Do you believe in God and why

[luckyluke]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

This makes less sense, imho.

There are "opinions" which are more accurate, and less accurate "opinions".

Agree with you when an opinion is measurable and expressed by someone which authority in the matter is recognised by everyone, not only his followers or/and people dealing the same belief. 

 

[Tippaporn]

18 hours ago, ThaiBunny said:

  

20 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

 

20 hours ago, ThaiBunny said:

The obvious conclusion is that "God" does not exist. It's an answer proposed by utilising Occam's Razor

I would love to see you lay out your argument, determining God doesn't exist, using Occam's razor methodology.

 

The simplest answer (ie. using Occam's Razor) as to why "God" permits evil to exist is to remove God from the equation altogether. It doesn't determine whether God exists as it's not possible to prove any such thing; anyone's position on God (and my favourite position is 69, followed by 68) is merely an inference or a set of inferences based on your subjective perceptions. Go and listen to the podcasts I listed if you need to understand how perception works

If Occam's Razor is to take the simplest of two or more explanations then I fail to see how simply removing God from the equation satisfies Occam's Razor methodology.  Perhaps you need to add something more?  As it is it's very unclear to me.

 

BTW, I listened to about 80% of the podcasts you posted but found that in their discussions on psychotropic drugs they do not touch on any explanation for how perception works.  Maybe it was given in the 20% that I did not listen to.  Perhaps you could give us an understanding in your own words?

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

People who believe in God do not generally consider evil to be God's error.  Some do discount the problem of evil though.

Well, it's a fact that nobody has an identical view on what is "evil".

Although the 10 commandments seem to be quite reasonable as a general rule for a functioning society, it is true that, in some cases, they leave some room to personal interpretation.

Perhaps "evil" is a necessary ingredient of the mix we call "life in this world", and the only way one can get rid of it, is to migrate to a higher state of consciousness.

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Agree with you when an opinion is measurable and expressed by someone which authority in the matter is recognised by everyone, not only his followers or/and people dealing the same belief. 

 

Well, the sound of a car engine may give more joy to someone than the music composed by a genius, personally i prefer the music.

It's all relative, but one can't deny that, as humans we have a constant desire to improve and evolve, in general and in the specific.

The minerals, the plants, the animals and the humans are the living proof that hierarchies exist, the theory that we are at the top of the hierarchy is very unlikely imho.

Working on our consciousness can open paths to higher levels of existence, so i disagree with your theory that "opinions are all the same".

[luckyluke]

16 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Although the 10 commandments seem to be quite reasonable as a general rule for a functioning society,

Here I agree too, except the order it is stated. 

It seems that 1 till 5 is considered as more important than 6 to 10.

 

 

[luckyluke]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

so i disagree with your theory that "opinions are all the same"

Fair enough, we agree to disagree. 

 

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Here I agree too, except the order it is stated. 

It seems that 1 till 5 is considered as more important than 6 to 10.

 

 

Lol, i have to confess that i had to google the Decalogue, i didn't remember all of them.

We could split hairs for years, personally i think that the 1rst 3 commandments are outdated, the other 7 are ok, but that's just a shallow impression of mine, and surely it can be debated.

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

No confusion from me, and the contradiction between "true science" and the "authority of science" is not a new thing.

The fact is that the scientists, well, most of them, have always been in the pocket of those who pay the bills.

Then why did you agree with Tippaporn's statement: "I believe they have adopted a fatal flaw in that their pursuit of answers to any question must be based in pure objectivity."

 

Why didn't you point out that 'the mouth of science' can be quite different from the 'actual science' which must be based on pure objectivity and the employment of the known requirements of the rigorous methodology of science, before a degree of certainty on any issue can be achieved?
 

[Sunmaster]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Then why did you agree with Tippaporn's statement: "I believe they have adopted a fatal flaw in that their pursuit of answers to any question must be based in pure objectivity."

 

Why didn't you point out that 'the mouth of science' can be quite different from the 'actual science' which must be based on pure objectivity and the employment of the known requirements of the rigorous methodology of science, before a degree of certainty on any issue can be achieved?
 

We have been working for nearly a year here to show atheists that Spirit/God is different from religion.

 

Perhaps you have to do the same to separate the corrupt science from the actual science?

