Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

30 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Thanks, Dr. Phil.

 

This is the slippery slope the "find thyself" spiritual mongers surf on.   Create and exploit doubt, fill the gap with the prescribed word salad from the Jesus Incorporated handbook about how to live your life according to "Him who is He".  They try to pass themselves off as neutral, "all we need is love" hippies, but they're no different to the religious pimps.

So, trying to be the best you can with the abilities you have, means to step on a slippery slope? Please tell me how "finding yourself" is in any way dangerous or detrimental to your mental sanity. Are you threatened that much?
I don't think I recommended you to read a single book or told you to follow any one person throughout my posts, so no, no religious pimp here. Thank you very much.

All I said was, that to evolve we have to search for the Truth within and don't give up at the first obstacle. 
I'm sure you'll agree that to follow this simple guideline, you don't need to be religious, nor do you have to dismiss it because you're atheist.
 

[55Jay]

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

So, trying to be the best you can with the abilities you have, means to step on a slippery slope? Please tell me how "finding yourself" is in any way dangerous or detrimental to your mental sanity. Are you threatened that much?
I don't think I recommended you to read a single book or told you to follow any one person throughout my posts, so no, no religious pimp here. Thank you very much.

All I said was, that to evolve we have to search for the Truth within and don't give up at the first obstacle. 
I'm sure you'll agree that to follow this simple guideline, you don't need to be religious, nor do you have to dismiss it because you're atheist.

Indeed, I'm terrified about what I might learn fooling around in the corners of my mind where gods and spirits roam, like sea monsters just over the horizon of flat Earth. 

 

I don't mean to knock the spiritual gurus, just that they seem to follow a pattern in how they roll out their script in these kinds of discussions. 

 

Your post, the one I responded to, starts out with a passive aggressive dig at skeptics and atheists.  "For those who only believe what is rational, measurable and "categorizable". 

 

"Only believe".  That they limit themselves to a single source - science.  It's a soft shoe suggestion that, therefore, their understanding of the world and themselves, is limited.

 

* - Fair play I suppose.  Science geeks tend to razz the religious in the same way. ????

 

Next is the false dilemma with a confounding question.  In this case, Love.  Can you measure it?  "No, you can't!".  So you see, science can't answer everything! 

 

The question itself is meant to create a pause to be exploited, like an Amway salesman rushing the pitch before the door slams in his face.

 

The spiritual mongers will disarm by saying they're not religious, but god, et al, is woven into the script.  God was the second to last word in your comment. 

 

You are right though.  Science goons prefer the ordered, scientific process, and sure, they gravitate toward the rational, measurable and categorizable - even better, discoveries that create new, exciting categories.  Something religion and it's cousin, spirituality, don't offer.

 

The one thing you omitted in your characterization of rational science types is they will reject those who attempt to mystify something that's already known.  Like Love.  These days, a 7-year old with smart phone is able to learn about the fundamental chemical process in what we humans call "love", just as easily as they can learn why their finger will hurt if they smash it with a hammer, or what causes them to "feel" hungry.  

Edited April 26, 2019 by 55Jay

[Sunmaster]

13 hours ago, 55Jay said:

Indeed, I'm terrified about what I might learn fooling around in the corners of my mind where gods and spirits roam, like sea monsters just over the horizon of flat Earth. 

 

I don't mean to knock the spiritual gurus, just that they seem to follow a pattern in how they roll out their script in these kinds of discussions. 

 

Your post, the one I responded to, starts out with a passive aggressive dig at skeptics and atheists.  "For those who only believe what is rational, measurable and "categorizable". 

 

"Only believe".  That they limit themselves to a single source - science.  It's a soft shoe suggestion that, therefore, their understanding of the world and themselves, is limited.

 

* - Fair play I suppose.  Science geeks tend to razz the religious in the same way. ????

 

Next is the false dilemma with a confounding question.  In this case, Love.  Can you measure it?  "No, you can't!".  So you see, science can't answer everything! 

