Do you believe in God and why

[oldhippy]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Pls use the brain when quoting me, it's a metaphor.

Thanks

Perhaps I use my brain more than you.

But do explain your metaphor for the benefit of The Clueless.

 

OTHER QUOTE:

Great.

So now science can "explain" earthquakes and tsunamis but cannot manage to control them.

Please explain this "metaphore" too.

[oldhippy]

The moral of the story is:

If you're not good at metaphors, avoid them at all cost.

 

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

Perhaps I use my brain more than you.

But do explain your metaphor for the benefit of The Clueless.

 

OTHER QUOTE:

Great.

So now science can "explain" earthquakes and tsunamis but cannot manage to control them.

Please explain this "metaphore" too.

I could explain if i really bothered, but i won't. Use you brain.

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, oldhippy said:

 

What you say illustrates the eternal difference between scientists and believers.

Today, just like 1000s of years ago.

1000s of years ago there was no difference between "science" and the "spiritual". 

Science is a relatively new field.

 

In any case, you're probably trying to say that they are opposites I guess, and that science is the better option. 

Correct?

[oldhippy]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

1000s of years ago there was no difference between "science" and the "spiritual". 

Science is a relatively new field.

 

In any case, you're probably trying to say that they are opposites I guess, and that science is the better option. 

Correct?

Correct.

And surely the scientists who calculated the movement of planets 1000s of years ago did not believe planets were gods. And  the old time scientists that calculated when the Nile was likely to flood surely did not believe that floods were caused by the evil Nile Spirit.

 

[sirineou]

6 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

1000s of years ago there was no difference between "science" and the "spiritual". 

Science is a relatively new field.

 

In any case, you're probably trying to say that they are opposites I guess, and that science is the better option. 

Correct?

Correct.

And surely the scientists who calculated the movement of planets 1000s of years ago did not believe planets were gods. And  the old time scientists that calculated when the Nile was likely to flood surely did not believe that floods were caused by the evil Nile Spirit.

You always read such things Aliens must have build the Pyramids because the then Egyptians could not have,  or Machu Picchu etc. The truth of the matter is that Humans have not changed any, in the past few thousands of years .they had the same mental capacity tha we do today.  What they did not have was the same technology, but that in a way made them smarter because they had to use their heads instead of technology. 

They were not stupid, were more dependant to their tribe than we are today, so they went along to get along.

The second accusation against  Socrates by Meletus was that he was  an atheist. And we all know what happened to Socrates, at least I hope we all know.  

Sunmaster said "Science is a relatively new field " Science is not a field , science does have different fields of endeavour, but Science is not a field . Science is a process, and people used the Scientific process since the first human burned his/hers hand in a fire. 

Ohh c rap it hurts, what was that?

think was shiny warm thing , let me check

Ouch!! C rap it was  shiny warm thing, 

I wonder if siny warm thing hates everyone or only me? 

Put someone else's hand in shiny warm thing.

Ohh C rap , he very mad at me, shiny warm thing hate him too

now he hates me to, better run him big.

See Scientific process ..

[CrossBones]

On 4/15/2019 at 12:43 AM, Elad said:

They're still evolving but we don't see any changes in a human lifetime.

we didnt evolve from chimanzees. Nobody thinks that. We share a common ancestor. 

[Skeptic7]

14 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

This is all good and well, but the notion of a higher power didn't just come out of thin air. 

It was first experienced by the shamans of ancient tribes, taught and passed on from generation to generation. Only much much later transcribed into books and organized into religions.
At first the knowledge was first hand, alive and dynamic. With the advent of religious institutions it changed to second hand knowledge, rather passive and stagnant, because it ceased to be a direct experience. 
Talking more about the Western religions here. Eastern religions on the other hand have a long tradition of "practice" integrated in the main body of their teachings.