[rvaviator]

Interesting topic - I have been reading a lot of the posts.  Last night I cam across this video which I thought gave a good reason / idea why "we" believe in God ... Maybe it has been posted on here before if so please forgive me for posting it again

 

 

 

 

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Then why did you agree with Tippaporn's statement: "I believe they have adopted a fatal flaw in that their pursuit of answers to any question must be based in pure objectivity."

 

Why didn't you point out that 'the mouth of science' can be quite different from the 'actual science' which must be based on pure objectivity and the employment of the known requirements of the rigorous methodology of science, before a degree of certainty on any issue can be achieved?
 

Well, is it fair for you to say that there are grey areas, for example, how to define "pure objectivity" ?

Tbh, i am questioning my own "pure objectivity" all the time.

Oh, and i think i pointed out several times the difference between "pure" science, which i consider a kind of deity, and the "official narrative of science" which can be absolutely consistent, like in the case of the laws of mathematics, or "pure speculation at best" like in the case of the "big bang" theory, which imho doesn't make any sense.

[VincentRJ]

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

We have been working for nearly a year here to show atheists that Spirit/God is different from religion.

 

Perhaps you have to do the same to separate the corrupt science from the actual science?

I began separating the corrupt science from the actual science many years ago when I was a teenager in school studying physics. This problem is not new to me, but it's a problem that most people seem to be unaware of because they don't seem to understand the fundamental processes of the methodology of science.

 

[ThaiBunny]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

If Occam's Razor is to take the simplest of two or more explanations then I fail to see how simply removing God from the equation satisfies Occam's Razor methodology.  Perhaps you need to add something more?  As it is it's very unclear to me.

 

BTW, I listened to about 80% of the podcasts you posted but found that in their discussions on psychotropic drugs they do not touch on any explanation for how perception works.  Maybe it was given in the 20% that I did not listen to.  Perhaps you could give us an understanding in your own words?

I think your request falls into the Matthew 7:6 category

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

This problem is not new to me, but it's a problem that most people seem to be unaware of because they don't seem to understand the fundamental processes of the methodology of science.

You don't seem to have a high opinion of human beings, lol, i think that most of the contributors on this thread understand the difference very well.

Where we differ, is that the perception of the reality cannot be limited to the information coming from the 5 physical senses and filtered through our brains.

Fantasy is made of the same material of intuition, which can be as necessary as reasoning to penetrate the mysteries of the universe, so to automatically dismiss everything which can't be proven is wrong imho

[ThaiBunny]

19 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

they don't seem to understand the fundamental processes of the methodology of science.

You mean the process of proposing a hypothesis and then testing it (falsifiability)? I enjoy many of the things Karl Popper is credited as saying, including the one most appropriate for contributing for threads such as this - "It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood" - as well as "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality"

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

You mean the process of proposing a hypothesis and then testing it (falsifiability)? I enjoy many of the things Karl Popper is credited as saying, including the one most appropriate for contributing for threads such as this - "It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood" - as well as "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality"

I hope you do realise that "reality" is a very relative concept, do you ?

[Tippaporn]

19 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

19 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Why would some people have a positive experience from an "encounter" with "God" and why would others have a destructive experience from a supposedly identical "encounter" with "God?"

 

I'll take, "What are beliefs?", Alex for $100..

Not sure i understand the last line, however i see it this way.

<snip>

To explain my statement I need to return to the concept of "The Universe As Idea Construction."  The alternate view of reality I take is from Seth, an energy personality who has since traveled through earthly experience and provides an explanation of who and what we are and what reality is and how it operates.

 

Warning:  If the above is too much for some to swallow then please stop reading now.  (Just being humourous.)

 

So, following is Seth's explanation (which I will keep in very general terms and express in my own words).  We are multidimensional creatures existing in many different realities simultaneously.  What you see in the mirror is only a portion of yourself; that portion which involves itself with physical reality specifically.  We have been endowed by a creator with absolute freedom and unlimited creativity for the purpose of expressing who we are as accurately and in as many ways as possible.  The expansion of ourselves (and All-That-Is) is never ending as we continually add on to All That Is.  In all that we experience, and in any reality we find ourselves, the singular rule is that we always create our own realities.

 

Physical reality is in a sense an illusion in that it is in all aspects a three dimensional representation of the inner, subjective reality in which we all exist.  The source of physical reality is subjective reality.  Nothing exists in this world, neither objects nor events, which did not first exist in a subjective universe.  Physical laws are not universal to all realities but specific only to physical reality, although universal laws governing all realities obviously apply here as well.

