Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

6 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

@Sunmaster & @thaibeachlovers

 

My closing sentence about it being just me was rife with sarcasm, as it's obvious that's not the case. Not on this thread, nor on Thaivisa in general.

 

I've started 2 polls on this subject...first one a few years ago and 2nd earlier this year. Both had similar results of around 70% NO and 30% YES. 

 

It fascinating that y'all can be so passionate and devoted to your woo and have such strong faith in them...yet can't even begin to coherently explain or describe what it is, nor why it has so intensely moved you. At least all of you are consistent and on the same page in that aspect. 

Alright then.

Let's assume I've never experienced love. Can you coherently explain or describe what this much fabled thing called love is. 
Please go ahead.

[Skeptic7]

15 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Alright then.

Let's assume I've never experienced love. Can you coherently explain or describe what this much fabled thing called love is. 
Please go ahead.

An intense affection and emotional bond between 2 people. Or it could be one-sided if the affection is not mutual. Or between a person and a pet. 

[Sunmaster]

6 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

An intense affection and emotional bond between 2 people. Or it could be one-sided if the affection is not mutual. Or between a person and a pet. 

You mean liking another person the same way I like my bikes? I don't think that's possible.
 

[Sunmaster]

And besides, using tree-hugger and Yoga-pants-wearing hippie words like "affection" or "emotional bond", doesn't explain anything. So, I'll ask again....what is love??

[Skeptic7]

10 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

And besides, using tree-hugger and Yoga-pants-wearing hippie words like "affection" or "emotional bond", doesn't explain anything. So, I'll ask again....what is love??

I gave my definition in my own words. I don't get where you're going with this. You asked...I answered. REMEMBER...I did not make any "love" claim(s). YOU brought it up. I did not say that I had the one real/true definition or understanding of love...or that when someone experiences real love, they will know it as I do.

I MADE NO SUCH CLAIM. I have made zero claims. I never even hinted that "love" exists. YOU BROUGHT IT UP. I answered your question. What's your point here? 

[Sunmaster]

You gave me a definition for it, then it's implicit that it must exist for you.

I would go as far as saying that you have even experienced it, one way or another.

 

I, on the other hand, have no idea what love is, or "affection". I've never experienced it and I don't actually believe it exists at all.

So far, I heard a meaningless explanation that didn't explain anything. 

Would be nice if I could experience this love, but how?

 

[xylophone]

9 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I, on the other hand, have no idea what love is, or "affection". I've never experienced it and I don't actually believe it exists at all.

In that case it is beyond hopeless trying to converse with you on the subject/words in question. Go and play in someone else's sandpit.

 

[canuckamuck]

2 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

@Sunmaster & @thaibeachlovers

 

My closing sentence about it being just me was rife with sarcasm, as it's obvious that's not the case. Not on this thread, nor on Thaivisa in general.

 

I've started 2 polls on this subject...first one a few years ago and 2nd earlier this year. Both had similar results of around 70% NO and 30% YES. 

 

It fascinating that y'all can be so passionate and devoted to your woo and have such strong faith in them...yet can't even begin to coherently explain or describe what it is, nor why it has so intensely moved you. At least all of you are consistent and on the same page in that aspect. 

 The thing that they would describe to you is likely a piece of their core identity. Why would anyone expose that part of their soul on a forum, particularly with someone whose only intention is to declare how stupid it is. You can't possibly understand what they would say with the position you have proudly declared over and over. And it would be pointless to try. But there are moments in life when these things can be shared and understood. If you were sincerely searching you would not have the avatar and alias you have chosen

[canuckamuck]

8 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

How about some really meaningful, such as...

 

Thou shalt not own other people as property. (NO slavery)

Thou shalt not abuse or harm children.

Ignore Thy God's bloodlust! Animal sacrifices and burnt offerings are stoo-pid. 

 

Most believers can't recite >50% without looking them up. Could you? 

Good news, the New Testament boils everything down to love God, love your neighbor. And does away with sacrifice. All your problems solved.

[Skeptic7]

2 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You gave me a definition for it, then it's implicit that it must exist for you.

