is religion real or a way to feel comfortable?what do you think?

Based on observational proof, we can not prove God exists beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the person who believes in god, appears to sense something worth believing even if it can't be proven. They call that faith.

After pondering this, there is way to satisfy both conditions. Let me give an example. Say I had a dream, the dream state can be proven based on brain waves. But say I had a very specific dream. There is no way to prove the details of this dream. It is not that the dream experience didn't happen. There is no proof simply because science is not advanced enough to record dream detail. Something real can appear to consciousnes (dream) yet science is technology blind

If the blind man can't see the sun, does that mean it does not exist?

My opinion, which is a compromise between science and religion, is religous experience uses the same mind scapes as dreams. Since the details of dreams can not be proven even if they are real observations, if a religious experience was to appear, this could not be proven using the best available technology.

An objective scientist would say our machines are not good enough, so tell me about your dream. The subjective scientist would say, we have the best technology in the universe and if that can't see it, it is not there. Who is out of touch with reality, with respect to the spiritual dreamer, the objective and subjective scientist?
 
wellwisher said:
An objective scientist would say our machines are not good enough, so tell me about your dream. The subjective scientist would say, we have the best technology in the universe and if that can't see it, it is not there. Who is out of touch with reality, with respect to the spiritual dreamer, the objective and subjective scientist?
Click to expand...

i think you got those two words backwards..
 
lightgigantic said:
Not sure if there is a way to make philosophical statements while being beyond philosophical scrutiny
Click to expand...

Duh.

The ability to repeat a soundbite does not render one capable of philosophically scrutinizing it.


Techincally, you are to be considered as held in contempt of the holy name because you are preaching (to whatever extent) the supreme philosophy to those who are not interested (not interested as in either being unable to understand it or as being opposed to it)!

As a devotee, you can't just post at forums anymore in order to "hone your debate skills" without the fact that you are a devotee catching up on you.
 
I wonder whatever happened to Tleit004 who started this thread and never answered my second question? Seems they start threads and never finish what they start. Must not want to discuss much but lets us do the work for them.:shrug:
 
Last edited:
Signal said:
Duh.

The ability to repeat a soundbite does not render one capable of philosophically scrutinizing it.


Techincally, you are to be considered as held in contempt of the holy name because you are preaching (to whatever extent) the supreme philosophy to those who are not interested (not interested as in either being unable to understand it or as being opposed to it)!

As a devotee, you can't just post at forums anymore in order to "hone your debate skills" without the fact that you are a devotee catching up on you.
Click to expand...

Once again, I've got to ask you whether you are responding to something I've posted (preferably in this thread) or something else ...

(Kinda like if you don't focus your eyes, the mohawk in the picture you posted looks a bit like a wind swept sikha :shrug:)
 
wellwisher said:
Based on observational proof, we can not prove God exists beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the person who believes in god, appears to sense something worth believing even if it can't be proven. They call that faith.

After pondering this, there is way to satisfy both conditions. Let me give an example. Say I had a dream, the dream state can be proven based on brain waves. But say I had a very specific dream. There is no way to prove the details of this dream. It is not that the dream experience didn't happen. There is no proof simply because science is not advanced enough to record dream detail. Something real can appear to consciousnes (dream) yet science is technology blind

If the blind man can't see the sun, does that mean it does not exist?

My opinion, which is a compromise between science and religion, is religous experience uses the same mind scapes as dreams. Since the details of dreams can not be proven even if they are real observations, if a religious experience was to appear, this could not be proven using the best available technology.

An objective scientist would say our machines are not good enough, so tell me about your dream. The subjective scientist would say, we have the best technology in the universe and if that can't see it, it is not there. Who is out of touch with reality, with respect to the spiritual dreamer, the objective and subjective scientist?
Click to expand...

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

A beautiful and reasonable explanation.
 
lightgigantic said:
Once again, I've got to ask you whether you are responding to something I've posted (preferably in this thread) or something else ...
Click to expand...

Well, if you think it makes perfect sense to aspire to have a serious philosophical discussion with someone who formulates their OP like this -

what do you guys think of religion in your opinion.in my opinion i find religion a way of just feeling better about life and the unknown. i think this because no-were in he bible does it say how God/gods was/were born. everything has a beginning. Also, everything they say God/gods did were scientifically proved, such as earth.i mean to offend no-one by my pinion purposely.tell me what you think if i is religion is real or not.(me being atheist, i dont go to church and al so i know less than you guys.)
Click to expand...

and who barely checks in again, but while you nontheless keep making references to the OP ... :rolleyes:


(Kinda like if you don't focus your eyes, the mohawk in the picture you posted looks a bit like a wind swept sikha )
Click to expand...

What you're doing is bullying. Like what the bigger kid in that picture I posted is doing to the smaller one.



As it is, there are apparently no discussion-willing people at this forum who would make claims like
"Everything has to have a beginning, therefore, also God needs to have a beginning"
"We atheists call on "everything has a beginning" in order to feel comfortable in a godless Universe."
"'God is causeless' is a logical fallacy."


lightgigantic said:
So you don't see "everything having a beginning" being an integral component of the OP author's proposal?

