I'm pretty sure there's no god now

[Unveiled Artist]

Everything comes from the mind. Everything. What you interpret. What you experience. What you believe. They come from the mind.

I spoke with a psychologist years ago for Clinical Depression. After we chit chatted for a couple of years, I ask him about people who hear voices. What people associate with Schizophrenia. He tells me:

There was this client that came in and told me he heard voices. He has a good job, family (and so forth). He comes to therapy because he felt these voices where interfering with his daily life. These dellusions he associated with negativety and something he wanted to get rid of.

Instead, my psychologist told me, instead of curing him from hearing voices, we made sure he didnt

1. Want to hurt himself
2. Want to hurt others
3. Made sure he can take care of himself.

He says the law doesn't care much beyond that. He helped the guy live with his dellusions. He still hears voices, goes to work, and everything is fine.

My point: If the religious are dellusional, doesn't mean it is a bad or negative thing. As long as they don't go blowing themselves up and killing millions of people at at time for being in the wrong religion, I'm fine with that. It doesn't need to be proven false. Science doesn't need to have it's nose in everything.

It is what it is.

In other words, it's not something that can be proven. Science concerns it self with whatever can be proven. Things that don't exist, also can't be proven.

Right! That is exactly what I have been saying "it's not something that can be proven." And using science to try to get around this is like puting training wheels on a car with a flat tire. It will not work.

This is your opinion. It's not fact. Especially since, in your own words, you know nothing about science. You shouldn't even have an opinion on it, let alone try to pass up your opinion on it as fact. You don't know what it can and can't prove. If God exists outside the minds of people (meaning he actually exists), he can be proven.

I have opinions about a lot of things I don't know in full. That's how we learn. We just hope that we are not insulted for learning new things the other party should already know.

I am a teacher. If I told my adult students "you don't know English, so you shouldnt give an opinion about English and American culture", they'd be shocked. The purpose of conversation and learing (and debating) is to learn something or see things in the other persons view. So I coversate with my students. Let them have opinions about what they don't know. Correct them if its instruction. Guide their conversation correctly if it is not. However, I never insult them.

So, do not insult me.

God cannot be proven outside our minds. He cannot be proven.

You are holding on to Abrahamic view point (probaby Christian?) that somehow God is supposed to appear out of the sky with a beared or something and science is suppsoed to pick that up,


If you haven't read my other posts, religion is not about that. It doesn't work like that. It's about people. It's about people's culture, their language, their view of the world. The religions that you are refering to are not about science.

Science can test what it wants, but its inappropriate to test science on religion. You'll never be satisfied.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Everything comes from the mind. Everything. What you interpret. What you experience. What you believe. They come from the mind.

I spoke with a psychologist years ago for Clinical Depression. After we chit chatted for a couple of years, I ask him about people who hear voices. What people associate with Schizophrenia. He tells me:

There was this client that came in and told me he heard voices. He has a good job, family (and so forth). He comes to therapy because he felt these voices where interfering with his daily life. These dellusions he associated with negativety and something he wanted to get rid of.

This is totally different.

If this person went to seek help about the voices in his head, then he knows the voices aren't real and is just a false perception that his brain has conjured up. Therefore, he's not delusional, which is probably an insulting thing to say about him. That's why he won't act on these hallucinations (like hurting himself, hurtng others, etc...). Because he knows they're not real. Do superstitious people go to psychologists to seek help? "Oh doctor, I have this problem where I believe in deities! Can you help me?!" Yeah, that doesn't happen.

The guy suffers from hallucinations, but he's not delusional. That's what they are. Hallucinations. Not delusions. Big difference.

My point: If the religious are dellusional, doesn't mean it is a bad or negative thing. As long as they don't go blowing themselves up and killing millions of people at at time for being in the wrong religion, I'm fine with that. It doesn't need to be proven false. Science doesn't need to have it's nose in everything.

It is what it is.

Unlike your psychologists' client, religious people think what they believe, hear, experience, is real. Therefor they're prone to act on them. It may not necessarily involve things like blowing themselves up or killling millions. But any act based on them will attract the attention of scientific minds, who will proceed to be analytically critical of it.

Things like taking children to church and teaching them that these myths are real, when they could be learning to think critically. Things like trying to force creationism into public schools. Things like religion influencing political decisions. Things like simply building a church when something else could have been built, because that uses up time, energy, space, and resources. That effects everyone! Or anything else that holds back scientific progress. But not just those things. Any act, really...