If one were to follow the teapot analogy, all the millions of practitioners who spent their lives meditating and devoting their lives to the search of Truth, all these people would be nothing more than gullible puppets who are just blindly following what a guy said a few thousand years ago.
Please note: sure, some people read a book or choose to believe and they don't need further proof. I'm talking about people who practiced meditation for decades and verified what other meditators have discovered before them.

Do you really think they are all either delusional fools (best case scenario) or intentionally spread lies and deceptions in a huge conspiracy that spans thousands of years, perpetrated simultaneously by countless cultures and by people of all kinds of social standings, wealth, education, race and age.

Wouldn't the more logical answer be that there is indeed something?

That some people know how to access that something.

That some people instinctively feel there is something.

That some people choose to dedicate their lives to find this something.
That some people write down their experiences about this something.
That some people choose to have faith in this something.

2 words... 

 

1. Teapot 

2. thin air

[Sunmaster]

Just now, Skeptic7 said:

2 words... 

 

1. Teapot 

2. thin air

2 words: ignore user

bye

[sirineou]

7 hours ago, CrossBones said:

we didnt evolve from chimanzees. Nobody thinks that. We share a common ancestor. 

Why are you bringing this up? It was only one night.

I thought we all agreed, 

What happened in Vegas stays in Vegas.

[Sunmaster]

8 hours ago, sirineou said:

You always read such things Aliens must have build the Pyramids because the then Egyptians could not have,  or Machu Picchu etc. The truth of the matter is that Humans have not changed any, in the past few thousands of years .they had the same mental capacity tha we do today.  What they did not have was the same technology, but that in a way made them smarter because they had to use their heads instead of technology. 

They were not stupid, were more dependant to their tribe than we are today, so they went along to get along.

The second accusation against  Socrates by Meletus was that he was  an atheist. And we all know what happened to Socrates, at least I hope we all know.  

Sunmaster said "Science is a relatively new field " Science is not a field , science does have different fields of endeavour, but Science is not a field . Science is a process, and people used the Scientific process since the first human burned his/hers hand in a fire. 

Ohh c rap it hurts, what was that?

think was shiny warm thing , let me check

Ouch!! C rap it was  shiny warm thing, 

I wonder if siny warm thing hates everyone or only me? 

Put someone else's hand in shiny warm thing.

Ohh C rap , he very mad at me, shiny warm thing hate him too

now he hates me to, better run him big.

See Scientific process ..

Right, modern science and the scientific method as we know it is much younger though.

 

If you define science as loosely as in your example, then we can easily include spirituality as a science as well:

What happens when I close my eyes and become still?

Oh wow, after doing this for some time I get real benefits from it.

I wonder if others get the same result...

Oh cool, all these people did what I did and report the same thing.

Hmmm, let's see if I can get deeper into it like my teacher said.

Ohhh, he was right, there is a lot more! 

etc etc etc

 

Which brings me back to Vincent's theory of the "ignorant peasant". This theory doesn't explain how come the experiences during meditation are repeatable by the meditator and are congruent with the experiences by other meditators. 
If the spiritual component were only a mental construct of some ignorant peasants , it would be without any real and practical application, without tangible benefits and most importantly, without a meaningful, coherent system....all of which are clearly there.

There is by now plenty of scientific data that suggests there are several physical and mental benefits that come from meditating. Even a hardcore materialist will find it hard to dispute that.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Sunmaster

[Skeptic7]

On 12/4/2019 at 2:32 PM, Sunmaster said:

I don't think anyone here expects others to change their belief systems simply by reading a few comments on TV. What I personally would expect though, especially from people who claim to be so rational, is to rationally look at things that are presented to them and engage them in a constructive and productive discussion. 

The existence of the kundalini energy for example, the energy that is inherent in every living human being, is not an opinion. It has been well documented throughout 1000s of years and is now slowly being investigated using scientific methods, which (not surprisingly) are validating this ancient knowledge. For now only in its most basic (physical) aspect, but who knows what the future holds. You can have an opinion about what it is, where it comes from or what it does....but you can't deny its existence.

