God can't be denied

[usp8riot]

I can't, for the life of me, find a way to deny God. I've strayed away from this forum some to collect my thoughts more after rethinking many of my views which others here have somewhat changed for a while but I'm back at it. Maybe God and the typical view of goodness and morality is like an itch I'm trying to get rid of and maybe that's why I come here but it hasn't happened yet. Even though I've given in to science as much as I possibly can, I can't get rid of my view.

Anyhow, I believe God is the sum total of all, everything, past and present, large and small, and consequently we, as humans, help make up God. Now we can obviously conclude that we are less powerful than the Universe, or all that is, whatever you want to call it, and less intelligent. "Less intelligent?", you say! What is a human? A collection of neurons which are actually binary actions housed with organs and such to sustain the collection of neurons we call the brain. Well, the universe is a collection of binary actions and reactions. The universe is really just a collection of AND and NOT reactions just as the brain is. So from that we can conclude the universe is more intelligent than us. More mathematical actions go on in the universe, the whole, as do our tiny brains. And thusly I conclude that the Universe, or God, in my eyes, is more intelligent than us. It is the nurturer of our Earth, us, and everything. The Earth could be called the God (birther/creator) of us just as if I created a marble, I could be the God of it, or rolled the marble on the floor, I am the God of that action, or perhaps, sub-God, whatever you want to call it. The complex actions and reactions created by the marble can all be translated into mathematical data, which were in turn created by a force which is composed of much more complex action and reaction sequences (us).

So what I'm saying is, how can someone not believe in a God that is the creator of all and is/was/will be everything? Or maybe you do, but what do you call it? Help me out here so as to make sense of it all and let me know I'm not nuts. I have lately had the atheist view again but I keep coming back to my own composed view of science based lightly on the religions of the Abrahamic God.

I can't live life just not caring or not knowing. I know we were put here for something and I'm going to find out what it is. I've made enough mistakes in life that I don't want to take another step until I know it's the right one. I know there's an answer in life and we were put here for something and we should be able to find it out. To be put here clueless of what life is about makes no sense. So what's the sense of life? Information exchange when you get down to the nitty gritty. So what is that ultimate piece of information we need to figure out life and why we're here? People seem to want answers but not many seem to want to try. It's seemingly just others debunking others' answers or others who heard from a book or someone else and just blindly follow it.

Is Darwin's law right or is the Abrahamic law right? Is survival of the fittest the thing to do for the good of all or is doing unto others as we would have others do unto you? Perhaps that's the two main moral perspectives. Should we do what we can to protect only our own? But isn't that behavior hypocritic since it's ultimately self-destructive for that group? But also isn't following the Abrahamic God's law self-destructive for society? If we try our best to keep more people alive and healthy and forgive people all the time, will we not have a population explosion which will in turn cause more people to follow Darwin's law and fight for their own and being more selfish. I only see hypocrisy in both beliefs. I haven't found a view yet that isn't hypocritical. I challenge someone to give me a total belief in which there is no hypocrisy. Or perhaps hypocrisy can't be cured since uncovered details of infinite complexity can be dug up and used to debunk a belief. I am looking for a belief with integrity in which there is no hypocrisy and I'm not happy not having an opinion or having that information. After all, that's what life is about. Since the dawn of time, information/data/calculations have been exchanged either intelligently (by animales) or not through simple reactions for instance, material colliding, which force/mathematical variable, is exchanged. But still even that can be argued as intelligent. How many calculations have to be collectively involved for an action/reaction to be deemed as intelligent? Anyhow, I'm an open book. I only live for the truth and nothing else. Can anyone give a non-bias opinion on what they think life is about and what the truth to life is? I take no side for the religious or atheists here, only for the truth.

 

[cato]

you bring up many good points.

So what I'm saying is, how can someone not believe in a God that is the creator of all and is/was/will be everything?

who ever said things have to be created to exist?

Now we can obviously conclude that we are less powerful than the Universe, or all that is, whatever you want to call it, and less intelligent.

that really depends on your definition of power and intelligence.

I think the reason you can't get rid of the urge to be religious is the fact that you think there should be something definite, right, proper, ect. I think the cold hard fact is that things aren't so cut and dried.

Is Darwin's law right or is the Abrahamic law right?

