Is belief in a god just self-delusion?

[Jan Ardena]

Re: Two cents on blockheads

Originally posted by tiassa
Jan ArdenaNow, I consider fundamentalist adherence to five such points as the basis for truth in the living endeavor quite blockheaded.

Como was not coming from that point of view. He automatically disrespects people who believe in God, according to his reasoning.

There is nothing wrong with fundamentalism, it is its mis-interpretation that causes anxiety. Mis-interpretation is a human flaw and it is the person who should be held accountable, not the scripture.
I am currently in a discussion with Godless regarding consciousness. We, as individuals have our own independent consciousness, but this is swayed by our experiences and associations. This means our consciousness can be changed according to time, place and circumstance. As I said in my earlier post, regarding division of creation, time is split into cycles, and each cycle has its own particular characteristic. These characteristics have a profound effect on our collective consciousness, hence you get different trends. The religious scriptures are designed for people, according to time, place and circumstance, so that whatever the current trend people will still be able to serve God. The Bible and the Qur’an was witten for the people at those times. This is not to say that the essence is now null and void, but certain practices would not be socially accepted or unserstood in todays society. But the basic truth is still within, so these scriptures are both historical and spiritual. Fundamentalism is based on serving God 24/7, but to live according to those scriptoral, historical standards is virtually impossible, in this day and age. Those who try and accomplish this in the heart of modern society, usually comes into problems, which starts conflict. The way forward is to find out what the natural religious process of the day is.

How do we find out, by the same scripture. Jesus did not teach the same way as Abraham, in fact to a layman he seemed contradictory at times, but his point always remained the same.
Why?
Because times had changed. Peoples consciousness had changed.
It is the same today.

Using fundamentalism and Quakers as an analogy, Jan, why do you include yourself among the religious blockheads?

I can identify with them, that’s why. They believe in God and I believe in God, so from that viewpoint we are the same.

Is it that you're Christian? Well, you post Vedic texts, so that shows that you're not quite, say ... Tony1? Do you believe those texts literally? Without any clarifying comment, what are we supposed to think?

In truth I have great respect for both Jesus and Mohammad as powerful representatives of the Supreme Lord. To be a Chistian means to follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ, who was a great and faithful servant to his Father, God. To be a Muslim means to be a servant of God. So the designation of christian and muslim is just that, designations, the real aim of religion is to serve God or the server of God.
The Vedas is not a religion. It is pure scientific knowledge and by such knowledge, one can come to the understanding that our only real purpose in life is to serve God, because it is our natural position. Every living being on earth is a servant, no one is a master, to the point where he has nothing to do or accomplish, because full within himself. So we are all servants, this is our natural position, but we are under the illusion that we are masters not servants.
So who or what do we serve?
And what is the benefit of such service?
The vedas informs us of our real id and position in this mortal world.

Yes, I do believe them and take them literally.
Who can clarify?
Admittedly some of the vedic litrature has been clarified by prominent scientists, one of which was Albert Einstein and many modern day scientists also, but even then, they are done with limited knowledge and instruments.
Real knowledge is axiomatic, we may know that water contains hydrogen and oxygen, but the truth of water is in it taste and cooling effect. Real truth has an effect on you, that is how you can recognise it. In vedic literature there are points which seem inconcievable, but if you make a real study you will find points that are totally relative to your life now because it affects you. The inconcievableness of the vedas is just a progression from what you can concieve, this you can see if you read and hear.
At school we learn basic mathamatics, if you like you can progress to quantum physics, based on having basic knowledge, this may seem inconcievable to some but not to others.


What I'm after, in the end, is that you're only a blockhead if you choose to be.

Would you regard yourself as a blockhead?

You seem to have taken some offense to that, choosing instead to classify yourself with the more blockheaded majority that has so many of this forum's atheists frustrated.

I take offence to blatant ignorance.

I don’t think they are blockheads, and that includes Tony1. I think they all make some relevant points.
To be honest Tiassa, if I were to call anyone blockheads, it would be the atheists, because their knowledge and understand appears to be very stiff and dull. But that would be too much of a generalisation.
At the end of the day, we are all blockheaded sometimes, atheist and theist alike.
Atheists are frustrated because they cannot have it their own way, as yet. They constantly ask for proof of this or that, but can never come up with proof of anything, then they show the level of their consciousness by becoming childish, and start insulting.


If the Christians at this forum don't want to be included in such sweeping generalizations as blockheaded and hogwash then perhaps they should start showing something other than the traits which compel people to such conclusions.

Have you taken a look at some atheist posts?
If we decided to act in the same way, I don’t think you would appreciate it.

What I'm after is that you're obviously not the norm, Jan: Why do you choose to downgrade yourself to that level?

So you think you and the antichrist posters are above the norm then?

Think of it this way: no Christian ever offers me Vedic texts to give detail to the human relationship with God.

There is obviously a lot of common sense in vedic texts. The christian posters, on this board, have common sense and through their scripture have already come to vedic conclusions. (as all knowledge comes from vedas) Vedic texts are there for the ‘not very’ spiritually advanced humans, who need confirmation of a Supreme Being.
However, the jewel in the crown of the vedas, is the Bhagavad Gita, because it was spoken by the Supreme Lord, for the purpose of all living entities.
This text is for everyone in the universe, it is not guided by time, place and circumstance, it is beyond the veils of this material world.

When John Como speaks of blockheads, I like to think I know approximately where he's coming from.

Well, you would, because he is an atheist and so are you.

The only real blockheaded traits you show evaporate in the confusion of what you're presenting.

If you are confused, then enquire further.

There must be some larger involvement to this than the self, or else society and all its rules--including those established by the religions which governed and aided society--become pointless, and God is reduced to a petty taskmaster with nothing better to do than f--k with life on Earth.

