The Religion Discussion

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Yes, a strong feeling is not proof. And as i asked d spike, what is proof? What is meant by proving something? Please explain what you mean by providing empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence is a provable fact that shows unquestionable results. It is the observable proof that knowledge was gained by data, rather than hypothesis, or conjecture.

Let me be sure you understand though that I am NOT an atheist - I do believe in God. I am only trying to put logic to your claims.

Consider this:
There are millions of children around the world who truly believe in Santa Claus. They get presents under the tree on Christmas day and the presents are exactly what they wrote Santa a letter asking for - therefore to them, he must be real!
They believe it, they feel it and they experience it. There is even cause and effect.
However that is all the proof they need to be convinced that he is real.

As the kids get older, logic sets in and they realise it would be impossible for one man to deliver all these presents in one night, there is no toy making factory operated by elves in the north pole and there are no flying reindeer. There is no empirical evidence of any of this.

Does Santa exist? In reality no.
In the books and stories, hearts and minds of kids of all ages who truly want to believe, YES he does!
But that is the only place he exists.

Thankfully no one worships Santa and there have been no wars and bloodshed over belief in him.

[sweetiepaper]

sweetiepaper,

If one didnt know of God, never heard any reference to a being even remotely similar to him (like the uncontacted tribes in the Amazon), how would they know him? Does a 'Godly feeling' come into them all of a sudden, and then they follow the path to Godliness?

On the other hand, you can bet ur life that they know, in their own language, that the sky is blue. You can bet ur life that they know that fire burns.

Proof of God, just because the masses believe, you say? I FEEL.....

It seems the real question here is why has God appeared? Why/ where did the idea of God come about?

If we are looking at the tribes of the Amazon or any tribe isolated from modern society , i think it would be fair to say that they all recognize or hold some sort of being responsible for their existence although this being may end up being the sun, the ocean or some great force they may not fully understand. Point is, they acknowledged the possibility of a greater force responsible for their existence.
I think, instilled in each one of us, there is a desire to know God. So assuming there are people who have no concept of God, i am inclined to say that they would 'see' God in their lives. Personal experiences will lead them to accept that they were created by a higher power, and this personal proof has to be the reason the majority of the world believes in a God today.
It's kinda like wrong and right, some type of sense built into a person which signals to them that it is not a good idea to make other people suffer.

[Kasey]

^^Why is your question 'the real question'?

You wrote down many opinions, and not actual facts.

1) It would NOT be fair to say that uncontacted tribes hold some sort of being in high regards. The movies you look at portRay tribes as being like that but thats all you know, what you see on TV and movies. Unless you meet ALL the tribes urself you CAN NOT know how they operate. So ur point of them acknowledging a greater power, does not hold water.

2) YOU 'THINK' instilled in us is some sort of desire to know God??? Have you ever been to Golden grove? Have you ever spoken to a real murderer, or rapist? Padna, if you hear them fellas logic, you will say they are simply insane, but really they are not. They just have a particular belief system that they think works for them. A belief system exclusive of God.

'Right' for a killer means killing their target. Thats their goal and they want to acheive it.
'Wrong' is getting caught cause that wasnt the goal.

I witnessed an incident in a police station some time ago where they captured two young men who robbed an old lady. The lady was called in to identify them. If you were in that situation and you got caught what would you think? Well I would have said to my self that I shouldnt have done that. You know what one young man told the other???

"YUH see??? Ent ah tell yuh we shoulda kill see too, is your fault yuh mudda %$&"

This is how many people think all their lives.

That is just one example of how people think.

A person's thought patterns doesnt have anything underlying their emotions that will ultimately steer them to a Godly life bro. Its all about 'BROUGHT-UP-CEE'.

[d spike]

Why/ where did the idea of God come about?

