Who created God?

[jayleew]

So why didn't Columbus fall off the edge of the Earth?
Oh that's right, because the popular opinion that the world was flat was FALSE.

Correct. But, the theory wasn't false until he did not fall off and people had a chance to hear of it. Back in England they were laughing at him.

Something is true when it is agreement with reality. No one's opinion or belief makes a shit of a difference.

If I told everyone in the world that I had a dog, is my truth everyone's truth? Do I have a dog?

Yes, reality confirms the agreement from everyone, but it is not true until everyone accepts it is true.

So, if I say there is a God and there are still 30% of people who agree, then there could be a God, or there might not be.

If what you are saying is true and that, in reality, evolution is how we came to be, why is it not true? Society doesn't accept it yet. Your truth is not truth until it is accepted as reality. If you disagree, go ask your Christian friends if your theories are correct.

Truth is deemed by society regardless of it is really the truth or not. Hitler said, "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth." Is that statement true? Not until everyone agrees with it. Until then, it is controversial.

So, the fact that there are still unbelievers makes Christianity untrue to you and many others. Yes, according to this logic 1+1=2, but Christianity and Evolution are not the truth, even if one of us is right. That is why it matters that there are a number of believers or non believers. It says, "Continue the quest for truth, it is not over."

My buddy that I was talking about before says that Christians need to get smart again, that we lost our smarts back in the dark ages, and there is finally a movement of them. I understand the need for it now more than ever. We have intellect, but we lack the knowledge because of our close-mindedness of religion. We do as I did in the past when I abandonded Evolution to the wind. I made the mistake, and it is this forum that has awoken me again. The Lord has taught me scriptures and his nature, now he wants me to learn the ways of the world. It makes sense to me. I have been rejecting it so long! I told my buddy, "Nah, I have enough truth to believe. I don't need that mumbo jumbo called Philosophy and science. I have truth enough." Well, it's time I broke the mold in order to help you all understand that there is scientific evidence all around us. I'll find it. Stay tuned to the forum if you care to, it could take awhile. Though, you may be dead waiting. All the same, there is hope.

 

[MarcAC]

It is now obvious that you do exist. And although I am confused as to your purpose, I thank you for my life.

The quote above would definitely show your general state of confusion - not only about God's purpose; thanking the God with no purpose for giving you life - for creating you.

Everyone has faith Raithere... no one has faith in faith; that doesn't make sense. You must have some faith in your intellect such that you would allow it to prevent your belief. Faith is a base - without faith/trust in something you have nothing. Some call it assumption but that doesn't compute in my mind: How can you believe an assumption without any sort of proof? Since all of our knowledge system if based on "assumptions" then none who hold such a view can believe anything.

I study the physical sciences, read around biology, philosophy and religon when I find time; the strange thing is that what I see compels me to believe. You say you do not recognise absolute truth then how on earth do you function? Why accept or reject anything? What do you base acceptance/rejection on?

If God doesn't exist existence is senseless... even when we "make sense" of it.

 

[Raithere]

You misquote me. I said you have to believe to receive, quite different that you to have to believe to believe.

Okay. It doesn't change the fact that your statement means that you have belief before understanding. I simply don't work that way.

Is God welcome? You say he is. Do you want him to come down? From your mouth comes nothing but disbelief and distaste. If you said those things to me, I wouldn't want to come either.

Sure is a sensitive fucker, aint he?

Besides, you ask for a sign first to believe. When did that ever work with God? You are tempting God. Get off your high horse and go to him first, then he will show you himself.

Been there, done that. When I came to a crisis with my faith I did all that. I asked for a sign. I prayed for understanding. I begged for help. The only way through the abyss was on my own. And I am better for it. I've experienced epiphany. I've experienced unity. I've experienced enlightenment. I've never experienced God.

How well did the Pharisees do with Jesus? They knew the scriptures, and so does Satan, but they did not follow it. So you have a better chance of not sounding foolish with science, than with law of God, who lives in me.

I don't care if I sound foolish to you. If you are wise though the God who lives in you then enlighten me.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

The quote above would definitely show your general state of confusion - not only about God's purpose; thanking the God with no purpose for giving you life - for creating you.

Of course, that's not what I said. Try reading it again. I said I am confused as to his purpose, not that I thought he had none.

