# Discussion with God (Taken from bddcentral forum)



## Sojourner

God: Hello You called me. 
I, Me, Myself: Called you? No. who is this?

G: This is God I heard your prayers. So I thought I will chat with you

IMM: sure, I pray. Just makes me feel good. Actually,am busy now. In the 
midst of something, you now.

G: What are you busy with? Ants are busy too.

IMM: Don't know. But i can't find free time. Life has become hectic. It's 
rush hour all the time.

G: sure activity gets you busy, productivity gets you results. Activity 
consumes time. Productivity frees it.

IMM: But I still can't figure it out. By the way, I was not expecting YOU 
to buzz me on instant messaging chat

G: Well. I wanted to help you resolve your fight for time by giving you 
some clarity. I wanted to teach you through the medium you are comfortable with.

IMM: Tell me. why has life become so complicated?

G: Stop analysing life. Just live it. Analysis is what makes it 
complicated.

IMM: Why are we then constantly unhappy?

G: Your today is the tomorrow that you worried about yesterday. You are 
worrying because the act if worrying has become a habit. That's why you are not 
happy.

IMM: But how can we not worry when there is so much uncertainty

G: Uncertainty is inevitable, but worrying is optional.

IMM: but then, there is so much pain due to uncertainty.

G: Pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional.

IMM: If suffering is optional, why do good people always suffer?

G: Diamonds cannot be polished without friction. Gold cannot be purified 
without fire. Good people go through trials. With that experience their life 
becomes better,not bitter.

IMM: You mean to say such experience is useful?

G: Yes. Experience is a hard teacher, though. She gives the test first and 
the lessons afterwards.

IMM: But still, why should we go through such tests? Why can't we be free 
from problems?

G: problems are purposeful roadblocks offering beneficial lessons to 
enhance Mental Strength. Inner strength comes from struggle and endurance, not 
when you are free from problems.

IMM: Frankly in the midst of so many problems, we don't know where we are 
heading.

G: If you look outside you will not know where you are heading. Look 
inside. Looking outside, you scream. Looking inside, you awaken. Eyes 
provide sight, Heart provides insight.

IMM: Sometimes not succeeding fast seems to hurt more than moving in the 
right direction.

G:Success is relative, quantified by others .Satisfaction is absolute, 
quantified by you. Knowing the road ahead is more satisfying than knowing you 
rode ahead.

IMM: Some times I ask, who am I, why am I here? I don't know the answers.

G: Seek not to find who you are, but to determine who you want to be. Stop 
looking for a purpose as to why you are here. create it. Life is not a proccess 
of discovery but a process of creation.

IMM: How can I get the best out of life?

G: Face your past without regret and live your present with confidence. 
Prepare for the future without fear.

IMM: sometimes my prayers are not answered.

G: There are no unanswered prayers. At times the answer is NO.

IMM: Thank you for this wonderful chat. I'll try to be less fearful.

G: Keep the faith and drop the fear. Life is a mystery to solve, not a 
problem to resolve. Life is wonderful if you know how to live.


----------



## Scattered

Oversimplification. There are plenty of people who are living in conditions that are so extreme that there is little to nothing they can ever learn about or grow from. People who are starving or victims of violence or oppressive governments or are simply in situations so dire there is no hope do not learn and grow. They suffer intensely but die gradually. They become numb and former shells of who they were. They're body's and minds are ravaged until they are released from this pain by death.

I'm not a victim of such a situation. However if you're going to posit this idea then we have to apply to the most extreme and unpleasant situations we can think of in order to see if it stands in the face of reality. I think this idea about spiritual growth, learning, etc is bullshit. Its a nice way of saying no matter how much we suffer we will be better for it. There are a myriad of examples of good, strong, people who suffer and do not benefit at all. This is not a character flaw, this is just the way things are.

This all comes down to a simple choice. We can blind ourselves with simple ideas that explain complex and often depressing situations or we can look at things as they are. I don't blame people who wish to believe whatever they have to believe in order to live happily. Sometimes closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears is the only way to stay sane.


----------



## Monkeydust

*yawn*

Why on earth did we need God to say that? I could have told someone all that myself and I'm not exactly divine.


----------



## Sojourner

Thanks for sharing, Scattered and Monkeydust. It's always interesting to hear your reaction to various ideas.


----------



## Martinelv

Yes, it's very nice.

You often see things like that on fridge magnets or inspirational leaflets distributed at therapy, along side the 'You don't have to be crazy to work here - BUT IT HELPS!!!' posters. :roll:


----------



## person3

god. jerks. i liked the whole thing

but everyone wants to be like "noooo it's oversimplifying blah blah blah" well once you get to a point of really understanding that stuff it isn't oversimplified at all.

Part of the idea of faith and not knowing what is next and such and not having damn good answers (and not trying to dissect them anyway)...is something we're not familiar with and would benefit mentally from learning. but no we want to sit there and say "well what about a and b and this and that", or we want to try to "outsmart" it or debate or whatever.

Gee, i wonder how we ever manage to get anxious! (/sarcasm)


----------



## Martinelv

Person3. Bullshit. 

The reason we might get a little cynical about this kind of garbage is because it's written by oily marketing suits for people who don't have the luxury of their own self-esteem. And they both know it.

I especially like the 'foot-prints in the sand' one. It's makes me weep.


----------



## CECIL

Scattered said:


> There are plenty of people who are living in conditions that are so extreme that there is little to nothing they can ever learn about or grow from. People who are starving or victims of violence or oppressive governments or are simply in situations so dire there is no hope do not learn and grow.


Who are you to say there is no opportunity to learn and grow? The more extreme the suffering the more powerful the lesson. If they didn't learn this time, perhaps they will the next. Furthermore, we must consider this concept on a macro scale. What does the society/collective consciousness learn from the extreme suffering of these people? How can we better ourselves to ensure this kind of suffering does not repeat itself?



> However if you're going to posit this idea then we have to apply to the most extreme and unpleasant situations we can think of in order to see if it stands in the face of reality.