Is it only a physiological, natural force, or is it a divine spiritual force, is it both? Whatever you want to call it, the fact remains that it is real and worth discussing and exploring.
Maybe, just maybe, it holds the key to a deeper understanding of our place in the universe. If that's not worth investigating, I don't know what is.
 

Of course everyone is entitled to his opinion, that is not the point, but not all opinions (and belief systems!) are equal (like another poster pointed out: "ultracrepidarianism"). Those who have authority in a certain field carry more weight than others without. 
The problem starts when an opinion, which is based on insufficient data, is presented as a fact and anyone questioning this "fact" gets written off as a delusional fool. 

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds are not able to discuss anything.

5 words... 

 

1-3: just your opinion 

4-5: more woo

 

 

[VincentRJ]

15 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Ok, so you say that the concept of a 'higher power' was necessary in the past to explain natural phenomena. I agree to a certain point, but I don't think you give those old civilizations enough credit. Some of them had a deep understanding of astronomy 1000s of years ago, which we Westeners only gained in the past 50 years or so. 

 

Ancient civilizations had been observing the  repetitive cycles of the seasons for thousands of years. It's not really surprising that one of them would have eventually hit upon the jackpot number of 365 days for the whole yearly cycle, as the Mayans did.

 

The sun, moon and stars are very obvious features to observe. Associating their cyclical behaviour with the seasons of the year, and working out that the cycle of the sun in the sky repeats itself approximately every 365 days, should not require a deep understanding, just basic observation over a long period of time and a method of 'counting'.

 

If you call that a deep understanding, then how would you describe our modern understanding of such issues? Very, very, very and extremely deep? ????
Everything is relative.

 

I just think that the "ignorant peasant" argument doesn't fully explain what happened.

 

The 'ignorant peasants' were the poorly-paid workers who towed the massive blocks of stone several kilometres to build the Pyramids. The Pyramids, and other impressive structures like Stonehenge, were presumably designed by the more intelligent members of the society, same as today.
 

[Sunmaster]

Just now, VincentRJ said:

Ancient civilizations had been observing the  repetitive cycles of the seasons for thousands of years. It's not really surprising that one of them would have eventually hit upon the jackpot number of 365 days for the whole yearly cycle, as the Mayans did.

 

The sun, moon and stars are very obvious features to observe. Associating their cyclical behaviour with the seasons of the year, and working out that the cycle of the sun in the sky repeats itself approximately every 365 days, should not require a deep understanding, just basic observation over a long period of time and a method of 'counting'.

 

If you call that a deep understanding, then how would you describe our modern understanding of such issues? Very, very, very and extremely deep? ????
Everything is relative.

 

 

 

 

The 'ignorant peasants' were the poorly-paid workers who towed the massive blocks of stone several kilometres to build the Pyramids. The Pyramids, and other impressive structures like Stonehenge, were presumably designed by the more intelligent members of the society, same as today.
 

Erm, the Mayans knew about the precession of the equinoxes (about 3.200BC), which is the wobble in the earth's rotation. They knew about this and calculated it into their long cycle calendar to a degree which was unknown in Western culture until much later (2 century BC). It's not just about "simple counting" like you suggest. Nothing simple about this.

 

You still didn't explain how there is a working system of spiritual practice, when according to you, spirituality is just a mental construct to explain simple natural occurrences.

