Do you believe in God and why

[Freed1948]

Back to the original question.

No, I don't. 

I was bought up in a catholic orphanage and had god drummed

into me for 13 years. After I escaped that, when I started work as

a 13 year old believer I was amazed that there were people in the

real world that questioned all that I was taught, was absolute rubbish.

Now as a 74 year old atheist I live and let live and I respect people's

beliefs, but don't tell me there is an all knowing and seeing somebody.

Because nobody saw and stopped what happened to me in the name

 of god all those years ago.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Freed1948 said:

Back to the original question.

No, I don't. 

I was bought up in a catholic orphanage and had god drummed

into me for 13 years. After I escaped that, when I started work as

a 13 year old believer I was amazed that there were people in the

real world that questioned all that I was taught, was absolute rubbish.

Now as a 74 year old atheist I live and let live and I respect people's

beliefs, but don't tell me there is an all knowing and seeing somebody.

Because nobody saw and stopped what happened to me in the name

 of god all those years ago.

Sorry to hear that, but it's people who hurt you, not God, whose existence you don't believe btw.

Now, if some mad man slapped your face, while shouting "in the name of the sky", you wouldn't blame the sky, would you?

[Tippaporn]

48 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I believe there is more serious than just alcohol, but thats another topic. 
 

I believe we as humans carry genetic memories that actually leads us through life for good and bad, and sometimes make unconsciously decision’s for us without we even know it. Also a reason for why some more than others feel, see, and believe in something higher than us, and also make us feel miserable about what we do and not do. 
 

We do not really have a complete free will even we like to believe so. But again, nothing new to this conversation, we have been there many times before. 
 

For me there is no father good, only mother, and thats Mother Earth also called Gaia but not a new age thing or old mythology, just the name Gaia. 

Absolute free will is an inherent aspect of reality and integral for the functioning of all realities.  It's certainly understandable that people would be under the impression that the facts are otherwise but before we conclude absolutely we must take into consideration the known fact that appearances can be very convincing and we are often fooled by them.

A rather rudimentary gauge to use to test the validity of any idea is to apply practicality to the idea.  In other words, it must work, and it must work consistently.  For existence is, if nothing else, supremely practical in nature.  So in considering the idea of limited freedom, which is what you are suggesting, then you must at least attempt to show how the idea works in as minute detail you can manage.  In doing so you can easily uncover intrinsic problems or gaps which cannot be bridged which would suggest that the idea is flawed.

Limited freedom implies freedom at times and decisions, or reality, being forced at other times.  So to think of how this idea would work then one of the obvious questions that arises is who or what intercedes to create your reality when you are not the one doing so?  And when is reality decided for you, perhaps even against your consent or desire?

Now I'm not going to work this idea through as the process would be much too lengthy for this post.  But it should convey the general idea.  If one would like to use the process on other, perhaps simpler ideas, such as the current idea being rapidly spread around the globe that ones sex is determined by the mind and not by one's biology.  Attempting to practically apply that idea to the real world should quickly show it's flaws and hence invalidate the idea as one that is reflective of the true nature of reality.

To show how free will operates in all of it's practical detail would also require a very lengthy explanation.  It would also require the introduction of other concepts, such as probabilities for one.  Free will requires the existence of choice.  Without choice free will cannot exist.  For choice to exist that would require probabilities.  Probabilities provide for alternate actions.  This is about as simplistic an explanation that I'll attempt for now.  But it should help to begin to make some sense as to the question of free will.

[Tippaporn]

36 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Why would I do that when I've already tried to explain to you that it's 'Zero Credibility' that can be associated with non-existence? ????

Even if you can you have to admit that you interpreted what I wrote incorrectly.  Your interpretation does not comport with my meaning, which I further clarified in my subsequent post (and which you did not reply to).  But rather than simply and honestly admitting that you misinterpreted what I said you - sorry! my bad! - instead you turn the tables and make your mistake mine by claiming I'm not clear in the use of language so that you're the one who ends up right and I'm the one who is at fault.
 