You don’t know who or what God is, so your, condescending analyses holds no water.

I can guarantee John Como that many a fine, fine Christian has slipped right by him in his day, and that many a fine, fine atheist has seemed to be religious. I'm quite sure that those religious people that slipped by aren't blockheads, or else he would have noticed.

That is if you agree that Como is not a ignorant, blockheaded, hogwash speaking atheist.

And those atheists seeming religious? Well, that is pretty blockheaded, isn't it? (Seriously, undereducated atheism is as dangerous as undereducated theism; the point is that the common dimension is undereducated. Without education, people have the tendency to do the same things to any idea: internalize, project, justify a priori, fight. )

You speak as though atheism is some form of serious body or group in which people come together to enhance their atheistic ability and understanding. In other words, you give it credibility.
Cats, dogs, trees, fish and all other types of species are all atheist by definition.
Atheism is easy, there is nothing to it, you just have to be ignorant.
I’m sorry if I seem blunt, but it is the truth.

…and thus would have stopped communicating, and possibly proactively worked to destroy Christianity.

Wake up tiassa;
That is what you are doing.

God demands faith, logic demands demonstration. One can never demonstrate the existence of God…

I disagree, the existence of God can be demonstrated, you only need to utalise you understanding capability, like anything else, including the existence of air.

And I'm willing to bet cash that, like my own data set, Mr Como's experiences with religion are dominated by the observational result that belief in God gets nobody anything good.

I believe the atheists who post here, have a deep-seated problem with God and people who believe in God.
I believe we are in a time where everything is being wound for dissolution and those particular type of atheists are a very integral part of this process.
I believe it to be a natural phenomenea, where the atheists have made their choices prior to this particular existence.

Where this results in or else reinforces his atheism, I've merely chosen to take the only applicable definition of God that works and run with it. Most religions are no less superstitious than knocking on wood, throwing petty coinage into a fountain, or tossing salt over your left shoulder after spilling it.

You say most religions. There is only one religion, and that is ‘to serve God.’
To say that this religion is better than that one is actually atheistic.
Why?
Because it means you don’t understand or recognise God, and the god that you do recognise is limited, and to say God is limited is as good as saying God does not exist.

So we must consider that if the clear and convincing majority of Mr Como's data set persuades him to regard aspects of spiritualism as blockheaded hogwash, it reflects a certain truth.

But you have disregarded Comos behaviour. He says he is reasonable and intelligent, but then says he automatically disrespects people who believe in God.
Personally, I think he is a fool, based on his posts.

By proactively engaging the idea, you run the risk of reinforcing such generalizations.

Tiassa, read his posts again, I think you will find that he included me and my beliefs, in his writing.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Teg]

Tony1,

What you said earlier was something about "read the scientific theory" as step two.
In any case, what you are saying now is much closer to the scientific method.

That is what is unscientifically accepted as the scientific method.
What other method do you use to verify that "Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, repeat" is actually a valid way to reach conclusions?

A science book tells me that gravity accellerates objects at 9.8m/s^2. It sounds reasonable and so I drop a mass from the roof of a building. Using a timer and my eyes, I test the theory repeatedly. Confirmation: the accelleration of gravity is approximately 9.8m/s^2 here on earth.

The Bible itself says that proof follows belief.
The problem is that antichristians argue that the proof should precede the belief.

That's a good con. Give me the money and then I shall prove that I have the product. You would have the sense to realize this as a con, so why are you blind when it comes to the bible? You say that proof comes afterward: so where is it? Onviously you believe, so you must have the proof.

I've read thousands more than you have.

Another baseless statement. How could you possibly confirm this? We must take your word, be as stupid as you, in blind faith?

Your atheist buddy offered only two choices in the fallacious form known as the false dichotomy.

A few specious retorts are insufficient. Something beyond faith must be interfering with your reasoning, perhaps your unnavoidable solipcism.

That ignores the fact that Jesus fulfilled the old law.
Being fulfilled by Jesus, the old law no longer applies to me.

So then you admit that you hold one book above the other. So then you selectively believe in the laws and ideas of the first book? How sad it is then that you choose those horrid fancies such as creation.

Starting when?

That has no relevance. For something to last forever is completely different from somethig have an end. A four year old could tell you that.

So he was wrong.
The truth in the Bible isn't in everything that everyone says.
The truth is that he was wrong.

Well, if Jacob is capable of lying, then who else in that book has the capacity? Perhaps Jesus would lie or Moses. These would be imperfections and by Kalvin's statement, Jacob would not go to heaven. Jesus and Moses, not being christians would not go to heaven either.

"He" who?
You say the Lord, the Bible says Judah could not drive out ... etc.

No, the word with is a direct indication of assistance. "With God" and the Lord was "with" Judah. Your arguments are indeed specious, having the appearence of truth but lacking in factual detail.

 

[John Como]

John Como, Superstar

Although not interested in pissing contests with the blind, I would say unto thee who've taken my name in vain on this thread, verily and in all humility, John Como is nobody's fool, nobody's servant and - in fact - is the most pleasant, compassionate and reasonable intellectual I've ever met, although rather intolerant when it comes to human greed and inflexible ignorance. He has little patience for non-existent gods and yet is not without superstitions. For example, he never steps on a baseline when heading to the dugout and, during a hot hitting streak, doesn't change his underwear for days, sometimes weeks.

John Como, 1B

 

[orthogonal]

Jan,

"The world is full of fools; and he who would not wish to see one, must not only keep to himself, but must also break his looking-glass." Nicolas Boileau

I heartily agree with you that we can all be dense at times. And as I already think myself a blockhead, I shouldn't be surprised if others think me one as well. I can't remember ever writing something that I've been entirely satisfied with, so it's no wonder that others find flaws with what I write. Still, I'd prefer if we were called upon to defend the veracity of our statements rather than our personal integrity. Let the value of our ideas rest solely upon the validity of our arguments.

