Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

17 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You are really blowing this out of proportion, and it is new to me. But just immediately I could reason why it is a theoretical possibility, as well when I read the science behind it, I still see it as an possibility, but needs further proves. 

 

Im  not sure what you reading or how you understand the real project behind the evidences, but I read only there is a possible connection, not any absolute science proof. Popular science magazines or tabloid newspapers, might word their headings and introduction to sound like solid evidences found in connection to hearth attacks.

 

I do not see any controversy by keep an open mind, after all it is electricity impulses. After all reckon everything you want us to believe, this is the least magical incidence I can think of, that can influence our lives here on earth in more ways than we want to believe.

Well, Hummin, maybe I am.  And if so then my apologies.

I've become thoroughly disillusioned with science these days, especially since Covid.  Science has turned a very dark corner on that count.  My disillusionment with science has equaled my disillusionment with organsied religion.  And despite that I do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  I remain an ardent proponent of true science.  And my gratefulness of science's accomplishments and it's advances in many areas of life is undiminished.  When I popped a fingernail science was there to put me on the mend.  When I caught a case of the shingles science was there to arrest it.  I never attempt to negate those things simply because I see science's flaws at the same time.

 

All the same, I still think the tweet I put up is spot on in it's portrayal of the current state of science.  Too much tabloid science where even reading the headline is too much.

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Well, Hummin, maybe I am.  And if so then my apologies.

I've become thoroughly disillusioned with science these days, especially since Covid.  Science has turned a very dark corner on that count.  My disillusionment with science has equaled my disillusionment with organsied religion.  And despite that I do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  I remain an ardent proponent of true science.  And my gratefulness of science's accomplishments and it's advances in many areas of life is undiminished.  When I popped a fingernail science was there to put me on the mend.  When I caught a case of the shingles science was there to arrest it.  I never attempt to negate those things simply because I see science's flaws at the same time.

 

All the same, I still think the tweet I put up is spot on in it's portrayal of the current state of science.  Too much tabloid science where even reading the headline is too much.

Tabloid science is not the scientists fault! There is a problem when cooperates only sponsor science, and not operate independently away from politicians and those who want design science for the moment of benefits. But as one already pointed out, false science will always be discovered and replaced. 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Woof999 said:

Here you have made a personal belief and stated it as fact. Let me for now term that as a personal fact.

 

 

...and here you use that personal fact to help shape your opinion on someone who might not hold the same beliefs as you.

 

Science does not ignore anything. It seeks to find answers, but it seeks to find them within a framework that can be measured, tested, peer reviewed and found to provide consistent results. Right now it struggles (to say the least) to do that in areas that you might call spiritual, but there again perhaps it has not discovered the tools it needs to do that work. The atom was first hypothesised more than 2000 years ago and then proved around 200 years ago. Since then, through science, we've discovered the building blocks of the atom and then the building blocks of those building blocks.

 

It is thought that homo sapiens have existed for around 200,000 years. The idea of continental drift which led to the discovery of tectonic plates only cropped up around 100 years ago. So for 99.95% of the existence of man, we had no idea of the cause of one of nature's most destructive forces. For much of that time it was widely believe that it was (a) god's display of anger.

 

Science has led us to amazing new discoveries. it has changed our lives for the better (arguably) immeasurably just in the last 20 years, even in the last 5 years. It has led us down some false paths too, but it cannot tell lies for eternity because the very foundation of its framework would make that nigh on impossible. Sure some people in a position of power have used the discoveries of science for evil, but that does not make science wrong, or evil itself.

 

I honestly believe that many people who deem themselves to be spiritual have a total fear of science, lest one day science proves their whole belief system wrong. It might also prove it right, perhaps spot on.

 

TLDR; Embrace science as it might well deliver you the proof needed to convince the non-believers. If that's not something you feel you would ever need/want to do, then why discuss at all?

 

Sorry Woof.  My memory isn't that short.

[Purdey]

On 3/1/2023 at 4:09 PM, Tippaporn said:

Correction:  There is no proof which is acceptable to you.  If you want to crown yourself sole arbitor of what is proof and what is not then you are out of your purview.  And your self appointed authority carries no  recognisable weight.

 

Now if you attempt to  defend your belief that proof must meet your standard of proof before it can be considered proof by citing the scientific method then you believe in a fallacy.  The scientific method can only be applied to the ojective universe.  It is utterly useless when dealing with subjective reality.  Your scientific gadgetry can never find the soul within the brain.

 

Or would you be so brash and foolish as to deny sujective reality any true validity?  Making such a claim would truly be what you call fanciful and more than slightly cracked.

Just to be clear, the onus is never on someone proving something doesn't exist! The onus is always on the person who claims it exists. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Science cannot prove that which is not there. Therefore, I cannot prove purple elephants exist.

Anyway, I don't intend to convince you to change your mind. Please continue to believe in gods if you will. I will explain what I know and believe (or not). The topic is 'do you believe in god and why.' I am just going to show why i don't believe in god(s) with evidence for why I don't believe.

First off, I am not sure which of the 4,200 world religions you believe in as the "right one." 