I would go as far as saying that you have even experienced it, one way or another.

 

I, on the other hand, have no idea what love is, or "affection". I've never experienced it and I don't actually believe it exists at all.

So far, I heard a meaningless explanation that didn't explain anything. 

Would be nice if I could experience this love, but how?

 

Bro...are you serious? If so, then go ask your "source", as I can't help ya there. Above my pay grade. But I give you way more credit than this. I see through the feigned ignorance and refuse to take the bait. 

 

As I said previously...I made no "love" claims, nor am I making any. And to punctuate it and put an end to this charade...if you asked me to give a definition of a Unicorn or Yoda or a witch or Santa Claus and i responded, would you then imply that they must exist for me? That I had experienced them? 

 

And how does someone else's definition of an off-topic word...which you brought up...justify or remedy your positive claims of a ultimate "source" or "god" or whatever it is you referred to it as? 

[Sunmaster]

8 hours ago, xylophone said:

In that case it is beyond hopeless trying to converse with you on the subject/words in question. Go and play in someone else's sandpit.

 

LOL You just made my point, so thank you.

[Sunmaster]

8 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Bro...are you serious? If so, then go ask your "source", as I can't help ya there. Above my pay grade. But I give you way more credit than this. I see through the feigned ignorance and refuse to take the bait. 

 

As I said previously...I made no "love" claims, nor am I making any. And to punctuate it and put an end to this charade...if you asked me to give a definition of a Unicorn or Yoda or a witch or Santa Claus and i responded, would you then imply that they must exist for me? That I had experienced them? 

 

And how does someone else's definition of an off-topic word...which you brought up...justify or remedy your positive claims of a ultimate "source" or "god" or whatever it is you referred to it as? 

I think it's quite obvious what my intention was, (well, maybe not for Xylophone ????), and you, scrambling and trying to cover your a s s was quite funny too.

My point was to show that even for something as familiar as "love", no explanation will be enough to convey its true essence to someone who has never experienced love or affection. Even your definition is meaningless to somebody who has no idea what love is. You could even try to explain it by mentioning hormones, electrical impulses in the brain, neurons....but that wouldn't be even close to what love is, would it?
I could demand proof of the existence of love and you could give me none.

The only way to describe it, would be by describing the effects of it. How a person behaves, what a person would do when in love, what a mother does for her child....tell me stories about love, maybe recommend some books or movies. But you'll never be able to simply transfer your experience to me to make me feel what you can feel.
Should I just say love doesn't exist because I've never felt it? Millions of people might disagree with me, but maybe they're all just delusional. I never felt it, so that's what matters. Furthermore, science can't prove it either...it has no mass, it's invisible, it's odourless...so I must be right. 

So, you see....it's the same with the Source. Just because you've never experienced it directly and we can't transfer that experience to you, does not mean it doesn't exist, nor is it only a figment of our imagination.

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by Sunmaster

[Skeptic7]

12 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Took me about 10 minutes

Matthew 5: 17 You are not giving the full context. What Jesus is saying is that the law (the law of Moses) will never change and if you intend to live by that law then you must not fail any part of it. Otherwise you fail to keep the law. You did not include verse 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Verse 17 also says that Jesus came to fulfill the law. Meaning He was to set people free from the law.

John 7: 19 He is reiterating that people are failing to keep the law.

Matthew 5 18:19. That is part of the first verse you quoted. Already addressed

Matthew 10:34 Jesus is predicting that His teachings will cause division even in families. He was correct, it did.

Luke 12: 49-56 This is Lukes version of Matthew 10, same thing His teaching will cause division.

Ephesians 6: 5-9 slaves were everywhere in the world right up to the last century, and they are still in many places. In those days people became slaves for debts, and some were slaves because they needed the protection and food. Hard times. Christian slaves needed to know how to be, just like the Christian masters.  Jesus did not advocate taking free men and making them slaves through violence

Took you about 10 minutes to LET THE SPIN BEGIN! Here we go with the predictable and very expected apologetic gymnastics and contextual <deleted>. I didn't take anything out of context...they are quotes directly taken from your "Holey" book. Words have meaning and adding all the "spin" and interpreting in a way to totally change and soften that meaning is dishonest and exactly what all apologists do. The passages say what they mean and are perfectly clear. If the "divinely" inspired authors and their "Divine" dictator wanted to include all "spin" you've added...they would have written it as such. They didn't.

