To Theists: Why do you value hope more than truth?

[Crunchy Cat]

I guess it would prove to me that god does not exist - what else?

Then what? What about your hopes of an afterlife in heaven for example? What do you do?

- just the same as if you encountered apples, water, rediation, and plamsa that definitively proved that God does exist, it would prove to you that god does exist - the problem at the moment is that I can't fathom why someone would call upon these things to determine how god does not exist .....

I can't fatham that either. It was simply a "what if" exmplification. If you wanted to be more realistic we could consider what happens if scientific knowledge attains a level of creating artificial consciousness. That invalidates the idea of a 'soul' and gaggle of 'God's that go with it.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Right, so there are some subjective claims that are not necessarily verifiable. That doens't mean they don't exist.

I agree, and at the same time there are objective claims which are utterly false because of misinterpretation.

That it's possible.

That its possible they experience something or that its possible they have some sort of exotic energy flowing in their bodies?

People that have this know that it is not recognized by western science. They know that they have these uniques and distinct physical effects and that western science does not recognize their existence.

Does it give people hope that the universe saw fit to 'give them' some special type of physical experience? If 'Western science' objectified it, would happens to those people's hope?

At the same time this phenomenon is accounted for in eastern religions. The fact that this disctinct phenomenon exists is more or less undeniable (in my opinion)

I agree.

I just wonder why it is has never been touched upon by western science (even if it is just to prove that nothing objective is happening, if thats the case).

It's not really that important or interesting. I can send a blaze of that 'energy feeling' all the way from my head to my toes sometimes. There has been only one semi-interesting effect of it; otherwise, there isn't very much utility to it. I suspect its something that arose inert and turned vestigial.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Nothing. I still have to die.

Do you think most Thiests would have the same reaction?

Well, you should abandon them.

Do you also abandon your hope? What becomes of it?

From a certain perspective shit looks pretty bleak. Living in a meaningless universe where nothing you do matters because ultimately you are just a chance creation in an infinte void where the only thing that is certain is your eventual death is pretty bleak. Thats why many people need hope.

If everyone had different education and knew that living is ridiculously meaningful, that nothing is random, and that their actions strengthen the ability of human life to persist, would people still need hope?

 

[grover]

That its possible they experience something or that its possible they have some sort of exotic energy flowing in their bodies?

They are experiencing some phenomenon which is known aobut in eastern traditions but unknown to western science. It could be some type of energy, chi, or prana. After all people that really know about this first hand say it is that.

Does it give people hope that the universe saw fit to 'give them' some special type of physical experience? If 'Western science' objectified it, would happens to those people's hope?

Not sure. What I was getting at was there at was this phenomenon seems like it might one day be objectively verifiable.

It's not really that important or interesting. I can send a blaze of that 'energy feeling' all the way from my head to my toes sometimes. There has been only one semi-interesting effect of it; otherwise, there isn't very much utility to it. I suspect its something that arose inert and turned vestigial.

On the other hand isn't it possible that you are only getting a small bit of it? I've heard of some pretty powerful effects, like people getting knocked to the floor, massive currents of energy running up spine, etc. But, my main point about bringing up kudalini was whether or not it is considered objectively existing. In my opinion clearly some type of objective (as opposed to purely imaginary) phenomenon exists which western science is more or less unaware of.

 

[grover]

Do you think most Thiests would have the same reaction?

No.

Do you also abandon your hope? What becomes of it?

Hope is only necessary in a bad situation. Hopefully, the universe as it is when one gives up ones illusions is not a bad situation.

If everyone had different education and knew that living is ridiculously meaningful, that nothing is random, and that their actions strengthen the ability of human life to persist, would people still need hope?

People need hope anytime they are facing a something painful.

 

[KennyJC]

Western science is only beginning to recognize that this is a distinct phenomenon.

I very much doubt that. The term 'psychic center' is meaningless. You can't find something that doesn't exist.

You know I've seen alot of anecdotal accounts of really tight-laced super rational people taking up yoga or meditation for relaxation and the end up having their minds changed. Correct me if I'm wrong. You're not doing yoga or meditating everyday right? Yet you think you can intelligently comment on what the mental effects of these practices are...that is just a tad arrogant isn't it.

