Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

Now this is going to be interesting. 2 materialists at odds with each other, asking for sources and scientific proof. ????

[mauGR1]

21 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

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

 

 

You don't think eh ?

Try to reread those posts, and see if they reflect the truth. 

It's stated clearly that religion is not part of the reality, which is not true.

Period. 

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

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

No please, i was just grabbing the popcorn ????

On this issue i think you got it completely right btw

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

You don't think eh ?

Try to reread those posts, and see if they reflect the truth. 

It's stated clearly that religion is not part of the reality, which is not true.

Period. 

reality: the state of things as they are, rather than as they are imagined to be:

 

Cambridge English definition.

 

Churches exist, religion does not.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

reality: the state of things as they are, rather than as they are imagined to be:

 

Cambridge English definition.

 

Churches exist, religion does not.

Imagination exists and i start to think that you don't have one ????

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Imagination exists and i start to think that you don't have one ????

The language in this forum is English, how about we abide by the dictionary definitions when we discuss concepts instead of making up meanings for words which contradict the dictionary definition. Only then can we have meaningful debate. You obviously never studied philosophy.

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

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.

Yes, good post.
I am aware of this and I understand where you're coming from. 

I'm not disputing any of it. But I think it is very important to be able to take a step back and see the bigger picture. If we compare the development of our society (from tribes, to organized religion, to materialism, to post-modernism etc), to the development of an individual, we can see clear correlations to infancy, preschool, middle childhood, adolescence and eventually maturity.

 

If a child misbehaves during early childhood, throws a temper tantrum for example, do you blame the child, or do you see it as a necessary (although annoying) part of growing up? Do you get angry at the child or do you try to understand what it is going through? Do you fight it or do you try to help it to understand its condition and find a way to overcome it? Do you use your wisdom and compassion to make a difference or do you just point fingers?

The same goes for every other stage, be it on the level of the individual or of society as a whole.

A practical example: Societies at the materialist stage. Their urge for independence, for manipulating reality to satisfy their needs, their need for exploration and innovation....they are all amazing achievements and part of growing up. Is it a stage of milk and honey compared to the previous, religious stage? Of course not. The pendulum can swing too far and manifests in unhealthy ways as exploitation of natural resources, pollution, growing extinction rates of animals and plants, disregard for minorities in the name of progress and profit.

So, what should we do with that? Demonize all the achievements of science and technology, like some of the new generations do (the famous "HOW DARE YOU?!", Fridays for Future)? Or should we be grateful for the good and try to improve on the bad?

 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The language in this forum is English, how about we abide by the dictionary definitions when we discuss concepts instead of making up meanings for words which contradict the dictionary definition. Only then can we have meaningful debate. You obviously never studied philosophy.

So do you really think that imagination doesn't exist ?

Why not accept the obvious fact that different things exist on different planes of reality?

Thought exists in a different way than your nose, got it ?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

So do you really think that imagination doesn't exist ?

Why not accept the obvious fact that different things exist on different planes of reality?

Thought exists in a different way than your nose, got it ?

The Cambridge dictionary definition explicitly excludes imagine from reality. Can we at least agree on the dictionary definition of the word?

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The Cambridge dictionary definition explicitly excludes imagine from reality. Can we at least agree on the dictionary definition of the word?

Yes, i am fond of English language, and most English words in the scientific and philosophical fields actually come from Latin and/or ancient Greek .

Imagination is one of the highest faculties of the humans, as far as i know, so if you think it doesn't exist, let's agree to disagree ????

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, i am fond of English language, and most English words in the scientific and philosophical fields actually come from Latin and/or ancient Greek .

Imagination is one of the highest faculties of the humans, as far as i know, so if you think it doesn't exist, let's agree to disagree ????

How about the Cambridge Eglish definition of reality? Is it wrong or can we just invent our own English? You can't have philosophical debate without rules.

[VincentRJ]

42 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

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.