 

The passages say what they say. Let the readers decide for themselves. 

[canuckamuck]

1 minute ago, Skeptic7 said:

Took you about 10 minutes to LET THE SPIN BEGIN! Here we go with the predictable and very expected apologetic gymnastics and contextual <deleted>. I didn't take anything out of context...they are quotes directly taken from your "Holey" book. Words have meaning and adding all the "spin" and interpreting in a way to totally change and soften that meaning is dishonest and exactly what all apologists do. The passages say what they mean and are perfectly clear. If the "divinely" inspired authors and their "Divine" dictator wanted to include all "spin" you've added...they would have written it as such. They didn't.

 

The passages say what they say. Let the readers decide for themselves. 

You take a passage which is part of a larger thought and neglect to include what the conversation was, and who is being spoken to, and then you say it wasn't out of context. Well if you don't provide the context, it's out of context. 

What you call spin is in this case the context.

 

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it says what you think it says.

[VincentRJ]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I think it's quite obvious what my intention was, (well, maybe not for Xylophone ????), and you, scrambling and trying to cover your a s s was quite funny too.

My point was to show that even for something as familiar as "love", no explanation will be enough to convey its true essence to someone who has never experienced love or affection. Even your definition is meaningless to somebody who has no idea what love is. You could even try to explain it by mentioning hormones, electrical impulses in the brain, neurons....but that wouldn't be even close to what love is, would it?
I could demand proof of the existence of love and you could give me none.

The only way to describe it, would be by describing the effects of it. How a person behaves, what a person would do when in love, what a mother does for her child....tell me stories about love, maybe recommend some books or movies. But you'll never be able to simply transfer your experience to me to make me feel what you can feel.
Should I just say love doesn't exist because I've never felt it? Millions of people might disagree with me, but maybe they're all just delusional. I never felt it, so that's what matters. Furthermore, science can't prove it either...it has no mass, it's invisible, it's odourless...so I must be right. 

So, you see....it's the same with the Source. Just because you've never experienced it directly and we can't transfer that experience to you, does not mean it doesn't exist, nor is it only a figment of our imagination.

 

I think your analogy is flawed. Most animals express a recognizable love for their offspring. I recall a moving story I read recently about a group of elephants who were crossing a river with a young baby elephant, who accidentally fell into a deep hole near the river bank. It couldn't climb out, and the adult elephants stood around wailing and trumpeting in great despair and anguish.

 

The local villagers heard the unusually loud trumpeting, and carefully made their way to the scene. There was nothing they could do to help the baby elephant, but the adult elephants were not moving away. They continued tramping around the site, bellowing in despair.

 

The villagers decided to call the 'Environmental Agency' who sent someone to investigate the situation. The Environmental Agency decided they would try to save the baby elephant and brought in an excavator and crane to lift the baby out of the hole. The whole process took a couple of days or more, during which time the adult elephants remained on the site, day and night, tramping around and continuing to bellow.

 

When the excavator finally lifted the baby out of the hole, the adult elephants quietened down, and all of them proceeded to cross the river. When they all got to the other side, the villagers and Environmental workers who were all looking on from the opposite side of the river, were amazed to see each adult elephant turn around, face the villagers, and raise their trunk high, as though in appreciation and thanks, before moving on.

 

Now most of us understand that everyone does not have the same degree of 'love, affection, or attachment' for the same items, or people, or pets, or whatever. But the essential point here, is that whatever one loves is an existing entity that everyone can see or detect in some way, whether it's a love of a horse, a brother or sister, or a Ferrari.

 

A psychopath might have no love for other humans, but he might well have an equivalent 'love' for his Ferrari or property investments. There is usually an 'object' of one's love, which can be seen or understood by all normal people.