A man loses his arms, legs, sight, hearing and voice to a land mine and spends the rest of his life in a hospital bed wishing to die. Is the lesson that life is pointless and we should all kill ourselves now, or is the lesson that we are more than physical?



> There are a myriad of examples of good, strong, people who suffer and do not benefit at all.


Please site specific examples and your reasoning for why there was no rhyme or reason for the suffering?



> This all comes down to a simple choice. We can blind ourselves with simple ideas that explain complex and often depressing situations or we can look at things as they are.


"Looking at things as they are" is exactly the reason we are in this mess in the first place. You see what you want to see. You create your own suffering.


----------



## Scattered

We don't learn and grow because we are biological organisms that live, decay, and die where we return to the nothingness from which we came. A person undergoes extreme suffering for no reason whatsoever. There is no growth after death. There is nothing.

Who are you to say that there is a next life where we all return to and "learn" from this suffering? Where is your proof? The burden to prove this lies with you, I don't have to prove anything. I report things as I see it. The world is a great place, a horrible place, a meaningless place, a wonderous place, a torturous place. However there is no method to this madness other than the will to survive that exists within our DNA. There is us, human beings, advanced animals that came into existence through a set of chance circumstances.

People of advanced countries can afford self help books. They can afford meditative retreats, lavish churches, rich motivational speakers, evangelicals of all faiths. They can afford to experiment with meaning and explore abstract concepts. This doesn't change the fact that the vast majority live in poverty. The vast majority are starving, victims of violence and a lack of material goods. We can afford to be happy, they can't. We can afford to assign happy ideas around they're suffering.

Poor people are dying organisms. They are decaying. They're bodies and minds are atrophying. You can't learn when you can't eat. You can't learn when your body is being ravaged. When you're being whipped, beaten, and shot. Rich people can learn and be happy. Reality makes no such allowances to those who come face to face with it.

Please show me that I am wrong.


----------



## person3

...not worth it


----------



## Scattered

I don't like thinking this way. It doesn't give me any comfort or security. There just aren't any suitable answers based on anything other than vague speculation. I want for there to be a reason because I need for there to be a reason. But if I see no reason should I just accept a happy answer that makes no sense because it would be emotionally healthy for me?

I suppose its not worth it.


----------



## Sojourner

Scattered,

I agree that it makes no sense to give our assent to something we don't really believe or see as true. Nobody's asking you to do that.

People who believe in God do so because he is REAL to them and billions of other human beings. We experience God as living -- as able to affect our minds and hearts. God is not a far-off entity that we "believe" in.

You need to find out what religious belief is really about -- instead of clinging to the childish caricature you use to put it and believers down.

I didn't come to have faith until I had the PROOF I wanted. You can do the same.

But you cannot make pronouncements like the following ones you made and expect people to respect your mind: "We don't learn and grow because we are biological organisms that live, decay, and die where we return to the nothingness from which we came. A person undergoes extreme suffering for no reason whatsoever. There is no growth after death. There is nothing."

Anyone who says the above is presenting themselves as ALL-KNOWING, and we know you are not all-knowing, and we know that you know that we know you are not all-knowing. So saying stuff like "We don't learn and grow because we are biological organisms that live, decay, and die where we return to the nothingness from which we came. A person undergoes extreme suffering for no reason whatsoever. There is no growth after death. There is nothing." is really profoundly silly.

And have the decency not to condemn what you simply have not taken the time to try to understand. You have no clue about what religious belief is all about. You think it's simply wishful thinking because you are truly ignorant of the religious tradition of humanity. You refuse to learn anything and continually set yourself up with your inane pronouncements as being omniscient.

People who believe in God do so -- I will say this again -- because God has manifested Himself to them PERSONALLY. They are not believing in an IDEA that makes them feel good.

It's so annoying when people carry on with their distorted caricatures of religious belief and try to portray themselves as "reasonable" at the same time that they make pronouncements about the nature of reality out of the darkness of their ignorance.

Who are YOU, my dear, to say there is nothing but decay and death. Who the hell do you think you are? You didn't create all this, and therefore, you are TOTALLY IGNORANT.

So stop enlightening us with "what is" -- and learn a little bit about the TRUTH of what religious people actually believe -- not what deadbeat drug addicts tell you religious people believe. Read some ORIGINAL SOURCES and then come back here and tell me it's meaningless twaddle.

Educate yourself. You are obviously a smart person, but your statements are making you look like a fool.

Nobody here who believes in God says "There is this" or "There is that." What they do is BELIEVE ONE WHO HAS REVEALED HIMSELF TO BE VERY REAL - in fact more real than they are to themselves. They have a relationship with God. Do you know what a relationship is? Do you know what "REAL" is? Can you imagine what it is like to have a relationship with God, who makes Himself REAL to you -- more real than you are to yourself -- and you are NOT hallucinating????

Read about the saints of the Church; look into your own heart and see whether you have a soul in there or not. When God manifests Himself as REAL to you is when you find you (1) have a soul (2) know what "real" is and (3) feel that you ARE real, too.

God loves you, Scattered, and so do I. I am harsh with you, yes, but heck, I am human and I am not a missionary, so I have a crappy style.

We don't have to prove a damn thing to you. You just need to learn a little bit about the world and have some respect for the tradition of religious sensibility.

Surely you can't have lived this long without a sense deep inside you of infinite beauty and justice in the universe and within yourself. Where do you think that came from?

Who do you think people worship when they say they worship God? A little man in the sky? Such nonsense beliefs degrade you and anybody to hears you.

I regret that I have lost patience with you, but alas, I am a miserable sinner and I am giving in to the urge to scream and yell at you to show a little respect for what you know in your heart are much GREATER MINDS THAN YOURS.


----------



## Guest

And who would those "greater minds" be, Sojourner? :wink:


----------



## Sojourner

You're a smark kid, Xep. Go to the library! :lol:


----------



## Scattered

Fantastic post. I give up. God has revealed himself to you. Does he speak to you? Do you have conversations? Do you sit down at dinner together and talk about your day?