Okay!  Here's a link to a recent study. The articles is free to read. If you take the trouble to read it, you should understand that the headline: "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature" is very misleading because the paper presents a graph showing that 1,869 of the 2,718 papers randomly selected expressed no opinion on the role of humans in climate change. Below is a copy of that graph.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

 

Now one could argue that those papers in which no opinion was expressed on the causes of climate change, could be explained by claiming that the authors already accepted as verified fact that humans are causing the current change in climate, and that's a reasonable speculation. But, nevertheless, it is only speculation. The linked article does not mention whether the authors of those papers with no position, were contacted to confirm that they accepted as true that human CO2 emissions are the driver of the current change in climate. It seems clear that they did not contact the authors, and if they did, they should have mentioned it in their paper.

 

 

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

How about the Cambridge Eglish definition of reality? Is it wrong or can we just invent our own English? You can't have philosophical debate without rules.

I checked the oxford definition, nothing obscure there.

Thing is, as you said, churches exist, they are the results of

religious thoughts, to make it simple, so churches exist in the material reality, and thought exists in another plane of reality. 

I find a bit childish your disregard of imagination, without imagination there would not be any form of art, and no scientific and technological discoveries. 

If you want to say that religion is the result of bad imagination, we can argue about that, but to deny the existence of religion and imagination is plainly wrong. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

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.

There is a normally a chasm between the idea of a belief in capitalism and in a religion. Belief in capitalism is ideas based and is consideration of how real things work to lead to the best outcome. Belief in religion crosses a line into a belief of things not identifiable , in the past or in 2022, as real.

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I recommend reading it again. ????

Didn't care for it. I was 17 at the time though.

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Now this is going to be interesting. 2 materialists at odds with each other, asking for sources and scientific proof. ????

The inference is that there is some failure or contradiction in this. Actually the opposite. Climate change is complicated. Different interpretations of the data can be made. I believe it is a thing and that evidence backs it up but others may attempt to gather data to say otherwise. But it can be an honest debate without resorting to imagination or faith. Scientific proof is the only way. 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I'm not disputing any of it. But I think it is very important to be able to take a step back and see the bigger picture. If we compare the development of our society (from tribes, to organized religion, to materialism, to post-modernism etc), to the development of an individual, we can see clear correlations to infancy, preschool, middle childhood, adolescence and eventually maturity.

 

If a child misbehaves during early childhood, throws a temper tantrum for example, do you blame the child, or do you see it as a necessary (although annoying) part of growing up? Do you get angry at the child or do you try to understand what it is going through? Do you fight it or do you try to help it to understand its condition and find a way to overcome it? Do you use your wisdom and compassion to make a difference or do you just point fingers?

 

I thought your colours guide to different stages in human development was interesting. I am not saying you are, but I  think too much could be drawn  from it such that people are given a free pass who lived in a different time. There were plenty of religious and humanist texts pointing out what is right and wrong through history so, though society was different, humans can't often use the excuse of 'It was the times' except for much less significant failings. 

If a kid has a tempter tantrum often it is because it is a brat. 

Sometimes people will say things were different in the 70's and 80's - in small ways yes but, hey I was there,  in many ways no. Though it's fine not to go all in on her take on things, Ms Thunberg deserves respect for standing up, and having passion about real things. 

I think the most recent color trend in your guide is interesting, hopeful, but maybe a step back in the wrong direction as it is based on faith instead of fact. Turn your faith into fact then we can all be happy.

[Sunmaster]

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

I thought your colours guide to different stages in human development was interesting. I am not saying you are, but I  don't think you can draw too much from it nor give people a free pass who lived in a different time. There were plenty of religious and humanist texts pointing out what is right and wrong through history so, though society was different, humans can't often use the excuse of 'It was the times' except for much less significant failings. 

If a kid has a tempter tantrum often it is because it is a brat. 

