Do you believe in God and why

[Mike Teavee]

In fairness, Stephen has a reason to "Rage" against the church given their view on his "Lifestyle".

 

He & Hitchens absolutely demolished a labor MP/Archbishop here... 

 

 

And yes, I would rather he babysit my kids than a Catholic priest.... 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Mike Teavee

[mauGR1]

4 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

I agree..."God, the Eternal Being, the Supreme Wisdom, the Boundless Love" of which there is zero evidence, is utterly ridiculous. Stephen Fry...not at all. 

 

Hardly...

 

He was being honest. Asked a nutty question and responded brilliantly. Doesn't need to say anything and surely eats quite well. 

 

Stephen Fry is an English comedian, actor, writer, activist, and presenter who has a net worth of $35 million. 

 

 

Many, if not most atheists are money worshippers.

.. But it would be  "low-class" to admit to that, so they pretend to believe in "science".

...Many if not most of the atheists of today, are the bigots of yesterday, different religion, same mentality, brainwashed yesterday, brainwashed today... Up to you

[Sunmaster]

14 hours ago, Tagged said:

What is next? Peaceful spiritutal meditation to find your innerself? I would say that is to surrender, and leave everything to other to clean up. 

I would hope so! 
Since when has finding your inner Self been deleterious to anyone?
Yes, finding your true Self means also to surrender, but there's nothing anyone has to clean up. It's not like you go to live in a cave and have no worries about the rest of the world. Quite the contrary actually.

[Sunmaster]

7 hours ago, geronimo said:

Fry has more intelligence in his left ear lobe than most people!

I believe he's a very intelligent man, and if he attacks religion for its bigot views on homosexuality and other controversial issues, he has all my support.
The video above though is clearly made to provoke the religious zealots, not to disprove spirituality as some of you seem to interpret it.

[Sunmaster]

10 hours ago, sirineou said:

What inner worlds I am not familiar with any evidence supporting the existence of any "Inner worlds"

How does the above support spirituality?

 

Wider view? please explain 

 

They are both hands , proven scientifically to be parts of the same system  There is no evidence to suggest that spirituality is part of the same system that governs the Universe. None whatsoever. 

 

The whole thing rests on a very big "IF"

Inner Worlds: a term used by Plato and commonly used in psychology meaning the psychological states of a person. But also spiritual states that you can access through meditation for example. Even your imagination is part of your inner world. Do you really want me to give you evidence for that??

Wider view: Simple, when you live in a city located in a valley, your view is limited by the surrounding houses and if you don't travel, for all you know, that's the whole world right there. On the other hand, if you go trekking on that mountain right next to the city, you will gain a very different perspective...a wider view from which things take on a new meaning.
The same thing happens when you grow up. Your awareness of the world expands in stages, you transcend and include bigger and bigger circles of life. This is not spiritual mumbo jumbo, but behavioral psychology.
What makes you think that your present level of awareness is the end of the evolution?

Spoiler alert: It's not!

 

[canuckamuck]

The reason why materialists feel the need to oppose the existence of the spiritual is:

Spirituality forces people to expand their concept of the universe to include elements of intention and purpose instead of merely physical laws and random chance.

The spiritual universe is outside of the physical. It is mysterious and can not be calculated and predicted like the physical realm. At least by physical laws. Spiritual laws are not so easily demonstrated.

Spirituality brings into question the value of the things materialism cherishes. property, status, opinions, knowledge...

It does not however reduce the value of love, kindness, charity, patience, temperance, and integrity.

Spirituality brings an aspect of culpability which is beyond the letter of the law or material evidence.

Spirituality makes people feel exposed because of the things they lose in admitting its existence. Intentions are no longer hidden. 

Materialists must deny the spiritual as it is perceived as the greatest threat to their world view.

Edited November 16, 2019 by canuckamuck

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Materialists must deny the spiritual as it is perceived as the greatest threat to their world view.

..And that's why there are so many on this thread asking for God to be proven beyond doubt.

Sorry, but it's not going to happen.

It is you who have to look for the truth, and not the opposite.

 

[Skeptic7]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Many, if not most atheists are money worshippers.

.. But it would be  "low-class" to admit to that, so they pretend to believe in "science".

...Many if not most of the atheists of today, are the bigots of yesterday, different religion, same mentality, brainwashed yesterday, brainwashed today... Up to you

It's up to me alright...to call out your unfounded BS yet again. You've outdone yourself with maybe your most ridiculous post of the thread. Quite an accomplishment!

 

Surely you can back those asinine claims up with FACTS? Otherwise just your anti-atheism bias and bigoted opinion. 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

It's up to me alright...to call out your unfounded BS yet again. You've outdone yourself with maybe your most ridiculous post of the thread. Quite an accomplishment!

