Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

I would not becto sure, boredom can create great things under right circumstances, but it was not my point of my post where my meaning was cut down to one single sentence, and changed meaning to evolution. 
 

However social media will change humans future and will eventually be part of our evolution? Or not?

As usual, we tend to agree when we dig a bit in the meaning of our words.

Personally i love boredom, and i feel privileged to feel bored once a day.

Good creative thoughts can come from such state of mind.

Surely, social media are part of the design of our spiritual evolution, even if with different results, according to the personal evolution of everyone. 

The divisiveness which is rampant, will drive us again to unity, i hope.

 

I have to say though, that I'm a bit worried for the younger generations, as i think that they are losing the ability of communicating vocally and physically. 

The other day i was sitting on the beach, and i saw a group of 3  friends sitting nearby, everyone of them intently staring at their phones. 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

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

Not sure what you mean by science hasn't proven death. Plenty of evidence that we die. Not much that we live on. Evidence from those that came back to life, say on the operating table, or people talking about past lives, is normally interesting but disappointing.  

Science doesn't prove absolutely - it says what is most likely based on evidence. 

I like your point that given we have a limited life span we can't wait for science to discover everything so you can theorise and here's hoping you can find new things. But you'll need science to prove it to the rest of us. 

Once more . . .

The only thing i rail against with science minded folks is their rigidity of thinking.  It truly is not different than the rigidity of religious thought.  Both set their boundaries of acceptable thinking and no matter what you can't get them to venture outside of their boundaries.  For the religion acolytes it's the word of God.  Anything else they trash.  For the science acolytes it's proof.  No proof and it gets trashed.

You see, Fat is a type of crazy, I've realised long ago that there is so much more . . . so much more . . . that lays outside of either of those two realms of limited thought and neither are expansive enough to contain all of that other information which exists.  I simply cannot imprison myself like that.  My personal propensity is to follow ideas and explore where they lead me, no matter where that brings me.

Now this does not at all mean that I willy nilly believe in anything.  Quite the contrary.  For one an idea has to make sense.  It has to have airtight logic.  Most importantly it has to show that it's practically functional in the world.  Show me an idea and then show me how it works in practical terms.  If you can't then I'll reject it.

But perhaps more important than any of the above considerations which must satisfy me it has to include everything.  All must be accounted for.  Freedom, for instance.  You may disagree but freedom is the very basis of existence.  All existence.  A theory such as evolution does not account for freedom at all.  Natural selection is a determinative force which does not allow for my freedom.  I, the individual, have no say, no choice in my own experience.  Natural selection decides for me.  And according to religious belief it is God who decides for me.

If you or anyone else is willing to construct and accept a reality in which the individual does not have the freedom to determine and create their own lives in every respect as they see fit through their choices in order to fulfill themselves then bless you, sir!  But that is a reality I most strenuously reject to the marrow of my bones.

My sole effort in engaging with those science minded folks is to get them to at least try and expand their thinking.  For God's sake there is more to existence that what can be proven.  To deny ones self the rest of reality because it falls outside of what has been or can be proven is a choice which is beyond ludicrous to me.  I would never willingly confine myself to such a limited existence and experience.

One last comment.  Who the hell says that one cannot be science minded and at the same time follow unproven yet worthy ideas?  I do both without a problem.  And again, my time here is short.  Too short to wait for the demands of science to prove my existence and my experience before I am allowed to accept it as real.  Knowledge is everywhere and it's yours and everyone's for the taking.  I'll take however much I can grab from wherever it exists.

[Tippaporn]

45 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Seems like most of the perps were disenchanted Christians... how does that fit ur narrative?

Sorry, not taking your bait, mikebike.  Find someone else to troll.

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Tippaporn

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Sorry, not taking your bait, mikebike.  Find someone else to troll.

 

Strict but fair ????

[Fat is a type of crazy]

28 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Once more . . .