If we are looking at the tribes of the Amazon or any tribe isolated from modern society , i think it would be fair to say that they all recognize or hold some sort of being responsible for their existence although this being may end up being the sun, the ocean or some great force they may not fully understand. Point is, they acknowledged the possibility of a greater force responsible for their existence.
I think, instilled in each one of us, there is a desire to know God. So assuming there are people who have no concept of God, i am inclined to say that they would 'see' God in their lives. Personal experiences will lead them to accept that they were created by a higher power, and this personal proof has to be the reason the majority of the world believes in a God today.
It's kinda like wrong and right, some type of sense built into a person which signals to them that it is not a good idea to make other people suffer.

Quite right!

However, bear in mind that the "personal proof" you speak of, is the equivalent of that required by the child who believes in Santa Claus, as explained by Duane - another well-written post - and far different from "empirical evidence", the meaning of which is self-evident.

Not every experience leaves room for doubt. Some events are much clearer than you may be able to imagine.

Try not to confuse clarity/understanding of an experience with reality itself. An individual's perception of reality can easily be very different from what actually is. A simple example would be the world-view of the tree-frog who never leaves his bromeliad...
Try and remember that one's beliefs shape one's world-view, and the experiences one has reinforces that world-view - that reinforcement is justification, NOT realization of accuracy.
I think this is where your misunderstanding lies - I hope I have been helpful.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but you are implying that religious people are illogical since their explanation involves God.

Actually, far from it. Theology is based on logic. Where religion and logic SEEM to not mesh occurs in two situations: fanaticism, where logic is ignored, in order for the preferred line of thought to supersede reality (look back at the earlier posts of megadoc and his ilk for examples) and in atheistic arguments.
There is no definite proof of God's existence. (I have dealt with this oft times before, so I think further explanation on this point isn't required - if it does, don't hesitate to ask.)
Therefore logic can be used by atheists to argue their point: prove that God exists.
As long as the argument is hinged on the proof of God's existence, atheists will win the debate, as God's existence is based on belief (faith) not fact. Logic itself dictates this.
(Logic also dictates why such proof cannot exist - but I digress.)

...but it is entirely equal that one can believe in something AND this belief also coincide with reality- to emphasize: one's belief does not MAKE that belief true, however one can have a belief in something that is totally congruent with reality...

Quite right.
The faithful (not the fanatic) use logic to explain their reality... just bear in mind that this logic is based on the fundamental belief that God exists. Atheists attack the belief, not the logic.

As i mentioned above, not all cases are unclear or leave room for doubt in that particular person's mind eg. near death experiences.

Again, personal perception can be quite clear, but it is simply one person's perception. It cannot be shared. Another person can commiserate or empathize with a hungry person, but the hunger itself CANNOT be shared... two people can be hungry, but that is still not sharing one person's hunger.
Again,
the experiences one has reinforces one's perception - that reinforcement simply justifies one's original perception, and IS NOT a more accurate realization of what is.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I think, instilled in each one of us, there is a desire to know God.

ok, that is an interesting thought, but (based on the posts in this thread) clearly inaccurate.

the instilled desire is more likely curiosity of our origins; the concept of God may have come about due to the enormous amounts of unanswered questions.

Take for example a child asking "how do Santa's reindeer fly?" and the answer of "with magic dust". Apparently there is no end to the power of magic dust, it can presumably do anything. A "deus ex machina" sort of scenario. A stopgap, a logic barrier that you just can't argue with unless you plan to disbelieve the entire Santa story, which for some kids is NOT an option in their mind - so they wholeheartedly believe in the magic dust explanation too. As the kids go along they start attributing everything that cannot be explained about Santa to his magic dust.