23 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

You guess that Tippaporn is not referring to 'real' science?? Why are you guessing?? I'll give you a hint. You're guessing because Tippaporn is not clear in his use of language, which causes confusion. A fundamental requirement of all science is precision of terminology and the meaning of words.

 

If one is referring in one's post to 'scientific propaganda', or 'fake science' that is not based on data and experimental evidence, then one should make that clear and not just use the general word 'science'.

[Tippaporn]

On 5/22/2022 at 11:03 PM, Elad said:

  

On 5/22/2022 at 12:34 PM, Tippaporn said:

BTW, I am not scientifically illiterate.  I took biology, chemistry and physics classes in high school. 

 

Then you should know that the only reason you are having this conversation over the internet using a laptop/smartphone is due to our scientific theories in electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. In fact every single electrical device you use, from a washing machine, to a GPS in a car is only possible due to those theories.

 

You should also be aware that the same scientific methods and tools used in developing those theories were used to formulate the theory of evolution by natural selection. Since Darwin's time the evidence (especially the molecular evidence) has become so overwhelming that its about on par with the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun. You can take the genes of thousands of species of animals or plants, plot out the differences and it will produce a perfect hierarchy or family tree. Not only does it match all the fossil evidence, but it gave a few surprises such as whales being very closely related to hippopotamuses, and were once land mammals.  

"Since Darwin's time the evidence (especially the molecular evidence) has become so overwhelming that its about on par with the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun."

For one, as far as I know there is no overwhelming consensus to the theory of evolution.  In fact, you can say that among some scientists it's a very contentious subject.  Even if there were an overwhelming majority consensus I would remind that consensus does not equate to truth.

I truly do not follow any of the advances made that would potentially transform the theory into rockbed fact but considering the unfortunate situation we have these days of so many instances of science compromising it's integrity I would never any longer take any proclamation prima facie.

Now, I also happen to be in possession of information which shows the theory of evolution to be a scientific fairy tale.  That information makes infinite more sense, shows much greater cohesion, is far broader in scope, and gives quite practical reasons why the theory of evolution will only and ever be a theory.  I sincerely doubt you'd be receptive to that information for it would indeed challenge many of your current beliefs.  But I could be wrong. 

Aside from that I'll make one other comment.  Yes, I am fully aware that science has had quite a measure of success in divining the workings of physical reality.  I'm sorry you doubted me.  But the fact that the methodology science uses to produce all of these technological wonders is the same methodology science employs in all of it's probings into reality does not mean that those methods guarantee success 100% of the time.  It appears that you are alluding to that fallacious logical conclusion as you go from obvious scientific successes and then straight to the theory of evolution.  As if to say, "see how well our theories worked with the Internet and laptops and smartphones and washing machines and GPS and, see here, our theories work the same for evolution!"

I know you started your post in a somewhat condescending fashion, as if you were pained to have to relate to a dimwit.  But, to be sure, this dimwit would never buy the flawed product you're selling.

[mauGR1]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Now, I also happen to be in possession of information which shows the theory of evolution to be a scientific fairy tale. 

Would you share ? Author, link, whatever ????

[Hummin]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Absolute free will is an inherent aspect of reality and integral for the functioning of all realities.  It's certainly understandable that people would be under the impression that the facts are otherwise but before we conclude absolutely we must take into consideration the known fact that appearances can be very convincing and we are often fooled by them.

A rather rudimentary gauge to use to test the validity of any idea is to apply practicality to the idea.  In other words, it must work, and it must work consistently.  For existence is, if nothing else, supremely practical in nature.  So in considering the idea of limited freedom, which is what you are suggesting, then you must at least attempt to show how the idea works in as minute detail you can manage.  In doing so you can easily uncover intrinsic problems or gaps which cannot be bridged which would suggest that the idea is flawed.