The only thing i rail against with science minded folks is their rigidity of thinking.  It truly is not different than the rigidity of religious thought.  Both set their boundaries of acceptable thinking and no matter what you can't get them to venture outside of their boundaries.  For the religion acolytes it's the word of God.  Anything else they trash.  For the science acolytes it's proof.  No proof and it gets trashed.

You see, Fat is a type of crazy, I've realised long ago that there is so much more . . . so much more . . . that lays outside of either of those two realms of limited thought and neither are expansive enough to contain all of that other information which exists.  I simply cannot imprison myself like that.  My personal propensity is to follow ideas and explore where they lead me, no matter where that brings me.

Now this does not at all mean that I willy nilly believe in anything.  Quite the contrary.  For one an idea has to make sense.  It has to have airtight logic.  Most importantly it has to show that it's practically functional in the world.  Show me an idea and then show me how it works in practical terms.  If you can't then I'll reject it.

But perhaps more important than any of the above considerations which must satisfy me it has to include everything.  All must be accounted for.  Freedom, for instance.  You may disagree but freedom is the very basis of existence.  All existence.  A theory such as evolution does not account for freedom at all.  Natural selection is a determinative force which does not allow for my freedom.  I, the individual, have no say, no choice in my own experience.  Natural selection decides for me.  And according to religious belief it is God who decides for me.

If you or anyone else is willing to construct and accept a reality in which the individual does not have the freedom to determine and create their own lives in every respect as they see fit through their choices in order to fulfill themselves then bless you, sir!  But that is a reality I most strenuously reject to the marrow of my bones.

My sole effort in engaging with those science minded folks is to get them to at least try and expand their thinking.  For God's sake there is more to existence that what can be proven.  To deny ones self the rest of reality because it falls outside of what has been or can be proven is a choice which is beyond ludicrous to me.  I would never willingly confine myself to such a limited existence and experience.

One last comment.  Who the hell says that one cannot be science minded and at the same time follow unproven yet worthy ideas?  I do both without a problem.  And again, my time here is short.  Too short to wait for the demands of science to prove my existence and my experience before I am allowed to accept it as real.  Knowledge is everywhere and it's yours and everyone's for the taking.  I'll take however much I can grab from wherever it exists.

What I was saying in my previous post is that if you are correct about your theory, but can't prove it to others, that doesn't make it less correct. But what is affected is your ability to communicate to and convince others. That may not worry you but to do that requires a rigorous scientific analysis to show others that it can be proven.

There have been many throughout history who had a correct idea but not the proof because technology or their own brains  could not keep up. So when you say there is so much more to evolution or other theories you are basing that on thought and feelings. Not something that can be proven by science. So either your theories are wrong, or they are right and you have to cop it that the concept remains a feeling or a faith or an idea, and that it is quite reasonable that others don't believe it too.  

[Hummin]

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

What I was saying in my previous post is that if you are correct about your theory, but can't prove it to others, that doesn't make it less correct. But what is affected is your ability to communicate to and convince others. That may not worry you but to do that requires a rigorous scientific analysis to show others that it can be proven.

There have been many throughout history who had a correct idea but not the proof because technology or their own brains  could not keep up. So when you say there is so much more to evolution or other theories you are basing that on thought and feelings. Not something that can be proven by science. So either your theories are wrong, or they are right and you have to cop it that the concept remains a feeling or a faith or an idea, and that it is quite reasonable that others don't believe it too.  

Most likely, everything we think and feel, is wrong, but does it really matter? What floats you boat,,,,,,,

 

Humans have an exceptional possibility to do something for the planet and all the living creatures on it, but what do we choose to do with our lives? 

