Who knows?

[RestlessSoul]

I'm not going to assume you understand how science works since you show signs of not understanding the basics. When a scientist creates a hypothesis they have to make a prediction and then design a test. It has to be based on observations, facts, and ALL data collected. Scientists don't get to pick and choose their facts and data, they HAVE to account for all of it. The scientific method requires the fewest possible assumptions, and this is the sake of objectivity. What assumptions do empirisists use? That our senses work reliably. That the laws of nature are constant, like gravity and the decay rates of radioactive isotopes. What are not used? Like a God exists. That there is a divinity at work. Etc.

You have a bit of a gift for missing the point, it seems, so let me try and make it again. Hypotheses have to be conjoined with a whole host of other assumptions about background conditions, the reliability of measurements, the initial conditions of a system etc. It is not possible to isolate any hypothesis from the array of axioms and assumptions that support it’s foundations.

Far more assumptions are involved, than the handful you mentioned, though the assumption that the laws of nature are consistent is a good example of a base assumption that cannot be justified by rational argument alone. It can only be justified on the basis that nature has always been seen to behave that way in the past, but this requires an act of faith on our part that previous observed regularities will continue into the future. As for appeals to empiricism, this alone is not enough to save any theory, since while entities are observable, theories are clearly not.

 

[Nakosis]

Does a god or gods exist?

There are many religions with the primary aim of worshipping god(s), some share their god(s) between religions, some god(s) are unique to a particular religion.

But who knows if the god(s) they worship are real or not?

I am atheist and say "no", god(s) do not exist. I have several good (in my opinion) reasons why my belief is strong.

Primarily, the lack of falsifiable evidence. I can add the futility of prayer, childhood leukemia, the mosquito, natural disasters, unavoidable suffering, science, inconsistency between religions, lack of need for god(s) etc among other reasons.

So how about you?
Are you religious or not?
And can you provide the main reasons for your belief/unbelief in god(s)

I am not here to pick and pull apart your reasons, i am genuinely interested in why you believe what you believe.

Thanks

I don't know whether a God(s) exist or not.
Even if a God does exist, I don't know anything about them.

Other people say this or that about God. Most of it having little in common.
So why should I believe they know anything more about God than I do or anyone else making claims about God.

I understand some people have conversations with God and that is pretty convincing, to have an apparent internal conversation with an autonomous entity that seems to be other than yourself.
However, I've came to understand how our mind can create such an experience. So when we have a holy/divine experience how can we know if it is "God" or just our subconscious mind creating on its own an autonomous personality to interact with?

Also having gone through many different beliefs I found God/my spiritual experience supported whatever I happened to believe at the time. So I asked myself, why should what I believe have so much control over what I "spiritually" experienced. So I decided to not have any belief about God because I figured if there was a God they probably wouldn't be going about catering to my personal beliefs.

So if a God does exist, they exist without any expectations from me. If they don't then I guess there was nothing to worry about anyway.

 

[SDavis]

Does a god or gods exist?

There are many religions with the primary aim of worshipping god(s), some share their god(s) between religions, some god(s) are unique to a particular religion.

But who knows if the god(s) they worship are real or not?

I am atheist and say "no", god(s) do not exist. I have several good (in my opinion) reasons why my belief is strong.

Primarily, the lack of falsifiable evidence. I can add the futility of prayer, childhood leukemia, the mosquito, natural disasters, unavoidable suffering, science, inconsistency between religions, lack of need for god(s) etc among other reasons.

So how about you?
Are you religious or not?
And can you provide the main reasons for your belief/unbelief in god(s)

I am not here to pick and pull apart your reasons, i am genuinely interested in why you believe what you believe.

Thanks

First I'd like to ask the question why are there so many different gods in different cultures. Why is it that in these cultures they have in common two things _ god created everything and came from above -no matter how fantastic the stories.

Personally my inner self - my conscience tells me God exists and it's not because of what I've been taught, it's what I feel - and without proof what I know. There are a lot of people who were not taught as children of God yet became Christians, or belief in Judaism - belief in Islam. As well as people being taught these things and decide God doesn't exist further down in their life.
Scripture tells us that God's spirit works and those who allow it.

Going back to the top - why would these different cultures come up with the existence of a God or gods who come from the sky unless they saw something miraculous. Some even wrote about it most popular is Sumerian and Egyptian writings of the war of the gods. Who flew around an arial crafts and what and used what sounds like atomic weapons and the Sumerians wrote of the aftermath sounds like nuclear fallout.

