Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Thread has been dead a LONG time. You lurk and posit and talk to yourself rarely, but this thread is done. Stick a fork AND knife in it.????

Given the age of this thread, 32 months, it appears to have been inactive for 5 weeks from late Nov. ~ early Dec.  In my humble opinion "dead a LONG time" is hyperbole.  It's more of a short nap.

[zzaa09]

Curious to wonder if this God is Caucasian and English-speaking?

Noted.

[Tippaporn]

23 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Totally . Start a new thread and perhaps I'll bite. Certainly others would. Could be a good one. ????

 

Now why would it be off-topic?  While I haven't been anything close to a permanent fixture on this thread I've been around long enough to know that the range of discussion has been as broad as an ocean.  In fact, I recall having a similar discussion right here on this thread about the exact subject matter I've just raised (again).

I'm certainly not opposed to starting a new thread.  In fact, I had already done so.  The perfect sub-forum, in my opinion, is the one called "Outside The Box."  Because the subject matter truly requires out-of-the-box type thinking.

I'm game.  Obviously.  I started the thread, after all.  While I certainly welcome faith based views, as much as I would welcome all views, I did want to create a thread which did not revolve specifically around religion.
 

 

 

Edit:  I should note that that sub-forum, unfortunately, truly has gone dead.  While the name of it is perfect for this topic it may very well not be the best sub-forum.  Might work in this one as there's much more traffic.

 

[ivor bigun]

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

Thread has been dead a LONG time. You lurk and posit and talk to yourself rarely, but this thread is done. Stick a fork AND knife in it.????

When i started the thread i thought it would be dead after a page or so ,but like God it doesnt want to die , and i must admit ,i find what is said very interesting .

nobody it seems can agree in religion ,was it Jesus or the warlord Mohamed  who was sent by God ,also it seems the Jews are still waiting for their prophet to come.

[seedy]

2 hours ago, zzaa09 said:

Curious to wonder if this God is Caucasian and English-speaking?

Noted.

Tall, slim, and long hair too.

Blue eyes - unknown 555

[Skeptic7]

11 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

why the hesitation (or avoidance?) in confirming or denying the truth that unfettered, amoral science has blood on it's hands?

555 Wow, ok no hesitation nor avoidance. Your statement is blanket as well as vague. And as usual, you're all over the place. "Science" cannot be moral or amoral. It is a process. If what you meant by your statement above is, some "unfettered and amoral" people using the discoveries of science for corrupt, questionable, ignoble reasons...then yes, I agree. With your original statement as quoted above...disagree.

 

However, IMO the much better question is...has science been more of a benefit or detriment to humanity? Which is the topic I suggested you start. Rather than address that, you veer off to the Consciousness topic. Specifically your dead thread, which btw has already been beaten to death in this very thread. It's a very deep and technical subject, which most people don't find riveting. Not even a little. Think eyes glazing over or simply don't care. Except for @Sunmasterand @mauGR1 whom occasionally had some mildly thought provoking input, despite my total disagreement. 

 

Here's another suggestion, start a poll/survey with your consciousness query. People love polls. They're easy, engaging, quick and fun. It will undoubtedly garner more interest and participation than the ZERO your dead thread has. Full disclosure, it's now sporting a whopping total of ONE...which was me. 

[Sunmaster]

14 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

The atheists outgunned, outshined and outlasted the theists & mystics here without question.

 

The only question left is why this thread hasn't been crucified by now??? ????

You wish

[Tippaporn]

Well, seems there's some traffic now to my thread in Outside The Box.  No one has commented, other than Skeptic, who stated here that:

  

13 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Could be a good one. ????

but has gone over only to declare his change of heart and bow out.  So much for the "outlasted" claim.

 

Anyone who wants to browse is more than welcome.  One could say that my new thread is simply a parallel discussion to this one.  But it is not.  This thread, by it's title, invokes religion.  Mine removes religion as the primary focus although to do the thread justice it must include religion.  Religion has as much influence on the beliefs of man as science, if not more.  Both must have an equal seat at the table.  There are, however, more than two chairs around that table.

And since the thread does not have a primary focus on either religion or science the range of discussion is almost limitless.  It's designed to include every aspect of life.  As it should, in my opinion.

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

15 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Why the confused look when confronted with the truth, Skeptic.  Weapons of mass destruction were birthed by amoral science who realised they had the power to annihilate the entire planet if they so chose.  Well, they couldn't resist temptation (hey, maybe it was the miniature devil on their shoulders whispering in their ears).  They decided not to go nuclear (excuse the pun) and just drop a few big ones and create some really nifty toys for the militaries of the world.

