Do you believe in God and why

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Consciousness doesn't belong only to humans. It's a quality of all life-forms. How can an ant or a worm survive if it is not conscious of its environment?

 

However, the level and degree of consciousness varies significantly amongst the different species of animals. The human capacity for abstract thought puts us at the top of the pyramid. We can even imagine that a rock has consciousness. ????

Every single thing on this planet is made from atoms, therefore it is not unreasonable to suppose that every single thing on the planet is connected to every single other thing on an atomic level, and furthermore, because everything in the universe originated from the big bang, that everything in the universe is connected at an atomic level.

 

That connection would be described by some as God.

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

Am semi-conscious with laughter...and nearly unconscious with  boredom. (insert yawn here) 

 

Talk about rants, tantrums and hissy fits...now there's a doozy! 555

 

Of course, when there is a lack of intelligent arguments, laughter and sleep must be used as placeholder. 

And of course, I'm not surprised in the slightest. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 7/16/2021 at 8:56 PM, Stubby said:

WHICH GOD ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?

 

The title of this thread is "Do You Believe in God?" 

 

I was just wondering which god the OP is referring to? Historians suggest humans have worshiped around 12,000 gods. But that's only the ones they know about. 

 

They can't all be right, can they? 

 

WHERE ART THOU NOW, OH MASTER?

 

So, what happened to Thor, Odin, Frigg, Balder, Loki, Tyr, Hod, and Heimdall, to name but a few? My point is this… gods come, and gods go, and the current batch will be no different—surely.

 

AN INVISIBLE DICTATOR BY ANY OTHER NAME

 

Sometimes, I envy those who have deep faith. Other times, I feel they're being controlled by an invisible dictator and pity them. I mean, that's what this would be if God were a man in a palace branding a WOE BETIDE YOU approach to governance. Wouldn't it?

 

ALL LOVING ALL-FORGIVING—REALLY?

 

Organized religion controls how its followers think, feel, and behave? 

 

Punishment for misbehaving doesn't get any worse than burning in the fires of hell for eternity. The threat of purgatory... more generally... is sure to keep a lot of believers on the straight and narrow, and that's the point.

 

Maybe smart men invented God's laws to make those who disrespect manmade laws behave themselves. A kind of backup plan, if you will. That would make sense.

 

THE FEAR OF GOD

 

The authors of holy scripts didn't pluck phrases like Fear of God and God-Fearing out of thin air. Instead, they exist as warnings to anyone tempted to cross the so-called lines of morality or crime.

 

Also, fellow humans wrote down everything any of us knows about organized religion. Followers then spread the word of god by preaching, a practice that continues to this day.

 

THE ROLE OF SATAN?

 

With so much fear associated with sin, one can't help but question the role of y' man, Satan. I mean, what happens to devil worshipers that haven't been bad enough? Are they sent to heaven as punishment? Could that be a loophole for petty sinners who want a one-way ticket to the man (or woman—sexist!) upstairs?

 

AM I RIGHT?

 

How the hell do I know? I'm just a poorly educated bloke from a lower working-class background. Thus, my opinions are less informed than those further up the intelligence chain. Therefore, you should take what I write with a big fat pinch of salt. But mere mortals like me are still entitled to an opinion, educated or otherwise.

 

Either that or be afraid… BE VERY AFRAID!

 

Stubby

Answers to everything you write are in the back pages. If newcomers won't read the past 420 pages don't expect us to bring them up to speed.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 7/16/2021 at 11:58 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

 

It is not different truth just different  conditions. If a new thing is found there are not 2 truths. Humans need to think further about what is the best interpretation of truth. Science is as close to truth as we can get but by definition it is not the truth as it is not settled.

Exactly. Science is NOT settled, ergo even unbelievers should accept that God may exist, but science just hasn't worked out how to prove, or disprove it yet.

[mauGR1]

Anthropocentrism is the belief that human beings are the central or most important entity in the universe. The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, and some refer to the concept as human supremacy or human exceptionalism. Wikipedia

 

The narrative of the mainstream science, or  "market science "  is based on this flawed concept,  that's why most people are impervious to the concept of intelligent design, and even to a discussion of such things. 

Some go as far as mocking the believers, and they even think that they're cool ????

[Skeptic7]

44 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Answers to everything you write are in the back pages. If newcomers won't read the past 420 pages don't expect us to bring them up to speed.

Already clearly summed it up for him previously. Here's an even shorter summation. 

 

Yahweh & Cosmic Jewish Zombie + nature & beauty + sprinkle of woo + pantheism + polytheism ÷ natural human brain states = god. 

 

Hell-eluj-Allah!! 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

Delete

 

 

Edited July 20, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Exactly. Science is NOT settled, ergo even unbelievers should accept that God may exist, but science just hasn't worked out how to prove, or disprove it yet.