 

The question itself is meant to create a pause to be exploited, like an Amway salesman rushing the pitch before the door slams in his face.

 

The spiritual mongers will disarm by saying they're not religious, but god, et al, is woven into the script.  God was the second to last word in your comment. 

 

You are right though.  Science goons prefer the ordered, scientific process, and sure, they gravitate toward the rational, measurable and categorizable - even better, discoveries that create new, exciting categories.  Something religion and it's cousin, spirituality, don't offer.

 

The one thing you omitted in your characterization of rational science types is they will reject those who attempt to mystify something that's already known.  Like Love.  These days, a 7-year old with smart phone is able to learn about the fundamental chemical process in what we humans call "love", just as easily as they can learn why their finger will hurt if they smash it with a hammer, or what causes them to "feel" hungry.  

Some good points.
You say:
"Only believe".  That they limit themselves to a single source - science.  It's a soft shoe suggestion that, therefore, their understanding of the world and themselves, is limited.

 

Yes. I think that if you only use science to understand the world and yourself, you're using only one tool, when there are many more at your disposal. In that sense, the understanding is limited.

I normally don't use the word "God" as it evokes too many preconceptions of what we've learnt God to be. In Christian religion, a stern and sometimes vengeful father-figure, which is very far from how I see it.
I prefer to use "Spirit", because it's non-personal. Many though will associate this word with the New Age movement and Self-Help brigade. So be it.

 

For sure, every emotional response can be explained with release of hormones, but what comes first?
Hormones produce the feeling of love, or is it the other way around... the release of hormones are a consequence of the feeling? Honest question...I don't know.

[55Jay]

4 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Some good points.
You say:
"Only believe".  That they limit themselves to a single source - science.  It's a soft shoe suggestion that, therefore, their understanding of the world and themselves, is limited.

 

Yes. I think that if you only use science to understand the world and yourself, you're using only one tool, when there are many more at your disposal. In that sense, the understanding is limited.

I normally don't use the word "God" as it evokes too many preconceptions of what we've learnt God to be. In Christian religion, a stern and sometimes vengeful father-figure, which is very far from how I see it.
I prefer to use "Spirit", because it's non-personal. Many though will associate this word with the New Age movement and Self-Help brigade. So be it.

 

For sure, every emotional response can be explained with release of hormones, but what comes first?
Hormones produce the feeling of love, or is it the other way around... the release of hormones are a consequence of the feeling? Honest question...I don't know.

The organized spirituality genre isn't going to tell you jack.  It's just you talking to yourself in your own head. 

 

In this context, Spirituality Inc. is repackaged, rebranded, gluten free "God-Lite".  Crafted by humans as a refuge for those who don't want / no longer want the stigma and dogma of one of the Majors, but still want to believe (or at least appear to) they are a special, unique being created by a god entity.  Popular fad again with the Millenials as they ditch their parents' religion but still need to round out their identity.

 

If you want to go on a "journey" and discover what makes you and I tick, and don't mind admitting your just an animal, try Behavioral Sciences.

 

Quote

- Information processing sciences deals with information processing of stimuli from the social environment by cognitive entities in order to engage in decision making, social judgment and social perception for individual functioning and survival of organism in a social environment. These include psychology, cognitive science, psychobiology, neural networks, social cognition, social psychology, semantic networks, ethology, and social neuroscience.

 

- Relational sciences deals with relationships, interaction, communication networks, associations and relational strategies or dynamics between organisms or cognitive entities in a social system. These include fields like sociological social psychology, social networks, dynamic network analysis, agent-based model and microsimulation.

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by 55Jay

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 2:24 PM, transam said:

Hmmmm, well must be 40 years back I brought a bloke back to life using mouth to mouth as nothing else worked. He later died in hospital with his wife and born that day baby.....Very sad story....????