Jan, I did want to comment about a statement you made. You wrote, "An atheist's...knowledge appears to be very stiff and dull..." I've often heard this complaint levied against those of us who place trust in the scientific method. I've heard that we lack art and emotion, that we have cold hearts and a deficit of imagination.

My answer is that it's all about emotion! The scientific method is merely a tool used by emotion. Emotion demands an answer to the question, "What is this world?" But only reason can provide the answer to this question. The answer supplied by our reason is then offered back to our emotion for approval. My emotion appears to be particularly suspicious. It simply refuses to accept answers that rely on fables, myths, fairy tales, or otherwise "wishful" thinking. I am not content to tell myself comforting stories. If a hungry lion approaches me, no matter how comforting the thought might be, my emotion will not let me pretend that the lion is only a lamb, or that there is an invisible force field around me that will keep out the lion.

Religion is an affirmation of our hopes and desires. Religion is a simple device that tells us that as strange as it appears, the very things, all the very things we desire in life are in fact, true! It tells us that when we die our spirits live on. It tells us that good shall be rewarded and evil punished. It tells us that we are a part of something larger than ourselves. It tells us that life has a purpose. Jan, you and I both feel all these same powerful emotional desires. But with a bit of imagination I might invent an entirely new myth that affirms each of the above desires. Would you be suspicious that my myth just so happened to affirm every one of your great desires of life? Or would it sound a bit too contrived and convenient, such as telling oneself that the lion is only a lamb?

To my mind traditional religion, Christianity in particular, is not at all imaginative. It sounds much like a story I myself could have invented when I was ten years old. It's full of spirits, demons, angels and miracles, the very stuff that we kids told spooky stories about.

In contrast, Cosmology is full of stories that I never could have invented. It is about the creation and interaction of particles and energy on a small and a large scale. The beauty of these ideas makes my spine tingle with delight. These theories appear to me to be incredibly imaginative and detailed in a way that the simple pastoral ideas of religion never were.

On a practical level, I'm sure you'd never climb aboard an aircraft that was designed by religious mystics. Doubtless, you would worry should you be told that the wing design had come to someone in a vision, or as a result of a prayer to God for the correct specifications. You and I both wouldn't dare trust our lives to a design based on anything less than the scientific method.

Jan, my beliefs are not threatened by yours. Hopefully you share this same thought. If you take as much emotional comfort from your religion as I do from science and philosophy then I am pleased for you. Over the future generations I do expect religion to play a lesser role in human beliefs. I am optimistic that over time humans will revert from their present overwhelming belief in their gods, to a belief in their own ability to understand the world.

Best wishes,
Michael

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by orthogonal
"What is this world?" Emotion cannot provide the answer to this question, only reason can do that.

Are you saying that everything I write on this board is based on emotion?
Reason is a human function as is emotion. I could no more be emotional all the time than be reasonable all the time.
Are you happy all the time, or sad all the time or sometimes happy and sometimes sad???
It is very easy for us to want to be happy all the time, but we have to accept that sadness must be there also.
It is the same with reason and logic. In order to maintain these two states, one has to forfeit ones emotions, where one will inevitably become stale and boring, like Mr. Spock.
The greatest people on the planet, are people who not only show reason and logic, but emotion too.
However, if you are thinking of the character of TV evangelists or of big US presidential speeches, or the Jerry Springer final thought slot, or the Oprah Winfrey show, where you can bet your life on where the applause will fit in and where everybody cries and hugs, then I don’t really regard that as emotion, but sentiment, which is a different thing altogether.
But the truth is, we cannot suppress our emotions for long, no matter who you are, you have to become emotional at some stage, because it is natural.
It is when we have a fine balance, that we start to become fulfilled.

My emotion appears to be particularly suspicious. It simply refuses to accept answers that rely on fables, myths, fairy tales, or otherwise "wishful" thinking.

I wouldn’t use emotion to rely on answers from myths and fairytales, in fact I would be a fool to rely on it for any answers, because I know my emotion can change instantly, without my authorisation.
When it comes to study and meditation, I have to rely on my reason. That way, no matter how I feel, I can understand the reality through knowing.

If a hungry lion approaches me, no matter how comforting the thought might be, my emotion will not let me pretend that the lion is only a lamb, or that there is an invisible force field around me that will keep out the lion.

I should hope not.
Have you seen the size of those magnificent beasts teeth and claws.
If your not careful it could have your eye out.

Religion is an affirmation of our hopes and desires. Religion is a device that tells us that the very things we desire are in fact, true.

How have you arrived at this perception?

It tells us that when we die our spirits live on.

Have you ever considered the point that that’s what happens?
If yes, I would like to hear why you discarded it.

It tells us that good shall be rewarded and evil punished.

I don’t think you need religion to tell you that, you can see it in everyday life, that is logic.

It tells us that we are a part of something larger than ourselves. It tells us that life has a purpose.

How else would we know?
That has to be the point of religion, otherwise it would be telling us stuff we already know.

Jan, you and I both feel all these same powerful emotional desires. But with a bit of imagination I might invent an entirely new myth that affirms each of the above desires.

But that’s the point, you can’t, it is not within your capability.
Lets take some great writers and film directors, not only so these people have amazing abilities, but they have unlimited finance to accomplish their goals.
I have yet to see or hear anything which comes close to the Bhagavad Gita spoken by God.

Would you be suspicious that my myth just so happened to affirm every one of your great desires of life?

In order to affirm my desires, you would have to know me, which you don’t. The only other way to even come close, is to brainwash me, thereby keeping my mind stimulated at a certain level, then dictate, over time, by demand and supply, my sense-gratificatory levels, but that needs very long term control which would in time extend to whole countries then societies, through false information, through contaminated food and water, through pharmaceuticals, through the control of narcotics, alcohol, through fear, through unrestricted sex, through dodgy education, all over a very long period of time. And even then you may not sucseed.