A Perfect Abrahamic God? 

if god is perfect, why did he create us and many other living creatures so poorly? For instance, so many diseases, our bones break easily, and as we get older our bodies and minds break down. Poorly-made spines, inflexible knees, and pelvic bones that make childbirth difficult and painful for women. Thus perfect design is nonsense. We can't live our lives hoping that one day an explanation for why our eyes or shoulders were designed so poorly will arise. The eye is often used as an example of intelligent design, which doesn't explain shortsightedness or kids born blind.

History is proving that religions are wrong about several things.

The Bible claims the world was created 6,000 years ago. Actually, the Bible never specifically states 6,000 years. Some Christians insist it is true though. We know through science it is 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years. Forms of absolute dating exist such as thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, etc. We find rocks all the time that are dated as millions or even billions of years old. Doesn't this conflict with the belief that the universe was recently created by a god? We now know also that the universe doesn't move around the Earth (Copernicus et al) .

Religion has often been used to explain the inexplicable. The Greeks used Poseidon to explain how earthquakes happen, which we now know is due to the movement of tectonic plates to relieve pressure. God didn't cause the recent Turkish earthquakes and - and to me this is strange as most religions believe disasters are god's punishment for something - yet no Muslim suggests he did.

Abortion

Christian fundamentalists argue that abortion is against god, yet Jews vehemently do not agree and argue you cannot ban abortion because there is nothing about fetuses being people in the Torah. Just water. The same god but opposing views. Furthermore, god aborted millions of fetuses during the Great Flood by killing all pregnant women, if you believe ancient scripture. 

Everyone agrees with you

You could state that the millions of religious people proves that there is a consensus that god exists. But which god? Yahweh (was married to Asteroth, but not now), Kwaku Ananse, Altjira, Quetzalcoatl, Ahura Mazda, Thor, Zoroaster, Anubis, Zeus? Do you believe in Quetzalcoatl or is it the place of your birth that governs your religion? And no, you don't have genetic memory of a whole religion.

So, if god exists, which god? Are you afraid of following the wrong god and going to Hades?

The Bible was written by god, or by people following god's will

It comes from a mishmash of older sources (Google is your friend, find out). Ideas were taken wholesale from older religions. The original sin was knowledge, given in the account of the Fall of mankind (Genesis 3). There is an older Greek legend, Pandora’s Box, that appears to attest to the same historical event. Both stories tell how the first woman unleashed sin, sickness, and suffering upon the world which had been, up to that point, a paradise. Both stories end with the emergence of hope, hope in a promised Redeemer in the case of Genesis.

Contradictions

A book essentially written by god or through his guidance cannot contradict itself. I cannot believe in a god of contradictions. Yet contradictions start in the opening chapters of the Bible, where inconsistent creation stories are told. Genesis chapter 1 says the first man and woman were made at the same time, and after the animals. But Genesis chapter 2 gives a different order of creation: man, then the animals, and then woman.

Genesis 1:2-3 claims that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day; but Genesis 1:14-19 tells us the sun, moon, and stars weren’t made until the fourth day.

Genesis 1:20 says the fowl were created out of the waters; Genesis 2:19 alleges they were formed from the ground.

Genesis 6:19-22, God ordered Noah to bring “of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort . . . into the ark.” Genesis 7:2-3 relates that the Lord ordered Noah to take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens, and only the unclean beasts by twos. There are many other problems in the Old Testament.

Matthew 2:13-15 said Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt with Jesus immediately after the wise men from the east had brought gifts. But Luke 2:22-40 claims that after the birth of Jesus, his parents remained in Bethlehem 40 days, then went to Jerusalem “to present him to the Lord,” and then returned to their home in Nazareth. Luke mentions no journey into Egypt or visit by wise men from the east.

John 19:17 recounts that Jesus carried his own cross. But Mark 15:21-23 disagrees by saying a man called Simon carried the cross.

Who created evil?

Isaiah 45:7: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

Is Satan evil?

In the whole Bible, Satan killed just 10 people while god killed millions. Satan killed the seven sons and three daughters of Job, and God only allowed it as part of a bet. (Job 1:12–19)

Also, Satan's job is to torture (only) bad people in hell. Doesn't that make him a good guy?

Omniscience

If God knows everything that has happened and will happen, as well as every thought your mind creates before you think it, your future is a foregone conclusion. What happened to free will?

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. If God can do anything, he should be able to, for instance, draw a square circle. He cannot  know and not know something simultaneously. Why does a loving god know and yet allow natural disasters, massacres, and wars?

Afterlife

This is very subjective. Spiritual entities such as gods, devils, heaven, hell, angels, demons, and so on have never been (and cannot be) scientifically examined or observed. These spiritual features cannot be proven to exist if they are not observable and measurable.

What happens after death? Catholics get individual judgement, sometimes called particular judgement, at the moment of death when each individual will be judged on how they have lived their life. Hindus believe in reincarnation, with souls receiving a new body and life, depending on Karma, good and bad actions in a previous life. As in Buddhism, the goal is to be liberated from the cycle and to attain reunion with Brahman (Hindu) or Nirvana (Buddhist). Muslim beliefs are similar to many Christians. After physical death, the soul lives on to await Judgement Day and whether it will go to Paradise or Hell. Hey! Wait a minute - why are some judged immediately but others wait for judgement day? The Bible says there will be a judgement day so why are some people getting judged upon death? It is as if no one agrees on the same ideas. So, scratch that. We die, we are dead.