[MG Man]

sweetiepaper needs to read the chapter in Dawkins' book where he demonstrates how the 'need' for a belief in a god has an evolutionary basis

[sMASH]

that would be quite in interesting chapter for me.

but, i have a problem with sweetiepaper's statement "I think, instilled in each one of us, there is a desire to know God."

the second reason is because most people misuse the term 'know' when they talk about god, and that gets me upset; my brow furrows. a more general, or politically correct way to put that is say that every one has a concept of god.


the first reason is that he says he thinks that every one has a concept of god. atheists don't. so that is not a fair statement to make, because he is assuming, and then assuming for every one.

but then u would all tell me that he has the right to think. but he cannot 'think' that anymore because what ever he thinks has already been known to be wrong, i.e. atheists don't believe that the 'concept' of god exists.


the cup of tea. the desire to have a cup of tea is not a reason for water boiling. the mindset of believing sumthing to be god is not reason for there being a god.
wanting a cup of tea, and the water boiling may coincide, but that is mere coincidence.
the belief that an experience can be attributed to god, is not reason for it to be attributed to god.
yes, it may be a different thought level that may cause people to accept the desire or belief in sumting to be the reason for it, but that is it, it is not actually a reason.

if is desire a cup of tea, that does not lead to the water boiling. if i put the water to boil, then that is a reason for water boiling. if i boil the water, it would be coincidental that my desire for tea, or belief in tea, that the water be boiling. but that logic is not logical, it leave too much room for error, it does not lead successively to the water boiling. why, because i don't drink tea often, i would much rather boil provisions.

if some one wants tea, and i boil water, that desire for tea would not lead to them getting tea, but it the water is boiling. so, that is not logical. it would be a different thought level, but not logical.
people accept it, as logical, but yet it is not logical.




i know i am going on and on about this, but the reason for this is not because of an atheist/theist situation.
this is because when people of other religions come to tell me how to think, and tell me the reason for sumting is because of some thing specific to their religion, when from my perspective it is not so, then we get a problem.
you want to say it is acceptable on a different level of thought, and i saying that not showing me the steps in between the desire or belief u have to the result ur trying to attribute to it, means that u are not showing me reality, and i actually believe that the result is caused by something other than what u say it is.

u may think it all well and good to just accept that ur concept of god is the main reason for a situation and that no connection in between is ok. u also have that right.

the problem is that u all approach me with an attitude . and that is because of your accepted level of thought.


missing the steps in between makes it worse; u have now logical reason for ur blessing, but a giant egotistic attitude when u talk to me.
when i tell u guys 'no' u all vex.


the steps in between verifies that the thought system is logical, if it not there, then it may not lead to the result, then may not be logical, and more importantly, may not be true.

[NOMOSS]

Why/ where did the idea of God come about?

If we are looking at the tribes of the Amazon or any tribe isolated from modern society , i think it would be fair to say that they all recognize or hold some sort of being responsible for their existence although this being may end up being the sun, the ocean or some great force they may not fully understand. Point is, they acknowledged the possibility of a greater force responsible for their existence.
I think, instilled in each one of us, there is a desire to know God. So assuming there are people who have no concept of God, i am inclined to say that they would 'see' God in their lives. Personal experiences will lead them to accept that they were created by a higher power, and this personal proof has to be the reason the majority of the world believes in a God today.
It's kinda like wrong and right, some type of sense built into a person which signals to them that it is not a good idea to make other people suffer.

Quite right!

However, bear in mind that the "personal proof" you speak of, is the equivalent of that required by the child who believes in Santa Claus, as explained by Duane - another well-written post - and far different from "empirical evidence", the meaning of which is self-evident.

Not every experience leaves room for doubt. Some events are much clearer than you may be able to imagine.

Try not to confuse clarity/understanding of an experience with reality itself. An individual's perception of reality can easily be very different from what actually is. A simple example would be the world-view of the tree-frog who never leaves his bromeliad...
Try and remember that one's beliefs shape one's world-view, and the experiences one has reinforces that world-view - that reinforcement is justification, NOT realization of accuracy.
I think this is where your misunderstanding lies - I hope I have been helpful.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but you are implying that religious people are illogical since their explanation involves God.

Actually, far from it. Theology is based on logic. Where religion and logic SEEM to not mesh occurs in two situations: fanaticism, where logic is ignored, in order for the preferred line of thought to supersede reality (look back at the earlier posts of megadoc and his ilk for examples) and in atheistic arguments.
There is no definite proof of God's existence. (I have dealt with this oft times before, so I think further explanation on this point isn't required - if it does, don't hesitate to ask.)
Therefore logic can be used by atheists to argue their point: prove that God exists.
As long as the argument is hinged on the proof of God's existence, atheists will win the debate, as God's existence is based on belief (faith) not fact. Logic itself dictates this.
(Logic also dictates why such proof cannot exist - but I digress.)