If there is a heart beat and no breaths, mouth to mouth can be used. Under no circumstances should one do heart compressions if the patient has a beating heart. One has to be very lucky to be resuscitated by CPR without proper equipment, and if "dead" for too long will be brought back with brain damage.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Some good points.
You say:
"Only believe".  That they limit themselves to a single source - science.  It's a soft shoe suggestion that, therefore, their understanding of the world and themselves, is limited.

 

Yes. I think that if you only use science to understand the world and yourself, you're using only one tool, when there are many more at your disposal. In that sense, the understanding is limited.

I normally don't use the word "God" as it evokes too many preconceptions of what we've learnt God to be. In Christian religion, a stern and sometimes vengeful father-figure, which is very far from how I see it.
I prefer to use "Spirit", because it's non-personal. Many though will associate this word with the New Age movement and Self-Help brigade. So be it.

 

For sure, every emotional response can be explained with release of hormones, but what comes first?
Hormones produce the feeling of love, or is it the other way around... the release of hormones are a consequence of the feeling? Honest question...I don't know.

Sorry, but it's not possible to "feel" something without the body doing something first. Our body is just a biological machine. Would a computer be able to do something before someone pushed a key to make it do something?

 

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

The organized spirituality genre isn't going to tell you jack.  It's just you talking to yourself in your own head.  You might as well clasp your hands, close your eyes and pray.  Or stand on one leg, rub your head and belly at the same time.  6 1/2 dozen the other. 

 

In this context, spirituality is repackaged, rebranded, gluten free "God-Lite".  Crafted by humans as a refuge for those who don't want / no longer want the stigma and dogma of one of the Majors, but still want to believe (or at least appear to) they are a special, unique being created by a generic god entity.  Backed by the same number of facts as the other ethnic/cultural gods.  Zero.

 

If you want to learn what makes us tick, try the Behavioral Sciences. 

 

 

Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree on this point. From my own experience I can tell you that there is much more to it than you think. You look at it from the outside and judge it from that point of view. I can tell you from the inside, having been around it for the past 25+ years.
I'm not here to change your opinion and I'm not trying to look down on anyone, it just means I've gathered more info about it throughout my life to make a more balanced judgement of what it is about.
Again, I would like to emphasize the fact that I didn't start as a believer (I was atheist until 20yo), but do to a profound experience, I was left with no choice but to accept that there is more to life than science is able to explain. My approach to the "God" question is very simple: we already have all the tools necessary to find the answers to our deepest questions, no need for holy books or gurus. It's simple but it's not easy.

I'm a practical person and have no patience for empty rituals and superstitions. Hope this makes sense.
 

[transam]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If there is a heart beat and no breaths, mouth to mouth can be used. Under no circumstances should one do heart compressions if the patient has a beating heart. One has to be very lucky to be resuscitated by CPR without proper equipment, and if "dead" for too long will be brought back with brain damage.

In my case the bloke was dead......After the mouth to mouth stuff I had heart beat......Ambulance arrived and took over.......He was put on life support at hozzy  but was declared brain dead......His wife and baby saw him alive......The wife had to say turn the life machine off....????

To this day I think about it....He was the same age as me...

[Sunmaster]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sorry, but it's not possible to "feel" something without the body doing something first. Our body is just a biological machine. Would a computer be able to do something before someone pushed a key to make it do something?

 

Ok, so first there's the thought, the thought fires up the neurons, those send signals to the glands who in turn secrete hormones. Those change the biochemistry of our bodies, making us feel. Right?

That would mean that we kind of "decide" to love someone and by thinking about it, we produce the feeling?
I don't know, doesn't sound right....

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

Ok, so first there's the thought, the thought fires up the neurons, those send signals to the glands who in turn secrete hormones. Those change the biochemistry of our bodies, making us feel. Right?

That would mean that we kind of "decide" to love someone and by thinking about it, we produce the feeling?
I don't know, doesn't sound right....