If I meditated, as a strong atheist I'm not going to find anything. I may find it enjoyable for many reasons, but it's not going to get me anywhere towards thinking that there is something supernatural behind it.

Who did you see? And stupid is your subjective opinion of how they looked.

I don't recall. A few high profile people in Eastern religion anyway... and when they are actually interviewed by someone who won't just accept their word that the body has psychic centers and question them on proof... their eyes just glaze over. That is my whole point behind spiritualist mumbo jumbo - they just make it up as they go along and there's no real rationale behind it.

I watched a program called "Beginners guide to:" and it started with Christianity then Islam for which I learned nothing since I am aware of their practices... but Hinduism was the big surprise, because I knew nothing about it at first... and afterwards I realized it was even more ridiculous than Islam and Christianity. The 'wise' man featured in that documentary certainly wasn't wise.

Meditation is a spiritual practice. You can't take away the spiritual aspect of it. Sure, it'll calm you down, just don't flip the fuck out when you have some insights into reality or realize that the ego is an illusion.

I bet you I could meditate and there would be no mystics involved. And if you claimed I was experiencing the spiritual, then that would just be semantics (which a lot of spirituality is).

Did I really state that? Or did I just say you should make snap judgements about subjects your ignorant about.

I am a pro at understanding the mind-set of a religious / superstitious / spiritual / supernaturalist.

Look, I don't know about energy centers or kundalini all that much. But, these phenomenon are universally recognized in eastern meditative traditions. Meditation is among toher things a method of becoming more aware of ones mind and body, whose to say these people aren't becoming aware of things the rest of us are not aware of?

Aware of what exactly? Sometimes I have epiphanies on the way to work, something that seems profound... but it's not spiritual.

No, people didn't just make up these energy centers or start believing in them. People that spent years in meditation started to experience them. It's not just faith.

I highly doubt they experiences anything of the sort. Bit like when the Pope suggested Mary's body ascended to heaven despite it not being in the scriptures, and today it's an established belief. He claimed he heard it from god... I say he pulled it out of his asshole... just like eastern mystics and their psychic centers.

Look up the research by Dr. Ian Stevenson. There is some scientific evidence. Here's what Carl Sagan had to say on the subject: "At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any way other than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true."

I've heard many stuff like this before, but there needs to be good proof. I heard a story of a boy who described in detail a house he used to live and the names of people who died 1 or 2 generations ago. But his brain is 6 years old, memories don't just appear in someones head from before they were born. His parents probably did a bit of research on an old family and fed the boy the details and so the people looking into this case will be subsequently amazed at the boys accuracy. It's not hard to fake something like that.

If they're made up.

Ghosts are quite clearly made up. People want to hoax them, people want to believe in them, people fear them... therefor the bogus study of ghosts is rampant. Any citings of ghosts are easily dismissed out of hand. Why no ghosts in public places were hundreds of people see the same ghost? Always people half asleep in a spooky bedroom.

You take your opinion to be fact. Thats not conducive to truth.

I guarantee you, on the subject of the paranormal and religion, I will be right virtually 100% of the time.

I don't personally believe this. But are you telling me St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine didn't know how to think.

I will let them away with it as they never lived to see the age of reason.

 

[madanthonywayne]

In other words... truth is taking a back-seat to hope and I want to know why.

You present a false dichotomy. Why should the existance of God be predicated on any particular "truth". A theist says God created the universe. An atheist says the universe just happened by accident.

The existance of apples or cats tells us nothing about what caused the big bang. It tells us nothing about whether complex lifeforms just occurred randomly or whether the universe was designed in such a way as to make life inevitable.

Was the universe created as the result of a random vacuum fluctuation? Was there a creater who said, "Let there be light" and ignited the big bang? Who knows? Who can know?

Clearly, if there is a God, he existed before and, therefore, outside the universe. Do things happen for a reason, or is it random chance? Believe what you want. But belief is all it is. Whether you're an atheist or a theist, it's still just a matter of belief. There is no proof either way.