 

Great lyrics if you give it a try

 

 

 

 

Conquest to the lover and your love to the fire

Permanence unfolding in the absolute

Forgiveness is the the ultimate sacrifice

Eloquence belongs to the conqueror

The pictures of time and space are rearranged

In this little piece of typical tragedy

Justified Candy, brandy for the nerves

Eloquence belongs to the conqueror

 

You and me, we'll all go down in history

With a sad Statue of Liberty

And a generation that didn't agree

You and me, we'll all go down in history

With a sad Statue of Liberty

And a Generation that didn't agree

 

I forgot to, I forgot to let you know that

Justified Candy, brandy for the nerves

Eloquence belongs to the conqueror

Conquest to the lover and your love to the fire

Permanence unfolding in the absolute

Forgiveness is the ultimate sacrifice

Eloquence belongs to the conqueror

 

 

You and me, we'll all go down in history

With a sad Statue of Liberty

And a generation that didn't agree

You and me, we'll all go down in history

With a sad Statue of Liberty

And a generation that didn't agree

Generation, ah

 

What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?

Suffering now

 

Suffering now

 

You and me, we'll all go down in history

With a sad Statue of Liberty

And a generation that didn't agree

You and me, we'll all go down in history

With a sad Statue of Liberty

And a generation that didn't agree

 

Generation (belonging, belonging to)

[John8]

I try to stay away from religious talk in Thailand, I just nod and smile and move on to another topic fast if someone asks me..

it is very understandable that religious people believe in what they do, it's a way to cope with death and loss..

Because we can't prevent dying some day and we have a natural instinct to "stay alive" it's a relief to know we don't really die, we just move on to a new afterlife, we don't really die... that's why the main focus in most religions are the afterlife.

 

[Tippaporn]

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

What I was saying in my previous post is that if you are correct about your theory, but can't prove it to others, that doesn't make it less correct. But what is affected is your ability to communicate to and convince others. That may not worry you but to do that requires a rigorous scientific analysis to show others that it can be proven.

There have been many throughout history who had a correct idea but not the proof because technology or their own brains  could not keep up. So when you say there is so much more to evolution or other theories you are basing that on thought and feelings. Not something that can be proven by science. So either your theories are wrong, or they are right and you have to cop it that the concept remains a feeling or a faith or an idea, and that it is quite reasonable that others don't believe it too.  

I can't believe you read my entire post and you're right back with your rote "rigorous scientific analysis" condition before others can believe it.  I'm not interested in convincing anyone of anything nor do I care whether or not they choose to accept any of the ideas I offer.  The only thing of importance to me is that the ideas I hold to be true have practical application in my most practical life and work for me.  Why the hell do I need science's blessings before I can use a practical idea that works?

Science has it's view of reality.  Science's ideas have undoubtedly manifested in some wondrous things.  Great.  I love it.  I rejoice with science.  But, since no one is ever right all of the time, and everyone has their imperfections then in those areas in which I disagree with science's ideas I will not rejoice with science but rather challenge them on their conclusions.  Anything wrong with what I'm saying yet?

On the other hand I am free enough to explore ideas in a way that science doesn't allow itself due to it's rigid "scientific method" approach.  I'm smart enough to recognise the limitations of that approach.  I find many ideas to be true and do not wait to put them to use until science sanctifies my findings which, again, may and probably never will come in my lifetime.

Now I offer up different ideas here which taken together form a very different view of how reality works.  I'll contrast that viewpoint with the other viewpoints here.  Show me how your ideas work and I'll show you how mine work.  What becomes painfully obvious very quickly is that with science so many theories that are even accepted as fact don't hold water.  They can't be shown to work to any great detail.  Again, how do you mesh freedom with evolution?  You won't touch that.  Neither will any other science minded person.  Why?  Because you can't.  There is no place for individual freedom within the theory of evolution.  Well, damn it, then it's bogus.

Again, I offer a different, and in my honest opinion, a much more accurate view of reality than that which science or religion is able to offer.  Not only is it accurate but it accounts for, as much as I can tell, everything.  It doesn't omit obvious aspects of reality that science kicks to the gutter because it's a puzzle piece that they can't fit.

Again, what blows me away is that both science and religious types won't even take the time to consider an ideas validity.  That, to me, is rigid thinking.  Setting boundaries for acceptable thought.  Not a single idea residing on the outside of their paradigms gets in.

