# is it (morally) correct to give proof that god doesnt exist?



## Brainsilence02

I have grown up in a family of Christians but not a pressing family. In time, I found that world was better explained without the existance of god.

I have some proof (which will, most possibly have been covered by other beafore me) that god doesn't exist. The point is: is it morally correct to post it here?

I know that there are people who would feel their life has no more sence if god didn't exist. But there might be others who would like to exchange opinions.

I am asking help from a Moderator to tell me what is right to do. I would really like some civilized dialogue around the issue.


----------



## Guest

If people don't like it they don't have to read it - you've just warned them in your post. I'd like to see it.


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Brainsilence, 
That's a thoughtful spin on the subject. It shows that you have a well-formed conscience. My answer would be that it is entirely up to what you see as the correct thing to do. As long as it isn't insulting to anyone, I can't objectively delete it. Will it harm someone psychologically if you obliterate their belief in God? Well, first of all, there has never been a proof for God's existence that has completely obliterated atheism, nor a proof against God which has completely obliterated beleivers. I dont think that the subject is easily wrapped up in words. What you are pondering has probably been pondered before. The second, more pertinent question is, is what you are about to write going to weaken a belief which strengthens someone's already tenuous hold on reality? This is where your conscience, and your decision, comes into play. There is the biblical quote that the truth shall set you free - you might interpret that to mean that we are better off rid of any delusions we have, and should be ready for our beliefs to be challenged. But there is another, lesser known passage, where St. Paul also tells his Christian followers to follow some pagan customs if it makes their hosts more comfortable. In other words, it's more important to respect others' religious sensibilities when we can. If it makes you feel better, you might as well post it. I have a feeling that those who are uncomfortable with religion don't venture into this section very often.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

> In other words, it's more important to respect others' religious sensibilities when we can


Does religion deserve respect by default ? I thought respect had to be earnt ?


----------



## Brainsilence02

I am under serious thought of posting this or not.



Martinelv said:


> In other words, it's more important to respect others' religious sensibilities when we can
> 
> 
> 
> Does religion deserve respect by default ? I thought respect had to be earnt ?
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe that it does. Because people find a peace to it. They feel secure. This is, I think, the most important reason for religion's existance.


----------



## Scattered

I doubt you could post anything thats going to sway anyone's opinion. The nonbelievers are set in there ways and likewise for the believers. You've given adequate warning for the easily offended so theres no harm in speaking your mind.


----------



## rainboteers

I am a spirtual person, but I think you should feel free to post whatever you want. I believe in God, but not in the tradition sense. I also feel that it doesn't matter all that much if you believe or not. I guess my point is a spirtual person should not be offended because if they have learned anything from religion it should be that people have their own path for a reason. If we all believed the same things we would have absolutely nothing to learn, and that would kind of defeat the whole purpose of living. Just my opinion. You sure wouldn't offend me. I think it is very cool that you are trying to respect others, but remember that respect works both ways. People who differ from your opinion should respect you as well.


----------



## Martinelv

> Yes, I believe that it does. Because people find a peace to it. They feel secure. This is, I think, the most important reason for religion's existance.


Really ? Even though this drug, sorry - religion has (and continues to cause) caused untold billions of death, persecution and suffering from the year dot. Religion, or the consequences of those who adhere to it, has caused more death and misery then anquish than drugs, alcohol, disease, illness, homophobia, suicide, science, the degredation of women, abortion, the suffering of the terminally ill, hunger, povery, undesireables, and just about anything to care to think about, put together !! If religion were suddenly discovered today, it would be a Class 'A' drug. Like like drugs, if you 'snorted' reigion in private to gain a little peace, I'm sure people would turn a blind eye - and good for them. Glad for them. Bully for theese few who gain 'peace' . Honestly glad. Pity these people don't think of the big picture - the supposed defenders of the human race - if they'd only we'd have a toke of their religion we'd be SAVED. Perhaps we should again send out those indomitable ladies of the early 20th century to far flung corners of africa to provide food and water as long as they prostrated themselves at the foot of 'christ' while destroying their indidgenous culture.

The watered down religions of the west are now desperatly trying to be all lovey-feeling about these heinous doctrines...three steps back, one step forward..........whoa........watch you don't fall they don't fall off the cliff edge. PEACE ? Peace for who ? Those who can afford it or stupid (yes stupid) to believe the rot in the bible ?

:shock:


----------



## Brainsilence02

When done properly, religion is a good thing. There are better religions than Christendom, like Asian ones. There are great beatiful theories that can give some people relaxation.

Religion is not bad itself, it's just that people use it badly because it was such a great influence.

I am processing my "proof" post. I have changed my mind about how it must be articulated. I will post it soon.


----------



## Martinelv

If you're making the distinction between personal faith and organised dogmatic religion, then yes, I'm sure it's (mostly) a good thing. But organised religion is the most destructive force on this planet. One word from the pope on contraception would kill more people than our entire nuclear arsenal. And it's a good thing ? And keep in mind this happens every day....

And who decides how it's 'used properly' ? We've had 3000+ years of trying to get it right, intrepreting it as times and whimsy change, and the best we've got is ordained women priests in some of the more liberal parishes. Well knock me down with a feather. What staggering progress.



> I am processing my "proof" post.


Good luck to you. If you succeed, you'll get the Nobel prize.


----------



## Homeskooled

Hmmm.....Martin, why is personal religion suddenly "better"? Just because you get to make up your own morals, like atheists, we're suddenly going to do away with evil and genocide? I guess I can see your point. If only Mao had been an atheist, there wouldnt have been the Cultural Revolution in China, and subsequent genocide. Oh, wait, I'm sorry he _was_ an atheist. Guess that proves atheism wrong. After all, if people of relgion commit genocides, that means God doesnt exist, right? I'm trying to keep up with your dizzying leaps of logic. Let me know if I missed a link in the chain.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## grandma-stole-my-wheels

toast! 8)


----------



## Martinelv

Homeskooled, don't take deliberately take my words out of context. It doesn't suit you. It's better if you keep to being fluently spontaneous.

What I said....exaggerated sigh, was that personal religion, i.e., a individuals 'personal' faith which does not impact adversely on anyone else's life, is fine. Good. A wonderful thing if it makes them happy. I'll dance at their wedding. Organised religion, in all forms, by it's very nature, is bad....ooooh...very bad. The evidence is all around us...not to mention to trials of history. Where is the faulty logic here?

I'm not going to comment on the rest of what you said, because it's silly. And you know it.

I find it interesting that you are always implying (cough!) that atheists are immoral, and that you don't need to defend your religion. Indeed, religion is above criticism so it seems. Considering that atheism is simply a lack of theism, hence I have no point to defend, why is that ?


----------



## Homeskooled

> I'm not going to comment on the rest of what you said, because it's silly. And you know it.


Well, that was the point. Its not exactly up to the standards of the BBC to compare Ortho Tricyclen to a nuclear holocaust, either, Martin. :wink:

But if you keep impugning a belief system on the basis of actions which people who hold _your_ beliefs also commit, that tends to sound a little silly, or at least self-defeating too. And what you hold _is_ a belief. Anarchists beleive in a lack of government. There are lots and lots of books and websites detailing the thought and philosophy behind anarchy. I've never heard someone postulate that it is a "lack" of a belief, because of course, their position wouldnt hold up to scrutiny then. There are lots and lots of books on the philosophies informing atheists. I'd like to hear why genocides have been committed in its name. You can start with church purges in Russia, or the Cultural Revolution in China. Mexico early in the century is also another excellent example, as well as Vietnam. You dont have to, of course, since it wont really prove anything. Just because the believer is faulty doesnt mean the belief is. Its just it would behoove you to understand how _your_ belief, or its followers, have affected human history, before slinging the mud. Because if you dont, your comparisons might seem, well, _silly_.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

> But if you keep impugning a belief system on the basis of actions which people who hold your beliefs also commit, that tends to sound a little silly


I never have. I am talking about organised religion, not an individuals personal faith.

