To know God

[duendy]

Snakelord.......wonder why you picked that
nickname...very Goddess. though that's where it endes

I find your views extraordinarily shallow.
You seem to show no respect for people who ARE idstressed and from whome you make lots of cash. And you have an arrogance in how you judge other peoples religios, spiritual feelings and beliefs. This says quite a bit about you too to me

You assume things. for example that i imagine hallucinogenic inspiration began in the 60s. you obviously cant have read anything i've posted at these forums

You also show a complete ignoreance regarding religious history. Like where you speak of a person who eats Peyote and then is seen a a biblical? prophet many years later. That view is SO unifnformed dude!

Yes there were patriarchal prophets who most likely took hallucinogens, and professed 'God's Word'. But that stream --coming from revealed religious patriarchy--is the same as Earth religious
insight. You seem not to be aware of this vital distinction. And then you implt only you and yours knows THE 'truth'.

What your worldview says is what you feel about yourself. and that you project onto one and all. that you are a meaningless biochemical machine...?

But THAT belief is coming from somewhere. it has a history, and is not the be all and end all. it is just your view

For someone who feels a Deeper meaning that is THEIR worldview. It can be spiritual because the world. Nature is spiritual. it is not just the dead matter your indoctrination has drilled into you. The science that claims we are insignificant little meat puppets that they can then manipulate and exploit like they do Nature. That is the trap YOU have fallen in and perpetuate with your attitude

Spirituality ISN'T merely praying to the clouds as you call it. it's more a going deep. sub-arrogance

 

[duendy]

typo correction): "that stream--[pariarcha prophet revealed salvationist religion] is NOT the same as Earth religion

 

[SnakeLord]

Snakelord.......wonder why you picked that
nickname...

I often wonder why during debates on this forum, many of the more religious type, or spiritual type - whichever you prefer, start questioning my internet nickname like it actually has any bearing to anything.

To explain it, for hopefully the last time: I keep pet snakes, always have. When I was a youngster I inherited the nickname; 'Snakeman'. I changed that to Lord for the purpose of an mmorpg set in the days of knights, lords and that kind of thing.

It has nothing to do with satan, tiamat, or any other snake like god/deity, and nor does it have anything to do with "goddess", whatever the hell that means.

very Goddess. though that's where it endes

Any chance you could repeat this in English? What is this 'goddess', and what does my internet nickname have to do with it?

I find your views extraordinarily shallow.

I'm pleased for you, although at least I managed to provide some explanation as opposed to just saying "goddess" and thinking anyone would know what the hell you're talking about.

You seem to show no respect for people who ARE idstressed and from whome you make lots of cash.

Where does that come from? Because I highlighted that there are mentally ill people on the planet?

And you have an arrogance in how you judge other peoples religios, spiritual feelings and beliefs.

I gave my opinion, much like you're doing right now. It's ok for you but not me? However, my opinion is an educated one and provides a bit more than goddesses and sperm drinking rituals.

You assume things. for example that i imagine hallucinogenic inspiration began in the 60s. you obviously cant have read anything i've posted at these forums

I didn't assume anything, I asked a question. You'll notice this by paying attention to the question mark at the end of it.

You also show a complete ignoreance regarding religious history.

Oh really? Please.. do explain..

Like where you speak of a person who eats Peyote and then is seen a a biblical? prophet many years later. That view is SO unifnformed dude!

I would comment and respond, but I can't understand what you've written here.

Yes there were patriarchal prophets who most likely took hallucinogens, and professed 'God's Word'. But that stream --coming from revealed religious patriarchy--is the same as Earth religious
insight. You seem not to be aware of this vital distinction.

Same with this. It's nonsensical.

And then you implt only you and yours knows THE 'truth'.

Not exactly, but me and mine certainly know more about the human mind and how it works than you and yours.

What your worldview says is what you feel about yourself. and that you project onto one and all. that you are a meaningless biochemical machine...?

Meaningless? Hell no.

As for machine.. Would that not be the position of a slave or servant as opposed to a free man? Then we must look to who is who. Isn't it the duty of most god believers to worship and follow that god, and to do his will? Is that not being a "machine"?

Nature is spiritual

Where? How?

The science that claims we are insignificant little meat puppets that they can then manipulate and exploit like they do Nature.

I must have missed that issue. Where is that stated or implied?

But you see, all you're doing now is making my case for me. Can you see how irate and upset you're becoming over the notion that life is meaningless, and you're just a "meat puppet"?

I can hear it going through your head right now: "There must be a purpose, I am important, I do have a reason to be here".

That is the trap YOU have fallen in and perpetuate with your attitude

Actually, you're doing a fine job of making my point for me. A point that by adamantly arguing against, shows to be valid.

Spirituality ISN'T merely praying to the clouds as you call it.

Oh, kindly explain it for me. And if possible avoid just saying "it's goddess", and "it's going deep". They don't really explain anything.

 

[duendy]

I often wonder why during debates on this forum, many of the more religious type, or spiritual type - whichever you prefer, start questioning my internet nickname like it actually has any bearing to anything.

d))some people have what is called IMAGINATION and choose thie nicknames according to things they'd like to communicate about thier character....does THAt help?

To explain it, for hopefully the last time: I keep pet snakes, always have. When mI was a youngster I inherited the nickname; 'Snakeman'. I changed that to Lord for the purpose of an mmorpg set in the days of knights, lords and that kind of thing.

d)))THERRRRRR you see?


It has nothing to do with satan, tiamat, or any other snake like god/deity, and nor does it have anything to do with "goddess", whatever the hell that means.

))))D))))see that rectangular thingy in front of yer face? it's called the Web. google 'Goddess Serpent' and see what you find. let us know now wont you you'll?



Any chance you could repeat this in English? What is this 'goddess', and what does my internet nickname have to do with it?

d)))see above reply!



I'm pleased for you, although at least I managed to provide some explanation as opposed to just saying "goddess" and thinking anyone would know what the hell you're talking about.

d)))see above reply. do i hav to do ALL the work for you?



Where does that come from? Because I highlighted that there are mentally ill people on the planet?

d)))it is your apparent arrogant and disrespectufl attitude when talking about people who you term in a public forum 'crazies' and 'lunatics'.......i wouldn't like to be so classess as that, especially by someone puporting to 'care' for me, and make lots of dosh outta me!



I gave my opinion, much like you're doing right now. It's ok for you but not me? However, my opinion is an educated one and provides a bit more than goddesses and sperm drinking rituals.

d)))you dont give me that impression


I didn't assume anything, I asked a question. You'll notice this by paying attention to the question mark at the end of it.

D)))don't be so patronizing.



Oh really? Please.. do explain..

d)))you mean regarding your ingoreance of religious history? what specifically do you WANT me to explore?


I would comment and respond, but I can't understand what you've written here.

d)))you view that biblical prphets eat Peyote. if you remember you said something like some dude in ancinet times finding a cactus, eating it, Trippin out and then his words becoming a religion? well....err where di YOu get THat info from. please let us know, i am interested in the DETAILS.



Same with this. It's nonsensical.

d)))yes, your right there. which is why i followed it with a further post correcting the vital typo. check it out


Not exactly, but me and mine certainly know more about the human mind and how it works than you and yours.

d))so you assume, but i am NOT convinced. not at ALL!


Meaningless? Hell no.

As for machine.. Would that not be the position of a slave or servant as opposed to a free man? Then we must look to who is who. Isn't it the duty of most god believers to worship and follow that god, and to do his will? Is that not being a "machine"?

d))it CAN be. i challenge patriarchal mindsets where the 'god' becomes a puppet master sure. but i also look at the god athiests like yerself follow to which is even more machinelike par excellence


Where? How?

d)))))ie., your reaction by me saying Nature is spiritual. well, where and how are in the realms of presenting scientific evidence right? This is a whole new thing. first you have to see through your attitude which will block you from understanding the spiritual aspect of Nature. are you prepared to do that?


I must have missed that issue. Where is that stated or implied?