I've said this before, the source of objective reality is subjective reality.  Without subjective reality your precious physical could not exist.  Do any of you even attempt to understand that concept?  Are any of you inquisitive enough to ask questions as to why or how that would work?  Hell no.  It flies in the face of your protected view of reality and you dismiss it out of hand with the mechanical retort of, "prove it."

Are you people truly inquisitive?  I say no.  I can meet common people on the street that are far more open minded than science types.  Science types are another level of close minded thinkers perhaps even more so than the religious types.  Try to at least ask some questions rather than simply standing on and defending your hallowed ground.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

However social media will change humans future and will eventually be part of our evolution?

Of course. That was my point. Your oversimplification of "boredom" being a driving factor of cultural or evolutionary change is just plain wrong 

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

You are very condescending, i could never aspire to that level.

Can you read your own posts ?

Well try, and be honest, if you can ????

Yes, I can read them. They pick out the asinine and leave the hubris. Yours? Not so much.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Sorry, not taking your bait, mikebike.  Find someone else to troll.

 

Bait? Or just a tad too uncomfortable for your worldview? The second methinks.

[Sunmaster]

6 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Bait? Or just a tad too uncomfortable for your worldview? The second methinks.

You have been disrespectful from the very first post here. No wonder people don't care to engage with any of your "deep and inspired" posts. Either step up or step out, methinks.

[Tippaporn]

24 minutes ago, John8 said:

I try to stay away from religious talk in Thailand, I just nod and smile and move on to another topic fast if someone asks me..

it is very understandable that religious people believe in what they do, it's a way to cope with death and loss..

Because we can't prevent dying some day and we have a natural instinct to "stay alive" it's a relief to know we don't really die, we just move on to a new afterlife, we don't really die... that's why the main focus in most religions are the afterlife.

Religion offers much more than that and thus serves a greater purpose in the lives of those who follow it.  It at least grants an individual purpose and worth in life.  Science does neither.

And no one, least of all the science types, considers the effects of teaching an entire world that there is no purpose in life, that one is no more than a leaf blowing in the wind with no control over their life's direction, that fulfilling their most heartfelt desires is a coin toss decided by chance, that their only value lies in their ability to breed, that life is nothing more than the survival of the fittest, that their emotions are due only to chemical interactions in their brains, that girls can be boys and boys can be girls, that a person's sex is not determined by biology but by their subjectivity, and perhaps the worst new fad in scientific thinking which postulates that personal choice is a mere defective mental illusion.  And these same people then wonder how it is that the world slides into madness in so many respects.

Dumb and dumber.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Religion offers much more than that and thus serves a greater purpose in the lives of those who follow it.  It at least grants an individual purpose and worth in life.  Science does neither.

And no one, least of all the science types, considers the effects of teaching an entire world that there is no purpose in life, that one is no more than a leaf blowing in the wind with no control over their life's direction, that fulfilling their most heartfelt desires is a coin toss decided by chance, that their only value lies in their ability to breed, that life is nothing more than the survival of the fittest, that their emotions are due only to chemical interactions in their brains, that girls can be boys and boys can be girls, that a person's sex is not determined by biology but by their subjectivity, and perhaps the worst new fad in scientific thinking which postulates that personal choice is a mere defective mental illusion.  And these same people then wonder how it is that the world slides into madness in so many respects.

Dumb and dumber.

...and they can't be wrong,  because "science" says that ????

[mikebike]

15 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You have been disrespectful from the very first post here. No wonder people don't care to engage with any of your "deep and inspired" posts. Either step up or step out, methinks.

I have personally found very few posts in this enormous thread to be either "deep" or "inspired". In fact they are, for the most part, a feable rehashing of inspired philosophy throughout the millenia. 

 

Do you judge your worth by "engagement"? How sad for you.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I can't believe you read my entire post and you're right back with your rote "rigorous scientific analysis" condition before others can believe it.  I'm not interested in convincing anyone of anything nor do I care whether or not they choose to accept any of the ideas I offer.  The only thing of importance to me is that the ideas I hold to be true have practical application in my most practical life and work for me.  Why the hell do I need science's blessings before I can use a practical idea that works?