 

A love of some God or Spirit is a love of some invisible and undetectable entity whose existence cannot be demonstrated. Imagine sitting around a dining table where one person is sitting next to an empty chair. That person then claims that her greatest love is for Mary who is sitting next to her. Everyone says, 'But the chair is empty. There's no-one there'. But the person persists in claiming that there is someone there and that she can see her and feel her. The other people around the table get up and move their hands across the empty chair, and declare they can detect nothing.

 

However, the woman continues to believe that her greatest love is sitting next to her, because it makes her feel wonderful. That's the equivalent of a belief in God. ????

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

You mean liking another person the same way I like my bikes? I don't think that's possible.
 

An intense affection and emotional bond between 2 people. Or it could be one-sided if the affection is not mutual.

 

I had an intense affection and emotional bond with Antarctica, but I don't think it's "love" as between two people.

[thaibeachlovers]

52 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I think your analogy is flawed. Most animals express a recognizable love for their offspring. I recall a moving story I read recently about a group of elephants who were crossing a river with a young baby elephant, who accidentally fell into a deep hole near the river bank. It couldn't climb out, and the adult elephants stood around wailing and trumpeting in great despair and anguish.

 

The local villagers heard the unusually loud trumpeting, and carefully made their way to the scene. There was nothing they could do to help the baby elephant, but the adult elephants were not moving away. They continued tramping around the site, bellowing in despair.

 

The villagers decided to call the 'Environmental Agency' who sent someone to investigate the situation. The Environmental Agency decided they would try to save the baby elephant and brought in an excavator and crane to lift the baby out of the hole. The whole process took a couple of days or more, during which time the adult elephants remained on the site, day and night, tramping around and continuing to bellow.

 

When the excavator finally lifted the baby out of the hole, the adult elephants quietened down, and all of them proceeded to cross the river. When they all got to the other side, the villagers and Environmental workers who were all looking on from the opposite side of the river, were amazed to see each adult elephant turn around, face the villagers, and raise their trunk high, as though in appreciation and thanks, before moving on.

 

Now most of us understand that everyone does not have the same degree of 'love, affection, or attachment' for the same items, or people, or pets, or whatever. But the essential point here, is that whatever one loves is an existing entity that everyone can see or detect in some way, whether it's a love of a horse, a brother or sister, or a Ferrari.

 

A psychopath might have no love for other humans, but he might well have an equivalent 'love' for his Ferrari or property investments. There is usually an 'object' of one's love, which can be seen or understood by all normal people.

 

A love of some God or Spirit is a love of some invisible and undetectable entity whose existence cannot be demonstrated. Imagine sitting around a dining table where one person is sitting next to an empty chair. That person then claims that her greatest love is for Mary who is sitting next to her. Everyone says, 'But the chair is empty. There's no-one there'. But the person persists in claiming that there is someone there and that she can see her and feel her. The other people around the table get up and move their hands across the empty chair, and declare they can detect nothing.

 

However, the woman continues to believe that her greatest love is sitting next to her, because it makes her feel wonderful. That's the equivalent of a belief in God. ????

Being in "love" does not exist as a choice. The human sensation of being in "love" is a chemical reaction to pheromones given off by the other party.

If the pheromones stop, the feeling of "love" stops. It's all a figment of chemical reactions.

 

Re the elephants; most animals have a genetic imperative to breed and protect the offspring. Those elephants were just following their genetic program.

 

Far as I know, pheromones are not involved in believing in a creator, and from some of the replies on here, it's obviously not a genetic program.

Some of us have had an experience that causes us to believe in a creator, and some have not. Simple really.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

You gave me a definition for it, then it's implicit that it must exist for you.

I would go as far as saying that you have even experienced it, one way or another.

 

I, on the other hand, have no idea what love is, or "affection". I've never experienced it and I don't actually believe it exists at all.

So far, I heard a meaningless explanation that didn't explain anything. 

Would be nice if I could experience this love, but how?