Everyone has faith Raithere... no one has faith in faith; that doesn't make sense. You must have some faith in your intellect such that you would allow it to prevent your belief. Faith is a base - without faith/trust in something you have nothing. Some call it assumption but that doesn't compute in my mind: How can you believe an assumption without any sort of proof? Since all of our knowledge system if based on "assumptions" then none who hold such a view can believe anything.

Nope. Sorry. I do indeed reduce it to assumptions. Operating principles, pragmatic decisions that allow me to have a functional perspective from which to think and act. But I must admit they are assumptions because I cannot prove them.

I study the physical sciences, read around biology, philosophy and religon when I find time; the strange thing is that what I see compels me to believe. You say you do not recognise absolute truth then how on earth do you function? Why accept or reject anything? What do you base acceptance/rejection on?

Evidence and logical argument. When that fails I'm reduced to pragmatism. I don't like it but it's there none-the-less.

If God doesn't exist existence is senseless... even when we "make sense" of it.

Adding God doesn't help because God's uncaused existence would be just as senseless.
As always, adding God to the equation doesn't resolve anything, it just pushes the question back one step.

~Raithere

 

[Godless]

Sure is a sensitive fucker, aint he?

Not only is he sensitive, but likes to threaten you because you don't believe!.

See that's the whole main issue, I have against the god concept. I'ts like having a girlfriend, threaten her to love you or else you would make her life miserable after death?

Some excelent quotes:

*"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
"[My] deep religiosity... found an abrupt ending at the age of twelve, through the reading of popular scientific books."
"It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence which is dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings."
"A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compasion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely but striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security."
*Albert Einstein

**"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
-- Isaac Asimov

**"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God."
-- Thomas Edison

**"All this [Paul's writing] is nothing better than the jargon of a conjurer who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told." Age of Reason
-- Thomas Paine

*"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts."

"A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the word uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence."

"Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom."

* Bertrand Russell


"The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma."

Abraham Lincoln

Quotes 2 think

Mysticism is a mental desease. (Godless)

G.

 

[MarcAC]

Try reading it again. I said I am confused as to his purpose, not that I thought he had none.

But then why the confusion Raithere?

Nope. Sorry. I do indeed reduce it to assumptions. Operating principles, pragmatic decisions that allow me to have a functional perspective from which to think and act. But I must admit they are assumptions because I cannot prove them. [] Evidence and logical argument. When that fails I'm reduced to pragmatism. I don't like it but it's there none-the-less.

What drives your pragmatic decision-making Raithere? Evidence and logical argument? But what is "evidence" and what is "logical argument"? Theists present that to you all the time I'm sure. The most compelling arguments from theists I have seen you answer thus (in some paraphrase): "It doesn't have to be that way" [see below].

Adding God doesn't help because God's uncaused existence would be just as senseless.
As always, adding God to the equation doesn't resolve anything, it just pushes the question back one step.

No, it resolves a lot while elliminating the question; why ask of the creator of that which is not created? Accept your limits... that's what is done in QM no? There must be something uncaused; we cannot avoid that conclusion. The question is which makes more sense. A universe, uncaused (oscillating or whatever) which makes life essentially purposeless or an Intelligent Creator,the First Cause, which created it with a purpose... with an outcome... us... and whatever higher form the universe may express itself in. Assigning any values other than intelligent, personal creator would then make it senseless because that could easily be equated to the universe. Saying "God Caused (Is)" or saying "the universe is" do not amount to equal statements. Saying God changes a lot, saying the universe changes nothing.

 

[Raithere]

But then why the confusion Raithere?

Because I am unable to resolve what purpose a deity could have in creating the world the way it is.
Other than, let's say, perverse whim.

What drives your pragmatic decision-making Raithere?

Pragmatism. For instance, I cannot prove that I am not simply imagining the world or that an intrinsically chaotic world is filtered into an illusory order by my senses. But if I assume that my perception is only illusion I have no foundation for thought or action. So my pragmatic assumption is that my senses are more or less reliable indicators of an actual external reality.

Evidence and logical argument? But what is "evidence" and what is "logical argument"? Theists present that to you all the time I'm sure. The most compelling arguments from theists I have seen you answer thus (in some paraphrase): "It doesn't have to be that way" [see below].

My reply is not "It doesn't have to be that way" my reply is "How do you know this is correct?" I'm not concerned with "what ifs".