Say it ain't true, Skeptic.

Atheism doesn't mean amoral. You don't need god to see logic in love and being kind. Religion does mean a form of morality but it is one based on a premise of acceptance of predefined rules not open to science, and sometimes that my faith is better than a different faith and often therefore that one life is worth more than another. Religion often is more passionate and conflicting because it can limit free will and people's natures. 

Therefore, though both could be involved in the theoretical and practical creation of nuclear weapons one might argue atheists are, on balance, more capable as they see and act on known reality more clearly. They use science and dismiss superstition.

The religious though may be more likely to justify their use based on a less logical response to life, that is more likely to have decision making based on concepts such as faith, fear and revenge,  and on having an us and them mentality. To be fair some religions by their nature would dismiss the use of nuclear weapons out of hand.

In reality human thinking in general can be flawed and not necessarily designed to handle nuclear weapons.

 

 

[Hummin]

There is not religion, weapons, political ideas that kills people, it is the nature of humans itself. No matter ideologi or tools we got, be it inventions of mass destruction weapons, it is still the nature in us heritageded from the very beginning of life in our DNA! We are survivor's from rough times, and will use any method or tool to continue to survive one way or the other! Complext but true

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

555 Wow, ok no hesitation nor avoidance. Your statement is blanket as well as vague. And as usual, you're all over the place. "Science" cannot be moral or amoral. It is a process. If what you meant by your statement above is, some "unfettered and amoral" people using the discoveries of science for corrupt, questionable, ignoble reasons...then yes, I agree. With your original statement as quoted above...disagree.

 

However, IMO the much better question is...has science been more of a benefit or detriment to humanity? Which is the topic I suggested you start. Rather than address that, you veer off to the Consciousness topic. Specifically your dead thread, which btw has already been beaten to death in this very thread. It's a very deep and technical subject, which most people don't find riveting. Not even a little. Think eyes glazing over or simply don't care. Except for @Sunmasterand @mauGR1 whom occasionally had some mildly thought provoking input, despite my total disagreement. 

 

Here's another suggestion, start a poll/survey with your consciousness query. People love polls. They're easy, engaging, quick and fun. It will undoubtedly garner more interest and participation than the ZERO your dead thread has. Full disclosure, it's now sporting a whopping total of ONE...which was me. 

Finally!  The long awaited answer.

""Science" cannot be moral or amoral. It is a process." and "...has science been more of a benefit or detriment to humanity?"  One the one hand you call foul on me for alluding to science as an institution and the proceed to correct my erroneous view to explain that it's a "process."  One the other hand you refer to science as an institution.  Sorry Skeptic, you can't have it both ways.

Let's agree that actionable science is defined a process and also that the field of science is an institution.  In other words, science can be talked about as either.  From the context of my statement it should not be a cause of confusion as to whether I was refer to the process or the institution.  Therefore my statement wasn't blanket nor vague.  And no, I am not all over the place.  Perhaps I am to you but then be sure to acknowledge that you speak only for yourself.

 

As an institution science most certainly has it's own well defined set of beliefs.  One of those belief is that morals do not exist.  No such thing.  Morals are not physical objects.  They are psychological constructs.  Science does not deal with the subjective.

I've mentioned many times in my earlier posts here that I am not anti-science in the least.  I've stated multiple times that I have great appreciation for the beneficence science has provided humanity.  I've always and only fought to bring science, the institution, down from it's overly grandiose self made altar.  Science, the institution, has become a religion onto itself, and those worshipping at it's alter are quick to rise up in mindless defense of it's failings.  Are you such a one, Skeptic?

 

I'll pass on commenting on the rest of your post as it's too trivial in nature, in my opinion, to spend time on.  Except for one bit.  The one about the disinterest most have with this type of subject matter.  I completely agree with you, Skeptic.  Thinking deeply is not everyone's cup of tea nor should it be.  Many prefer to have endless discussions on topics such as beer, bars, entertainment, pros and cons of Thailand, etc.  For me it's boring.  Topics requiring heavy mental weightlifting is not for everyone.  No judgement being passed on my part here.  Everyone is here for their own reason and come with their own challenges.  It's not for me or anyone to pass judgement.  It's all about personal preferences.