That being the case, why not choose hope?

 

[lightgigantic]

Then what? What about your hopes of an afterlife in heaven for example? What do you do?

then, if the said apple cart toppled so would the apples - what else?

I can't fatham that either. It was simply a "what if" exmplification. If you wanted to be more realistic we could consider what happens if scientific knowledge attains a level of creating artificial consciousness. That invalidates the idea of a 'soul' and gaggle of 'God's that go with it.

I agree - if science could actually demonstrate abiogenesis rather than gaggle about it, perhaps you would be talking about science as opposed to science fiction

So by sense perception, you mean ultimately the fundamental human senses?

sense perception is determined by consciousness - in other words there is a gulf of difference between the sense perception of a liberated and conditioned personalities

Yes. Ultimately, what you have is a set of senses that you verify by reason and experiment.

as a gross example however, still you find that there is a gulf of difference between what is verified by physicists and what is verified by high school drop outs

I have many, many reported instances of birds flying. I have in fact seen them myself. I could be misinterpreting the entire phenomenon. But I have actually caught one of these things and they really do fly! There is a new science called "aerodynamics" that remarkably predicts this behavior and even allows humans to reproduce it! Consistently!

actually I would argue that birds are more effective flyers than anything we have churned out - but anyway

Not one of the claims you or anyone makes for this god creature stands up to even such simple, rudimentary examination.

that depends who is doing the examining - I mean there is hardly a single claim of advanced physics that is verified by a host of high school drop outs too

Why not? Wait. I'll save you the trouble. If only I were trained in theology it would be just as obvious that god exists.

more correctly, if you were properly educated in religious principles and actually practicedthem , the hard knot of false ego would be reduced slightly in your self, which would enable the worship of god in a humble spirit to bear tangible results

Wait! Even children with no training whatsoever can see birds flying... Hmmm....[/QUOTE]
they don't do so well trying to spot electrons out their bedroom window though

 

[Crunchy Cat]

They are experiencing some phenomenon which is known aobut in eastern traditions but unknown to western science. It could be some type of energy, chi, or prana. After all people that really know about this first hand say it is that.

Why would you attribute it to some type of energy, chi, prana, etc. rather than considering much more simple and practical solutions?

Not sure. What I was getting at was there at was this phenomenon seems like it might one day be objectively verifiable.

My guess is that it is now, just its not very interesting.

On the other hand isn't it possible that you are only getting a small bit of it? I've heard of some pretty powerful effects, like people getting knocked to the floor, massive currents of energy running up spine, etc.

I would be very skeptical of anything 'fantastic'. The only effect that I have found could probably be measured rather easily.

But, my main point about bringing up kudalini was whether or not it is considered objectively existing.

That the feeling exists is most certain. That it might be some magical chakra or <insert fantsy here> is just silly, BUT, and its a big but, if that sillyness gives someone hope then it seems to become very valuable.

In my opinion clearly some type of objective (as opposed to purely imaginary) phenomenon exists which western science is more or less unaware of.

It does and I don't think its really that important.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

No.

Why are you different?

Hope is only necessary in a bad situation. Hopefully, the universe as it is when one gives up ones illusions is not a bad situation.

When things seem bad then, it sounds like you are saying people place hope in illusion. Why choose illusion?

People need hope anytime they are facing a something painful.

Do you need hope when facing something painful?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

then, if the said apple cart toppled so would the apples - what else?

Then what. Do you just roll over and throw the towel in?

I agree - if science could actually demonstrate abiogenesis rather than gaggle about it, perhaps you would be talking about science as opposed to science fiction

IMO, science will likely result in computerized AC far before biological AC. If that happens, are the worlds apples just going to topple over with a dull thud?

 

[Adstar]

So, I'll give a little insight into where I am going with this. We have this sub-forum on a science site in which 'God' existence is repeatedly fought for. It seems as if scientific knowledge keeps on chipping away at the validity of people's beliefs... invalidating what they might have considered 'big important questions' or what they might have considered 'correct answers'. When this happens, it seems to remove 'hope' (ex. the hope that consciousness persists after death). To compensate, such people find creatuve ways to shield their beliefs or outright embrace new ones that give them that hope. In other words... truth is taking a back-seat to hope and I want to know why.