Limited freedom implies freedom at times and decisions, or reality, being forced at other times.  So to think of how this idea would work then one of the obvious questions that arises is who or what intercedes to create your reality when you are not the one doing so?  And when is reality decided for you, perhaps even against your consent or desire?

Now I'm not going to work this idea through as the process would be much too lengthy for this post.  But it should convey the general idea.  If one would like to use the process on other, perhaps simpler ideas, such as the current idea being rapidly spread around the globe that ones sex is determined by the mind and not by one's biology.  Attempting to practically apply that idea to the real world should quickly show it's flaws and hence invalidate the idea as one that is reflective of the true nature of reality.

To show how free will operates in all of it's practical detail would also require a very lengthy explanation.  It would also require the introduction of other concepts, such as probabilities for one.  Free will requires the existence of choice.  Without choice free will cannot exist.  For choice to exist that would require probabilities.  Probabilities provide for alternate actions.  This is about as simplistic an explanation that I'll attempt for now.  But it should help to begin to make some sense as to the question of free will.

Do we have free will or not? How to measure free will? How to know what free will is? 

 

Most non-academics tend to take as a given that people can freely make decisions and choices when there are alternatives and absence of external constraints. A case for consciousness causing certain behaviors has been made by Pockett, Banks, and Gallagher (2009). Nonetheless, there is a growing body of scientists and philosophers, many of whom are acknowledged as scholars of the first rank who acknowledge consciousness as a distinct mental state, yet conclude that free will is an illusion, a trick played on us by the brain. This view dates back for hundreds of years, but in our time the debate has intensi fied, in large part because of what I think is misinterpreted research.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2942748/

[Sunmaster]

Most people in the west see free will as another inalienable birthright of every man, just like the right to life and liberty. Materialists attribute the belief in predestination to the gullible religious zealots.

I think both are right.

 

Free will only works on the level of the ego. For free will to work you need 3 things: an observer (you), an action (the decision making) and a result (the outcome of said decision)...all progressively and neatly ordered on a timeline and observable. 

For example, I'm about to go out. The sun is shining so I decide not to take my umbrella. Later that day however, there's a big storm and I get soaked. Free will at work.

But what is the ego identification if not an illusion? The ego is just a construct that we build up from childhood. Where was the ego when you were born? Where is the ego when you're asleep? "You" still exist even though there is no ego in those moments.

What remains once you transcend the ego? The Self. Your true identity, which is the same for all of us. The Self exists always, it is untouched by space or time, it is eternal. How then, could a time and ego dependent free will work for the Self? It doesn't. The Self is just another word for God or Cosmic Consciousness. Ascribing free will (which needs the concept of time to work) to the concept of God would mean to diminish his power and he would therefore cease to be "God".

For the Self there is only the present moment. The past and the future all happen at the same time. Everything that has ever happened and will happen is happening right now in accordance with the perfect divine will. 

This means that free will only exists as long as we falsely identify with the ego.

Once we shed the layers of ignorance that keep us from knowing our true identity, free will will dissipate along with all other illusions. You will still perform actions, but they won't be guided by the ego's will. They will be flawless actions guided by pure divine intent. 

Just some late night musings. Don't take them too seriously. Or do.

[Hummin]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Absolute free will is an inherent aspect of reality and integral for the functioning of all realities.  It's certainly understandable that people would be under the impression that the facts are otherwise but before we conclude absolutely we must take into consideration the known fact that appearances can be very convincing and we are often fooled by them.

A rather rudimentary gauge to use to test the validity of any idea is to apply practicality to the idea.  In other words, it must work, and it must work consistently.  For existence is, if nothing else, supremely practical in nature.  So in considering the idea of limited freedom, which is what you are suggesting, then you must at least attempt to show how the idea works in as minute detail you can manage.  In doing so you can easily uncover intrinsic problems or gaps which cannot be bridged which would suggest that the idea is flawed.