Precession:
In astronomy, axial precession is a gravity-induced, slow, and continuous change in the orientation of an astronomical body's rotational axis. In particular, it can refer to the gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation in a cycle of approximately 25,772 years. (Wiki)

In the West:
Historically, the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes is usually attributed in the West to the 2nd-century-BC astronomer Hipparchus, although there are claims of its earlier discovery, such as in the ancient Indian text Vedanga Jyotisha. (Wiki)

 

Mayan calendar:

3114 BC

The Long Count calendar identifies a date by counting the number of days from the Mayan creation date 4 Ahaw, 8 Kumkʼu (August 11, 3114 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar or September 6 in the Julian calendar -3113 astronomical dating). (Wiki)

[yodsak]

On 11/28/2019 at 12:56 PM, CMNightRider said:

God still allows sickness for His own purposes, but sometimes disease, even worldwide pandemics, are simply the result of living in a fallen world. There is no way to determine which, although we do know that God has sovereign control over all things

[Skeptic7]

19 minutes ago, yodsak said:

The first prob my fave philosophical quote ever! First time hearing it, was quoted by Sir Jonathan Miller. Sadly this wonderful and accomplished human being died last month. 

[Skeptic7]

@Sunmaster

@mauGR1

@thaibeachlovers

 

Assuming for a brief time and for the sake of the thread and the discussion...that your "god", "spirit", "higher power" exists. Donning my "believer's hat" if you will. Since we're all on the same page now, my question is...What are the proven benefits? How do these gods/spirits/higher powers benefit humankind? The Earth? Our fellow Earthlings? This is serious inquiry and would appreciate solid actual answers. 

 

I was chastised previously for asking this very question, but my query was (unintentionally I'm sure) misconstrued as asking for personal benefits and gain...which was not at all the case. Not that there's anything wrong with that! Please enlighten as to the benefits and betterment for our planet and ALL it's inhabitants. Please respond with facts and evidence of proven such benefits. 

 

Am honestly and anxiously awaiting replies. Thank you kindly. 

Edited December 6, 2019 by Skeptic7

[sirineou]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Right, modern science and the scientific method as we know it is much younger though.

 

If you define science as loosely as in your example, then we can easily include spirituality as a science as well:

What happens when I close my eyes and become still?

Oh wow, after doing this for some time I get real benefits from it.

I wonder if others get the same result...

Oh cool, all these people did what I did and report the same thing.

Hmmm, let's see if I can get deeper into it like my teacher said.

Ohhh, he was right, there is a lot more! 

etc etc etc

 

Which brings me back to Vincent's theory of the "ignorant peasant". This theory doesn't explain how come the experiences during meditation are repeatable by the meditator and are congruent with the experiences by other meditators. 
If the spiritual component were only a mental construct of some ignorant peasants , it would be without any real and practical application, without tangible benefits and most importantly, without a meaningful, coherent system....all of which are clearly there.

There is by now plenty of scientific data that suggests there are several physical and mental benefits that come from meditating. Even a hardcore materialist will find it hard to dispute that.

No one is disputing the benefits of meditation, Lots of scientific research in the field.   Who says "it would be without any real and practical application, without tangible benefits and most importantly, without a meaningful, coherent system.. " 

The only thing in dispute , and what I disagree with, is the spirituality aspect , if I had understood you correctly.

  Have I?   

   "In 1998, Dr. James Austin, a neurologist, wrote the book Zen and the Brain: Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness."

  "Before Austin, others had aimed to teach meditation to individuals without experience and without interest in spirituality, "

   "More than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles have been published on the subject of meditation."

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4770779

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

No one is disputing the benefits of meditation, Lots of scientific research in the field.   Who says "it would be without any real and practical application, without tangible benefits and most importantly, without a meaningful, coherent system.. " 

The only thing in dispute , and what I disagree with, is the spirituality aspect , if I had understood you correctly.

  Have I?   

   "In 1998, Dr. James Austin, a neurologist, wrote the book Zen and the Brain: Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness."

  "Before Austin, others had aimed to teach meditation to individuals without experience and without interest in spirituality, "

   "More than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles have been published on the subject of meditation."

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4770779

Absolutely.
So, we found a common ground, that's great. Meditation has scientifically proven benefits. 