I know it's confusing, but everything happens by electricity in the body. A thought is just an electrical impulse in the brain. Without the electrical impulse there would be no thought, or even life.

However, it could also be "God" making us think something, without the use of electricity. Take your pick.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree on this point. From my own experience I can tell you that there is much more to it than you think. You look at it from the outside and judge it from that point of view. I can tell you from the inside, having been around it for the past 25+ years.
I'm not here to change your opinion and I'm not trying to look down on anyone, it just means I've gathered more info about it throughout my life to make a more balanced judgement of what it is about.
Again, I would like to emphasize the fact that I didn't start as a believer (I was atheist until 20yo), but do to a profound experience, I was left with no choice but to accept that there is more to life than science is able to explain. My approach to the "God" question is very simple: we already have all the tools necessary to find the answers to our deepest questions, no need for holy books or gurus. It's simple but it's not easy.

I'm a practical person and have no patience for empty rituals and superstitions. Hope this makes sense.
 

I've always believed in something greater than us. However, I was quite religious when a boy, but came to believe that "religion" was just a con by the men in funny hats. I still believe in something greater than us.

[55Jay]

Just now, Sunmaster said:

Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree on this point. From my own experience I can tell you that there is much more to it than you think. You look at it from the outside and judge it from that point of view. I can tell you from the inside, having been around it for the past 25+ years.
I'm not here to change your opinion and I'm not trying to look down on anyone, it just means I've gathered more info about it throughout my life to make a more balanced judgement of what it is about.
Again, I would like to emphasize the fact that I didn't start as a believer (I was atheist until 20yo), but do to a profound experience, I was left with no choice but to accept that there is more to life than science is able to explain. My approach to the "God" question is very simple: we already have all the tools necessary to find the answers to our deepest questions, no need for holy books or gurus. It's simple but it's not easy.

I'm a practical person and have no patience for empty rituals and superstitions. Hope this makes sense.

Yes, makes perfect sense to me.  I'm on board with you about being practical.  I don't do rituals and superstition anymore, and grimace when others around me do.   From there we part ways as, IMV, entertaining the "god" question is an irrational suspension of that practical approach.   Asking the question gives it credibility and space it doesn't warrant, or deserve.  

 

Most rational folks wouldn't expend much, or any, effort casting about for an answer to a question stemming from an absurd, fact-free claim. 

[Sunmaster]

The fact that millions of people asked and are still asking the God question should be proof enough that it deserves space, in my opinion. A space free of religious dogma and secular prejudice. To dismiss it as absurd a priori is just as absurd to me and should be to any honest, inquiring mind. 
 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Sunmaster

[ivor bigun]

When i was a child ,i thought as a child,i believed as a child and acted like a child,when i grew up i put away childish things. When i was a child i believed in God ,but then i also believed in Santa and the tooth fairey,then i grew up.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[55Jay]

Just now, Sunmaster said:

The fact that millions of people asked and are still asking the God question should be proof enough that it deserves space, in my opinion. A space free of religious dogma and secular prejudice. To dismiss it as absurd a priori is just as absurd to me and should be to any honest, inquiring mind.

So what? 

 

Gods are religious dogma, it's all the same stuff. 

 

I for one would certainly appreciate the total absence of religious dogma and, by extension, the gods won't survive for long either.  That's bound to happen to our current god characters anyway, as it has with so many before during and after them. 

[Sunmaster]

No, the search for what is beyond the physical was there long before any established religion, and will be there long after all religions have died away.

Spiritual food is just as necessary as normal food. 

[sweatalot]

On 4/24/2019 at 8:08 AM, transam said:

Before asking: does God exist - and what does he/she do or want from us? we should ask another more elementary question: -  who is asking this question? - or what am I ? My body? the brain? thoughts? when did I begin existing? can  I be sure "I" am gone when the body is dead? Why don't I remember the begin of my life?

