Does God exist?

[Jacob]

you are god. life is a dream and no other person is real.just a reflection of yourself. so if you dont like another person. you should figure out why and then you see that its actually a trait that you dislike in yourself that they carry.

so the reason I hate fat people is because I'm fat? I'm pretty skinny actually.

[devlin]

LOL that is quite funny but there is no real distinction between science and religion. It's FINE to engage in the abstract. Some people call it "God" while others call it the "electron cloud." The inspiration and dumb luck which produces most of our scientific hypotheses is not itself "scientific" or "rational" but "illogical," "abstract," and largely due to all of our dumb friends saying stupid shit, perhaps being poets, that we happen to include in our mental calculations. But reasoning that God is illogical because you have an illogical feeling is just the same kind of justification a religious person gives when they say God is logical based on their illogical feelings (that they can't put into words after you demand they stop with the rhetoric; "God is love"). So I ask you to look at the argument from preference of living style again: you simply don't believe in God because you weren't indoctrinated by religious parents. Indoctrination is not itself bad; it's neutral. Our parents have to tell us something; and that is the impetus for our preferences of living style.

One day you'll meet an overtly religious person who is good and fun to be around, and you'll say, "No, I'm an atheist; I don't have the talent to believe like you." Which just means you weren't given the right ingredients from your childhood upbringing and schooling to let you see where that person is coming from. Why? Because you'll want to respect that person's beliefs. You won't make bad-mouthing childish comments like Dawkins, trivializing something which is so dear to your friend. (How can you hold this person accountable for the Crusades? This person wouldn't hold you accountable for Stalin. etc etc) And you'll say "talent," just to be nice at first, but then you'll realize that the way you comfort yourself is just as illogical as their religious comforting. That you decide to whack off to scientific literature is not itself scientific; the religious person is just giving their arbitrary source of comfort a name: God.
   

there is a very definite line between science and religion. one (science) is real. and the other' (religion) is a shepard created by scared sheep. religion is a crutch for the weak of mind.

and it has nothing to do with upbringing. i was raised with the ingredients (brainwashing) that you were rambling about. i still grew up and made my own choices.

[lostpilot]

the answer to this thread is:



NO.

[Starz]

LOL that is quite funny but there is no real distinction between science and religion. It's FINE to engage in the abstract. Some people call it "God" while others call it the "electron cloud." The inspiration and dumb luck which produces most of our scientific hypotheses is not itself "scientific" or "rational" but "illogical," "abstract," and largely due to all of our dumb friends saying stupid shit, perhaps being poets, that we happen to include in our mental calculations. But reasoning that God is illogical because you have an illogical feeling is just the same kind of justification a religious person gives when they say God is logical based on their illogical feelings (that they can't put into words after you demand they stop with the rhetoric; "God is love"). So I ask you to look at the argument from preference of living style again: you simply don't believe in God because you weren't indoctrinated by religious parents. Indoctrination is not itself bad; it's neutral. Our parents have to tell us something; and that is the impetus for our preferences of living style.

One day you'll meet an overtly religious person who is good and fun to be around, and you'll say, "No, I'm an atheist; I don't have the talent to believe like you." Which just means you weren't given the right ingredients from your childhood upbringing and schooling to let you see where that person is coming from. Why? Because you'll want to respect that person's beliefs. You won't make bad-mouthing childish comments like Dawkins, trivializing something which is so dear to your friend. (How can you hold this person accountable for the Crusades? This person wouldn't hold you accountable for Stalin. etc etc) And you'll say "talent," just to be nice at first, but then you'll realize that the way you comfort yourself is just as illogical as their religious comforting. That you decide to whack off to scientific literature is not itself scientific; the religious person is just giving their arbitrary source of comfort a name: God.
   

there is a very definite line between science and religion. one (science) is real. and the other' (religion) is a shepard created by scared sheep. religion is a crutch for the weak of mind.

and it has nothing to do with upbringing. i was raised with the ingredients (brainwashing) that you were rambling about. i still grew up and made my own choices.

But you have given no argument for why anyone should believe that scientists have done a damn thing when, in the first place, their primary motivation is either aesthetic (not interested in public welfare) or monetary (not interested in public welfare). Politics controls science's productivity, and politics is not controlled by scientists. Politics also controls public welfare, where scientists have no serious interest. The few that do, and the one's now realizing the problem of their skills with respect to the public good, are just now starting to speak out...