I believe that abrahamic law is a product of the natural selection of ideas. people take comfort in the idea that there is an absolute. perhaps its a side effect of mankind's problem solving intellect that we want to figure everything out. I recommend you read the work of Daniel C Dennett.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/068482471X/104-5644635-8683915?v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/06...ef=sr_1_1/104-5644635-8683915?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

[wsionynw]

Many followers of Darwin's theory also have a strong belief in a God, a Creator if you will (the initial spark that gave life). It's one thing believing in a God, it's quite another believing in Creation 'theory'. Believing in any given religion is always based on fear of the unknown, this is well documented. If you can get past the fear, then you are one of the lucky few. The nonesense stems from the belief that God loves this, God hates that...

 

[usp8riot]

who ever said things have to be created to exist?

Evolved then? Doesn't matter what you call the process in which we got here, the point is there is a process that got us here. We are a product of variables of the universe. And what is the birth process or processes which in turn evolved us? Like a mathematical calculation, I just see things as they are now as just the temporary sum and will continually change as the problem is carried out, like solving an infinite equation such as pi.

I think the reason you can't get rid of the urge to be religious is the fact that you think there should be something definite, right, proper, ect. I think the cold hard fact is that things aren't so cut and dried.

Food for thought. Is there no clear cut answer? Is it infinitely divisible so it seems it can't be found? Even great work to me, like the Bible, is hypocritical. For example, in a previous post, I forgot who it was by, but mentions God and Jesus saying "you fool" while stating the bible says the person saying "you fool" is subject to punishment in hell for saying it. Perhaps the morals the bible states are too complex to be written by many people for it to all tie exactly together. So should we just blow off the morality of any holy text altogether since it consists of some hypocritical statements? That's where I'm stuck at. What religion, belief, or view point doesn't have hypocrisy involved. As a motto I used to hold, if you can't do something right, don't do it at all. So if I'm going to have a view on life, I want it to hold integrity. Am I falling into a trap by trying to find finite answers in how to live in an infinite universe?

I believe that abrahamic law is a product of the natural selection of ideas. people take comfort in the idea that there is an absolute. perhaps its a side effect of mankind's problem solving intellect that we want to figure everything out. I recommend you read the work of Daniel C Dennett.

So if there is no absolute, how can you have an absolute argument when debating on a religious forum? Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

 

[KennyJC]

Call this universe 'God' if you like, but if it was a natural phenomena with no divine help, then your label is meaningless. The classic defintion of God is a sentient being who created the universe and takes issue with trivial aspects of human affairs.

No evidence will ever exist for 'God', so in that sense, it is very easy to deny 'him', rather than trying to create a fantasy based around this character.

I can't live life just not caring or not knowing. I know we were put here for something and I'm going to find out what it is.

It's not a crossword puzzle. We weren't here, now we are... and in a matter of decades we will go back to not being here. Even if there is a 'meaning' to it all, then you will have to invent a meaning because you will never find it out. Sort of like a goldfish trying to figure out why it is in that bowl of water.

 

[cato]

And what is the birth process or processes which in turn evolved us?

if the universe has existed forever, randomness is the only process needed, as any and all states must be exausted.

So if there is no absolute, how can you have an absolute argument when debating on a religious forum?

there can be absolutes, but I don't think that there is one when it comes to the question of ones purpose. I believe that mankind is purposless, but that is just a belief. to avoid being a hypoctite, I am willing to change that belief based on any and all evidence I experience.

I have put fourth the idea, to my friends, that the best objective meaning to life is to advance the ability of mankind to do scientific work. perhaps science is the meaning of life so you pick it as a subjective meaning of life (as it is not proven), but if it is not, it is the process most likely to find an objective meaning of life. so, if the meaning of life, to you, is to do science, the only way you can prove yourself wrong is to find the true meaning of life. =]

 

[superluminal]