To my mind traditional religion, Christianity in particular, is not at all imaginative. It sounds much like a story I myself could have invented when I was ten years old. It's full of spirits, demons, angels and miracles, the very stuff that we kids told spooky stories about.

So what?
It doesn’t mean it’s unbelievable.
When that plane crashed into the wtc, a lot of people expessed their disbelief, even though it happened in front of their eyes.
You should concern yourself with truth, no matter what package it comes in.

The beauty of these ideas makes my spine tingle with delight. These theories appear to me to be incredibly imaginative and detailed in a way that the simple pastoral ideas of religion never were.

They make my spine tingle too. I am not anti modern science, on the contrary, I think there are some wonderful discoveries and inventions, I’ve just taken my curiosity to a higher plane where the tingle is even more extatic.

On a practical level, I'm sure you'd never climb aboard an aircraft that was designed by religious mystics.

Why not?
For all I know I might be boarding planes designed by murderers, peodophiles or even politicians.

Doubtless, you would worry should you be told that the wing design had come to someone in a vision…

How do you know that the original design didn’t come in a vision, written down and tested?
After all we understand gravity because an apple fell on a blokes head and damned near knocked him out.

…or as a result of prayer to God for the correct profile and specifications….

Of all aircraft, that would be by far the greatest.


You and I both wouldn't dare trust our lives to a design based on anything less than the scientific method.

Then we must understand what science is.
It was on the basis of Charles Darwins, understanding, that Africans were viewed as sub-human and therefore enslaved for four hundred years.
Ooops! What a cock-up, eh!

Jan, my beliefs are not threatened by yours.

I am happy to hear that.

If you take as much emotional comfort from your religion as I do from science and philosophy then I am pleased for you.

I would very much like to get to the stage where I can take emotional comfort from religion, that is why I still study and meditate about and on the Supreme Lord. To take comfort from it would mean I have come to the end of all understanding and have nothing but full faith in God, this is a most difficult procedure in this day and age.
The fact that you take emotional comfort in science, means you have come to the full understanding of you, the universe and you, in relation to the universe, but I fail to see how you could be so knowledgeable without, understanding of the supernatural.
As regard your philosophy, in order to feel comfort, you must defeat all other philosophies with reason and logic. If you don’t then how can you feel emotionally satisfied.
A great philosopher once said. “Philosophy without religion is pure mental speculation, and religion without philosophy is blind faith.”
I understand this to be true, because our senses are limited, our hearing is limited, our sight is limited and so on. Therefore we cannot possibly understand everything. This is why there is religion, we need help.



Over the future generations I do expect religion to play a lesser role in human beliefs.

That’s funny, that is what is predicted in all bona-fide religious script.
So, it looks like God is right after all.


Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[orthogonal]

Jan,

Thanks very much for your thoughtful response to my earlier posting.

My suggestion that "It's all about emotion" results from my long-standing interest in the way the mind works. I agree with you that the brain is not comparmentalized into the emotional and the rational. There is some rationality in our most heartfelt emotions, likewise, our reason usually bears some vestige of our emotions. Emotion appears to guide actions primarily when we have no time to call up our reason. Sometimes it is useful to act first and think later, but there are times when it is not at all clear what we should do without sitting down and thinking very hard about it. I've recently been wondering if our division of thinking into the emotional and the rational isn't entirely artificial. It's possible that reason is merely emotion expressed at leisure. Two quotes come to mind:

"Reason itself is a matter of faith." G.K. Chesterton

"The heart has reasons which reason knows nothing of." Blaise Pascal

In any case, I'm still reading and working through my ideas on the nature of reason and emotion. I have not yet come to any clear conclusions on the subject.

Your assertion that I don't know you is true in a sense. But it reminds me of the story of two Taoist sages standing on a bridge. The first sage exclaims, "I wish I were a fish; they are so happy!" The second sage replied, "You aren't a fish, so how do you know if they are happy?" The first sage answered, "You are not me, so how do you know whether I know how fish feel?"

I don't know you as an individual. But as a human brother or sister I know a good deal about you. With respect to the time scale of human history it was only an eye-blink in the past that you and I shared a common mother. My own joys and fears are fundamentally those of yours. Human emotions are not shrouded in a secret code. It's rather basic; you smile when you feel happy, you scream when in extreme pain, and you grieve when you lose someone you love. I've never known a human to feel differently. One mark of a civilized man is his understanding that the things he feels are probably the things you feel.

In a speech made at a banquet given for Albert Einstein in 1930, George Bernard Shaw said:

"Religion is always right. Religion solves every problem and thereby abolishes problems from the universe... Science is the very opposite. Science is always wrong. It never solves a problem without raising ten more problems."

Science tells me up-front that it has no answers to my ultimate questions. If I were the world's most accomplished cosmologist; at the end of the day I'd still have to find my own ultimate answers via philosophy rather than science. Why don't I give up my hard-headed atheism? Why torture myself by insisting that all the little messy details of a theory mesh together in a consistent manner? Why don't I just sing "Hallelujah" along with the 90% of humanity that worship a god? The reason is that religion says nothing to me.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote, "Never speak more clearly than you can think." The authors of religious texts understood this idea. Their texts are a combination of abstract poetry and horoscope that can mean anything and everything to anyone. According to my mood, each time I read a poem the "meaning" might be different. This liveliness is part of the art of poetry. But as art, we don't expect a poem to be either true of false. Religious followers claim their "sacred" poetry can tell us truths about our world and how we should live our lives. A successful religious text is written in obscurely poetic language. As a result, religious proponents eternally argue the over the meaning of their texts. The major religions have long ago broken into various sects, each claiming to hold the correct interpretation. Conversely, scientists strive to write their ideas in the most unambiguous language possible. Scientists from around the world are nearly always in agreement about what a given theory is saying. They might not agree with the theory itself, but they never have to divide themselves into sects which for example, dispute the meaning of Maxwell's equations. A religion which clearly and specifically stated its ideas would be a short lived religion. But how can the veracity of a belief be ascertained if its meaning continually shifts as do the windblown sands of the desert? It is eternally open to interpretation, or re-interpretation.