And what's going on today with these ariel crafts?

These crafts support my belief that there are supernatural beings who created this world and all life on it. These beings are not subjected to time as man is. Time brings on death - which makes them eternal. And if the scientific notion of panspermia can be used as a theory of how life started on this planet _(which is living organisms came from outer Space) _ that also supports my belief in God and what the Bible says about him is true. That if life is out there in space God can be in space / of space. Even using the scientific terminology - evolved in space.

Ever wonder why scientists never attempt to prove that God exists or don't exist they can't there is no possible way. Scientists can only work with what is visible what exists in ways known to man but God ways is not men ways but man weighs for instituted for Man by God.

Well that is some of why I believe.

 

[F1fan]

You have a bit of a gift for missing the point, it seems, so let me try and make it again. Hypotheses have to be conjoined with a whole host of other assumptions about background conditions, the reliability of measurements, the initial conditions of a system etc. It is not possible to isolate any hypothesis from the array of axioms and assumptions that support it’s foundations.

Far more assumptions are involved, than the handful you mentioned, though the assumption that the laws of nature are consistent is a good example of a base assumption that cannot be justified by rational argument alone. It can only be justified on the basis that nature has always been seen to behave that way in the past, but this requires an act of faith on our part that previous observed regularities will continue into the future. As for appeals to empiricism, this alone is not enough to save any theory, since while entities are observable, theories are clearly not.

Why would you think I am unaware that we have to assume the laws of physics are constant and reliable? That is basic science 101. My point is that we don't assume things that are not known to be real or true, namely traditional religiouys assumptions. Do you agree that science can't assume the supernatural ideas that the religious do?

This is the crux. Science and the well educated understand all this. The question is do believers understand this.

 

[ChristineM]

First I'd like to ask the question why are there so many different gods in different cultures. Why is it that in these cultures they have in common two things _ god created everything and came from above -no matter how fantastic the stories.

Personally my inner self - my conscience tells me God exists and it's not because of what I've been taught, it's what I feel - and without proof what I know. There are a lot of people who were not taught as children of God yet became Christians, or belief in Judaism - belief in Islam. As well as people being taught these things and decide God doesn't exist further down in their life.
Scripture tells us that God's spirit works and those who allow it.

Going back to the top - why would these different cultures come up with the existence of a God or gods who come from the sky unless they saw something miraculous. Some even wrote about it most popular is Sumerian and Egyptian writings of the war of the gods. Who flew around an arial crafts and what and used what sounds like atomic weapons and the Sumerians wrote of the aftermath sounds like nuclear fallout.

And what's going on today with these ariel crafts?

These crafts support my belief that there are supernatural beings who created this world and all life on it. These beings are not subjected to time as man is. Time brings on death - which makes them eternal. And if the scientific notion of panspermia can be used as a theory of how life started on this planet _(which is living organisms came from outer Space) _ that also supports my belief in God and what the Bible says about him is true. That if life is out there in space God can be in space / of space. Even using the scientific terminology - evolved in space.

Ever wonder why scientists never attempt to prove that God exists or don't exist they can't there is no possible way. Scientists can only work with what is visible what exists in ways known to man but God ways is not men ways but man weighs for instituted for Man by God.

Well that is some of why I believe.

Thanks for that, interesting.. and welcome to RF

 

[F1fan]

First I'd like to ask the question why are there so many different gods in different cultures. Why is it that in these cultures they have in common two things _ god created everything and came from above -no matter how fantastic the stories.

If you study any of the 4-5000 god concepts notice they are based on humans or animals. There are over 200 creator gods, and these personalities were the best primitive people could do to explain what exists. Look up the gods that created the Hawaiian Islands, pretty interesting lore. Many primitive cucltures needed order as they grew and being largely feral and uneducated the leaders needed to demand obediance to the rules. One way was to exploit dear and superstition, and this was powerful gods who would punish those who misbehaved. Look at all the old Hebrew laws int he Bible. Many laws would be unconstitutional or crimes today, but the leaders needed to be extreme and harsh.

Personally my inner self - my conscience tells me God exists and it's not because of what I've been taught, it's what I feel - and without proof what I know. There are a lot of people who were not taught as children of God yet became Christians, or belief in Judaism - belief in Islam. As well as people being taught these things and decide God doesn't exist further down in their life.
Scripture tells us that God's spirit works and those who allow it.