Is god good?

I agree with the outrage of Stephen Fry on this topic so I suggest you listen to him. He is talking in Catholic Ireland.

 

I do have several copies of the Bible and appreciate the poetry of the King James version.

 

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1 Corinthians 13

 

[Sunmaster]

7 hours ago, Purdey said:

Just to be clear, the onus is never on someone proving something doesn't exist! The onus is always on the person who claims it exists. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Science cannot prove that which is not there. Therefore, I cannot prove purple elephants exist.

Anyway, I don't intend to convince you to change your mind. Please continue to believe in gods if you will. I will explain what I know and believe (or not). The topic is 'do you believe in god and why.' I am just going to show why i don't believe in god(s) with evidence for why I don't believe.

First off, I am not sure which of the 4,200 world religions you believe in as the "right one." 

A Perfect Abrahamic God? 

if god is perfect, why did he create us and many other living creatures so poorly? For instance, so many diseases, our bones break easily, and as we get older our bodies and minds break down. Poorly-made spines, inflexible knees, and pelvic bones that make childbirth difficult and painful for women. Thus perfect design is nonsense. We can't live our lives hoping that one day an explanation for why our eyes or shoulders were designed so poorly will arise. The eye is often used as an example of intelligent design, which doesn't explain shortsightedness or kids born blind.

History is proving that religions are wrong about several things.

The Bible claims the world was created 6,000 years ago. Actually, the Bible never specifically states 6,000 years. Some Christians insist it is true though. We know through science it is 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years. Forms of absolute dating exist such as thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, etc. We find rocks all the time that are dated as millions or even billions of years old. Doesn't this conflict with the belief that the universe was recently created by a god? We now know also that the universe doesn't move around the Earth (Copernicus et al) .

Religion has often been used to explain the inexplicable. The Greeks used Poseidon to explain how earthquakes happen, which we now know is due to the movement of tectonic plates to relieve pressure. God didn't cause the recent Turkish earthquakes and - and to me this is strange as most religions believe disasters are god's punishment for something - yet no Muslim suggests he did.

Abortion

Christian fundamentalists argue that abortion is against god, yet Jews vehemently do not agree and argue you cannot ban abortion because there is nothing about fetuses being people in the Torah. Just water. The same god but opposing views. Furthermore, god aborted millions of fetuses during the Great Flood by killing all pregnant women, if you believe ancient scripture. 

Everyone agrees with you

You could state that the millions of religious people proves that there is a consensus that god exists. But which god? Yahweh (was married to Asteroth, but not now), Kwaku Ananse, Altjira, Quetzalcoatl, Ahura Mazda, Thor, Zoroaster, Anubis, Zeus? Do you believe in Quetzalcoatl or is it the place of your birth that governs your religion? And no, you don't have genetic memory of a whole religion.

So, if god exists, which god? Are you afraid of following the wrong god and going to Hades?

The Bible was written by god, or by people following god's will

It comes from a mishmash of older sources (Google is your friend, find out). Ideas were taken wholesale from older religions. The original sin was knowledge, given in the account of the Fall of mankind (Genesis 3). There is an older Greek legend, Pandora’s Box, that appears to attest to the same historical event. Both stories tell how the first woman unleashed sin, sickness, and suffering upon the world which had been, up to that point, a paradise. Both stories end with the emergence of hope, hope in a promised Redeemer in the case of Genesis.

Contradictions

A book essentially written by god or through his guidance cannot contradict itself. I cannot believe in a god of contradictions. Yet contradictions start in the opening chapters of the Bible, where inconsistent creation stories are told. Genesis chapter 1 says the first man and woman were made at the same time, and after the animals. But Genesis chapter 2 gives a different order of creation: man, then the animals, and then woman.

Genesis 1:2-3 claims that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day; but Genesis 1:14-19 tells us the sun, moon, and stars weren’t made until the fourth day.

Genesis 1:20 says the fowl were created out of the waters; Genesis 2:19 alleges they were formed from the ground.

Genesis 6:19-22, God ordered Noah to bring “of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort . . . into the ark.” Genesis 7:2-3 relates that the Lord ordered Noah to take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens, and only the unclean beasts by twos. There are many other problems in the Old Testament.

Matthew 2:13-15 said Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt with Jesus immediately after the wise men from the east had brought gifts. But Luke 2:22-40 claims that after the birth of Jesus, his parents remained in Bethlehem 40 days, then went to Jerusalem “to present him to the Lord,” and then returned to their home in Nazareth. Luke mentions no journey into Egypt or visit by wise men from the east.

John 19:17 recounts that Jesus carried his own cross. But Mark 15:21-23 disagrees by saying a man called Simon carried the cross.

Who created evil?

Isaiah 45:7: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

Is Satan evil?