 

"love"- no one really knows what it is. There is lust, which has nothing to do with "love"; there is a "mother's love" which is a genetic program;  there is "making love" which is sex. English is a very poor language to express emotion, and "love" is used as a generic term to describe lots of things, but isn't really applicable to any.

I love sunsets, I love Thailand, I love northern Thai women, I love hugs; what is love?

The most common use of "love" is "in love", but that's the biggest illusion of all.

[CharlieH]

Reported post removed and another with over-sized emoticons and responses to it.

[CMNightRider]

"Hebrews 9:27 tells us, “…it is appointed unto man to die once, but after this the judgment.” There will be no mocking God then. Romans 6:23 explains this further: “For the wages of sin is death….” In Romans 8:6f we learn, “For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God….”

 

Back in Romans 6:16, Paul exhorts, “Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience, leading to righteousness?” This biblical wisdom is totally ignored by those who desire to continue a little longer in their sin.

 

Thankfully, Romans 6:23 does not end with death. “…But the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Do not be a fool by delay, yield to Him today (Proverbs 14:9). Trust and obey."

[VincentRJ]

57 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Being in "love" does not exist as a choice.

Tell that to true Buddhists. Buddhism is all about controlling your emotions and desires. You always have a choice.
If I want to fast, for example, because I think it might have some health benefits, I will need to overcome the natural, hormonal, effects of hunger. I have a choice to exert my will, or give in. Most people seem unable to exert their will. They give in. I don't. But the choice always exists.

[Sunmaster]

8 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

No I don't see. What I see is...

 

You have repeatedly made extraordinary claims without backing them up. The claimant of such bears the burden of proof. YOU even made the "love" claim and somehow flip-flopped the burden to me as an extremely dishonest distraction, even for you. Doesn't work that way. I HAVE MADE NO CLAIM, not even a mundane one. No claim...no burden. Your ridiculous diversions are getting wearisome. 

 

 

Dishonest?! LOL 

You're getting all worked up because I tried to show you that some things are impossible to convey in a clear and precise manner, you know it and feel you've been "trapped". Maybe you're a poor loser. ????

You do make a claim though. You claim, and quite aggressively so, that there's no Source. You claim there's no way to prove it. I claimed that there are ways to prove it and clearly listed them for you. 
Now, if you're too lazy (or close-minded) to verify by yourself, then your claim is nothing more than a weak opinion based on insufficient data.
You know what I see? I see an adult who behaves like a child throwing a tantrum, because things are not going his way. The way you conduct yourself here is not only poor forum etiquette, but more importantly an obstacle to your own development.

And with this I check out and wish you and the others a good life.

[canuckamuck]

English is really insufficient to discuss love, the Greeks have 8 words for love.

Eros: erotic love

Philia: Which is platonic or brotherly love. Free from sexual attraction. Which is ironic considering how it is used currently.

Storge: Familiar love. The love of those close to us, family and friends

Ludus: Playful love. The love of young lovers, not quite the same as eros

Mania: Obsessive love. Leads to madness, jealousy

Pragma: Enduring love. A love that has matured and developed over time.

Agape: Selfless or unconditional love. Agape is the love that is felt for that which we intuitively know as the divine truth: the love that accepts, forgives and believes for our greater good.

 

[yodsak]

On 11/16/2019 at 2:52 PM, Assurancetourix said:

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 ...

[Elad]

15 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Some of us have had an experience that causes us to believe in a creator, and some have not. Simple really.

I think it depends on the person having an experience, as to whether it causes them to believe in a creator.

Some people are more inclined to think that way, whereas others will seek for an explanation for the experience.

 

[mauGR1]

5 hours ago, Elad said:

Some people are more inclined to think that way, whereas others will seek for an explanation for the experience.

Yep, like explaining the wonderful order of the universe, the creation  of countless forms of life, and the creativity of the human mind with a big bang.

More or less, like a religion, just a bit dumber

[Sunmaster]

6 hours ago, Elad said:

I think it depends on the person having an experience, as to whether it causes them to believe in a creator.

Some people are more inclined to think that way, whereas others will seek for an explanation for the experience.

 

I couldn't resist...