[Tippaporn]

23 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

  

16 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Why the confused look when confronted with the truth, Skeptic.  Weapons of mass destruction were birthed by amoral science who realised they had the power to annihilate the entire planet if they so chose.  Well, they couldn't resist temptation (hey, maybe it was the miniature devil on their shoulders whispering in their ears).  They decided not to go nuclear (excuse the pun) and just drop a few big ones and create some really nifty toys for the militaries of the world.

Say it ain't true, Skeptic.

Atheism doesn't mean amoral. You don't need god to see logic in love and being kind. Religion does mean a form of morality but it is one based on a premise of acceptance of predefined rules not open to science, and sometimes that my faith is better than a different faith and often therefore that one life is worth more than another. Religion often is more passionate and conflicting because it can limit free will and people's natures. 

Therefore, though both could be involved in the theoretical and practical creation of nuclear weapons one might argue atheists are, on balance, more capable as they see and act on known reality more clearly. They use science and dismiss superstition.

The religious though may be more likely to justify their use based on a less logical response to life, that is more likely to have decision making based on concepts such as faith, fear and revenge,  and on having an us and them mentality. To be fair some religions by their nature would dismiss the use of nuclear weapons out of hand.

In reality human thinking in general can be flawed and not necessarily designed to handle nuclear weapons.

Nice post.

My quote doesn't accuse atheism or bring it into the mix.  I concur completely with you that one needn't have a belief in God or any religion to recognise love and kindness.  To say that these values emanate from the core of our being, though, would undoubtedly by considered an anti-scientific claim.  So, from whence do they come?

 

I'll mention again that I am not religious so I feel no need to come to it's defense.  I agree that both science, as an institution, and all religions hold many ideas, way too many to list, which are diametrically opposed.  I would vehemently disagree with the notion that atheists are more capable at discerning reality, whether one wants to qualify it as "know reality" or "true reality."  Both have, in my humble opinion, their share of erroneous beliefs which act as impediments to seeing "true reality" with any degree of great clarity.

 

If you would allow me I would alter your one statement for the sake of accuracy.

"They use science and dismiss superstition." to read "They use the God of science and dismiss the God of superstition."

And since neither of these are my "Gods" I am most likely at odds with the majority here.  I defend both when either are unfairly disparaged and I will blast both where they are unreasonably inflated.

And finally I'll add that despite the fact that science (as an institution - the last time I'll make this distinction for the sake of Skeptic since he can't get it from context) was the instrument which conceives, designs, and creates weapons of mass destruction religion plays a hand as well.  Scientists are not as free from the tenets of religious belief as they might profess to be.  I doubt that there isn't a one of them who does not believe in "right" or "wrong."  The irony.

[Tippaporn]

"If science cannot provide us with an ethics, how about those ethical systems that pretend to be science-based? They cannot be based on science, so how should we judge them?"

 

Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science?

 

An excellent article . . . if one can get through it.  I say "excellent" only in the sense that it expresses it's views quite well.  Very informative.

Question for Skeptic:  In what context does the quote refer to science?  The process or the institution?  Let me know if you need a clue.  LOL

[Fat is a type of crazy]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Nice post.

My quote doesn't accuse atheism or bring it into the mix.  I concur completely with you that one needn't have a belief in God or any religion to recognise love and kindness.  To say that these values emanate from the core of our being, though, would undoubtedly by considered an anti-scientific claim.  So, from whence do they come?

 

I'll mention again that I am not religious so I feel no need to come to it's defense.  I agree that both science, as an institution, and all religions hold many ideas, way too many to list, which are diametrically opposed.  I would vehemently disagree with the notion that atheists are more capable at discerning reality, whether one wants to qualify it as "know reality" or "true reality."  Both have, in my humble opinion, their share of erroneous beliefs which act as impediments to seeing "true reality" with any degree of great clarity.

 

If you would allow me I would alter your one statement for the sake of accuracy.

"They use science and dismiss superstition." to read "They use the God of science and dismiss the God of superstition."

And since neither of these are my "Gods" I am most likely at odds with the majority here.  I defend both when either are unfairly disparaged and I will blast both where they are unreasonably inflated.

And finally I'll add that despite the fact that science (as an institution - the last time I'll make this distinction for the sake of Skeptic since he can't get it from context) was the instrument which conceives, designs, and creates weapons of mass destruction religion plays a hand as well.  Scientists are not as free from the tenets of religious belief as they might profess to be.  I doubt that there isn't a one of them who does not believe in "right" or "wrong."  The irony.

I think those concepts come from a combination of nature, nurture and life experience and can be consistent with science.

