Who believes in GOD?

[S. Earl Martin]

Enigma: explain your statement please? Is that directed toward me or what?

[voodoo scientist]

The burden of communication is "always" on the sender? No! It is a two way street and as I have stated I have made my point abundantly clear. If you have trouble accepting it or understanding it is because of one of several reasons.
One: you don't want to understand it: most likely.
Two: that you don't have the mental capacity or language skills to understand it: least likely.
I am still waiting for you to state your point. All you have done is criticise and belittle mine.
How about something positive if you know so much more than me prove it.

Very well, you're obviously poorly versed in proper communication, so I'll simplify things into action points.

My assertion, in response to you, is that you have no substantiated point and are rambling - not that your point is wrong, but that it's nonsense impossible to be determined as right or wrong. My original assertion was that God's existence or nonexistence is irrelevant, as there is no observable effect on human existence either way.

In order to respond to these points You need to do the following:

* State your point(s) and your reasoning behind them.
* Explain God's observable effect on human existence, and the methodology used to observe the effects.

Provide a healthy amount of whitespace in the text, in order to allow people to easily discern meaningful blocks of information. Keep in mind the thumb rules of memory when communicating (short term memory holds (7 +/- 2) items, contextual references increase uptake, etc) and highlight the important points with formatting if you're truly interested in making people understand what you're communicating. I believe you believe you've stated your points clearly, but that's demonstrably not the case. If you had, I would understand your points.

I also find it's best to stay away from examples and metaphors and instead state your points directly, but that's a personal call - some people make exceptionally good metaphors that can convey huge amounts of information in very few words, but it's a risky strategy - a failed metaphor will miscommunicate your point entirely.

[S. Earl Martin]

No I am growing tired of your nonsense and I don't want to play this game anymore. What you are really doing is rambling and trying to control and manipulate me. I won't have it. I have been posting on the net for many years and have never had anyone not be able to understand what I was saying with the acception of you. So logic dictates that you just don't want to listen and have closed you mind to any intelligent debate. Thus rendering this a waste of my time. I have patiently addressed your assertions and refuted most of them. I also have already answered this several ways. It is obvious that you just want to argue and have no intention of being positive. What a pity that you are wasting your apparent intelligence being petty and spiteful.

[voodoo scientist]

You're an angry man, S. Earl Martin. I'm taking you off my Christmas card list.

[S. Earl Martin]

No I am not angry at all If I were you would know it.

[liza123]

No I am growing tired of your nonsense and I don't want to play this game anymore. What you are really doing is rambling and trying to control and manipulate me. I won't have it. I have been posting on the net for many years and have never had anyone not be able to understand what I was saying with the acception of you. So logic dictates that you just don't want to listen and have closed you mind to any intelligent debate. Thus rendering this a waste of my time. I have patiently addressed your assertions and refuted most of them. I also have already answered this several ways. It is obvious that you just want to argue and have no intention of being positive. What a pity that you are wasting your apparent intelligence being petty and spiteful.

Do not worry about it, S Earl Martin. If you read his other posts in other threads, you will understand that it is indeed a waste of time!I remember providing evidence of website link from the OED(since he quoted this dictionary as objective evidence for his definition!). Guess what? He misquoted from the dictionary and started rambling about the dictionary definition not being important and good,etc. In simple words, even if you were to provide evidence to him, it is useless!Finally, I told him to contact Oxford('English language' did originate from England) to change the definition as per his!

[liza123]

I forgot, S Earl Martin. In another post, he told me to see a physician immediately because I was 'delusional' or something like that. If you read our posts in that thread, you will realise that the reason for him to tell me such a thing was because he 'misread my earlier post'. He came up with the excuse of 'taking a snipe at me' after such a very nasty comment earlier. The truth was that he did not read my post properly and understand the meaning. So, please do not waste your energy on him!There are other constructive stuff that you can do with your energy.

PS- Another participant in this forum asked him an objective question to get the same sort of rambling!

[liza123]

Truer words have never been spoken.

'Nice place for organisms that successfully adapt to the environment'-If you can do so as a human being, then, it is a nice place. Would you do that at the expense of your values, etc, Enigma?Let us say you are in a 'bad sort of environment', then, you go to a 'good one'. Can you adopt in both? As the good guy and the bad guy?Or do you remain what you are essentially in terms of values and principles?Such a very general statement which does not really apply to the true realities of life. It is like saying "If you are in Rome, be a Roman". And there is a saying, "Truth will out" If you go deeper, you realise that such a general statement like the Roman saying applies to the 'make-up' as I call it (and the message behind the saying!). S Earl Martin was commenting on very much deeper issues.

[voodoo scientist]

Do not worry about it, S Earl Martin. If you read his other posts in other threads, you will understand that it is indeed a waste of time!I remember providing evidence of website link from the OED(since he quoted this dictionary as objective evidence for his definition!). Guess what? He misquoted from the dictionary and started rambling about the dictionary definition not being important and good,etc. In simple words, even if you were to provide evidence to him, it is useless!Finally, I told him to contact Oxford('English language' did originate from England) to change the definition as per his!