Ohhh a little less vague and mushy. Why didn't you come out with this as your question in the first place???

Of course i don't see it the way you do. The ultimate truth is God. Your "truths"? are undermined by mankind’s inability to understand beyond what he sees.

Hope rests in the knowledge of God not in the knowledge that you have. Your kind of knowledge only gives man the ability to do more and more harm and increase the sorrows on earth.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You present a false dichotomy. Why should the existance of God be predicated on any particular "truth". A theist says God created the universe. An atheist says the universe just happened by accident.

What if you find out you are 100% incorrect and learn that 'God' in any shape or form does not exist? What about your hopes of an afterlife and that your dead relatives are happy and well? Do you just fall out of the apple cart?

The existance of apples or cats tells us nothing about what caused the big bang. It tells us nothing about whether complex lifeforms just occurred randomly or whether the universe was designed in such a way as to make life inevitable.

Was the universe created as the result of a random vacuum fluctuation? Was there a creater who said, "Let there be light" and ignited the big bang? Who knows? Who can know?

What if these questions were answered by science. What it if was well known what 'caused' the big bang, and that complex life forms did not occur randomly, nor that they were designed? Where does that leave you? The hope of afterlife gone, the hope of <xxx> gone...

Clearly, if there is a God, he existed before and, therefore, outside the universe. Do things happen for a reason, or is it random chance? Believe what you want. But belief is all it is. Whether you're an atheist or a theist, it's still just a matter of belief. There is no proof either way.

That being the case, why not choose hope?

What if every big question you had was answered by science and its absolutely the opposite of what you hoped for. What then?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Ohhh a little less vague and mushy. Why didn't you come out with this as your question in the first place???

Did it change the question?

Of course i don't see it the way you do. The ultimate truth is God. Your "truths"? are undermined by mankind’s inability to understand beyond what he sees.

Hope rests in the knowledge of God not in the knowledge that you have. Your kind of knowledge only gives man the ability to do more and more harm and increase the sorrows on earth.

What if scientific knowledge resulted in 'God's existence being undeniably proven false? What happens to that hope you have placed in the knowledge of 'God'?

 

[Adstar]

LOL It is far more likely that if it was allowed to continue on its path, scientific endeavour would eventually come around full circle and prove that God exists.

But i believe God will intervene before this happens.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Oniw17]

Let me get this straight, your

you're*

lightgigantic, ... are there any other christians on this board?... or others handle the question. I'm all for it I suppose.

LG isn't a christian.

I think your requirement for fact to fall within the perimeters of your powers of sense perception, or alternatively the perimeters of the powers of sense perception of persons you have faith in, is some sort of faith

So you don't agree with the idea that philosophers/theologians should only work with things the we can perceive(since anything else is nothing but an idea you have)?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

LOL It is far more likely that if it was allowed to continue on its path, scientific endeavour would eventually come around full circle and prove that God exists.

What it proved the exact opposite? Where does that leave you?

 

[Adstar]

What it proved the exact opposite? Where does that leave you?

It will not prove the exact opposite.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Crunchy Cat]

It will not prove the exact opposite.

Humor me, pretend that it happend and the container you placed hope into collapsed like a house of cards. You have a great mind for putting yourself in hypothetical situations and making predictions. Tell me what happens.

 

[Photizo]

Humor me, pretend that it happend and the container you placed hope into collapsed like a house of cards. You have a great mind for putting yourself in hypothetical situations and making predictions. Tell me what happens.

...if Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless...we apostles would all be lying about God, for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave, but that can't be true if there is no resurrection of the dead... if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless...you are still under condemnation for your sins...all who have died believing in Christ have perished!... if we have hope in Christ only for this life, we are the most miserable people in the world.

If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.

Some form of Stoicism, Epicureanism, Hedonism, or Existentialism is about all that is left. When the novelty of any of those wears off, despair and a pervasive sense of meaninglessness would tend to intrude upon ones thoughts...then, eventually, suicide...in order to 'escape' the utter nonsense/madness.