 

And about existence: when you dream do you know that you are dreaming? And when you are not dreaming - can you be sure that you are not dreaming? Really? There are questions that science has no answer for. And there are observations in quantum mechanics that must be accepted but cannot be understood by our way of logic. 

 

[transam]

12 hours ago, sweatalot said:

 

I never wrote that....

 

[sweatalot]

2 hours ago, transam said:

I never wrote that....

 

sorry again, my mistake. Should not be a quote

Edited April 28, 2019 by sweatalot

[Sunmaster]

From Psychology Today:
What you may discover in this little exercise is that emotions follow thoughts and that without thoughts as drivers, emotions are mere shadow puppets on the wall.  Put another way, an emotion needs to be about something. You can’t be angry, fearful, or joyful in a thought vacuum. 
(https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-minute-therapist/201512/feeling-your-thoughts)

 

and:
As quotidian as talk about thoughts may be, what thoughts are remains mysterious from a neuroscientific point of view. They are certainly caused by brain function, but we do not yet have a solid idea regarding what it is about brain function that gives rise to them. Is it the particular kinds of neurons involved? The way a single neuron (probably not) or population of neurons fire? Do conscious thoughts require the activation of specific networks of brain regions or of tracts (the information highways that allow for brain regions to communicate with each other)? Do thoughts require activation of perceptual areas of the brain (a controversial notion)? At this stage of scientific understanding, we just don't know.   
(https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/consciousness-and-the-brain/201202/what-is-thought)

Emotions are powerless without a conscious thought behind them.
Thoughts seem to be generated by brain functions, although science is not quite clear on that point.
But then I wonder, if brain functions produce thoughts, what makes those brain functions start in the first place? Some scientists call it consciousness, but so far nobody can really say exactly what it is.

So consciousness comes before brain activity>thoughts>emotions.
Is consciousness only a byproduct of brain activity, electrical charges flowing through the body?
The fact that there are so many reports of out-of-body experiences or remote viewing, would suggest that consciousness is not localized nor restricted inside the body, but that it merely uses the body to focalize and experience reality.
The next question of course would be, what happens to consciousness after the physical body dies?
If consciousness has the ability to leave the body, at least for a limited time while we're alive, will it simply dissolve, disappear into nothingness when we die?

This is where it gets hairy...

 

[mauGR1]

21 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The next question of course would be, what happens to consciousness after the physical body dies?
If consciousness has the ability to leave the body, at least for a limited time while we're alive, will it simply dissolve, disappear into nothingness when we die?

 

After a lot of thinking, reading and researching, i came to the conclusion that consciousness never dies, eventually creates another body to be able to "work" in the physical realm.

What we call "soul" is the intermediate between the physical body and the eternal, infinite spirit.

Every moment of the present life, we are building our next body.

[55Jay]

15 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

No, the search for what is beyond the physical was there long before any established religion, and will be there long after all religions have died away.

Spiritual food is just as necessary as normal food. 

Agreed.  A less admirable trait of our species is we speculate in the baffles of the unknown, and start makin' shit up to fill in the gap(s).  I reckon "god" got started the first time our primitive ancestors had the shit scared out of them by thunder and lighting.  

 

Science "food" is what drives our species forward.  It will continue to fill the gaps where god and spirit conjurers ply their trade like mystics and fortune tellers at the county fair. 

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, 55Jay said:

Agreed.  A less admirable trait of our species is we speculate in the baffles of the unknown, and start makin' shit up to fill in the gap(s).  I reckon "god" got started the first time our primitive ancestors had the shit scared out of them by thunder and lighting.  

 

Science "food" is what drives our species forward.  It will continue to fill the gaps where god and spirit conjurers ply their trade like mystics and fortune tellers at the county fair. 

Most don't bother to "speculate in the baffles of the unknown" IMO, which is why they find it easier to come up with a god that will give them their own version of 'heaven' after they die.