I forgot, S Earl Martin. In another post, he told me to see a physician immediately because I was 'delusional' or something like that. If you read our posts in that thread, you will realise that the reason for him to tell me such a thing was because he 'misread my earlier post'. He came up with the excuse of 'taking a snipe at me' after such a very nasty comment earlier. The truth was that he did not read my post properly and understand the meaning. So, please do not waste your energy on him!There are other constructive stuff that you can do with your energy.

PS- Another participant in this forum asked him an objective question to get the same sort of rambling!

Quoting past actions and drawing patterns to support dismissal is a dead giveaway that one has no arguments relevant to the actual discussion, the actual veracity of your memories and conclusions notwithstanding. Explain God's observable effect on human existence, and the methodology used to observe the effects, or just say you can't. It's an acceptable answer.

Not to mention that you're grossly misrepresenting what happened in order to make it seem like you were right in those instances, which was really not the case, but we can let those slide if you can't or won't let your emotional investment in the arguments go.

[SWM]

apologies for my brevity as i am on my mobile.

Relating to the impact of gods existence.

This might be measured by asking all 'believers' if god has had an impact on their lifes since finding god.

As there is large percentage of humanity that beleives. My guess is that there we will see evidence of gods existence having a large impact on humanity.

[voodoo scientist]

I didn't and won't contest that the belief in God has an effect on the world. All beliefs do. My question is, what is the observable effect of God's existence vis a vis God's nonexistence?

[SWM]

as stated the effect of gods existence is observed through those on whom the presence or awareness of god has been experienced.

we cannot observe the effect on humanity as a whole, but given that many people who have expereinced that which has been called god and have given accounts of the positive effects, then it could be surmised that god has a postive impact on humanity as a whole.

i have yet to hear a testimony of an individual that has "found god" and whose life has been negatively impacted by their faith.

asking for "the observable effect" is aksing for a specific effect but each indvidual that has experience of gods presence will have expereinced a different effect. the effect on humanity is could not really be observed

[S. Earl Martin]

Since I asked God to come into my life I have seen countless things that I believe are signs from God. Not like a burning bush kind of experience, but personal things that I just know are reassurances that God is in control. To give you examples would be like trying to describe something very intricate in words. It is something that would have to be experienced to be understood. If I told you them in words it would not be the same. Just because some people do not believe in God or haven't experienced God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. When people mock my belief in God and say things like I might as well believe in fairies and gnomes, it just convinces me all the more that God is real. Because it fulfills scripture. I have never seen China in real life, but I believe China exists. That is because I believe I have seen evidence that China exists. It is the same with my belief in God!

[voodoo scientist]

asking for "the observable effect" is aksing for a specific effect but each indvidual that has experience of gods presence will have expereinced a different effect. the effect on humanity is could not really be observed

Thank you. The lack of a directly observable effect is conclusive evidence that I need not concern myself with whether or not God exists as it lacks observable impact on my life. Acting on uncertain information would lead to unpredictable results.

Just because some people do not believe in God or haven't experienced God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

This is true. The amount of people believing or disbelieving in God has no effect on his existence one way or another.

When people mock my belief in God and say things like I might as well believe in fairies and gnomes, it just convinces me all the more that God is real. Because it fulfills scripture. I have never seen China in real life, but I believe China exists. That is because I believe I have seen evidence that China exists. It is the same with my belief in God!

There is fundamentally little or no functional psychological difference between believing in God, fairies and China.

[S. Earl Martin]

Heavenly Father, righteous and true. I devote all that I am and all that I have to You. I ask that You would guide me and use me to do Your will. That any blessings You bestow on me I would use for Your glory. That I would forgive those that need forgiving and love the unlovable. As Your Son has shown us. In the name of the Father and the Son. Amen!

[SWM]

Thank you. The lack of a directly observable effect is conclusive evidence that I need not concern myself with whether or not God exists as it lacks observable impact on my life. Acting on uncertain information would lead to unpredictable results.

are you not choosing to act on the information that has been presented here in this thread to decide whether or not you need to be concerned with gods existence?

there is an observable effect on humanity, as i stated that impact can be observed by the effect of the individuals that have experienced that which has been called god.

There is fundamentally little or no functional psychological difference between believing in God, fairies and China.

you make this statement as though you think there should be a difference.

[liza123]

Quoting past actions and drawing patterns to support dismissal is a dead giveaway that one has no arguments relevant to the actual discussion, the actual veracity of your memories and conclusions notwithstanding. Explain God's observable effect on human existence, and the methodology used to observe the effects, or just say you can't. It's an acceptable answer.

Not to mention that you're grossly misrepresenting what happened in order to make it seem like you were right in those instances, which was really not the case, but we can let those slide if you can't or won't let your emotional investment in the arguments go.

There is no emotional investment. It is merely an observation of your posts. It shows a pattern about you and your personality(projected perhaps!). It is called a psychological observation of you based on your posts.

With regards to observable effect, etc., I think that SWM is doing a good job of answering you right now.