Limited freedom implies freedom at times and decisions, or reality, being forced at other times.  So to think of how this idea would work then one of the obvious questions that arises is who or what intercedes to create your reality when you are not the one doing so?  And when is reality decided for you, perhaps even against your consent or desire?

Now I'm not going to work this idea through as the process would be much too lengthy for this post.  But it should convey the general idea.  If one would like to use the process on other, perhaps simpler ideas, such as the current idea being rapidly spread around the globe that ones sex is determined by the mind and not by one's biology.  Attempting to practically apply that idea to the real world should quickly show it's flaws and hence invalidate the idea as one that is reflective of the true nature of reality.

To show how free will operates in all of it's practical detail would also require a very lengthy explanation.  It would also require the introduction of other concepts, such as probabilities for one.  Free will requires the existence of choice.  Without choice free will cannot exist.  For choice to exist that would require probabilities.  Probabilities provide for alternate actions.  This is about as simplistic an explanation that I'll attempt for now.  But it should help to begin to make some sense as to the question of free will.

Im trying to understand where you heading and your conclusion, but to be true I get lost. I also suspect you mix up things we have to to survive or exist as a social beings.

 

I like it simple, and a simple way to test you is what you choose to eat and drink based on science, your age, weight, and health. 
 

You know a glass of water and a carrot is the best thing to eat after 19:00 and will keep your sex life going 5 years longer than if you choose delicious  sausage and beer for evening. Is that a free choice or not? 

What would most people choose and why, and why will neither of the choices be free will? 
 

Of course just one simple example that requires they do enjoy sex, beer and salt sausage

 

 

[mauGR1]

6 hours ago, Hummin said:

Im trying to understand where you heading and your conclusion, but to be true I get lost. I also suspect you mix up things we have to to survive or exist as a social beings.

 

I like it simple, and a simple way to test you is what you choose to eat and drink based on science, your age, weight, and health. 
 

You know a glass of water and a carrot is the best thing to eat after 19:00 and will keep your sex life going 5 years longer than if you choose delicious  sausage and beer for evening. Is that a free choice or not? 

What would most people choose and why, and why will neither of the choices be free will? 
 

Of course just one simple example that requires they do enjoy sex, beer and salt sausage

 

 

I'll keep short and  simple for you.

According to a master which i trust, freedom is accomplished when all of one's actions are tuned with the actions of the universe (God)

To understand the universe, beer, meat and sex are useless, if not even a hindrance. 

Carrot and water are ok though.

 

[seedy]

Mirriam-Webster

Definition of god

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1 God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as

a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe Throughout the patristic and medieval periods, Christian theologians taught that God created the universe …— Jame Schaefer … the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects.— Sunita Pant Bansal

b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2 or less commonly God : a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality Greek gods of love and war

3 : a person or thing of supreme value had photos of baseball's gods pinned to his bedroom wall

4 : a powerful ruler Hollywood gods that control our movies' fates

 

By this definition the only candidate is ...

DEATH

[mauGR1]

15 minutes ago, seedy said:

Mirriam-Webster

Definition of god

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1 God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as

a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe Throughout the patristic and medieval periods, Christian theologians taught that God created the universe …— Jame Schaefer … the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects.— Sunita Pant Bansal

b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2 or less commonly God : a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality Greek gods of love and war

3 : a person or thing of supreme value had photos of baseball's gods pinned to his bedroom wall

4 : a powerful ruler Hollywood gods that control our movies' fates

 

By this definition the only candidate is ...

DEATH

It would be anthropologically interesting to know which train of thought led you to such a conclusion .

[seedy]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

It would be anthropologically interesting to know which train of thought led you to such a conclusion .

No one wants to die.

So people do anything and everything to convince themselves that they will not

555

And make up such a mountain of manure to convince others that they have the answer for them so they will not.

Like "There are no atheists in foxholes" In my experience the overwhelming feeling is to seek revenge on those who are doing this to you and your comrades.

 

[mauGR1]

17 minutes ago, seedy said:

No one wants to die.