However, your implication seems to be that all atheists are immoral and, given the chance, would ideally create and live in a savage communist regime which a leader who would make Pol-Pot look like Mother Theresa? Yes? Whereas I know that the vast majority of people with personal faith are nice people, you seem unable to accept that even a single atheist is anything other than a serial killer, just because he/she lacks your theism. Extraordinary.



> And what you hold is a belief.


Wrong. I do not 'believe' that god exists, I simply lack the belief. There is a difference. Atheism itself is not a 'belief system', despite what you like to think.



> I've never heard someone postulate that it is a "lack" of a belief, because of course, their position wouldnt hold up to scrutiny then


Exactly, because you don't understand what Atheism is. Or can't. Or won't. Probably all three.



> Its just it would behoove you to understand how your belief, or its followers, have affected human history, before slinging the mud


I think if we're descending to the level of playing the numbers game, I'd wager that religion has, and continues to, cause vastly more suffering than atheism ever has, or will. You're memory only seems to extend back to the turn of last century, and conveniently forgets the previous 3000 years. Besides, that's not the point. Atheism itself - A-THEISM, LACK OF-BELIEF, doesn't kill, maim, or prejudice anyone. Atheism has nothing to say on homosexuality, female rights, human rights, contraception - it leaves it to the judgement of the individual and society, just as it should. It is simply a lack of belief in 'god/s'. There is no atheist dogma that dictates how one should behave, under threat of eternal damnation. It's just too convenient for you to confuse, say, communist politics with atheism as a tool to justify the supposed libertines ALL atheists are.


----------



## agentcooper

martin, i dated an atheist for a very long time and am still really good friends with him. he always told me that there were two different kinds of atheists: the atheists who *lack the belief *in god and the atheists who *believe* that there is no god. if that were true, wouldn't there be atheists who do have a belief system?

and just a side note for homeskooled, he is one of the most moral and good people i have ever known. he has a much stronger code of ethics than most religious people i know.


----------



## grandma-stole-my-wheels

boast! 8)


----------



## Guest

grandma-stole-my-wheels said:


> boast! 8)


Thanks for that.


----------



## agentcooper

hmmm...i guess i can see why you'd call that a boast. didn't mean it to sound that way...oops.  i still would like a response to my question, though.


----------



## grandma-stole-my-wheels

hah ha hee -eh heee he haa ha ah haa ha ha.


----------



## Brainsilence02

I had writen a wonderful text with a set of questions-answers between two people, but it's gone due to a hard-disk failure  This is a medriocrity of the previous version 

Those things here are nothing special. They are things of common sense (...where is my Nobel prize?! ) Some of you thought that I would have some great proof, but no... It's really simple things 

Beafore you post a reply, read the complete text to avoid unnecessary replies. I may not reply to things that are already covered/answered.

If you think that you cannot handle something that may proove to you that there is no god, you should stop right here. This is you final warning.

================================

*WHY WE THINK THAT THERE IS A GOD*

Because we need to feel protected by:
a. our lack of knowledge
b. our fear of the unknown
c. things in out psychology and physiology that we cannot beat

Believing that there is supreme beeing that will protect us, or will handle situations for us (all kinds of them: physical or mental) gives us relief.

When you understand the reasons why you think that there is a god, then this is already a sufficient proof that there isn't.

*REPELLING THE PROOFS THAT GOD EXISTS*

- God exists because someone must have created the world.
- Why someone or something must have created the world? Why must the world be subject to rules of our own perception? Why must everything be explained with the knowledge that we have today (including but not limited to physics rules)? We have done this mistake in the past: we once were not able to understand thunder and we thought that it was an act of god. Be patient. The fact that we cannot yet explain the world's origin is temporary. Look what we have achieved in the last 2000 years, and look how many things we have learned just the last 100 years. More on this can be found at "We we think that there is a god".

- God exists because my religion tells all these wonderful things.
- Religions adopt some correct things, they mix them with their directives and they create their doctrines.

- God exists because we feel his presence.
- Peoples' perception and/or imagination cannot effect reality. Reality is that which does not stop to exist when you stop believing in it (person3 has this as signature, I thank her). People may have illusions.

- My religion is the light...
- You cannot use your religion's doctrines beafore you proove the existance of your god.

- We cannot understand god's will.
- Why? Perhaps I can understand yours: to try to "hurt" our emotional weekness on safety that we feel when we think that god exists.

- The absense of proof is not a proof of absense (of god)
- Yes, indeed. But without a proof, what reason do we have to believe (in) something? Were would you be today if you believed everything you were told about without a proof? Let me make you a question relative to this: why do you want to believe into something without proof while you refuse to do the same in other situations? The answer to this is located in "We we think that there is a god".

- You can't proove that there is no god
- Proove to me that I am not thinking of a red hat right now  I do not have to give you a proof. The one that makes the suggestion must give a proof. You are the one that suggests that there is this thing called "god".

*GIVING PROOFS THAT GOD DOENS'T EXISY*

- God doesn't exist because there is no indication of it's existance.

- Today we count a great number of religions. Every one of them claims that it is their god that is the real one and everybody's else is a fake. Which one should we trust? And why? Why this one and not that one? Or perhaps there are so many gods and are fighting each other? Do you think that we should wait for the winner in order to decide which religion to choose? 

If you are thinking "maybe there is a god but there is no religion for him/her", perhaps you should wonder what makes you say that there is a god in the first place. You will, most possibly, discover that you are actually looking for "protection" (check again the "Why we think that there is a god").

- Why should there be a god?
- (can you supply me with the answer?)

*COMMENTS*

Most people try to proove that there is no "god of this religion" which is something wrong. The right way t do it is proove that the idea is wrong. However it was tempting to spent text for specific religions 

Awaiting your comments[/b]


----------



## Homeskooled

Brainsilence, 
I think you've just summed up all Martin's arguments from the last 6 months. The "opiate of the weak" argument under the CS Lewis thread stands out most to me ( under your heading "Why we think that there is a God"). I'm interested in seeing his reply to your summation. In answer to your question "Why should there be a God?" and more importantly "Why do you want to believe into something without proof while you refuse to do the same in other situations?", I'll leave this post with two simple words. _Circumstantial evidence_. There is another discipline, much more demanding with proofs, called physics. It beleives in both dark matter and neutrinos. We have spent billions of dollars, both the US and UK, building neutrino detectors. We havent caught any. And yet we conduct experiments, and write them into our physics textbooks as if they exist. Why? Because all other rational explanations fail to balance our equations properly or explain the results of our experiments. This is why some people beleive in God. Lastly, the "prove I am not thinking of a red hat" reply only works if the default mode of humanity is to normally _not_ think of red hats (which it is). If the red hat is God, it only works if the supposition is that man does not have a natural urge to beleive in him. See the CS Lewis thread for more. Now, as I've just returned from a trip back to Ohio to get a license and a car, I'm going to peruse the forum, and wait for Martin to come out of his foxhole.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

This is terrific Homeskooled, at last we're getting somewhere. Where this circumstantial evidence for god ? I hereby challenge you to provide one, just one, just one single scrap of circumstantial evidence for the proof of your god. Just one. One that cannot be simply rebutted. And if you do, I promise to you, and everyone on this board ?10, or dollars, or whatever you guys uses as currency in the colonies. And to make things a little easier for you, let's not allow circumstantial evidence such as personal subjective psychological experiences, Jesus appearing in the middle of a potato chip, weeping statues, appeals to 12th Century Theists and the like. Coz we all know it's blarney, eh? And none of it, NONE, NEVER, has even been close to being proved as genuine. Fraud, hysteria, misinterpretation, downright lies, yes, but nothing even remotely approaching even circumstantial. I know you don't feel like you have to, or should, but it's only fair, for the sake of balance, and for the reason that I know that you're a sensible human being.

And before you answer that, how does this circumstantial evidence fit in with your black box first premise idea? Surely by its very nature it does not require any evidence, however flimsy, however circumstantial.