D)))your referring to my insight that the mechanical mindset makes for a mechanicall environment it then tries to manipulate. can you not see this correlation. how the two would arise mutually. think about animal vivisection--are you familiar with its history. how one of the instigators of the scientific mechanistic worldview-Rene Descartes-suggested animals were merely machines whose cries didn't mean the same as when humans cries and screamed? That is a particularly sad example

But you see, all you're doing now is making my case for me. Can you see how irate and upset you're becoming over the notion that life is meaningless, and you're just a "meat puppet"?

d)))haha. i am not irate. that is your interpretation of my mood. i am answering you. you DO get me angry when you start callin people 'crazies' though

I can hear it going through your head right now: "There must be a purpose, I am important, I do have a reason to be here".

d))you know what they say about people who hear voices ....don't YOU!



Actually, you're doing a fine job of making my point for me. A point that by adamantly arguing against, shows to be valid.

d)))cant think what the latin term for that assurance is, but it's wrong anyhow. yer aint as perceptive as you think u r



Oh, kindly explain it for me. And if possible avoid just saying "it's goddess", and "it's going deep". They don't really explain anything.

the WOULD if you UNDErstood

Patriarchy split the Earth/Nature for 'spirit/mind'.........this can all be seen written down in myth, philosophy, religion

from an earth religious feeling of direct experience, and MEANING---there is imposed by a dominating mindset the idea of A 'sky-god'--a transcendent being in the clouds, stars. This sky-god/MALE becomes distant. you with me>?....no more DIRECt experience is allowed. it becomes severely prohibited. still IS, With the War on [some] Drugs

So there is this HUGE DEEP need, that has gone on for centuries and centuries

the GODDESs was/is both trasncendent and IMMANENT. ie., spirituality isn't a-part FROM 'matter'. matter and spirit have never been separate. only the abstracting minds of the patriarchs have indctrinated this medhcanical world view

so going DEEP means exactly that. NOw you aren't looking to the clouds as such for help to get away from 'evil' 'matter, you are realizing that Nature is you, and is FULL of meaning.....

 

[SnakeLord]

))))D))))see that rectangular thingy in front of yer face? it's called the Web. google 'Goddess Serpent' and see what you find. let us know now wont you you

The reason I asked is because I wanted your version of what you relate it to be. A million and one personal and badly made websites doesn't give me an insight into your beliefs.

From what I have seen, the whole "goddess' nonsense is merely a bunch of women who wish they were as important as men, and as such have changed god from a typical masculine figure to a feminine one.

So you see, I'd much rather hear it come from you.

d)))see above reply!

See above reply.

d)))see above reply. do i hav to do ALL the work for you?

All? You haven't done any. But I didn't realise this was about "work". Why would you have to work to get the information that you obviously already know? Is this how things are in your life? Someone asks you a question and you say "do it your self"? All I can see is that your belief isn't a very helpful one.

d)))it is your apparent arrogant and disrespectufl attitude when talking about people who you term in a public forum 'crazies' and 'lunatics'.

I find it amusing how people get so beaten up over a bunch of letters. But anyway, what would you prefer I call lunatics? As an example, the lunatics who flew a plane into the twin towers. What should I call them? Nice people? Slightly ill? Please, do tell me.

i wouldn't like to be so classess as that

Since when did it boil down to what you would or wouldn't like?

D)))don't be so patronizing.

I'll stop being patronizing when you start learning how to use quotes properly.

d)))you mean regarding your ingoreance of religious history? what specifically do you WANT me to explore?

Well that's nice. You make a claim over my knowledge of religious history - which my degree in ancient history and my degree in religious education disagree with, and then don't even know what you're talking about "specifically". You made a claim, I'm asking you to back that claim up. Understand?

if you remember you said something like some dude in ancinet times finding a cactus, eating it, Trippin out and then his words becoming a religion?

And this is why I asked you if you think drug abuse is a modern day thing. There are rituals for tribal people, (such as the rain dance etc), that involve the intake of serious hallucinogens. These practices have been taking place for thousand of years, and I merely extended that possibility to include other nations and other beliefs. The problem you would find when trying to debate against it is that couldn't even tell me who wrote the biblical accounts. You have no idea about their lifestyle, their influences or their mental state.

If I said the biblical writers did use drugs or were mentally unstable, although I merely used it as an example - you would have no position to refute it other than to say I cannot prove it. I could then turn round and tell you that you need to take it on faith...

And there is the problem with religion. It's a case of make it up as you go along - based upon the words and opinions of people you don't know and will never know. People who for all you know could have been compulsive liars, drug addicts or completely bloody insane.

The only following reason that any rational individual would subscribe to the beliefs of ancient people they have no substantial basis with which to trust, comes from what they are lacking in life. As I highlighted, the christian belief caters for several key issues:

1) Mortality

2) Loss of loved ones

3) Feeling important and that you have purpose etc.

The "goddess" seems focused on sexual equality, and little else.

It is like a man with a 2 inch penis driving a sports car, or a bald man wearing a toupee. It is about catering for that which we lack. It is a natural course of action for all humans, and religion is just another method of supplying us with what we need to overcome what we lack.

well....err where di YOu get THat info from. please let us know, i am interested in the DETAILS.

Before I answer this, I would like to take 5 seconds out just to be sarcastic. Ready?

See that thing in front of your face? It's called the web. Go to google and look it up for yourself. Must I do ALL the work for you? /end sarcasm

Drug abuse of one form or another has been an activity of men for millennia. Not only in the South American regions which are abundant in more of the potent drugs, but all over the world - even to this day. In the bible we often see someone going off into the desert where they see a vision, (mirage). There are several things that would induce that, melanin included, but also things like heat stroke etc. The majority of the early OT takes place solely in the desert - a place where man really would hallucinate given time, even without the use of drugs. In England - where there aren't really any freely growing drugs, there are no god's either. Of course though, we do have dragons, (St George) etc, but I know you're not going to claim they're real.

The culture with the most gods would be probably the romans/greeks - both of whom were famous for poison abuse, (arsenic etc). Women would use poison to aid their beauty, (i.e arsenic makes the pupils dilate etc) - etc etc etc and so on. Once again I'll apply some sarcasm and tell you to use google. The fact is, the majority of cultures have been abusing drugs/poison for millennia.

d))so you assume, but i am NOT convinced. not at ALL!

That's fair enough. It's a large portion of the problem. People would rather worship the sky, the mud, the 'goddess' or whatever they personally need instead of paying attention to what is real and what isn't. It's why there's a bunch of simpleton nitwits claiming evolution is nonsense without even understanding what evolution is, while happily believing something as daft as the world being created 7000 years ago. Alas, they pass this stupidity onto their children. Stupidity breeds stupidity.

d))it CAN be. i challenge patriarchal mindsets where the 'god' becomes a puppet master sure. but i also look at the god athiests like yerself follow to which is even more machinelike par excellence

Oh right, such as what? That the earth travels around the sun, and isn't flat? That the planet is slightly older than 10k years and that the reason you have vestigal organs/limbs etc has nothing to do with god making a design flaw but with the fact that we have evolved?

Fair enough.

first you have to see through your attitude which will block you from understanding the spiritual aspect of Nature. are you prepared to do that?

Oh what attitude is that? The attitude that demands evidence to any halfwitted claim that someone makes? Am I supposed to just believe the fool who claims there's fairies in his garden, or that Elvis is still alive? So tell me, how is nature spiritual.

how one of the instigators of the scientific mechanistic worldview-Rene Descartes-suggested animals were merely machines whose cries didn't mean the same as when humans cries and screamed? That is a particularly sad example

What would that matter? The biblical standpoint is that animals have been put here just to serve us, and it really doesn't matter what grief they go through. Besides, how is that anymore "sad" than god killing every animal and every human while they screamed merely because he didn't like them? I'd hardly call your example 'sad' in comparison.

d)))haha. i am not irate. that is your interpretation of my mood. i am answering you. you DO get me angry when you start callin people 'crazies' though

Why, there's no such thing as crazy people?

d))you know what they say about people who hear voices ....don't YOU!