Feelings are unreliable.

Going back to the top - why would these different cultures come up with the existence of a God or gods who come from the sky unless they saw something miraculous. Some even wrote about it most popular is Sumerian and Egyptian writings of the war of the gods. Who flew around an arial crafts and what and used what sounds like atomic weapons and the Sumerians wrote of the aftermath sounds like nuclear fallout.

And what's going on today with these ariel crafts?

These crafts support my belief that there are supernatural beings who created this world and all life on it. These beings are not subjected to time as man is. Time brings on death - which makes them eternal. And if the scientific notion of panspermia can be used as a theory of how life started on this planet _(which is living organisms came from outer Space) _ that also supports my belief in God and what the Bible says about him is true. That if life is out there in space God can be in space / of space. Even using the scientific terminology - evolved in space.

All quite dubious thinking. I won't get into this murky belief, but feel free to start a dedicated topic.

Ever wonder why scientists never attempt to prove that God exists or don't exist they can't there is no possible way. Scientists can only work with what is visible what exists in ways known to man but God ways is not men ways but man weighs for instituted for Man by God.

So in other words, God is imaginary. No facts, no data, just obsolete lore. That's not good enough to study what is true about reality.

 

[PureX]

OK, so this means w are all dealing with the same facts and data.

Not really. Four people witness the same car accident, each from a different perspective. Each receives a different set of sensory data. And that data is all they have from which to determine what happened, how, why, and what it means to them. Each walks away with a different story, and a different conclusion.

To say how we understand facts and data comes down to interpretation and assumptions.

And different information being processed via a previous set of different information that will inevitably bias how we experience the current information that we are receiving. The information we have gained from the past is dictating to us what information IS in the present.

Critical thinkers approach the sarch for truth the same way science does, and that means to eliminate all unnecessary assumptions. Why? Because the assumptions we make can affect conclusions, and that means error and bias.

First, we cannot eliminate any assumptions without making assumptions about what to eliminate. And that act will by definition create a bias. Secondly, I think most scientists would say that it's our assumptions that they are trying to test: not to eliminate them, or to see if they are 'true', but only to see if they will produce a predictable result when acted on in a certain way. Science is not searching for truth. It's searching for predictable functionality. A point the scientism crowd just cannot seem to grasp or accept.

 

[F1fan]

Not really. Four people witness the same car accident, each from a different perspective. Each receives a different set of sensory data. And that data is all they have from which to determine what happened, how, why, and what it means to them. Each walks away with a different story, and a different conclusion.

So the same facts and data, just different witness perspectives. In science all the data or testimonies would be gathered. Some will have data others don't.

But let's say three of the people describe a pretty similar event, the truck ran a red light, the sedan was in the intersection because the light was green. The differences are minor. One person claims he saw brake lights on the truck, the other two couldn't see it. Etc. But one person claims he saw a demon cause the accident, that it was in the truck with the driver. Even the driver says he was by himself. Would you find that testimony credible or suspicious? Who knows, maybe this is a special person who can see demons while others can't. Would you assume him corrrect or what?

And different information being processed via a previous set of different information that will inevitably bias how we experience the current information that we are receiving. The information we have gained from the past is dictating to us what information IS in the present.

Like being indocrinated in religion as a child and the adult feels compelled to assume a God exists, and this biases what he wants to accept in science class?

First, we cannot eliminate any assumptions without making assumptions about what to eliminate. And that act will by definition create a bias.

Then to hell with everything. This kind of thinking mires you in absolkute uncertainty because anything you assume or don't assume is in play.

This is why logic has a rule that any proposition is by default untrue until there is evidence that is IS true. This way we can abandon ideas that lack evidence, like a supernatural. Theistss will protest, but that's the way it goes. There is no empirical evidence that a supernatural exists and should be assumed. Ideas have to earn their way into significance. No exception for god concepts.

Secondly, I think most scientists would say that it's our assumptions that they are trying to test: not to eliminate them, or to see if they are 'true', but only to see if they will produce a predictable result when acted on in a certain way. Science is not searching for truth. It's searching for predictable functionality. A point the scientism crowd just cannot seem to grasp or accept.

And thus far nothing supports any of the popular religious assumptions being useful in science. What does that tell you?

 

[John D. Brey]

You started the removing space, i just continued with my knowledge of the subject.

My point was that thought is nine tenths of reality event though it doesn't weight out that way on a scale.