[voodoo scientist]

Thank you. The lack of a directly observable effect is conclusive evidence that I need not concern myself with whether or not God exists as it lacks observable impact on my life. Acting on uncertain information would lead to unpredictable results.

are you not choosing to act on the information that has been presented here in this thread to decide whether or not you need to be concerned with gods existence?

there is an observable effect on humanity, as i stated that impact can be observed by the effect of the individuals that have experienced that which has been called god.

There is fundamentally little or no functional psychological difference between believing in God, fairies and China.

you make this statement as though you think there should be a difference.

I talk to people to help me, not them. Your word in itself is obviously insufficient in itself to change my beliefs, and you believe yourself incapable of communicating the substantiations for your beliefs (which would be sufficient). Since my current beliefs do not present me with critical problems, any desirable change would have to achieve predictably better results than my existing set (thus why I phrase the question "Why does God matter?" rather than "Does God exist?"). Since predictability of results is a function of the substantiations for the belief, there's no reason to continue this discussion, as nothing can change without the relevant substantiations that led you to your belief.

It's entirely possible that your beliefs (God exists) lead to predictably better results than mine (God doesn't matter) assuming common perspective, but there's no way to find that out if you can't communicate what lies behind them to me, and thus no reason to talk.

[SWM]

i am not in this discsussion to change anyones beliefs. you have made arguments against other peoples beliefs to which i proposed a counter argument.
 

[Karaten]

Do you believe in God? What makes you do so? Are you certain that there is one?

Absolutely not. I will describe my reasons throughout this post.

anaklio

One of the biggest issues I've had to grow through is atheism. It's not a wise position.

That might be the case, though wisdom is not always truth, and this need for religion simply fixes another flaw; the drug of denial to control the animal.

 A basic rule in science is that you can't prove the absence of something.

That's ridiculous. This statement basically infers that we should believe anything that could possibly be thought of, any crazy notion that comes to mind.

So while I don't believe in God, there's no reason for me to close my mind.

Close your mind until you have a reason to open it. You just declared yourself an atheist, and then declared you are not. "I don't believe in God" is ideally the only statement needed there, the rest is irrelevant to your beliefs, it seems simply a cop-out in case you need to change your mind later.
_________________________________________________ ____________

liza123

how do you explain the timing of birth and death?

I don't understand the question. I'll assume you are trying to give meaning to something that has none; as though the time you are born and die are somehow meaningful to something beyond the circumstance of the outcome.

how do explain the power of prayers?

Perhaps some reassurance that you did something when you did not, the funny thing is, this will be stated, and if what they prayed for comes true, prayer was the reason, and if not, they will come up with some excuse as to why not. I plan to, in the future, formulate some ridiculous ideology we all will know as ridiculous and you will not be able to prove yours in any way beyond mine.

how do you explain miracles?

Miracles is the label people give fortunate circumstances. That simple. The likelihood that anything remotely possible will happen is almost absolute, relative to the length of time and the opportunities for them to occur, therefore, the unlikely, as long as not impossible, should pretty much be expected at one point in time in some form.
_________________________________________________ ________

seekinghga

It's pointless to try. You can throw logical truthful reasons at them all you want, they will only return with "What causes that?"
_________________________________________________ ________

Enigma

I do not believe in God.  I have been shown no rational evidence of any type of supernatural creator.  Religion, like knowledge, is a product of the human mind.  Religion is a type of knowledge, because it is the human mind's early attempt at understanding the universe. However, it is one of those forms of knowledge that turns out not to be true. I'm not dismissing the fact that there may be some sort of supernatural creator, but the Abrahamic idea of God as some sort of omnipresent peeping tom is utter lunacy.  I'm more interested in Eastern religions, especially Buddhism.

For the bold:

You have basically contradicted yourself. You're either just trying to dismiss responsibility for your statements or you made a grammatical error.

For the underlined:

I hate this tactic. You've basically used the term of rationality to dismiss your opponent, and then declared irrationality and ignored your supposedly rational mindset to declare your position.

I will, however, give you credit for understanding the shift key is also functional while registering an user name.
_________________________________________________ __________

seekinghga

Thank you for explaining the nature of labels and how pointless they are, but it won't make a difference.
_________________________________________________ __________

liza123

seekingha, Are you still seeking???As Swami Vivekananda said, you need to have the thirst/desire to know GOD/religion...hence, to say that God does not exist without having ever experienced that thirst is contradictory, isn 't it? I am referring to your posts....btw, do not understand f#$ng ..what is that?
 to understand God or miracles, you need to experience them

I didn't subscribe to this train of thought when Hitler presented it and I wont when you do. The ideal that because you feel it, it has to be true is lunacy. A person in a delusional state should not be believed, and we should not accept "well, you just don't believe it because you've never felt it(the delusion)" as convincing. You need to learn the difference between perception and reality.