Doesn't it seem strange to you that the physical and psychological benefits they profess turn out to be true, but when it comes to the spiritual benefits, they suddenly would be wrong?! It doesn't make any logical sense. 
Wouldn't they, as the authorities in their field, know better?

It seems to me that the shortcoming is not on their side, but on the side of those who can't accept that meditation does indeed open the doors to spiritual realities.

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Absolutely.
So, we found a common ground, that's great. Meditation has scientifically proven benefits. 

Doesn't it seem strange to you that the physical and psychological benefits they profess turn out to be true, but when it comes to the spiritual benefits, they suddenly would be wrong?! It doesn't make any logical sense. 
Wouldn't they, as the authorities in their field, know better?

It seems to me that the shortcoming is not on their side, but on the side of those who can't accept that meditation does indeed open the doors to spiritual realities.

No one is disputing the benefits of being in the zone, what are disputing is it's causes. Every scientific study suggests that it is a physical occurrence and non, zero, nada, not one suggests that it is metaphysical. 

Perhaps we have a different understanding of what spirituality is.  

 

 

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Absolutely.
So, we found a common ground, that's great. Meditation has scientifically proven benefits. 

Doesn't it seem strange to you that the physical and psychological benefits they profess turn out to be true, but when it comes to the spiritual benefits, they suddenly would be wrong?! It doesn't make any logical sense. 
Wouldn't they, as the authorities in their field, know better?

It seems to me that the shortcoming is not on their side, but on the side of those who can't accept that meditation does indeed open the doors to spiritual realities.

1 word...

 

1. No

[Sunmaster]

8 hours ago, sirineou said:

No one is disputing the benefits of being in the zone, what are disputing is it's causes. Every scientific study suggests that it is a physical occurrence and non, zero, nada, not one suggests that it is metaphysical. 

Perhaps we have a different understanding of what spirituality is.  

 

 

The cause of the benefits? Meditation.
Scientific studies can only study physical and psychological symptoms, that's its field of expertise. That's were it's able to study and find the benefits.

Science, as it is structured today, is not able to study metaphysical symptoms, unless they have reactions on the physical or mental level. Again, the shortcoming here lies with science who doesn't have the tools to measure and evaluate these spiritual benefits. In no way can this be a proof of non-existence of Spirit and spirituality.

A serious scientist will say: "At this point we can't conclude one way or another if there is something more or not". Not "There definitely is nothing else".

 

Let's give them some time....after all, spiritual science had a head start of a few millennia, while modern science just started their research about 50 years ago.
So, well done to science for confirming 2 out of 3 so far.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Sunmaster

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

The cause of the benefits? Meditation.
Scientific studies can only study physical and psychological symptoms, that's its field of expertise. That's were it's able to study and find the benefits.

Science, as it is structured today, is not able to study metaphysical symptoms, unless they have reactions on the physical or mental level. Again, the shortcoming here lies with science who doesn't have the tools to measure and evaluate these spiritual benefits. In no way can this be a proof of non-existence of spirituality.

A serious scientist will say: "At this point we can't conclude one way or another if there is something more or not". Not "There definitely is nothing else".

 

Let's give them some time....after all, spiritual science had a head start of a few millennia, while modern science just started their research about 50 years ago.
So, well done to science for confirming 2 out of 3 so far.

Not the cause of the meditation,the cause of the benefits of the meditation.

Science is a method, a process, and it can explore all things that are explorable,

Do you mean we don't yet have the technology to explore metaphysics, if so how do you?

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Let's give them some time....after all, spiritual science had a head start of a few millennia, while modern science just started their research about 50 years ago.
So, well done to science for confirming 2 out of 3 so far.

Science, intended as the search for the truth, is the product of the highest spiritual part of humans, imho, if there is a difference, we should say physical science and spiritual science, and those 2 are connected anyway.

[Sunmaster]

6 hours ago, sirineou said:

Not the cause of the meditation,the cause of the benefits of the meditation.

