This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Howcome so many people still believe in God?

Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by Mikobass, May 15, 2006.

  1. SoundMaster

    SoundMaster Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,754
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    "the flower & willow world"
    And what does it mean to "open your heart to the concept"? I often hear theists make this statement, but when pressed for an explanation, they have nothing to offer. As I see it, this is a statement without worth.

    Why be hostile to fact, proof, etc? If your particular beliefs are valid, then they'll stand up to any scutiny, to any questioning, to any logic & reason, right?
     
  2. SoundMaster

    SoundMaster Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,754
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    "the flower & willow world"
    :err:
     
  3. Discovery

    Discovery Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2005
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Having faith in something that isn't there isn't just stupid, it's a justification for inaction. Just look at all the dipshits who are waiting for jesus to come back to earth and pull humanity off its path to self destruction. It annoys me how people are praised for their "great faith in god" or some such. Faith isn't a good thing, it can be harmful.
     
  4. Norsemaiden

    Norsemaiden barbarian

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Britain
    Scientists have better things to do than to try and prove the non-existence of non-existent things. It's up to the people who believe in the apparant nonsense to prove that they are right - but religious faith does not require proof. In fact proof would ruin it.
     
  5. Russell

    Russell __

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2001
    Messages:
    11,121
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The starry attic
    It doesn't, think about it :) With any abstract concept not of the material world - such as god, religion, etc. - you can't use laws based on the behaviour of that material, natural world to prove or disprove anything about it (which is the same point I've been making since the beginning, reiterated). Just because I believe there is no god, doesn't suddenly mean the laws of science can be used to disprove it ;) I was just stating my belief, it has no impact on the point in hand; if an all powerful god did exist he wouldn't be constrained to the material world.
     
  6. Scapegoat

    Scapegoat New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    I think we can all agree that god must be a supernatural being. That is, he exists outside the natural realm and he is not bound by natural laws.

    Any being that is not transcendent would be bound by the same laws we are, thus rendering him not a god. A human is not a god to an ant just because he is more powerful.

    When you make a claim, you must provide proof. If you profess a belief or disbelief in god, proof must apparent to make the claim credible. Those who believe in god have no way to prove his existence. Atheists, do have a way however (By proving that the concept of god is itself contradictory)

    If something is supernatural than it transdends reality, and if it transcends reality than it is unreal, it does not exist. Now, this thing that is supernatural must be exempt from natural law (by definition). As such, it cannot have any specific characteristics. This being must be a being, it cannot be anything else which means that A = A and this being cannot break the law of identity. If this is true, than the being must be natural. But, a supernatural being can't have specific characteristics. If something is devoid of specific characteristics, then it does not and cannot exist in reality.

    I was almost shocked when i read : "i'm just going to say i still believe in God because when i was 7 my mom died and my stepmom (who was a friend of hers) sees my mom in her dreams years later thanking her for being a mother to my younger brother and i. Along with this, my mom is friends with a psychic who can contact the dead. A real psychic cause she doesn't charge money and she contacted my mom and great grandmother. i realize this isn't really solid evidence and it really only illustrates the existence of life after death but if there is an afterlife, wouldn't that be as farfetched as a God without evidence?"
    but then i remembered how moronic 98% of the population is.
     
  7. Silver Incubus

    Silver Incubus Dead Hands Justin

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,731
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    (Near) London, Ontario, Canada
    You know, as I posted earlier, everyone thinks of only the christian conceptualization of a god. I on the other hand have another feeling of what god is. For me, god is (in a way) what they claim, but it has been taken greatly out of context by literal interpretaions of parables that Prophet/Messiahs speak to realate a concept of infinate to a finite mind.

    I have believed that God is "One" as I term it. God is a singularity that is timeless, formless, and indeed omniprescent. This theroy of mine has quite a lot of support from scientists in the fringes of physics.
    God, is the mass unconscious, the ocean of consciousness that we, like droplets of water, are a part of. The power of the consciousness has been tested to prove that consciousness has an effect on experiements. Experiments in how mass consciousness has effected the generation of random numbers has been observed at princeton, recording dramatic events in the world with the synchronization of numbers. Not only that but, if enough people concentrate on achieving one thing, it can happen. Further evidence of the power of the collective unconscoius and its connection to reality can been seen throught the remote viewing programs that the millitary had. Some of the top RVer's can describe things that they have never seen in real life, and describe places and objects many miles from their location.

    Where our level of consciousness is, very small comparable to all that is. And the comprehention of the scope of this is far beyond even my mind, but I have seen the evendence of these things not only from the scientific community but from experiencing it first hand myself. We are busy in our 3D domain, unable to see or percieve any higher form of consciousness, but some people can and do, and those people usually are called prophets, or psychic's. We are constanly in a duality, and as thus, we can not understand how such a god could exist because the concept of only ONE would mean that our ego is wrong.