Yes I do. It's said that god is speaking to them... or did you mean a different voice?

d)))cant think what the latin term for that assurance is, but it's wrong anyhow. yer aint as perceptive as you think u r

Again I can only say fair enough. It's really not an issue what you think.

the WOULD if you UNDErstood

Bu there's the problem. This isn't even English. Not to mention it is a giant shambles of CaPS aNd No CApS that I can't keep up with it.

Patriarchy split the Earth/Nature for 'spirit/mind'

What does this mean?

you with me>?

Not exactly.

However, your next sentence came out fine, and what it does serve to do is highlight my point:

So there is this HUGE DEEP need, that has gone on for centuries and centuries

See? It's all I've been saying. Religion/belief is all about a HUGE DEEP need. It caters for what humanity is lacking in the eyes of the believer. While it can make you feel better about yourself, it is no more real than that toupee Mr. Bald is wearing.

the GODDESs was/is both trasncendent and IMMANENT. ie., spirituality isn't a-part FROM 'matter'. matter and spirit have never been separate. only the abstracting minds of the patriarchs have indctrinated this medhcanical world view

You haven't managed to show what this "spirituality"/ "spirit" supposedly is in your eyes. What is it?

NOw you aren't looking to the clouds as such for help to get away from 'evil'

I'm not, and you might not be, but many millions of people are.

you are realizing that Nature is you, and is FULL of meaning.....

Sure, but that doesn't require the words "goddess" or "spirituality". All you're saying is that you're alive and it has meaning. While I agree, no gods are involved.

 

[duendy]

The reason I asked is because I wanted your version of what you relate it to be. A million and one personal and badly made websites doesn't give me an insight into your beliefs.

d)))Oh, a million and one hey. and mine of cause you wouldn't throw in your bin?....good job i didn't give the effort then init?

From what I have seen, the whole "goddess' nonsense is merely a bunch of women who wish they were as important as men, and as such have changed god from a typical masculine figure to a feminine one.

d))shos what you know then dunnit?

So you see, I'd much rather hear it come from you.

d)))yeah, i bet you would dude!



See above reply.



All? You haven't done any. But I didn't realise this was about "work". Why would you have to work to get the information that you obviously already know? Is this how things are in your life? Someone asks you a question and you say "do it your self"? All I can see is that your belief isn't a very helpful one.

d)))IF i felt therer was an ounce of respect i would. but i dont FEEL you respect much atually



I find it amusing how people get so beaten up over a bunch of letters. But anyway, what would you prefer I call lunatics?

d)))hows about human beings? people?

As an example, the lunatics who flew a plane into the twin towers. What should I call them? Nice people? Slightly ill? Please, do tell me.

d))They were CRIMINALS.



Since when did it boil down to what you would or wouldn't like?

d)))not sure of the context of this reponse



I'll stop being patronizing when you start learning how to use quotes properly.

seethis "D)))))"? it means that i am speaking



Well that's nice. You make a claim over my knowledge of religious history - which my degree in ancient history and my degree in religious education disagree with, and then don't even know what you're talking about "specifically". You made a claim, I'm asking you to back that claim up. Understand?

D)))Well, degrees cant be all they are cracked up to be i spose.....?



And this is why I asked you if you think drug abuse is a modern day thing. There are rituals for tribal people, (such as the rain dance etc), that involve the intake of serious hallucinogens. These practices have been taking place for thousand of years, and I merely extended that possibility to include other nations and other beliefs. The problem you would find when trying to debate against it is that couldn't even tell me who wrote the biblical accounts. You have no idea about their lifestyle, their influences or their mental state.

d)))Now that I dont understand. can you reword it please?

If I said the biblical writers did use drugs or were mentally unstable, although I merely used it as an example - you would have no position to refute it other than to say I cannot prove it. I could then turn round and tell you that you need to take it on faith...

d)))I use various means of understanding researnc, analysis, intuition, reading between the lines, generalization, seeing patterns, associating then with now, and so on

And there is the problem with religion. It's a case of make it up as you go along - based upon the words and opinions of people you don't know and will never know. People who for all you know could have been compulsive liars, drug addicts or completely bloody insane.

D)))whiich means you must look, listen closely what's being said, shown. the associations, images, symbols, meanings.

The only following reason that any rational individual would subscribe to the beliefs of ancient people they have no substantial basis with which to trust, comes from what they are lacking in life. As I highlighted, the christian belief caters for several key issues:

1) Mortality

2) Loss of loved ones

3) Feeling important and that you have purpose etc.

d))i am not a Christian

The "goddess" seems focused on sexual equality, and little else.

d))) 'littl else' huh?

It is like a man with a 2 inch penis driving a sports car, or a bald man wearing a toupee. It is about catering for that which we lack. It is a natural course of action for all humans, and religion is just another method of supplying us with what we need to overcome what we lack.

d))right. you compare Deep spiritual need with wanting a toupe?...although i could see that that fcould be a problem for a dude



Before I answer this, I would like to take 5 seconds out just to be sarcastic. Ready?

D))Yip

See that thing in front of your face? It's called the web. Go to google and look it up for yourself. Must I do ALL the work for you? /end sarcasm

d)))touche?
(will have to continue next bit in next post***********************************
Drug abuse of one form or another has been an activity of men for millennia. Not only in the South American regions which are abundant in more of the potent drugs, but all over the world - even to this day. In the bible we often see someone going off into the desert where they see a vision, (mirage). There are several things that would induce that, melanin included, but also things like heat stroke etc. The majori

 

[duendy]

[QUOTE=SnakeLord





Drug abuse of one form or another has been an activity of men for millennia. Not only in the South American regions which are abundant in more of the potent drugs, but all over the world - even to this day. In the bible we often see someone going off into the desert where they see a vision, (mirage). There are several things that would induce that, melanin included, but also things like heat stroke etc. The majori
contin*********D(((((owing to limitations of my system i dont seem to be able to access the rest. i'll start a new post...btw, your idea of ancient 'drug abuse' ia YOUR premise

 

[duendy]

Yes, Snakelord, unfortunealy, my system is extremely limited. for example, i TRIED--made an EFFOT? to get to the latter quotes of your post, but i couldn't so i then tried to get rid of the above text. now...i cant just delete paragraphs of text i have to do it a tap-at-a-time. i did that and still it would get down. is that effort or is that effort?

the gist of what you are asking is why should you believe someone if they start speking about spirit and spiritual needs, right?

Why do you deMEAN it? (i use caps as emphasis...dont have access to italic)....why do you belittle peoples spiritual needs?
now, ok, i DO challenge people who are of the patriarchal stream. for the reason being i find it is conflictual. it's dogma is a separating Nature from spirit. That idea has a history. It is a fear of the dark, the feminine and thus Nature as Nature has virtually always been associated with the feminine

but you dont stop at A patriarchy. you bemoaan the fact that people might want to ecstasize with Nature. you call all that ==liken it to a man dying of thrist in a desert and seeing a mirage. thus reducing all visionary experience to that desperate state.
But visionary experience is extraordinarily diverse, and uniquely individual, and is healing.
The people you tern 'crazies' are having visionary experience, but this culture doesn't respect that. it fears it. it sees it as 'mental illness' and wants to stop it, and not understand it and the context it is happening in

people are forced to conform to what people like yourself feel is NON crazy. like making lots o' dosh and treating 'crazies'...being business oriented? high flyers
but culture is increasingly violent, frantically trying to fill a void with consumerism and celen fever etc etc......like i keep saying, there is a dimissal by this reductive paradigm for Direct ecstatic experience. an exploration of Deepness. this was so when it was Church and State and is so now with Science and State

 

[SnakeLord]

d)))Oh, a million and one hey. and mine of cause you wouldn't throw in your bin?....good job i didn't give the effort then init?