 

Surely you can back those asinine claims up with FACTS? Otherwise just your anti-atheism bias and bigoted opinion. 

Sorry, but your insults are saying something about you and your cultural level.

I've done a mistake trying to communicate with you, that's not going to happen again. Bye.

[Skeptic7]

11 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

In a nutshell: if we assume that the Eternal Source is indeed the source of everything, including the material world, the laws that govern it and the instruments to understand it (science), then the logical conclusion is that science can never be at odds with it because it is itself part of the fabric of the Universe and the Eternal Source. 

A GIANT assumption that shows utter disregard for the scientific method. In a nutshell...not even slightly anything any credible scientist would ever even consider. 

 

It's known as presuppositionalism. Presupposing as true, things which are not, to win an argument. Definitely not the way science works. 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Skeptic7

[Skeptic7]

32 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry, but your insults are saying something about you and your cultural level.

I've done a mistake trying to communicate with you, that's not going to happen again. Bye.

????

[canuckamuck]

34 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

A GIANT assumption that shows utter disregard for the scientific method. In a nutshell...not even slightly anything any credible scientist would ever even consider. 

 

It's known as presuppositionalism. Presupposing as true, things which are not, to win an argument. Definitely not the way science works. 

What do you mean by credible scientist? Does one need to be an atheist to be credible?

[Skeptic7]

2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

What do you mean by credible scientist? Does one need to be an atheist to be credible?

Of course not. Does self-respecting suit u better? Science is a proven methodology for explaining how the world/universe and things in them work. Peer review is part of the process. Regardless of religious beliefs, the scientific method still requires the same process and scrutiny. 

[Tagged]

5 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Many, if not most atheists are money worshippers.

.. But it would be  "low-class" to admit to that, so they pretend to believe in "science".

...Many if not most of the atheists of today, are the bigots of yesterday, different religion, same mentality, brainwashed yesterday, brainwashed today... Up to you

That is quite general speaking about atheists? Myself, I really do not know what I am, and do not like being put in a box, because I really do not know. I know spiritualism, and have myself after many years in the wild, being "poor", seraching for some meaning, found energy and power in the nature. Feeling great enjoying the wilderness in the mountains, along the north sea, and the deep woods, and thought there is something there that is an incredible force. It have helped me back on track several times, but I also know there is a reason why I felt that, since I needed something to get me over the next hill. Also lack of money forced me in to alternativ lifestyle. I would say, It have changed my perspectiv several times, and got me up to where I am today. 

 

Anyway, we are living in a society that pulling us in a different way, and we are not at survival level anymore, at least most of us, we have choices, and we are social animals, that have needs, and we also have a brain that produce chemicals, for good and bad. Our job is to maintain our brain, so we feel good, and have the energy to meet the next day. Whatever people do, it have to maintain our dopamin, endorfins and more to do so, and be it religion, spriritualism or materalistic, it does the same. 

 

Everyone belonging to the one side or other would say they found their way, be it in combination, or little bit of everything, since most modern people shopping little bit from of all their knownledge to keep it going. It is a personal choice we all end up with, unless you are trapped in a social controlled system, that leaves you with little or no control of your own. At the end We are all influenced by stimulation. 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Tagged

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

It is a big difference though. I suppose my question would be, why would a creator bother to create, if not to do something with the creation? From the Christian perspective, the goal of creation was relational.

 

I don't consider hunting as violence in the same way as human to human violence. Human vs human violence is not usually for food, but for emotional or sociological constructs. There nothing wrong with killing and eating outside your species though.

There is something wrong with kicking a dog that just wanted a pat on the head.

Sorry, but I think that given the unlimited number of planets in the universe and the diverse nature of those planets, it was inevitable that some of the species that developed would become intelligent. After all, there must have been billions of different species originate just on earth, and multiply that by every planet in the universe to see just how many chances there were that some of them would become more intelligent than cows. We are just one of untold trillions of species that happened to be evolved at a time and in a place when our brain could develop.

Some choose to believe that "God"  chose to create us as an intelligent species, but I believe that we were just a product of evolution at an optimum time for our species to develop.

I hold to the "god created everything and then let it get on with it" model. If "God" cared about us, why did he make us such a horrible species with our bloodlust and hatred? A personal god that allows malaria, AIDS and genocide? I think not.

[Skeptic7]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry, but your insults are saying something about you and your cultural level.

I've done a mistake trying to communicate with you, that's not going to happen again. Bye.