There is The Observer, who conceives the situation and analyzes, tries to act, or at least promote, an entirely unbiased view. The “view” is not simply what the eye sees, but what is understood after it is analyzed, which brings it to be filtered and warped with the inevitable qualities of the interpretation of the viewer and before the picture even reaches the brain, it has already been distorted by the pattern in which the picture is transformed to a point of understanding.

This point is already proven by the fact that before the picture is even taken, the bias is identified. The "truth" of what they go through is their own perception. The bias lies within The Observer who does not live it, as explained by the one living through the perception.

The bias in which the picture is analyzed is dependent on the mood one observes it in. For example, when one is sad, they tend to focus on sad things. With this ideology, we can say that feeling bad about something causes you to focus on the negative aspects of this object, therefore, the ones living a bad situation will focus on the bad parts of their life, and envy the parts they don’t have in others, ignoring the negative aspects of those parts.

What we must remember is when we explain in the idealized unbiased situation, emotion can not come into play, as emotion is completely bias.

ever read an article called "man,science and God" published in the scientist magazine some time back...the question of God was discussed as per the viewpoints of Hawkings, Einstein etc..conclusion : there is no denial or acceptance of the word GOD and there was acceptance of a supernatural power(whatever name you want to call) due to a lot of unexplainable mysteries of the universe....

I need to look into this, but for curiosity and nothing more.

Meaning???are you trying to say that these are the causes and timing of birth and death?how is that people who have lots and lots of.... to have a baby do not have one with all the wishful thinking in the world?i have come across such people. then, there are some who use condoms and still end up with a baby...what went wrong with wishful thinking?

What about those who die young when you did not expect such a thing?fighting,no. medicine,no.aging,no....it could be an accident or or even a sudden heart attack or a stray bullet...

What is your point?

why call it ambiguous?because you have not experienced it..ask someone who has experienced it and that person will say it is a miracle...

I point you to what I said above.

The human, the desired, philosophic, and cosmic creature in an otherwise cold world causes great distress, to look and see the silent world around him, he has a voice, he has goals, the idea for a greater cause, in a world that otherwise doesn't. So, he creates them. He convinces himself of them, looking up at the sun, his need for meaning causing a perception that magnifies meaning, giving the soul. This feeling, so very convincing, must be true.

can you explain pain?

A negative sensation.

what is pain?

I just answered above.

can you explain it?

Redundancy is not a good argument.

what is suffering?

The state of being relevant to a negative sensation.

can you explain it so that someone knows it well enough?

It depends on the person.

you need to experience pain, joy, etc to know what that is...likewise is the subject of GOD, miracle, etc

I don't. Still, your point, I assume, is that pain and suffering is caused by little leprechauns? How does feeling something prove that there is some sentient being causing it?

Does that mean the people who have wishful thinking(the ones who are thinking of death rather than living due to their great miseries!)can have their wishes come true? Or maybe wishing to be a billonaire like Bill Gates?

Well, logically speaking, effort placed into achieving a goal will increase the chances of it happening, of course, this will have to be actual progressive effort, and not speaking to your head while in a submissive stance.
_________________________________________________ _________

seekinghga

I would ascribe these things to faulty devices.  In the case of not having the baby it is some defect in the sexual anatomy or the timing.  In the case of having one even with a condom there was a flaw.  If you are saying that God is putting holes in condoms, we would all be in trouble.

That's really what it comes down to. I'm glad to see you can think within reality.

Wrong place at the wrong time.  A heart attack could be lack of caring for your self or being born with natural deficiency.  People "black and white" life and death too much anyways.

Agreed.

I do so because my idea of a miracle is finding money for a pack of smokes in my couch cushion.  Whereas your idea of a miracle is parting the Red Sea or virgins being impregnated, right?

Another example of the subjective nature of words.

Psychological or physical?  Physical pain is a signal from the body that something is wrong.  Psychological pain is the same thing, but on a different level.

That's the purpose, I don't think that was his question.
_________________________________________________ _________

liza123

seekinghga, condoms are not foolproof...recent studies!and even if GOD put holes in condoms , not ALL are in trouble....the point of my post .. your answer contradicts itself...are you drunk?

The chaotic principle is what causes some to fail, others to not.. some to be in trouble, others not. A chaos principle has a reason, but this reason is unknown by The Observer's perception.

A chaotic aspect is one that is unknown, unpredictable, and often uncontrollable, or at least, difficult to control. A chaotic aspect adds risk, and is risky to rely on.

Because of the unpredictability, it can be dangerous, and overpower order. It is also the natural state, because the natural state is unknown, and chaos comes from perception. All things have a cause, though the cause is not always clear, nor is the cause always meaningful.

pregnancies:sexual anatomy defects and timing?what about people who are not in these categories?ever heard of them? what did you think i was referring to?

What do you mean?

who is definition of physical pain is that?yours? something wrong?are you joking?

This is the response I was expecting, because he didn't ask for what you gave him, though Seeker was correct.

when some people cannot answer, they come up with some "funny" answers for the sake of doing so...and this reflects on the selves of  the people concerned....

The logic was sound.

in short, REREAD my posts...

That is the short of it? Maybe I need to reread that post.

i do not want to waste my time and energy answering something for the sake of answering....