But before you answer that one too, you are implying that the evidence for things such as physics and such like are circumstantial ? Even though the weirdest of these such as Quantum Science has, indirectly, led to the creation of items, which, I think most would agree, are not circumstantial in their existence. You know, TV's.....or perhaps the computer you are typing on. Now, I don't know if it's just because it's unusually hot here in England today, but isn't that even a more bizarre twist of logic than my simple lack of faith in god/s?

Hang on, before you answer those. Let's say this circumstantial evidence in god is true, how come is it that this circumstantial truth applies to your god, and not the plethora of other god/s all over the planet ? Surely you aren't discounting their circumstantial evidence as well? And if so, well, couldn't you at least admit to the possibility to being wrong, like the rest of us mortals ? It might even be good for you. You could then fall back on some strange mystic blend of either deism or, even though you joined me in mocking it, pantheism !! No more dreary chruch sermons....you'd be be warranted to have six months on a beach in Thailand, smashed out of your black box on mushrooms, playing the bongos and 'touching god'. But a small warning - if you do, I'd submit a cheap Pascalian wager that you'd come back, the fog will clear, and you'll end up being a stockbroker, with, perhaps, a healthy intellectual respect for....others that don't believe as you do? And perhaps you might say that one or two of those who lack belief aren't serial killers. The choice is yours my friend. But it might come as a bit of a shock.

One last thing - remember, Circumstantial Evidence isn't allowed in court...so don't except to get any sympathy here, in this regard, whether you want it or not. Which, like most who are infected with faith, don't. It would be very, very, painful. Much like kill to cure, in a psychological sense.

One last thing:



> We have spent billions of dollars, both the US and UK, building neutrino detectors. We havent caught any


Er, yes. So ? Haven't you heard of the word 'yet' ? And if anycase, in this regard you're wrong. They have detected them, but the puzzle (at the moment - remember - science is a process of i.n.v.e.s.t.i.g.a.t.i.o.n) is why we don't find so many of them, since the sun is pouring them out.

Who knows...one day 'they' might figure out how a cathode ray tube works. Perhaps, then, you might 'believe' !!


----------



## Homeskooled

Okay Martin, okay...stop editing your posts. I cant keep up with the venom today.... :wink:

You dont mind if I just go down the post in sequential order do you? Do you beleive in sequential order? Causality? Good. Because I might use them later to get 10 pounds richer. But before I do, lets _tear _ into this post.

You want me to give ONE scrap of circumstantial evidence? Thats it? My god man, do you know what cirumstantial evidence _is_? Do you realize that it IS admissable in court?? Do you realize that barring my sending a slice of God pie across the internet to you, all proofs for and against God are circumstantial? This is going to be a great thread....I'm feeling it. Let me quote a UK government definition:

*Circumstantial evidence*

* Rules

Information

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts from which inferences or can be drawn.

For example, in an assault case where the crime took place on O'Connell Street at 6.15pm, you may give evidence that you saw the accused walking down O'Connell Street at 6pm. In that situation, you are giving circumstantial evidence to the court.

Inferences or conclusions may be drawn from the fact that the accused was on O'Connell Street at 6pm, but you have not given evidence as to the actual fact at issue in the case - whether the accused attacked a person.

In a case of a theft, examples of circumstantial evidence include:

* Evidence of the defendant's fingerprints at the scene of the crime
* The fact that the defendant was found with a large amount of money without being able to give any reason

In the case of a murder, examples of circumstantial evidence include:

* The fact that the accused had an intense dislike of the victim
* The fact that the accused behaved in a bizarre and suspicious way after the offence
* The fact that he or she lied about his or her alibi
* The fact that he or she was in the area at the time that the offence was committed
* The fact that the defendant's blood or DNA corresponds to blood or DNA found on the victim's body.

Rules

*The general rule is that circumstantial evidence is admissible.*

The truth hurts, eh Martin? We'll call that first rebuttal exhibit number one.

Okay, lets see, skimming your first paragraph.....yada, yada, yada, Jesus in the middle of potato chips, bait, bait , bait, bait.....

Second paragraph.....How does it fit into the idea of a first premise? You still arent getting it, are you? First premises are non-partisan. I didnt make them up, they arent going away, you use them, and for my sake, if you can accept the above definition of circumstantial evidence, you'll be accepting a first premise for all of my forthcoming arguments. Exhibit number two.

Third paragraph. Martin, I know I sound terribly affluent, but I dont actually own a quantum computer yet, though. Maybe I should break into the laboratory in Germany where they almost got one to work? Or a quantum mechanics influenced television. The array of items which it has actually shed light on is more in the realm of statistics (because it affects the way outcomes are averaged) and nuclear fission and fusion reactions, than home appliances, no matter what the hype. Good thing you brought up cathode ray tubes - my TV still uses them. And by the way, we know how those work, too. Exhibit three.

Fourth paragraph. Your losing me, and your letting your argument get bogged down in wanderings about world religion. This thread is about the concept of the existence of God. To be blunt, any circumstantial evidence I give can be applied to all religions. Yada, yada....go to Thailand, get rid of blinders, expand your mind, find yourself...You know what my response to that is? You don't 'find yourself' or 'discover who you are' by sitting on the top of a mountain humming mystic chants. You find out 'who you are' when you're at home, under a mountain of debt, in normal troubling situations, with decisions to make that could make or break your life ahead of you. One step ahead of you, man. :wink:

Lets see, end of fourth paragraph, healthy intellectual respect, lose belief that atheists are serial killer, normal confusion about whether I'm equating Martin with Kim Jong Il, or rebutting his characterization of people of religion being modern day crusaders. End of exhibit four.

Paragraph five. Oh, really, circumstantial evidence isnt allowed in court, eh? Ouch, you even offered me sympathy. Haha....its okay Martin. I just feel awful that I had to prove you wrong again....it hurts when it happens so often, eh? :wink: But showing an atheist the error of his ways is much like killing to cure though, you know what I mean?

Paragraph six. We've only detected neutrinos, like I said, through circumstantial evidence, because they have no mass. We dont have direct evidence now, and certainly not when the money was invested in the detectors. Its only through their interaction with other particles, and the sums of our unbalanced equations, that we're getting a handle.

You ready for some circumstantial evidence? You realize that circumstantial evidence does not rule out alternate explanations of a phenomena. Direct evidence does. You also realize that practically every single explanation ever given would suffice. Infinite complexity of the universe, natural law, anthropological studies of religion, mankind's ability to sense right from wrong, beauty of the sunset, bluebirds, etc... If you want one that cant be easily rebutted, I'll probably use an argument from causality. And you also realize that all of your arguments against are also circumstantial. Really, this is too easy. You ready to ante up? I'll be back.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Brainsilence02

Homeskooled said:


> In answer to your question "Why should there be a God?" and more importantly "Why do you want to believe into something without proof while you refuse to do the same in other situations?", I'll leave this post with two simple words. Circumstantial evidence.


Circumstantial evidence is subject to either circumstantial, or direct repelling 



Homeskooled said:


> There is another discipline, much more demanding with proofs, called physics. It beleives in both dark matter and neutrinos. We have spent billions of dollars, both the US and UK, building neutrino detectors. We havent caught any. And yet we conduct experiments, and write them into our physics textbooks as if they exist. Why? Because all other rational explanations fail to balance our equations properly or explain the results of our experiments. This is why some people beleive in God.


Yes, I mentioned, this in "our lack of knowledge".

If you think that there are things that can only be explained by accepting the existance of god, then please report them, so that I (and Martin ) can take them under consideration. So far, I have never heard of such a thing (to be explained only by accepting the existance of god).



Homeskooled said:


> Lastly, the "prove I am not thinking of a red hat" reply only works if the default mode of humanity is to normally not think of red hats (which it is). If the red hat is God, it only works if the supposition is that man does not have a natural urge to beleive in him.