The program running on a computer, like thoughts in our brain, are weightless, timeless, immortal, and are more real than our material body or the USB drive housing the program. Thought, life, doesn't arise from dead stuff. Dead stuff arises from thoughts gone astray; thoughts that are now in the limbo of the lost: dead matter.

Don't let our thoughts end up in the limbo of the lost. Thought matters more than matter matters to thought. Thought is in the process of freeing itself from its tether to matter. We're almost there. Won't you help with the final push? Won't you and F1 join in the fun? Can we count you in?



John

 

[Bird123]

OK, what is it you are saying that is factual, and critical thinkers, like myself, are wanting to hear? Be very specific and back up your claim here. If you have a true position then you will have no trouble listing the facts that support your position and that I don't want to hear.


Truth is in following facts and using reason. If you are referring to religious truth, well we know that is subjective and at the whims of the believer.


I seek truth. That means I won't accept social and cultural ideas like those that proliferate via religion and believers. Thus far your statements offer no facts, therefore no truth. Your statements are like those that are tyical of religions.

If I am getting something wrong, then correct me, and be sure to use facts and make ONLY true statements, not your beliefs. Your beliefs are subjective, personal, and irrelevant. Facts is all we are asking of you. If you claim to have facts then you had better demonstrate they are true objectively, and not sone religious idea that is popular.

[/QUOTE]


We are walking in the desert, it's hot, dry and you just ran out of water when you bump into me. You ask if there is water to be found. I point south and say 5 miles in that direction you will find an oasis with plenty of water. I say this is a fact.

If you seek water, you will make the journey to Discover the real truth for yourself. If you want beliefs, you will want me to convince you I am right.

I say I am not dealing in beliefs. If you seek water, you know where to find it. If you seek beliefs, I do not deal in beliefs. I don't ask you to believe. I don't want you to believe. If you seek to know, the truth awaits those who seek. The choice is in your hands because I point to facts not generate beliefs from the unknown.

Is your understanding better now? Is it water that you really want??? If you want God, have I not told you the journey to Discover God for yourself? As I have said, Discover what it is that you seek.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[F1fan]

We are walking in the desert, it's hot, dry and you just ran out of water when you bump into me. You ask if there is water to be found. I point south and say 5 miles in that direction you will find an oasis with plenty of water. I say this is a fact.[/quote]
And this is a plausible claim since oases actually exist in reality. Water actually exists in oases.

Now if you claimed Han Solo was out in the desert where he landed the Millennium Falcon and he has water, I would find that claim absurd.

If you seek water, you will make the journey to Discover the real truth for yourself. If you want beliefs, you will want me to convince you I am right.

Water is a fact. Facts are real truth. Religioius beliefs are not factual. So my search for truth is via factual explanations of our universe and experiences, and is a reliable approach. It is vastly more reliable than religioius traditions of belief that lack adequate evidence for being true or even likely true.

Let's note that you created an incorrect analogy by trying to compare water (which actually exists) to your religious truth (that is subjective and hasn't been shown to be true). What you should be doing is explaining why your versonal religious truth is objectively true and why it should be accepted by others. Now you haven't come out and claimed you have the truth, but what you have done is say I haven't found it. How do you know? This is a passive aggressive tactic done by theists on occassion.

I say I am not dealing in beliefs.

Then what do you mean when you use the word "truth"? I have been clear that it means "statements that conform to facts". I'm seeking that truth, but you write posts that suggest I am on the wrong track. Wellk if you are seeking truth as well why isn't yours fact-based? What is it based on if not facts? Beliefs, perhaps?

If you seek water, you know where to find it. If you seek beliefs, I do not deal in beliefs. I don't ask you to believe. I don't want you to believe. If you seek to know, the truth awaits those who seek. The choice is in your hands because I point to facts not generate beliefs from the unknown.

You seem genuinely confused.

Is your understanding better now? Is it water that you really want??? If you want God, have I not told you the journey to Discover God for yourself? As I have said, Discover what it is that you seek.

From what I can tell about your posts you seem confused and incoherent about any coherent point. Your analogy is incorrect, so that failed.

I suggest water is facts and I am well hydrated. You seem on the verge of kidney failure for severe dehydration.

 

[ChristineM]

My point was that thought is nine tenths of reality event though it doesn't weight out that way on a scale.