In the whole Bible, Satan killed just 10 people while god killed millions. Satan killed the seven sons and three daughters of Job, and God only allowed it as part of a bet. (Job 1:12–19)

Also, Satan's job is to torture (only) bad people in hell. Doesn't that make him a good guy?

Omniscience

If God knows everything that has happened and will happen, as well as every thought your mind creates before you think it, your future is a foregone conclusion. What happened to free will?

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. If God can do anything, he should be able to, for instance, draw a square circle. He cannot  know and not know something simultaneously. Why does a loving god know and yet allow natural disasters, massacres, and wars?

Afterlife

This is very subjective. Spiritual entities such as gods, devils, heaven, hell, angels, demons, and so on have never been (and cannot be) scientifically examined or observed. These spiritual features cannot be proven to exist if they are not observable and measurable.

What happens after death? Catholics get individual judgement, sometimes called particular judgement, at the moment of death when each individual will be judged on how they have lived their life. Hindus believe in reincarnation, with souls receiving a new body and life, depending on Karma, good and bad actions in a previous life. As in Buddhism, the goal is to be liberated from the cycle and to attain reunion with Brahman (Hindu) or Nirvana (Buddhist). Muslim beliefs are similar to many Christians. After physical death, the soul lives on to await Judgement Day and whether it will go to Paradise or Hell. Hey! Wait a minute - why are some judged immediately but others wait for judgement day? The Bible says there will be a judgement day so why are some people getting judged upon death? It is as if no one agrees on the same ideas. So, scratch that. We die, we are dead.

Is god good?

I agree with the outrage of Stephen Fry on this topic so I suggest you listen to him. He is talking in Catholic Ireland.

 

I do have several copies of the Bible and appreciate the poetry of the King James version.

 

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1 Corinthians 13

 

Aaaaand still talking about religion. The only thing missing is a quote from Richard Dawkins and a video from Ricky Gervais. ????

[mauGR1]

7 hours ago, Purdey said:

 

 

 

 

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1 Corinthians 13

 

Good post, most of the points would deserve a lengthy discussion, but let's say that the old testament is open to many interpretations, and surely it has been corrupted and wrongly translated in the millennia, some parts even totally omitted, because not functional with the narrative of the empires.

Imho, tales like the great flood are oral traditions antecedent to the script, and apparently all the populations of the new and the old world share similar stories.

Even Tolkien mentions a sunken continent in his interpretation of ancient northern legends.

Strange ruins around the world have possibly survived huge cataclysmic events.

Recently , theories about the ancient gods being in fact visitors from space abound, and some even say they could have been visitors from the future, or parallel universes. Some even swear that the " visitors from space" are already here, and have been here a long time.

Well, other people believe everything they see on the tv, and that's worrying me, and I'm afraid that all this sophisticated technology is drastically, too drastically altering our lifestyle. 

I think that belief in a creator god is not more silly than belief in the big bang.

[Sunmaster]

I once went to a supermarket to buy a jar of strawberry jam. There were many brands on display and I went for an American brand. I chose that because it said "Number 1 in USA". Yes, I fell for this little bit of false advertising and it was the worst thing I tasted in a long time. Highly processed with seemingly no trace of real fruit. 

According to some people's "logic", I should have deduced that all jams are as bad and that all jam manufacturers lie about their product. I should have also deduced that strawberries (the actual berries) taste like <deleted> and I should make it my mission to warn everybody not to eat strawberries.

 

I prefer to go to the farmer myself, pick the best strawberries and make my own delicious jam. I KNOW where the fruit comes from, I KNOW that the fruit will be of the highest quality and I KNOW all the ingredients in that jam. 

 

Now, if it wasn't clear enough, the American jam represents (a) religion. Some people might like it that way, but it's not my taste. Different brands are different religions, some are better than others. The farmer represents the Source. Why settle for some foul tasting artificial product, when you can cut out the middleman (who's in it for financial profit) and go to the Source directly?

 

Stop complaining about the low quality products and make your own jam!

 

 

[Hummin]

9 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I once went to a supermarket to buy a jar of strawberry jam. There were many brands on display and I went for an American brand. I chose that because it said "Number 1 in USA". Yes, I fell for this little bit of false advertising and it was the worst thing I tasted in a long time. Highly processed with seemingly no trace of real fruit. 

According to some people's "logic", I should have deduced that all jams are as bad and that all jam manufacturers lie about their product. I should have also deduced that strawberries (the actual berries) taste like <deleted> and I should make it my mission to warn everybody not to eat strawberries.

 

I prefer to go to the farmer myself, pick the best strawberries and make my own delicious jam. I KNOW where the fruit comes from, I KNOW that the fruit will be of the highest quality and I KNOW all the ingredients in that jam. 

 

Now, if it wasn't clear enough, the American jam represents (a) religion. Some people might like it that way, but it's not my taste. Different brands are different religions, some are better than others. The farmer represents the Source. Why settle for some foul tasting artificial product, when you can cut out the middleman (who's in it for financial profit) and go to the Source directly?

 

Stop complaining about the low quality products and make your own jam!

 

 

Indeed, that's why I go in to the Nature as often I can, and not out to the Nature if that makes sense in any way?

