Do you believe in God and why

[oldhippy]

6 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

That's exactly how the Greeks viewed their gods

...and man created gods in his own image....

 

Slightly off topic: Who created the image of buddha? The Greeks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art

 

[Sunmaster]

My first post about the "Positive God-interpretation" is dedicated to music.

 

Specifically, devotional music written and performed to attain a higher state of consciousness through repetitive drumming (shamanic drumming), rhythmic/circular breathing with an aboriginal didgeridoo, the use of overtones in classical Indian music (sitar, tablas, tampura), the majestic and quite theatrical western organ music, as well as singing (Gregorian Choirs, Qawwali in Pakistan, Hindu Bhajan to name a few) and finally dancing, which is often performed in a way to induce a trance state (shamanic, whirling dervishes, Zaouli trance dance in Africa).

As you can see, musical beauty is found in all corners of the world and throughout all recorded history and beyond (in the case of the aboriginals).

In some cases religion (and the money behind it) has facilitated the arts of course, but the need to connect with a higher power is the true driving factor of this kind of music.

Here are just a few examples:

 

 

 

 

[oldhippy]

QUOTE: the need to connect with a higher power is the true driving factor of this kind of music.

 

Not for me.

When I listen to gregorian, polynesian, hard rock or whatever, I am not trying to connect to wishy washy higher powers. I just simply enjoy the music.

[Sunmaster]

21 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

QUOTE: the need to connect with a higher power is the true driving factor of this kind of music.

 

Not for me.

When I listen to gregorian, polynesian, hard rock or whatever, I am not trying to connect to wishy washy higher powers. I just simply enjoy the music.

The driving factor for making this kind of music and for most who can appreciate it. If you listen to it while sitting on the toilet, it's surely enjoyable but that was not the point at all.

[Skeptic7]

8 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

Evolution is Scientifically Impossible

 

Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago by Charles Darwin (N/A actually, by his grandfather in 1794 - before Charles was even born), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.

His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution.

Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists.

Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.

They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense.

Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.

What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible.
 

Total BS. Absolutely wrong and you couldn't be more dishonest. Whether you, the Evangelical Fundie zealot accepts it, matters not a speck. The Theory of Evolution is accepted by 97% of the worldwide scientific community. That is the TRUTH...something in which you are obviously not interested. Evolutionary Theory is a fact...or a close as is scientifically possible. Read below and PLEASE try to learn something for once. You cannot keep sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and shouting LALALALALALALALA and denying the facts!

 

Here's what The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine says about Evolution...

 

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

 

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

 

Click below and PLEASE open your mind and try to understand. It's a simple read for most...only a few paragraphs. Whether you accept it or not, at least be honest enough to admit that experts around the world disagree with you and your sad, silly lot.

 

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

[sirineou]

please delete wrong reply. 

[sirineou]

13 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Total BS. Absolutely wrong and you couldn't be more dishonest. Whether you, the Evangelical Fundie zealot accepts it, matters not a speck. The Theory of Evolution is accepted by 97% of the worldwide scientific community. That is the TRUTH...something in which you are obviously not interested. Evolutionary Theory is a fact...or a close as is scientifically possible. Read below and PLEASE try to learn something for once. You cannot keep sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and shouting LALALALALALALALA and denying the facts!

 

Here's what The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine says about Evolution...

 

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

 

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

 

Click below and PLEASE open your mind and try to understand. It's a simple read for most...only a few paragraphs. Whether you accept it or not, at least be honest enough to admit that experts around the world disagree with you and your sad, silly lot.

 

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

I don't even think CMNightRider thinks any of what he says in this thread. I briefly engaged with him, quickly realised he was trolling and stopped, I suggest you do the same. 

[gunderhill]

9 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

Evolution is Scientifically Impossible

 

Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago by Charles Darwin (N/A actually, by his grandfather in 1794 - before Charles was even born), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.

His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution.

Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists.

Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.

They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense.

Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.

What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible.
 

Oh deary me , you've  got  it  quite  bad haven't you. I  think you'll need to evolve a  little  more to catch up with the rest of us.

[gunderhill]

4 hours ago, oldhippy said:

Most posters here are concentrating on that jewish cult leader that later got adopted by christians and next by muslims.

Why?

What's wrong with the Greek / Roman / Hindu etc gods?

 

Personally, I think there is something to be said for the gods in "Eric the Viking": a Monty Python movie that depicts the gods as spoiled children.

So, to all the bible believers: prove me that this is not The Truth, as revealed by the prophet Cleese.

 

 

 

He's  not the Messiah he's  just a very naughty boy!

 

[frantick]

I don't know the answer, but could wrap my head around intelligent design as easily as something from nothing. My problem with what mr nightrider says is, who determined that intelligent design came from THE 'God'/Jesus of the bible?  I don't make that correlation.

 

Mr nightrider has a belief, something I don't have, so all the more power to him.  But I have found through all my years that those being the most 'Jesus-Freaky' do it because they had a bad experience in life and felt better after being 'born again'; joining a 'group' of like believers.  I've never known a 'constant' believer to be so 'pushy' about religion.