Then why bother with religion at all?

the forum is meant for people to learn and reflect in a POSITIVE manner...

Your definition of positive is overall toxic.

great miseries is funny?read about the PEOPLE who prefer death to life in this world and you wont find it funny unless you are heartless!

I don't know what that means.

finally, Swami Vivekananda and Jesus must be crying .....to have their teachings misconstrued!!!

Then they should solve the problem, unless their praying to Ultra-God isn't  too effective.
_________________________________________________ __________

Enigma

Nature is God.  That unseen force that shaped our world for an aeon.  That sculpts mountains and oceans, that spawns life and evolves her creatures from single cells into the glorious world we have today.  That to me is God.

Simply word choice. You're giving meaning to the meaningless.
_________________________________________________ ____________

anaklio

I agree with the nature is god argument. But it also shows that perhaps believers and nonbelievers are not that far apart. Scientists are usually considered nonbelievers. But anyone who appreciates the subtle beauty of our world (i.e., the sublime) in a sense is a believer. At some point, it's just a matter of words.

You're right in a sense, though the one who makes the nature is god argument is not a nonbeliever.
_________________________________________________ _____________

liza123

Blessed are Thee o God: Lord of the earth and the heavens, Lord of the ages, Lord of mine Soul.  May I one day rest in Thy bosom, though I deserveth it not.  Man is fret with frailties, and in overcoming these frailties there is Strength.  Thou art that Strength, o God.  May Thine holy Light illumine my way for the rest of my days.  Amen.

beautiful verse with a wealth of spiritual meaning, giving us inner strength to overcome obstacles in life....

Meaning:I'm only happy when I'm submissive.

_________________________________________________ _____________

saved

I believe in God and I am a christian.  However, I am very prejudiced against the religious right and many "born agains/fundys".  I find them judgemental, hateful, pro war, and they make a religion out of being anti-abortion and anti gay.  I have also found most so called christians to be incapable of thinking logically. (no offense intended)

I'll hold up my gun, you hold up your cross, we will see who wins.

Remember this; the violent will win. It doesn't matter what makes you feel good, the violent will win.

Who knows, perhaps your god will save you, perhaps good will triumph in some cosmic sense simply because God wills it so, you can experiment and find out.

Then, after that, I'd like you to redefine logical thinking.



_________________________________________________ __________

liza123

I do not consider myself to be a religious person...and i have across the religious sort who seem to create more divide among the races and religions than unity.

Why combine those that don't? If the prejudice will cause problems, why create that toxic situation? Perhaps it's best to keep those who work well together within themselves and separate those who don't.

I believe in one God(whatever name you want to call him) and respect other religions

Then don't force them to accept yours, allow them to their world.

Paths are many but the destination is the same...

Not true.
_________________________________________________ ______________

liza123

Well-said." All the fingers are not the same". People have different experiences, tendencies, etc. It is the final destination that truly counts

Yes, let us sabotage this world at the chance of the next. The technical gamble for reality.
_________________________________________________ _____________

anakilo

I like that philosophy. Too often I hear "if only I had X, then I'd be happy". Or "I was abused as a child so I can't X". I do not want to belittle people's problems, but we all have to overcome many obstacles.

This desire is what caused us to advance, with the animal, if there was no desire, no hunger, it would not act.

This tendency can be explained by the urge to advance, to develop. It is unfortunate that, though we have this gift, it is lost in the apathetic coating a world like this gives. In a chaotic place, it gives the illusion of true fairness, in which everyone has equal opportunity in which they can always come to rise on the level of others. That, however, is not the case. The chaotic situation is the most unfair of all, as though it appears the superior will succeed, it actually gives the opportunity for the weak to manipulate the situation to rise above the superior in an unjust and overall damaging end. I stated this simply to make it clear that chaos is not the solution. However, it is not an “anything is okay except” situation either, in which as long as we have some kind of order, everything is okay. The order we have here can, in a similar sense to chaos, bring an unfair reality, the difference being, it is observationally unquestionable, thus resulting in the perception that it is pointless to resist. This is the folly of that order, that superiority is not rewarded, but rather the fortune of the situation in which you were birthed.
_________________________________________________ ______________

Milk

By any standard that has supposedly been communicated by a higher power, regardless of whether the communique in question is the Bible, the Qu'ran or Buddhist philosophy, our world - as measured by the average human's adherence to any given package of rules, is by and large hilariously broken. However, in spite of humanity's failing to live up to any given religious standard for all of recorded history, humanity continues to not only survive, but improve conditions and increase the population of our species.

That leaves only two alternatives regarding God:
* God does exist, but is irrelevant to human existence.
* God does not exist, and is irrelevant to human existence.

Which, of course, leaves only one possible conclusion regarding this thread.

Interesting observation, however, the problem is, it does an effect, and its uses, as well as its flaws. The reason this seems being, that the ones in power usually use religion to give higher meaning to that which needs to be done so the masses will feel good about doing it. It's not that it is believed by these leaders, but it is a tool, a firearm, to keep the masses who will almost always put emotion before logic, on their side. The problem being, this method also creates a lack of structure within the method, meaning, anyone could say anything in this fashion and it would be believed.