Science has it's view of reality.  Science's ideas have undoubtedly manifested in some wondrous things.  Great.  I love it.  I rejoice with science.  But, since no one is ever right all of the time, and everyone has their imperfections then in those areas in which I disagree with science's ideas I will not rejoice with science but rather challenge them on their conclusions.  Anything wrong with what I'm saying yet?

On the other hand I am free enough to explore ideas in a way that science doesn't allow itself due to it's rigid "scientific method" approach.  I'm smart enough to recognise the limitations of that approach.  I find many ideas to be true and do not wait to put them to use until science sanctifies my findings which, again, may and probably never will come in my lifetime.

Now I offer up different ideas here which taken together form a very different view of how reality works.  I'll contrast that viewpoint with the other viewpoints here.  Show me how your ideas work and I'll show you how mine work.  What becomes painfully obvious very quickly is that with science so many theories that are even accepted as fact don't hold water.  They can't be shown to work to any great detail.  Again, how do you mesh freedom with evolution?  You won't touch that.  Neither will any other science minded person.  Why?  Because you can't.  There is no place for individual freedom within the theory of evolution.  Well, damn it, then it's bogus.

Again, I offer a different, and in my honest opinion, a much more accurate view of reality than that which science or religion is able to offer.  Not only is it accurate but it accounts for, as much as I can tell, everything.  It doesn't omit obvious aspects of reality that science kicks to the gutter because it's a puzzle piece that they can't fit.

Again, what blows me away is that both science and religious types won't even take the time to consider an ideas validity.  That, to me, is rigid thinking.  Setting boundaries for acceptable thought.  Not a single idea residing on the outside of their paradigms gets in.

I've said this before, the source of objective reality is subjective reality.  Without subjective reality your precious physical could not exist.  Do any of you even attempt to understand that concept?  Are any of you inquisitive enough to ask questions as to why or how that would work?  Hell no.  It flies in the face of your protected view of reality and you dismiss it out of hand with the mechanical retort of, "prove it."

Are you people truly inquisitive?  I say no.  I can meet common people on the street that are far more open minded than science types.  Science types are another level of close minded thinkers perhaps even more so than the religious types.  Try to at least ask some questions rather than simply standing on and defending your hallowed ground.

Science is what it is. Of course science should not have special rules or conditions. It doesn't look at your idea and think about it. It is just a mechanism that says likely or not likely based on proof.  

 

As a different aim you could look to explain your new ideas or theories in a way that does not have proof but might resonate with others. For example, it appears you cannot explain the actual mechanism such that freedom and evolution are intertwined. Not in terms of known and measurable forces. But if you can show that your theory is a better fit, without knowing exactly what is causing it, then that's something. A few words on this page are cheap. 3 pages on this page are too much.  If you are serious that you have a complete formed theory then write a book, explain how it works as far as you can, be succinct and explain why your theory is necessarily a better fit to reality. 

 

Or thirdly accept your idea is just at the idea stage.  You say you don't care what others think so no worries.

 

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I have personally found very few posts in this enormous thread to be either "deep" or "inspired". In fact they are, for the most part, a feable rehashing of inspired philosophy throughout the millenia. 

 

Do you judge your worth by "engagement"? How sad for you.

No, I judge the worth of your posts by the level of politeness, insight and thought provoking ideas. Unfortunately, they lack in all departments.

[Tippaporn]

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

Science is what it is. Of course science should not have special rules or conditions. It doesn't look at your idea and think about it. It is just a mechanism that says likely or not likely based on proof.  

 

As a different aim you could look to explain your new ideas or theories in a way that does not have proof but might resonate with others. For example, it appears you cannot explain the actual mechanism such that freedom and evolution are intertwined. Not in terms of known and measurable forces. But if you can show that your theory is a better fit, without knowing exactly what is causing it, then that's something. A few words on this page are cheap. 3 pages on this page are too much.  If you are serious that you have a complete formed theory then write a book, explain how it works as far as you can, be succinct and explain why your theory is necessarily a better fit to reality. 