Right! That is exactly what I have been saying "it's not something that can be proven." And using science to try to get around this is like puting training wheels on a car with a flat tire. It will not work.

And if it can't be proven, it doesn't exist. If it does exist, and you know great deal about it, you should be able to prove it. If you know nothing about it, you can't say anything about it, including saying it can't be proven. Saying it can't be proven is saying something about it.

I am a teacher. If I told my adult students "you don't know English, so you shouldnt give an opinion about English and American culture", they'd be shocked. The purpose of conversation and learing (and debating) is to learn something or see things in the other persons view. So I coversate with my students. Let them have opinions about what they don't know. Correct them if its instruction. Guide their conversation correctly if it is not. However, I never insult them.

Nope... if people don't know anything about something, the shouldn't have an opinion on it. They should say they know nothing about it and leave it at that.

So, do not insult me.

Where exactly have I insulted you, or why exactly do you feel insulted? I'm not trying to insult you.

God cannot be proven outside our minds. He cannot be proven.

That means he doesn't exist outside of people's minds. Meaning he doesn't exist at all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The psychologist/client example, if you got the point, was that regardless if one is aware of their dellusions or hullucinations (whatever), they still live a healthy life. Unless they go off blowing themselves up or killing millions of people for having the wrong religion, I am personally fine with that.

And if it can't be proven, it doesn't exist. If it does exist,

That doesn't make sense in a non-religious context. At one time Pluto could not be proven. We didn't have the techno to even tested at that time. We couldn't see it years ago. and it existed.

It does not have to be proven for it to exist. That's the "does the tree make a sound" koan. You're arguing that the three doesn't make a sound because we are not there. Reality doesn't work that way. It doesn't revolve around us.

That means he doesn't exist outside of people's minds. Meaning he doesn't exist at all.

He exists within the minds, culture, language, and lifestyle of people. He exists within how people interact with each other and with themselves. He is how they interpret reality.



Different question. How do you define god?

If he is a Mashmellow man, then, no, we haven't yet proved its existence.

How do you define god? Let's start from there.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This is totally different.

Things like taking children to church and teaching them that these myths are real, when they could be learning to think critically.

I'm sure that parents want the best for their children. Naturally, they will want to educate them in their faith, as they believe it to be in their best interests. As a parent, you presumably will be explaining that religion is only fiction.

Things like trying to force creationism into public schools. Things like religion influencing political decisions. Things like simply building a church when something else could have been built, because that uses up time, energy, space, and resources. That effects everyone! Or anything else that holds back scientific progress....

Why does it have to be a 'battle' between religion and science? Public buildings are important .. mankind are social creatures .. do you also not agree with bowling alleys?

That means he doesn't exist outside of people's minds. Meaning he doesn't exist at all.

It means no such thing! Almighty God is not physical .. He is spiritual. He does NOT have to be part of our minds .. more like, we are part of HIS!!

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

The psychologist/client example, if you got the point, was that regardless if one is aware of their dellusions or hullucinations (whatever), they still live a healthy life. Unless they go off blowing themselves up or killing millions of people for having the wrong religion, I am personally fine with that.

I got the point. I'm just telling you it's not the same thing. Having hallucinations and having delusions aren't the same thing.

That doesn't make sense in a non-religious context. At one time Pluto could not be proven. We didn't have the techno to even tested at that time. We couldn't see it years ago. and it exists.

Pluto couldn't be proven because of technological limitations, not scientific limitations. Pluto was, in fact, proven by science.

You're saying some things can't be proven by science, implying that scientific principle has some limitation in it that prevents it from discovering those things. It wasn't what was preventing it from discovering Pluto. What was preventing it from discovering Pluto was sheer technological prowess.

Are you saying God can't be discovered due to the intrinsic structure of scientific principle, or due to a technological limitation? If it's the former, then God doesn't exist. If it's the later, then God will eventually be discovered. Pluto was eventually discovered, was it not?

It does not have to be proven for it to exist. That's the "does the tree make a sound" koan. You're arguing that the three doesn't make a sound because we are not there. Reality doesn't work that way. It doesn't revolve around us.