 

I be in the Nature not out in the Nature

Edited March 3, 2023 by Hummin

[save the frogs]

22 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Now the above should provide you with the answer to your two questions.  But just in case then I'll state unequivocally that we do survive the death of our corporeal form.  Consciousness is independent of form.  And consciousness is eternal.

it's certainly possible, and maybe even probable, but it would be nice to have some evidence. 

 

[save the frogs]

16 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I'd love to see a study on how many hearts are stopped every year due to breakups in relationships. 

I thought I was having a heart attack once.

Went to the emergency room.

Female doctor said everything is fine and asked if I had love issues. 

Which I did.

Scientists have told us that the heart is a pump.

But maybe it's a second brain of sorts ... it has something that science has yet to discover. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by save the frogs

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

Scientists have told is that the heart is a pump.

But maybe it's a second brain of sorts ... it has something that science has yet to discover. 

Yes, that's interesting, I've been reading, unfortunately without much attention, a lecture about the heart seen as a sort of brain.

And it's indeed not by chance that the heart is associated to those mysterious bunch of feelings and emotions which are collectively labeled as "love ".

[Hummin]

17 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, that's interesting, I've been reading, unfortunately without much attention, a lecture about the heart seen as a sort of brain.

And it's indeed not by chance that the heart is associated to those mysterious bunch of feelings and emotions which are collectively labeled as "love ".

A Stress hormone cocktail do have an bad effect on your hearth. Everything is not unknown or a mystery. I will not deny there could be other things affect brain and hearth, but feelings creates hormones that makes us hurt physically. 

 

Powerful Hormones at Work

Research shows a relationship between chronic stress and abnormal production of the stress hormones epinephrine (adrenaline), cortisol, and norepinephrine.

 

The body releases these same hormones when dealing with an episode of acute stress—for example, a situation that occurs within an instant, like when you narrowly avoid a car accident.

 

Adrenaline increases the heart rate, raises blood pressure, and increases energy supplies.

Cortisol floods the bloodstream with glucose and narrows the arteries.

Norepinephrine raises the heart rate, releases glucose into the bloodstream, and increases blood flow to the muscles.

But when the body experiences chronic stress—day after day, for an extended period of time—these hormones can start to have a detrimental effect on heart health.

 

https://www.medstarhealth.org/blog/heart-and-stress#:~:text=Powerful Hormones at Work&text=Adrenaline increases the heart rate,blood flow to the muscles.

[Hummin]

43 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

I thought I was having a heart attack once.

Went to the emergency room.

Female doctor said everything is fine and asked if I had love issues. 

Which I did.

Scientists have told us that the heart is a pump.

But maybe it's a second brain of sorts ... it has something that science has yet to discover. 

Found this one, and lucky I have not been heartbroken for almost 30 years, but still remember how <deleted>ty I felt for months, and the pain in my hearth. Hormones and how you breathing, or not breathing is possible the answer to teach us the pain of leaving someone we love. Natures own way to make sure we care for each other, and afraid to loose each other back in the time, being a couple helping each other was essentially important to survive. 

 

Love can be addictive, like a drug, because of the hormones our brain releases when we become really attached to someone or something. Dopamine and oxytocin in particular are hormones which make us feel good and want to repeat behaviours, and are released at elevated levels when we’re in love.

Then, when heartbreak happens, these hormone levels drop and are replaced with the stress hormone cortisol. Designed to support your body’s fight-or-flight response, too much cortisol over a period of time can contribute to anxiety, nausea, acne and weight gain – all those unpleasant mental and physical symptoms associated with heartbreak

 

Read more

https://www.health.qld.gov.au/news-events/news/science-behind-a-broken-heart#:~:text=Why does it hurt so,is causing actual physical hurt.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

A Stress hormone cocktail do have an bad effect on your hearth. Everything is not unknown or a mystery. I will not deny there could be other things affect brain and hearth, but feelings creates hormones that makes us hurt physically. 

 

Powerful Hormones at Work

Research shows a relationship between chronic stress and abnormal production of the stress hormones epinephrine (adrenaline), cortisol, and norepinephrine.

 

The body releases these same hormones when dealing with an episode of acute stress—for example, a situation that occurs within an instant, like when you narrowly avoid a car accident.

 

Adrenaline increases the heart rate, raises blood pressure, and increases energy supplies.

Cortisol floods the bloodstream with glucose and narrows the arteries.

Norepinephrine raises the heart rate, releases glucose into the bloodstream, and increases blood flow to the muscles.

But when the body experiences chronic stress—day after day, for an extended period of time—these hormones can start to have a detrimental effect on heart health.

 

https://www.medstarhealth.org/blog/heart-and-stress#:~:text=Powerful Hormones at Work&text=Adrenaline increases the heart rate,blood flow to the muscles.

Thanks, quite informative, but just on the biological aspect, which can be similar, but not identical in different persons or personalities. The mystery i was referring to, is the fact that feelings cannot imho be explained just in a biological way.

It seems that the biological mechanism can influence the feelings, but it's also true that feelings can influence our biological mechanism. 