Even if the people didn't believe it, they would act on it, out of fear, or conformity.
_________________________________________________ ___________

liza123

You blame human failure on GOD.

You blame human success on god.

You also make a generalised statement on the failure of ALL human beings with regards to religion etc.

It can be needed when talking about all of humanity through all of time, and in the end, that is really what matters, not that lone farmer who has a decent and moral family.

voodoo scientist, even the great scientists on Earth like Albert Einstein and others(read the Scientist magazine on Man, Science and God) do not deny the existence of God because they cannot prove it. maybe, you have a voodoo scientific way of doing so.... Roll Eyes

This thread is meant to provoke thoughts and sharing.....not for making conclusions on generalised statements ESPECIALLY after all the above posts!!!!

You should be willing to defend your point, rather than need reassurance.
_________________________________________________ _____________

I'm not going to respond to any further posts, as I think the points are made, though Milk seems to have a good idea of how things are, and isn't blinded by human exaggeration and desire.

[voodoo scientist]

Interesting observation, however, the problem is, it does an effect, and its uses, as well as its flaws. The reason this seems being, that the ones in power usually use religion to give higher meaning to that which needs to be done so the masses will feel good about doing it. It's not that it is believed by these leaders, but it is a tool, a firearm, to keep the masses who will almost always put emotion before logic, on their side. The problem being, this method also creates a lack of structure within the method, meaning, anyone could say anything in this fashion and it would be believed.

You misunderstand slightly: There's a difference between belief in God and the measurable effect of God's existence on the world. If God is relevant to humanity, it must have an observable/measurable effect (even just a theoretical effect that hasn't actually been observed yet). If it does not exist, there is no reason to concern myself with the question of God's existence. You say "it does [have] an effect", to which I say "publish it."

And while I do like me some flattery, you appear to be heavily influenced by human exaggeration and desire - specifically, your own. You've fallen into what I call the "Morality of logic trap" - it's like the new morality, only instead of morality, you have logic (you have to read all the logical fallacies and rules instead of reading the Bible). You're still applying the same dogmatic, manipulative methodology in order to control people, only you're trying to make them obey your "rules of logic" rather than their "rules of God" and dismiss "emotion" as something useless or even harmful.

[S. Earl Martin]

Voodoo Scientist: You are a very interesting person. Much more than I originally gave you credit for.
A measurable effect of God? That can be quantitatived? It comes back to what you chose to see. I believe I can see God acting in my life on a daily basis. However if I chose to not believe in God I just as easily could say it was coincidence or fate or chance or even a delusion.
I believe God answers all prayers. With 1 of 3 answers. Yes, no, or wait. This comes back to being in submission to the will of God. This is not weakness, but wisdom. If I was going to try and accomplish something and there was another person there that was much more adept at doing whatever I needed I would have no problem allowing them to do the action instead of me provided I trusted them. It is the same with my submission to the will of God.
The only way you will ever be able to measure the effect of God on your life is to submit to the will of God.
Karateen: It comes back to what you know, what you think you know, what you don't know and what you can't know. You say to paraphrase that if there is no stimulus or perceived reward that a person or animal won't act. What about when someone commits a selfless act? They see someone in need and even risk their own life to help. The perceived reward might be a reward in Heaven. Or they might be doing it because they just believe it is the right thing to do. You talk a lot, but you really don't say much. Defend your self and your position.
Emotion can not come into play? Emotion always comes into play. It is as much a driving or motivating force as hunger or any other need. Emotion fuels the need to procreate. Yes it can bias information, but that is part of being human and fallible. Without emotion there is little or no motivating factor. We are not machines. We take a sense of pride in our work, this motivates progress. We are sad when we see someone suffering this motivates us to help. Emotion motivates action in so many ways. Granted it is not always positive action, but it is action none the less.
Close your mind until you have a reason to open it? Are you serious? How are you going to see the reason to open it if you have it closed? Choosing to ignore something or refusing to see it doesn't make it go away. You criticise others and then say you are not going to defend your point like you are to important to stick around. Self importance and greed are the biggest hindrances to human progress. Plus you make the statement that you have your gun and we have our cross let's see who wins. Well many of the people who gave their lives for freedom were Christians or at least believed in God. Plus we also have gun's threaten us and see what happens!

[SWM]

about this observable effect thing.

if one individual had an experience of that which is called god. and this experience changed their life.  that would be an effect of gods existence, wouldnt it? surely that is the effect of god on the life of one human.

the effect on humanity is the effect on the portion of humanity that have had such life changing experiences of their gods.

[voodoo scientist]

about this observable effect thing.

if one individual had an experience of that which is called god. and this experience changed their life.  that would be an effect of gods existence, wouldnt it? surely that is the effect of god on the life of one human.

the effect on humanity is the effect on the portion of humanity that have had such life changing experiences of their gods.

