Do you believe in God and why

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

You might be surprised, but we fully agree here.

For this and other reasons i have to question your reading abilities. 

Sorry to be blunt, but my impression is that you and others don't even know what we're talking about. 

I cannot explain to you, because i know that you won't listen.

So let's agree to disagree. ????

I'm not a scientist so I don't stand in awe wondering about things that nobody yet understands. I'll wait until the science is in because life is busy enough trying to absorb the science that produced. What I do believe is that there is no ethereal being which transcends science

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

do believe is that there is no ethereal being which transcends science

Uhm, science is indeed a bright light in the darkness, our difference is that you think everything is random, and i think that is not. 

Intelligence doesn't belong only to humans. Intelligence is everywhere in the nature, you can see it every day with your eyes.

I could go as far as saying that every tiny atom is permeated with consciousness. 

[Sunmaster]

13 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I'm not a scientist so I don't stand in awe wondering about things that nobody yet understands. I'll wait until the science is in because life is busy enough trying to absorb the science that produced. What I do believe is that there is no ethereal being which transcends science

Unfortunately, that's the stance most people take when it comes to understanding reality and oneself. "I'm too busy to find out by myself and rather wait until someone tells me. In the meantime though, I will consider my not-knowing as undisputed fact and make fun of those who believe differently." ????

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Unfortunately, that's the stance most people take when it comes to understanding reality and oneself. "I'm too busy to find out by myself and rather wait until someone tells me. In the meantime though, I will consider my not-knowing as undisputed fact and make fun of those who believe differently." ????

Lets get this right,there is no connection between religion and reality.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Lets get this right,there is no connection between religion and reality.

That's oh, so wrong. 

Everything is, by definition, connected to reality. 

That includes your stubbornness in carrying on typing while not having a clear idea of what you're typing. 

..and, if you just want to bark at religion, you are barking to the wrong tree ????

Glad to help

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

That's oh, so wrong. 

Everything is, by definition, connected to reality. 

That includes your stubbornness in carrying on typing while not having a clear idea of what you're typing. 

..and, if you just want to bark at religion, you are barking to the wrong tree ????

Glad to help

Do you imagine that I haven't thought about religion and whether it's real? My first clue was getting excluded from religious instruction at school for questioning their reality.

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Lets get this right,there is no connection between religion and reality.

Exactly,  let's get this right.

Religion is a model to explain reality. Religion is also the most superficial aspect of spirituality. In fact, it is more of a cultural expression of society than true, lived spirituality. You can be religious your whole life and never feel the need to change yourself. Spirituality on the other hand, emphasize change and direct experience of the Divine.

 

In that sense, it's just as part of our reality like science, or nature or anything else is.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

Exactly,  let's get this right.

Religion is a model to explain reality. Religion is also the most superficial aspect of spirituality. In fact, it is more of a cultural expression of society than true, lived spirituality. You can be religious your whole life and never feel the need to change yourself. Spirituality on the other hand, emphasize change and direct experience of the Divine.

 

In that sense, it's just as part of our reality like science, or nature or anything else is.

nope, religion was a form of governement before we had governments and deities were the means to derive their credibility.

 

The strongest argument against religion is to ask them why they deny the validity of every other religion or why they think politics is part of religion. Hypocrisy is they name, religion.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Do you imagine that I haven't thought about religion and whether it's real? My first clue was getting excluded from religious instruction at school for questioning their reality.

Can you define " reality " pls. ?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Can you define " reality " pls. ?

Yep, in a word, science.

 

Specifically, if you start with the hypothesis that proof can never be possible then that can't be reality.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

In other words, if you're a materialist, it's easy to look at history and to blame organized religion for the atrocities it committed in God's name. Is it equally easy to look at the materialist worldview and see the damage caused by it? Not so much. To do that, you would have to transcend to the next stage and gain a clearer perspective of what came before. 
And while we're pointing all those fingers at the things that are not going the way they should go, or the way we wish they would go, can we see all the good that came out of each stage? Blaming alone will not make one bit of difference. Action is needed.

It's a complex issue and I'm not blaming religion for only doing harm and no good. Some of the fundamental teachings of some religions are very wise and rational. The problem is that the rulers promoting such religions, and their followers, seem to be motivated by a stronger urge than their religious belief. Obvious examples are the many wars that have taken place, and the horrible burning and torture of people, in order to protect the religion of Christianity which has a fundamental teaching that one should love thine enemy and neighbour, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

I've been interested in Buddhism because it teaches at a philosophical and rational level, what the causes are of such horrible wars and bad behaviour in general. However, Buddhism as a religion, doesn't seem to have had much effect in preventing wars and conflicts, considering the awful atrocities, conflicts and disharmony that have occurred in recent decades, in Buddhist countries such as Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Myanmar.

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Yep, in a word, science.

 

Specifically, if you start with the hypothesis that proof can never be possible then that can't be reality.

But then, if religion exists in countless forms, you can ask anybody, even your dog knows stuff about religion, how can you  deny its existence?

I mean, you can say that every religion is total nonsense, but nonsense, or perceived nonsense is part of the so called reality, or not.?

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

But then, if religion exists in countless forms, you can ask anybody, even your dog knows stuff about religion, how can you  deny its existence?

I mean, you can say that every religion is total nonsense, but nonsense, or perceived nonsense is part of the so called reality, or not.?

not.

 

is the tooth fairy real?

[Sunmaster]

14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

nope, religion was a form of governement before we had governments and deities were the means to derive their credibility.