That happens all the time, what's the problem? As an example, if you scroll back up you'll see you're doing exactly that to my opinions. What more do you want? Do you want everyone to just agree with your opinions otherwise there's no point voicing them? Why try and blame your laziness on me? You had no problem talking when you could just say "goddess" and "nature/earth/spirit/treefolk" but when I ask you to actually explain it, you fall apart, and come up with a dozen excuses to save you from having to go into any details. Whether it's just laziness or inability I'm unsure.

d))shos what you know then dunnit?

Guess so, and the more you attempt to get out of offering explanation, the less chance I'll have of 'knowing' it better.

d)))yeah, i bet you would dude!

Of course, I'm talking to you, not google. While google is certainly more reliable, and doesn't make as many excuses, it's not a real person.

d)))IF i felt therer was an ounce of respect i would. but i dont FEEL you respect much atually

Excuse number 1237253.

But let me ask you something.. do you respect me? (be honest, I'm not the kind of guy who gets upset).

d)))hows about human beings? people?

I never claimed they were anything other than human. Doesn't make them any less of a lunatic. Some dude just walked into a church and opened fire - killing several and then killing himself. That guy was a lunatic, plain and simple.

d))They were CRIMINALS.

You make it sound like they robbed the local off-licence. That's a criminal. Someone who flies a plane into a building - killing himself and everyone else around him because his brain tells him he's going to a nice place with 70 virgins, and that what he's doing is actually a good thing, is not a criminal. He's a lunatic.

D)))Well, degrees cant be all they are cracked up to be i spose.....?

I suppose it has to be done to be appreciated.

d)))Now that I dont understand. can you reword it please?

Let me ask you something.. If your friend took some lsd let's say and started 'seeing' things. Would you call that experience spiritual or the side effects of drug abuse? We now know about the effects of drugs so we can make an accurate diagnosis - and thus when they say they see something incredible, we know it's just an hallucination, and isn't real. Could the same be said of people thousands of years ago, living in an environment where the pure form of drugs that we take would have been freely available? Hell, they're still freely available.

Go into your kitchen and look for some nutmeg. Ok, it tastes like shit, but eat a fair amount of it and you'll hallucinate for around 20 minutes. You can buy it at your local supermarket btw. Spend some more time in your kitchen and you'll find various things that can cause hallucinations or cause you to get high - bananas included.

A lot of people nowadays don't even know this, so what chance did people thousands of years ago have? I've already mentioned aswell that many cultures thrived on some kind of drug/poison abuse - and not just for grandiose reasons such as contacting god, but for simple things like women trying to look more pretty. In South America they have this drug that they take, (that comes from tree bark and mud from the river), in order to perform certain rituals. They see their god, or it's actions but what is the reality of it? Is it spiritual or is it drug abuse?

Do you generally put much trust in the word of junkies?

D)))whiich means you must look, listen closely what's being said, shown. the associations, images, symbols, meanings.

But it is freely interpretable and as such is meaningless. It can also not be substantiated in the slightest. If I sat 30 of you in a room, gave you all a poem and said to tell me what it means - you'd all give me a different answer. Neither will be any more or less valid than the others, and that instantly dismisses it as pointless. The only way to move forward from there is to contact the author and ask him what it means, (if he even remembers). With the case of ancient texts, you cannot do that.

d))i am not a Christian

I'm aware of that.

d))right. you compare Deep spiritual need with wanting a toupe?...although i could see that that fcould be a problem for a dude

Sure I do, but I guess you'd have to be a bald man that has problem with his baldness to appreciate it. Changing words to make one look less important than the other is wrong. "Deep spiritual need", and "wanting"? The guy doesn't 'want' a toupee, he has a 'deep need' for it.

In the case of the man however, what he is trying to compensate for is easily seen and understood. One must ask exactly what someone with 'deep spiritual need' is compensating for.

the gist of what you are asking is why should you believe someone if they start speking about spirit and spiritual needs, right?

Well, it's certainly a good question. I'd like to see an answer. Before doing so however, remember that on a daily basis I talk to people who believe they're Elvis, or Ghandi. I talk to people who hear voices from Mars, or the voice of president Kennedy coming from their dishwasher, people who hear voices telling them to go into a church and open fire, people who have a serious need to amputate some of their limbs, people who believe they spoke to a tree and it spoke back etc etc etc.

I could just believe them all, but if you ask me to do that you're not being very honest to me or yourself. What you would have to do is provide something substantial for someone to believe everything you would say you witnessed, felt, etc - otherwise it would be no different to the above examples.

why do you belittle peoples spiritual needs?

I haven't belittled it, I'm just being honest. You could say I've just belittled people who hear voices, or people who chop their limbs off. That's inaccurate though. It's not about belittling, it's about distinguishing reality from fantasy.

now, ok, i DO challenge people who are of the patriarchal stream. for the reason being i find it is conflictual. it's dogma is a separating Nature from spirit. That idea has a history. It is a fear of the dark, the feminine and thus Nature as Nature has virtually always been associated with the feminine

Apologies, I don't understand what you're trying to say. How is nature feminine? etc

but you dont stop at A patriarchy. you bemoaan the fact that people might want to ecstasize with Nature. you call all that ==liken it to a man dying of thrist in a desert and seeing a mirage. thus reducing all visionary experience to that desperate state.
But visionary experience is extraordinarily diverse, and uniquely individual, and is healing.
The people you tern 'crazies' are having visionary experience, but this culture doesn't respect that. it fears it. it sees it as 'mental illness' and wants to stop it

That's because it is mental illness. Or perhaps we should just call the guy who shot up that church completely sane, having a spiritual experience, and leave him to it? You don't want to stop that, you want it to continue?

people are forced to conform to what people like yourself feel is NON crazy. like making lots o' dosh and treating 'crazies'...being business oriented? high flyers

Sanity is not about making money or business.

but culture is increasingly violent

Yeah, with a lot of mentally ill people going round doing crazy things.

 

[cole grey]

To the mentally ill, drug addicts and 'life inept'.

It means you're either mentally ill, doing drugs or 'life inept'.

By becoming mentally ill, start taking drugs or just be 'life inept'.

If you can't see the overly simplistic nature of this rendition of who any and all people who have religious beliefs are, that is sad.

The first two are obviously untrue. There are many religious people who are neither mentally ill, nor drug-addicted. If you consider having religious beliefs a symptom that is the ONLY one necessary for a diagnosis of either, you don't understand either problem enough to comment on it. If you say that believing in something that hasn't been proven is insane, you would also say that an aborigine believing another person's description of New York City would be insane, or drug-addicted.
The third depends on your definition of "life inept", but you and pretty much everyone else on earth would have to fit the definition as well, so as to include anyone who has ever held a religious belief, for it to be valid. In which case your statement isn't valid.

To think that this even deserved an argument is sad. If you were just trying to be funny, ok fine, ha ha, but to know you were serious makes me question you. I hereby question you, with a big, "huh?"

 

[qwerasdfzxcv]

Snakelord... u say that religion only comforts, and there are no gods or god. So what about love? Love gives us the most comfort out of anything in this world, but to u it must not be real. I feel sorry for you snakelord. You know nothing about religious people.

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

qwerasdfzxcv, I agree, to athiests technically there is no real meaning for love. It all depends on how you define it. However, loving somebody is much better than loving the nonexistent god. Most of the athiests here were originally part of religion. Most of the athiests I know deeply believed in religion in the beginning, but the flaws in religion caused them to change their beliefs. See when a doubt occurs about something, it is human nature to clarify the doubt. However in god's cause you cannot do so. Most of the theists I know (and I know a lot) believe in god because they want to go to "heaven". Why do you think atheists start believeing in god when they get old? Because they want to continue their existance so they assume that believeing in god means you can get a afterlife. First of all, the idea of afterlife was probably created to convince those dying that this is not the end. Humans are afraid of dying, so afterlife is a convincing thing. But these days theists are using the idea to their advantage by saying atheists dont go to heaven. Personally, even if a heaven existed, I would probably chose not to go their. Cause I don't want to spend an eternity there. I would rather be erased from existance. And besides when you are talking about eternity or infinite time, the idea is stupid.