You right that red hats are not usual, I should have used a much more usual item. The "red hat" was a random item. You may as well replace it with an "apple": proove to me that I am not thinking of an apple right now 

The red hat is not god. I used the example of the red hat to make clear the foolishness of the expression "proove to me that there is no god": the speaker that makes a suggestion about something (which, shoud be considered beyond the perceptional suspicion of the listener, instead of the oposite which is, saddly, the dominant behavior), must have a proof for that suggestion if he/she wants to be taken seriously.

However, although the foolishness of that phrase, it is possible to proove that god doesn't exist (as you have read above).

======

Additionally, you have explained what is "circumstantial evidence", however, it would be useful to give us such an evidence (an example) in order to understand what you have in mind.



Homeskooled said:


> I'll be back.


:grin: I try to remember where I have heard this beafore  Homeskooled, I recommend you start your next post with "I have returned"  I would be really awesome 



Homeskooled said:


> This thread is about the concept of the existence of God. To be blunt, any circumstantial evidence I give can be applied to all religions.


Yes, it was tempting to repel doctrines from specific religions, but that would not only require a lot of writting (many many pages), but it would also outside the rest of the religions. A generic proof that god doesn't exist is more proper for this situation.



Homeskooled said:


> you find out 'who you are' when you're at home, under a mountain of debt, in normal troubling situations, with decisions to make that could make or break your life ahead of you. One step ahead of you, man.


I agree with this. The travelling is only necessary to meet people who will give you new elements to think about. Otherwise it is useless.

Believing in god, helps you in difficult situations (debts). It gives you hope. Hope... the quintessence of the human existance. Our greatest strength (as self-subjection method) and weakness (as an interference to judgement).


----------



## Martinelv

Homeskooled, I think I've touched a nerve. It seems you are human after all. But I appreciate your zeal, nay, let it be whispered, _relish_ at attempting to _tear_ apart my post. Laughing and applause from all around. But I forgive you, as a humanist. The atheist in me coun't care less. I however, seemingly have no moral code, so can I say and do what I like. But you ? You with your moral code ? Where does this relish fit into your moral code? Anywho..

If you'd ever lower yourself to look on religious discussion forums, both theists and atheists, you'll find such relish, rage, GOD GOD GOD, JESUS JESUS JESUS, YODA YODA YODA, YADA YADA YADA, and you might be surprised who's doing the raging. I'll give you one guess, but only because you're so clever. If you come across someone like me prone to occasional bouts of anger, then you must forgive them, as is your wont, as they are atheists, and have no moral code.

But I'm getting bored. Bored of your endless metaphysical prattle and attention to irrelevant detail, designed to confuse those deemed your intellectual inferiors and to wrap up your belief in a shroud of mystery. People who do this are, at best, cowards, or at worst, liars. They lie to confuse us. You, my friend, are both.

I'm bored that you can't, won't, or are unable to answer a simple question, we're even allowing you it to be flimsy or circumstantial, but still - no. Not once. Never.

I'm bored by the constant and snide implication (re: my editing of posts) that I'm somehow not worthy of such debate, and need Google to help me out every other sentence. You enjoy this? I bet you hope people notice, eh? I'm not hurt or sensitive to this kind of trick however...I'm secretly amused though, and my continuing lack of 'faith' in the religious is vindicated. I've got more worthy things to worry about, but well done anyway and good try.

So, hearty congratulations at _tearing_ my post apart, without actually saying anything. Anything new, or anything relevant, or anything that might change the mind of anyone with a morsel for a frontal lobe, that is.

Peace. :lol:

(Note - I edited this three times. Pity the poor atheist)


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
No, I wont be going on to any atheist/theist debate forums any time soon. I have the real thing here at college in our philosophy department. And there is only so much one can communicate in type. Our threads get pedantic enough. No, Martin, I edit my posts all the time. I dont point that out for anyone else's benefit - I'm teasing _you_.

I understand where you're coming from, but words are never going to be enough for you. I doubt that the reason you answer these posts first thing in the AM is because they bore you. You like baiting. You like trying to obliterate the rationality of your opponents arguments. When someone points out your obvious contradictory statements. backpedaling, lack of sources, or your running helter skelter looking for any subjective rant to sidestep an objective argument, it all becomes metaphysical prattle. Philosophical arguments become "games" that you tire of. Subjective arguments from faith experiences, which I have never given, but have seen others do for you, become objects of your derision at their obvious lack of education and intelligence. Funny how those tables have turned. Dont expect me to pull out a handkerchief for you just yet. Arguments from secular fact become irrelevant detail. What do you we have left then to argue with? _Tell_ me Martin. Tell me. I play your games, by your rules. I give you proofs you want, I rebut you with your own words. If you cant handle them, then please, dont type them. You arent going to find the proof of God you seek on the Internet. You'll find intelligent arguments which point out that its possible to find him. You'll find the same arguments pointing you in directions to see him. But you arent going to find God. And most importantly, you wont let yourself. Because you have your mind made up. And its practically set in cement. I doubt my faith because if I didnt, I could never argue for it. I'd never understand your mindset. But I do. The "what you see is what you get" mindset. And its a lackluster existence, let me tell you. So Martin, if you seek reasons, I can give them. If your seeking God, you wont find him here.

Before I go on, if this argument is too much for you to handle, stop reading right now. Dont reply to this thread, and I'll understand if your not up for it. If not, you never replied about the admissablity of circumstantial proof, so I'm giving it now, a simple proof from causality. Oh, and I'll be expecting a check for 10 pounds in the mail :wink: We dont need two liars on this forum.

Causality. The greeks illustrated it with a race between a tortoise and Achilles. Causality, the ability of our actions to fall in sequential order. Causality, the ability for a numberline to procede from 1 to 100. Causality, the cornerstone of Newtonian and to a lesser extent, Quantum physics. Like the law of Non-contradiction, its one of the foundations of rational thought. When Newton said that all actions have equal and opposite reactions, he was simply illustrating a fact which Aristotle had guessed at some 1000 years beforehand. And he was illustrating causality. Imagine that the history of the universe, like Einstein said, was one long history of dominoes toppling over each other. Who pushed the first dominoe? Why was it pushed? Did the line of dominoes go forever backward? If so, how did the dominoes ever get from point A to point B if the distance between was infinite? The universe does not have an endless supply of usable energy. It is _finite_. It had a perceivable beginning and will have a perceivable end. It was thought that perhaps the universe would continually expand and contract, like a set of of dominoes which sets itself up again, only once again to topple in a neverending cascade. But we have actually perceived the universal expansion accelarating as of late. Meaning the universe may rip itself apart, so to speak. Perhaps the dominoes do finally hit the floor. But that leaves the question, who pushed dominoe number 1? Aristotle would say the First Mover. And he would also say that the First Mover would have to be at least equal in worth to the reaction he causes aka the Universe. Remember, Newtons equal action equal reaction just restated Greek thought. So we're talking one big First Mover. Circumstantial evidence? The presence of causality in the universe. The existence of the universe. The fact that it will end, and the fact that it began. I like to think of each of our existences as a dominoe. We're all toppling into each other, but are we pushing people in the right direction?
In this thread at least, sometimes, I have my doubts.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

I do reply in _my_ AM, but remember I am on the other side of the world to you ! That's one on the scoreboard for me !! Give me that one at least. And incidently, they don't bore me, they infuriate me. Like a rash that I can't leave alone. It'll be the death of me, for sure, but there we go.

Anyway, sorry - I'll reply properly to your post later. I feel like a bag of soggy shit this morning. Requiem eternam, just for a little while.

(Post edited once)


----------



## Brainsilence02

*Homeskooled, Martin,*

1. It is only my humble suggestion that we leave characterizations aside.
2. You have both placed elements uppon the issue that are beyond my reach. You have refered to social stuff that, although I can translate, I am not sure if I understand understand.