Right and wrong is probably based on the human condition and the fact that we want security and to be treated reasonably. I am sure prior to the 10 commandments people didn't think it was right to steal or be with your neighbour's wife. Same for kindness. Love can seem more complicated and probably has a stronger biological origin that is not fully understood. Just a part of the human condition to keep the species going.

Atheist's can accept the limitations of current knowledge and not say it must be god or some etherial thing. 

[Skeptic7]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

but has gone over only to declare his change of heart and bow out.  So much for the "outlasted" claim.

Complete misrepresentation of what I actually wrote and to what was being referred. 

Maybe it is an honest mistake, as we've been having back and forth over 2 different threads. Here's the actual story...

 

When I suggested to you this new thread 'could be a good one', it was referring to my suggestion of a new thread about the benefits vs detriments of science for humanity, which you brought up. It was NOT a suggestion of another dull thread about consciousness. I clearly stated such (which you even acknowledged) that I was thoroughly over and done with consciousness and no longer interested.

 

Also "could be" is not the same as "would be" a good one. Not even close. I also explicitly stated 'PERHAPS I'll bite' on benefits vs detriments...not on consciousness. So Skeptic did not bow out or roll over or double talk on any of it. 

 

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Complete misrepresentation of what I actually wrote and to what was being referred. 

Maybe it is an honest mistake, as we've been having back and forth over 2 different threads. Here's the actual story...

 

When I suggested to you this new thread 'could be a good one', it was referring to my suggestion of a new thread about the benefits vs detriments of science for humanity, which you brought up. It was NOT a suggestion of another dull thread about consciousness. I clearly stated such (which you even acknowledged) that I was thoroughly over and done with consciousness and no longer interested.

 

Also "could be" is not the same as "would be" a good one. Not even close. I also explicitly stated 'PERHAPS I'll bite' on benefits vs detriments...not on consciousness. So Skeptic did not bow out or roll over or double talk on any of it. 

 

After reading your post there's no doubt that we had different ideas in mind.  I was under the assumption that the new thread you had suggested I start was to be about the same subject matter but not with a religious focus being prime.  My assumption was confirmed in my mind with your posting on that new thread.

My sincere apologies for my part in the confusion.

 

From what you've said, repeatedly now, I understand that you are no longer interested in the subject of consciousness.  I know that science discounts and dismisses subjective reality as not possessing any value.  Perhaps some scientists may even believe subjective reality is merely a result of random, purposeless chemical interactions within our brains.  If you share those views then I agree, it's pointless and a waste of your time to pursue any questions of consciousness further.

 

In parting I'll leave you with the notion that the source of all objective reality is subjective reality.  Science has it completely backwards.  I've pointed out before, via a wonderfully profound quote by Samuel Clemens, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”  I believe that truth either goes completely over your head or you haven't pondered enough on it's implications, which are massive.

 

The truth can be smack dab in front of one's face but erroneous beliefs one holds make one blind to it.  Especially when the truth is diametrically opposed to ones false beliefs.  Which often it is.  The trick is to not abandon your current beliefs but to suspend them just long enough to seriously examine and consider a different, new, fresh set of ideas.  This is the process of thinking out of the box.  Some have a knack for it.  From all of my interactions with you you don't strike me to have that knack.  My feeling is that you are rooted in your present world view and, right or wrong, you have no desire to change it.  That's your choice and I give you my respect for it.

 

In any case, you'll figure it out sooner or later.  We all do.

[mauGR1]

On 12/25/2021 at 3:07 PM, VincentRJ said:

What the heck's going on?  ????

 

On 12/25/2021 at 3:07 PM, VincentRJ said:

The most rational answer to my perplexity I can think of, is that the instinct to survive, prosper, and dominate is significantly more powerful than any religious teaching, at the level of both the individual

Yes, exactly, so why some not very bright folks carry on blaming religion, like if without religion the world and the entire humankind would suddenly become perfect..

[mauGR1]

On 12/26/2021 at 9:47 AM, Tippaporn said:

Finally!  The long awaited answer.

""Science" cannot be moral or amoral. It is a process." and "...has science been more of a benefit or detriment to humanity?"  One the one hand you call foul on me for alluding to science as an institution and the proceed to correct my erroneous view to explain that it's a "process."  One the other hand you refer to science as an institution.  Sorry Skeptic, you can't have it both ways.

Let's agree that actionable science is defined a process and also that the field of science is an institution.  In other words, science can be talked about as either.  From the context of my statement it should not be a cause of confusion as to whether I was refer to the process or the institution.  Therefore my statement wasn't blanket nor vague.  And no, I am not all over the place.  Perhaps I am to you but then be sure to acknowledge that you speak only for yourself.