Anyhow, I believe God is the sum total of all, everything, past and present, large and small, and consequently we, as humans, help make up God. Now we can obviously conclude that we are less powerful than the Universe, or all that is, whatever you want to call it, and less intelligent. "Less intelligent?", you say! What is a human? A collection of neurons which are actually binary actions housed with organs and such to sustain the collection of neurons we call the brain. Well, the universe is a collection of binary actions and reactions. The universe is really just a collection of AND and NOT reactions just as the brain is. So from that we can conclude the universe is more intelligent than us. More mathematical actions go on in the universe, the whole, as do our tiny brains. And thusly I conclude that the Universe, or God, in my eyes, is more intelligent than us. It is the nurturer of our Earth, us, and everything. The Earth could be called the God (birther/creator) of us just as if I created a marble, I could be the God of it, or rolled the marble on the floor, I am the God of that action, or perhaps, sub-God, whatever you want to call it. The complex actions and reactions created by the marble can all be translated into mathematical data, which were in turn created by a force which is composed of much more complex action and reaction sequences (us).

Honestly I mean no offense here, but this is all wrong.

So what I'm saying is, how can someone not believe in a God that is the creator of all and is/was/will be everything?

What god? Where? Huh?

Or maybe you do, but what do you call it? Help me out here so as to make sense of it all and let me know I'm not nuts. I have lately had the atheist view again but I keep coming back to my own composed view of science based lightly on the religions of the Abrahamic God.

Ok.

I can't live life just not caring or not knowing. I know we were put here for something and I'm going to find out what it is. I've made enough mistakes in life that I don't want to take another step until I know it's the right one. I know there's an answer in life and we were put here for something and we should be able to find it out.

1) Are you implying that atheists don't care about or take joy in understanding the universe? If so, you are sadly mistaken.

2) Striving to find this "answer" or "purpose" you seek will either lead you to become a true atheist or drive you to be more unstable than you already seem.

To be put here clueless of what life is about makes no sense. So what's the sense of life? Information exchange when you get down to the nitty gritty. So what is that ultimate piece of information we need to figure out life and why we're here? People seem to want answers but not many seem to want to try. It's seemingly just others debunking others' answers or others who heard from a book or someone else and just blindly follow it.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but, bullshit. There are plenty of us who know how to make steady progress in understanding the universe. But if you insist on there being some purpose to it all, you will waste your life focusing on the search for it and ignoring the vast wonder of the cosmos around you.

Is Darwin's law right or is the Abrahamic law right?

Simple answer? Darwin's.

Is survival of the fittest the thing to do for the good of all or is doing unto others as we would have others do unto you?

Do any of the posters here read? EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CONSCIOUSLY DO. "Survival of the fittest" is simply a basic observation of one feature of natural selection. What makes one fit? This is an immensly complex topic. What makes one species fit in a given environmental situation, makes it go extinct in a different one.

Perhaps that's the two main moral perspectives. Should we do what we can to protect only our own? But isn't that behavior hypocritic since it's ultimately self-destructive for that group?

Good man! Good questions! Go get a book on evolutionary theory.

I challenge someone to give me a total belief in which there is no hypocrisy.

? Hypocracy is saying one thing and, by demonstration, showing that you really don't believe it. Like most theists. How can there be hypocracy in natural selection. Remember, it's not a conscious effort. Just follow you instincts and be a good person. It's easy. We evolved for it.

I am looking for a belief with integrity in which there is no hypocrisy and I'm not happy not having an opinion or having that information.

Conscientious atheism. Positive atheism. There's your answer.

Anyhow, I'm an open book. I only live for the truth and nothing else. Can anyone give a non-bias opinion on what they think life is about and what the truth to life is? I take no side for the religious or atheists here, only for the truth.

Ok. Life is about being kind to others, discovering, to the best of your ability, as much as you can about how the cosmos works, taking joy in whatever you do, not lying to yourself or others, facing uncomfortable truths until they become comfortable, being accountable to yourself for your failures and successes, and one million other things. It's up to you to decide on the paradigm that gives you this. Weigh the power of religion vs atheism in giving you enlightment and true understanding of the universe, physically and philosophically.

 

[UncleChrist]

It seems impossible for some people to just quit cold turkey on religion
they need more options

Is anybody here familiar with Dr Wayne Dyer

Dr Wayne Dyer Forum

I find his message to be a great inspiration one without fear and guilt
and a nice alternative to mainstream religions

 

[Cris]

usp8riiot,

Similarly I can't for the life of me see any reason to believe in a god. There is nothing the concept provides that we can't explain naturally. So why invent something that is unnecessary?