The program running on a computer, like thoughts in our brain, are weightless, timeless, immortal, and are more real than our material body or the USB drive housing the program. Thought, life, doesn't arise from dead stuff. Dead stuff arises from thoughts gone astray; thoughts that are now in the limbo of the lost: dead matter.

Don't let our thoughts end up in the limbo of the lost. Thought matters more than matter matters to thought. Thought is in the process of freeing itself from its tether to matter. We're almost there. Won't you help with the final push? Won't you and F1 join in the fun? Can we count you in?



John

Thought is the action of electrochemical action. I e, it is imagined,

 

[John D. Brey]

Thought is the action of electrochemical action. I e, it is imagined,

I think that idea was tenable up until the last few decades. In the last twenty years I've seen staunch materialists like Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins begin to hedge their bets on their long-held belief that human thought is a phenomena, or epiphenomena come from the actions of electrochemicals in the brain. Because of knowledge now accessible we can know, probably for the first time in human history, that mind (whatever it is) causes the actions of the electrochemicals in the brain not vise versa.



John

 

[ChristineM]

I think that idea was tenable up until the last few decades. In the last twenty years I've seen staunch materialists like Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins begin to hedge their bets on their long-held belief that human thought is a phenomena, or epiphenomena come from the actions of electrochemicals in the brain. Because of knowledge now accessible we can know, probably for the first time in human history, that mind (whatever it is) causes the actions of the electrochemicals in the brain not vise versa.



John

Ask a neuroscientist, not a glory seeker.

Neuroscience tells is though is the result of electrochemical action.

 

[RestlessSoul]

 

[Bird123]

We are walking in the desert, it's hot, dry and you just ran out of water when you bump into me. You ask if there is water to be found. I point south and say 5 miles in that direction you will find an oasis with plenty of water. I say this is a fact.

And this is a plausible claim since oases actually exist in reality. Water actually exists in oases.

Now if you claimed Han Solo was out in the desert where he landed the Millennium Falcon and he has water, I would find that claim absurd.


Water is a fact. Facts are real truth. Religioius beliefs are not factual. So my search for truth is via factual explanations of our universe and experiences, and is a reliable approach. It is vastly more reliable than religioius traditions of belief that lack adequate evidence for being true or even likely true.

Let's note that you created an incorrect analogy by trying to compare water (which actually exists) to your religious truth (that is subjective and hasn't been shown to be true). What you should be doing is explaining why your versonal religious truth is objectively true and why it should be accepted by others. Now you haven't come out and claimed you have the truth, but what you have done is say I haven't found it. How do you know? This is a passive aggressive tactic done by theists on occassion.


Then what do you mean when you use the word "truth"? I have been clear that it means "statements that conform to facts". I'm seeking that truth, but you write posts that suggest I am on the wrong track. Wellk if you are seeking truth as well why isn't yours fact-based? What is it based on if not facts? Beliefs, perhaps?


You seem genuinely confused.


From what I can tell about your posts you seem confused and incoherent about any coherent point. Your analogy is incorrect, so that failed.

I suggest water is facts and I am well hydrated. You seem on the verge of kidney failure for severe dehydration.[/QUOTE]


Clearly it isn't I who is confused. I have been giving you fact because I have made that journey. Once again, religion has corrupted your thinking. You are still looking to either accept or reject beliefs. You do not seek God or to know the real truth.

Your critical thinking is faulty. Statistically the universe is not old enough for random chance to form all the complexity that you can see much less what actually exists.

Everything has purpose. The universe is well ordered. One does not see random things that have not quite come together.

Evolution is part of the system, however survival of the fittest is the flaw in your thinking. The fittest are not the only ones surviving today.

Evidence of Intelligence: Evolution, DNA, Fractals and Quantum Entanglement are some of the many things that point to Higher Intelligence. Would Critical thinking ignore this?

To exclude the possibility that God even exists leaves you Bias toward your belief that God does not exist.

This Evidence of Intelligence points to God. They are part of God's actions. One does not have to believe in God to study the system that is in place. This is the true study of God.

Some people think religious people are not Intelligence. Do they see something you do not? They see more exists beyond the physical world. Like you, instead of searching for the real truth, they create beliefs of what God should be. Religion teaches people to value only these beliefs because it's easier than Discovering the truth.

Religious people and atheists need each other in order to see the entire view. Religious people teach atheists there is much more than this physical world. Atheists teach religious people truth is more than feelings and beliefs. Discovery is impossible without incorporating all views instead of limiting oneself to narrow views.