If one sees those complex interactions as the connection between spirit and soul, and soul and physical body, there's plenty of mysteries to be uncovered. 

If one's satisfied with just the biological explanation, that's ok, but it's not enough for others. 

[Hummin]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Thanks, quite informative, but just on the biological aspect, which can be similar, but not identical in different persons or personalities. The mystery i was referring to, is the fact that feelings cannot imho be explained just in a biological way.

It seems that the biological mechanism can influence the feelings, but it's also true that feelings can influence our biological mechanism. 

If one sees those complex interactions as the connection between spirit and soul, and soul and physical body, there's plenty of mysteries to be uncovered. 

If one's satisfied with just the biological explanation, that's ok, but it's not enough for others. 

I guess and believe we all have a biological design, because there is use for those wildly differences we see among a society. What we see as a weakness today, might had played a more important role during a different time during different circumstances. 

 

What we see as mental issues, also might be an individual born in the wrong time where they can not use their skills or feel useful in any way. Often misunderstood. 

 

What should kids really do, and what do they do? Any connection to the reality we live in today and the rise of mental health issues among the population?

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

What should kids really do, and what do they do? Any connection to the reality we live in today and the rise of mental health issues among the population?

The other day i read a lecture from my favourite master, according to whom, all feelings of uneasiness, including mental health issues,come from our own selfishness. 

I had a hard look at myself, and i have the impression that it's almost always true.

Of course there's not a magical formula for everyone to feel better, we are all different... but everyone, i guess, has to mediate between one's sacred individuality, and the not less sacred concept of brotherhood .

If i had to simplify this, i could say that doing good things for the others is a safe way to happiness, but, there are many if and buts... there's not even consensus of what is "good".

[Tippaporn]

I just had an Exorcist moment today.  I've got a case of food poisoning.  Had major runny sh!ts all day yesterday and again today.   You know the type . . . there's no chance in hell holding it in when it first knocks on the back door. My wife gave me some elixir to drink to feel better.  A 1/2 litre glass full,  As it doesn't taste too good I guzzled the whole thing in one shot.

 

Took about a minute before I felt hurricane grade swells in my stomach.  I knew that my levee of will wasn't big enough and raced to the john.  I started spewing just before I got to the toilet bowl.  And then another uncontrollable heave all over the commode.  And another.  And yet another.  Ah well, too late to kneel down in prayerful fashion now. 

 

Thank God for these practical Thai-style bathrooms.  Just hose the whole frickin' thing down!!    Clean up was a piece of cake.  Image a pristine U.S. or European style bathroom replete with a throw rug.  What a nasty chore that would be, sopping it all up with paper towels and wringing out the throw rug.

 

My wife asked me how I felt.  In all seriousness I told her to call the electric company.  My battery had drained completely in an instant.  I didn't have enough juice in me to fire up even one of those little hallway night lights.

 

Starve a cold and feed a fever.  Or do I have it reversed?  I dunno but I'm not putting the slightest morsel in my gullet until my system has been flushed like a car radiator.

 

Anyway, back to power lifting and a 20 km sprint tomorrow.  I think.  I hope . . . 

Sorry to have to gross everyone out.  But it was fun!!! 

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by Tippaporn

[save the frogs]

On 3/1/2023 at 8:52 PM, mauGR1 said:

Personally i find Rudolf Steiner's dissertation on his book "Theosophy" very clear, but other people may find other books more inspiring. 

I read some Edgar Cayce 100 years ago.

he talked a lot about souls and reincarnation. 

the sleeping prophet. 

[save the frogs]

On 3/1/2023 at 9:03 PM, Sunmaster said:

This is some pretty heavy stuff for 9am.

yes it is.

[Tippaporn]

On 3/2/2023 at 10:57 PM, Purdey said:

Just to be clear, the onus is never on someone proving something doesn't exist! The onus is always on the person who claims it exists. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Science cannot prove that which is not there. Therefore, I cannot prove purple elephants exist.

Anyway, I don't intend to convince you to change your mind. Please continue to believe in gods if you will. I will explain what I know and believe (or not). The topic is 'do you believe in god and why.' I am just going to show why i don't believe in god(s) with evidence for why I don't believe.

First off, I am not sure which of the 4,200 world religions you believe in as the "right one." 

 

<snip>

"Just to be clear, the onus is never on someone proving something doesn't exist! The onus is always on the person who claims it exists. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Science cannot prove that which is not there. Therefore, I cannot prove purple elephants exist."