 

[Cris]

Usp8riot,

I know we were put here for something and I'm going to find out what it is.

This is probably the real crux of your problem. You don’t know this at all, you simply cannot comprehend the idea that we might exist for absolutely no reason or purpose.

So let’s say you can’t accept that and insist there must be a god. Now what? Let’s say you follow all the rules of the Jewish god, or the Christian God, or the Muslim god, or the Hindu god, or whomever, and achieve heaven, nirvana, paradise, or whatever, and now you are living for an eternity in paradise. So now what is/was your purpose? To avoid eternal boredom perhaps? How exactly does the belief in a god solve the problem of purpose or meaning? Few theists think beyond the point where they have achieved heaven.

I've made enough mistakes in life that I don't want to take another step until I know it's the right one.

Then learn from the mistakes of others because you will never live long enough to make them all yourself.

I know there's an answer in life and we were put here for something

How do you know, and why should we be here for a purpose?

To be put here clueless of what life is about makes no sense.

Why? Why not simply accept life for what it is – life. Surely it is better than being a rock for example.

So what's the sense of life?

Whatever you wish it to be.

People seem to want answers but not many seem to want to try.

LOL – philosophers have been working on that very issue since man was able to think.

Religion isn’t a solution to the question of purpose or meaning it is instead a serious distraction from humans developing a clear purpose and meaning for themselves.

 

[lightgigantic]

usp8riiot,

Similarly I can't for the life of me see any reason to believe in a god. There is nothing the concept provides that we can't explain naturally. So why invent something that is unnecessary?

Everything may be able to be explained "naturally" but doing the required practical for such claims is a bit lacking - for instance despite the repeated claim that consciousness is a material phenomena there is no evidence of the chemical composition of life - at the very least consciousness cannot be produced from the raw ingredients it is "declared" to be composed of

 

[Cris]

light,

Everything may be able to be explained "naturally" but doing the required practical for such claims is a bit lacking - for instance despite the repeated claim that consciousness is a material phenomena there is no evidence of the chemical composition of life - at the very least consciousness cannot be produced from the raw ingredients it is "declared" to be composed of

The same argument can be said of the caveman who discovers an operational internal combustion engine. While he may have no idea how it works it adds nothing to the answer by claiming it is magic. Similarly for the brain; we do not fully understand it yet, and until we do it is extremely premature to make the giant leap to say consciousness is caused by magic.

For the moment we know of NOTHING that is caused by anything supernatural and in contrast everything we do know has a natural explanation. So given a wonderfully complex organ in our head with a power equivalent to hundreds of thousands or modern day computers, it seems incomprehensible to then claim consciousness is caused by magic and not by the brain.

And by natural explanation all I’m suggesting is that there is no precedent to say there is any other.

 

[(Q)]

Well, the universe is a collection of binary actions and reactions. The universe is really just a collection of AND and NOT reactions just as the brain is. So from that we can conclude the universe is more intelligent than us.

So, in your opinion, quantity rules over quality? There is the flaw in your argument.

More mathematical actions go on in the universe, the whole, as do our tiny brains. And thusly I conclude that the Universe, or God, in my eyes, is more intelligent than us.

All you've done is invent a god, in your mind, based on quantity of actions in the universe. Or am I missing something here?

It is the nurturer of our Earth, us, and everything. The Earth could be called the God (birther/creator) of us just as if I created a marble, I could be the God of it, or rolled the marble on the floor, I am the God of that action, or perhaps, sub-God, whatever you want to call it.

Well, that is the crux of the biscuit, isn't it? You have simply invented a label for a notion you've also invented, in your mind. You've called it God.

The complex actions and reactions created by the marble can all be translated into mathematical data, which were in turn created by a force which is composed of much more complex action and reaction sequences (us).

There is nothing to indicate the Earth is a rolled marble or that a god had anything to do with it.

So what I'm saying is, how can someone not believe in a God that is the creator of all and is/was/will be everything?

Simple, there is nothing to warrant a belief in gods. And you've done nothing to convince otherwise.

Or maybe you do, but what do you call it? Help me out here so as to make sense of it all and let me know I'm not nuts.

But, you ARE nuts.

I have lately had the atheist view again but I keep coming back to my own composed view of science based lightly on the religions of the Abrahamic God.