Water, I notice that you have a specific talent for getting people into debate about the existance of god in every thread you post. You know as well as I do, that these debates won't come to an end. Maybe after 1000 years maybe. The only thing that you thread is doing is making people swear at each other in the end. Is that you aim?

yes, you have the freedom of speech. But sometimes it is better not to say anything when you know a conflict is going to occur as an end result. Besides, predominately in this forum, the members are atheists. You cannot not convince them that god exists. This is because they already believed in religion before and then realized the flaw and stopped believing.

Anyone can start a religion. Tomorrow, I can say the true religion in the world is Religion X. And say suppose after 10 years everyone starts believing in my religion, then what about the other religions? Aren't religion supposed to be something that "god" directly takes control of/involved in? If anyone can start a religion then what is the point of religion? What is the true meaning/value for believing in a particular religion? Nothing.Believe in god if you want but you don't have to be a part of religions to do so. Everyone's ideologies are different. Religions were once useful to stop men from killing themselves. Religions' main purpose is to make sure that humans remain ethical and morality exists in the society. But these days we have governments to do so. We don't need religions that promote wars, propoganda's. We have seen in history how religions have used the idea of god to their selfishness.

Another interesting thing, I noticed is that people are quoting from a the bible to prove stuff. Well, do you really think quoting from the Bible/Bhagvad Gita/Koran helps? After all, only theists believe that all these books are woth something. However, for a fact all these books were written by men. So, they are of no value/importance to us. The only book that I have read which doesn't promote the religion's propoganda but rather explains ethics and morality is the Bhagvad Gita. Bible is half and half. However, quoting fromn the Koran is absolutely a waste of time. Koran (I have read it) is all about the religion's propoganda. has nothing to do with ethics. Every sentence promotes the belief of Allah (The God of Islam).

Hope I offended nobody. And I can only hope that these kind of threads aren't posted again to promote the battle between atheists and theists.

 

[qwerasdfzxcv]

qwerasdfzxcv, I agree, to athiests technically there is no real meaning for love.

That can't be completely true because don't you see how so many girls want to be loved and to love someone. They want comfort, and with what Snake said that must mean it's not real. Love is a gift god gave us with life. Chemicals can't create love.

 

[SnakeLord]

If you can't see the overly simplistic nature of this rendition of who any and all people who have religious beliefs are, that is sad.

Really? Well then, kindly explain why you're religious. Not how, but why.

The first two are obviously untrue.

So you are claiming that there are no mentally ill or drug using religious people?

If you say that believing in something that hasn't been proven is insane, you would also say that an aborigine believing another person's description of New York City would be insane, or drug-addicted.

If you cannot discern the difference, we have very little to discuss.

The third depends on your definition of "life inept", but you and pretty much everyone else on earth would have to fit the definition as well

Absolutely, as I even offered earlier - the point being that different people have different ways with which to deal with it - and dependant upon the specific problem areas. From wearing toupees, to getting a nose job, from believing in sky beings to flashing your genitals. As I mentioned before, in each case it's important to look at what the person is trying to compensate for. With the case of christianity, and the majority of religious views, the answer is crystal clear. I have listed it twice now.

The fact of the matter remains that when a loved one dies you'd rather image them happy somewhere, and that you'll meet again than consider them as rotting corpses in the ground. Etc etc and so on.

As I have also stated, the entrance into religion, (if not by birth), generally comes from a 'life and death' event. It makes you question mortality. It's why, as Lord Phoenix rightly points out, the reason you'll see lifelong atheists turning into believers on their death bed. It's the same principle. As most religious people will tell you, there was a time when they were not a believer and during a tragic event found god.

Now, if I was to ask a religious man how comes the average joe doesn't just bump into god on a standard day out. They will respond that that person is not looking for god. And therein is the point and purpose. People only end up looking for god, (and finding him), when mortality comes crashing into the scene like an unwelcomed visitor. All the 'you'll go to hell', 'you inherit eternal life' etc cannot in any way compete with 'you're about to die'. The former two are just addon 'gifts' to the latter which is the working force behind the belief.

To think that this even deserved an argument is sad.

Oh come now, let's not turn petty.

If you were just trying to be funny, ok fine, ha ha, but to know you were serious makes me question you. I hereby question you, with a big, "huh?"

Well, "huh?" would suggest you didn't understand it, which would also point out exactly where the problem lies. However, I'm still interested to hear an answer to the question I posed, and indeed an enthralling story of how you 'found' religion.

------------

Snakelord... u say that religion only comforts, and there are no gods or god. So what about love?

Apologies, but what is the connection between an emotion and an invisible sky being?

Love gives us the most comfort out of anything in this world, but to u it must not be real.

How do you end up with that conclusion? Love is a big ass bunch of chemicals set up to ensure species survival. How does it in any way relate to beings from beyond the clouds?

I feel sorry for you snakelord.

Don't bother, you're getting yourself confused.

You know nothing about religious people.

Now now, there's no need for that. I know nothing about plumbing. I know nothing about football, makeup, guitar playing or mahjong. People, religious or otherwise, I do know about.

Let's assume for a second you're a plumber. If you sat here telling me all about pipes and hoses and taps and sinks, and I sat here and said: "you know nothing about plumbing", you'd not only find it rather amusing but daft aswell.

That's all you're doing, and without anything to support it, it has no basis, no weight, and no value. You can debate it by saying: "well I'm religious so I'll disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing", but that isn't exactly a worthwhile qualification.

What we've ended up with is a bunch of religious people who feel insulted perhaps because I'm talking about 'their kind', and yet have not provided anything to support their claims and statements. I mentioned drugs and have gone on to provide background drug usage within religious cultures, have explained with details over how people feel "life inept", and so on. I would just wish one of you would have the courtesy to provide the same, instead of just disagreeing because you feel you're under attack.

Regards.

 

[Yorda]

However, loving somebody is much better than loving the nonexistent god.

Loving God means that you love everyone, because, like it says in the sacred scripts, we are the "temples of God".

Most of the athiests I know deeply believed in religion in the beginning, but the flaws in religion caused them to change their beliefs.

The flaws in their mind caused them to change their beliefs. They had a "childish" view of the religion and God, so when they grew up, it's natural that they no longer "believe". But I had no religion in the first place, I believed in nothing, then I saw that there is no God, and later, I saw that also my beliefs were childish, and there really was a God. But now I've seen that there is something between believing in a God and not believing.

Why do you think atheists start believeing in god when they get old? Because they want to continue their existance so they assume that believeing in god means you can get a afterlife.

Those who "believe" only because of fear are not really believers. Believing in God isn't something people choose, God himself chooses the people.

First of all, the idea of afterlife was probably created to convince those dying that this is not the end.

Can you really imagine everything just ending, forever, for you? Why does everything "still" exist, why do you exist right now? The truth is that you will not remember your birth or see your death, because you've never been born in the first place. The soul, God himself, the self inside of us isn't something which needs to be born, since it's not controlled by physical laws. Consciousness can't just end, the self exists everywhere at the same time, and all people will always feel as though they were "me", the self which dies. I am as much someone in ancient Egypt as I am the person I am "now", at the same time.

Humans are afraid of dying, so afterlife is a convincing thing.

I know there is "a life after this" and I'm not afraid of dying... but of course life will always just seem to be "right now, right here..."

But these days theists are using the idea to their advantage by saying atheists dont go to heaven.

Yes, that's just because they're so consumed with their religion. They obey books rather than the source of all books, the self of man.

I would rather be erased from existance.

That's the real heaven.

Water, I notice that you have a specific talent for getting people into debate about the existance of god in every thread you post. You know as well as I do, that these debates won't come to an end. Maybe after 1000 years maybe. The only thing that you thread is doing is making people swear at each other in the end. Is that you aim?