If God is simply an experience or feeling, conceptually similar to anger or euphoria, then God obviously does exist. I assumed God was an external being or force, in this instance, and as such, for this being or force to have relevance and meaning to our existence as humans, it must have an effect on it. Effects on the world can be described, measured and predicted.

Your belief in its existence is irrelevant to its existence. There is no way for me to tell if you believe in its existence because you genuinely experienced it, or misinterpreted information to arrive at the wrong conclusion without being able to observe the effect myself. Information of unknown veracity has no veracity until proven otherwise, and therefore little use - because of its uncertainty, it cannot reliably be used to predict other effects.

Edit: Put simply, you don't necessarily need to explain how you experience God, though it would obviously be the best way - you could also describe an effect that can only be predicted with the belief that God does exist, or alternately, an effect that can only be predicted if God does not exist.

[Karaten]

Milk

You misunderstand slightly: There's a difference between belief in God and the measurable effect of God's existence on the world. If God is relevant to humanity, it must have an observable/measurable effect (even just a theoretical effect that hasn't actually been observed yet). If it does not exist, there is no reason to concern myself with the question of God's existence. You say "it does [have] an effect", to which I say "publish it."

Don't forget that perception and reality is indeed different, this is shown by the fact that perception differs, though the reality is all one.

In this case, we are talking about God existing in perception, which is different than applying him to actuality. If you accept perception as true reality, then we must accept delusion and psychosis as real as well.

The problem is, because of emotion, this non-existent perception means more than what actually exists.

And while I do like me some flattery, you appear to be heavily influenced by human exaggeration and desire - specifically, your own. You've fallen into what I call the "Morality of logic trap" - it's like the new morality, only instead of morality, you have logic (you have to read all the logical fallacies and rules instead of reading the Bible). You're still applying the same dogmatic, manipulative methodology in order to control people, only you're trying to make them obey your "rules of logic" rather than their "rules of God" and dismiss "emotion" as something useless or even harmful.

Actually, emotion is necessary, just like eating. I think logic could replace emotion ultimately, and it would be for the better, though it would have to be an all or nothing situation.  

I know the use of emotion. I also know it is primitive and out dated, as well as dangerous.

So, in this world, you may be correct. But explain to me how emotion would be useful in a world where people will do what must be done and what's best simply because it has to be done, without the need to feel a selfish desire for motivation.
_________________________________________________ ________________

Earl

It comes back to what you know, what you think you know, what you don't know and what you can't know. You say to paraphrase that if there is no stimulus or perceived reward that a person or animal won't act. What about when someone commits a selfless act? They see someone in need and even risk their own life to help.

The good feeling you get when you help perhaps? Or to maintain status?

The perceived reward might be a reward in Heaven.

Why do you ask a question you yourself can answer?

Or they might be doing it because they just believe it is the right thing to do.

Possible, though the motivation isn't always that black and white, even if it's as simple as the good feeling you get for doing this.

You talk a lot, but you really don't say much.

Interesting point, though it is contradictory.

Emotion can not come into play? Emotion always comes into play.

It cannot come into play when describing a true unbiased condition, perhaps your delusional state causes gaps in your vision.

It is as much a driving or motivating force as hunger or any other need.

Yes...

Emotion fuels the need to procreate.

In a base form.

Yes it can bias information,

Maybe denial then.

but that is part of being human and fallible. Without emotion there is little or no motivating factor.

Pathetic humans. And there would be motivation, do you think ants feel emotion?

We are not machines.

For now.

We take a sense of pride in our work, this motivates progress. We are sad when we see someone suffering this motivates us to help.

Mirror neurons are "wondrous" things.

Emotion motivates action in so many ways. Granted it is not always positive action, but it is action none the less.

There are other ways to get action.

Close your mind until you have a reason to open it? Are you serious? How are you going to see the reason to open it if you have it closed? Choosing to ignore something or refusing to see it doesn't make it go away.

Like your own previous statements? The difference is, with a feeling, a sensation, if you don't feel it, it's not there.

You criticise others and then say you are not going to defend your point like you are to important to stick around.

When did I say that?

Self importance and greed are the biggest hindrances to human progress.

You're right and wrong, as they are needed when you rely on emotion in order to stay alive.

Plus you make the statement that you have your gun and we have our cross let's see who wins. Well many of the people who gave their lives for freedom were Christians or at least believed in God.

My point was directed at the one who said going to war was illogical.

Plus we also have gun's threaten us and see what happens!

I'd assume, if the person was serious, you would be dead.

[voodoo scientist]

I don't know who you're talking about when you mention what "we" are talking about, but I am not talking about the perceived existence of God (people believe they perceive God, thus this quite obviously true), nor the actual existence of God (moot point, as everything must be perceived anyway) but rather an observable impact on the world. Re-read my post and stop trying to frame the argument if you want to debate with me. And yes, of course psychotic and delusional experiences are real - they happen. "What actually exists" is irrelevant, has always been irrelevant and will always be irrelevant because it is fundamentally impossible to perceive things without perceiving them. What is relevant is the information's capacity for prediction.