There is no way for you to make any pronouncements about the reality of God. I have no reason to hate religion or those who practice it. I have no reason to disrespect religion. But I also have no reason to believe in it and every reason to speak out against it when its used as an excuse to not face reality.

I suppose that because I'm not a devout member of any of the religions that are being spoken of, or have taken the time to delve into archaic tomes of information, I have no right to make any statements about religion. I believe that I've been acquainted with christianity to be given the right to offer my opinion of it. I was forced into a belief that I then gave myself to. I prayed to God. He didn't answer. I saw desperate people around me praying and going to church and doing whatever was necessary to instill in them even the smallest amount of hope that God was going to protect them or grant them happiness. However, I have never seen anything come of it. When God doesn't answer your prayers or allows great injustice to occur then it is because "he works in mysterious ways." When something good happens then it is immediately attributed to God's grace. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the role that religion plays in the lives of the desperate.

But believe what you will. Have hope, I'm sure you're belief in God whether he exists or not is healthy. It gives you a reason to wake up in the morning and the hope of being saved from illness by an all loving being. Great. I'll shutup because I just don't understand the deep spiritual truths inherent in religion that are beyond my comprehension.


----------



## Sojourner

Scattered said:


> Fantastic post. I give up.


Oh, no!! :shock: Not that, please not that!!! 



Scattered said:


> God has revealed himself to you. Does he speak to you? Do you have conversations? Do you sit down at dinner together and talk about your day?


Later in your post you say you have been exposed to Christianity, but these questions and that statement do not jibe. For you to ask such questions, I am forced to conclude that whatever you heard about that was "called" Christianity was anything BUT.



Scattered said:


> There is no way for you to make any pronouncements about the reality of God.


And I don't. Believers tell you what is their experience. It is you who have made pronouncements that all there is to life is decay and death. You cannot find a statement of mine in which I say anything parallel to that about God being truly real. I talked about what believers *believe* only. 


Scattered said:


> I have no reason to hate religion or those who practice it. I have no reason to disrespect religion. But I also have no reason to believe in it and every reason to speak out against it when its used as an excuse to not face reality.


I could not agree with you more, Scattered, but you do not know the full extent of reality. You can report that it appears to you that all there is to life is decay and death, but that's quite a different statement than the ones you've been making.



Scattered said:


> I suppose that because I'm not a devout member of any of the religions that are being spoken of, or have taken the time to delve into archaic tomes of information, I have no right to make any statements about religion.


I wouldn't agree. Most people who believe actually only have their personal experience and no book knowledge other than the Bible itself, if even that. It's just that making statements is tricky: When we say, "There is no God," what are we really saying here? We are saying, "I know everything there is to know about existence, and I am telling you there is no God." Now, nobody thinks you really mean that, but that is what in fact the statement, "There is nothing but....." says. In other words, when I "correct" you, I am *not* saying don't express your opinion; I *am* saying, for your own good (because frankly, many people will just refuse to converse with you rather than go through what I am going through right now -- it takes effort to write all this down), express your opinion as your opinion -- not as "the truth."



Scattered said:


> I believe that I've been acquainted with christianity to be given the right to offer my opinion of it. I was forced into a belief that I then gave myself to. I prayed to God. He didn't answer.


God always answers. That you and I may not *like* the answer is a different matter. You don't really expect God to give you everything you ask for, do you? Just like you wouldn't give a toddler something he thought was good but that really wasn't good for him, God frequently says *No*, and you interpret it as no answer. That's incorrect. He always answers.



Scattered said:


> I saw desperate people around me praying and going to church and doing whatever was necessary to instill in them even the smallest amount of hope that God was going to protect them or grant them happiness.


*Protect them?* From what? Being human and suffering what humans suffer? Find out what God really offers protection from, and then tell me he doesn't deliver.

Read _The Problem of Pain_, by C. S. Lewis and then please come back and talk about it, okay? I promise you that you will not be sorry, because it addresses these issues in a way that will be new to you and quite effective. C. S. Lewis knows the heart of someone with exactly your experience, Scattered, of early exposure to Christianity, and later leaving it. It's a very short book -- too short, actually.

*Grant them happiness?* What is happiness? Eighty-five years of no suffering? And then what? Find out what happiness really means, and then tell me he doesn't deliver.

Again, the book referenced above treats this and the difficulties of arranging the universe so that the rock doesn't smash my house but smashes someone else's. Imagine the chaos of a world where God was constantly intervening in the laws of nature. Read this book, I beg you!



Scattered said:


> However, I have never seen anything come of it. When God doesn't answer your prayers or allows great injustice to occur then it is because "he works in mysterious ways." When something good happens then it is immediately attributed to God's grace. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the role that religion plays in the lives of the desperate.


I know exactly what you are saying and I have the same problem when I read a lot of comments people make; committed Christians struggle with this misguided and inaccurate way of talking about things, and the problem is exactly as you frame it, I think. It's the statements that attempt to "explain" the *good *that are misguided and inadequate. Whether something good or something bad happens to us, those things are on an equal footing with everything else that happens to us -- they are part of God's plan. Remember that God's plan for us (and I'm speaking without the "believers believe that" preface to my remarks, so please insert them mentally here before anything I say, okay, just to make it a little easier for me to get through this) is not limited to our time on this earth. Only the testimony of the Holy Spirit in our hearts can cause us to believe that, though. No human words can do it. No reasoning can do it. Only the action of the Holy Spirit working mysteriously in our depths can do it. What the Holy Spirit does is give us the gift of faith; because of this gift, we believe what we cannot see on the basis of the One who touched us in a place inside us that we didn't even know we HAD.

I was an atheist/agnostic most of my life (until age 35). I came to faith from zero exposure to any religious tradition. All this was new to me. I had no influences from my family; none at all. In my young adulthood I had only a hunger to understand "what was going on." I explored many different approaches to life before I actually "met" Christ. One of the most important books for me was Fulton Sheen's _Life of Christ_, which I recommend. Anything by Archbiship Sheen (who was the archbishop of New York City in the mid-20th century) is marvelous.