    Why don't we remember, or feel this mass consciousness? Well for starters, its hard to experience the Oness in a state of duality. When we are born we learn to live in this dualistic world.
     
  8. Goddess_of_War

    Goddess_of_War The Sin of Men

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    New Jersey
    It is just a figure of speach. People say faith is blinding and it works both ways. If you don't have faith in a perticular belief then you are blinded by your own non belief. The same is said for those who do have faith being blinded by only their faith and not seeing the actual fact in the situation.

    The problem is God is based on faith and faith alone. You can't put fact into something that doesn't have any physical proof. The physical proof is pretty much everything around you but that is hard to tell someone who doesn't believe. I am more agnostic then anything but you can't force anyone to disbelieve or believe in a god.
     
  9. SoundMaster

    SoundMaster Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,754
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    "the flower & willow world"
    Don't these two lines contradict eachother?
    Anyway, I've often heard atheists say that the natural world, the "proof around us", is one of the many things which lead them to disbelieve in a god(s). So it would appear to work both ways, I guess.
     
  10. SoundMaster

    SoundMaster Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,754
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    "the flower & willow world"
    Not breaking balls, but how do we (or you) know this? How does one arrive at this conclusion? I'd really like to hear about that.
     
  11. Russell

    Russell __

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2001
    Messages:
    11,121
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The starry attic
    I was interested by this, so had a search around. First I would be very interested to see the 'scientific proof' of consciousness being anything other than a series of chemical reactions in the brain; I have never heard of any, and if someone actually managed to find (scientifically validated) proof it would a major, world changing event, something which would not slip by unnoticed.

    I also found this, which I think is a more detailed summary of the theory you mentioned:

    http://userweb.nni.com/keiser/Sing.html

    And to me, it seems that everything up to the point when they call on Occam's Razor is largely semantics, nothing really new there. The Occam's Razor argument itself seems flawed - surely the only reason consciousness is so central to this construct is that it is within this that the theory is being created. If this were not the case, consciousnes is not more or less important than anything else, and hence you can't call on Occam's Razor to just ignore everything else.

    While it is an interesting chain of reasoning it doesn't seem to provide us with anything that other religions haven't: it is still an abstract construct, and is still impossible to prove or refute.
     
  12. Tongue_Ring

    Tongue_Ring New Metal Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Messages:
    964
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    a place with a computer, obviously
    you just proved my statement that religion = psychosis
    religious wars prevent people from fixing non-religious problems
    fixating on minor shit while ignoring major problems = psychosis
     
  13. Russell

    Russell __

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2001
    Messages:
    11,121
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The starry attic
    No:

    Again, the word was first coined to describe a severe and debilitating mental condition; some religous fanatics probably are psychotic, but to say so for every person in the world that belongs to any faith is just insulting them from a position of perceived superiority.

    Pyschosis is more than 'fixating on minor shit while ignoring major problems' - it is usually accompanied by schizophrenia, bipolar, and a host of other mental disorders. Making sweeping generalizations about the mental health of anybody that believes in any kind of religion, especially by changing the definition so it is such a mild 'affliction' that it probably includes most non-religious people as well, serves no purpose.

    psy·cho·sis (sī-kō'sĭs) pronunciation
    n., pl. -ses (-sēz).

    A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning.

    http://www.answers.com/psychosis&r=67
     
  14. Silver Incubus

    Silver Incubus Dead Hands Justin

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,731
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    (Near) London, Ontario, Canada
    There is a lot of evidence of this being true in quantum physics. How the conscious mind of just one person can effect the movement or outcome of the experiement with very small things, i think quarks but it could be smaller then that. This would be relevent because if you can effect matter at the smallest level, or base level then if you had more consciousness or control of the universal consciousness then you would be able to create matter yourself or alter matter. So that would conclude that THE mass consciousness can control all matter, and energy and therefore can create anything and therefore is god. I know this because I have felt my consciousness expand and connect on a higher level, it is hard to descibe what it 'feels' like because it isn't like anything you normally can or will feel so I cannot compare it to anything.