So people do anything and everything to convince themselves that they will not

555

And make up such a mountain of manure to convince others that they have the answer for them so they will not.

Like "There are no atheists in foxholes" In my experience the overwhelming feeling is to seek revenge on those who are doing this to you and your comrades.

 

That's a point of view, but it's limited to the material world and the physical body.

Yet, it's undeniable that departed ones are still alive in our memories,and people like Buddha, Jesus,  Plato, even great artists in different fields, are still alive after 1000s of years.

I can see how the promise of an afterlife has been used to control the masses in some way, but after studying and thinking for years about this subject, i am convinced that some sort of afterlife exists. 

The idea of reincarnation is pretty common, not just among the gullible and the illiterate. 

As we are talking about ideas and thoughts, which are obviously related more to a spiritual plane of existence, rather than the physical, it's quite possible though, that people who don't believe in afterlife, some to the point of hating just the thought, will simply dissolve in the natural world.

So, if you don't want to reincarnate, there is some hope. 

 

 

[Hummin]

8 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I'll keep short and  simple for you.

According to a master which i trust, freedom is accomplished when all of one's actions are tuned with the actions of the universe (God)

To understand the universe, beer, meat and sex are useless, if not even a hindrance. 

Carrot and water are ok though.

 

Thats very interesting, since it seems everyone who seeks, never reach their goals, they continue to search for something to believe is there, but can never get rid of the doubts inside themselves. 
 

I get this picture in my head, where the teacher speaks, everyone agrees, and as quick the teacher is out of reach, everything that seemed so obvious become so distant and alien again, and the mind game starts again. They want, but there is so many obstacles on the road, and why? Could it be their conscious doesnt give them free will? While others say the struggle it is a test to see if they are true believers or they have eliminate the struggle by meditation deeper and deeper to reach their goals, and that takes time and maybe more teachers.  
 

I have lived among spiritual people, met some few guru’s/teachers, and also participated in meetings where there is music, laughter, love brilliant teaching, and at once the lights goes off, it becomes so distanced for most, and they being sucked back to their reality again. It is a never ending fight for belief, be it religious  or spiritual life they seeking. I never felt so much around it, but I did observe many different cases where they got lost in the idea of become in to a perfect state of their belief. 
 

Seems like the only answer is going deeper and deeper in to the self being to reach their goals. 
 

The qoute about reaching the destination is so brilliant, and so common for every belief of any kind, but this is from King James version of the bible.

 

narrow is the way, which. leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Thats very interesting, since it seems everyone who seeks, never reach their goals, they continue to search for something to believe is there, but can never get rid of the doubts inside themselves. 
 

I get this picture in my head, where the teacher speaks, everyone agrees, and as quick the teacher is out of reach, everything that seemed so obvious become so distant and alien again, and the mind game starts again. They want, but there is so many obstacles on the road, and why? Could it be their conscious doesnt give them free will? While others say the struggle it is a test to see if they are true believers or they have eliminate the struggle by meditation deeper and deeper to reach their goals, and that takes time and maybe more teachers.  
 

I have lived among spiritual people, met some few guru’s/teachers, and also participated in meetings where there is music, laughter, love brilliant teaching, and at once the lights goes off, it becomes so distanced for most, and they being sucked back to their reality again. It is a never ending fight for belief, be it religious  or spiritual life they seeking. I never felt so much around it, but I did observe many different cases where they got lost in the idea of become in to a perfect state of their belief. 
 

Seems like the only answer is going deeper and deeper in to the self being to reach their goals. 
 

The qoute about reaching the destination is so brilliant, and so common for every belief of any kind, but this is from King James version of the bible.

 

narrow is the way, which. leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

I agree that there is a lot of attraction for the physical world, especially when we are young and our energy seems to be infinite. 

It's also very common to have different thoughts once we experience some illness, and we become old.

It's also true, apparently,  that  just a minority are looking for a spiritual meaning in life, and of this minority, only a few reach some sort of goal.