Giordano Bruno was burned to death in Rome for wondering aloud if space might actually contain thousands of earth-like planets, each swinging around their own sun. Now that we generally accept that his ideas are true, this very same church says that such things are not incompatible with its own teachings. If scientists had made none of their spectacular advances in the last 400 years, I've little doubt the church would today still refute the thoughts of Bruno. Isn't it curious that the meaning of God's absolute word varies with the degree of our advances in scientific understanding? If science is required to clarify the meaning of God's word, then I'm led to wonder why we need God's word at all?

You asked if I've considered that life might be eternal. Yes, of course; I doubt if any thinking being has not wished and wondered if that might be true. Though such speculation belongs to metaphysics rather than to physics; still, it's fun to entertain such ideas.

Consider the idea of multiple universes (the multiverse) for example. Since one universe is possible, it might be that many are possible. In the extreme there might be an infinite number of such universes. An ongoing creation of an infinite number of randomly varying universes would virtually assure that I exist in other universes; possibly at other times in the past and in the future. Some of these other versions of me would have my same experiences and thoughts. Every variation of me imaginable would exist in these other universes. If this idea were true then not only do I currently live in a number of parallel universes, I might have always lived and I will always live, both before and after my life in this present world has ended. But unless the idea of the multiverse were found to be verifiable, it would be silly to elevate it to anything beyond a pleasant speculation. The idea of God is best thought of in exactly same manner; an interesting speculation, but unless the idea could be in some way verified; forever a speculation.

To answer your question directly; no, I currently expect that when I die I will return to the same state of non-being that I experienced, or more precisely stated; I didn't experience, before my birth. In philosophy this is known as the "Two Eternities Argument". I re-discovered it on my own when I was barely out of my teens. But the idea remains as valid now as when it was argued several thousand years ago by the Roman philosopher Seneca:

"Would you not think him an utter fool who wept because he was not alive a thousand years ago? And is he not just as much a fool who weeps because he will not be alive a thousand years from now? It is the same; you will not be, and you were not. Neither of these times belongs to you."

It's a coincidence that you bring up the topic of slavery Jan. This is a big topic with me. Darwin's book, "The Origin Of The Species" nowhere suggests that black men are inferior to white men. I would remind you that slavery is very much alive in parts of Africa today; especially in the Sudan. This article from Macleans Magazine ripped my heart out.

http://www.macleans.ca/xta-asp/stor...e=BASIC&pg=1&rankbase=56&searchstring=slavery

Would you allow a modern black slave trader to employ quotes from the Koran, the Bible, or the Bhagvad-Gita, to justify enslaving their own people? Dishonorable men will clutch at anything in an attempt to justify their wicked behavior.

Regards,
Michael

 

[tony1]

Re: Tony1,

*Originally posted by Teg
A science book tells me that gravity accellerates objects at 9.8m/s^2. It sounds reasonable and so I drop a mass from the roof of a building. Using a timer and my eyes, I test the theory repeatedly. Confirmation: the accelleration of gravity is approximately 9.8m/s^2 here on earth.*

All that confirms is that that is what you and other people using the same method arrive at as a conclusion.
That method does not identify any exceptions to the number and does not guarantee that gravity will always behave like that.
Therefore the number you arrive at essentially tells you nothing.

*That's a good con. Give me the money and then I shall prove that I have the product. You would have the sense to realize this as a con, so why are you blind when it comes to the bible? You say that proof comes afterward: so where is it? Onviously you believe, so you must have the proof.*

What money?
The gospel is free.

For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.
(Isaiah 52:3, KJV).

*How could you possibly confirm this?*

Just using the scientific method.
I know how many books I've read give or take a thousand or so.
I know how fast I read.
I read your posts to determine your level of literacy, and I can conclude that you haven't read very many books compared to me.

*A few specious retorts are insufficient.*

Based on that, I'm supposed to accept false dichotomies?
Riiiiiiiiiiight.

*So then you admit that you hold one book above the other. So then you selectively believe in the laws and ideas of the first book?*

Neither book is "above" the other.
They merely have different functions.
Thus I don't "selectively" believe in the first book; I understand it.

*That has no relevance. For something to last forever is completely different from somethig have an end.*

Thus something with a beginning and no end lasts forever.
What is your point?

*Well, if Jacob is capable of lying, then who else in that book has the capacity?*

An obvious one would be Satan, since he's quoted in the Bible.
Another obvious one would be the lying spirit brought up so often by atheists.

*No, the word with is a direct indication of assistance. "With God" and the Lord was "with" Judah. Your arguments are indeed specious, having the appearence of truth but lacking in factual detail. *

If I'm "with" you to help you, and you decide to do nothing then I am not going to do all the work for you.
Speaking of specious arguments, you're doing quite well in that arena.

*Originally posted by John Como
Although not interested in pissing contests with the blind*

Presumably that means you never get involved in pissing contests.

*Originally posted by orthogonal
my emotion will not let me pretend that the lion is only a lamb, or that there is an invisible force field around me that will keep out the lion.*

Burrrrrrrrp.

*Doubtless, you would worry should you be told that the wing design had come to someone in a vision, or as a result of a prayer to God for the correct specifications. You and I both wouldn't dare trust our lives to a design based on anything less than the scientific method.*

It's obvious that you haven't read many biographies of inventors.