...but it is entirely equal that one can believe in something AND this belief also coincide with reality- to emphasize: one's belief does not MAKE that belief true, however one can have a belief in something that is totally congruent with reality...

Quite right.
The faithful (not the fanatic) use logic to explain their reality... just bear in mind that this logic is based on the fundamental belief that God exists. Atheists attack the belief, not the logic.

As i mentioned above, not all cases are unclear or leave room for doubt in that particular person's mind eg. near death experiences.

Again, personal perception can be quite clear, but it is simply one person's perception. It cannot be shared. Another person can commiserate or empathize with a hungry person, but the hunger itself CANNOT be shared... two people can be hungry, but that is still not sharing one person's hunger.
Again,
the experiences one has reinforces one's perception - that reinforcement simply justifies one's original perception, and IS NOT a more accurate realization of what is.

I hear a lot of chatter about proof.What are the parameters we use to define proof.Can any of you prove to me that the earth is round.I think it is round because i was told this since I could remember but I don't think that I can really prove it.And what of reality,what is reality?Some philosophies teach that existence is dynamic and finite and this lack of permanence to what we perceive as reality is all illusion .

[megadoc1]

[d spike]

I hear a lot of chatter about proof.What are the parameters we use to define proof.Can any of you prove to me that the earth is round.I think it is round because i was told this since I could remember but I don't think that I can really prove it.

I believe Duane has already gone into detail about what "proof" consists of - correct me if I am wrong. (Perhaps that is why this thread is so blasted long, people keep asking the same questions over and over... Is it possible for someone to precis all that has gone before, a sort of "For those who came in late" a la 'Phantom' and 'Mandrake' comics style? )
Suffice to say that 'proof' is 'empirical evidence'... (thank you Sweetiepaper, for such a phrase - brevity can be delightful)... to demand more than this borders on sophistry - though I dare say your other arguments attempt to launch a full-scale invasion into said territory!
As far as the roundness of the Earth is concerned, while the average man in the street cannot prove that this is so, do you believe otherwise?
Have you ever seen a bacterium, or a virus, for that matter? In this age of technology and specialization, an intelligent person, well-read and informed, is aware of facts that, left to himself, he cannot prove... yet he IS AWARE THAT SUCH PROOF EXISTS.

And what of reality,what is reality?Some philosophies teach that existence is dynamic and finite and this lack of permanence to what we perceive as reality is all illusion .

Ah, yes, the old "images in the mind of God" debate. Let us not enter the realm of sophistry. Reality is all that we are aware of. Whether it is in itself 'real' or not, is a specious argument - the fact remains that this existence is the only one that we are truly aware of... and, no Sweetiepaper, the individuals' visions of another, no matter how 'real' they might have seemed TO THE INDIVIDUAL, do not count, as they can easily be argued to be the result of imagination, stress or an indigestible piece of meat.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

there are many layperson experiments that prove the earth is round (if you choose to believe that all the satellite and space imagery of the earth is false)

a simple weather balloon with a camera attached to it shows footage of the round earth

[MG Man]

how u sure the camera images are real?
suppose the devil putting those images in the camera?

[NOMOSS]

i believe in god....but i went in a bookshop yesterday and ah old negro man and he wife buy 4 holy bibles....d bill was almost $1000

WTF!!!


but then again as i always say....the most religious ppl and the ones that preach and sing and list to religious songs whole day....dem is d freaking devils...cause dey nasty tooo bad...wicked nasty ppl!!!


i sure i cud get at least 100 stories of how religious ppl behave in a manner not expected of them...

i know ah church lady.....boy she cud talk bout church...she singing hymes (sp) while she working...she listening tuh she songs be 4 she start working she goin to church every sunday also on some church group...had ah lil church clan in work...wud think she was heaven sent and god creaet she with he hand....if yuh know how nast she was...nasty person...like bachannal...cause real problems...talking tuh yuh good good and bad talking yuh right after....wicked....very sarcastic...cah really think of a word to describe she nah!!!