As I believe in reincarnation, I'm not really in a hurry to become some sort of saint, more important than the speed is to be hopefully on the right way. 

[Tippaporn]

I was chatting with an American friend of mine today and we were discussing the intense turmoil which has gripped not only the U.S. but many parts of the world.  Especially the west.  With certainty, an ill wind blows heavily.

I gave my friend my overall, general assessment of what's going to be needed to overcome the challenges which we as a species have set forth for ourselves.  And I thought my appraisal fit in well with this thread which deals with the two seemingly contradictory subjects of God & Science.  So, for what it's worth to anyone, here's my offering.

********************
 

If you'll notice much of the MAGA movement is comprised of devout Judeo-Christian followers.  While they can implant decent values back into society overall conservative religion has been tried and failed.  Blind faith will never be enough for too many people.  Especially in those instances where faith ignores reality.

 

Science obviously is not the answer either.  Science provides zero guiding principles to life.  In fact, science promotes a reality which is purely mechanistic and one in which the individual is completely powerless.  He may get lucky every once in a while, though.

 

Whereas religion can have a tendency to ignore reality, science completely ignores spirituality.  Neither approach works.  And neither will be able to solve our current problems.

 

In my mind there's no going back to either of those two alone providing the basis for which life and reality are to be interpreted.  For neither is capable of finding true solutions to today's problems or answers to life's questions.  A new framework is going to be needed.  But I can't see that coming about unopposed for it will necessarily dispose of so many currently held, and even cherished, ideas we accept as truth about the nature of ourselves and the reality we find ourselves in.

 

As Mark Twain so perceptively quipped, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so."  And therein lies the trouble.  Convincing people that what they thought was true is in fact not true is not going to go over well.  I believe the only convincing argument will be the one that experience provides which will teach them in no uncertain terms the fallacies of the beliefs they hold.  Those enlightening and edifying experiences may very well come with a whole lot of pain.

********************

I, myself, have always argued here that there needs to be a blending of science and spirituality.  One or the other is not sufficient in explaining the complexities of who we are, our reality, and why we find ourselves here to begin with.  Or where we came from and whence we are going.

I side here more with those who have a spiritual bent because it is they who do not deny science and are thus more open to an approach which is a fusion of science and religion.  I mostly give the disciples of science hell precisely because it is they who are so dogmatically convinced that their religion is the sole religion to provide all of life's solutions and answers.  And it is they who are unwilling to even momentarily peer outside of the framework they've imprisoned themselves in to see if anything else exists out there.  And they dig the claws of there stances so firmly in the dirt despite the fact that a quick glance around the world holds overflowing and overwhelming evidence to the contrary that they alone hold the keys to understanding and knowledge.  They truly are the immovable objects here.

As I said, I offer this for what it's worth.  Perhaps it's possible that there could actually be some real bargaining of ideas here rather than the constant drawing of lines in the sand that cannot be crossed.

 

[KhunLA]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

If you'll notice much of the MAGA movement is comprised of devout Judeo-Christian followers. 

Stopped reading after the first sentence ... ????

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

Stopped reading after the first sentence ... ????

I hope you understand that you've just exposed your horse blinders to all.

[KhunLA]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I hope you understand that you've just exposed your horse blinders to all.

As you started off with your divisive opinion, using labels, I felt it a waste of time to continue reading.

 

Wanting to see 'MAGA'  a reality, you threw me in with religious folks, that I completely don't identify with, since I'm an Atheist...

... nuff said.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I hope you understand that you've just exposed your horse blinders to all.

Perhaps i should warn you of the fact that our materialistic friends don't, or can't read long posts.

Short posts however will catch their attention, and you'll be rewarded with a collection of "confused emojis " ????

Incidentally i appreciate your posts, and it's easy to say that you're American..

Nothing wrong with that, but perceptions of the reality differ greatly in other parts of the planet.