Many atheists are open to the possibility, but require a little thing called EVIDENCE. 

 

The only time to start believing something is when there are good reason to, such as empirical evidence. Even a compelling argument would be a start. Blind faith, personal experience, believing because it makes one feel good/secure/gives comfort are all nice...but are not in any way close to a compelling argument. 

Edited July 20, 2021 by Skeptic7

[Sunmaster]

59 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Many atheists are open to the possibility, but require a little thing called EVIDENCE. 

 

The only time to start believing something is when there are good reason to, such as empirical evidence. Even a compelling argument would be a start. Blind faith, personal experience, believing because it makes one feel good/secure/gives comfort are all nice...but are not in any way close to a compelling argument. 

You wouldn't know a compelling argument if it hit you square in the face. ???? 555

[Stubby]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Answers to everything you write are in the back pages. If newcomers won't read the past 420 pages don't expect us to bring them up to speed.

Why do you say that? Can't newcomers respond to the OP's question: "Do you believe in God and why? I can see you didn't start the topic, TBLs, so why would anyone want to wade through the opinions of other before submitting their own response? Is one not entitled to comment directly to the OP?

 

Exactly. 

Now... off you pop, and umm.. watch the heavenly door on your way out ????

[mauGR1]

41 minutes ago, Stubby said:

Why do you say that? Can't newcomers respond to the OP's question: "Do you believe in God and why? I can see you didn't start the topic, TBLs, so why would anyone want to wade through the opinions of other before submitting their own response? Is one not entitled to comment directly to the OP?

 

Exactly. 

Now... off you pop, and umm.. watch the heavenly door on your way out ????

Well, TBL was actually trying to give you a good advice to avoid looking foolish. 

In short, if you had bothered to read some of the thread, you'd have realised that you are confused between organized religion and a belief in the existence of a supreme being,  or intelligent design.

... Your post is a tirade against religions, but you didn't even bother to answer the question in the OP ????

[Stubby]

31 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Your post is a tirade against religions, but you didn't even bother to answer the question in the OP ????

Just because someone thinks the god belief is utter rubbish—and dares to say so—isn't an angry ranter or someone who tirades against religion. It's an opinion, that's all.
 

Religious types are so hypersensitive to criticism. Heck, they even have a word (or it is punishment)  for it. What is that now… oh yeah, blasphemy. Another stupid god law written by smart men for their foot soldiers to follow. Non religious, but still god-fearing types are equally as sensitive.
 

Seriously, believers need to get off their high horse, unicorn, dragon—or whatever their beast of choice is—and come down to earth and enjoy the suffering.
 

By the way, I have noticed that no worshipers of the wizard dictator have disputed any of my points.

So far, there's just a few shallow gripes about my post in general, but no substance to any response.
 

I rest my case.
 

الله أكبر

Edited July 20, 2021 by Stubby

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Stubby said:

Just because someone thinks the god belief is utter rubbish—and dares to say so—isn't an angry ranter or someone who tirades against religion. It's an opinion, that's all.
 

Religious types are so hypersensitive to criticism. Heck, they even have a word (or it is punishment)  for it, what that now… oh yeah, blasphemy. Another stupid god law written by smart men for their foot soldiers to follow. Non religious, but still god-fearing types are equally as sensitive.
 

Seriously, believers need to get off their high horse, unicorn, dragon—or whatever their beast of choice is—and come down to earth and enjoy the suffering.
 

By the way, I have noticed that no worshipers of the wizard dictator have disputed any of my points.

So far, there's just a few shallow gripes about my post in general, but no substance to any response.
 

I rest my case.
 

الله أكبر

Perhaps you might want to improve your reading comprehension, which seems to be lacking. 

I'm afraid i can't help you on that, unfortunately ????

[Stubby]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps you might want to improve your reading comprehension, which seems to be lacking. 

I'm afraid i can't help you on that, unfortunately ????

A typical passive aggressive response from what I assume is a believer of an invisible higher power; an almighty father figure. 

Anyway, it's time to leave as there can be no rational debate with those locked into an unwavering belief.

Toodles ????

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Stubby said:

A typical passive aggressive response from what I assume is a believer of an invisible higher power; an almighty father figure. 

Anyway, it's time to leave as there can be no rational debate with those locked into an unwavering belief.

Toodles ????

Bye ????

[Sunmaster]

Good riddance ????

[Sparktrader]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Every single thing on this planet is made from atoms, therefore it is not unreasonable to suppose that every single thing on the planet is connected to every single other thing on an atomic level, and furthermore, because everything in the universe originated from the big bang, that everything in the universe is connected at an atomic level.

 

That connection would be described by some as God.

So god is an atom?