Panday.

She so nasty and she going to church ,Imagine how she would be if she did not go to church

[NOMOSS]

there are many layperson experiments that prove the earth is round (if you choose to believe that all the satellite and space imagery of the earth is false)

a simple weather balloon with a camera attached to it shows footage of the round earth

THat brings me to the questions "How many assumptions do we make inn order to enable our belief systems,and, what will happen to our belief systems if one or more of the assumptions turned out to be a fallacy?"

[sweetiepaper]

^^Why is your question 'the real question'?

True, should have said that's what I interpreted your question as asking.
You wrote down many opinions, and not actual facts.

1) It would NOT be fair to say that uncontacted tribes hold some sort of being in high regards. The movies you look at portRay tribes as being like that but thats all you know, what you see on TV and movies. Unless you meet ALL the tribes urself you CAN NOT know how they operate. So ur point of them acknowledging a greater power, does not hold water.
Okay, so if these tribes are indeed as uncontacted as you make them out to be, then how exactly do you or anyone know of their existence and futhermore their belief system? Likewise, if you too have not met them all, then your above point and the one about "If one didnt know of God, never heard any reference to a being even remotely similar to him (like the uncontacted tribes in the Amazon)" simply disintegrates into a personal musing which is difficult to take seriously and treat practically.

2) YOU 'THINK' instilled in us is some sort of desire to know God??? Have you ever been to Golden grove? Have you ever spoken to a real murderer, or rapist? Padna, if you hear them fellas logic, you will say they are simply insane, but really they are not. They just have a particular belief system that they think works for them. A belief system exclusive of God.

'Right' for a killer means killing their target. Thats their goal and they want to acheive it.
'Wrong' is getting caught cause that wasnt the goal.

I witnessed an incident in a police station some time ago where they captured two young men who robbed an old lady. The lady was called in to identify them. If you were in that situation and you got caught what would you think? Well I would have said to my self that I shouldnt have done that. You know what one young man told the other???

A person's thought patterns doesnt have anything underlying their emotions that will ultimately steer them to a Godly life bro. Its all about 'BROUGHT-UP-CEE'.

I do think we are programmed to seek out God. These neuroscientists seem to think so too - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6492181792. I do believe each of us has a conscience- through which God can guide us. It is also true as you have said, people through habit, can blur the boundaries of what is right and what is wrong. When this happens to a person he has become a moral psychopath- one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong and has become numb to his own moral decay.

If you eat healthy, you will eventually develop a sharper eye for what you might deem to be unhealthy food. You might even be repelled by junk food and reuse to eat it. Additionally, if you eat unhealthy foods, you might justify the unhealthy food as still good and moreover, you might even continue to eat unhealthily even if given the opportunity to adopt healthy eating habits. So in both cases each eater can become comfortable within their eating habits and find it difficult to stray.
At the end of the day, eating healthy has more benefits than eating unhealthy whether or not you can prove or are even aware of the biology behind it. For example, eating healthy might bring your cholesterol level within a healthy range. In the video above, Richard Dawkins is someone who has trained himself both consciously and subconsciously to deny the idea of God and therefore could not be rendered the sensation by the scientists trying to induce it- just as an unhealthy eater will more than likely not experience a safe cholesterol level.

In like vein, one can spot right and wrong correctly and easily if they are given to a valid moral guide. The more one ignores that guide it becomes easier to make incorrect moral judgments without knowing it is wrong - and also thinking it is right. It is true that our milieu helps to shape our behavior but it is not the sole contributing factor.

[sweetiepaper]

Empirical evidence is a provable fact that shows unquestionable results. It is the observable proof that knowledge was gained by data, rather than hypothesis, or conjecture.