 

What was your bad experience mr nightrider, alcoholism, molestation, ptsd?

[Tagged]

11 minutes ago, frantick said:

I don't know the answer, but could wrap my head around intelligent design as easily as something from nothing. My problem with what mr nightrider says is, who determined that intelligent design came from THE 'God'/Jesus of the bible?  I don't make that correlation.

 

Mr nightrider has a belief, something I don't have, so all the more power to him.  But I have found through all my years that those being the most 'Jesus-Freaky' do it because they had a bad experience in life and felt better after being 'born again'; joining a 'group' of like believers.  I've never known a 'constant' believer to be so 'pushy' about religion.

 

What was your bad experience mr nightrider, alcoholism, molestation, ptsd?

We are not so far from being able to construct intelligent life, or lifeforms, and place it on a suitable planet. Just think about it, we will play a creator on our next planet. 

 

Not only quoting you frantic

[ThaiBunny]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

the need to connect with a higher power is the true driving factor of this kind of music.

You have this the wrong way around. It's well-known that music can induce trance-like states, which then persuade the listener to believe in a higher power. It's a purely physical phenomenon that's in the same category as near-death experiences whose scientific explanation has been known for at least a decade - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/

[ThaiBunny]

It's been interesting to see all the old ideas resurrected, some by people who seem to imagine they're having an original thought.  Intelligent design is a popular one, as is pantheism, alongside the more traditional religious beliefs. I tend to the Cupitt school myself (solar ethics) and the Republic of Heaven idea

[CMNightRider]

13 hours ago, gunderhill said:

Oh deary me , you've  got  it  quite  bad haven't you. I  think you'll need to evolve a  little  more to catch up with the rest of us.

Well, for me to catch up with you and some of your like minded amigos, would require me to lower my IQ substantially, and rid my mind of common sense.  I don't forsee that happening in the near future unless I become afflicted with dementia, which I suspect may be prevalent amoung a couple of posters who believe life evolved from some obscure mud muddle billions of years ago, or mysterly came from another planet millions of light years away from planet earth.

 

Understanding the Bible is not rocket science.  In fact, God inspired its authors to write the events in the Bible where someone with basic literacy would understand it.  We have been blessed with releatively short life spans on earth.  We have until our last breath to accept Jesus Christ as our savior.  According to the Bible, the road to Heaven is extremely small and most will not find it.  Why not be one of those who search for it, instead of hanging out with those who reject Gods gift of everlasting life. 

[Sunmaster]

5 hours ago, ThaiBunny said:

You have this the wrong way around. It's well-known that music can induce trance-like states, which then persuade the listener to believe in a higher power. It's a purely physical phenomenon that's in the same category as near-death experiences whose scientific explanation has been known for at least a decade - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/

Have you had such a trance like state to claim it's purely physical? What do you know about it other than what other people tell you?

Of course, an event such as being in trance has material/physical repercussions, we have a physical body after all. But that is not to say that such an event is ONLY physical. 

 

The physical phenomena can be explained by science, but not what you experience during these states, which are very personal and often life changing events.

Trance inducing music and dancing can provoke altered states of consciousness. These states in themselves won't persuade anyone to believe in a higher power. It's what you experience during these states that will show you parts of yourself that were hidden before, and thus give you a new understanding of life in general. This is the deeper purpose of devotional music.

 

[mauGR1]

10 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Have you had such a trance like state to claim it's purely physical? What do you know about it other than what other people tell you?

Of course, an event such as being in trance has material/physical repercussions, we have a physical body after all. But that is not to say that such an event is ONLY physical. 

 

The physical phenomena can be explained by science, but not what you experience during these states, which are very personal and often life changing events.

Trance inducing music and dancing can provoke altered states of consciousness. These states in themselves won't persuade anyone to believe in a higher power. It's what you experience during these states that will show you parts of yourself that were hidden before, and thus give you a new understanding of life in general. This is the deeper purpose of devotional music.

 

Got to love your effort to explain some truth to some who identify themselves as just physical bodies. In the same time, I feel the deepest compassion for the ones who chain themselves to the assumption that physical reality is all that matters.

Good posts, pls keep them coming.

[Tagged]

12 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Got to love your effort to explain some truth to some who identify themselves as just physical bodies. In the same time, I feel the deepest compassion for the ones who chain themselves to the assumption that physical reality is all that matters.

Good posts, pls keep them coming.

First thing is to stop feeling sorry for each other, for all of us, how we see the world and how we see the universe have come together and built something uniq in history. Everyone of these different creatures have managed to evolve and made it possible to live a quite different life than what our species started out as. 

 

We are all depended on each other, and every different form of human, have their role in this big chaos that leads to evolving. 

 

Almost like a ants hierarchy have we built, destryed, and moved on to next level. Impressive ants or humans? 

 

We are animals, but who says animals doesnt have a spiritual life? 