    Its hard for me to find all the people who have talked about different things but yet it all realtes to the same end of consciousness. But if you look hard enough the evidence is there. The power of the mind is incredible once you learn this. Just look at the Placebo effect, where ones mind is trick into thinking it has the medicine and therefore beleives they will get better and they do. It is very possible to be able to command your cells in the body to work propperly and get rid of cancerous cells and heal diseases.
    Here is a small blub about what this guy was talking about on coast to coast am sometime in may

    deanradin.com

    noetic.org

    ions.org

    I may find more later but this is a start at some of the things that have validated my belief
     
  15. Silver Incubus

    Silver Incubus Dead Hands Justin

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,731
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    (Near) London, Ontario, Canada
    I agree to it being slightly flawed in the arguments, but while the begining seems like semantics, isn't the author trying to establish his view of and flow of reasoning?
    This theory is similar in what I think, but it is lacking many other parts which would clarify the point he is trying to make.

    I do remember an experiment where they take samples of tissue and have them on different sides of the world, and when one thing happened to on piece of the tissue, it responded in the other instantaniously on the other. Little experiments like these, and the links in the other response I posted are 'clues' to the bigger picture to how this reality works, and what this reality actually is.
     
  16. Russell

    Russell __

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2001
    Messages:
    11,121
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The starry attic
    Thanks for all the info. I must say, while I haven't done any theoretical physics for a few years, it does seem to me like none of this is really reputable science, I'd be happier with peer-reviewed papers or other articles which are generally accepted by the scientific community. Radin's qualifications lie in electrical engineering, and his PhD is in psychology (which isn't a science, and wouldn't give you the insight into the human brain that psychiatry would, which I think you would need to research the physical effects the brain could have on objects).

    --He reported on the testing of random number generators (called "eggs") which show statistical anomalies where the numbers behave in a less random fashion in relation to certain events.

    From what I understand, not only are truly random number impossible to create, true random numbers (and non-true ones as well) would be expected to show statistical anomalies and patterns. And even if this were not the case:

    --For instance, 3 hours before the first jet hit during 9-11 there was a "change in the world network," indicating that the generators were picking up "a giant wave of consciousness," he said.

    One is by no means a consequence of the other - it's the same as the flying spaghetti monster, global climate vs. pirate graph - correlation does not prove causation.

    --Studies have associated creativity with psychic ability said Radin, who noted that this is particularly true for those who play stringed musical instruments. To play these instruments requires a coordination of left and right brain activity, and this communication between the brain hemispheres may enhance their psychic functioning, he theorized.

    I'd like to see some scientific proof for this, as how would you even try and scientifically prove psychic ability, let alone measure it?

    -- What has been loosely called "mysticism" in the past may actually be a physical sense-- in which a person taps into a kind of "quantum entanglement" where all thoughts are connected and each person is like a tiny part of a huge hologram, Radin explained. He also shared that a large number of people report having a spiritual or religious experience that alters their lives-- turning them from an angry person into a loving one, for instance. Interestingly though, he has found that many people with telepathic abilities want to learn how to turn off these perceptions, as they are bombarded by others' thoughts and emotions

    This article strikes me as unreliable in scientific terms. No proof of authenticity is given, and I really do think, that if anyone were to find (actual) scientific proof of any of the stuff mentioned here, it would not only appear in peer-reviewed publications, but on news throughout the world,because it would me massive.

    Yes, it wasn't my intention to dismiss them, as it was interesting, but more show that as soon as he got into something solid about the basis of his belief I believed it was flawed :)

    I'd be very interested to read about these too! :)
     
  17. Russell

    Russell __

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2001
    Messages:
    11,121
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The starry attic
    Chuck Keiser, who runs the website I linked just emailed me this:

    http://userweb.nni.com/keiser/42d.html

    I thought I'd post it here for him, I haven't had a chance to read, but I would imagine it addresses the criticisms I posted earlier.

    :wave:
     
  18. Silver Incubus

    Silver Incubus Dead Hands Justin

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,731
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    (Near) London, Ontario, Canada
    This is pretty much the same thing that I have boiled it down to as well, and it seems that makes me a poly-solipist

    When I read Decartes essay on Self, I found that it was quite good, except that it did leave out the idea of other people being and experiencing different things. So from that I figured everyone thinks therefore they are but they experience differently, but all exist in a connsentual reality that is only the acceptance of anothers reality into your own.

    That was a good essay, but a little repetitive. Do you know this guy russel?
     
  19. Silver Incubus

    Silver Incubus Dead Hands Justin

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,731
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    (Near) London, Ontario, Canada
    I am pretty sure that Psychology is the science that deals with mental processes and behavior and psychiatry is he branch of medicine that deals with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental and emotional disorders.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=psychology
    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=psychiatry
     
  20. Tongue_Ring

    Tongue_Ring New Metal Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Messages:
    964
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    a place with a computer, obviously
    me misusing the word "psychosis" in a sentence and then someone else posting the dictionary def of "psychosis" doesn't negate the validity of the rest of the sentence
    i still stand by my statement that "religion is the wheelchair for the crippled mind"
     

Share This Page