That's called 'indoctrination' and you'll find it quite difficult to shake off. But, keep trying, nonetheless.

I can't live life just not caring or not knowing. I know we were put here for something and I'm going to find out what it is.

No, you won't. We weren't "put here." And you'll do nothing more than make yourself even more nuts.

I've made enough mistakes in life that I don't want to take another step until I know it's the right one. I know there's an answer in life and we were put here for something and we should be able to find it out. To be put here clueless of what life is about makes no sense. So what's the sense of life?

Living. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Information exchange when you get down to the nitty gritty. So what is that ultimate piece of information we need to figure out life and why we're here? People seem to want answers but not many seem to want to try. It's seemingly just others debunking others' answers or others who heard from a book or someone else and just blindly follow it.

Stay away from the group think mentality and you'll be fine.

But also isn't following the Abrahamic God's law self-destructive for society?

There's plenty of evidence to support that, so why would anyone want to follow it?

If we try our best to keep more people alive and healthy and forgive people all the time, will we not have a population explosion which will in turn cause more people to follow Darwin's law and fight for their own and being more selfish. I only see hypocrisy in both beliefs. I haven't found a view yet that isn't hypocritical. I challenge someone to give me a total belief in which there is no hypocrisy. Or perhaps hypocrisy can't be cured since uncovered details of infinite complexity can be dug up and used to debunk a belief.

The problem with your thinking here is that you firmly believe in gods and that we were placed here by gods for a purpose. Continuing with that line of thought will get you nowhere, fast.

I am looking for a belief

Stop looking for beliefs, that's part of the problem.

After all, that's what life is about. Since the dawn of time, information/data/calculations have been exchanged either intelligently (by animales) or not through simple reactions for instance, material colliding, which force/mathematical variable, is exchanged. But still even that can be argued as intelligent. How many calculations have to be collectively involved for an action/reaction to be deemed as intelligent? Anyhow, I'm an open book. I only live for the truth and nothing else. Can anyone give a non-bias opinion on what they think life is about and what the truth to life is? I take no side for the religious or atheists here, only for the truth.

Life is about living, not harming others intentionally and leaving a legacy that your family and friends will fondly remember for generations to come.

That in itself will require a lifetime of activity.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I can't, for the life of me, find a way to deny God.

Something has to exist in order to deny something. Thought I would clear that up as the concept can confuse a person's thinking.

Maybe God and the typical view of goodness and morality is like an itch I'm trying to get rid of and maybe that's why I come here but it hasn't happened yet. Even though I've given in to science as much as I possibly can, I can't get rid of my view.

Morality is a set of individual and group like/dislike tolerances to the presence, degree, form, and absence of various human behaviors. These tolerances constantly change. Beyond subjective human tolerance, labels such as 'good' an 'evil' have no objective correspondence.

Anyhow, I believe...

That's a core issue right there. Your genetic makeup and your learned behavior have resulted in a cognitive geometry that evaluates assertions as being 'true' based on how they make you feel. In the context of the word 'believe' that's being used it literally expands to 'accept the assertion as truth without considering evidence'.

Now we can obviously conclude that we are less powerful than the Universe, or all that is, whatever you want to call it, and less intelligent.

That's 'belief' creeping in again. That's not an obvious conclusion at all and in fact it doesn't even make any sense.

"Less intelligent?", you say! What is a human? A collection of neurons which are actually binary actions housed with organs and such to sustain the collection of neurons we call the brain.

'Belief' gotcha' again. A human is a form of sentient life with a differentiatable set of chracteristics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

Well, the universe is a collection of binary actions and reactions.

'Belief' at its best. Nobody on earth has the knowledge to claim what the universe is.

The universe is really just a collection of AND and NOT reactions just as the brain is. So from that we can conclude the universe is more intelligent than us...
...And thusly I conclude that the Universe, or God, in my eyes, is more intelligent than us.

Are you seeing the pattern yet? 'Belief' on top of 'belief' on top of 'belief'? Each step takes you further away from truth. In the statement above you have explicitly concluded what sentience is, what the universe is, and that the universe exhibits sentience.

More mathematical actions go on in the universe, the whole, as do our tiny brains.

Quite correct.