No, it resolves a lot while elliminating the question; why ask of the creator of that which is not created?

Nope the question still remains. Meaning is like movement. You cannot have meaning if there is only one thing. Meaning is a relationship between things.

Accept your limits... that's what is done in QM no? There must be something uncaused; we cannot avoid that conclusion.

Agreed.

Occam's Razor states we should make no more assumptions than needed. So we can assume the Universe is uncaused. Or we can assume the Universe is caused and that there is a God who caused it, who is himself uncaused. There's no point to the added assumption. It merely moves the property of being uncaused back one step. It doesn't explain how something could be without being caused. It doesn't allow you to escape the conclusion. It doesn't provide us with anything except a repository for that which has not or cannot be explained.

This is, IMO, mostly what the concept of God is about anyway. "We can't explain that so it must have been God, and God is unfathomable so we don't have to try and explain God." God is not a logical escape clause.

The question is which makes more sense. A universe, uncaused (oscillating or whatever) which makes life essentially purposeless or an Intelligent Creator,the First Cause, which created it with a purpose... with an outcome...

Once again, you arbitrarily assign a property to God that you deny for everything else. In this case it is the derivation of meaning or purpose.

If we apply your premise (something uncaused has no meaning or purpose) to God then God has no meaning or purpose.

The next logical question is; how can something with no meaning or purpose imbue something else with meaning and purpose.

Again, the answer of "God" explains nothing. We're still left with the question of where meaning comes from. It's just been pushed back a step.

~Raithere

 

[killslay]

if god can just will himself into existance, then surely life could of willed itself into existence, the first thing to exist may of been some kind of bio mass which willed itself to exist then evolved into life and subconciously we're willing ourselves to evolve.
the problem with the whole religion stick is that blind faith is frankly foolish, theres just too many things that suggest that maybe god doesn't exist.Besides if god really cared who beleive in him or not he would be making regluar vists to remind us. (and some crackpot claiming to be the messiah every thousand years or so doesn't count, any random street magician can claim hes the the son of god)

 

[jayleew]

Okay. It doesn't change the fact that your statement means that you have belief before understanding. I simply don't work that way.

I know you don't work that way. There aren't many that do.

Sure is a sensitive fucker, aint he?

I'm not sensitive you can say what you wish, but I'm getting tired of repeating myself, and I'm getting tired of this debate of God's existence where he cannot be proved or disproved in my mind at this time. I hear that there is evidence, I don't have it. I will evaluate the evidence and assimilate it into my truth. I came here only to stand as a Christian that is not a fanatic and one that has a logical mind.

I don't care if I sound foolish to you. If you are wise though the God who lives in you then enlighten me.

The only thing I proclaim is to have the Holy Spirit who provides discernment of the scriptures, and the wisest thing I know about Christianity is that it is not how much you know that makes you Holy, but how much you are willing to give. I myself need to work more on the give.

The only thing I mean by saying what I said is that you are in a better position to argue about science, philosophy, and theory than Christianity. You are just a bit askew on your understandings of its workings.

 

[jayleew]

Not only is he sensitive, but likes to threaten you because you don't believe!.

Where's the threat you claim I made. If I threatened anyone here, please say so and I will apologize.

See that's the whole main issue, I have against the god concept. I'ts like having a girlfriend, threaten her to love you or else you would make her life miserable after death?

He is a jealous God. Sorry. If you were God and you wanted something out of your subjects, but they didn't want to give you it and you created them, is it within your right to do anything you want with the created?

 

[Godless]

Where's the threat you claim I made. If I threatened anyone here, please say so and I will apologize.

You misunderstand. Raithere & I meant god/God.

He is a jealous God. Sorry. If you were God and you wanted something out of your subjects, but they didn't want to give you it and you created them, is it within your right to do anything you want with the created?

Why would an all powerfull, omnieverything, being have a "human emotion" such as jealousy? Wouldn't it had known beforehand that there would be unbelivers?. So why be jealous, if it indeed created everything, it also created the unbeliever!.