Anyway, we actually agree about this dissonance between the explanations for good and the explanations for bad things that occur to us. God doesn't give us what we ask for in prayer to make us "happy," in the way you and I conceive of "happy." Everything he gives is to lead us to the only true and lasting happiness -- Himself. And once we see Him as our only real happiness _ultimately_, everything he provides us with is viewed as a blessing -- even suffering, because it can make us more like Christ. Again, everything I've just said should be prefaced with "Believers believe that..." Thanks. :wink:



Scattered said:


> But believe what you will. Have hope, I'm sure you're belief in God whether he exists or not is healthy.


But you're quite right in questioning the healthiness of the belief that says, "God loves me and Christ died for my sins, so it doesn't really matter what I do." I hope you never stop pointing out the absurdity of such beliefs.

And you're quite right in condemning the belief that God hates anybody and sides with any particular group.

And you're quite right in objecting to the papering over of sins with political rhetoric in an attempt to justify doing evil.

I'm with you there, as I am sure are all committed believers of whatever religious tradition.

And you're quite right in looking askew at a God who some say rejects people if they don't believe precisely the "right thing" or belong to the "right church" or perform the "right ritual." All of that is bogus! Don't ever stop condemning those evil views.

In fact, the more you learn of Christianity, should you ever begin to study it in any detail, the more surprised you may become about how it in reality is nothing like what you were "taught" when you were young.

Do you know that the Catholic Church holds, for example, that even a person *without explicit faith in Christ* may in fact be saved? While Catholics do believe that Christ is All, it teaches what is actually contained in the Bible but rejected by many Protestants -- namely, that those that have not given conscious assent to his rulership but who strive to know the truth, to live a good life, and to be just and fair to others -- given the light that they have -- are not excluded from the Kingdom of God. At the moment, that includes you, Scattered. So no Catholic can reproach you in truth about your being "lost" or any such nonsense. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to see exactly what I am talking about.



Scattered said:


> It gives you a reason to wake up in the morning and the hope of being saved from illness by an all loving being.


I hope you're sitting down. :lol:

You are quite mistaken; if you are saying you think I believe God will save me from illness -- specifically depression -- you are totally and completely wrong.

I have never asked God to "save" me from depression or any other illness. Why should I, when he has provided the means by which these illnesses can be treated? I asked him for strength, yes, many times. I asked him to take away the fear, yes, many, many, many times. I asked him to give me the faith that I feared I had lost, yes, yes, yes, many times, too many to write "many" over and over to convey the number. I asked him to "Help me" many, many, many times. But to take away my illness? No. I was not ever near death, except when in some dark moments I thought about and quickly rejected killing myself. And even if I were close to death, I am not certain I would pray for him to save me if what my faith tells me is true -- this life is not the end of life any more than what we can see with our eyes shows us the full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation in the universe.

So, I must say an emphatic No! to your assumption that my faith in God has anything to do with my approach to depression/anxiety/DP. These are great evils and God has provided human beings who do his work on earth -- all the men and women who discover therapies, drugs, and other ways of overcoming evil with good are all doing God's work. They are all the hands and hearts of God on earth, whether they know it or not.



Scattered said:


> Great. I'll shutup because I just don't understand the deep spiritual truths inherent in religion that are beyond my comprehension.


I think you actually do understand them, Scattered. I really do think you do. I think you just have some stuff left over from an earlier time that you might want to reexamine.

Indeed, if I hadn't "heard" the Spirit "speaking" through you in fact, I wouldn't have bothered talking with you about these things. I hope you can see that I'm not "accusing" you of being a "closet believer" or anything, but suggesting only that I sense that you really do have a connection deep inside to "what's going on" and that it's not just decay and death.

But maybe I'm wrong. Bottom line: I didn't write to make you feel as if you should "shut up" -- I hope I've explained all that above, so please don't feel that was what I was after.


----------



## Scattered

I think you're viewpoints are completely valid. You're obviosuly extremely dedicated to your religion and theres no use in me trying to argue the point. Thanks for the in-depth reply anyway. I'll continue to lurk around and call your bullshit from time to time. Be seeing you.


----------



## Sojourner

Scattered said:


> I think you're viewpoints are completely valid. You're obviosuly extremely dedicated to your religion and theres no use in me trying to argue the point. Thanks for the in-depth reply anyway. I'll continue to lurk around and call your bullshit from time to time. Be seeing you.


I would have been interested in your responses to the things I said, Scattered, but if you'd rather not, that's fine, too.

I regret that we couldn't address the issues I raised directly and that you feel the need to characterize my beliefs as "bullshit". Apparently I have totally misjudged you.


----------



## CECIL

Wow, that was intense. I'm not religious, but I've been learning that there's limits to the logical mind (and it ultimately gets you into this problem of DP - overanalysing, controlling etc).

This is going to seem a little off topic, but bare with me. Take a science experiment (science being the epitome of our societies current logical minds) - you are investigating a particular phenomenon and you think of a hypothesis to test. But then you think of another hypothesis, and another and so on. The point being there is an infinite number of ways you could approach this particular problem. However, you will only choose one of these particular solutions - i.e. test 1 hypothesis. Testing that 1 hypothesis will further the research and so on until you have created a suitable model for the phenomenon (e.g. respiration cycle).

Now there's a few things that don't add up. Firstly, the scientific method dictates that hypotheses (and theories and laws) are only ever made to be disproven. That is, a hypothesis can never be proven, only disproven. Meaning that the whole process of science is only to approximate the actual workings of reality (because at any moment something could come along that disproves your particular "scientific fact"). The chemical formula you write down, with number of moles of each chemical etc. is never what is actually happening, only an approximation of it.

Secondly, there is a process of intuition involved. The scientist doesn't randomly sit down and test a hypothesis, then test another one at random and so on. The scientist looks at the problem and picks 1 hypothesis to test out of the infinite number using a process of intuition and deduction. This intuitive process comes before logic and mental control over the situation, yet it results in a logical and rational approximation of real phenomena. Science, however, overlooks this process of intuition and instead has designed itself to "filter out" all of the effects of non-mental, non-rational aspects of reality when constructing its approximation of reality. This is entirely counter-productive and counter-intuitive.