Or are you talking about something other than the opinions of the OP author?
Click to expand...

It seems that except for people who have trouble formulating a concise philosophical statement, nobody here at the forums is making the above-listed claims; except for a few people who make them but are not open to discuss them.

Sure, there are people who say "Everything has to have a beginning, therefore, also God needs to have a beginning" - but characteristically, they do not engage in discussion about it.

You, instead, are here trying to force the issue with someone who has in roundabout made that claim, but is not present here to discuss it, and now you're looking to pin it on others who have not made the claim, so that they would defend the OP's claims.

What drove you to this thread? Did you hope for an easy score, toward an explanation like this -

Question: "Who created God? Where did God come from?"

Answer: A common argument from atheists and skeptics is that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God (and if God is not God, then of course there is no God). This is a slightly more sophisticated form of the basic question “Who made God?” Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a “something,” then He must have a cause, right?

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

http://www.gotquestions.org/who-created-God.html
Click to expand...
 
LG -

In good Vedic manner, I am slapping you in the face and started this thread.

I keep doing your homework and make up for your lack of goodwill! :eek: :mad: :bawl:
 
Signal said:
Well, if you think it makes perfect sense to aspire to have a serious philosophical discussion with someone who formulates their OP like this -



and who barely checks in again, but while you nontheless keep making references to the OP ... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
so far I have made one response to his post and about a dozen requests to explain the author's intentions on the Op or other matter s totally unrelated ...



What you're doing is bullying. Like what the bigger kid in that picture I posted is doing to the smaller one.
Click to expand...
what you are doing is not explaining how that guy's mohawk looks like a wind swept sikha if you blur your vision.
 
LG -
Are you going to reply?
Or is this silence of yours supposed to be understood that you, as a self-declared theist, are an authoritative representative of God, that you can unilaterally obligate people to God, and that you are justified to make claims about other people's intentions, and conversely, obligate others to believe your claims about their intentions?
 
Signal said:
Do you retract the claim you've made earlier:



-?
Click to expand...
no
I am explaining how you are refusing to comment on the fact that the picture you posted has a figure that bears a striking resemblance to a wind swept sikha - this is a gross insult on your part and I am awaiting an immediate apology and retraction of your statement.

In the absence of the above we have no other option but to conclude that you are composed of loathing hatred and arrogance typical of bullies.
 
I don't think there is much truth (if any) to religious beliefs.

Religion is a comping mechanism I think. Religion helps people cope and deal with the terrible things that happen in this world like the loss of loved ones or other people dying because its all part of God's plan and so on.

I could be proven wrong though but that is how I see it.
 
lightgigantic said:
no
Click to expand...

So you are claiming that you are an authoritative representative of God, that you can unilaterally obligate people to God, and that you are justified to make claims about other people's intentions, and conversely, obligate others to believe your claims about their intentions?


I am explaining how you are refusing to comment on the fact that the picture you posted has a figure that bears a striking resemblance to a wind swept sikha - this is a gross insult on your part and I am awaiting an immediate apology and retraction of your statement.

In the absence of the above we have no other option but to conclude that you are composed of loathing hatred and arrogance typical of bullies.
Click to expand...

In the absence of you retracting your statement, as asked above, we have no other option but to conclude that you are considering yourself an authoritative representative of God, that you believe you can unilaterally obligate people to God, and that you believe that are justified to make claims about other people's intentions, and conversely, obligate others to believe your claims about their intentions.

Further, we have then to conclude that God is evil and the only way to do right by God is to do things one finds repugnant (such as acting in blind faith, or atuomatically believing anything anyone who calls themselves a "theist" claims about us).
 
Signal said:
So you are claiming that you are an authoritative representative of God, that you can unilaterally obligate people to God, and that you are justified to make claims about other people's intentions, and conversely, obligate others to believe your claims about their intentions?




In the absence of you retracting your statement, as asked above, we have no other option but to conclude that you are considering yourself an authoritative representative of God, that you believe you can unilaterally obligate people to God, and that you believe that are justified to make claims about other people's intentions, and conversely, obligate others to believe your claims about their intentions.

Further, we have then to conclude that God is evil and the only way to do right by God is to do things one finds repugnant (such as acting in blind faith, or atuomatically believing anything anyone who calls themselves a "theist" claims about us).
Click to expand...
In the absence of you retracting your statement we can only conclude that your statements establish great stigma to mohawks that are found in all classes and creeds of culture and that it may even extend to squirrel tails.
 
lightgigantic said:
In the absence of you retracting your statement we can only conclude that your statements establish great stigma to mohawks that are found in all classes and creeds of culture and that it may even extend to squirrel tails.
Click to expand...

Your posts are becoming more and more useless, if that's even possible.

It's the bullying that featured in the picture, not the clothes or hair styles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top