*Science tells me up-front that it has no answers to my ultimate questions.*

What good is it then?

 

[enton]

This post was initially aimed at Taken in the thread “Bye Bye” but I think it is worth pulling it out into a new thread. It can really be directed at most Christians.

What is the distinction between your belief that God is real and a self-delusion that God is real?

Without an external independent objective mechanism to show that God exists you will have no way to know that your belief is not self-delusion. Remember that the strength of your conviction gives no indication of truth or delusion.

You (Taken) have admitted that you cannot demonstrate the existence of God to anyone and that they must find it for themselves. And this is a standard response from all Christians, so I am not just picking on you.

If you cannot show any difference then why should any of us believe that you have found something that we have not?

Delusion: Belief in something that is contrary to fact or reality, resulting from deception, a misconception, or a mental disorder.

There are no facts or realities that show that a god exists. The pope would be screaming this through every radio and TV if any did show up.

Without your being able to show us your god then our only rational conclusion is that you have been deceived into believing what you do, or you have misunderstood reality, or you are mentally ill.

Cris

Biblically speaking there are many gods. Specify what god are you talking.

 

[enton]

What is the distinction between your belief that God is real and a self-delusion that God is real?
Cris

For the thread`s answer: No. First you have to signify the word "god" because I being a member of God`s household stick to Bible and there are gods. Sow which god. Now, regarding self. There are people who lived/is living selflessly. So how can I determine what you mean.

Now regarding "belief". Belief is just the first step to know the Creator. Faith is the second. And proof is the final step for your decision.

Assignment for all: Now regarding "delusion." If there are available lexicographers, morphologists, neologists and etymologists in your areas where you live, ask them how come "delusion" if there was never a "deluge" that happened.

After you got the ideas from

1. Lexicographers
2. Morphologists
3. Neologists
4. Etymologists

Then I will reply why I relate "delusion" to "deluge".

 

[cosmicbrat]

Subject: Religion IS a Drug!..



I explored a presented religious link... It didn't present anything that could modify a Pagan's stance in the "god" topic... All of the presentations were presented to persons who are already embedded in Christianity, thus being significantly religiously conditioned, and anchored.. like a clam stuck to a rock for its duration...
Reading those works was like starting, in the middle of a book...

I gave it a good honest read.. and found that it is full of unsolved questions, that seem to be just clouded and/or"steam rollered over"... with a literary filler, which seems to be included and incorporated, only to force to unrelated values to bind together... which enable high levels of emotion to hide deficiencies in literary attempts to create and establish fact where there is none...
In simpler terms.. It seems the Bible is a mishmash collections of delightful multi-authored, multi-cultured, multi time, multi dimensional prose.. in which unrelated excerpts and packages seem to be connected into a series presentation (book).. by incorporating unrelated fillers between packets.. as if to be the "glue".. to force stories to seem to be a flowing text...


In my research.. I discovered that there is a threefold conditioning applied to the thinking processes of the Christian child.. which hold that child's thinking abilities to a maximum ceiling of 7-percent mind usage...
As the child ages, and the conditioning cures, should that "sheep of the flock".. ever attempt to explore 8-percent mind usage.. the conditioning thereby causes cerebral nerve plumbing to severely constrict, causing what is commonly known as a "migraine"... That being part 1 of the 3 fold conditioning's reaction to the person establishing thought processing beyond the permitted 7-percent thought processing usage......

In 2 of 3.. The person's thought processes are thus shunted into that "individual's" "comedy memory river"... being that person's collection of unsolved comedies, ridiculousnesses, frights, and the like... literally a nightmarish place to be... The person now emergency rushes away from that memory river, like a cat from a burning house... and slams right into a memory wall of dogma.. containing the core shields of the conditioning.. and a gluing effect.. like "flypaper"... The person's thought processing attaches itself to the first dogmatic icon anomaly it can open, and thus begins "rhyming, or preaching, that person's learned facets of that particular piece of dogma... at which time, 3 of 3 comes into play.. the person's bio-morphines system injects a large steady dose of bio-morphines into that person's nervous system... is when the migraine is thus quieted and neutralized... Essentially that person is now stoned on what seems to be "religion's drugs".. actually high on the body's own bio-morphine drugs.. which are probably derivatives of extreme adrenaline processing, in one or more of the body's 18 major glands.. like how we process cocaine out of cocoa leaves... or heroin from is less active cousin... or penicillin from the urine of penicillim mold...
The flow of drugs is now regulated by the steadiness of the flow of that person's active defense of that chosen segment of religious dogma.. and is slowed and/or cut, only when the person ceases religious defensive output, for a duration long enough to acquire an unrelated focus.. I.E.: the phone rings, or a knock at the door.., or the taking a conscious sip of liquid.. etc...
The bio-morphines have relaxed the constricted nerve plumbing, and the migraine subsides...

Is a Christian's anger towards externally sourced blasphemy.. the result of angers in being forced to defend ones belief structures... Or is the anger toward the pain of the conditioning migraine?..

Does the Christian defend dogma to establish a release of bio-morphines... or is it that the Christian actually believes that the dogmas are reality?..

A tangent in this research.. concludes that only Christian person's experience the infamous "overload study headache"... Could this be that they have touched beyond the 8-percent permitted thought processing ceiling of the religious conditioning..?
Could it be that all migraines are thus caused by people trying to think out of the box..?
If yes.. then is it conceivable that Christianity is stifling human evolution.. in order to anchor cultures to History.. to thus prevent change.. because Christianity religion fears that change doesn't include them?..
I determined that only Christians experience overload headaches and migraines...