Thank you for your definition of empirical evidence which contains the word 'proof'. Can you clarify what you mean by proof (and please don't say it's empirical evidence )

[sweetiepaper]

Quite right!
However, bear in mind that the "personal proof" you speak of, is the equivalent of that required by the child who believes in Santa Claus, as explained by Duane - another well-written post - and far different from "empirical evidence", the meaning of which is self-evident.

Are dreams real? Do dreams exist? Isn't it personal proof that is needed for this to be real? Why do we not say that i believe i had a dream last night?

There is no definite proof of God's existence. (I have dealt with this oft times before, so I think further explanation on this point isn't required - if it does, don't hesitate to ask.)

I know I have asked this before (not sure if you are still working on it) but what criteria needs to be satisfied in order for something to be accepted as proof. This would be a better question for an atheist but what does one wish to experience in order for one to accept that God exists?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ as I said before, believing in something does not make it real

[sMASH]

proof- sufficient steps from the causal stage leading to the result, demonstrating a succession from one to the other in a logical and predictable way based on known and understood principles, and possibly may be repeatable if all factors can be achieved.


what can be acceptable proof that the earth is round? duane suggested a very simple way to get directly observable information. the shadow of the earth on the moon was sufficient for those with a great deal of mathematical principles.


what is acceptable proof of jesus saving u? u not doing any thing bad, u get a get-up-and-go attitude wrt the world, u sing praises every day. but how can u be sure that jesus is what caused it? it just so happens that when timing was right, then coincidental?

if u were saved by jesus in an accident, how can u prove that to any one else? besides the fact that u should have been dead in it but are not, what steps can prove that it was due to jesus?
a shining light? u actually seeing him?
in that way, it would be proof to u, but that cannot be demonstrated to any one else who were not there. so, every one would have to go by your word, when talking about your experience (and should). but no one can actually operate based on that, why, because in another accident, will the same occurrence happen? if it does, and does so every single time then u still don't get proof, but u get a repeatable event, of which the mechanisms are not known, far less for understood, but still dependable because of the trend.


think about stock market trading. what proof is there of stock x increasing in value? there is a hurricane, which knocks out a set of oil platforms so supply is reduced, and demand goes up, and prices naturally go up. that is simple mechanism for the increase in value of stock x.
if the hurricane was not known, then there is no reason to say that the value of stock x would go up. and a rational situation would be that there would be no change.
when the value still changes but the mechanism is not known, then there would be no reason for the increase in value. so what can it be attributed to, god? but there is no proof that god cause the value to go up.

no, there is, cause u prayed all day and all night for a break, and lo and behold, ur stock went up. ur god works for u,
then the less whimsical would would say that the value rose because of some unknown factors. they would watch news and later find out about that good 'ole hurricane.

what is the difference, one a just a reinforcement of belief or a justification and the other actually demonstrates the steps to the result from the cause.

if the reason of god being nice to u is sufficient reason for every thing good enough in your life, then don't ever go to a mechanic or ever follow any recipe again, as the logic is unnecessary quibble.

[Kasey]

^^Why is your question 'the real question'?

True, should have said that's what I interpreted your question as asking.
You wrote down many opinions, and not actual facts.

1) It would NOT be fair to say that uncontacted tribes hold some sort of being in high regards. The movies you look at portRay tribes as being like that but thats all you know, what you see on TV and movies. Unless you meet ALL the tribes urself you CAN NOT know how they operate. So ur point of them acknowledging a greater power, does not hold water.
Okay, so if these tribes are indeed as uncontacted as you make them out to be, then how exactly do you or anyone know of their existence and futhermore their belief system? Likewise, if you too have not met them all, then your above point and the one about "If one didnt know of God, never heard any reference to a being even remotely similar to him (like the uncontacted tribes in the Amazon)" simply disintegrates into a personal musing which is difficult to take seriously and treat practically.