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

by conciousness we mean self - awareness which quality exists scientifically only in higher primates ( humans,apes, dolphins, whales ......) worms ? er, no.

[Sunmaster]

5 hours ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

sinmistress & chairman mao peddling their pseudo- scientific (at best),   spiritualist mumbo- jumbo in their pompous, dismissive manner....yet again...

with zero compelling evidence..... failed sixth form debating level piffle.......

Hey Buffalowaste, why don't you follow your troll-buddy's example and leave this thread to the grownups? 

It'll be a win win situation ????

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Stubby said:

Why do you say that? Can't newcomers respond to the OP's question: "Do you believe in God and why? I can see you didn't start the topic, TBLs, so why would anyone want to wade through the opinions of other before submitting their own response? Is one not entitled to comment directly to the OP?

 

Exactly. 

Now... off you pop, and umm.. watch the heavenly door on your way out ????

No problem at all as long as they confine themselves to answering the OP, but when they ask questions

16 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I was just wondering which god the OP is referring to? Historians suggest humans have worshiped around 12,000 gods. But that's only the ones they know about. 

 

They can't all be right, can they? 

that have been asked and answered a hundred times before, I for one will only refer them to the back pages if they want to know the answer.

 

If one actually read the thread they'd know that the OP rarely drops by and I don't recollect him getting involved in answering newcomers questions.

[mauGR1]

6 hours ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

sinmistress & chairman mao peddling their pseudo- scientific (at best),   spiritualist mumbo- jumbo in their pompous, dismissive manner....yet again...

with zero compelling evidence..... failed sixth form debating level piffle.......

Another who needs to improve comprehension skills,  but at least you sound funny ????

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

by conciousness we mean self - awareness which quality exists scientifically only in higher primates ( humans,apes, dolphins, whales ......) worms ? er, no.

This is a very relevant issue because it raises the problem of 'precision of definition', which the methodology of science relies upon. In other words, before science can even begin an attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God, a precise definition of the term God, is required.

 

The same applies to the term 'consciousness'. There are many levels, or degrees of sophistication, of consciousness. I have assumed that all creatures, including insects and worms are aware of their own body and their immediate surroundings, because I can't imagine how they could survive and propagate if they were not, and this includes worms.

 

Whilst worms cannot see and hear, they can at least 'feel'. There is some scientific research that demonstrates this.

 

"A team of Swedish researchers has uncovered evidence that worms do indeed feel pain, and that worms have developed a chemical system similar to that of human beings to protect themselves from it."
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/09/11/archives/worms-can-feel-pain-research-indicates.html

 

Charles Darwin spent a lot of time studying the behaviour of worms. Here's an interesting article on his investigations.

 

"Minutely cataloguing worms’ responses to light, heat, smells, and—more unexpectedly—piano playing  ???? in a range of contexts, Darwin explains to the reader that worms do not see or hear; they are “destitute of eyes” and possess a “feeble” sense of smell, and while they are very sensitive to vibrations moving through solid matter, such as soil, they don’t respond to undulations in the air, as humans do." 

 

"The earthworm’s highly tactile experience of the world invites speculation about what it might be like to encounter only the world that is proximate to one’s body. Darwin suggests that while worms cannot see or hear in a human sense, they obtain “a general notion of the form of the object” by moving their bodies over it."
http://www.branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=anna-henchman-charles-darwins-final-book-on-earthworms-1881

 

Also, recent experiment with ants suggest they are self-aware.

 

"In 2015, scientists published research that suggests some ants can recognize themselves when looking in a mirror.
The ants were next given a classic mirror test. The team of researchers would use blue dots to mark the clypeus of some of the ants, which is a part of their face near their mouths.
The ants with blue dots on their face would groom and appear to try to remove the markings."
https://www.animalcognition.org/2015/04/15/list-of-animals-that-have-passed-the-mirror-test/
 

[Sunmaster]

50 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

before science can even begin an attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God, a precise definition of the term God, is required.

I agree with you that precise definitions are required in order to have clear communication and promote scientific exploration. However, I also think we have a big problem here, trying to define something that is by its very nature undefinable.
While IMO it is not possible to define God, at least not for any scientific purpose, it is possible to define God in the way it manifests in our perception/consciousness. In fact, these characteristics have been categorized by researchers (William James first and Douglas W Shrader later) and are as follows:

 

1) ineffability (inability to capture the experience in ordinary language),

2) noetic quality (the notion that mystical experiences reveal an otherwise hidden or inaccessible knowledge),

3) transiency (the simple fact that mystical experiences last for a relatively brief period of time),

4) passivity (the sense that mystical experiences happen to someone; that they are somehow beyond the range of human volition and control),

5) unity of opposites (a sense of Oneness, Wholeness or Completeness),

6) timelessness (a sense that mystical experiences transcend time), and

7) a feeling that one has somehow encountered “the true self ” (a sense that mystical experiences reveal the nature of our true, cosmic self: one that is beyond life and death, beyond difference and duality, and beyond ego and selfishness).

