as Oscar Wilde said." "We have our feet in the mud, but look at the stars ! "

You forgot the pyramids ☝️????

 

We have been through all this before 10 000 posts behind. Animals design, create, and do complex structures that make the pyramids in shame, and also beautiful art because they have time and trying to attract each other. How do we know they do not have their kind of Mozart? 
 

If you only look at the stars when stuck in mud, I understand you missing out the beautiful happenings around you ????

 

If your only measure of the world is as you see it, then,,,,,,,,, I understand. I believe you have said  similar about your imaginary world to many times now to quite a few who have replied to your posts who do not see it from your point of view. 
 

What do we really see, feel and understand? Thats the question, and how do each and one of us experience it? 
 

Thats why we have leaders to guide us, hopefully for our best

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Did i say that hierarchy is "a absolute structure ".

No, i didn't. 

A higher consciousness implies a higher responsibility. 

You have the power to make the world a better, or a worse place to live, more power than a bird or an elephant. 

Mother earth has the power of making life possible or impossible, the sun as well, just to mention the most obvious, so why deny hierarchies?

For how long did humans really had this power to control the environment around themself? 
 

Or is the problem carbon dating to give an exact dating of humans in comparison to life on planet earth?

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

What do we really see, feel and understand? Thats the question, and how do each and one of us experience it? 

That's what I'm I'm trying to find out, observing nature, thinking, reading and thinking again, and writing and reading posts on this thread.

Sometimes I meet strangers in real life who i can have some meaningful conversation, but it doesn't happen often enough. 

I think that observing animals is an easy way to understand different stages of consciousness, and i consider them my little brothers. 

But, of course, maybe you know better.