I can't tell you a god does not exist. I can only point you out to were the concept sprang from:

click

click

Julian Jaynes

book review

Other sources of ancient mental disorders:

ancient schizophrenia

Hallucinations and illusions are disturbances of perception that are common in people suffering from schizophrenia. Hallucinations are perceptions that occur without connection to an appropriate source. Although hallucinations can occur in any sensory form - auditory (sound), visual (sight), tactile (touch), gustatory (taste), and olfactory (smell) - hearing voices that other people do not hear is the most common type of hallucination in schizophrenia. Voices may describe the patient's activities, carry on a conversation, warn of impending dangers, or even issue orders to the individual. Illusions, on the other hand, occur when a sensory stimulus is present but is incorrectly interpreted by the individual.

click

This is interesting

Thus my conclusion: Misticism is a mental disorder.

Godless

 

[psycho-sth-african]

I can also tell you where the concept of God came from, Read Romans 1,2, and also Eccesiastes 3:11, God created man to think about these things.

And this has got just as much proof as the sites you gave us, so which is more true, we have to choose wich bias is the biast bias to be biased with. And just for saftey's sake, I hope you choose my alternative. Because if you are right, then so what I still had a fun life. But what if I'm right and your wrong? then I had a fun life but I will also have a great eternity, while you wont. Maybe you will have a fun life just like me, but what about afterwards????
So just think upon this question What if your right? Then so what
What if I'm right? Then you are in serious trouble
Bye Jako

 

[jayleew]

Ouch, you evolutionists might have a problem. Well, as you all know I have begun anew my search for the truth. I can't wait to get to the good stuff. I don't have any proof for God yet, but listen to this:

First of all, the scientific community is skeptical of evolution.
In 2001, PBS had a series called "Evolution" said that all known scientific evidence supports Darwinian evolution as does virtually every reputable scientist in the world.

Well 100 of them from all over the Country put a two page advertisement in a national magazine saying "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examinination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

Among them was the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry and scientists at the Plasma Physics Lab at Princeton, the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institute, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories. Nobel nominee Henry F. Schaefer, the third most cited chemist in the world, James Tour of Rice University's Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, and Fred Figworth, professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate School.

Here is the best part: Imagine a man who grew up in the Presbyterian church and began his career studying geology at Princeton and was a firm believer in evolution. Halfway through college he considered himself to be an atheist.

He was influenced by the Darwinian paradigm. "The evolutionary story simply replaced the religious imagery I had grown up with. I didn't need the spiritual anymore."

Then this man went on to get his undergraduate degree from the University of California at Berkeley in geology and physics, and a minor in biology. At Yale he specialized in the nineteenth-century controversies surrounding Darwin. He wrote a critique of Darwinism in 1988. In 1994, Wells received a doctorate in molecular and cell biology from Berkeley, where he fouces primarily on vertebrate embryology and evolution. He later worked at Berkeley as a post-doctorate research biologist. He wrote on the scientific and cultural aspects of evolution in journals such as Origins and Design, The Scientist, Touchstone, The American Biology Teacher, and Rhetoric and Public Affairs. His technical articles were in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Development, and BioSystems.

While living in a remote cabin in California, he became enthralled by the grandeur of creation.

Today he is at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and published another book in 2000 called Icons of Evolution. Yes, some may have guessed that this double-doctorate is Jonathan Wells. In the book, Dr Wells concludes that "the idea that we're on the verge of explaining the origin of life naturalistically is just silly to me."

"...the word 'theory' is very slippery...I can make up a story, but it would be unsupported at every crucial step by any experimental evidence worth counting. I'm an experimentalist at heart. I'd want to see some evidence and it's just not there."

Hmmm, now it makes sense that "Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controverial minorities...Many of the scientists supporting [evolution] hold impressive credentials in science." Larry Hatfield in Science Digest.

Now, the only thing I have proven is that there are a lot of smart people who say Darwinism is gibberish and the number is apparently growing. Why is that?

All of this report above is a reference from The Case for A Creator and not my work.

By the way, anyone who thinks the book is just a "rant" by a Christian needs to read the first two chapters where Lee Strobel details why he believed in evolution, and he believed because of everything you all are telling me you believe it for. You sound the same as he does, but Lee did the footwork to find out what is going on here. "At the end you can decide for yourself whether their answers [investigated scientists] and explanations stand up to scrutiny. (Already we know Behe may be on one foot, but he is not nearly as decorated as Dr. Wells.) ... I didn't want there to be a God who would hold me responsible for my immoral lifestyle. As the legal-affairs editor at the most powerful newspaper in the Midwest, I was used to pushing people around, not humbly submitting myself to some invisible spiritual authority. I was trained not only to ask questions, however, but to go wherever the answers would take me. "


When his wife became a Christian he said, "What has gotten into you?" He couldn't comprehend how such a rational person could buy into an irrational religious concoction of wishful thinking, make-believe, mythology, and legend.