Further, emotion is not necessary in the way eating is, it is inevitable. If you don't eat, you die, but it is possible for you to not eat - it is not possible to not feel. Nor is logic the same thing as emotion, or something that can "replace" emotion. They are entirely different constructs with entirely different evolutionary purposes - without emotion, you have no incentive to be logical or even continue surviving. More importantly, properly conditioned and controlled emotion is an incredibly powerful tool for both motivation and perspective that allows you to use your logic much more efficiently in terms of getting where you want to go, and for determining where you should want to go.

Random contests not tied to any one person: Yes, ants feel emotion. Everything that has a brain has emotions. No, emotion does not fuel the need to procreate, it's the expression of the need to procreate. Guns and crosses are both useless, the most powerful weapon is manipulation. This world is the only world that's relevant, your hypothetical scenario is irrelevant.

Personally I'm most interested in how you've managed to seperate "emotion" and "logic" as a sort of "equal components making up the mind" to begin with, psychologically speaking.

[Karaten]

I don't know who you're talking about when you mention what "we" are talking about, but I am not talking about the perceived existence of God (people believe they perceive God, thus this quite obviously true), nor the actual existence of God (moot point, as everything must be perceived anyway) but rather an observable impact on the world.

And you think there is none?

Re-read my post and stop trying to frame the argument if you want to debate with me.

Of course, that's your job, not the overall topic of the thread.

And yes, of course psychotic and delusional experiences are real - they happen. "What actually exists" is irrelevant, has always been irrelevant and will always be irrelevant because it is fundamentally impossible to perceive things without perceiving them. What is relevant is the information's capacity for prediction.

Of course, you only look at the end result, and not the cause. What you don't seem to understand is reality does matter, because reality has an absolute effect, whether you directly perceive it or not. Psychosis and delusions are not real, thus only have an actual impact by the response of the person perceiving it, which, by the way, is not inevitable, which I know from experience.

Further, emotion is not necessary in the way eating is, it is inevitable. If you don't eat, you die, but it is possible for you to not eat - it is not possible to not feel.

Numbness?

Nor is logic the same thing as emotion, or something that can "replace" emotion. They are entirely different constructs with entirely different evolutionary purposes - without emotion, you have no incentive to be logical or even continue surviving.

Logic could serve this purpose as well. Emotion's evolutionary purpose could be replaced logic.

More importantly, properly conditioned and controlled emotion is an incredibly powerful tool for both motivation and perspective that allows you to use your logic much more efficiently in terms of getting where you want to go, and for determining where you should want to go.

I'm just as content with people having emotions but not acting on them.

Random contests not tied to any one person: Yes, ants feel emotion. Everything that has a brain has emotions.

This is not true. It's not the brain alone that causes emotions. Ants have been shown, in fact, to have no emotion, as 1.They lack the capability and 2.Their behavior and society shows an evolutionary advantage for a lack of it. A type of society, ironically, we posses.

No, emotion does not fuel the need to procreate, it's the expression of the need to procreate.

True enough.

Guns and crosses are both useless, the most powerful weapon is manipulation.

More people are vulnerable to bullets than to manipulation.

This world is the only world that's relevant, your hypothetical scenario is irrelevant.

What if, going on your earlier point, I perceive another world?

Personally I'm most interested in how you've managed to seperate "emotion" and "logic" as a sort of "equal components making up the mind" to begin with, psychologically speaking.

Firstly, they're not equal. Emotion dominates most people, because of the urge for instant self gratification. Secondly, this is far from a psychological discussion.

[voodoo scientist]

You're right. I'm going to resume my position that the question of God's existence is meaningless if we can't conceive of a theoretical effect on our existence that would result from God's existence as opposed to nonexistence.

[Karaten]

You're right. I'm going to resume my position that the question of God's existence is meaningless if we can't conceive of a theoretical effect on our existence that would result from God's existence as opposed to nonexistence.

I can see your point, and I can agree to an extent, though it doesn't seem to be what I have been debating.

[liza123]

Karaten, I think that you need to read all the posts and understand the meaning of them(which I do not think that you are capable of!). Why? Because this subject comes under the category of 'abstract'(evidence was already given in some of the posts...quoting the greatest scientists on Earth..unless you are a greater scientist than Einstein!). As already made clear by some in this thread, you need to experience certain things in life to understand them. So,I am not going to waste my time on answering your posts(or else it will be a never ending process because your posts are very much subject to debate and sounds ......(do not want to be rude!)

As a matter of fact, I started this thread to get people 's experiences and views...there is no right or wrong(very simple!). You are entitled to your views as "milk" is(oh!God why do I have to keep repeating myself?)

This thread is closed for discussion. It is getting uhhhhmmm(not going to be rude!). Start somewhere else if you must. People like seekinghga, SWM and S Earl Martin(sorry if I missed out anyone!) have made this thread very meaningful. So, I would prefer to leave it that way....'None so blind as those who will not see, none so deaf as those who will not hear!'In life, there are times that you have to put a full stop...this is my full stop!Bye!