Deeper into this research.. I discovered that should one who is infected by said conditioning, effect a sudden one liner extreme blasphemous output.. greater than the 7-percent mind usage territory in which the conditioning was likely created.. that the conditioning will thus selfdestruct.. by trying to suicide the person... Thus should a Christian conditioned person have managed to somehow unconsciously block the migraine, or for some reason be numbed from sensing the headache.. and be exploring thought processes beyond the 7-percent permitted ceiling.. for a duration that triggers the person's conditioning to selfdestruct... Is it then conceivable that Suicides are thus a result of religious conditioning gone wrong, out of control.. in having made a mistake.. in killing a person who didn't blaspheme.. but merely accidentally processed thought to long out of the box..?

 

[wayne_92587]

This post was initially aimed at Taken in the thread “Bye Bye” but I think it is worth pulling it out into a new thread. It can really be directed at most Christians.

What is the distinction between your belief that God is real and a self-delusion that God is real?

Without an external independent objective mechanism to show that God exists you will have no way to know that your belief is not self-delusion. Remember that the strength of your conviction gives no indication of truth or delusion.

You (Taken) have admitted that you cannot demonstrate the existence of God to anyone and that they must find it for themselves. And this is a standard response from all Christians, so I am not just picking on you.

If you cannot show any difference then why should any of us believe that you have found something that we have not?

Delusion: Belief in something that is contrary to fact or reality, resulting from deception, a misconception, or a mental disorder.

There are no facts or realities that show that a god exists. The pope would be screaming this through every radio and TV if any did show up.

Without your being able to show us your god then our only rational conclusion is that you have been deceived into believing what you do, or you have misunderstood reality, or you are mentally ill.

Cris

Any perception of a Material, Physical God, is a Graven, False, Image of God, is Blasphemy, Hog wash, swill, is an adulteration, a perversion, is a deception, a Lie, an Illusion, of Reality.

You can not perceive of, speak of, give a name to that which has No Name, that is Nameless, faceless, hidden, secret, a sacred thing, something that is not readily apparent, without first carving a Graven, False Image of said reality and impressing it deeply, without tattooing a Named Image, without first fixing an Imagined Image of God in your Mind, which of course, the God that you imagine to exist as a Material, Physical Reality, is a Illusion of Reality, a deception, a lie.

The only Way to believe in the One True God, the Single True Nature, Way,
Spirit of the Universe, The Nameless cause, the indirect cause, of the Heavens and the Earth, is to not submit to, worship, a Carved, any graven image of Reality, the World of Illusion, do not be a Idol worshiper, do not make Materiality your God.

 

[Cris]

Wayne,

Whether a god is material or immaterial is irrelevant - no one can show that a god of any type exists.

 

[wayne_92587]

But of course.

It has always been a fact that no man can look upon the Face of God.

You can not prove God exists because God does not exist in the Material sense of the
Word, Exist.

You can not prove God exists because the Reality of God being immaterial, a Spiritual Being, Reality, The Spirit of that which is God, the Single True Nature of the Universe exists in your mind, as your second Nature..

That is the Point your Rational Mind if it is Rational is the Vessel that hold the Spirit of God, is the Holy Grail.


When God breathed What? into man's nostrils, the breath, the Nature, the way, the
Spirit of God was Breathed into Man's nostrils and the Spirit of God became manifest a living Soul, Being, the Spirit of God, the Single True Nature of the Universe, Boundlessness, alive in the Flesh Body of Man.

Freedom Rains.

 

[geeser]

That is the Point your Rational Mind if it is Rational is the Vessel that hold the Spirit of God, is the Holy Grail.

thats when you lost it.when you tried to combine rational mindedness with spirituality.
this is a contradiction in terms, the two are mutually exclusive, you cannot be both rational and spiritual, well not at the same time. it's strange that the religious can be rational in every other aspect of their lives, except the religious/spiritual part.

 

[Lerxst]

it's strange that the religious can be rational in every other aspect of their lives, except the religious/spiritual part.

When I was a physics undergraduate I remember getting lots of cheap tickets to the Utah Symphony. It was when I first got a lot of exposure to classical music.

It was not an uncommon occurence for me on a Friday to spend the day at school with my nose buried in a book and chalk on my hands from working problems on a chalkboard. Completely immersed in mathematical thought for hours and hours.

Then I would go to the symphony and be literally reduced to tears by a Mahler or Beethoven piece. There was nothing rational or logical in my being emotionally moved by a symphony. It just happens, whether I want it to or not.

Maybe the religious experience is similar?

I don't actually know, I have never had a "religious experience" that was anything like the kind of emotional response that I have had to certain peices of music.

 

[Zappa]

When I was a physics undergraduate I remember getting lots of cheap tickets to the Utah Symphony. It was when I first got a lot of exposure to classical music.

It was not an uncommon occurence for me on a Friday to spend the day at school with my nose buried in a book and chalk on my hands from working problems on a chalkboard. Completely immersed in mathematical thought for hours and hours.

Then I would go to the symphony and be literally reduced to tears by a Mahler or Beethoven piece. There was nothing rational or logical in my being emotionally moved by a symphony. It just happens, whether I want it to or not.

Maybe the religious experience is similar?

I don't actually know, I have never had a "religious experience" that was anything like the kind of emotional response that I have had to certain peices of music.

I think you are correct. The same way that the symphony brought beauty and life to your day, religion brings beauty and life to existence(as it offers meaning and purpose).