If anything, this book has some great quotes from smart evolutionists that go without rebuttal. Here is a cute one you can use: Time magazine said, "Charles Darwin didn't want to murder God, as he once put it. But he did."

Two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling said, "Science is the search for the truth."

All of this report above is a reference from The Case for A Creator by Lee Strobel (2004) and not my work.

The time when you stop searching is the time you are not scientific.

I challenge you all to dive into this book with me and discover if it is evidence enough, or just a piece of tinder. No skimming allowed, Raithere.

 

[jayleew]

Why would an all powerfull, omnieverything, being have a "human emotion" such as jealousy? Wouldn't it had known beforehand that there would be unbelivers?. So why be jealous, if it indeed created everything, it also created the unbeliever!.

I can't tell you a god does not exist. I can only point you out to were the concept sprang from:

God has emotions and we are made in his image. They are seen throughout the Bible. Even Jesus got ticked and pushed over some tables.

Yes, he knows there are unbelievers, but if they unbelieve in him, he is jealous. He wants all the attention, that is why we were created.

A couple of months ago, I heard a "Sermon" from an amazing thinker Louie Giglio of the Passion movement. In it he started to talk about how God sees us by diving into Genesis. When I first started hearing about him saying that my God is selfish I was getting upset and offended. My face flushed and the hairs stood up on the back of my head. Everything I knew from the Bible was from my perspective (wait a minute I'm important, God loves me! How can you say God is that way!). That's where I screwed up. It is not about me. I wasn't created for me, but for God. At that time I found out that I don't matter to God. He loves me and wants me to take part in his plan, but he can make it without me just the same. Too often we Christians think that we were God's gift to the world just becuase we were created last, as if God parted the way so we could enter. I was wrong, and I knew it in my heart. Louie's perspective was God's perspective. It changed my way of thinking.

So, my God is a jealous God of anyone who does not spend time with him. So what? God is God and we (Christians) need to stop wishing we were God. It was the first sin, and it continues today.

Later that day I met a bum on the street. I sat down with him, gave him some money and asked him how he was doing. Immediately he said, "You aren't going to start talking about Jesus, are you?" I was shocked! I said, "No, I just want to know if there is anything that I can do for you." I offered him some nachos that I had picked up on the way back to my hotel, but he wasn't hungry for food. He wanted the booze. He told me he did.

That day I learned that this faith we Christians say we have is not to be shoved down people's throats. We are to love our God, then our neighbor. We need to love and serve people where they are at.

That is why I came to this forum. I googled for "i hate christians" and the like. Boy there are some freaky sites. Well, this forum seemed interesting. I just want to try and take away the bad image that Christians have. That we can sit and talk about things that are tough and not with our Christian fluff. I apologize if I frustrate anyone with the fluff, but when I see scripture misquoted or misunderstood, it is in everyone's best interest that the error is remedied. I will not use the fluff to prove anything unless its logic is used against me.

So here I am pulled into a debate that scripture says to avoid. It is not sin, but it is pointless more or less, scripture says. Well, now I mean to finish my studies to learn more science to back up my belief because I already have the scriptures for those that respect the scriptures.

click

click

Julian Jaynes

book review

Other sources of ancient mental disorders:

ancient schizophrenia


click

This is interesting

Thus my conclusion: Misticism is a mental disorder.

Godless

Thank you, I will have to check these out!

 

[jayleew]

Definition of Schizophrenia

LOL! I know what it is after all I wanted to minor in Psychology. There has only been one occurence in my life that God actually spoke to me, but it wasn't a halllucination, a voice, or anything like that. Can you believe it took 26 years before I heard God's voice. It wasn't particularly good news for me, but a warning. Imagine if you will: It is like your conscience, but you feel emotion. It is like a whisper, but not of words. More like an efficient way of communication. He told me many things all at once. I could grab only bits and pieces, but they all were related. However, one sentence stuck after this event. "Time is running out. There will come a time when you need to make a choice."

Well I knew what he was talking about because the bits and pieces related enough.