 

The strongest argument against religion is to ask them why they deny the validity of every other religion or why they think politics is part of religion. Hypocrisy is they name, religion.

 Religion as a form of government didn't just appear from one day to another, right?

It evolved like every other system, in time.

What did it evolve from? How and why did religions first organize knowledge? How did they lose the plot?

 

Have you ever read Richard Bach's book "Jonathan Livingston Seagull"? The transition from true and direct knowledge to empty and soulless dogma is beautifully and very simply described in that book. Highly recommended. 

[ozimoron]

Just now, Sunmaster said:

 Religion as a form of government didn't just appear from one day to another, right?

It evolved like every other system, in time.

What did it evolve from? How and why did religions first organize knowledge? How did they lose the plot?

 

Have you ever read Richard Bach's book "Jonathan Livingston Seagull"? The transition from true and direct knowledge to empty and soulless dogma is beautifully and very simply described in that book. Highly recommended. 

It was a required text in my first year of high school.

[KhunLA]

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

But then, if religion exists in countless forms, you can ask anybody, even your dog knows stuff about religion, how can you  deny its existence?

I mean, you can say that every religion is total nonsense, but nonsense, or perceived nonsense is part of the so called reality, or not.?

Don't think anyone is denying 'religions' exist.  What they try to get people to believe is in question.

 

 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Obvious examples are the many wars that have taken place, and the horrible burning and torture of people, in order to protect the religion of Christianity which has a fundamental teaching that one should love thine enemy and neighbour, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Then it's fair to say that the name of the religion has been used in history by various empires to commit crimes whose main reason was profit.

In other more recent cases war criminals have been hiding behind other forms of political idealism.

Same old.

 

 

[CharlieH]

I have always looked at "religion" or any belief system as a simple way for one person, or group to exercise control  of a larger number.

The shepherd over the flock.

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

not.

 

is the tooth fairy real?

Yes, imagination, thoughts, representations are real in some way.

Even abstract thought is real.

Well, if you deny the existence of thought, perhaps i should ask you if you are for real ????

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, imagination, thoughts, representations are real in some way.

Even abstract thought is real.

Well, if you deny the existence of thought, perhaps i should ask you if you are for real ????

 Thought exists but not everything that you can think of is real.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

I have always looked at "religion" or any belief system as a simple way for one person, or group to exercise control  of a larger number.

The shepherd over the flock.

Hi Charlie nice to see you're still here.

As usual, I just partly agree with you, but what you say makes sense, and that's a rarity these days. 

Cheers

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 Thought exists but not everything that you can think of is real.

Well I'm relieved ????

[CharlieH]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Hi Charlie nice to see you're still here.

As usual, I just partly agree with you, but what you say makes sense, and that's a rarity these days. 

Cheers

A rarity for me ? Or a rarity in this topic ...????

[Sunmaster]

Just now, CharlieH said:

I have always looked at "religion" or any belief system as a simple way for one person, or group to exercise control  of a larger number.

Everybody has a set of beliefs, whether they are religious, spiritual or materialists or atheists, communists or capitalists. 
Belief systems are basically a conglomerate of ideas which are thought to be true. The strongest ideas/beliefs attract other smaller, sympathetic ideas which validate the main ones. Ideas that don't fit this set of ideas are ignored, dismissed or simply not perceived.

 
The function of Belief Systems is not to control other people, but people who adopt a certain belief system can corrupt them into doing that. Hence, some people corrupt religious teachings to support their own version of what is true, acceptable and beneficial. The same goes for any other belief system. 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Because you arrived at a conclusion which is at odds with virtually all climate scientists.

How do you know that virtually all scientists believe in the existential threat of human CO2 emissions? Did you read it in the media? Have you bothered to read any IPCC reports, comparing the Working Group 1 scientific summary with the Political Summary? Have you examined or read any peer-reviewed papers from the so-called contrarians or skeptics? Are you aware that most scientists don't respond to questionaires about the causes of climate changes and the degree of impact that human emissions of CO2 have, because they understand that climate is too complex and chaotic for any certainty. Do you understand that the high Consensus of 97%, or more, is based upon a minority of peer-reviewed papers where the authors expresses an opinion on the human contribution of CO2 emissions to climate change?

 

I could go on, but I'll leave it there.

[Sunmaster]

21 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It was a required text in my first year of high school.

I recommend reading it again. ????

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, CharlieH said:

A rarity for me ? Or a rarity in this topic ...????

55555????

Honestly, i was referring to the world outside, but thanks for the morning giggle.

[ozimoron]

Just now, VincentRJ said:

How do you know that virtually all scientists believe in the existential threat of human CO2 emissions? Did you read it in the media? Have you bothered to read any IPCC reports, comparing the Working Group 1 scientific summary with the Political Summary? Have you examined or read any peer-reviewed papers from the so-called contrarians or skeptics? Are you aware that most scientists don't respond to questionaires about the causes of climate changes and the degree of impact that human emissions of CO2 have, because they understand that climate is too complex and chaotic for any certainty. Do you understand that the high Consensus of 97%, or more, is based upon a minority of peer-reviewed papers where the authors expresses an opinion on the human contribution of CO2 emissions to climate change?

 

I could go on, but I'll leave it there.

Yes, of course I have and if you're going to spread misinformation about based on the minority of peer reviewed papers at least give us some respect by linking your sources.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

I recommend reading it again. ????

Why would it change my mind on a second reading?

[KhunLA]

May want to start at 03:25 of vid: