Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/12/18 in all areas
-
This post was written in response to queries from Lasse and is part of an explanation that I promised to Moontanman in the thread "What is a God" presented by Sci-man. It is too large to post in that thread and slightly off the topic, so I started a new thread. This post is in no way an attempt to validate the "God" idea, nor is it an attempt to invalidate the "God" idea, it is simply an attempt to understand the "God" idea. Part 1 of I think that most of us have questioned the "God" concept at one time or other; I was raised Christian and started my questioning 50 years ago in my teens. Even people, who were not raised with a religion, are inundated with all kinds of information about "God" concepts from friends, family, social connections, and from the media, so we all have been exposed to information and disinformation on this subject. Religious people will often state something to the effect that "God" obviously exists because it would take a "God" to create existence -- which is a self-validating circular argument. Non-religious people will often state that "God" as explained can not possibly exist for various reasons -- which is not a much better argument, as it uses an admittedly invalid "God" concept to invalidate "God". Neither argument impresses me much. First let me state that I agree that a “God” can not possibly be on everyone’s side when there is a conflict, cannot possibly be responsible for the entire Universe and also have a personal relationship with each and every one of us; cannot possibly be everywhere and nowhere, and can not possibly wear the many faces that represent the various cultures that worship the different "God" concepts. There are so many things that we have been taught about “God” that are impossible, we often come to the conclusion that “God” can not possibly exist. I agree. Neither Buddha nor Jesus claimed to be a "God", and there is no benevolent being hovering above the Universe shining love down upon us. The “God” that we have been taught about can not exist. So “God” is not real, right? This is where the first problem comes in; I have determined that something is real if it is causal, if it can cause an effect -- which makes the “God” concept very real, as historically there has been a tremendous amount of effect. I have read the arguments that state that there is no evidence of any “God”, but this is nonsense. There is evidence all over the world that dates back millennia in the forms of temples, churches, altars, icons, symbols, totems, texts, scrolls, etc., and personal testimony. “God” concepts permeate our history and are part of almost every culture, society, and place where people gather. These concepts are often causal in taking down nations and building nations. That is a lot of evidence. It is so much evidence that archeologists will actively search for any reference to Religion and expect to find it when digging into ancient cultures. It is very rare to find an exception like the Piraha (if the Piraha is a valid exception). Many will say that the above is evidence of Religion, not of a "God", but all Religions study and teach about some "God" or "Gods"; the ideas are certainly related. Which is causal? Do Religions cause the idea of "God/s", or do "God/s" cause Religions to explain the idea? Again, I think we must look to the evidence. Almost all of recorded history makes references to "Gods", archeology actively seeks evidence of "Gods" in prerecorded history, and the Lionman statue is almost 40,000 years old, so we are talking about a long old history of "Gods", which is too consistent to be considered coincidence. It is certainly not a fad. Faddish or cult type Religions either never take a good hold, or they die off in a few generations, so Religions that survive are filling a need, which is what causes them to survive. What is this need? Is it directed by a "God"? Or to explain a "God"? If we look at Religions, we find many different examples of "Gods", but we also find basic commonalities. We find that Religions explain life, death (including the supernatural), the nature of Nature, and morality; this is what they all study and teach about. Because life, death, Nature, and morality are very real, if these ideas are bundled together under the authority and auspices of a "God", then that makes the "God" concept very real. It would be reasonable to say that "God" represents the active aspects of life, death, Nature, and morality. This is where the "God of the Gaps" idea comes in as we attempt to "unbundle" these concepts. From the early "fertility Gods" through the various animal, sun, and human "Gods", and then on to the "invisible God", many ideas have evolved and changed as we evolved and our understanding grew, but the core concepts have never changed. Life, death, Nature, and morality have always existed from early man on, so these core issues caused a need to understand and justify the rightness of it all, causing "magical" ideas, which caused the "God" concepts which caused Religions to form to explain them. Religions did not cause the "God" concepts. It would be more accurate to say that Religions interpreted these concepts. There is an argument that Religions spread their concepts, thereby causing the "God" concepts, and I think this has some truth to it, but only some. We are always happy to borrow a better idea from our neighbor, so a Religion that has a better or more thorough theology, or appears to have a more powerful "God", could replace a less developed Religion. But just as there are igloos and wickiups, tents and palaces, teepees and townhouses, to satisfy the needs of shelter and safety, there would have been many different interpretations by Religions worldwide, to satisfy the needs of understanding life, death, Nature, and morality. So although I agree that Religions can and do spread, there would not have been a central cause where Religion created the "God" concept. There are a lot of things that are real, but do not actually exist, like freedom, or like math, which is very real in Nature, but did not actually exist until we invented numbers and symbols to represent the concepts. Many concepts are real, but do not actually exist; "God" is one of them. Although the idea is more complex than what I have stated above, this is my current understanding of how "God" is real, and yet does not exist. Gee3 points
-
Happiness is a choice. It’s not always an easy choice, and there are often biological/psychopharmacological obstacles to making it, but it very much is a choice Giving to others and being charitable makes that choice easier. Finding ways to feel gratitude in each passing moment makes that choice easier. Regularly connecting with good people and friends makes that choice easier. Implementing a regular schedule of exercise and ritual of meditation makes that choice easier. Getting better sleep and having a healthy diet makes that choice easier. I hope you choose to find this post useful.2 points
-
Oh JFCOAPS I wrote to you in a PM "You need to post summaries if you rely on links. Discussion must be possible without clicking the link." I gave you a link to the guidelines, and told you section 2, number 7, which reads (the most relevant section is bolded) "Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned." I also told you "And if you reply in the open thread by just pointing people to videos or papers, i.e. not actually discussing science in the thread, it too will be closed." And here you've gone and done it again. In your OP you mention some books and outline the tenets of a philosophy. There is no f**king science there to support the claim of the thread. There is a plagiarized mention (and yes, it's plagiarism, which is against the rules) of a drug study and having mystical experiences. And then the links, but since you had not discussed any science supporting your thesis, the links are against the bolded part of the rule I quoted above. You never explain how this philosophy and the drug provided evidence of the existence of God. As I pointed out to you before, people taking a drug and having some experience is science. But you did not entitle your post referencing the effects of psilocybin. You claimed evidence for the existence of God. Which you admitted was bogus in another thread — except that you did, in fact, do this very thing. You were also told not to bring this up again. That makes this soapboxing, another rules violation. (rule 2.8)2 points
-
Define it how you like - it isn't proof god. The reports make observation.... in that much it is scientific.... jumping to conclusions based on mystic mythology isn't scientific though. However you define god or the perennial philosophy the fact that people have similar experiences under the influence of medicines, drugs or in prayer like and meditative states doesn't prove anything. It is evidence that our minds work in similar ways (presumably because we are all human and you minds all work in the same way) not that there is any outside sentience involved.2 points
-
And bringing it up in subsequent threads is against the rules. Tick tick, tick tick...2 points
-
I have always felt giving and or helping others validated my life, raising children certainly was certainly a big part of it. Now that I am old helping others is the main way of validating my life. I'm not sure how old you are but remember you always have the choice to do good things contributing to the well being of others is a big part of being the social animals humans are...1 point
-