In other words, the logical, rational mind - the epitome of which is science - cannot in its current form fathom all aspects of reality because there are aspects that precede and even make up the logical mind itself. In fact, subjective experience of reality is AT LEAST as important and integral as objective analysing. Here is where this is relevant to DP, because the logical mind wants to inflect on itself and control its reality, which it does quite succesfully. Too successfully, because the result is a feeling of detatchment.

Now, look beyond your logical mind and see what you find. Pain, self-hate, fear - none of these things belong in the realm of logic, they are emotional and intuitional energies. You cannot control these things with the logical mind, you must let go of the rational and learn to rely on your intuition and emotions.

There is a point in there somewhere, I swear.


----------



## Scattered

Theres a place for religion. I simply don't feel the need to refute something that is purely based on ones subjective experience. Theres nothing for me to argue. I look at reality based on what I see and according to facts as we know them. Religion is something that is experienced by person that is outside the realm of science or objective fact. Its hard if not impossible for me to operate outside this confining box. I can only believe something that makes sense to me and something only makes sense to me if I have a reason to believe it, particularly evidence that would prove to me that it exists. There is no evidence for the existence of God. The simplest and best explanation, in my opinion, is that the world operates on purely physical principles. We come into this world, we live, and we die. You can look at this however you like. You can be extremely cynical about it, as I am, or you can be optimistic and say that because this is all there is then we have to make the most of it.

I can't be optimistic about our situation at this current point in time. I'm not saying that religion in and of itself is bullshit even if I think its false and serves as a psychological deterrent to depression. I'm simply saying that aspects of its teaching is bullshit. The only reason I'll even reply to posts about religion is because they often extend from their own domain and enter that of our greater reality. That is, they go beyond personal opinion and affect the way nonbelievers live or speak to the way everyone should live. They influence life in this country as well as its relationship towards other countries. Trying to explain injustice as anything other than injustice seems to be a simple palliative to reality. Instead of dealing with what occurs in the world we try to gloss it over with an explanation that appeals to our desires. We want to believe that all things occur for a reason, that all suffering leads to growth, and that and mystical place lies in wait for us after death. These ideas seem to me like simple inventions used to deal with complex problems.

I'm not going to engage in a debate about truth of religion. About whether or not it makes sense to believe or not to believe. I don't care. Specifically because these arguments are meaningless. There is no evidence for the existence of God. In order to justify God's existence we have to go through a long song and dance to justify a belief that, currently, has no basis in reality. We're trying to argue about things that occur in day to day life, versus the teachings of a book or conjecture from people who claim to have experienced God. I don't care about conjecture or about faith or about vague feelings or wishes or hopes. I care about what I see, and what I know based on evidence that presents itself to me. This may be a flawed way of looking at things but currently its the best way I can. If you're perception of reality is different, more optimistic, and contains less confusion then the more power to you. Otherwise, there really isn't anything else to say.


----------



## Sojourner

In your opinion, there is no evidence for the existence of God, and despite my explanation to you of a few days ago, you still manage to say from your throne of omniscience, "There is no evidence for the existence of God."

You _think _there is none, and you ignore the evidence that does exist -- and there is an abundance of it, historical and otherwise.

However, one who is fully convinced he or she is omnisicient cannot learn (because they already know everything), and there is abundant evidence that this is what's operating here.

I wish you peace, long life, and enlightenment.


----------



## CECIL

Scattered said:


> Its hard if not impossible for me to operate outside this confining box. I can only believe something that makes sense to me and something only makes sense to me if I have a reason to believe it...


You say it yourself - confining box. Your logical mind and your physical-only world-view is a meaningless, dead world. Yet you wonder why you have a disorder that makes you wonder if your life has any meaning or makes you feel as though you are not alive?

What does your subjective experience tell you? Not about god, not about religion, but about your life, your experience.


----------



## Scattered

My subjective experience of reality would lead me towards ideas that I rather not believe. The idea that the world is purely physical. I honestly want to believe in a God, but my experience would lead me towards a totally different conclusion. The more I think about it the more I realize my desire for God comes out of a NEED for God, not because I know that god exists but because I need to believe in the face of a science that is increasingly offering explanations and alternatives to religion.

It's truely a painful time to live. A time when logical explanations and reason are beginning to take the place of old ideas and superstitions. Man once used god, religion, spirits, etc to make sense of a world that he did not and could not understand based on his level of technology and knowledge. The more we learn, the more these supersitions are shown to be false. There are no supernatural phenomena that lead to the sunrise or sunset, the change of seasons, violent weather, as well as the life cycle itself. These are purely physical phenomena. The old way of looking at things was fine for its time, but in the face of current knowledge its difficult to turn ones back on scientific fact. We can't prove that god does or does not exist but we don't have to. We have brains that allow us to experiment and learn about the world around us. And the more we learn about the physical workings of the universe the more religion seems to be what it is, a primitive way of explaining a world that did not make sense. I don't believe there is any room for religion when the justification for its existence, the ability to make order out of chaos, has quickly been superceded by science.

Back to the idea of subjective experience, I'm sorry but I have never experienced God regardless of how much I prayed or how sincere I was. I never saw any manifestion of God, or anything other than the physical world around me. If you have come to know God through subjective experience, then as I said, thats great. But that isn't proof of God's existence. Nor is the subjective experience of any prior mystic, saint, etc.


----------



## Monkeydust

Fundos really get on my nerves! Especially Sojourner 



> You think there is none, and you ignore the evidence that does exist -- and there is an abundance of it, historical and otherwise.


It's odd, isn't it? Scientists have been looking for *any* evidence of God over the last 300 years or so, many with the expectation that there would be something - if we can't observe God, you'd think that he'd at least leave some pretty clear signs that he's around. So far, *not a shred* of evidence has turned up.

And the search goes on. A recent study, involving Muslims, Christians and other faiths, studied on a large scale the impact that prayer had on the health of the sick. The result? It made no darn difference whatsoever!