*Homeskooled,*

You mention:



Homeskooled said:


> Who pushed the first dominoe? Why was it pushed? Did the line of dominoes go forever backward? If so, how did the dominoes ever get from point A to point B if the distance between was infinite? The universe does not have an endless supply of usable energy. It is finite. It had a perceivable beginning and will have a perceivable end. It was thought that perhaps the universe would continually expand and contract, like a set of of dominoes which sets itself up again, only once again to topple in a neverending cascade. But we have actually perceived the universal expansion accelarating as of late. Meaning the universe may rip itself apart, so to speak. Perhaps the dominoes do finally hit the floor. But that leaves the question, who pushed dominoe number 1? Aristotle would say the First Mover. And he would also say that the First Mover would have to be at least equal in worth to the reaction he causes aka the Universe. Remember, Newtons equal action equal reaction just restated Greek thought. So we're talking one big First Mover. Circumstantial evidence? The presence of causality in the universe. The existence of the universe. The fact that it will end, and the fact that it began. I like to think of each of our existences as a dominoe.


One of today's scientific deadend. And you suggest that in order to overwhelm/hurdle it, we must accept the existance of god.

It was a description very... accurate, very researched (the opinions of all those people: Enstein, etc). And this is the reason that I regret to say... that, I have already answered it.



Homeskooled said:


> Who pushed the first dominoe? Why was it pushed? Did the line of dominoes go forever backward? If so, how did the dominoes ever get from point A to point B if the distance between was infinite?


The brief answer is:



brainsilence02 said:


> Why must the world be subject to rules of our own perception? Why must everything be explained with the knowledge that we have today (including but not limited to [current] physics rules)?


(as you noticed, I added the "current")

Our knowledge around the item "universe" is finite too  Why do you expect everything to be explained today? You are acting like our ancestors who wanted to explain thunder and thus they were saying it was god who was sending it (the thunder).

Remember that some centuries ago, we thought that the earth was flat. Later we couldn't "afford" it to move, and finally... look where we are today: we know all these stuff about the universe. Be patient. I believe that in the next 50 years we will have an answer.

But, as you understand the important thing is not to get that piece of knowledge that will make us ascape from our current deadend, but rather, to understand that we are are not in possition to know everything today. We must stop acting like children asking "one last candy", and we must focus on the things that really matter: logic, justice, friends, family.

Those things, that science cannot explain today, they have happened beafore, you know that  There was a time science was able to explain very little things. The paradox and the deadend exists only in our minds.

Those things that you feel them as indications of god, they are in fact subject to the first paragraph of that post of mine (that included the proof):



brainsilence02 said:


> we need to feel protected by:
> a. our lack of knowledge
> b. our fear of the unknown
> c. things in our psychology and physiology that we cannot beat


In current case, it is (a) and (b).

*Martin,*

I don't want you to think that I am trying to tell you what to say, or that you are wrong, or something like that; but I sense that it would be more productive (for the shake or truth AND the rest of the people who seek a logical base on the issue and are reading this) to focus on the repelling (I sure hope this is the right translation of the word I want) of the arguments about the existance of god, and furthermore, adding proof that god doesn't exist (forgive my seeming certainity about the "non-existance" issue, but this way of phrasing made it more easy explain).

PS: I am an atheist too, but I don't know if I have a moral code. I don't know what a moral code is.


----------



## Sojourner

Someone said:
"What I said....exaggerated sigh, was that personal religion, i.e., a individuals 'personal' faith which does not impact adversely on anyone else?s life, is fine. Good. A wonderful thing if it makes them happy. I'll dance at their wedding. Organised religion, in all forms, by it's very nature, is bad....ooooh...very bad. The evidence is all around us...not to mention to trials of history. Where is the faulty logic here?"

Your logic is faulty because religion doesn't commit evil acts -- people do.

Impact adversely? Like keeping people from killing innocent unborn human beings? My, my, yes, that's a terrible thing to do.

You are being prayed for!


----------



## Brainsilence02

I couldn't understand exactly what you ment Sojourner. But I would like to comment this:



Sojourner said:


> Your logic is faulty because religion doesn't commit evil acts -- people do.


I agree. Like a line I heard in a movie: "guns don't kill people, people kill people"  But this topic/thread is ment (at least this is what I think so) to proove that god does or doesn't exist. It stands beyond religions.

In humans' society, there are some things that we do in order to prevent bad things from happening. We, sometimes, abolish things not because they are bad, but because there is no other way to protect some people from other other people (that is the example of religion).

People act like units, not like a totality.


----------



## Sojourner

Agreed, brain. Agreed.

I have a question for you -- well, for everyone:

If you do not believe in a supreme being that created everything that we are able to deduce exists (in spite of the limitations of our sensory instruments and their extensions, such as telescopes, and so forth

AND

If you do believe in evolution, whereby life on this planet evolved from (please allow me to use a "shorthand") a chemical soup

AND

If you believe that intelligence of all kinds is the product of evolution;

AND

If you believe that evolution brilliantly evolved only those creatures who (at least at first) had a chance of surviving and reproducing in their environment;

AND

If you believe that the end result of evolution is the presence of creatures who are perfectly suited to their environment -- that is, they can find food, they can tolerate the climate, they can prevent their own extinction by reproducing, and they can increase their survival rate by using the "gift" that evolution provides -- their intellects;

THEN:

How do you account for the fact that human beings have evolved a search for meaning since as far back as we can observe human behavior?

THAT IS:

We have hunger; the concept of evolution assures us there will be food (or we wouldn't be here). We have food. It is provided for us; it is a gift from the universe.

We have social needs; the concept of evolution has wired us all to need this to varying degrees. We have other people. They are provided; they are gifts from the universe.

We have questions about our own existence; the concept of evolution assures us that this was one of the items that led to survival.

That is, we seek meaning.

SO, the question is:

Why do you think that the seeking of meaning is futile when the very mechanism (of course, you don't address the nature of the mechanism except to say there is no God -- you don't explain how the laws of nature came to exist, nor the matter, nor anything else, but that's beside the point right now). Sorry, let me begin again: Why do you think that the seeking of meaning is futile, the mark of an inferior intellect, or worse when the very mechanism you believe is the explanation for human life is the very source of the human need for meaning?

Some Christians have a problem with evolution, but I don't. The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution, because we believe God is the Supreme Being who alone has the intelligence to have not only invented evolution, but created the matter that is its subject out of nothing.

I mention this only to make it clear that I have no problem with evolution and am not posing my question from a stance of non-belief in evolution. I will say that I defer to scientists to evaluate the theory of evolution, and I know that it can be understood within a Catholic context.

So, my question is how you explain a firm belief in the non-existence of any supreme being in the universe while at the same time espousing the firm belief in evolution.

Are you saying evolution is defective in its process? Did evolution, which was, you believe, in charge of the growth of the human brain, for example, get it all wrong with regard to this one issue? Is the hard-wiring of man to seek meaning just a "mistake" of evolution?

Now you may say, "I don't look for meaning," but I hope you know that nobody will believe you. That's a defense against the frustration of not having personal knowledge that God is real. Which brings up something I wanted to say about this subject after reading this and other threads on the spirituality forum:

People who believe in God do not do so because they were told something and automatically believe it. People who today, here on this forum, say to you that they believe in God do so for one primary reason and one primary reason only: God has touched them personally, and it wasn't a hallucination or mental illness.

Now that brings up another thing I want to say (sorry for rambling, and I hope my initial question will not be lost in all this):

I have long thought the term "mental illness" to be malformed. There is nothing wrong with our minds; we suffer from a physical syndrome. Our bodies are misinterpreting signals -- whether because of biological deficiencies or psychological deficiencies that cause the chemical imbalance in our brains.

The false dichotomy of physical/mental is what is responsible for whatever stigma there is. I think we need to find a better word for "chemical imbalance in the brain." I don't know what that might be, though, which bothers me, too. Why can't I think of a suitable substitute?

Well, we could say something like:

- Neurotransmitter depletion
- Neural metabolic asymmetry
- Hyposerotonin
- Hyperadrenalism

Hey, I like that last one.