 

As an institution science most certainly has it's own well defined set of beliefs.  One of those belief is that morals do not exist.  No such thing.  Morals are not physical objects.  They are psychological constructs.  Science does not deal with the subjective.

I've mentioned many times in my earlier posts here that I am not anti-science in the least.  I've stated multiple times that I have great appreciation for the beneficence science has provided humanity.  I've always and only fought to bring science, the institution, down from it's overly grandiose self made altar.  Science, the institution, has become a religion onto itself, and those worshipping at it's alter are quick to rise up in mindless defense of it's failings.  Are you such a one, Skeptic?

 

I'll pass on commenting on the rest of your post as it's too trivial in nature, in my opinion, to spend time on.  Except for one bit.  The one about the disinterest most have with this type of subject matter.  I completely agree with you, Skeptic.  Thinking deeply is not everyone's cup of tea nor should it be.  Many prefer to have endless discussions on topics such as beer, bars, entertainment, pros and cons of Thailand, etc.  For me it's boring.  Topics requiring heavy mental weightlifting is not for everyone.  No judgement being passed on my part here.  Everyone is here for their own reason and come with their own challenges.  It's not for me or anyone to pass judgement.  It's all about personal preferences.

Hi @Tippaporn, i took a few minutes to read your recent (long) posts, and i could not find a single word i disagree with.

This is just to say thanks for your efforts to bring some light into the darkness.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Hi @Tippaporn, i took a few minutes to read your recent (long) posts, and i could not find a single word i disagree with.

This is just to say thanks for your efforts to bring some light into the darkness.

Hi mauGR!.  Good to reconnect with you and others here.  Do check out the new thread in the Outside the Box sub-forum.  I think you'll enjoy it.  I've just defined my intention for that thread and will be transitioning away from this one.  I'll be able to say what's really on my mind and explore the question of God and much more without feeling like I'm trying to take a thread completely away from it's OP.

Hi Skeptic!  Is a reaction the harbinger of a post?  Only you can tell.  LOL
 

 

[Tippaporn]

Man.  I was expecting your signature confused look.  LOL

Happy to see that you haven't given up on the gang!

[bert bloggs]

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Hi mauGR!.  Good to reconnect with you and others here.  Do check out the new thread in the Outside the Box sub-forum.  I think you'll enjoy it.  I've just defined my intention for that thread and will be transitioning away from this one.  I'll be able to say what's really on my mind and explore the question of God and much more without feeling like I'm trying to take a thread completely away from it's OP.

Hi Skeptic!  Is a reaction the harbinger of a post?  Only you can tel

I reckon the op is quite happy reading all threads about God

 

[Skeptic7]

Everyone should have their say...

 

[ivor bigun]

Mind you these days the woke minority seem to have  largest say. while being in the minority .

by the way who amongst you does really believe that there is a God?

[ivor bigun]

Just a thought ,but Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin ,yet she and her husband Joseph got to the stable when she was 9 months pregnant , so that means that they had not made love so did he marry her when pregnant? and then after her giving birth ,did ne then start making love to her to get his other children?

[Hummin]

The most interesting in these woke days where @ivor bigun says they have most to say,  is how religion have tried to put women in its place, now these days the feminism growing to new highs. 

 

Religion have been a great tool to control the masses in individuals. Now everything is on its loose 

[Tippaporn]

16 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

I reckon the op is quite happy reading all threads about God

 

And God is happily reading all the posts, too.  LOL

[Sunmaster]

Hey guys, it's been a long time and a lot has happened in the meantime.

 

One of them was resurrecting an old past time of mine...drawing. Here is the first one of a series I made. It's called "Mind Clearing" and illustrates the effects of a spiritual practice (meditation) on the mind. 

Have a nice weekend

[Reposed]

I'm now thinking this thread will still be running when Jesus comes back......

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, Reposed said:

I'm now thinking this thread will still be running when Jesus comes back......

Who? 

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Hey guys, it's been a long time and a lot has happened in the meantime.

 

One of them was resurrecting an old past time of mine...drawing. Here is the first one of a series I made. It's called "Mind Clearing" and illustrates the effects of a spiritual practice (meditation) on the mind. 

Have a nice weekend

Beautiful stuff there, Sunmaster.  What was the inspiration?  Was the art done whilst clearing your mind?  And what about the symbolism?