Right now, water flows as it wills, but it originates from the great sea. Human power is of no use in creating peace, time is what will create peace among them. A human is about as free as a dog in a leash, although it feels different since humans are not aware of the one who controls it. All people will have the same experiences on their path, and the experience of suffering is what will lead them on the right way.

yes, you have the freedom of speech.

By speaking in a wrong manner, people might break some other freedoms.

But sometimes it is better not to say anything when you know a conflict is going to occur as an end result.

If you are a man of worth who sits in his master's council, concentrate on excellence, your silence is better than chatter. Gain respect through knowledge. Consider how you may be opposed by an expert that speaks in council. It is a foolish thing to speak on every kind of work, for he that disputes your words shall put them unto proof. The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools.

If he who listens, listens fully, Then he who listens becomes he who understands. When hearing is good, speech is good. He who listens becomes the master of what is profitable. Listening benefits the listener. To listen is better than anything. Thus is perfect love born.

As for the ignorant man who does not listen, He accomplishes nothing.

If you encounter a disputant in action, one with authority, superior to you. Bend your arms and bow your back. Do not seize your heart against him. He will never agree with you and will belittle you in the Evil he will say. Do not try to oppose him in his moment. For He will be called a Know-Nothing when your self-control matches his words

Aren't religion supposed to be something that "god" directly takes control of/involved in? If anyone can start a religion then what is the point of religion?

If you really are able to create a good religion that people start to believe in, then God will take control of it. Infact, God controls everything. We humans carry and recognize this divine center in ourselves as "the self".

Well, do you really think quoting from the Bible/Bhagvad Gita/Koran helps? After all, only theists believe that all these books are woth something. However, for a fact all these books were written by men. So, they are of no value/importance to us.

Is there something in the world which isn't worth anything? I'm sure you too believe in a few phrases of the Bible, like 'love others as yourself'. See, there is truth in these books.

Every sentence promotes the belief of Allah (The God of Islam).

Allah is not a "God", really.

Hope I offended nobody.

Why hope for something you already know the answer to?

 

[qwerasdfzxcv]

That's all you're doing, and without anything to support it, it has no basis, no weight, and no value. You can debate it by saying: "well I'm religious so I'll disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing", but that isn't exactly a worthwhile qualification.

What we've ended up with is a bunch of religious people who feel insulted perhaps because I'm talking about 'their kind', and yet have not provided anything to support their claims and statements. I mentioned drugs and have gone on to provide background drug usage within religious cultures, have explained with details over how people feel "life inept", and so on. I would just wish one of you would have the courtesy to provide the same, instead of just disagreeing because you feel you're under attack.

Why should I feel under attack?

Now, if I was to ask a religious man how comes the average joe doesn't just bump into god on a standard day out. They will respond that that person is not looking for god. And therein is the point and purpose. People only end up looking for god, (and finding him), when mortality comes crashing into the scene like an unwelcomed visitor. All the 'you'll go to hell', 'you inherit eternal life' etc cannot in any way compete with 'you're about to die'. The former two are just addon 'gifts' to the latter which is the working force behind the belief.

Very wrong. I am the average joe, and it was simple to find god. I just let god come into my life, and you claim that people need some type of tragedy for this to happen, when I did it without any tragedy.

How do you end up with that conclusion? Love is a big ass bunch of chemicals set up to ensure species survival. How does it in any way relate to beings from beyond the clouds?

Oh really? Then explain to me what chemicals do this and how.

 

[Jenyar]

Having faith in a God who has been believed in for thousands of years by millions of people is hardly the same as inventing an imaginary friend at 6. Can you really see no difference between rational faith and delusion?

Your argument is a classic logical fallacy – Argumentum ad Populum. The fact that a large number of people believe something still doesn’t make it true or a rational choice. For example pretty much everyone on the planet for thousands of years believed the world was flat.

The idea of a god is still an entirely imaginary concept with effectively no difference to a 6 year old who invents an imaginary friend.

Just because it's latin doesn't mean it applies. You might have noticed that it wasn't an argument for the truth of either statement but a question that requires comparing the two. Even if it was a rethorical question, it still doesn't amount to an argument.

There are clear phenomenological and ontological differences between the imagination of certain children and the persistant and coherent beliefs of great numbers of people, which include certifiably sane and well-adjusted people into adulthood, and are often held even at the threat of death. It's not true because of that, but the significant differences should be evident. Hence my question.

I proposed that they were "hardly the same" and you countered that there is "effectively no difference". Now the argument can start.

rational faith

Is an oxymoron. The two terms are mutually exclusive.

Even if I had said "rational delusion" it doesn't have to be an oxymoron. Depending on what premises you accept and reject, faith in science or God could be equally consistent with or based on using reason - "rational".

If you deny that any rational inferrence of evidence could lead to God, then you destroy your own case for objectivity. In essence, you would be saying that no matter what evidence you are presented with, you would refuse to make the rational inference that God exists, and you simply express an irrational faith in God's non-existence. You are essentially assigning limits to what evidence - scientific, historical, personal, or otherwise - may point to.

If your faith in God's non-existence is not falsifiable by any rational means, you're in no position to throw rocks.

Not at all. Let's not forget that the creators of those beliefs knew about as much of the world/universe as 6 year olds do - and as they have progressed more, and as societies have changed those beliefs have changed to suit.

Well, if we have to go by the cosmology of the Aztecs and the builders of Stonehenge, the geometry of the Egyptians and Babylonians, or the rationality of the Greeks, we in no greater mental shape unless you start out with the assumption that atheism is the pinacle of mental maturity. No doubt they were also 6 year-olds once, who then grew into adulthood and emotional maturity just as we do. We're not the first generation homo sapiens.

Not to mention that the assumption is that you have personally shed the impulses that makes 6-year olds invent imaginary friends. Research shows that most children who have these friends are just as well-adapted and socially aware as those who don't (Researchers take on imaginary playmates -- for real; Are Imaginary Companions Good for Kids?).

It remains now simply as a desire for man to be more than what he is, for him to feel 'more at home' with his worthless little life, and slightly more important than he's ever going to actually be.

And is this desire natural or not? Why, unlike any other living organism, do we feel so out of place in ourselves that we have to compensate for it? If it really was more realistic to accept our insignificance and the sad state of affairs, why doesn't our reason agree?

Is inconvenience any measure of reality? "The more inconvenient, the more real"? Or does your criticism not apply to yourself, that because you have come to grips with life this way and not that way, it must be the right way? Is it only true if it hurts, and obviously false if it makes sense?

Take a close look at your own argument. You suppose our cognitive dissonance should remain visible, or we are under an illusion, but you cannot account for the dissonance. And by accounting for it as the 'harsh reality', you are in fact trying to come to terms with it that way - your way.

However, I am interested to hear you rationalise how belief in an imaginary sky being and belief in an imaginary friend are any different.

As I said before: the premises and reasons for believing in God are different than the formation of an arbitrarily shaped and natured "friend". Belief in God often becomes stronger after one has come to grips with one's circumstances, it doesn't disappear as the "psychological need" disappears. The imagination that helps a child come to terms with life by various means, is a natural to us. It's simply an intellectual arrogance to dismiss imagination and creativity as infantile toys. I think it's at least significant that people like De Bono, Einstein and Da Vinci advocated the opposite attitude as more realistic.

Tell you what: I hereby give you the chance to explain to me how belief in a god/devil/heaven is any more rational than belief in leprechauns, mermaids, aliens, Eldorado, Atlantis, or the secret chambers of moogle mountain.

Go for it.

I have no credible historical or personal evidence for any of those things, and I am content to remain agnostic to them. Their existence as you or some wide-eyed sailor might describe them may or may not correspond to any reality, but they remain beyond my horizons of observation. Conversely, the claims for God's existence have come down to me almost as an avalanche. His presence overwhelmed my experience since childhood - not supernaturally, but naturally; not as something alien and hitherto undiscovered, but someone near, familiar and accessible.