Eight years ago I was fully convinced that there was a real Jesus at the root of the Christian religion. I just had a look at the Talpiot Tomb thread on another site, and I was arguing from a conviction that there was a real Jesus person, and that the Talpiot Tomb probably was his final resting place. I was going on the fairly natural assumption that it's not very likely to invent a Jesus out of nothing. And that the apostle Paul's epistles were a recent enough record to be a reliable guide. What's changed my mind is actually reading a good lump of Paul's epistles, rather than relying on what other people said about them. And becoming aware of the sheer mass of invention that was happening in the early centuries, and of finding out the dates of the physical bits of paper that the gospels and epistles are based on. I'd fallen for the bullshit dating of gospels which are routinely quoted, of around the years seventy to ninety for some of them. It's hardly ever mentioned that these are just guesses, and that the earliest bits of them that actually exist are hundreds of years more recent. On the subject of "would they just invent a Jesus out of thin air?" I would say that that's not how it happens. It's like a fire, it starts with a tiny insignificant spark, and most of them just get extinguished, but one in a thousand sets off a chain of additions to the story, that ends up as a fully fledged myth that people will follow. But in any case, ten years later, I'm happy to say, "yes, it's perfectly possible that they would invent a new Jesus to match an old story". It's hard to imagine the thinking 2,000 years ago, but the more you read, the more you get a picture of it. It's shaking off the 21st century attitudes which is most difficult.1 point
-
He should be happy then. Let him know you've figured out how to be more positive, and you'll be working on figuring it out even better.1 point
-
It's coming. At school you are about the learn many things both socially and academically. Through the service you will be pushed. Now is a good time list the things you want in life and why. What you want is a Year, 4yrs, and 10yrs. The WHY part is most important. Your list should not include things you think you are supposed to want. The list should be personal and only reflect things you want on an emotional level.1 point
-
Changing your emotions is like starting with a clean slate, or escaping from your problems. It can't be done. But you can change the way you think of them. Negative is relative. It's negative to tell lies, but when a child learns to lie it's a signal to behavioral experts that the kid is thinking ahead to make its future better. Fear can be viewed as negative, but it also keeps us sharp and makes us cautious. Even hate often helps us define love. I'm willing to bet that your perspective, focusing on negative feelings, has also helped you define what you think is fair and good and just. You know what the positive should be because you know the negative. It's not a matter of changing your emotion, but in using it positively.1 point
-
No, don't merely wait. You don't want to live as a passive passenger in your own life. You have to make it so. That means going to school and performing well, completing your service distinguished, and speaking to that hustle in your music. Life is interactive.1 point
-
In the US, it's pronounced miz-OOR-ee , or miz-OOR-ah. Very humid and intolerant. It's more Dolly Parton than Lil Wayne.1 point
-
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-century-old-life-significant-substantiation.html A century-old model for life's origin gets significant substantiation July 25, 2018, Weizmann Institute of Science A 'walk' in composition space for a lipid world molecular assembly, shown in simplified 3 dimensions. A point on the line signifies a specific composition along the time axis, whereby the three coordinates are amounts of the three different molecule types. A composome (pink background) is a time interval when the composition stays almost unchanged, signifying compositional replication. Credit: Weizmann Institute of Science In 1924, Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin claimed that life on Earth developed through gradual chemical changes of organic molecules, in the "primordial soup" which likely existed on Earth four billion years ago. In his view, the complex combination of lifeless molecules, joining forces within small oily droplets, could assume life faculties—self-replication, selection and evolution. These ideas were received with considerable doubt, still pertaining today. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-century-old-life-significant-substantiation.html#jCp1 point
-
No, you're a crackpot for being obtuse and petulant. However time "Transcendence of time and space" is not a thing, so you're just a fool to think that has anything to do with science.1 point
-
You know what, since you’re not the average proponent of god on this site and you can at least express yourself in a civil manner with more than 42 words in your vocabulary I’ll be frank; Being convinced that getting high puts your mind into a state which enables you to link with the devine in some way is not only ridiculous on every level, its also evidence for being full of yourself. How dare you imply (Jordan Peterson does that too) that your tiny little evolved mind has some kind of special place in this universe? I suggest you use your time here (on this planet and on this forum) on finding out more about what is actually happening around you instead of focusing on the crap that your brain’s altered chemistry feeds you while on psychodelic drugs.1 point
-