2) YOU 'THINK' instilled in us is some sort of desire to know God??? Have you ever been to Golden grove? Have you ever spoken to a real murderer, or rapist? Padna, if you hear them fellas logic, you will say they are simply insane, but really they are not. They just have a particular belief system that they think works for them. A belief system exclusive of God.

'Right' for a killer means killing their target. Thats their goal and they want to acheive it.
'Wrong' is getting caught cause that wasnt the goal.

I witnessed an incident in a police station some time ago where they captured two young men who robbed an old lady. The lady was called in to identify them. If you were in that situation and you got caught what would you think? Well I would have said to my self that I shouldnt have done that. You know what one young man told the other???

A person's thought patterns doesnt have anything underlying their emotions that will ultimately steer them to a Godly life bro. Its all about 'BROUGHT-UP-CEE'.

I do think we are programmed to seek out God. These neuroscientists seem to think so too - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6492181792. I do believe each of us has a conscience- through which God can guide us. It is also true as you have said, people through habit, can blur the boundaries of what is right and what is wrong. When this happens to a person he has become a moral psychopath- one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong and has become numb to his own moral decay.

If you eat healthy, you will eventually develop a sharper eye for what you might deem to be unhealthy food. You might even be repelled by junk food and reuse to eat it. Additionally, if you eat unhealthy foods, you might justify the unhealthy food as still good and moreover, you might even continue to eat unhealthily even if given the opportunity to adopt healthy eating habits. So in both cases each eater can become comfortable within their eating habits and find it difficult to stray.
At the end of the day, eating healthy has more benefits than eating unhealthy whether or not you can prove or are even aware of the biology behind it. For example, eating healthy might bring your cholesterol level within a healthy range. In the video above, Richard Dawkins is someone who has trained himself both consciously and subconsciously to deny the idea of God and therefore could not be rendered the sensation by the scientists trying to induce it- just as an unhealthy eater will more than likely not experience a safe cholesterol level.

In like vein, one can spot right and wrong correctly and easily if they are given to a valid moral guide. The more one ignores that guide it becomes easier to make incorrect moral judgments without knowing it is wrong - and also thinking it is right. It is true that our milieu helps to shape our behavior but it is not the sole contributing factor.

Addressing point 1: This has been discussed here before.........many times. Please Google 'Uncontacted people'. Also, I never said that I know what these's peoples' belief system is, I was just making the point that both of us do not know, so it is unfair to say to say "everyone" has this godly presence in them....


Eating healthy is something that brings us good health which is backed by empirical evidence, and can be easily proven (by repeated experiments) by oneself. You cannot use this analogy and compare it to the concept of 'right and wrong'. Repeated experiments on doing right and wrong will not turn up the same results, and therefore cannot be proven by repeated experiments.

[sweetiepaper]

that would be quite in interesting chapter for me.

You might have a hard time getting past chapter 1 : Nothing= Everything

but, i have a problem with sweetiepaper's statement "I think, instilled in each one of us, there is a desire to know God."
the second reason is because most people misuse the term 'know' when they talk about god, and that gets me upset; my brow furrows. a more general, or politically correct way to put that is say that every one has a concept of god.

Yes, you are right, i have misused the term 'know' (once again), your brows can relax now. What I meant to say is I believe that everyone is instinctively geared towards God although some may choose to swim against the tide of this innate configuration. However, the word 'concept' is not what i meant to say.

the first reason is that he says he thinks that every one has a concept of god. atheists don't. so that is not a fair statement to make, because he is assuming, and then assuming for every one.

Of course atheists have a concept of God! In today's world, it's difficult for anyone not to have a concept of Him. The definition of atheism revolves around God, that is, it rejects His existence. Not believing in the existence of God or rejecting the concept of God means you must have a concept of Him in the first place in order to reject it.

the cup of tea. the desire to have a cup of tea is not a reason for water boiling

Would the water be boiling if I didn't want tea? No, it would not be. The strength of your desire is what makes you go prepare it.

wanting a cup of tea, and the water boiling may coincide, but that is mere coincidence.