Link:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/15/MNGEODOHHQ1.DTL

It's equally odd how you claim there's "historical" evidence. Having studied Ancient History some time ago, I can tell you, for instance, that not one Roman Historian so much as *mentions* the events surrounding Jesus in the province of Judea from 0-33AD.

Another fact tof "historical" evidence is that it has to be treated with criticism and scepticism. If it doesn't stand up to the most rigid scrutiny, we're forced to discard it. The Bible as historical evidence, with this in mind, isn't worth much, especially when considering something so major as a belief in God - and a consequent eternal enlightenment or perpetual condemnation (the latter for me and Scattered, obviously).

So unless you can present some kind of evidence, besides just telling us it exists, I think a rational person is forced to conclude that either (A) God does not exist, or (B) God may exist and have created the universe, but since he hasn't left much evidence of himself or what he wants us to do he doesn't care how we act.

Neither conclusion leads to a faith in God, let alone one religion over another.


----------



## Sojourner

*Straw Man Alert*

Scattered said,"There are no supernatural phenomena that lead to the sunrise or sunset, the change of seasons, violent weather, as well as the life cycle itself. These are purely physical phenomena. The old way of looking at things was fine for its time, but in the face of current knowledge its difficult to turn ones back on scientific fact."

----

You have created a *straw man* -- nobody said that supernatural phenomena led to the sunrise or sunset.


----------



## Sojourner

So what do you consider "proof"?

Do you reject the concept of causality?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument


----------



## Monkeydust

Speaking of straw men...look...it's the Cosmological Argument!

But let's suppose that it's proof of God for the moment. How do you get from a proof that a God created the universe to a belief that Christian faith is the universal doctrine of that God?


----------



## Homeskooled

I have a couple of problems with this reliance on studies. First of all, any study with the acronym of MANTRA begs for its seriousness to be questioned. But I digress. I first of all have never heard of this study, cant find if it was funded by an NIH grant, cant find the institution it was done for in the body of the article, and lastly, didnt realize that there were any flaws in the Harvard NIH study done several years ago. Setting all of this aside, lets just take for granted that it IS a well-researched, above-board study. Its findings were still not ambiguous. Notice at the bottom that those given intense prayer had a lower rate of morbidity. But lets even discount that. Lets say that this well-researched study found absolutely no link to an improvement of health. Lets say it even found that prayer is bad for you, and increases your chance of living a shorter life (it in fact says the opposite of religious faith in its headline, but I'm playing devil's advocate). And lets say that it was just not one study which negated the findings of previous ones, which it is, but lets say that for every study which said prayer made you healthier, there was one saying it killed you, or increased your cardiovascular complications. Then , finally, prayer would be the equivalent of taking Vitamin E. Its a natural substance. Our bodies need it. But like any drug, every six months a contradictory study is published. One of the most hotly contested is its usefulness for people with cardiovascular disease. There have been so many contradictory studies, I dont think the vitamin companies even know what to think. But at least its a great antioxidant, right? Well, they just compiled a list of people who took the drug for eight years or more, and found they lived shorter lives than those in their age bracket who didnt. Darn. So does this mean that our bodies dont need vitamin E? No. Does it mean that until we have definitive "proof" ( and I beleive for some people, this sort of proof means never a having a conflicting study or a doubt ) before it can be used medicinally? The answer is emphatically no. Fertility doctors give high doses of it, along with Vitamin C, to improve sperm counts. Liver doctors use it to treat fatty liver. Some doctors will use it to thin blood. Prayer is just like this, except at this point, there seem to be NO studies which show it shortens your life, and quite a few which say the opposite. No matter how you slice this, indirect links to God's existence such as an improved quality of life for those with faith, and even longer life spans, is quite a ***** in the armor of atheism. And it gels with the long held idea that while we'll have to have faith since overwhelming direct proof wont be given, the benefits of faith in one's life will be tangible. Like vitamin E, we'll never know how prayer works, or who exactly it will work for. We just know its therapeutic - and has less side effects than vitamins.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Scattered

Regardless of what monkey dust said about faith, I did indeed say that it could be healthy. I think prayer can help in sickness and there have been some studies that have shown this. Once again I don't care about the ancillary health effects of prayer. This shows that positive thinking and hope can affect ones health. This is no way shows that a prayer is being answered by a god, gods, or force. To say that this is a ***** in the armor of atheism is ridiculous. We all know that positive thinking whether that take the form of prayer, positive self-talk, etc can at times help us.

Physical explanations make the most sense to me. I wasn't setting up a straw man when I was talking about the place that religion once had. I was simply saying that religion developed in order to give supernatural explanations to physical phenomena. That was its function, in a time where we lacked knowledge to explain how the world operated. Now we have science, we have a more accurate method of gaining knowledge and we are beginning to see that the world is based on purely physical phenomena where it was once thought to be based on religious or spiritual phenomena.

The only thing that the theist has is his or her subjective experience, or "indirect links", which are tenuous themselves, to the existence of God. I don't need to know about half-truths, maybe's, or conjecture. I rely on scientific fact and evidence. The cosmological argument may provide a reasoned justification for the existence of God, but does not move us any farther to showing us that God actually exists. If you want to say that the existence of God is something that cannot be seen by the scientific mind, then say so and at least we'll come to the conclusion that God is completely divorced from the physical world and has left no evidence to show us that he is or was ever here. He is in our minds, and as such is completely irrelevant to my experience of the world. I have alot of fantasies, notions, ideas that run through my head, but I would never dedicate my life to them.


----------



## Homeskooled

No, scattered, thats the interesting thing, and the ***** in the armor. Positive thinking does not have anywhere near the same health effects as prayer. I'll look up some studies later. But look at this one. The MIT, massage new-age light-whatever, helped reduce stress before operations. Did heavy doses of MIT reduce morbidity?Now look to the bottom of the article - did heavy doses of prayer? Now look at other studies done. Whether or not a person prayed, prayer increased one's chances of health. When you were prayed for by someone else, your chances of complications decreased. Maybe you could interpret that as someone sending you positive thoughts, but to be honest, if prayer is the Vitamin E of medicine, then positive thought is the placebo - which is, in fact, how a placebo works.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Sojourner

"...that religion developed in order to give supernatural explanations to physical phenomena."