You're saying that a person, after having had such an experience (to clarify: a deep spiritual experience) either chooses to blindly become religious or fall for woo-woo spirituality OR tries to find an explanation, in science I presume.

Having actually had such an experience, I can tell you that science alone has very superficial and downright erroneous explanations for it. I was an atheist before, so had no spiritual preconception of what had happened to me. Of course I tried to make sense of it by doing my own research and I can candidly tell you that science came up short, very short.
There are however, tons of other sources of knowledge that don't fit in the tight parameters of science, but surprise surprise, they offered the best explanations. How did they do something that science was not capable of doing? Easy, they have 1000s of years of practice under their belts. What I have experienced, had already been experienced by countless others who have laid out maps for those who came after them. I mean, what would you do? Insist on relying on science which explains nothing, or start to consider other sources who actually know what they're talking about? The answer is really obvious of course, unless you don't really care about finding answers.

That's why I always say that science is just one tool to try to make sense of reality. It's very efficient in the material world, but quite useless for the spiritual world.

 

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

...Then came the science charlatans, and told you it's all about electric impulses and chemistry, and we evolved by chance from some micro-organisms in a pool of mud..

.. Strange religion that is

Would I be correct in interpreting your comment as meaning, 'You don't believe in 'chance'?

 

It seems obvious and undeniable to me that much of what happens around us includes an element of chance, to the extent that we don't have a complete understanding and control of all the factors involved in a particular event, so reliable prediction becomes impossible in such circumstances.

 

An obvious example is the human reproductive system. Could your parents predict at the time of conception that you were going to be male? Do you believe it was God who decided you were going to be male? 

 

Whilst 'identical twins' are nearly identical because they both grow from the same female egg which has been fertilized by the same male sperm, which then splits into two, all eggs in the same female are not genetically identical and all sperm in the same male are not genetically identical.

 

Some of the male sperm will have an X chromosome, and some will have a Y chromosome. All of your mother's eggs will have an X chromosome. If the father's 'spermatozoon' with an X chromosome happens to fertilize the mother's egg, the child will be a girl. If a male sperm with a Y chromosome happens to fertilize the female egg, then the child will be a boy.

 

Do you think this doesn't happen by chance? The male ejaculates literally million of spermatozoons, each of them not only different in terms of the X or Y chromosome, but also in many other ways, which result in differences between brothers and sisters from the same parents, and sometimes, tragically, serious health disorders or deformities.

 

Following is an interesting article which explains the situation.

 

"The entire genomes of 91 human sperm from one man have been sequenced. The results provide a fascinating glimpse into naturally occurring genetic variation in one individual, and are the first to report the whole-genome sequence of a human gamete -- the only cells that become a child and through which parents pass on physical traits."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120719132855.htm
 

[mauGR1]

13 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Would I be correct in interpreting your comment as meaning, 'You don't believe in 'chance'?

 

You would be correct indeed, unless "chance" is a synonym of intelligent design.

Of course there are chances that something may happen by chance, but i tend to believe that what we call "matter" is "condensed thought" so to speak.

So, we humans are part of an intelligent design, which many of us happen to call "God" or other names.

We cannot go back physically to the beginning of the universe, but if i had to gamble, i would have no hesitation in choosing "intelligent design" over "chance".

[VincentRJ]

39 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

You would be correct indeed, unless "chance" is a synonym of intelligent design.

Of course there are chances that something may happen by chance, but i tend to believe that what we call "matter" is "condensed thought" so to speak.

So, we humans are part of an intelligent design, which many of us happen to call "God" or other names.

We cannot go back physically to the beginning of the universe, but if i had to gamble, i would have no hesitation in choosing "intelligent design" over "chance".

If scientists in a laboratory were to eventually succeed in creating a new form of life, perhaps by swishing around complex mixtures of natural chemicals under varying conditions of temperature and air pressure, would you then change your opinion?

 

This could occur in the near future.

 

"How biologists are creating life-like cells from scratch
Built from the bottom up, synthetic cells and other creations are starting to come together and could soon test the boundaries of life."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07289-x