The science-minded love to throw out Russell's Teapot as their definitive argument to "prove" the non-existence of a God since the existence of a God cannot be proved using scientific methodology.  You might want to read a good Wiki article on Russell's Teapot before claiming it's "water tight" logic to be irrefutable.  From the Analysis section (bolded text is mine):

In his books A Devil's Chaplain (2003) and The God Delusion (2006), Dawkins used the teapot as an analogy of an argument against what he termed "agnostic conciliation", a policy of intellectual appeasement that allows for philosophical domains that concern exclusively religious matters.  Science has no way of establishing the existence or non-existence of a god.  Therefore, according to the agnostic conciliator, because it is a matter of individual taste, belief and disbelief in a supreme being are deserving of equal respect and attention.  Dawkins presents the teapot as a reductio ad absurdum of this position: if agnosticism demands giving equal respect to the belief and disbelief in a supreme being, then it must also give equal respect to belief in an orbiting teapot, since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
 

Now here's the closed-loop quandary which folks who outright reject even the possibility of the existence of a God unwittingly place themselves in.  As long as one believes that something does not exist then for all practical purposes it does not exist for them (do keep plausibility in mind - purple elephants are a ludicrous, and deceptive, analogy).  No one attempts to find something they believe does not exist.  Furthermore, and importantly, any evidence which suggests the existence of what they believe does not exist will in one way or another be rejected.  Either by ignoring the evidence, discounting it, or using fallacious logic to negate it.  Put in other words, as long as one insists that something is either true or false they will not consider any evidence or argument to the contrary, no matter how real, sound or logically valid it is.  They literally become irrational and yet can't recognise that irrationality within themselves.  In my most humble opinion, Purdey, you are caught in this closed-loop predicament.

"First off, I am not sure which of the 4,200 world religions you believe in as the "right one." "

I understand that you do not have any familiarity with me and so you couldn't therefore be aware of any of my earlier scribblings.  I have stated many times to many posters that I am not religious.  I understand, too, that because I speak in defense of the existence of a God people will then automatically assume, incorrectly, that I am therefore religious.  The two should not be conflated.  One fact does not logically lead to the conclusion you assume.

I do appreciate your raising the point of "the right one" for that provides the perfect segue into an important issue which lies at what I believe to be the heart of so many discussions here.  "The right one," otherwise known as the "truth," would be the actual laws of nature.  There are many laws of nature which are well known.  Newton’s law of gravitation, his three laws of motion, the ideal gas laws, Mendel’s laws, the law of attraction, polarity, rhythm, relativity, cause and effect, perpetual transmutation of energy. and so on.

The workings of our world, our universe, our reality are governed by laws.  Full stop.  And while some laws are clearly recognised and thoroughly understood, such as gravity, there exist many other laws which are yet unknown.  I am not interested in what I "believe" to be right but rather I am focused on learning what the actual laws are which govern use.  Those laws are irrefutable and eternal.  They are what one might call bedrock reality.  Like them or not.  Agree with them or not.  They are what they are and they are immutable.  So to be wise and pragmatic my sage advice is to learn what those laws are and then play the game of life according to the actual "rules" rather than false rules made out of whole cloth out of an ignorance of what the real laws governing our existence are.

 

Now I could continue addressing the rest of your excellent post but I fear it would become so long that it would deter anyone from reading the length of it.  So I'll address the rest in subsequent posts.

[Tippaporn]

20 hours ago, Hummin said:

A Stress hormone cocktail do have an bad effect on your hearth. Everything is not unknown or a mystery. I will not deny there could be other things affect brain and hearth, but feelings creates hormones that makes us hurt physically. 

 

Powerful Hormones at Work

Research shows a relationship between chronic stress and abnormal production of the stress hormones epinephrine (adrenaline), cortisol, and norepinephrine.

 

The body releases these same hormones when dealing with an episode of acute stress—for example, a situation that occurs within an instant, like when you narrowly avoid a car accident.

 

Adrenaline increases the heart rate, raises blood pressure, and increases energy supplies.

Cortisol floods the bloodstream with glucose and narrows the arteries.

Norepinephrine raises the heart rate, releases glucose into the bloodstream, and increases blood flow to the muscles.

But when the body experiences chronic stress—day after day, for an extended period of time—these hormones can start to have a detrimental effect on heart health.

 

https://www.medstarhealth.org/blog/heart-and-stress#:~:text=Powerful Hormones at Work&text=Adrenaline increases the heart rate,blood flow to the muscles.

Subjective reality is the source, and the creator of, objective reality.  Full stop.  That is the bedrock reality of our condition which thus far has gone unrecognised.  And even when pointed out goes unaccepted.

Now here's where I see the trouble many have.  Subjective reality is translated into an objective universe.  This does not happen magically.  There is a definite and practical process by which this occurs.  We have been able to recognise portions of these processes.  Science has been instrumental in uncovering many of these processes.  For instance, how stress releases certain hormones which then have a particular effect upon the body.  Where it all goes wrong is that these mechanistic processes, the release of certain hormones in this example, are then believed to be the primary cause rather than merely the mechanistic vehicle of translating subjective reality into objective reality.  The true cause of any detrimental effects on the body is the stress, which is subjective.  The hormonal aspect is merely the functional aspect; the vehicle.  This misunderstanding is what leads to a view of our reality as purely mechanistic, and therefore deterministic.  Deterministic for the reason that it is the mechanistic, objective process which determines experience and not the subjective reality.  Which then feeds the idea that people are powerless to determine their own experience.  It's a wonderful illusion.

 

You, Hummin, are struggling with this illusion.  You recognise the fact of physical effects and therefore cannot deny that they play a role in the creation of our reality.  If you drink bleach you will most certainly die, for instance.  That is most obviously the undeniable physical effect of drinking bleach.  What I believe you are missing, Hummin, or fail to include into your equation, is that there must be a trigger which initiates the act of drinking bleach.  That trigger is an idea.  The source is first and always subjective; the idea to drink bleach, which only then gets translated into an objective reality via taking action on the idea.  Action is an idea in motion.  Full stop.