It is the nurturer of our Earth, us, and everything. The Earth could be called the God (birther/creator) of us just as if I created a marble, I could be the God of it, or rolled the marble on the floor, I am the God of that action, or perhaps, sub-God, whatever you want to call it. The complex actions and reactions created by the marble can all be translated into mathematical data, which were in turn created by a force which is composed of much more complex action and reaction sequences (us).

Why even use the word 'God'? Also don't confuse nautral process with intention. If you intend to create a marble and then do then you are its creator. Intention requires sentience and there is no evidence of sentience for the process of the Earth spawning life forms.

So what I'm saying is, how can someone not believe in a God that is the creator of all and is/was/will be everything?

'God' is claimed to be a sentient life form that created the universe. Since the existence of such claims there has been no evidence supporting them and continually mounting scientific evidence contradicting them.

Or maybe you do, but what do you call it? Help me out here so as to make sense of it all and let me know I'm not nuts. I have lately had the atheist view again but I keep coming back to my own composed view of science based lightly on the religions of the Abrahamic God.

What might be important to realize is that there are alot of things we simply don't know about reality and some things we do. The things we don't know aren't voids to be filled with any convenient / attractive explanation that "feels" satisfying. They are opportunities for investigation and the reality is that answers may not exist in our lifetime.

Additionally, humans are genetically pre-disposed (some more than others) to 'believe'. There are alot of evolutionary reasons for this that deal with group behaviors bound by an ideal of purpose, human psychological needs, and resource sharing.

Religion is a method of human relationship (to one's self and others) that is very satisfying for many people and it comes at the cost of being contradicted by scientific discovery (which ultimately is reality asserting 'what is').

There is also the notion of spirituality which is a deep appreciation for 'something'. Alot of times that 'something' is 'God', but it can be anything (a song, a car, an idea).

I can't live life just not caring or not knowing.

That's part of the human psychological need that would make presenting an attractive idea that made you feel satisfied worthy of accepting it as truth without consideration to evidence.

I know we were put here for something and I'm going to find out what it is.

Warning Will Robinson... incoming 'Belief'. You actually have no such knowledge. What you're experiencing (and you can thank human evolution for that) is a psychological need for purpose. I think Wes said it best "Religion is the bullshit that binds people together in purpose". The strength of this need varies from person to person of course.

I've made enough mistakes in life that I don't want to take another step until I know it's the right one. I know there's an answer in life and we were put here for something and we should be able to find it out. To be put here clueless of what life is about makes no sense. So what's the sense of life? Information exchange when you get down to the nitty gritty. So what is that ultimate piece of information we need to figure out life and why we're here? People seem to want answers but not many seem to want to try. It's seemingly just others debunking others' answers or others who heard from a book or someone else and just blindly follow it.

I am going to give you 2 very truthful answers to questions that seem to nag alot of people. I predict you won't like them.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF LIFE ON EARTH?: To persist (reproduction being the known process).

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF LIFE ON EARTH?: It is the relationship of life on Earth to everything it can possibly have a reltaionship with.

IMO, you might want to consider learning how to have a relationship with yourself without a proxy such as 'God'. If you are successful at this, your perspective on life and those burning psychological needs might change drastically.

Is Darwin's law right or is the Abrahamic law right? Is survival of the fittest the thing to do for the good of all or is doing unto others as we would have others do unto you?

Survival of the most adapatable is how nature works. 'Do unto others...being the fittest...etc.' at best work in some contexts and would fail in many others. They are examples of adaptations and nothing more.

Perhaps that's the two main moral perspectives. Should we do what we can to protect only our own? But isn't that behavior hypocritic since it's ultimately self-destructive for that group? But also isn't following the Abrahamic God's law self-destructive for society? If we try our best to keep more people alive and healthy and forgive people all the time, will we not have a population explosion which will in turn cause more people to follow Darwin's law and fight for their own and being more selfish. I only see hypocrisy in both beliefs. I haven't found a view yet that isn't hypocritical. I challenge someone to give me a total belief in which there is no hypocrisy.

As I had mentioned earlier on, morality is a set of subjective tolerances. Because of this there is no such thing as the 'definitive' right way. Be adaptable... not definitive.