It is rather *the origin and cause of matter* that is the subject of religion.


----------



## Scattered

What are you basing this on homeskooled, give me a link to the studies. I'm willing to bet that an extremely positive person, who is positive in the face of overwhelmingly negative circumstances, will be as healthy as the most devout theist. The mind affects the body, this is no big deal. Furthermore I doubt there is anyway that such a study can truly be done correctly. I'm sure those who pray are healthier than those who don't pray but how are we studying this? Are we saying that those who pray are healthier than depressed atheists or are healthier than average atheists or near manic motivational speakers?

There are plenty of depressed catholics, christians, muslims, jews, etc. There are plenty of depressed atheists, agnostics, etc. The only difference I can see is that regardless of faith or lack of faith, some people have a positive outlook on life and some don't. Those who have a more positive outlook on life are able to derive health benefits. I've seen no reason so far to believe that prayer, above all else, has a distinct benefit.

EDIT: I didn't properly address your supposition. I looked over the sfgate article. The article said,


> those who received both MIT therapy and the "high-dose" prayer may have been slightly less likely to die in the following six months.


The key words here are both and less. Morbidity was decreased only when MIT and prayer were combined. Even when they were combined the morbidity rate was only "slightly less." The researchers went on to state the obvious, that given the nature of the study it was impossible to make any firm conclusions.

Once again, mere conjecture.


----------



## Homeskooled

Well, it actually said that those findings were going to lead to more studies. And those findings will lead to more. Its the nature of science.

The difference between positive thinking and the findings of prayers studies is this : They arent studying whether those who pray feel any better- that could just be the power of suggestion, or as you call it, positive thinking. Rather, they are studying whether those who are prayed FOR have an increase or a decrease in health. I'll give you a link to the Harvard study later. Have to find it online.

Peace
Homeskooled[/code]


----------



## Sojourner

I found this just now, and it appears that at least this study showed no benefit to the prayed-for:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Surgery/Gen ... ry/tb/1362

Personally, I don't know that any study will ever be able to show that "prayer works," and I would find that such a study would once again bring up an issue that Scattered and I danced around the other day. That issue is: Does an "answer" to prayer mean only that we get what we ask for, or does God indeed say "No" to our prayers (or to others' prayers for us) for reasons that we already know but refuse to accept?

In fact, the entire approach of this "study" is flawed in that it presupposes a very simplistic view of what prayer actually is. Prayer is not about getting God to do our bidding. Prayer is our asking God to strengthen us so that we can do his will. Prayer is about asking God to show us how to do HIS bidding, not the reverse.

In many cases, it is God's will that a person not recover from an illness, but that's not the same as saying God abandons the person. If death means union with God, death is better than life, ultimately. Not that it should be chosen *over* life while we live, but that "life on earth" is not the ultimate good.

I suppose that I think that scientific study of the effects of prayer are kind of silly in that they presuppose that an "answer" to prayer necessarily means the person recovers, when in the long term, what's really the absolute best for that person's happiness is union with God -- the truly good "end" that is desired by all believers.

Can 30 believers change God's mind about when a person dies? There are some who would argue that is indeed true, but I am not one of them.

Prayer is about transforming US, not about us transforming God.


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Sojourner, 
I'm afraid I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your position on prayer. The Church is very clear that while one can ask for God to strengthen us, prayer is not just an exercise which is good for the soul and our moral fortitude, even if we are saying that we should pray for god to give us the grace of that fortitude. It is safer to argue a stance such as that, because when a prayer is "unanswered" it gives a believer a safe exit from the argument, but praying is all about storming heaven to persuade God. When a saint is canonized in the Catholic Church, the saint in question must have two medical miracles verified by outside institutions, and done through that saint's intercession. In this case, those who pray for the sick are asking the saint to intercede to God on their behalf. But more than that, it is a Catholic beleif based in very biblical foundations. Do you remember Christ's parable of the old woman and the judge? Eventhough he despised the woman and cared nothing for the problem she had, she was so persistent in asking the judge to rule in her favor that he finally relented "because of her persistence". This is how we are to pray to God as well - relentlessly, and with the hope that he hears and will answer it with a yes. That wont always be the case, but I believe a great deal of situations are morally neutral, and Divine Providence can use many different outcomes in a situation to the same beautiful end.

The Medpage Today study you pulled up was also the Mantra II study which Scattered quoted earlier. As Scattered pointed out, only high dose prayer along with relaxation techniques seemed to lower morbidity. The Harvard study which I have been prattling on about for some time was formed by a rogue Harvard doctor named Dr. Benson. He practices there, and was first thought in the 1990's to be quite eccentric when he took up studies on prayer. His studies have been so thought provoking and well-organized, however, that he is readily granted funds by the NIH. His most recent study, the 800 pound gorilla of prayer studies, was wrapped last year. I believe it used something like 900 patients, and doesnt have the tabulation problems that previous studies did. Other famous studies, such as the San Francisco AIDS/Prayer study, used markers of wellness such as psychological well-being of those being prayed for. Most of the medical communtiy would like to see only objectively measurable standards of health used, because of the skepticism surrounding religious/medical studies. Its a double standard, however, as all medical trials and studies use psychological markers of well-being, from pharmaceutical trials to anorexia studies. Preliminary data has been published in medical journals , but none of it seems to have appeared online yet. The results are a mixed bag, but the preliminary studies seem to be highly favorable. I'm very excited about it, actually. If anyone can Google the results online, please let me know. There was however, a study done at Columbia, I beleive last year as well, where one of the researchers was jailed for fraud in some other circumstance. The study has not been withdrawn, as its findings have not been proven invalid, but it does give it a bad taste. Alright, thats about it from me right now. I'm pulling this all from memory, so google these if you want more detailed info!