Where accounts of fantastical creatures and places have been diverse and spurious, often relying on ignorance, sentiment and sensation, the evidence that Jesus and Israel left behind have been within the realm of scholarly interest and are there for all to examine for themselves. The people involved show no signs of having invented something for themselves, there is always a precedence, a reason. Nor do their accounts show signs of self-flattering bias or in compensatiion for some inadequacy - on the contrary, Israel suffered more indignation and critical scrutiny under their God than they would have under a god who only served their needs or was invoked to justify their actions. And it is not only "true because it's brutal": they never hesitated to testify of his love and fathfulness when they deserved it least. They never failed to talk of His justice, whether it was condemning or supporting them.

And for all that wealth of information, my experience of God is consistent not because of their accounts, but independently of them. I can confirm their experience with my own, come to the same conclusion as they have, but I can also judge their actions by the morality they were being weaned into. I can see David was wrong in the way he prayed to God to smite his enemies in bloodthirsty anger, but I can see that the justice he hoped for would be done nontheless.

But I can still tell you nothing more about leprechauns, mermaids, aliens, Eldorado or Atlantis than you already know, even though my curiosity about them had lead me far and wide during my adolescent years.

So far your only argument seems to be that: "well, lots of people have believed in it", which is the most utterly worthless attempt at rationalisation that anyone can come up with.

I must say these knee-jerk objections were less than I expected of you and Cris. I never used argumentum ad populum in an argument, I asked a question, and seizing onto the possibility that I did just looks desperate.

 

[mis-t-highs]

Oh really? Then explain to me what chemicals do this and how.

Throughout history, mankind has deemed the heart the center of love. But scientists tell us love is all in our mind or brain. And fueled by chemicals and chemistry.

Infatuation

When two people are attracted to each other, a virtual explosion of adrenaline-like nuerochemicals gush forth. Fireworks explode and we see stars. PEA or phenylethylamine is a chemical that speeds up the flow of information between nerve cells.

Also, involved in chemistry are dopamine and norepinephrine, chemical cousins of amphetamines. Dopamine makes us feel good and norepinephrine stimulates the production of adrenaline. It makes our heart race!

These three chemicals combine to give us infatuation or "chemistry." It is why new lovers feel euphoric and energized, and float on air. It is also why new lovers can make love for hours and talk all night for weeks on end.

This is the chemistry or the love sparks we all seek.

Actually when we have chemistry with someone, it's not exactly flattering. In fact, some might call it insulting.

Why? According to Harville Hendrix our brain dumps PEA when we identify someone who can:

1. Finish our childhood business.
2. Give us back what we lost to the socialization process of growing up.

Singles search for love armed with a list of qualities desired in a mate/lover, such as honesty, fidelity, loyalty, sense of humor, intelligence, warmth, etc. Yet when that person appears they say, He/she is a really nice person, but nothing clicked, just no "chemistry."

Unfortunately, we hear that click when we recognize our original parent/child situation. That's when our brain really gets those phenylethylamines and other chemicals moving.

Some people become veritable love junkies. They need chemistry or this chemical excitement to feel happy about and intoxicated by life. Once this initial rush of chemicals wanes (inevitable after six months to three years, depending on the individual and the circumstances), their relationship crumbles. They're soon off again, detectives seeking a quick fix to their forlorn feelings: another chemical high from infatuation.

These love junkies also have one other problem. The body builds up a tolerance to these chemicals. Then it takes more and more chemistry to bring that special feeling of love. They crave the intoxication of chemistry and infatuation.

Many adults go through life in a series of six-month to three-year relationships. If these love junkies stay married, they are likely to seek affairs to fuel their chemical highs.

Monogamy

Only about three percent of mammals are monogamous, mating and bonding with one partner for life. Unfortunately, scientists tell us humans are not one of these naturally monogamous mammals.

Maybe a few injections of vasopressin would help us. It has been called the monogamy chemical.

By isolating male voles before and after mating, scientists found that lifelong mating could be linked to the action of vasopressin. Before mating, the male vole is friendly to male and female voles alike. Within 24 hours after mating, the male vole is hooked for life.

When the chemical vasopressin kicks in, he is indifferent to all females but one. He is also totally aggressive to other males with a classic exhibition of the jealous husband syndrome.

Cuddling

The chemical oxytocin has been termed the cuddling chemical. Linked to milk production in women, oxytocin makes women and men calmer and more sensitive to the feelings of others.

It plays an important role in romantic love as a sexual arousal hormone that signals orgasm and prompts cuddling between lovers before, during, and after lovemaking.

Oxytocin production is derived from both emotional and physical cues. A lover's voice, his/her certain look, or even a sexual fantasy can trigger the release of oxytocin.

Attachment

When infatuation subsides, a new group of chemicals takes over. This new type of chemical reward is created by endorphins.

These morphine-like opiates calm and reassure with intimacy, dependability, warmth, and shared experiences. Not as exciting or as stressful as PEA, but steadier and more addictive.

The longer two people have been married, the more likely it is that they'll stay married. In part, they become addicted to the endorphins and marital serenity. It is the absence of endorphins that make long-time partners yearn for each other when apart. Absent endorphins also play a part in grief from the death of a spouse.

According to Mark Goulston, M.D., professor of psychiatry at the University of California at Los Angeles, "Adrenaline-based love is all about ourselves, we like being in love. With endorphins, we like loving."

does that help.

http://www.cyberparent.com/love/

 

[water]

“ It is sometimes said that God can be known. ”

To the mentally ill, drug addicts and 'life inept'.


“ What does it mean to know God? ”

It means you're either mentally ill, doing drugs or 'life inept'.


“ How can one get to know God? ”

By becoming mentally ill, start taking drugs or just be 'life inept'.


“ How does one know that one knows God? ”

How does a mentally ill person or junkie know he's the reincarnation of Merlin the wizard? It goes to show not all is right with the brain. 'Ill' people "know" what they know, even though it isn't true.

Your answers only show what it would take *you* to believe in God. The same reasons that would have to operate in you in order to know God, are not necessarily the same reasons other people have for their knowledge of God.


* * *

Your questions keep getting harder and harder to give a simple answer to.

It's not like I am after "simple answers".

I think one of the most important things is, to know what god is not. You seem to have a feel for that side of it, and it is just as valid a path, whatever it takes you through, as any person's concrete ideas of knowing what God is. Those ideas seem to change over time anyway, while the ideas of what God is not seem to stay the same for me.

Yes, the ex negativo approach is especially welcome at the beginning of an inquiry.


* * *

Knowledge is not worth much without understanding, anyway.

How do you know that you have understood something? When you can observe yourself acting on that knowledge, and knowing why you act the way you do?

* * *

Having faith in a God who has been believed in for thousands of years by millions of people is hardly the same as inventing an imaginary friend at 6. Can you really see no difference between rational faith and delusion?

Your argument is a classic logical fallacy – Argumentum ad Populum. The fact that a large number of people believe something still doesn’t make it true or a rational choice. For example pretty much everyone on the planet for thousands of years believed the world was flat.

The idea of a god is still an entirely imaginary concept with effectively no difference to a 6 year old who invents an imaginary friend.

No, Jenyar's argument is not an argumentum ad populum.
See why: There is a phenomenological difference between believing a concept that is part of the social discourse, and believing a concept that is not part of the social discourse.

When a 6-year invents an imaginary friend, he has not picked up the concept of an imaginary friend from the social discourse. Simply because in the social discourse, imaginary friends are not a common concept, the parents and other people did not *first* speak to the child about his imaginary friend, upon which the child would begin to talk about his imaginary friend. The child invented it without having been able to receive this concept fom the social discourse. This is delusion.

But believing concepts that are part of the social discourse, is, by our definitions, not delusion.

If someone becomes interested in the ideas of, say, vegetarianism, Neonazism, Greenpeace, or any other already existing set of beliefs, this does not qualify as delusion.


* * *

M*W: With religion, the difference is that the "imaginary friend" has been created for you. Since when did faith become "rational?" Rationality is something that can be proven as truthful. Religion is not a rational concept. It's all based on delusion, and "for thousands of years," believed "by millions of people," does not make their beliefs rational.