A story for you: The "forgotten sculpture" refers to an ancient story of a sculptor who, as a young man, builds a magnificent marble statue. In his hurriedness and continued work, his sculpture becomes misplaced or dropped in a bush near his shop. Years later, the sculpture reveals itself to him at his feet as he's entering his shop. Now, he knows that he crafted the object, that it was the expertise of his hands which brought it into existence. However, what he has forgotten is his inspiration, his emotional drive and feelings at the time of chiselling the muscles and fabric of the toga. He has forgotten the meaning behind the statue. He must derive a new meaning from what he sees, what he possesses at the moment. However, what of the emphatic connection he had with it long ago?

This is what "God" is. It is a forgotten concept. And in seeing this, who are we to reject or deny any other person's statue? Who are we to even talk, as if it were important to us, about this man I have described and the emotional complexities he shares with his statue?

When we speak about God, we talk about another man's perfection. There is no "private God"; that said, we must understand how this word "God" and its meaning fits into our language. To reject it by an outward expression of disbelief does nothing to help or hurt this endeavour. Describing yourself as being "of God's people" does just the same. These activities of "defining oneself" do nothing fruitful, nothing worthy of comment.

But I suppose it is the absurdity of human suffering which compels us to act so naïvely, so immaturely.

[theis]

is anyone even reading all that? christ.



















pun intended.

[devlin]

LOL that is quite funny but there is no real distinction between science and religion. It's FINE to engage in the abstract. Some people call it "God" while others call it the "electron cloud." The inspiration and dumb luck which produces most of our scientific hypotheses is not itself "scientific" or "rational" but "illogical," "abstract," and largely due to all of our dumb friends saying stupid shit, perhaps being poets, that we happen to include in our mental calculations. But reasoning that God is illogical because you have an illogical feeling is just the same kind of justification a religious person gives when they say God is logical based on their illogical feelings (that they can't put into words after you demand they stop with the rhetoric; "God is love"). So I ask you to look at the argument from preference of living style again: you simply don't believe in God because you weren't indoctrinated by religious parents. Indoctrination is not itself bad; it's neutral. Our parents have to tell us something; and that is the impetus for our preferences of living style.

One day you'll meet an overtly religious person who is good and fun to be around, and you'll say, "No, I'm an atheist; I don't have the talent to believe like you." Which just means you weren't given the right ingredients from your childhood upbringing and schooling to let you see where that person is coming from. Why? Because you'll want to respect that person's beliefs. You won't make bad-mouthing childish comments like Dawkins, trivializing something which is so dear to your friend. (How can you hold this person accountable for the Crusades? This person wouldn't hold you accountable for Stalin. etc etc) And you'll say "talent," just to be nice at first, but then you'll realize that the way you comfort yourself is just as illogical as their religious comforting. That you decide to whack off to scientific literature is not itself scientific; the religious person is just giving their arbitrary source of comfort a name: God.
   

there is a very definite line between science and religion. one (science) is real. and the other' (religion) is a shepard created by scared sheep. religion is a crutch for the weak of mind.

and it has nothing to do with upbringing. i was raised with the ingredients (brainwashing) that you were rambling about. i still grew up and made my own choices.

But you have given no argument for why anyone should believe that scientists have done a damn thing when, in the first place, their primary motivation is either aesthetic (not interested in public welfare) or monetary (not interested in public welfare). Politics controls science's productivity, and politics is not controlled by scientists. Politics also controls public welfare, where scientists have no serious interest. The few that do, and the one's now realizing the problem of their skills with respect to the public good, are just now starting to speak out...

A story for you: The "forgotten sculpture" refers to an ancient story of a sculptor who, as a young man, builds a magnificent marble statue. In his hurriedness and continued work, his sculpture becomes misplaced or dropped in a bush near his shop. Years later, the sculpture reveals itself to him at his feet as he's entering his shop. Now, he knows that he crafted the object, that it was the expertise of his hands which brought it into existence. However, what he has forgotten is his inspiration, his emotional drive and feelings at the time of chiselling the muscles and fabric of the toga. He has forgotten the meaning behind the statue. He must derive a new meaning from what he sees, what he possesses at the moment. However, what of the emphatic connection he had with it long ago?