Science is a method, a process, and it can explore all things that are explorable,

Do you mean we don't yet have the technology to explore metaphysics, if so how do you?

That's exactly what I mean. We don't have the technology yet. I don't know if we will ever have a technology that can measure metaphysics, but I don't exclude it.
How do you explore metaphysics? The same way it has been explored until now....sit down, close your eyes and get on with it.
Hey, the worst that can happen to you is better health and a relaxed mind. ????????

[sirineou]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Hey, the worst that can happen to you is better health and a relaxed mind. ????????

I totally agree with you, I meditate , I think most of as do at some level. I think we all should meditate more. But when you close your eyes and get on with it, you are not exploring metaphysics IMO you are exploring meditation. You are attributing metaphysical  attributes to it just because it makes you like but you have no evidence or reason other than that you like it is an emotional decision not a rational one. 

. IMO you would get more benefits if you did it in rational way that way you can apply all that science has so far discovered about it and perhaps improve upon it.  IMO metaphysics is taking you down the wrong path.

Anyway, That's my thinking I could be just as wrong as I think you are.

[Sunmaster]

13 hours ago, sirineou said:

I totally agree with you, I meditate , I think most of as do at some level. I think we all should meditate more. But when you close your eyes and get on with it, you are not exploring metaphysics IMO you are exploring meditation. You are attributing metaphysical  attributes to it just because it makes you like but you have no evidence or reason other than that you like it is an emotional decision not a rational one. 

. IMO you would get more benefits if you did it in rational way that way you can apply all that science has so far discovered about it and perhaps improve upon it.  IMO metaphysics is taking you down the wrong path.

Anyway, That's my thinking I could be just as wrong as I think you are.

I don't think I'm irrational at all, quite the opposite actually. ????

As a meditator you know...The usual way is to meditate, practice for a lot of years and develop an internal strength, and if you're lucky have some important breakthroughs throughout your practice. Right?

I hadn't done any of that when I had my "lucky breakthrough", but it wasn't earned the usual way and I had no idea what had happened to me. After learning about meditation, I discovered that the state I experienced was in fact attainable through meditative practice. Unfortunately, he bliss wears off after time and busy life gets in the way, but the important truths I have learned remain and make up the foundation of....well....ME. 

 

So you see...that's why I think my path is yes, emotional on some level, but also very rational and logical: meditation represents a direct path back to that blissful state. 

It would be very tempting if science had a way to get there fast and stay there permanently, but that would be too easy, wouldn't it? Hard lessons have to be learned along the way, without exceptions and without shortcuts. They are the fire that hardens the steel, so to speak.

 

[canuckamuck]

“No man says, ‘There is no God’ but he whose interest it is there should be none.” — Augustine

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

“No man says, ‘There is no God’ but he whose interest it is there should be none.” — Augustine

I agree to a certain extent.

Nowadays, lying has become an art, my guess is there are some self professed believers who don't believe, and some self professed atheists who, deep inside, are believers.

[Sunmaster]

Michael Shermer summarizes the findings of a survey of 10,000 Americans on their belief in God:

 

Notice that the intellectually based reasons offered for belief in God — “the good design of the universe” and “the experience of God in everyday life” — which occupied first and second place when people were describing their own beliefs dropped to sixth and third place, respectively, when they were describing the beliefs of others. Indeed, when reflecting on others’ beliefs, the two most common reasons cited were emotion-based (and fear-averse!): personal comfort (“ comforting, relieving, consoling”) and social comfort (“raised to believe”).

 

Sulloway and I believe that these results are evidence of an intellectual attribution bias, in which people consider their own beliefs as being rationally motivated, whereas they see the beliefs of others as being emotionally driven…This intellectual attribution bias appears to be equal opportunity on the subject of God.  (Shermer, Michael (2010-04-01). Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design (pp. 37-38). Macmillan. Kindle Edition).

 

This intellectual attribution bias, or in-group favoritism, leads us to have an inaccurate perception of others.