 

Now, as to how we create physical reality (again, in very general terms) we do so using ideas as the building blocks.  Hence, the universe as idea construction.  Beliefs are ideas which are oft repeated.  Our reality (and our experience of it and within it) is for the most part created as the result of our individual beliefs.  The totality of our beliefs results in our personal world view.  Everyone has differing beliefs and therefore differing world views with no two  exactly alike nor can they ever can be exactly alike.

 

All of this just to properly explain my statement.  Any "encounter" with "God" will be interpreted according to one's own personal beliefs.  Hence, two (or more) people claiming the exact same experience end up with completely different responses.  Therefore, "I'll take "What are beliefs" for 100 smackers, Alex."

 

Now, before anyone wants to perhaps jump down my throat with potentially emotional protestations of what I wrote please consider that the above statements are very general but should convey the gist in most basic terms.  There is a whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooole lot more to the story.

 

No one would seriously consider that an explanation of who and what we are and what this reality of extreme complexity is can be explained with a few short statements in five minutes time now would they?  Seriously?

 

Separately I will mention a statement made by Seth (again, I will paraphrase) which I absolutely concur with:  It is impossible to come to a true understanding of our world without an understanding of who and what we are.  For those who are familiar with Don Juan of Carlos Castaneda fame they may recall Don Juan's beautiful statement:  There is no more worthy endeavor for us to undertake than to understand who we are.  All of the answers lie there.

 

Anyway, it should be fun to read the replies to this.

[ThaiBunny]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Warning:  If the above is too much for some to swallow then please stop reading now.  (Just being humourous.)

No, I'm always up for a good laugh

[ThaiBunny]

10 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I hope you do realise that "reality" is a very relative concept, do you ?

I'm not quite sure how to parse that

[Tippaporn]

23 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I think your request falls into the Matthew 7:6 category

LOL.  This from Wiki on Matthew 7:6.

 

This well known verse, which has no parallel elsewhere in the New Testament, is a difficult one to interpret. There is much debate over what is represented by the holy and what by the unclean animals. How it is linked to the previous and proceeding verses is also in question.

 

Are you certain you're interpreting it correctly?  (just joking.)  Parables can be a b!tch.

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Anyway, it should be fun to read the replies to this.

Well, as for fun you might be disappointed, but on the base of my readings and life experiences, i completely agree with Mr. Seth and Don Juan !

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

No, I'm always up for a good laugh

I'll laugh with ya but I doubt we're laughing at the same thing.  5555555555

[Tippaporn]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Well, as for fun you might be disappointed, but on the base of my readings and life experiences, i completely agree with Mr. Seth and Don Juan !

Nah, I already enjoyed a good laugh with my favourite poster, ThaiBunny.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I'm not quite sure how to parse that

Yes, the same goes for "reality", there must be infinite ways to "parse" reality. (thanks for teaching me a new word)

[piewarmer]

if god is the universe that is all around us then yes (mother nature)

Religion on the other hand is just fantasy

[ThaiBunny]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Parables can be a b!tch.

I don't think I've ever seen it described as a "parable" before

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I don't think I've ever seen it described as a "parable" before

Wonders never cease, btw, what is your definition of "reality" ?

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I don't think I've ever seen it described as a "parable" before

Well, you just learned something new.  And here I thought you were adamant that you weren't going to learn anything new here.

 

A. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

B. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.

 

Sorry, just having good, clean fun with you, ThaiBunny.  This thread wouldn't be the same without you.

[ThaiBunny]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

A. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

B. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.

Based on those criteria you are contending that the admonishment "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces" is a parable? Under which category (a) "an allegorical story", or (b) "comparison, analogy" does it qualify? It's not listed in any compendium of Jesus' parables eg http://ww3.haverford.edu/religion/courses/301F09/List of Parables.htm so presumably you have some special knowledge - or is that special needs?

[Sunmaster]

43 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Well, you just learned something new.  And here I thought you were adamant that you weren't going to learn anything new here.

 

A. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

B. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.

 

Sorry, just having good, clean fun with you, ThaiBunny.  This thread wouldn't be the same without you.

The way I interpret it, is that one has to be careful to present those truths that are dearest to him to an audience that is not ready to hear them. 

Because some people in the audience will ridicule you and your truths, attack you verbally (and physically if they get the chance) and feel that they have the moral right and intellectual superiority to mock you at every turn.

 

I might be wrong though....