Pls don't take this as a criticism, as personally I'm extremely interested in subjective opinions, as well as the apparently despicable behaviour of the masses. 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

As you started off with your divisive opinion, using labels, I felt it a waste of time to continue reading.

 

Wanting to see 'MAGA'  a reality, you threw me in with religious folks, that I completely don't identify with, since I'm an Atheist...

... nuff said.

That sounds like a very divisive opinion 

Pot kettle black ????

[KhunLA]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps i should warn you of the fact that our materialistic friends don't, or can't read long posts.

More labels to divide ... Christian soldier unite.

[Sunmaster]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I was chatting with an American friend of mine today and we were discussing the intense turmoil which has gripped not only the U.S. but many parts of the world.  Especially the west.  With certainty, an ill wind blows heavily.

I gave my friend my overall, general assessment of what's going to be needed to overcome the challenges which we as a species have set forth for ourselves.  And I thought my appraisal fit in well with this thread which deals with the two seemingly contradictory subjects of God & Science.  So, for what it's worth to anyone, here's my offering.

********************
 

If you'll notice much of the MAGA movement is comprised of devout Judeo-Christian followers.  While they can implant decent values back into society overall conservative religion has been tried and failed.  Blind faith will never be enough for too many people.  Especially in those instances where faith ignores reality.

 

Science obviously is not the answer either.  Science provides zero guiding principles to life.  In fact, science promotes a reality which is purely mechanistic and one in which the individual is completely powerless.  He may get lucky every once in a while, though.

 

Whereas religion can have a tendency to ignore reality science completely ignores spirituality.  Neither approach works.  And neither will be able to solve our current problems.

 

In my mind there's no going back to either of those two alone providing the basis for which life and reality are to be interpreted.  For neither is capable of finding true solutions to today's problems or answers to life's questions.  A new framework is going to be needed.  But I can't see that coming about unopposed for it will necessarily dispose of so many currently held, and even cherished, ideas we accept as truth about the nature of ourselves and the reality we find ourselves in.

 

As Mark Twain so perceptively quipped, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so."  And therein lies the trouble.  Convincing people that what they thought was true is in fact not true is not going to go over well.  I believe the only convincing argument will be the one that experience provides which will teach them in no uncertain terms the fallacies of the beliefs they hold.  Those enlightening and edifying experiences may very well come with a whole lot of pain.

********************

I, myself, have always argued here that there needs to be a blending of science and spirituality.  One or the other is not sufficient in explaining the complexities of who we are, our reality, and why we find ourselves here to begin with.  Or where we came from and whence we are going.

I side here more with those who have a spiritual bent because it is they who do not deny science and are thus more open to an approach which is a fusion of science and religion.  I mostly give the disciples of science hell precisely because it is they who are so dogmatically convinced that their religion is the sole religion to provide all of life's solutions and answers. And it is they who are unwilling to even momentarily peer outside of the framework they've imprisoned themselves in to see if anything else exists out there.  And they do so despite the fact that a quick glance around the world holds overflowing and overwhelming evidence to the contrary that they alone hold the keys to understanding.  They truly are the immovable objects here.

As I said, I offer this for what it's worth.  Perhaps it's possible that there could actually be some real bargaining of ideas here rather than the constant drawing of lines in the sand that cannot be crossed.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

In Spiral Dynamics terms, this is the fight between religious/conservative BLUE and materialistic ORANGE, which are the 2 main fronts in most of the Western world. GREEN (ecology, social justice) would be the next step of evolution after ORANGE, but this stage too, does not have the complete puzzle (=effective, long term solutions). For that we would need a pretty big jump to second tier, to YELLOW (integral, multiple point perspective). 
But to go to Yellow will take a lot more time.

We'll have to deal with Green first. The new generations have different values from ours and our parents. They already started to make waves with the social justice issues and "save the world" movements. They are still in the learning phase, so not perfect yet (cancel culture, semi-fascist woke movement, gender confusion), but it's a much needed move away from the Blue and Orange. 
Will the change come in time before we finally annihilate each other? I hope so. I'm on the optimistic side.

Convincing people that what they thought was true is in fact not true is not going to go over well.  I believe the only convincing argument will be the one that experience provides which will teach them in no uncertain terms the fallacies of the beliefs they hold.  Those enlightening and edifying experiences may very well come with a whole lot of pain.

I just had a funny thought....One way to really shake things up in the old, ineffective belief systems, would be CONTACT with (advanced) ALIENS! ???? That would be interesting and fun to watch. Imagine a far more advanced civilization telling us that there is a Higher Power, that it's not found in books, but within us and accessible to everyone. That science and technology play an important part in life, but are not the answers to humankinds deepest questions. 
How many would actually change their minds? How many would rebel against it?  How would such a revelation change the dynamics of our society? 
Someone should make a movie of this. 555
 

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

As you started off with your divisive opinion, using labels, I felt it a waste of time to continue reading.

 

Wanting to see 'MAGA'  a reality, you threw me in with religious folks, when I'm an Atheist...

... nuff said.

Assessing reality accurately is not being divisive.  If you'd like to state a specific objection to something I've said then that is the spirit of debate.  To interpret something according to your beliefs and then to insist your interpretation is unarguably true, and furthermore dismissing everything else while refusing to debate is, well, what kids do when they get become petulant and take their bats and go home.

Wanting to see "MAGA" a reality?  I've stated an observation, and an accurate one, which you're declaring by your sole authority as a desire of mine out of the ether.

As far as what bucket you claim I placed you in I did no such thing.  I named no names.  You placed yourself into the bucket of your choosing.  Don't blame me for your self created indignation which your feeling.

[Skeptic7]

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Stopped reading after the first sentence ... ????

All it takes for me is to see that posters name and I'm OUT ????. Tho I do happen to somewhat agree with that first sentence, sans the Judeo part, you qouted. White Evangelicals is more accurate and a big part of MAGA and support for The Orange Con-man. 

 

Surveys of early voters and exit polls this year showed between 76 and 81% of white evangelical and "born again" voters supporting Trump, according to the National Election Pool and AP/Votecast.

"We essentially have White evangelicals, somewhere around 8 in 10, supporting the president, standing by their candidate, standing by their man," says Jones.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/30/most-white-americans-who-regularly-attend-worship-services-voted-for-trump-in-2020/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/06/white-evangelical-christians-supported-trump

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps i should warn you of the fact that our materialistic friends don't, or can't read long posts.

Short posts however will catch their attention, and you'll be rewarded with a collection of "confused emojis " ????

Incidentally i appreciate your posts, and it's easy to say that you're American..

Nothing wrong with that, but perceptions of the reality differ greatly in other parts of the planet.

Pls don't take this as a criticism, as personally I'm extremely interested in subjective opinions, as well as the apparently despicable behaviour of the masses. 

Ich bin ein Sauerkraut.

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

More labels to divide ... Christian soldier unite.

LOL I'm apparently the last Christian supporter left here, and a very bad one too.

[KhunLA]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

LOL I'm apparently the last Christian supporter left here, and a very bad one too.

You'll fit right in, as I've yet to meet a good Christian. IMHO  Just go to confessions on Sunday, and you'll get a clean slate ...

... till next Sunday 

[KhunLA]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Assessing reality accurately is not being divisive.  If you'd like to state a specific objection to something I've said then that is the spirit of debate.  To interpret something according to your beliefs and then to insist your interpretation is unarguably true, and furthermore dismissing everything else while refusing to debate is, well, what kids do when they get become petulant and take their bats and go home.

Wanting to see "MAGA" a reality?  I've stated an observation, and an accurate one, which you're declaring by your sole authority as a desire of mine out of the ether.

As far as what bucket you claim I placed you in I did no such thing.  I named no names.  You placed yourself into the bucket of your choosing.  Don't blame me for your self created indignation which your feeling.

You do realize, you could have said that in 1 sentence.