Sometimes people will say things were different in the 70's and 80's - in small ways yes but, hey I was there,  in many ways no. Though it's fine not to go all in on her take on things, Ms Thunberg deserves respect for standing up, and having passion about real things. 

I think the most recent color trend in your guide is interesting, hopeful, but maybe a step back in the wrong direction as it is based on faith instead of fact. Turn your faith into fact then we can all be happy.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I don't think "free pass" would be the correct term here. I see it more of a realization that every stage/color is necessary in the development of the spiral. You have to take the good and the bad. Once you are able to see the spiral in its entirety, you will appreciate all the different colors. You will learn to communicate with the different stages in a language that they can understand. You will see the beauty of it all. 
In Spiral Dynamics terms, such a person is called a "spiral wizard", because he can move up and down the spiral and relate to each stage/color without being a part of it. 

I too respect what the new generations are trying to do. Newly formed Green trying to rectify the unhealthy aspect of Orange. But just like with all other stages, there are pitfalls. For example, letting trans-males compete in women sports because of a misguided sense of inclusion, or rejection of technology altogether because some of it was used to harm mother Earth. 

It seems to me that there is an acceleration in the development through the stages. We've been in Blue for a long time, in Orange in the last couple of centuries, Green is emerging in the past few decades, Yellow is still in its infancy. If the trend can progress like this, I think we can be optimistic. 
The true jump in quality will happen when we pass Green and go into Yellow. This is where spiral wizards are forged. This is where we can all work together to keep the spiral healthy.

 

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Okay!  Here's a link to a recent study. The articles is free to read. If you take the trouble to read it, you should understand that the headline: "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature" is very misleading because the paper presents a graph showing that 1,869 of the 2,718 papers randomly selected expressed no opinion on the role of humans in climate change. Below is a copy of that graph.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

 

Now one could argue that those papers in which no opinion was expressed on the causes of climate change, could be explained by claiming that the authors already accepted as verified fact that humans are causing the current change in climate, and that's a reasonable speculation. But, nevertheless, it is only speculation. The linked article does not mention whether the authors of those papers with no position, were contacted to confirm that they accepted as true that human CO2 emissions are the driver of the current change in climate. It seems clear that they did not contact the authors, and if they did, they should have mentioned it in their paper.

 

 

you showed that before. It is not a credible article, it give no information and no sources, You don't even provide a link. I said exactly this last time why do you persist in not following the rules of the forum?

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

I checked the oxford definition, nothing obscure there.

Thing is, as you said, churches exist, they are the results of

religious thoughts, to make it simple, so churches exist in the material reality, and thought exists in another plane of reality. 

I find a bit childish your disregard of imagination, without imagination there would not be any form of art, and no scientific and technological discoveries. 

If you want to say that religion is the result of bad imagination, we can argue about that, but to deny the existence of religion and imagination is plainly wrong. 

Religion is imagination, nothing more.

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Religion is imagination, nothing more.

I don't see any mention of "imagination" in the MW dictionary definition.... ????

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

I don't see any mention of "imagination" in the MW dictionary definition.... ????

I guess the words "attitude" and "belief" don't fit your definition of imagination?

 

ok, Is God real? Does he/she/it really exist?

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I thought your colours guide to different stages in human development was interesting.

Btw...

If you'd like to know more about Spiral Dynamics, I recommend the YouTube channels, "Actualized" and "Shores of Infinity". 

[Sunmaster]

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I guess the words "attitude" and "belief" don't fit your definition of imagination?

 

ok, Is God real? Does he/she/it really exist?

Reality is what you believe it is.

Example...2 people are sitting on a beach, watching a sunset.
The first one believes that everything in life is connected and appreciates the beauty of the sunset as a manifestation of something that transcends the material world.
The second suffers from depression and sees the same sunset through a lens of despair and hopelessness. 

So, which one is real? Both are. Both are interpretations of the same reality. 

[ozimoron]

21 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Reality is what you believe it is.

Example...2 people are sitting on a beach, watching a sunset.
The first one believes that everything in life is connected and appreciates the beauty of the sunset as a manifestation of something that transcends the material world.
The second suffers from depression and sees the same sunset through a lens of despair and hopelessness. 

So, which one is real? Both are. Both are interpretations of the same reality. 

Therein lies the difference. The world would be a better place if people didn't mistake reality for delusion.

[mauGR1]

20 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Therein lies the difference. The world would be a better place if people didn't mistake reality for delusion.

Thanks God we have you to explain to us what is real and what is not ????

[Sunmaster]

22 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Therein lies the difference. The world would be a better place if people didn't mistake reality for delusion.

I think the real problem is when a person assumes that his interpretation of reality somehow is more real or superior than other interpretations. 

[Hummin]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

So do you really think that imagination doesn't exist ?

Why not accept the obvious fact that different things exist on different planes of reality?

Thought exists in a different way than your nose, got it ?

We know imagination is a huge part of our life, and there is no doubt we are all living in slightly different realities because we see things different in many ways in many different fields. Sometimes difficult to understand what is real or not. 

[Hummin]

6 hours ago, ozimoron said:

A brief reading of Darwin's theory of evolution will show that intelligent deign and the theory of evolution are the antithesis of each other. Evolution has to be random to work.

There is one thing, and that is if life is Extraterrestrial and life travel space, then the dna on this planet most likely was already created, and therefor difficult to find evidence how it started on our planet. 
 

we are already capable to send life out in space, and we can be creators as well. Then we have intelligent creation ????

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

We know imagination is a huge part of our life, and there is no doubt we are all living in slightly different realities because we see things different in many ways in many different fields. Sometimes to understand what is real or not. 

Yet saying that religion has no connection with reality is a bit of a stretch. 

It would be more intellectually honest to totally ignore the subject. 

[Hummin]

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yet saying that religion has no connection with reality is a bit of a stretch. 

It would be more intellectually honest to totally ignore the subject. 

I feel I have my legs in both camps, but if I want to, I can decide one or another and both will most likely be wrong. 
 

Most likely life on earth have been created before it arrived planet earth and our dna is most likely from somewhere else. It is just to perfect that it could evolve like it have done here. I mean we share dna with everything on this planet, and we know life changes by time because of environmental stress and changes, and takes a new form by adopting to the new constantly changes.

 

Big bang is a birth of new life on a bigger scale like a female gives birth, where all the ingredients is set for how this is going to evolve. 
 

 

[Hummin]

14 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yet saying that religion has no connection with reality is a bit of a stretch. 

It would be more intellectually honest to totally ignore the subject. 

I believe religion is a minor question of reality as it is today to be true, but it seems to be so manifested in us, and that is hard to explain. 

[TropicalGuy]

16 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

False.

 

Organized religions were paramount in developing societies away from tribal warfare into more structured entities, thus offering fertile ground for important achievements such as law and order. Let's not forget that at that time the Christian Church for example was the repository of all knowledge of the physical and non physical world, promoted the writing, translating and copying of all sorts of books. The science of the time was mainly done by monks, who were among the few to be literate. 

It's true that once that science progressed and tried to free itself from the shackles of religious dogma, the Church could not deal with that and reacted in the most vicious ways possible. 

But to say that organized religion has not advanced society is simply wrong. A quick google search would have easily shown you that. 

NO. Priests merely the self-serving fleas & parasites on the body of advancing humanity. Tried to monopolize Literacy for societal control.
Did Not hold all knowledge. Wanted to though.

 

Farmers,Builders, Engineers, Scientists, Metal Workers ,Soldiers, Traders, Lawyers etc. advanced societies, outside religious control.  Few Priests were ever known to excel at any of those key professions. Church a “status quo” business so by definition against knowledge & progress. Da Vinci & Galileo were (nominal) Catholics but so was everybody then  …on pain of torture & death.