This is what "God" is. It is a forgotten concept. And in seeing this, who are we to reject or deny any other person's statue? Who are we to even talk, as if it were important to us, about this man I have described and the emotional complexities he shares with his statue?

When we speak about God, we talk about another man's perfection. There is no "private God"; that said, we must understand how this word "God" and its meaning fits into our language. To reject it by an outward expression of disbelief does nothing to help or hurt this endeavour. Describing yourself as being "of God's people" does just the same. These activities of "defining oneself" do nothing fruitful, nothing worthy of comment.

But I suppose it is the absurdity of human suffering which compels us to act so naïvely, so immaturely.

science as a whole has no intrest in public welfare. science is about finding answers, solving problems just to know the truth. that being said there are as many scientists working for money as there are working to find a cure for a disease or save natural resources 100% for public welfare and to make the world a better place.

and thank you for story time but i didn't read all that.

[goldpony]

i think there is too much that cannot be explaINED TO ENTRIELY RULE OUT THE EXISTENCE OF A HIGHER POWER. sorry about the caps there, i accidentally hit the capslock button

[whodunit?]

I started studying at new univristy and there's this guy in my group, a religion enthusiast. he fuckin' loves israel, bible bullshit and all the shit. I'm sick of him.

[lostpilot]

I started studying at new univristy and there's this guy in my group, a religion enthusiast. he fuckin' loves israel, bible bullshit and all the shit. I'm sick of him.

you can always put him down with long discussions about the existance of god, and how religion is only a peoples' control measure.

[Starz]

If you believe someone "designed" religion, then you're just as dull-witted as Zionists, Fundamentalists and those who believe, generally, in Chosen Races under Him, those who believe God demarcated a set of concrete objects to which they were and are perpetually given sole ownership. That is, you accept the story of "God-as-Big-Brother," but you voice it in the negative, whereas they voice it in the positive.

I think a large more of "why religion at all" can be explained under a Human line of thought. People follow custom and habit, and this leads them to accept their inferences as valid. Prayer becomes "valid" in a religious sense because of confirmation bias and human ignorance. There's no such thing as "rigorous prayer." Prayer has not been tested in the way scientific hypotheses are tested. But between event of Prayer and event of "receiving an answer," many religious people are satisfied with the communal aspect of religion. Then people will see their prayer actualised, given they give God his "Way" (time frame).

Anyway, we could investigate various aspects of why religion at all. It's purely psychological, but is it because people "like to have explanation"? No. They are not explaining; they are telling a story. It is a "closed explanation" that seeks not to integrate with other explanations. Does this explanation actually eliminate the "void" feeling? Well, we still have to answer why so many other wildly contradictory explanations (scientific perhaps) also eliminate that void feeling, supposing there ever really is one.

But at bottom, religion was not designed by an agent. Here, we agree. Religion cannot be coherently said to be designed by "evolution." So perhaps the psychological answer reduces to evolution; but there's still debate over the status of evolutionary psychology and evolution as the scientific theory. It's a long debate.

Short answer: Why religion? It's part-communal / part-individualistic. We like to tell stories in our community, we each of us. Sometimes our stories delve into metaphysical claims, sometimes they are contrary to science. But even science is sometimes contrary to science. Why this religion as opposed to that? Why all the specific religions? Well, why so many colours in the set? Why are trees brown rather than pink? Seems like the same kind of question to me.

Problem is: God does not do these things. People tell us that these are the things God has done (flooding, divine imperatives).

God doesn't do any of that stuff. People interpret God's actions as having those intents and manifesting in that way.

They call a lightning bolt "Zeus' wrath" whereas I call it an electrical discharge from the Earth's atmosphere. Zeus never existed; God never existed. People who said these things "exist" did exist.

Basically, don't attack God when you should be attacking people who put spin God's actions. "Good" spin, "bad" spin. It's all interpretation, and it's all fucking stupid.

[Shaye]

Does God Exist? Hmmm....

Well if by "God" you mean some greater force of energy that the human brain cannot even begin to imagine, and who is responsible for all we know of and don't know of....then yes I would like to think that exists.