“ rational faith ”

Is an oxymoron. The two terms are mutually exclusive.

The term "rational" is about "proportional", while you two are arguing for something else.

For example, accepting some empiric data as true is an act of rational faith: One believes them to be true in proportion to his understanding of reality so far.


* * *

Not at all. Let's not forget that the creators of those beliefs knew about as much of the world/universe as 6 year olds do - and as they have progressed more, and as societies have changed those beliefs have changed to suit.

You are committing chronological snobbery again -- "If it is old, it must be wrong."

It remains now simply as a desire for man to be more than what he is, for him to feel 'more at home' with his worthless little life, and slightly more important than he's ever going to actually be.

Worthless little life. You think that this is what life truly IS, for everyone?

However, I am interested to hear you rationalise how belief in an imaginary sky being and belief in an imaginary friend are any different.

If you keep insisting that the only definition of God is that of "imaginary sky being", then no matter what anyone says about God, nothing will move you from your cemented position.

It's like as if in your dictionary, an apple is depicted as what others refer to as "orange". So when there are oranges on the table, you insist to call them apples. And if someone asks you, "Would you like one of these oranges?", you reply, "Thse aren't oranges, they are apples!"

The fact of the matter is that people have problems. All of us. It is an inescapable reality. When it comes down to it, people deal with their problems in many different ways.

Some will turn to alcohol, some will commit suicide, and some will start praying to the clouds. You're probably aware that the majority of religious people, (unless born into it), will say: "I found my faith after [insert really bad experience here]".

Religious belief is a scapegoat - much like the millions of other avenues of escape that we as humans are prone to take when things get a little too much. While religion might be more successful at diverting the mind from it's problems, it is not made anymore 'real' because of it. It's no different to someone worshipping a leprechaun - which you might consider irrational, but to him is completely 'normal'.

I think this is a hasty generalisation.
You are leaving out one very important phase: When something "really bad" happens, esp. like a near death experience, surviving a bad car accident, for example, what can happen after that is that the person finds himself in an intense mental state. If you survive when all common sense pointed that you won't, you find yourself thinking in extremes, in terms of life and death, whether you like it or not, for such was the experience. This is not usual everyday thinking. It is upon facing such extremes, that one more drastically considers the value and course of one's life, the need to make decisions that one wasn't used to make before.
It is only after this that some people turn to religion. Not for consolation or out of fear, but because of the need to make clear, life-long decisions. And only established religions offer room for such decisions.

So what problems does religion aim to conquer? To find that out one must look to the main principles of the chosen religion. If we were to look at christianity what do we see?

1) You're special

Why do you think that "being special" can be a problem?

2) You're loved

Most people want to be loved. Wanting to be loved is not a problem.

3) You'll be reunited with your family

4) You'll live forever - be loved forever, be with your family forever, and be special forever.

This is true only for Mormonism.

I'm not exactly bothered about political correctness. Nowadays you can't even say "postman" without some nutcup having a go at you. I consider it petty stupidity at best. I also have very little interest in politics in general. Bush is just another human being who does what he, and his advisors think is best. It really doesn't matter who agrees with it.

It does very much matter who agrees with it! People vote. They vote for governments, they vote for presidents. Presidents don't just elect themselves.
And some governments and presidents have great power.


* * *

However, loving somebody is much better than loving the nonexistent god.

Again, you are implying that God does not exist. You can't prove a negative.

Most of the athiests here were originally part of religion. Most of the athiests I know deeply believed in religion in the beginning, but the flaws in religion caused them to change their beliefs. See when a doubt occurs about something, it is human nature to clarify the doubt. However in god's cause you cannot do so.

Tell me: What doubts can one have about religion?
Whether your religion is the right one or not?
Whether God is omni-benevolent or not?
Whether God is omnipotent or not?
Whether there is a heaven or not?
Whether you are going to heaven or not?

I'm serious.

Most of the theists I know (and I know a lot) believe in god because they want to go to "heaven".

Like Pavlovian dogs ...
But to assume all people who believe in God believe so because they want to go to heaven is fallacious.

Why do you think atheists start believeing in god when they get old? Because they want to continue their existance so they assume that believeing in god means you can get a afterlife. First of all, the idea of afterlife was probably created to convince those dying that this is not the end.

This is all speculation, of course. But frankly, I do not think that the peoples of old were afraid of death, not as much as we are. They had an incomparably more visceral experience of death, facing it every day, death was something very common to them. I don't think it was fear that lead them in their explaining of death. It is a logical problem to establish the difference between a living and a dead. This difference had to be accounted for somehow -- hence the concept of soul.

Water, I notice that you have a specific talent for getting people into debate about the existance of god in every thread you post.

Why, thank you! This is my intention, to get people to debate the existence of God, yes.

You know as well as I do, that these debates won't come to an end. Maybe after 1000 years maybe. The only thing that you thread is doing is making people swear at each other in the end. Is that you aim?

I start threads because I am interested in these issues.
If people begin to swear at eachother, this just shows how they are.

It is unfair to say "The only thing that you thread is doing is making people swear at each other in the end."
Personally, I get a lot out of these conversations -- apart from the swearing.

I am not asking my questions because I had too much time on my hands or because I would want to upset people. I feel innerly compelled to ask hese questions, so I ask them. I could read books on the topic, and I do -- but this just does not compare to actually having a person to talk to, to be able to ask questions.

yes, you have the freedom of speech. But sometimes it is better not to say anything when you know a conflict is going to occur as an end result.

I see your point. But if the conflict is in view, then I simply apply the "See when a doubt occurs about something, it is human nature to clarify the doubt." -- if there's a conflict, then there is some doubt.

Besides, predominately in this forum, the members are atheists. You cannot not convince them that god exists. This is because they already believed in religion before and then realized the flaw and stopped believing.

My aim is not to "reconvert atheists", I am much too busy with myself to bother about other people's personal convictions.

Anyone can start a religion. Tomorrow, I can say the true religion in the world is Religion X. And say suppose after 10 years everyone starts believing in my religion, then what about the other religions? Aren't religion supposed to be something that "god" directly takes control of/involved in? If anyone can start a religion then what is the point of religion?

See, how many questions you still have!

What is the true meaning/value for believing in a particular religion? Nothing.

This is a statement of faith.

Believe in god if you want but you don't have to be a part of religions to do so.

I think you have a rather narrow view on the importance and impact of discourses, as well as on what makes a discourse meaningful.

Everyone's ideologies are different. Religions were once useful to stop men from killing themselves. Religions' main purpose is to make sure that humans remain ethical and morality exists in the society. But these days we have governments to do so. We don't need religions that promote wars, propoganda's. We have seen in history how religions have used the idea of god to their selfishness.

Start a thread. It's too much to discuss this here.
In fact, there's material for several threads here.

However, for a fact all these books were written by men. So, they are of no value/importance to us.

Really? So The Bill of Rights, and all the legislatures of all the countries in the world, all the constitutions -- which are all written by men! -- "are of no value/importance to us"?

The only book that I have read which doesn't promote the religion's propoganda but rather explains ethics and morality is the Bhagvad Gita. Bible is half and half. However, quoting fromn the Koran is absolutely a waste of time. Koran (I have read it) is all about the religion's propoganda. has nothing to do with ethics. Every sentence promotes the belief of Allah (The God of Islam).

What do you think quoting from those religious texts is trying to prove?

Hope I offended nobody. And I can only hope that these kind of threads aren't posted again to promote the battle between atheists and theists.

My, are you convinced that you know my reasons for posting this.
An atheist must guard his faith all the time ...

And if there is a battle, then there is also a reason to it. A reason worth exploring.

 

[cole grey]

Yes, the ex negativo approach is especially welcome at the beginning of an inquiry.

Don't forget the middle and end of the inquiry.

Also, not looking for a simple answer allows the possiblility of finding a complete answer to arise. That was my encouragement for you, me, and everyone else.