I don't see how this is coincidence. Wanting a cup of tea RESULTS in one boiling the water. These do not occur by accident or chance. It is the INTENTION of the individual to have tea therefore the desire is the initiating reason for the action taking place.

the belief that an experience can be attributed to god, is not reason for it to be attributed to god.

Why not? Are you saying if a person never had a spiritual experience, they somehow have the authority to speak on the validity of spiritual experiences? So your lack of an experience is accredited but someone who actually has had an experience should not be?

Yes, it may be a different thought level that may cause people to accept the desire or belief in sumting to be the reason for it, but that is it, it is not actually a reason.

if is desire a cup of tea, that does not lead to the water boiling. if i put the water to boil, then that is a reason for water boiling. if i boil the water, it would be coincidental that my desire for tea, or belief in tea, that the water be boiling. but that logic is not logical, it leave too much room for error, it does not lead successively to the water boiling. why, because i don't drink tea often, i would much rather boil provisions.

LOL, I don't understand what you are saying here. I am assuming you mean that the water boiling doesn't give any indication of why it is boiling. It could be for the purpose of making tea or for boiling provisions. It may be so, but if you investigate further by asking possible reasons it is boiling, you will eventually find the purpose the water is being heated and by who. The reason it is boiling would be based on the intention of the person boiling it, right? The point of the boiling water example is simple,i.e., the cause for something occurring can be multifaceted in nature. I think you missed the point. Of course the desire of wanting tea doesn't make the water boil, but the act of putting it up to boil is a definite factor which I thought was clearly implied in the example. We don't truly understand the exact initiating reason for many things.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Of course atheists have a concept of God! In today's world, it's difficult for anyone not to have a concept of Him. The definition of atheism revolves around God, that is, it rejects His existence. Not believing in the existence of God or rejecting the concept of God means you must have a concept of Him in the first place in order to reject it.

you have that quite wrong

an atheist is NOT someone who is fighting against God, finding ways to reject him.

Atheists feel about God the same way you feel about smurfs. You've heard people talk about them, there might even be a movie, but there is no logical explanation or empirical evidence showing that smurfs exist and you leave it at that and pass it off as a fairytale.

let me put it another way:
Some religions are monotheistic while some religions have many Gods. If you are monotheistic you do not believe in the other gods so does that make you an atheist to them? Perhaps to them you are, however you did not need to have a concept of all their many Gods to not believe in them.

simple logic.


---------------------------

also with regards to healthy eating and morals etc - these are behaviours that anthropologists study with clear indications of evolution

man has gone from hunter gatherer to farmer, our appendix has become vestigial as we cultivate our own food and do not go without. We have developed morals and value systems that are bred into us by each successive generation which help to promote more successful and thriving future societies. Nothing on this earth spreads like humans.

As Kasey stated, not all the values and morals are right - just look at some areas of capitalism and world economies - these are basic values we all contribute to that make the rich richer.

the holy books teach about slavery and how to treat your slaves, however we have evolved and feel that slavery is immoral today.

evolution

[megadoc1]

Christopher hitchens : author of "God is not great "

finally finds out how great is our God

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Hitchens+fought+dogma+delusion/5878044/story.html

[MG Man]

early xmas gift to me

[megadoc1]

lol..... I like the book mark

[pioneer]

So how do you bible toters explain the burning to death of babies earlier this morning?

That was god's plan?

For a 10 month old?

[pioneer]

I am having a blast watching national geographic's choice of shows for this entire week...in my perception they are showing how the entire life of "jesus" was a fraud.

He was a bachannalist, disrupted order and society, disobeyed the law and incited others to do the same.

The Romans did nothing wrong in crucifying him, he was a criminal and he died among criminals.

[bigga514]

Wow year(s) later this sheit still going, i have seen this part before just a few pages back (discussion going in a circle) kinda like the stupid pics we used to put up.....

[MG Man]

RIP Christopher Hitchens...........your work has inspired me and annoyed my wife

[sMASH]

hey, season's greetings to u all... in one way or another, this time of year means something different from the rest of it...