Here is the full paper:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.601.4094&rep=rep1&type=pdf#:~:text=Abstract%3A Drawing on classic studies,that mystical experiences reveal an

 

{It is important here to understand that mystical experiences happen in all cultures and what people "see" during those experiences are often colored by one's own culture and expectations. A Hindu is likely to see Vishnu or another Hindu God, a Christian will interpret the experience as the Holy Ghost descending upon him and so forth. This is an interesting phenomena that would deserve further discussion.}

An interesting experiment was conducted in 1962 by Walter Pahnke:
 

Prior to the Good Friday service, twenty graduate degree divinity student volunteers from the Boston area were randomly divided into two groups. In a double-blind experiment, half of the students received psilocybin, while a control group received a large dose of niacin. Niacin produces clear physiological changes and thus was used as an active placebo. In at least some cases, those who received the niacin initially believed they had received the psychoactive drug.^[3]:5 However, the feeling of face flushing (turning red, feeling hot and tingly) produced by niacin subsided about an hour after receiving the dose, whereas the effects of the psilocybin intensified over the first few hours.

Almost all of the members of the experimental group reported experiencing profound religious experiences, providing empirical support for the notion that psychedelic drugs can facilitate religious experiences. One of the participants in the experiment was religious scholar Huston Smith, who would become an author of several textbooks on comparative religion. He later described his experience as "the most powerful cosmic homecoming I have ever experienced".^[4]

 

And:
In 2002 (published in 2006), a study was conducted at Johns Hopkins University by Roland R. Griffiths that assessed mystical experience after psilocybin.^[8] In a 14-month follow-up to this study, over half of the participants rated the experience among the top five most meaningful spiritual experiences in their lives, and considered the experience to have increased their personal well-being and life satisfaction.^[9]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment}

 

So, I think the point is not whether science can prove or disprove God, but rather where can we go from here in the exploration of our consciousness (with or without entheogenic substances).

Edited July 21, 2021 by Sunmaster

[canthai55]

WOW - the Forum Thread police are out in force -

"Go back and read the previous 400 pages ..."

"Why don't you leave the thread ..."

What started as a question has turned into a "My beliefs are BETTER than your Beliefs !!!

This is a Public Internet Forum. If you do not want to reply to a post by someone, then don't.

"I'm Right and You're Wrong ..." seems like the basis of ALL organized religions, and of the vast majority of posters here.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

My definition of God is the being that created life the universe and everything. That pretty much covers it.

All the rest is just quibbling about the details, and everyone has a different opinion as to the details.

[mauGR1]

57 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The same applies to the term 'consciousness'. There are many levels, or degrees of sophistication, of consciousness.

So why you seem to deny the possibility of some level of consciousness above human consciousness ?

"As above as below " is a good key to understand , or at least trying to understand how consciousness works.

The Indian wise men said aeons ago that every single atom contains the image of God (consciousness).

[Sunmaster]

6 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

WOW - the Forum Thread police are out in force -

"Go back and read the previous 400 pages ..."

"Why don't you leave the thread ..."

What started as a question has turned into a "My beliefs are BETTER than your Beliefs !!!

This is a Public Internet Forum. If you do not want to reply to a post by someone, then don't.

"I'm Right and You're Wrong ..." seems like the basis of ALL organized religions, and of the vast majority of posters here.

 

This got nothing to do with "I'm right and you're wrong". Everyone is entitled to his belief, but we moved on discussing religion in the past 200 pages or so. When a new poster comes along and starts questioning Adam and Eve again, it is only fair to direct him to older posts that addressed his questions. If he can't be bothered to read up on them, that's his problem.

Most of all, I value facts and a mature intellectual discussion. If you (not you personally) start insulting people because they don't give you the attention you think you deserve or present you with facts you're not able to digest, then you lost all the respect and privilege of being taken seriously, and in that case "good riddance" is an act of mercy.

[mauGR1]

Now,  after spending months trying to explain the difference between the ugly religion  and belief in the supernatural, consciousness, spiritual paths and whatnot,  I expect another brilliant folk to come and say that we are foolish to believe in Adam and Eve and the snake... and say something which is supposed to be witty about Santa Claus and the spaghetti monster. ..

And get offended when getting an answer..

Such is life ????

 

 

 

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

Obliterated Again.... but you want that, dont you, admit it.......

Do you know the difference between objective reality and wishful thinking?

Google is your friend ????

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I'm still waiting for your obliteration....yawn....

Well, he said that we are obliterated because he says so.

One must admit that his logic is flawless.

????