Best wishes to everyone,
Sojourner


----------



## Guest

> If you believe that the end result of evolution is the presence of creatures who are perfectly suited to their environment -- that is, they can find food, they can tolerate the climate, they can prevent their own extinction by reproducing, and they can increase their survival rate by using the "gift" that evolution provides -- their intellects;


Very interesting argument, Sojourner. I'd only add this: your quote above implies that Human Intelligence is some SIGNIFICANT evolutionary addition. It MIGHT only be as important to the overall planet as a specific hummingbird's unique wing structure allows it to be held in static repose while still hovering. Fascinating, yes and a result of high evolution to a very specific species, but not NECESSARILY some overall important contribution to life as we all know it.

Humans OVER-rate the trait of intelligence because we're highly narcissisitc, and we assume that because we have it, and others don't, then it must be very very important. It might only be our hummingbird's wings and much fuss is being made in our own self-importance.

p.s.
ALL in peace, as I actually like the ol' Catholic Church in most of its ideals, and practices.


----------



## Sojourner

Hi, Janine,

I think intelligence is the most _fundamental element_ of the universe. I do not look down on other creatures as less intelligent than humans. We know they have complex social organizations, complex systems of communication, and so forth --- this, right from the galaxies down to the entangled particles. Their intelligence is suited to their anatomy and their lives; ours is simply different, not better. Can we really say that complex mathematical computations are not performed by animals and by their constituent elements such as proteins? Because they cannot sit next to us on the sofa with a cup of tea and talk to us about their musings on the nature of reality or the history of their language is of no consequence. They have tremendous intelligence.

I wasn't really saying that intelligence was the deciding factor in the search for meaning that has been wired into us. I'm really asking why that search isn't viewed as a product of evolution, like everything else.


----------



## Martinelv

I _will _ get back to this thread at some point. Be warned. :twisted:


----------



## Martinelv

But one quick point.



> but I sense that it would be more productive (for the shake or truth AND the rest of the people who seek a logical base on the issue and are reading this) to focus on the repelling (I sure hope this is the right translation of the word I want) of the arguments about the existance of god, and furthermore, adding proof that god doesn't exist (forgive my seeming certainity about the "non-existance" issue


Really ? That's very magnanimous of you. But wrong, unfortunately. I'll explain.

Because I am an atheist (someone who lacks belief in god/s) I do not have to prove a single thing. The burden is on the person making the claim, in this case Homeskooled, and back it up with proof. If I were to make an astonishing claim, such as there is an invisible Leprachaun under my bed, I'd be required to substantiate this claim, any you'd expect it, and rightly so. But I don't make the claim that 'god doesn't exist', because, as the religious know all too well, it is impossible to disprove anything. So I'm free to criticise and question the equally astonishing religious claim, which not just equally ridiculous as my Leprachaun, it also causes far more fret, worry and harm. (Unless anyone has been tortured, persecuted or isolated because of their gender, sexual orientation or differing faith, by my Leprechaun.)


----------



## rainboteers

I am terrified to jump in here...I do have proof that God exists, but don't you realize that proof of God has to be individual. It is a unique experience. God proves herself/himself to each of us in different ways, a way only we would understand. You can't ask for a some big revelation that would prove that God exists to everyone because I don't think it works like that.

I promise you I have proof, but it is MY proof. I got it because I asked for it. It would prove nothing to you. Those who believe can't prove God to you. You have to find it for yourself, but that won't happen unless you let it. Just my opinion....


----------



## mcsiegs

rainboteers said:


> I am terrified to jump in here...I do have proof that God exists, but don't you realize that proof of God has to be individual. It is a unique experience. God proves herself/himself to each of us in different ways, a way only we would understand. You can't ask for a some big revelation that would prove that God exists to everyone because I don't think it works like that.
> 
> I promise you I have proof, but it is MY proof. I got it because I asked for it. It would prove nothing to you. Those who believe can't prove God to you. You have to find it for yourself, but that won't happen unless you let it. Just my opinion....


Spoken Beautifully -


----------



## Martinelv

> I am terrified to jump in here


Don't be, we're all friends here ! 



> I do have proof that God exists,


Go on then, hit me with it.



> that proof of God has to be individual


Ah, ok then. I won't hold my breath.



> You can't ask for a some big revelation that would prove that God exists to everyone


Why not?



> because I don't think it works like that


Convenient. But again, why not?



> I got it because I asked for it.


I've asked too, sincerely. No answer. Which either makes me spiritually unworthy, unable to understand or recognise the answer, or perhaps - as the millions of starving children around the world that ask and pray everyday, there is nobody 'up there' to answer in the first place.


----------



## rainboteers

I have some answers but remember they are my beliefs and you make think I am nutty. Deep breath...

I believe that we plan our life BEFORE we come in based on what we want to discover and experience. I know it is hard to believe we choose our own path but, and we suffer and it doesn't seem to make sense.

If there was no suffering there would be no compassion. It is a cruel world and it makes me sick some of the things people do with relgion. You will hear them justify bigotry and it causes wars and all sorts of problems, but we are learning and feeling. God isn't causing the mess. God can't magically fix it all because it is the very reason we are here. Life doesn't last long, we get home and we are glad we took that tough class on earth because it made us a more magnaimous spirit and we learned so much. Sorry if I am rambling. I have some excellent books if you are at all interested... (they explain it much better than I)


----------



## Martinelv

> I have some answers but remember they are my beliefs


Oh, I thought you said you had proof?



> If there was no suffering there would be no compassion


Really ? How so?



> It is a cruel world and it makes me sick some of the things people do with relgion. You will hear them justify bigotry and it causes wars and all sorts of problems,


Agreed.



> God can't magically fix it all


Why not? Incidently, which god/s are you talking about?



> Sorry if I am rambling


Don't apologise, you're being very succinct and to the point.


----------



## rainboteers

btw.. There is no possible way that you are spirtually unworthy, but it is very hard to show a person a sign and get through to them, if they are protesting and expecting a negative outcome.

You are very spirtually worthy. People try to make God out to have negative human emotions (anger, jealousy, demon possession, SO wrong), God is just perfect love.

It does not matter what you do God is NEVER mad at you and never stops loving you for one tiny second. I also do not believe in hell. Perfect love and someone who condemns souls to hell is a complete contradiction and is oviously ridiculous. These are just my opinions...


----------



## Martinelv

> People try to make God out to have negative human emotions (anger, jealousy, demon possession, SO wrong), God is just perfect love


Presuming you're talking about the Christian God, I couldn't disagree more. Read the bible, it's all there. For example:

Deuternonomy 5:9. "you shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them; for I, Yahweh, your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me"

What a nice god you've chosen. And there's a lot more from where that came from, I assure you.



> Perfect love and someone who condemns souls to hell is a complete contradiction and is oviously ridiculous


Obviously, but it's all right there in the bible. Hell, wrath, damnation, the whole nine yards. So do you just pick the nice bits and ignore the horrible bits ?


----------



## rainboteers

It sounds like you are also asking about suffering (starving people)

We are only looking at a small portion of time. We can't see the truth from such a narrow vantage point. Someone chooses to die violently (or starve) for a greater good. Those who are left behind after a murder or death are the only ones who must perfect that grief. The person who died has already fulfilled their job as a catalyst for grief. If you dont take every horrendous thing and turn it into something good, it's lost to you. THe most evolved souls will take on a great deal of trauma in order to perfect more quickly. Rather than feel sorry for someone who has a miserable life, as we often do, we should feel sorry for the one who has had an absolutely marvelous life. We are all going to get inot scrapes. There is no way to avoid them. Think about people you know who have had it great, it's not there fault, but they are idiots. They don't really understand much about life and people in general. Traumas don't come to you externally or from out of nowhere. They are preordained by you to happen. You may say, "I must be very masochistic." No, you aren't. You merely wanted to test your strength and see if you can endure.


----------



## rainboteers

I don't put much stock at all in the bible. Most of it is silly tales and has nothing to do with God. I am not neccessarily talking about the christian god. God is God, it is as simple as that.


----------



## rainboteers

If there was anything true in the bible people over time have completely screwed it up.