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Sojourner

Homeskooled said:


> Dear Sojourner,
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your position on prayer. The Church is very clear that while one can ask for God to strengthen us, prayer is not just an exercise which is good for the soul and our moral fortitude, even if we are saying that we should pray for god to give us the grace of that fortitude. It is safer to argue a stance such as that, because when a prayer is "unanswered" it gives a believer a safe exit from the argument, but praying is all about storming heaven to persuade God. When a saint is canonized in the Catholic Church, the saint in question must have two medical miracles verified by outside institutions, and done through that saint's intercession. In this case, those who pray for the sick are asking the saint to intercede to God on their behalf. But more than that, it is a Catholic beleif based in very biblical foundations. Do you remember Christ's parable of the old woman and the judge? Eventhough he despised the woman and cared nothing for the problem she had, she was so persistent in asking the judge to rule in her favor that he finally relented "because of her persistence". This is how we are to pray to God as well - relentlessly, and with the hope that he hears and will answer it with a yes. That wont always be the case, but I believe a great deal of situations are morally neutral, and Divine Providence can use many different outcomes in a situation to the same beautiful end.


OK, Homeskooled, I defer to you, because I am but a convert of some 23 or so years. Yes, I even thought of the scripture of the old woman and the judge when I was writing my post, and yet still made the error! I suppose I am not clear on where the two aspects of prayer meet or where they diverge.

Thanks for the correction. However, as you know, there are further problems with this that someone like me might have, such as "Does God answer my persistent prayer, but not yours?" "What of the poor person with no one praying for them?" So in my silliness, I resolved all those issues by pretending there was no reality of bombarding Heaven with prayer, even though I know that's Church teaching. I can't explain it, but all I can say is that your post is no surprise to me -- and I am very grateful that you took the time to respond. I'm sure you know what I mean when I say that I did think of that very scripture and of the admonition to "pray constantly" and managed -- probably because I was too full of myself -- to pretend that I was blissfully oblivious to the fact that I was sweeping what didn't agree with my theory under the rug. I hope you will call me on this type of thing if you ever spot me doing it again. Thanks a million, Homeskooled for writing!



Homeskooled said:


> The Medpage Today study you pulled up was also the Mantra II study which Scattered quoted earlier. As Scattered pointed out, only high dose prayer along with relaxation techniques seemed to lower morbidity. The Harvard study which I have been prattling on about for some time was formed by a rogue Harvard doctor named Dr. Benson.


Rogue? Aren't you talking about the "Relaxation Response" guy, who runs the Mind-Body place at Beth Israel?



Homeskooled said:


> He practices there, and was first thought in the 1990's to be quite eccentric when he took up studies on prayer. His studies have been so thought provoking and well-organized, however, that he is readily granted funds by the NIH. His most recent study, the 800 pound gorilla of prayer studies, was wrapped last year. I believe it used something like 900 patients, and doesnt have the tabulation problems that previous studies did. Other famous studies, such as the San Francisco AIDS/Prayer study, used markers of wellness such as psychological well-being of those being prayed for. Most of the medical communtiy would like to see only objectively measurable standards of health used, because of the skepticism surrounding religious/medical studies. Its a double standard, however, as all medical trials and studies use psychological markers of well-being, from pharmaceutical trials to anorexia studies. Preliminary data has been published in medical journals , but none of it seems to have appeared online yet. The results are a mixed bag, but the preliminary studies seem to be highly favorable. I'm very excited about it, actually. If anyone can Google the results online, please let me know.


I'd be happy to Google, but I need more particulars about these studies.


----------



## CECIL

Here's a spanner in the works. I have a science degree and I love science, so don't get me wrong, but science is in no way complete. In fact, its made itself as dogmatic as religions do, which means that in its current form it cannot advance in what I would feel is a beneficial way.

Renee DeCarte, the man largely responsible for modern science, thought up the idea of science after an angel came down from heaven and told him to. I'm serious - this guy claims to have had a vision of an angel and then goes on to make science.

The point being that even the inception of science itself came from a non-logical place (inspiration, in this case in the form of a symbolic representation of the voice of god).

If you want signs of god's existance, you need to believe it first. Seeing is not believing - believing is seeing. However, don't be fooled into looking for god in religions, because that is not god, that is humans using god to control other humans and to amass power. Look within yourself, trust your intuition. Pay attention to synchronicities in your life (those with DP have a head start in this, because we are already questioning our reality. Coincidence?).


----------



## CECIL

More food for thought:

Anyone every heard of the placebo effect? This is a medical term used to judge the efficacy of a medical treatment on a patient. Basically the idea is that in any given medical treatment, for any given disease, a certain percentage of people will get better if they believe they will. So in other words, if you give 100 people with, say, pneumonia a sugar pill and say "Here, take this, it will make you better", then maybe 50 of them will get better, while the other 50 will die.

In scientific tests they try to eliminate the placebo effect by not allowing the patients to know what treatment they are recieving and always having a control group that recieves a placebo.

Now here is where the problem lies. People get better because they believe they will get better. To me this does not demonstrate a random coincidence but instead the power of belief. If you believe something is true, it is. That is why all of your opinions are valid - your reality is 100% true for you.

However, the nature of belief is that its variable. You can change your beliefs and as you do this your reality changes too.


----------



## Universal

Very interesting posts. I wanna quote one of those articles that says prayer doesn't work : "A growing body of evidence has found that religious people tend to be healthier than average, and that people who pray when they are ill are likely to fare better than those who do not."

Isn't that a sign that prayer is beneficial? Certainly is.


----------



## CECIL

Yes and you could certainly argue that it means a higher power has protected those people from illness.

Or, on the other hand and following on from what I was saying about the placebo effect, it may demonstrate their own personal power (belief) creating a positive effect on their bodies.

It's no secret that feeling healthy makes you healthy. There are scientific justification for this (increased serotonin levels, increased antibody production and so forth), but I've never been satisfied with a purely biological explanation. Changed do happen in the body, yes, but I believe there's an underlying cause for it. Body reflects mind reflects "Soul", its all connected


----------