There was none, and never was none. I personally requested a dozen times to link me to the exact piece claiming that this was evidence of god...It never happened, just the usual conspiracy, obtuseness, and claims of legitimate conclusive science. No conclusion was reached other then in the mind of the instigator of this nonsense, and driven by his incredible bias. Again my only criticism of the mods is excess leaning over backwards to give him a chance. As this thread suggests, he owns all the bias, and is attempting to now control through devious means his own content, on something that was previously locked and settled.1 point
-
Oh right...you can look into mystical experiences after taking heroic doses of Ayahuasca and Kambo, those are a lot more trippy than psilocybin but...no god there as well, sory. Stuffing your brain with psychodelic substances has as much to do with evidence for god as praying has to do with curing cancer. You can take your BS and feed it to the people at IgotHighOnShroomsAndIthinkIsawGod.net1 point
-
If you were at all paying attention, and took any notice of what anyone else said instead of single mindedly pushing your own agenda, you would have seen I was actually quoting another person, who I believe hit the nail fair square on the head with regards to yourself. Of course!!!! The same goes for all the other cranks, god botherers and trolls that have come here preaching unsupported and unevidenced nonsense. In actual fact the weight of evidence against you, says you are wrong, and are simply pushing an agenda that has seemingly been indelibly scrawled in your brain since you were a kid. Exactly what the person I quoted was actually saying.1 point
-
Does anyone other than me see this thread as a microcosm of the problems being described elsewhere? It’s a Mandelbrot thread! He’s a fractal Kafei. lol1 point
-
So let's reverse roles for a moment. Let's say I put a hundred links in a comment that refuted your point. Would you watch every one of them start to finish before commenting further? Quite frankly, I doubt it and that's the reason for the rule. Besides that, being a zealot fails for a refusal to listen. Being a martyr won't win the day by appealing to sympathy either. Fail x21 point
-
You may have tried many techniques thus far however removing yourself from your environment is the biggest one with, in my opinion, the best chance of succeeding. So some more patience will be needed. *I sent you a PM because I am very familiar with the difference branches of service and their associated benefits. I was going to go over some with you. I was also curious about what specialty you were pursuing.1 point
-
That's what I was missing. I didn't know you could join the military while you're still in high school. So what's your 11 month plan on how you're going to prepare for when this new positive phase in your life begins? Anything you can do to set yourself up nicer when the time comes will be time well spent. Besides the military, are you going to be taking any college courses? If you're moving out, can you live cheaper on a base, or would it be better to have some roommates to share expenses?1 point
-
-1 points
-
You say a lot of nothing. What points in particular did I not address? There's absolutely no specificity at all in your post, just pure empty and baseless criticism.-1 points
-
I did discuss and explain the content in the lectures, and those lectures are their to aid your understanding, they are for your benefit. I've seen all of 'em in their entirety. I follow this research quite diligently, I've read all the peer-reviewed and published material relative to this research. Maybe if you actually read that block of text, you'd realize I did answer you. What point? He said absolutely nothing in specific, he just made a whole bunch of baseless accusations.-1 points
-
The only reason you say that is you cannot accept that there is actually science out there that undermines the atheist position. It's funny, 'cause atheists always say stuff like, "If evidence was presented, then I will cease being atheist." Untrue, and you're a primary example. I'm not doing that either, I'm merely redirecting people's attention to established science.-1 points
-
-1 points
-
Yeah, you make accusations, but you never back 'em up. I've emphasized this every single time. All you have, as I've demonstrated thus far, is empty criticism and false accusations.-2 points
-
-2 points
-
Yeah, it is. beecee said, "And they all applied to yourself and your inability to accept that you may be wrong, and your obvious "must win" attitude, even to the extent of ignoring valid evidence and arguments, invalidating your wrong stance." If I was wrong I wouldn't be here, the fact that he/she (I'm not sure) projects concepts like "must win," that I'm supposedly ignoring points which invalidates the research I've cited. Well, it's precisely the opposite, I'm not here to win anything. I'm merely reiterating precisely what the science that's been done has established. The truth is beecee can't fathom the fact that he/she may be wrong, and that's why you see projections such as "must win," because that's how he/she exhibits her/hiself.-4 points