Edited April 28, 2019 by dick dasterdly

[dick dasterdly]

The idea of 'heaven' or 'hell' is ludicrous IMO - unless one believes in a sadistic god!

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, 55Jay said:

Agreed.  A less admirable trait of our species is we speculate in the baffles of the unknown, and start makin' shit up to fill in the gap(s).  I reckon "god" got started the first time our primitive ancestors had the shit scared out of them by thunder and lighting.  

 

Science "food" is what drives our species forward.  It will continue to fill the gaps where god and spirit conjurers ply their trade like mystics and fortune tellers at the county fair. 

Not quite. The first to tap into the unknown were the shamans. They were seekers who could navigate through trance states and used psychotropic substances to help them reach those states. 

The concept of God, as a personified entity came much much later.

 

What drives us forward is the search for knowledge and science is one of the tools to achieve that. There are other realities that by science's own admission, are not (yet) unexplainable, but can't be dismissed out of hand for lack of understanding. 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

From Psychology Today:
What you may discover in this little exercise is that emotions follow thoughts and that without thoughts as drivers, emotions are mere shadow puppets on the wall.  Put another way, an emotion needs to be about something. You can’t be angry, fearful, or joyful in a thought vacuum. 
(https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-minute-therapist/201512/feeling-your-thoughts)

 

and:
As quotidian as talk about thoughts may be, what thoughts are remains mysterious from a neuroscientific point of view. They are certainly caused by brain function, but we do not yet have a solid idea regarding what it is about brain function that gives rise to them. Is it the particular kinds of neurons involved? The way a single neuron (probably not) or population of neurons fire? Do conscious thoughts require the activation of specific networks of brain regions or of tracts (the information highways that allow for brain regions to communicate with each other)? Do thoughts require activation of perceptual areas of the brain (a controversial notion)? At this stage of scientific understanding, we just don't know.   
(https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/consciousness-and-the-brain/201202/what-is-thought)

Emotions are powerless without a conscious thought behind them.
Thoughts seem to be generated by brain functions, although science is not quite clear on that point.
But then I wonder, if brain functions produce thoughts, what makes those brain functions start in the first place? Some scientists call it consciousness, but so far nobody can really say exactly what it is.

So consciousness comes before brain activity>thoughts>emotions.
Is consciousness only a byproduct of brain activity, electrical charges flowing through the body?
The fact that there are so many reports of out-of-body experiences or remote viewing, would suggest that consciousness is not localized nor restricted inside the body, but that it merely uses the body to focalize and experience reality.
The next question of course would be, what happens to consciousness after the physical body dies?
If consciousness has the ability to leave the body, at least for a limited time while we're alive, will it simply dissolve, disappear into nothingness when we die?

This is where it gets hairy...

 

Humans know sod all about life the universe and everything. Sadly, some think they know everything. Just because one can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[UASCB500BIKER]

NO More God crap !!!!  he Sucks,,Why did my brother spend 50 YEARS in a wheel chair and my sister die at 6 months ????????????

[mauGR1]

As long as thoughts are real, so is spiritual science, to dismiss it is ignorance and laziness.

God cannot be proven, and so is the absence of God, but there are many clues, imo, that there is an intelligent design, the patterns can be seen, from the smallest particle to the infinite of the universe, and science itself is a proof of it.

[55Jay]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Not quite. The first to tap into the unknown were the shamans. They were seekers who could navigate through trance states and used psychotropic substances to help them reach those states. 

The concept of God, as a personified entity came much much later.

 

What drives us forward is the search for knowledge and science is one of the tools to achieve that. There are other realities that by science's own admission, are not (yet) unexplainable, but can't be dismissed out of hand for lack of understanding. 

  

 

Take care bro, good luck with your journey. ///

 

[Sunmaster]

8 hours ago, 55Jay said:

  

 

Take care bro, good luck with your journey. ///

 

Only fools make fun of things they don't understand. 

 

Good luck on your journey, too. You need it.