Guess it's distressing when your woo claims are being continuously challenged and dismissed when they can't be backed up. You "spiritual" and religious woo-sters don't take kindly to it, but have been given a free pass for far too long. No more. This is your chance to show off and back up your revelations and show us doubters what you've got that we ain't. So far...ain't seeing anything. Just man up and answer the questions. Shouldn't be that difficult for such a refined and enlightened chap. 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Skeptic7

[geronimo]

and as we head to page 247, the debate is again hotting up. Of course, if a few religious fanatics would get on board, we might make it to 300!!!

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

Of course not. Does self-respecting suit u better? Science is a proven methodology for explaining how the world/universe and things in them work. Peer review is part of the process. Regardless of religious beliefs, the scientific method still requires the same process and scrutiny. 

 So if a scientist is an atheist he has no self respect? Isn't that worse than not credible?

There are respected scientist that believe in God. What you are saying about scientists is only your narrow view.

Science is a process of discovery. The scientific method is an excellent standard to conduct reliable experiments. But if you cannot detect or measure something, than you can't apply the scientific method to it. Does love exist? How about evil? Most would say they do exist, yet it is very hard to find a test for them which is falsifiable

[Skeptic7]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sorry, but I think that given the unlimited number of planets in the universe and the diverse nature of those planets, it was inevitable that some of the species that developed would become intelligent. After all, there must have been billions of different species originate just on earth, and multiply that by every planet in the universe to see just how many chances there were that some of them would become more intelligent than cows. We are just one of untold trillions of species that happened to be evolved at a time and in a place when our brain could develop.

Some choose to believe that "God"  chose to create us as an intelligent species, but I believe that we were just a product of evolution at an optimum time for our species to develop.

I hold to the "god created everything and then let it get on with it" model. If "God" cared about us, why did he make us such a horrible species with our bloodlust and hatred? A personal god that allows malaria, AIDS and genocide? I think not.

Good post. OK...you're a Deist! 

[pookondee]

I think by now, its well known that world scientists have proven (and nearly all agree) that our world (as it is)

could not possibly have come into existence with the culmination of a few random variables.

 

I believe this whole Hadron collider business has been geared up for this cause..

To prove whether the very first minute  particle of matter, life, could have come into existence from nothing.

 

The fact that they will never be able to prove it, is in itself evidence that a being greater than us brought all this into existence.

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

..And that's why there are so many on this thread asking for God to be proven beyond doubt.

Sorry, but it's not going to happen.

It is you who have to look for the truth, and not the opposite.

 

The Methodology of Science has taken us thousands of years to develop. This is now the gold standard for obtaining what is at least provisionally true. Before this Methodology was clearly defined and applied, lots of intelligent people in the past believed in so many incorrect concepts that could have been easily falsified through an application of this Methodology of Science.

 

However, there are some issues that are too difficult to investigate by applying the full rigor of the Methodology of Science, because of the great complexity of the issue with so many variables that cannot be isolated or controlled, or cannot be emulated under controlled conditions in experiments. There are also sometimes long periods of time involved before a particular effect takes place, which makes the experiment impractical and/or too expensive.

 

This is why the various disciplines of science tend to be categorized as a 'Hard' or 'Soft' science, although it's not really a duality, but a spectrum ranging from 'Hard' at one end, such as Physics and Chemistry, and 'Soft' at the other end, such as Psychology and Economics.

 

When reading about Buddhism and thinking about concepts such as Karma, I was fascinated when I came across a study by a Psychiatrist, Dr. Ian Stevenson, who had investigated about 3,000 cases of very young children who had expressed a memory of a former life. However, Stevenson apparently admitted that the evidence could be flawed. This type of science is definitely in the 'Soft' category.

 

"He believed that he had produced a body of evidence for reincarnation that must be taken seriously. But he admitted that "the evidence is not flawless and it certainly does not compel such a belief. Even the best of it is open to alternative interpretations, and one can only censure those who say there is no evidence whatever."

 

The following article is very detailed and interesting, and describes some of the flaws in the methodology.

http://skepdic.com/stevenson.html
 

[geronimo]

13 minutes ago, pookondee said:

I think by now, its well known that world scientists have proven (and nearly all agree) that our world (as it is)

could not possibly have come into existence with the culmination of a few random variables.

 

I believe this whole Hadron collider business has been geared up for this cause..

To prove whether the very first minute  particle of matter, life, could have come into existence from nothing.

 

The fact that they will never be able to prove it, is in itself evidence that a being greater than us brought all this into existence.

We're living in a simulation .....

[mauGR1]

33 minutes ago, Tagged said:

That is quite general speaking about atheists?

Perhaps, is it forbidden ?