Basically he was telling me either you are in or you are out. Don't play Christian with me. But the emotion was peace, so I felt no condemnation. Well, with his help, I made the choice. Anyway, I just thought the implication of Schizophrenia was funny. True from someone looking from the outside, I'll give you that I guess.

 

[ghost7584]

If Everything must have a cause (causes) in order to exist, then, who created God?

If God does not need to be created, then how can he exist?

Exodus 3:
13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

How would you understand I AM THAT I AM?

Definition: am
first person singular, present indicative of be.

Definition: be
1. To exist in actuality.

By definition it looks like:
I Exist That I Exist.

God does not need a creator.

 

[mis-t-highs]

rubbish thats Popeye's phrase, "I am's what I am's uk uk uk."

God does not need a creator.

prey tell us why.
it's the chicken and the egg senario.

 

[Godless]

God has emotions

It amazes me, an entity with no identity, other than the assumptions of many, an entity of which whom religionist claim "That man are incapable of understanding" have so many damn advocates clearly stating that they know it?. What the hell is uncomprehensible to this entity when so many advocates claim the latter?.

LOL! I know what it is after all I wanted to minor in Psychology. There has only been one occurence in my life that God actually spoke to me, but it wasn't a halllucination, a voice, or anything like that. Can you believe it took 26 years before I heard God's voice.

Thankyou of telling us of your dillusion, now we know we are dealing with a mild case of schizophrenia, caused by non-other than the mental disorder of mysticism.

Mysticism is defined as: 1. Any mental or physical attempt to recreate, evade, or alter reality through dishonesty, rationalizations, non sequiturs, emotions, deceptions, or force. 2. Any attempt to use the mind to create reality rather than to identify and integrate reality. Mysticism is a disease -- an epistemological disease that progressively undermines one's capacity to think, to identify reality, to live competently. Mysticism is also a collective disease that affects everyone who looks toward others, or the group, or the leader for solutions to his or her own problems and responsibilities. The symptoms of mysticism are dishonest communication, out-of-context assertions or attacks, use of non sequiturs, rationalizations, jumbled or nonintegrated thinking -- all leading to mind-created "realities". Those symptoms are most commonly exhibited by neocheating politicians, clergymen, union leaders, lawyers, media commentators, university professors, entertainment personalities. Such public neocheaters are the Typhoid-Mary spreaders of mysticism. In fact, through the ages, the most virulent spreaders of mysticism have been those neocheaters who wangle respect and values from the value producers of this world. Mysticism is a disease that blocks integrated thinking and brings stupidities through mind-created "realities". But mysticism is also the tool that neocheaters use to justify or rationalize the use of force, fraud, or dishonesty to usurp values from the producers. For example, mind-created "realities" are used to create false standards and guilt designed to beguile individuals into surrendering their earned values, power, and happiness. Mysticism is a rebellion against life, effort, and the conscious mind. Mysticism leaves people with sour bureaucratic faces and is the neocheater's tool for plundering the value producers. Mysticism is the only disease of the conscious mind. But as with drugs and alcohol, mysticism is seductively comfortable, like a warm, old friend -- until the destructive consequences and hangovers manifest themselves. Mysticism is based on a false and destructive idea: the primacy of emotions over reality. ...Mysticism is the opposite of Neo-Tech. The mind-created "realities" of mysticism eventually render all life unto death.

click

You may refute all you like, but you see yourself on the trap. The first thing about this particular mental disorder is "DENIAL". So deny all you want. We understand, it's not your fault. You are mentally disturbed, and you have our simpathies.

Though there's some research been done on your behalf by proffessional psychologist/psychiatrists and perhaps you'd be interested in reading this:
Journal of Humanistic Psychology

Have fun learning of your mental disorder!.

Godless

 

[yank]

But God does exist.

yeah he does... in our minds!

There was a time in history when the laws of physics cease to exist, so something must have created galaxies and solar systems etc.

ok so there even was a time when god ceased to exist, so something must have created this god of yours!

 

[Lori_7]

Then we can conclude that all of the millions upon millions of people throughout history and today who claim to be born again, or to have any spiritual experience whatsoever, especially those in which council is given (good or bad...true or false), has schizophrenia.

Wow what an absolutely brilliant deduction. I'm just blown away by the masterminds behind that one. *applause*