----------



## rainboteers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some books I highly recommend. If the bible is the only source you are using to disprove God, you have a lot of reading to do.  The ones I have ***** are the books I think you might like.

Bloodline of the Holy Grail
by Laurence Gardner 
Subtitled The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed. Did Jesus marry and have children? If so, what happened to his family? Are descendants of his still alive today? What religion did Jesus follow?

Seventeen years ago the world-wide best-seller, The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, made a number of controversial speculations about a "Messianic lineage." Yet the authors could offer no real proof since their access to relevant source material was restricted. At last the truth can be told!

This extraordinary and controversial book, packed with intrigue, begins where others have ended. Sir Laurence Gardner has been granted privileged access to European Sovereign and Nobel archives, along with favored insight into chivalric and Church repositories. He proves for the first time that there is a royal heritage of the Messiah in the West, and documents the systematic and continuing suppression of records tracing the descendent of the sacred lineage by regimes down the centuries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tomb of God
by Richard Andrews & Paul Schellenberger 
Richard Andrews & Paul Schellenberger decipher ancient coded scrolls to discern that Jesus was buried in Southern France. In several chapters of detailed detective work, the authors, an archeologist and an engineer, demonstrate with geometric logic that the real treasure of Rennes-le-Chateau (or that general area) is not Templar gold, or some vague ancient Holy Place, but the tomb of Jesus, its existence and location kept secret by some few initiates over the centuries because denial of the physical resurrection and assumption of Jesus was grounds for the most excrutiating punishments of the Catholic Inquisition. The closing chapters explore the question of how the body of Jesus came to be buried in a secret location in what was then Gaul and who was responsible for keeping the secret all these centuries, in encoded paintings, parchments, gravestones, and landmarks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dark Side of Christian History*****
by Helen Ellerbe 
Gives a glimpse of how the church has changed Jesus' teachings for political gain. Over a period of nearly two millennia, the Christian Church has oppressed and brutalized millions of individuals. Meticulously researched and courageously written, this book examines the Church's devastating impact upon human freedom, dignity and spirituality. Written for the lay reader, this controversial book is especially relevant today as the religious right is attempting to assert greater influence in American politics and society.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holy Blood, Holy Grail
by M. Baigent, et al. 
Holy Blood, Holy Grail takes you on a journey of discovering what really happened after the crucifixion. Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, and Richard Leigh, authors of The Messianic Legacy, spent over 10 years on their own kind of quest for the Holy Grail, into the secretive history of early France. What they found, researched with the tenacity and attention to detail that befits any great quest, is a tangled and intricate story of politics and faith that reads like a mystery novel. It is the story of the Knights Templar, and a behind-the-scenes society called the Prieure de Sion, and its involvement in reinstating descendants of the Merovingian bloodline into political power.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idioms in the Bible Explained*****
by G. Lamsa 
Lamsa's primary language is Aramaic, the same as spoken by Jesus. Lamsa shows you how the words of Jesus were corrupted by centuries of bad translations. You should also get the Lamsa translation of the Bible, it is again taken from the original language, by a native speaker, and then you will see what a wonderful book of hope emerges, without all the hell-fire and damnation that appears in current Bibles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gnostic Gospels*****
by E. Pagels 
Gnosticism's Christian form grew to prominence in the 2nd century A.D. Ultimately denounced as heretical by the early church, Gnosticism proposed a revealed knowledge of God ("gnosis" meaning "knowledge" in Greek), held as a secret tradition of the apostles. In The Gnostic Gospels, author Elaine Pagels suggests that Christianity could have developed quite differently if Gnostic texts had become part of the Christian canon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Other Bible
edited by W. Barnstone 
Gathered here for the first time in one comprehensive volume are excerpted ancient holy texts from Judeo-Christian traditions that were excluded from the official canon of the Old and New Testaments. The Other Bible is a unique sourcebook of essential selections from Jewish Psudepigrapha, early Kabbalah, Haggadah, Midrash, Christian Apocrypha, and Gnostic scriptures.

The Other Bible provides a rare opportunity to discover the poetic and narrative riches of this long-suppressed literature and experience firsthand its visionary discourses on the nature of God, humanity, the spiritual life, the world around us, and infinite worlds beyond this one including a collection of many ancient sources that never made it into the Christian bible. Lots of stories about Jesus and his family.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nag Hammadi Library
edited by J. Robinson 
The Nag Hammadi Library was discovered in 1945 buried in a large stone jar in the desert outside the modern Egyptian city of Nag Hammadi. It is a collection of religious and philosophic texts gathered and translated into Coptic by fourth-century Gnostic Christians and translated into English by dozens of highly reputable experts. First published in 1978, this is the revised 1988 edition supported by illuminating introductions to each document. The library itself is a diverse collection of texts that the Gnostics considered to be related to their heretical philosophy in some way. There are 45 separate titles, including a Coptic translation from the Greek of two well-known works: the Gospel of Thomas, attributed to Jesus' brother Judas, and Plato's Republic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holy Bible: From the Ancient Eastern Text
by G. Lamsa 
This handsome new edition of the authoritative English translation of the Aramaic (Syriac) Old and New Testaments - the language of Jesus - clarifies difficult passages and offers fresh insight on the Bible's message. The author looked to Aramaic language manuscripts to create a more enlightened translation which reflects the language of Jesus, his followers and the common people to whom He ministered, rather than the Greek language of the military and political leaders of His time who would in time crucify Him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Modern New Testament : Translated from the Original Aramaic Sources
by G. Lamsa 
You can read the true words of Jesus as he spoke them, without centuries of mistranslation and politics coming along for the ride. This is a reprint of the Lamsa New Testament in a very handy to carry and hold compact size, with black flexible binding with the Aramaic sacred symbol impressed in gilt.


----------



## Martinelv

Oh right, we're forgetting the bible are we? Wise move.

The shelves of bookshops are creaking with trillions of, usually, contradictory religious clap-trap, each attempting to provide evidence of whichever god they prefer to believe in. The lunatic fringe is especially fruitful here.

Look, and I've said this a million times, the onus is *not* on me to disprove god/s existence, because I'm not even making a claim. If I were, then I'd except you to ask for proof, but I'm not. The burden of proof is on *you* because *you* are *making the claim*. Therefore, in the meantime while I await this proof, I can criticise the madness of it all to my hearts content.


----------



## rainboteers

Nevermind. I really don't want to argue/debate, I simply just wanted to give an opinion. The "lunatic" comment kinda hurt so I will stop after this. I spent a lot of time figuring out my beliefs (read all 28 versions of the bible and tons of other books). Most of the books I listed are not commonly seen in stores. There is a lot of information out there and I understand your agruement. I will never be able to prove God to someone else, noone could ever prove it to me. I had to find my own path. I know you are going through a rough time, hope you get feeling better very very soon.


----------



## Martinelv

First of all, I wasn't saying you were a lunatic. Secondly, it's a favourite course of action for the religious to say they are 'hurt' when someone criticises their religion. I don't feel 'hurt' when, as an atheist, I walk past a church. And thirdly, come on - give me a break, how many of the books under the religion/spirituality section are anything else than religious mania or, at best, desperate speculation.?

This whole conversation started because you said you had proof. I'm still waiting.


----------



## Brainsilence02

I have made a number of posts that answer the recently stated things. I considered this as the right thing to do, instead of just releasing a steam of text --that would be very un-readable--. If it's not right (goes against some rule), tell me, so that I will never repeat it.

I just don't want to insult people but I can't "hide" my judgement about their opinions, I really don't know when I am crossing the line. So please, if I cross it, just say it to me.

Thank you all for participating.


----------



## Brainsilence02

Sojourner said:


> If you believe that evolution brilliantly evolved only those creatures who (at least at first) had a chance of surviving and reproducing in their environment;


Evolution is random mutations. Due to random mutations, some speciments presented random characteristics that allowed them to survive. Man had the brain, and it appears that it was one of the best, or even the best thing around. If an atomic bomp explodes, we will not have what it takes. However some creatures (rats and insects) will survive. The fact that radiation, in my example, is something that is caused by man, is not important.