Some information about the tree making a sound, will permeate throughout the Universe. It can, in principle, be proven, even without us being there to see/hear it happen. Hell, simply finding a tree that's already knocked down, and it can be inferred that it did actually make a sound.

In any case, this tree example reveals a limitation in technology, not scientific principle.

He exists within the minds, culture, language, and lifestyle of people. He exists within how people interact with each other and with themselves. He is how they interpret reality.

So he doesn't exist then.

Different question. How do you define god?

God of Abraham? I don't know about defining, but I certainly can describe him. Apparently, he's omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, and anything else the Abrahamic religions say about it. Stuff that, I would consider, claims about reality, that should be able to be proven if they're true.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As long as you got my points, I'm happy. I can care less about the details.

God of Abraham? I don't know about defining, but I certainly can describe him. Apparently, he's omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, and anything else the Abrahamic religions say about it. Stuff that, I would consider, claims about reality, that should be able to be proven if they're tr

That's the problem right there. You are going off of claims, hearsay, and what is written. You cannot find religious truth by trying to disect these claims, hearsay, and writings by scientific means.

You have to Live and Experience it.

It exists through the experiences, minds, hearts, culture, and enviornment people live in. Read up on psychology and sociology add some theology and mythology and you will see the overlap.

Oh, and philosophy too.

Stop putting training wheels on a car with flat tires.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

do you also not agree with bowling alleys?

I think recreation is important, psychologically speaking. There's science to back this up.

So I'm fine with bowling alleys.

As for what I'd teach my children, I'd try to focus on teaching them how to think rather than what to think. I think from there, they would decide themselves that religion is invalid. But I'm not gonna force them away from religion.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

As long as you got my points, I'm happy. I can care less about the details.

I mean I got what you were trying to say. I don't think it's a valid point, however. Or analogous.

One is a guy with hallucinations and recognition of a mental illness. The other is people believing things with no bases except for emotional comfort. They're just not the same.

That's the problem right there. You are going off of claims, hearsay, and what is written. You cannot find religious truth by trying to disect these claims, hearsay, and writings by scientific means.

You have to Live and Experience it.

It exists through the experiences, minds, hearts, culture, and enviornment people live in. Read up on psychology and sociology add some theology and mythology and you will see the overlap.

Oh, and philosophy too.

.

So we're in agreement that God doesn't exist outside the minds of people? Meaning if humans are whipped off the face of the Earth, then no more God?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So we're in agreement that God doesn't exist outside the minds of people? Meaning if humans are whipped off the face of the Earth, then no more God?

I believe everything comes from the mind. I don't see it as a bad thing unless it is unhealthy to ourselves, others, or we cannot take care of ourselves because of our beliefs.

Yep. People whipped off hte face of the Earth, there is no more God. God is an experience. It's based on people, culture, language, and how people view the world or reality. How they cope with living.

I order to know "god" a big quote on quote exists is you have to experience and live it through the hearts of the people and beliefs not through scientific knowledge and testing.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Yep. People whipped off hte face of the Earth, there is no more God. God is an experience. It's based on people, culture, language, and how people view the world or reality. How they cope with living.

Okay, well I actually like this view point of yours and can actually respect it to some degree.

But understand, not all theists see it the way you do. Earlier you said you find it annoying and tiresome that people try to scientifically analyse the notion of God. That it shouldn't be because he only exists inside the minds of people. Understand though, that I'm not always presented this notion. I'm presented the notion that God exists totally, irrespective of people's minds. That's when I pull out the sciency stuff and try to analyze it. Is that unfair? It's an analysis for a claim that's different than yours, and in fact, I'd say your viewpoint is somewhat uncommon.

If you see someone analyzing the notion of God, then you probably shouldn't be annoyed by it or find it tiresome. Because their analysis probably isn't being addressed to your viewpoint. It's likely being addressed to someone who's actually making claims that God exists in totality and irrespective of the mind's of people.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Okay, well I actually like this view point of yours and can actually respect it to some degree.

But understand, not all theists see it the way you do. Earlier you said you find it annoying and tiresome that people try to scientifically analyse the notion of God. That it shouldn't be because he only exists inside the minds of people. Understand though, that I'm not always presented this notion. I'm presented the notion that God exists totally, irrespective of people's minds. That's when I pull out the sciency stuff and try to analyze it. Is that unfair? It's an analysis for a claim that's different than yours, and in fact, I'd say your viewpoint is somewhat uncommon.