Or perhaps hypocrisy can't be cured since uncovered details of infinite complexity can be dug up and used to debunk a belief. I am looking for a belief with integrity in which there is no hypocrisy and I'm not happy not having an opinion or having that information. After all, that's what life is about. Since the dawn of time, information/data/calculations have been exchanged either intelligently (by animales) or not through simple reactions for instance, material colliding, which force/mathematical variable, is exchanged. But still even that can be argued as intelligent. How many calculations have to be collectively involved for an action/reaction to be deemed as intelligent? Anyhow, I'm an open book. I only live for the truth and nothing else. Can anyone give a non-bias opinion on what they think life is about and what the truth to life is? I take no side for the religious or atheists here, only for the truth.

Hypocracy only seems to exist when the subjective becomes involved and 'belief' can therefore never escape it. To my knowledge there are no contradictions in reality and therefore striving to model your thought processes to being reality-compataible will certainly minimize accepting false assertions as true.

However, I don't think that's what you're looking for. I think you have a set of psychological needs that are begging to be fulfilled. At present a method of human relationship that meets those needs without making assertions that contradict reality doesn't exist. Religion meets those needs quite well and it comes at the cost of being contradicted by reality. Abandoning 'belief' might better align you to truth and might do nothing for satisfaction of your psychological needs.

Either way, you have to be honest with yourself because based on alot of your statements I don't think this is the case. For example, here are two statements which are very contradictory:

"I am looking for a belief..."

"I only live for the truth and nothing else..."

You might find that you value having your psychological needs satisfied over truth. IMO, that is the default of most people on the planet.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Faith in a god does not have to conflict with the findings of science. That's fundamentalist drenn. Hundreds of millions of Christian people, as well as other Abrahamists, find no need to "reconcile" the two belief systems.

You have faith that there is something beyond the physical world. You have faith that the universe came into being under the direction of a supernatural intelligence. By the very statement of these beliefs they are placed outside the realm of science so we have no quarrel with them. On the other hand, the very nature of faith is an admission that you have no idea how the supernatural intelligence accomplishes its miracles, no idea of the laws of the higher plane of existence, no idea if it is even subject to a paradigm that has "laws." So you have nothing to quarrel about either.

The Big Bang, evolution, relativity, string theory, fractals, black holes, red shifts, water being the only compound whose solid form is less dense than its liquid form... all of these attributes of the physical universe do not in any way conflict with your faith that there is something beyond it. And they do not in any way conflict with your faith that all of this was created by someone. It could have been created twelve billion years ago and set in motion as in the Cosmic Watchmaker model, or it could have been created six thousand years ago with the light waves already in transit from distant galaxies and the memories already etched in the brains of the Canaanites and other people of the era. Or it could have been created in any of an infinity of other ways.

You don't know how it was done and you don't have to. You have faith that it was done. You're not trying to convince us of a new scientific theory so you don't need to defend your faith and we don't need to attack it. And we'll both excuse ourselves if sometimes we just can't resist getting into that argument anyway, even though neither can possibly convert the other.

Borrow from the vocabulary of science and computer programming, and apply the concept of iteration.

Have faith in your faith. That's all you need.

On another thread I recently posted my own interpretation of Jung's model of archetypes, and said that religion is an instinct. Like many instincts, not absolutely everyone's brain is wired the same way so we don't all have it. We who have the instinct for heterosexuality get to feel content because we outnumber those who don't have it by something like ten to one, in round numbers.

You who have the instinct for religion can feel much more contented than that, because you outnumber us by a far greater ratio.

You don't need to understand why we are happy and well adjusted without a belief in a god, and we don't need to understand why you are happy with one. I think it is impossible for either of us to ever understand that, just like it's impossible for me to understand how a man can be happy and well adjusted by being in love with another man. We have different instincts. I'll settle for us all being able to live together in peace.

Your god wants you to love us. I don't think he cares whether you understand us.

 

[superluminal]

Faith in a god does not have to conflict with the findings of science. That's fundamentalist drenn. Hundreds of millions of Christian people, as well as other Abrahamists, find no need to "reconcile" the two belief systems.

You have faith that there is something beyond the physical world. You have faith that the universe came into being under the direction of a supernatural intelligence. By the very statement of these beliefs they are placed outside the realm of science so we have no quarrel with them. On the other hand, the very nature of faith is an admission that you have no idea how the supernatural intelligence accomplishes its miracles, no idea of the laws of the higher plane of existence, no idea if it is even subject to a paradigm that has "laws." So you have nothing to quarrel about either.