As much as one insists that ones ideas are correct, though they may not be, if they are not then the solution is to suspend the current beliefs long enough to play around with other ideas.  The process doesn't require the abandonment a belief forever whilst playing with another idea.  Only a temporary suspension.  My advice is to play around with the idea that subjective reality is the source of objective reality.  Pretend for awhile that this is the case, that this is how it works.  Only then will you allow yourself to see what your current beliefs keep hidden from you.

[Tippaporn]

22 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I once went to a supermarket to buy a jar of strawberry jam. There were many brands on display and I went for an American brand. I chose that because it said "Number 1 in USA". Yes, I fell for this little bit of false advertising and it was the worst thing I tasted in a long time. Highly processed with seemingly no trace of real fruit. 

According to some people's "logic", I should have deduced that all jams are as bad and that all jam manufacturers lie about their product. I should have also deduced that strawberries (the actual berries) taste like <deleted> and I should make it my mission to warn everybody not to eat strawberries.

 

I prefer to go to the farmer myself, pick the best strawberries and make my own delicious jam. I KNOW where the fruit comes from, I KNOW that the fruit will be of the highest quality and I KNOW all the ingredients in that jam. 

 

Now, if it wasn't clear enough, the American jam represents (a) religion. Some people might like it that way, but it's not my taste. Different brands are different religions, some are better than others. The farmer represents the Source. Why settle for some foul tasting artificial product, when you can cut out the middleman (who's in it for financial profit) and go to the Source directly?

 

Stop complaining about the low quality products and make your own jam!

Any product claiming to be No. 1 is obviously lying.  Pure marketing.  LOL

Good analogy!  Though, could the cook by the source?

[Tippaporn]

22 hours ago, save the frogs said:

it's certainly possible, and maybe even probable, but it would be nice to have some evidence.

The evidence is always available.  Direct evidence, if you like.  But do not expect the evidence you find to satisfy another.  Especially science.  It is not evidence that one can hold in one's hand and show the rest of the world.

[save the frogs]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The evidence is always available.  Direct evidence, if you like.  But do not expect the evidence you find to satisfy another.  Especially science.  It is not evidence that one can hold in one's hand and show the rest of the world.

no, i don't expect hard-core science to explain everything. 

well, there was a psychiatrist who researched children who claimed to remember their past lives ..

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-seekers-forum/202207/when-children-remember-past-lives

 

[save the frogs]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

The workings of our world, our universe, our reality are governed by laws. 

what laws are you referring to?

10,000 words or less please.

 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

First off, I am not sure which of the 4,200 world religions you believe in as the "right one." "

I realize this is not your quote....just wanted to add this quickly.

 

As long as you realize that any of the gods are expressions of the one divine, then you can chose to worship any one of them and the result will be the same.

 

If however you believe that you are separate from them and they are separate from each other, then you can just as well worship your teapot or your nose. The result will be the same.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

no, i don't expect hard-core science to explain everything. 

well, there was a psychiatrist who researched children who claimed to remember their past lives ..

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-seekers-forum/202207/when-children-remember-past-lives

In truth there are no barriers between realities.  Whether it's the environment we find ourselves in after death or a reincarnational reality.  As long as one believes their are barriers which cannot be pierced then for all practical purposes so there are.

One of the great fallacies taught us is that our dear objective universe is all that exists.  That belief is precisely what prevents anyone from exploring any other reality.  Even our own subjective reality.  Not many will, therefore, seriously consider an inner explorative journey.

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I realize this is not your quote....just wanted to add this quickly.

 

As long as you realize that any of the gods are expressions of the one divine, then you can chose to worship any one of them and the result will be the same.

 

If however you believe that you are separate from them and they are separate from each other, then you can just as well worship your teapot or your nose. The result will be the same.

If one of the definitions of a God is a creator then we are all Gods.  All answers lie within us.

[spidermike007]

For me, there seems to be a direct correlation between the actual relationship one has with the creator, and the need to talk about it. The lack of any real spiritual practice, (or relationship with whatever notion one has of a God) seems to compel people to discuss religion endlessly, and attempt to convert others, whereas, those with a real inner life and spiritual practice, seem content to just live their lives, set an example for others, and let their lifestyle do the speaking. 

 

In other words, you would not feel comfortable discussing your intimate life with your loved one with others, so why talk about your inner life with others, unless they ask? 

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

For me, there seems to be a direct correlation between the actual relationship one has with the creator, and the need to talk about it. The lack of any real spiritual practice, (or relationship with whatever notion one has of a God) seems to compel people to discuss religion endlessly, and attempt to convert others, whereas, those with a real inner life and spiritual practice, seem content to just live their lives, set an example for others, and let their lifestyle do the speaking. 

 

In other words, you would not feel comfortable discussing your intimate life with your loved one with others, so why talk about your inner life with others, unless they ask? 

By that logic why talk to anyone about anything?