[devlin]

If you believe someone "designed" religion, then you're just as dull-witted as Zionists, Fundamentalists and those who believe, generally, in Chosen Races under Him, those who believe God demarcated a set of concrete objects to which they were and are perpetually given sole ownership. That is, you accept the story of "God-as-Big-Brother," but you voice it in the negative, whereas they voice it in the positive.

I think a large more of "why religion at all" can be explained under a Human line of thought. People follow custom and habit, and this leads them to accept their inferences as valid. Prayer becomes "valid" in a religious sense because of confirmation bias and human ignorance. There's no such thing as "rigorous prayer." Prayer has not been tested in the way scientific hypotheses are tested. But between event of Prayer and event of "receiving an answer," many religious people are satisfied with the communal aspect of religion. Then people will see their prayer actualised, given they give God his "Way" (time frame).

Anyway, we could investigate various aspects of why religion at all. It's purely psychological, but is it because people "like to have explanation"? No. They are not explaining; they are telling a story. It is a "closed explanation" that seeks not to integrate with other explanations. Does this explanation actually eliminate the "void" feeling? Well, we still have to answer why so many other wildly contradictory explanations (scientific perhaps) also eliminate that void feeling, supposing there ever really is one.

But at bottom, religion was not designed by an agent. Here, we agree. Religion cannot be coherently said to be designed by "evolution." So perhaps the psychological answer reduces to evolution; but there's still debate over the status of evolutionary psychology and evolution as the scientific theory. It's a long debate.

Short answer: Why religion? It's part-communal / part-individualistic. We like to tell stories in our community, we each of us. Sometimes our stories delve into metaphysical claims, sometimes they are contrary to science. But even science is sometimes contrary to science. Why this religion as opposed to that? Why all the specific religions? Well, why so many colours in the set? Why are trees brown rather than pink? Seems like the same kind of question to me.

Problem is: God does not do these things. People tell us that these are the things God has done (flooding, divine imperatives).

God doesn't do any of that stuff. People interpret God's actions as having those intents and manifesting in that way.

They call a lightning bolt "Zeus' wrath" whereas I call it an electrical discharge from the Earth's atmosphere. Zeus never existed; God never existed. People who said these things "exist" did exist.

Basically, don't attack God when you should be attacking people who put spin God's actions. "Good" spin, "bad" spin. It's all interpretation, and it's all fucking stupid.

holy crap dude, i quit half way through the the first sentece.  all i really read was the very end. and aren't all your rants just your interpretaton of god. i mean honestly no one know whats real and whats made up. you may beleive it with every fiber of your being but you dont know, theres no proof, just books and stories. even if your quoting directly from the bible and repeating everything you've been told word for word its still all just interpretations. prophicies told and retold and translated into different languages. as far as we half the bible could have been, im sure was, radically different than what we have today. its the greatest game of whisper down the lane ever. your religion is one big purple monkey dishwasher!

[rock_n_frost]

if you belive that you have a soul, then you accept the god existance....

darwin never asked that question....

[Nailec]

you can understand the concept of soul in another way than the christian.



i dunno y i posted here. actually i was searching for the beer-thread

[samson simpson]

Does God Exist? Hmmm....

Well if by "God" you mean some greater force of energy that the human brain cannot even begin to imagine, and who is responsible for all we know of and don't know of....then yes I would like to think that exists.

thank you much
you just ended this thread
/lock

[rock_n_frost]

you can understand the concept of soul in another way than the christian.



i dunno y i posted here. actually i was searching for the beer-thread

best post ever

[goldpony]

you can understand the concept of soul in another way than the christian.



i dunno y i posted here. actually i was searching for the beer-thread

best post ever

most people find God when looking for beer

[Nebontha]

Quote from: Shaye on Jan 09, 2009, 09:40 AM
Does God Exist? Hmmm....

Well if by "God" you mean some greater force of energy that the human brain cannot even begin to imagine, and who is responsible for all we know of and don't know of....then yes I would like to think that exists.


thank you much
you just ended this thread
/lock

fuckin' eh.

[Variable]

Only god knows if god exist.  Everyone else shut up

[Nebontha]

Only god knows if god exist.  Everyone else shut up

Hah hah hell yah mon.