 

34 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Myself, I really do not know what I am, and do not like being put in a box,

Neither do the believers.

What you think you are, you are. The choices are infinite.

 

37 minutes ago, Tagged said:

because I really do not know.

That's a good starting point for an investigation.

 

38 minutes ago, Tagged said:

I know spiritualism

Really ?

I hope you don't stop there.

[Skeptic7]

8 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

 So if a scientist is an atheist he has no self respect? Isn't that worse than not credible?

There are respected scientist that believe in God. What you are saying about scientists is only your narrow view.

Science is a process of discovery. The scientific method is an excellent standard to conduct reliable experiments. But if you cannot detect or measure something, than you can't apply the scientific method to it. Does love exist? How about evil? Most would say they do exist, yet it is very hard to find a test for them which is falsifiable

WHAAAAA?!? I agree with you..mostly. You just reiterated what I was kind enough to explain even though neither post needs any 'splainin'. DOESN'T matter if one is a believer or not...still held to the same processes and scrutiny of finding what is accurate and true. I've reread my posts several times and see nothing difficult about either. Regardless of personal beliefs, any scientist who does their job, presents their findings and passes peer review is credible and respected. 

 

You seem to have forgotten that Sunmaster was trying to insert (or assume) the presupposition that an omni-everything "eternal source" was real and the first cause of everything. That is absurd and I was pointing out that science doesn't work in that way. 

[Tagged]

13 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

 

 

That's a good starting point for an investigation.

 

Really ?

I hope you don't stop there.

Investigation is not going to take me anywhere, except keep me going around in circles, so many have been doing since we developed a brain that could question such matter. No one, knows, they only believe, and that is what it is about. Everyone needs a belief thats stimulates them to have reasons to continue. Me, I have accepted the facts, that we will never know, and do my best keep myself busy right here right now with things thats matters to me and mine. Just that is freedom for me, and release me from the chains that comes with a belief or a system that is created to do exactly what they want, and not what you want for you and yours. 

 

I believe in the freedom of enjoying nature without doubt it is made for me, and the reason we are able to live on this planet, and are very thankful for the possibilities it gives me, but it is unfortenly not given for everyone on this planet, since we are ruled by nature and its law. 

 

I won lottery when I born. 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Tagged

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

He believed that he had produced a body of evidence for reincarnation that must be taken seriously. But he admitted that "the evidence is not flawless and it certainly does not compel such a belief. Even the best of it is open to alternative interpretations, and one can only censure those who say there is no evidence whatever."

Well, i respect your sensible approach, it's not easy to find something wrong in your posts ????

[cdemundo]

On 4/14/2019 at 10:22 AM, Elad said:

If God created the Universe then who or what created God?? ????

Exactly.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Tagged said:

I won lottery when I born.

Apart from your personal history, which i respect, and i have no reason to disbelieve, i don't really agree with you winning the lottery.

You can believe that everything is happening by chance, it's your freedom.

I believe that what we are is the result of our actions and thoughts, and that our thoughts and actions are the seeds of what we will be.

[Assurancetourix]

On 4/14/2019 at 10:27 PM, mauGR1 said:

People who mock God, mock something they don't understand.

and especially that does not exist.

To believe in a higher being must really have a grain;

 

It proves once again that ( worthless)Mankind is weak and needs to be protected by an entity he has himself created;
the primitive people of the dark era were afraid of thunder, perhaps of the storm, fear of the night, lest the sun should not wake up in the morning, and make sacrifices sometimes human to appease him. ..
Man is an animal like the lion or the earthworm ..
Do these animals believe in god?
We do not know because we can not communicate with them ...

[canuckamuck]

39 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

WHAAAAA?!? I agree with you..mostly. You just reiterated what I was kind enough to explain even though neither post needs any 'splainin'. DOESN'T matter if one is a believer or not...still held to the same processes and scrutiny of finding what is accurate and true. I've reread my posts several times and see nothing difficult about either. Regardless of personal beliefs, any scientist who does their job, presents their findings and passes peer review is credible and respected. 

 

You seem to have forgotten that Sunmaster was trying to insert (or assume) the presupposition that an omni-everything "eternal source" was real and the first cause of everything. That is absurd and I was pointing out that science doesn't work in that way. 

I don't know where the confusion is between yours and my posts, so lets forget about that. I am interested in your opposition to Sunmaster's idea.

Firstly Sunmaster holds the position that there is a creative force that preexists science.

Therefore it is logical for him to say that the creative force is responsible for the realities that science can discover. And not the other way around.

In other words science may be limited in what it can discover about the creator. But the creator's existence is not reliant on science's ability to detect the creator.

Edited November 16, 2019 by canuckamuck