The Big Bang, evolution, relativity, string theory, fractals, black holes, red shifts, water being the only compound whose solid form is less dense than its liquid form... all of these attributes of the physical universe do not in any way conflict with your faith that there is something beyond it. And they do not in any way conflict with your faith that all of this was created by someone. It could have been created twelve billion years ago and set in motion as in the Cosmic Watchmaker model, or it could have been created six thousand years ago with the light waves already in transit from distant galaxies and the memories already etched in the brains of the Canaanites and other people of the era. Or it could have been created in any of an infinity of other ways.

You don't know how it was done and you don't have to. You have faith that it was done. You're not trying to convince us of a new scientific theory so you don't need to defend your faith and we don't need to attack it. And we'll both excuse ourselves if sometimes we just can't resist getting into that argument anyway, even though neither can possibly convert the other.

Borrow from the vocabulary of science and computer programming, and apply the concept of iteration.

Have faith in your faith. That's all you need.

On another thread I recently posted my own interpretation of Jung's model of archetypes, and said that religion is an instinct. Like many instincts, not absolutely everyone's brain is wired the same way so we don't all have it. We who have the instinct for heterosexuality get to feel content because we outnumber those who don't have it by something like ten to one, in round numbers.

You who have the instinct for religion can feel much more contented than that, because you outnumber us by a far greater ratio.

You don't need to understand why we are happy and well adjusted without a belief in a god, and we don't need to understand why you are happy with one. I think it is impossible for either of us to ever understand that, just like it's impossible for me to understand how a man can be happy and well adjusted by being in love with another man. We have different instincts. I'll settle for us all being able to live together in peace.

Your god wants you to love us. I don't think he cares whether you understand us.

I'll settle for us all being able to live together in peace.

Nice sentiment FR. Unfortunately the reality is quite different. The most unfortunate part of your archetype and religious "instinct" (which I find quite debatable) is that it apparently comes with the instinct to deny the humanity of those who don't share it. It also, unfortunately, seems to appeal directly to those of us (the majority) who wish or need to be told how to behave "correctly". I don't need to explain where this leads.

 

[S.A.M.]

Nice sentiment FR. Unfortunately the reality is quite different. The most unfortunate part of your archetype and religious "instinct" (which I find quite debatable) is that it apparently comes with the instinct to deny the humanity of those who don't share it. It also, unfortunately, seems to appeal directly to those of us (the majority) who wish or need to be told how to behave "correctly". I don't need to explain where this leads.

Not if you respect the right of everyone to have his/her own beliefs;

And separate church from state.

It does work.

 

[superluminal]

Not if you respect the right of everyone to have his/her own beliefs;

And separate church from state.

It does work.

Yes. As we do here in the US of SATAN. Sorry. I believe you said India does the same thing?

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes. As we do here in the US of SATAN. Sorry. I believe you said India does the same thing?

Yes and it works for us. We have no religon in the state. You can buy beef in the market even though the cow is holy. You can have abortions even though both Hinduism and Christianity do not advocate it. We have no issues with stem cell research. Sexuality and religion are personal issues. We respect the beliefs of others. For e.g. if I visit a temple with a Hindu friend, I remove my shoes. If I visit a church, I greet the priest as they do. Does not change my beliefs, but shows my respect for theirs. I visit them for their festivals they visit me for mine. We share our beliefs not impose or mock them. Respect however and the courtesy to keep offending beliefs to yourself is most important. e.g. I don't serve beef when I invite a Hindu friend over.

 

[baumgarten]

Nice sentiment FR. Unfortunately the reality is quite different. The most unfortunate part of your archetype and religious "instinct" (which I find quite debatable) is that it apparently comes with the instinct to deny the humanity of those who don't share it. It also, unfortunately, seems to appeal directly to those of us (the majority) who wish or need to be told how to behave "correctly". I don't need to explain where this leads.

The earliest instance of that sentiment I can think of is the Roman empire and its conflict with early Christianity. Prior to this, there seems to have been a lot of respect between religions in the ancient world. Generals in very foreign lands would even go to the temples of cities they conquered and sacrifice to the local gods.