Simply because you do not agree with religious views does not mean God could not exist. In fact, When I discovered so much of religion did not add up, this lead me to start my journey to Discover the real facts.

Sometimes those who seek find what they are looking for. When I started my journey to Discover the real truth I was open to the possibility that God did not exist. As I put the pieces of the puzzle together, it did not turn out that way.

God is High Intelligence!! A journey to Discovery is going to take a wide view, advanced thinking and being open to all possibilities.

I do not see you are searching for answers. I see you more as wanting to be right and trying to convince others of your superiority by doing your best to make religious people look bad. The funny thing is they carry a view that would open your view to more possibilities.

Did you know that you already know God whether you realize this or not? Further, God isn't what religion is teaching. God is above all the petty things mankind holds so dear. Religion reflects mankind more than anything else. Further, religion reflects you in so many ways as well.

Intelligence exists far beyond that of mankind. We are but mere ants. Of course, there is evidence of this through God's actions. When one understands God's actions, one will understand God. Perhaps, this is the point when a visit is in order. Hold onto your hat. One does not have the capabilities to duplicate nor imagine such an encounter.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

There are a million things to seek in life. Be true to yourself. What is it that you really seek? Mine was to Discover the real truth and I find there is always so much more to learn and discover.

 

[F1fan]

Clearly it isn't I who is confused.

I notice you completely abandonded your desert analogy, but you're not confused?

I have been giving you fact because I have made that journey. Once again, religion has corrupted your thinking. You are still looking to either accept or reject beliefs. You do not seek God or to know the real truth.

And yet you post a lot of religious ideas. I'm an atheist, so how has religion corrupted my thinking?

Your critical thinking is faulty. Statistically the universe is not old enough for random chance to form all the complexity that you can see much less what actually exists.

This is a religious claim. No scientists claim this.

Everything has purpose. The universe is well ordered. One does not see random things that have not quite come together.

'This is something else religious people claim. Tell me what purpose is there for birth defects? How about the cancer a young mother develops due to her genes?

Evolution is part of the system, however survival of the fittest is the flaw in your thinking. The fittest are not the only ones surviving today.

Survival of the fittest is a natural phenomenon that selects certain traits under environmental stress.

If you are referring to how humans in poor health are kept alive that is a different issue.

Evidence of Intelligence: Evolution, DNA, Fractals and Quantum Entanglement are some of the many things that point to Higher Intelligence. Would Critical thinking ignore this?

More religious belief. Let's note you are being overly vague here as well by not expanding on why you think any of these indicates intelligence, and that is a religious tactic as well.

To exclude the possibility that God even exists leaves you Bias toward your belief that God does not exist.

How are gods possible? And again, you accuse my thinking of being corrupted by religion abut it is you making one religious statement after another.

How does a rational mind seek a god? Explain the process, step by step.

This Evidence of Intelligence points to God. They are part of God's actions. One does not have to believe in God to study the system that is in place. This is the true study of God.

You didn't show us any such evidence, just claims. Did you forget?

Some people think religious people are not Intelligence.

LOL. Why would anyone get that impression.

Do they see something you do not?

Nothing they can articulate. It seems they hear other believers claim they see things that critical thinkers can't, and this behavior is mimicked.

They see more exists beyond the physical world. Like you, instead of searching for the real truth, they create beliefs of what God should be. Religion teaches people to value only these beliefs because it's easier than Discovering the truth.

But do they really? I would expect people who sense some other plane of existence to be elevated to some sort of grand spiritual awareness. They aren't. They are often arrogant, insulting, confused, dogmatic, and unable to articulate any details of what they experienced. It all sounds like fraud. Your posts are no different. You offer sno indication that you have had any authentic spiritual experiences. Your posts are the same bland religious nonsese that you likely learned from other religious people.

Religious people and atheists need each other in order to see the entire view. Religious people teach atheists there is much more than this physical world. Atheists teach religious people truth is more than feelings and beliefs. Discovery is impossible without incorporating all views instead of limiting oneself to narrow views.

Religious people inform critical thinkers how faith works, and how it is a liability to understandin g what is true about reality.

Simply because you do not agree with religious views does not mean God could not exist. In fact, When I discovered so much of religion did not add up, this lead me to start my journey to Discover the real facts.