 

[emusquire]

Yes, god is nonsense and people ascribe human characteristics to a mainly inhuman idea. Pathetic

 

[geeser]

Then I would go to the symphony and be literally reduced to tears by a Mahler or Beethoven piece. There was nothing rational or logical in my being emotionally moved by a symphony. It just happens, whether I want it to or not.
Maybe the religious experience is similar?
I don't actually know, I have never had a "religious experience" that was anything like the kind of emotional response that I have had to certain peices of music.

when we are born we are but a empty vessel, and during the course of our lifes, we gain experiences, which make us the people we are, unfortunately, as children we are also open to mental child abuse in the form of religious indoctrination, these experiences be they good or bad, make us react to certain stimuli in different individual ways.
you could be right lerxst, but the difference is you know your being irrational in regard to how the music makes you feel.
music make us react, so different. I for instant, love listening to classical also( it make me think of sundays sitting quiet with my family, the ones who have since past on, as well as the living) and popular (make me want to dance) but (c)rap just makes me angry,
but these experiences are all based on things we've sensed.
religion however can never be thought of in the same way, as it has no basis in reality, but the religious will defend this irrationality to the death, and never admit it's irrational, even though they must realise.

 

[wayne_92587]

thats when you lost it.when you tried to combine rational mindedness with spirituality.
this is a contradiction in terms, the two are mutually exclusive, you cannot be both rational and spiritual, well not at the same time. it's strange that the religious can be rational in every other aspect of their lives, except the religious/spiritual part.

Do you know what it means to rationalize?

Rationalism;
the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.

Philos.
a. the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience.

Sensible;
capable of being perceived by the senses; material: the sensible universe.


Impiricism;
Philos. the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience.

If the Rational Mind is not sensible it is not reasonable.

The Rational Mind is lost without any sense, understanding, of materiality,
Reality that exists independent of our thoughts concerning it, Reality that is
readily apparent, measurable.

In order for the mind to be rational, reasonable, it must be sensible.

Being Rational without being reasonable, sensible, is called insanity, loosing touch with Reality, the Material World of Reality that exists independent of our thoughts, our reasoning, rational mind, concerning it.

The Empiricist, the Materialist, materialism is not concerned with the Immaterial, Realities whose existence depends upon only our thoughts, our Reasoning ability, concerning them, Realities that are not readily apparent, immeasurable, that Immaterial, Spiritual in Nature.

Rationality is mankind's salvation, the ability to measure out Realities that are not readily apparent, but Rational Mind without any sense of Materiality, without being sensible, reasonable is Mankind's down fall.

The Five senses, Mankind’s, empirical nature makes man aware of Realities that are readily apparent, measurable, Realities that exist independent of our thoughts concerning them.

Man Sixth Sense, thine Single Eye, the Rational Mind, the Mind's Eye helpss Mankind to measure our, to make man, he and she aware of Realities that are not readily apparent, sensible, Realities that we not even know exist if it were not for the Rational, Reasoning Mind, the Knowledge of Realities that exists only because of our thoughts concerning them, Realities that are immaterial in Nature, Spiritual Realities.

 

[geeser]

thats when you lost it.when you tried to combine rational mindedness with spirituality.
this is a contradiction in terms, the two are mutually exclusive, you cannot be both rational and spiritual, well not at the same time. it's strange that the religious can be rational in every other aspect of their lives, except the religious/spiritual part.

Do you know what it means to rationalize?

Rationalism;
the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.

If the Rational Mind is not sensible it is not reasonable.

The Rational Mind is lost without any sense, understanding, of materiality,
Reality that exists independent of our thoughts concerning it, Reality that is
readily apparent, measurable.

In order for the mind to be rational, reasonable, it must be sensible.

exactly.

Being Rational without being reasonable, sensible, is called insanity, loosing touch with Reality, the Material World of Reality that exists independent of our thoughts, our reasoning, rational mind, concerning it.

you cant be rational, without reason, only irrational, but I understand, what you saying, so agreed to a degree.

The Empiricist, the Materialist, materialism is not concerned with the Immaterial,

thats right the objective mind.

Realities whose existence depends upon only our thoughts,

exactly our subjective mind.

our Reasoning ability,

Encarta world dictionary
RATIONALISM:

1. reasoning as basis of action: the belief that thought and action should be governed by reason

2. reason as source of truth: the belief that reason and logic are the primary sources of knowledge and truth and should be relied on in searching for and testing the truth of things

Compact oxford
RATIONALISM:

the practice or principle of basing opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

Cambridge international
RATIONALISM:

the belief or principle that actions and opinions should be based on reason rather than on emotion or religion.

concerning them, Realities that are not readily apparent, immeasurable, that Immaterial, Spiritual in Nature.

the Realitie's in your subjective mind, are solely your personal Realitie's.

Rationality is mankind's salvation, the ability to measure out Realities that are not readily apparent, but Rational Mind without any sense of Materiality, without being sensible, reasonable is Mankind's down fall.

this is not possible, not in reality, but however it's a triillion times possible in your subjective mind.

The Five senses, Mankind’s, empirical nature makes man aware of Realities that are readily apparent, measurable, Realities that exist independent of our thoughts concerning them.

I've took the liberty of rewriting this to make more sense.
quote
"The Five senses, Mankind's empirical nature makes man aware of the reality thats already apparent, measurable. The realities that exist independent of reality, are solely a produce of our subjective mind.

Man Sixth Sense, thine Single Eye,

this is where you lose it again, what sixth sense there is none.

the Rational Mind, the Mind's Eye helpss Mankind to measure our, to make man, he and she aware of Realities that are not readily apparent, sensible, Realities that we not even know exist if it were not for the Rational, Reasoning Mind, the Knowledge of Realities that exists only because of our thoughts concerning them, Realities that are immaterial in Nature, Spiritual Realities.

no thats not the rational mind, thats the subjective mind, the rational mind is the objective mind.
however we do need the two minds, as we would never of had any musicians artist etc.
but it's knowing where the lines drawn, so you dont cross over into madness.
many a genius is bordering on madness, case in point "the beautiful mind:russell crow"



lerxst: I said this in my last post, " the religious will defend this irrationality to the death, and never admit it's irrational, even though they must realise."
a case in point is the very post I've just replied too.