 

Or thirdly accept your idea is just at the idea stage.  You say you don't care what others think so no worries.

 

You don't ask questions.  Ever.

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

No, I judge the worth of your posts by the level of politeness, insight and thought provoking ideas. Unfortunately, they lack in all departments.

He's trolling, Sunmaster.  Don't feed him.  He'll get bored from lack of reaction to his prodding and fade away.

[mikebike]

20 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

No, I judge the worth of your posts by the level of politeness, insight and thought provoking ideas. Unfortunately, they lack in all departments.

Yes! This! Because how can we have a discussion without politeness.

 

"Politeness" is a weasley way of saying, "I don't like HOW you present your ideas, so I will not engage ".

 

I find most posts in this thread to be absurd beyond belief... its like a bunch of children who have never had the benefit of education rehashing things people of far greater intellect have debated for millenia - without the wit, knowledge, or ability to decern to do so.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Yes! This! Because how can we have a discussion without politeness.

 

"Politeness" is a weasley way of saying, "I don't like HOW you present your ideas, so I will not engage ".

 

I find most posts in this thread to be absurd beyond belief... its like a bunch of children who have never had the benefit of education rehashing things people of far greater intellect have debated for millenia - without the wit, knowledge, or ability to decern to do so.

Are you looking for help or what ?

If so, perhaps you're asking in a wrong way.

Just saying. 

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, mikebike said:

"Politeness" is a weasley way of saying, "I don't like HOW you present your ideas, so I will not engage ".

If only there were some ideas....but alas, hollow pots make the loudest noise...

 

6 minutes ago, mikebike said:

without the wit, knowledge, or ability to decern to do so.

You described yourself absolutely perfectly. Well done.
Now I better follow the other's advice and leave you be. 

[mikebike]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

He's trolling, Sunmaster.  Don't feed him.  He'll get bored from lack of reaction to his prodding and fade away.

Not trolling at all. In fact I struggle to understand the concept of trolling, but that is another discussion.

 

I am second gen atheist. I have had profound "spiritual" experiences. I do not believe in God nor any creating being.

 

I started my education taking history and religious studies. I have read all the major religious and philosophical diatribes more than once. 

 

I did engage in this endless thread several times throughout its existance and left. But because it is entertaining, in a train-wreck kinda way, I find myself sucked back in...

 

But I gotta thank y'all for your childish dismissal of any other input besides what you deem appropriate.

 

Hey, wait a sec - that sounds exactly like how religion treats its detractors!

 

Quelle suprise!

[mikebike]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Are you looking for help or what ?

If so, perhaps you're asking in a wrong way.

Just saying. 

Funny I've been pondering how much help you folks need!

[mikebike]

7 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

If only there were some ideas....but alas, hollow pots make the loudest noise...

 

You described yourself absolutely perfectly. Well done.
Now I better follow the other's advice and leave you be. 

Yes, contrary views are scary. Best run.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Funny I've been pondering how much help you folks need!

Do you think alcohol can improve your discernment skills ?

[mikebike]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Do you think alcohol can improve your discernment skills ?

I don't know. I don't drink alcohol.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

I don't know. I don't drink alcohol.

Uhm????

[mikebike]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Uhm????

I like cannabis tho.

 

To each his/her own.

 

I love the baseless assumptions tho... Kinda proves my point.

Edited August 24, 2022 by mikebike

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

I like cannabis tho.

 

To each his/her own.

Good choice ???? i was wondering what makes you so confused, because you post here, but you seem unwilling to discuss the topic.

And if you have some interesting ideas to share, insulting the recipients is not really a good start. 

Or do you expect to be acknowledged as a great mind just because of your spiteful attitude?

Just trying to make some sense, the whole world seems to get mad faster and faster.