If you see someone analyzing the notion of God, then you probably shouldn't be annoyed by it or find it tiresome. Because their analysis probably isn't being addressed to your viewpoint. It's likely being addressed to someone who's actually making claims that God exists in totality and irrespective of the mind's of people.

The reason why it annoys me is because when I think of god, I think of how I just described him (experience/culture/people/etc) so, when someone says we are using science to figure if god exists, I think "just ask the people", read about the culture, hear people's testimonies, even philosophy has something to say about it.

In my point of view, using science to find god is like plucking at people's brains.

Since you see it as an external claim (right?), then it makes sense to ask... I just would be mindful that the beliefs you question are actually a part of the people who believe them. So there wil be a defense curive somewhere up in there.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Since you see it as an external claim (right?), then it makes sense to ask... I just would be mindful that the beliefs you question are actually a part of the people who believe them. So there wil be a defense curive somewhere up in there.

I've seen it as multiple types of claims I suppose. But my analysis is pretty much always going to be towards those who claim that God is something external and irrespective of people's minds. If you see people like me doing that, you have no reason to be defensive, or annoyed. Because they're not trying to dispute your viewpoint. They're trying to dispute someone else's.

 

[Ponder This]

Normally, I just consider myself non-religious, and my stance on there being a god is the same as the likes of the Tooth Fairy, leprechauns, ghosts etc... There's a lack of evidence, therefore, I simply have a lack of belief. But now after watching this video, I'm thinking to myself "Nope! No way there can be a god. He's just not there!" because this is just effed up! My stance on god goes from simply being a lack of belief, to pretty much disbelief!

The video is raw footage of crocodiles attacking a zebra. Now we all know predators constantly kill prey in nature, and that in it of it self puts the notion of a benevolent god in question. But this video is so much worse than that! The crocodiles tear it's stomach out while it's still alive! And it walks around for a few moments while it's intestines are hanging out!

Now I already know gory kills like this happen in nature. But actually seeing it is a whole different thing! As much as I like watching nature videos and learning about the wild, I find this video unbearable! And even knowing in advance that the Universe and nature is harsh and very indifferent, I still can barely watch this!

Edit: When I'm mentioning god in this post, by that, I mean a benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient god.

WARNING! GRAPHIC VIDEO!

To the Abrahamic theists out there, in your heart of hearts! Why would a god allow stuff like this to happen?! Consider that harshness like this in the wild happens daily! It's a horrible way to die, and it happens daily!

Ignorance is bliss.
Would you rather take the blue pill or the red pill?
Would you rather have free will or live in a world without evil? Or not exist at all?
Because it almost seems as if you are saying that Crocodiles shouldn't exist and instead we should instead have Crocopets that are always nice and never do anything "bad" and that not allowing Crocodiles to exist is the truly "benevolent" action.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Because it almost seems as if you are saying that Crocodiles shouldn't exist and instead we should instead have Crocopets that are always nice and never do anything "bad" and that not allowing Crocodiles to exist is the truly "benevolent" action.

I'm not saying anything should be anything. I'm saying I'd expect a much different Universe if it were made by a benevolent, omnipotent creator. If the Universe is creatorless, however, this is exactly what I'd expect.

 

[muhammad_isa]

.. If the Universe is creatorless, however, this is exactly what I'd expect.

Wow! That's a coincidence. Why would you expect anything at all?
There's no difference between humans and animals then?
Planet of the apes is not just fiction?

 

[outhouse]

Planet of the apes is not just fiction?

The difference is, not all cultures of people want to rise above that.

There's no difference between humans and animals then?

WE are factually an animal, and not all cultures of people want to rise above that.

Just one with a larger brain that gives us greater conscious thought.

 

[RRex]

The difference is, not all cultures of people want to rise above that.



WE are factually an animal, and not all cultures of people want to rise above that.

Just one with a larger brain that gives us greater conscious thought.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The difference is, not all cultures of people want to rise above that.

WE are factually an animal..

What do you mean by 'rise above' ?
Either there is no difference between us, or there is

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

What do you mean by 'rise above' ?
Either there is no difference between us, or there is

There's differences in every species. What's your point?

 

[muhammad_isa]

There's differences in every species. What's your point?

see post 115