[Sunmaster]

The second post about the "Positive God-interpretation" is dedicated to art.

 

Just like music, (visual) art has been an effective vehicle to transmit knowledge of the inner worlds. Things that are quite impossible to describe in words, are often easier understood through a symbol or pictures. Being non-verbal, this kind of communication bypasses rational thought and speaks to us on a deeper level.
(This in no way a comprehensive list, just those I'm more familiar with and like the best. Feel free to add your own)

 

 

Aboriginal art is closely linked to their spiritual beliefs and passes on that knowledge through recurring symbols.

 

Ink monochrome paintings in Japan are linked to Zen Buddhism. This kind of minimalist art finds in simplicity a way to free ones own mind and thus attain enlightenment.

 

In India and Tibet, Buddhist monks create mandalas, which represent a palace that is contemplated during meditation. Each object in the palace has significance, representing an aspect of wisdom or reminding the meditator of a guiding principle. The mandala's purpose is to help transform ordinary minds into enlightened ones and to assist with healing.

 

Psychedelic art may be a more modern version of spiritual art, but it's as powerful as any other visual art.
Here is my personal favourite, Alex Grey. I recommend doing some research on him and his art.

 

 

To conclude, probably the religious art we are most familiar with... Thank you Christian religion for sponsoring those amazing artists!

 

 

[sweatalot]

Thanks to Sunmaster for his approaches to something non-physical that people can feel when they are open to it. Obviously this is part of our collective consciousness - otherwise people would not think and not speak about it. 
Unfortunately, the word God is so misleading through numerous abuse and identification with a humanoid entity that it does not help.

 

Lao Tse's perspective gets closer to the truth

His definition:

The Tao is not spoken the Tao
The name that can be named is not the name.
Nameless, is the origin of Heaven and Earth

 

 

not only Taoism is a "religion without god", so is Buddhism (the real teaching) and probably other less known spiritual ways

[ThaiBunny]

20 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The physical phenomena can be explained by science, but not what you experience during these states, which are very personal and often life changing events.

Somewhat like indigestion?

[Sunmaster]

18 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Somewhat like indigestion?

Somewhat more like when you run out of good arguments and start making jokes about something you can't grasp.

[ThaiBunny]

20 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

... something you can't grasp.

I'm awarding you the Gold Medal in the "Jumping to Conclusions" event

[Sunmaster]

That's not something I can see or touch and it can't be scientifically proven, so I'll jump to the conclusion that it doesn't exist. But thanks anyway ????

[ThaiBunny]

42 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

That's not something I can see or touch and it can't be scientifically proven, so I'll jump to the conclusion that it doesn't exist. But thanks anyway ????

Exactly my point - you claim that your subjective experience is far superior to my subjective experience

[Sunmaster]

Well, if you post a silly question, you'll have to expect a silly answer.

[ThaiBunny]

11 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Well, if you post a silly question, you'll have to expect a silly answer.

It was an entirely serious question - the poster suggested that a physical experience can lead to a metaphysical one. I think that's complete nonsense in any objective way, and my question was intended to provoke a response as to how his subjective experience is different in kind from someone experiencing another bodily event

 

Subjective experiences are always that - subjective perceptions of something. You have only to read the paranoid posts by some about what the TM30 enforcement "means" about whether non-Thais are welcome in Thailand to know that

[sweatalot]

11 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

It was an entirely serious question - the poster suggested that a physical experience can lead to a metaphysical one. I think that's complete nonsense in any objective way, and my question was intended to provoke a response as to how his subjective experience is different in kind from someone experiencing another bodily event

forget objective and subjective. The way we experience the world is through our senses. Senses are subjective. E.g. How do you know the color green that you see is the same color that I see? We might agree calling the objective color (e.g. intrinsic for a meadow) green. But how do you know this color in my mind's eye doers not look like red in your mind's eye?

If there wouldn't be subjective experience there would be less disagreement in the world. Everybody would like the same kind of music - the same kind of art .... Every man would love the same woman. Exception   every man loves my wife, which is a hassle for me (.... sorry couldn't resist)

[ThaiBunny]

2 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

Every man would love the same woman (of course everyone loves my wife .... sorry couldn't resist)

So every man is heterosexual? What a skewed set of perceptions you have

[sweatalot]

7 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

So every man is heterosexual? What a skewed set of perceptions you have

forgot to mention hetero ????

[Sunmaster]

If you explain it like this, it makes more sense. The way you worded it before, it came across as mockery.

 

Let's see, you contest that a physical experience can lead to a metaphysical (or spiritual) one.
If that were true, none of the great spiritual traditions would exist today, because they all have their roots in in direct experiences of the "unknown". That direct (spiritual) experience was gained through a physical event first, i.e. trance through music, meditation, psychotropic substances, near-death-experiences.
What was taken away during those metaphysical connections fills up countless books and are the basis of all spiritual paths around the world.

Now, if you contest that there is no educational value in those experiences or that there's no objective value because it can't be scientifically proven, well...that's an opinion and can be debated ad nauseam.