This is a mischaracterization. You make it sound like I disagree with smoking. No, with religious claims they tend to have no basis in fact or reality, so are dismissed by logical default. Religious peolpe, like you, want their beliefs accepted by critical thinkers, but you can never offer enough evidence nor a coherent explanation that earns a positive judgment. It's your fault for making bad claims.

This accusing thinkers of having some fault is another bad habit theists do. It is rude and passive aggressive behavior. It's much like what abusive people do to their victims, shaming them and making them feel guilty for doing things they aren't doing, also called gaslighting. I don;t think believers are aware of this habit. I think it stems from the frustration believer experience in these discussions for their own failures.

Sometimes those who seek find what they are looking for. When I started my journey to Discover the real truth I was open to the possibility that God did not exist. As I put the pieces of the puzzle together, it did not turn out that way.

Once a believer decides what he is looking for they tend to find it. There is no standards of fact or reason. That's why theists find a "truth" that is highly inconsistent with other believers.

God is High Intelligence!! A journey to Discovery is going to take a wide view, advanced thinking and being open to all possibilities.

No gods are known to exist, so you could be imagining all this. How would you know if your ego really wants to believe?

I do not see you are searching for answers. I see you more as wanting to be right and trying to convince others of your superiority by doing your best to make religious people look bad. The funny thing is they carry a view that would open your view to more possibilities.

Religious people oen the door to being judged. They are eager to express what they believe, but can't explain why they believe it.

And you haven't asked me any questions about my meaning in life, so your judgment is nothing more than a guess, is it? More rude gestures. Is this what your journey has taught you?

And being correct correlates to following facts and using reason. Your comments suggest you avoid both.

Did you know that you already know God whether you realize this or not? Further, God isn't what religion is teaching. God is above all the petty things mankind holds so dear. Religion reflects mankind more than anything else. Further, religion reflects you in so many ways as well.

No Gods are known to exist. Notice you just make this extraordinary claim but completely fail to demonstrate it's true with extraordinary evidence. This is why I'm not impressed by your claim of having had a journey.

Intelligence exists far beyond that of mankind. We are but mere ants. Of course, there is evidence of this through God's actions. When one understands God's actions, one will understand God. Perhaps, this is the point when a visit is in order. Hold onto your hat. One does not have the capabilities to duplicate nor imagine such an encounter.

No Gods are known to exist, still. You mentioning God over and over again means those comments are invalid UNTIL you can demonstrate a God exists. You haven't even tried. You might assume a God exists in your thinking, but that is irrelevant in debate. We don;t care what you believe, it's irrelevant. Facts are relevant.

There are a million things to seek in life. Be true to yourself. What is it that you really seek? Mine was to Discover the real truth and I find there is always so much more to learn and discover.

Been there, done that. But you wouldn't know since you didn't ask.

 

[John D. Brey]

Ask a neuroscientist, not a glory seeker.

Neuroscience tells is though is the result of electrochemical action.

That would imply electrochemical actions, for whatever bizarre reason, wanted a probe on Mars sending back images of Mars. Electrochemical actions wanted me to write this to you. I just came along for the ride I guess.

I might just like to rebel against those electrochemical actions if I might paraphrase the great Richard Dawkins, "We alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."




John

 

[ChristineM]

That would imply electrochemical actions, for whatever bizarre reason, wanted a probe on Mars sending back images of Mars. Electrochemical actions wanted me to write this to you. I just came along for the ride I guess.

I might just like to rebel against those electrochemical actions if I might paraphrase the great Richard Dawkins.

John

WTF are you rabbiting about, we are discussing neuroscience not space probes.

Yes electromechanical action makes you work.

So rebel, thoughts individuals have tried and failed before.

 

[F1fan]

That would imply electrochemical actions, for whatever bizarre reason, wanted a probe on Mars sending back images of Mars. Electrochemical actions wanted me to write this to you. I just came along for the ride I guess.

That would make sense if you are a corpse and being possessed by a demon. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

As it is understood by science "you" are a result of your electrochemicals doing their thing.

I might just like to rebel against those electrochemical actions if I might paraphrase the great Richard Dawkins, "We alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."

That would mean that you extend effort to understand why you are religious, and work to manage these impuses and temptations. the dilemma is that religion is generally habituated thinking, and often tied to the reward system of the brain. In other words when the religious think religious thoughts they can get a little hormone boost in their blood (more chemicals) and the euphoria becomes like an addiction, and the behavior a habit of belief.

Why would you want to question any of that if it feels so good?