Sojourner said:


> If you believe that intelligence of all kinds is the product of evolution;


Yes, since _evolution = random mutations_, Our intelligence is the product of evolution.



Sojourner said:


> If you believe that the end result of evolution is the presence of creatures who are perfectly suited to their environment


No. Evolution does not have a purpose, and does not have an end. It's luck. And it is as likale to produce speciments _perfectly suited to their enviroment_ as it is to produce ones _better suited to their enviroment (than some or all other creatures)_ or _well-enought suited to their enviroment_, or _just a bit more well-suited to their enviroment_.



Sojourner said:


> How do you account for the fact that human beings have evolved a search for meaning since as far back as we can observe human behavior?


First of, what makes so sure that humans are important? That what we call intelligence is nothing but the difference that the dog has in comparison to the worm (if you doubt of the "amount" of intelligence or the kinds of them, you will find more details following).

Secondl, what excactly do you mean with "search for meaning"? You mean why do humans believe instictly that there must be a purpose for all these? Why do humans choose to believe that there must be an order even though this thought does not come from objective proofs --or at least indications?

Well, because they want to know and explain everything. That's the motivation of science. When man can't find the answer, he must replace it with something else. Religion fills the void of our knowledge. The more knowledge we acquire, the less religion we will need. Check what was happening in the middle-ages.



Sojourner said:


> We have hunger; the concept of evolution assures us there will be food (or we wouldn't be here). We have food. It is provided for us; it is a gift from the universe.


The concept of evolution is this: since you are still alive, it means that you are well-enough suited to your enviroment: you have food and you have a stable population.

Well, hunger is there because nature wants to give us the motivation to eat. Food is the energy source. If the food wasn't tasteful, we wouldn't eat it. Food is not a gift from the universe. It is rather a function of human, and human is part of the universe. Remember that man can be a food for other animals. If food wasn't tasteful, you would characterize it as the "curse of the universe" because you would have to eat it (in order to survive) but wouldn't like eating it. And that is the importance of instict. I am not sure if man would get motivated to eat as an infant if there wasn't hunger. And you know, it's difficult to explain to an infant that "you have to eat".

The feeling of "gift of the universe" is in fact the expression of satisfaction. Since you need it and you have it, you feel good. Freud sais that "happyness is the (preferably sudden) satisfaction of needs". You might feel grateful depending on the society and religion that influenced you. Religions try to built-in their doctrines into man's insticts. This is a very powerful propaganda.



Sojourner said:


> We have social needs; the concept of evolution has wired us all to need this to varying degrees. We have other people. They are provided; they are gifts from the universe.


Does the concept of evolution really take under consideration the social needs of some speciments? (like humans)

But, yes, we have social needs. Man is a social animal (one ancient dude/guy said that, I am forgeting his name right now).

This attitude is common to some animals and starts from quite back (at older times). First, you need to find a female (I am talking for myself, since I am a male). Then you need to stay with (stick together!) with the rest of your race to improove the chanses of survival.

Since humans have greater processing capacities (also known as "are smarter"), some complications apply to man's social behavior. But that, of cource, is irrelevant with the issue, I just wanted to say it for completeness reasons.



Sojourner said:


> We have questions about our own existence; the concept of evolution assures us that this was one of the items that led to survival.


The processing capabilities of man involves self-awareness till some level. This self-awareness is the most bold we have ever met on earth. We haven't explored all of earth yet, and we haven't explored all the universe yet.

These questions that you mention, is unavoidable consequenses of our intelligence. What makes you say that they led us to survival? I think that they are a drawback to our race (especially with the way they happen), since they (these questions) can block other tasks/procedures. But I am open to discuss if they are indeed a drawback or not.



Sojourner said:


> ...The Catholic Church...


Your are Catholic eh?. My family is Orthodox (you know, like Russians). If you study some Asian religions, you will find religions with less holes in their theory than Christendom.

Let's just pause here for a while to see a spicy point  Both words, "Catholic" and "Orthodox" are greek. "Catholic" translates to "universal" (which means "the one(s) that includes all) and "Orthodox" does not have a direct translation in english, but it means "the one(s) that has the right opinion" 

...As I have said beafore, religion gives relief. But it also gives fanatism, war, puritanism, etc..



Sojourner said:


> Now you may say, "I don't look for meaning," but I hope you know that nobody will believe you. That's a defense against the frustration of not having personal knowledge that God is real.


It's all nature my friend  Nature has the meaning. What else could I expect than that. Everything is part of nature. If I need to find a meaning I search to my insticts, to my logic, to the understanding of other people and the world.



Sojourner said:


> People who believe in God do not do so because they were told something and automatically believe it. People who today, here on this forum, say to you that they believe in God do so for one primary reason and one primary reason only: God has touched them personally, and it wasn't a hallucination or mental illness.


1. I never said it was mental illness, religion it is perfectly natural to humans
2. You cannot use your religion's doctrines if you don't first proove your god's existance
2. Peoples' imaginations and illusions are not able to form reality
3. The reasons why people choose to believe in god is:
- the lack of knowledge
- the fear of the unknown
- things in out psychology and physiology that we cannot beat



Sojourner said:


> I have long thought the term "mental illness" to be malformed. There is nothing wrong with our minds; we suffer from a physical syndrome. Our bodies are misinterpreting signals -- whether because of biological deficiencies or psychological deficiencies that cause the chemical imbalance in our brains.
> 
> The false dichotomy of physical/mental is what is responsible for whatever stigma there is. I think we need to find a better word for "chemical imbalance in the brain." I don't know what that might be, though, which bothers me, too. Why can't I think of a suitable substitute?
> 
> Well, we could say something like:
> 
> - Neurotransmitter depletion
> - Neural metabolic asymmetry
> - Hyposerotonin
> - Hyperadrenalism


I cannot comment that. It goes outside the topic. This is an interesting issue for the main DP/DR discussion. Why don't you post it there with a descriptive title so that everyone can participate?


----------



## Brainsilence02

JanineBaker said:


> [...] implies that Human Intelligence is some SIGNIFICANT evolutionary addition. It MIGHT only be as important to the overall planet as a specific hummingbird's unique wing structure allows it to be held in static repose while still hovering


I agree. Humans are not as important as we think we are.


----------



## Brainsilence02

Sojourner said:


> I think intelligence is the most fundamental element of the universe.


So, you have seen everything in the universe and thus you conclude to this, right?



Sojourner said:


> Can we really say that complex mathematical computations are not performed by animals and by their constituent elements such as proteins?


You are doing the same mistake: "just because I feel it is like this, I want someone to proove to me that it's not like this in order to stop believing on it". Let me help you see this in another aspect: what reason do you have to believe that?



Sojourner said:


> I do not look down on other creatures as less intelligent than humans.


Animals don't have logic. _Logic = what leads you to your (preferably best) interest_. My dog doesn't want to go to the doctor, because it knows that there will be a surgery. It's afraid of surgeries, so it does everything possible to avoid it; even attacking the doctor. I am afraid of surgeries too (subconsious stuff that I share in common with my dog). But I understand that if I don't do that surgery, I will die. So I do it. I either get over or accept my fear and do the surgery.

You know, less intelligence doesn't mean inferior. It's like saying less tall.



> We know they have complex social organizations, complex systems of communication, and so forth


Like the ants. You see what instict does? They just do what they sense it is porper for them. Each one has its part. Their society is more efficient in doing things than ours, but they are not individuals, they are a sum.



Sojourner said:


> Their intelligence is suited to their anatomy and their lives; ours is simply different, not better.


Intelligence is just another characteristic. Characteristics, like intelligence and anatomy, actually define what the creature is capable of. In order to say if this intelligence is better than the other, we need first to define our criteria. What was yours when equalizing man with other animals?



Sojourner said:


> Because they cannot sit next to us on the sofa with a cup of tea and talk to us about their musings on the nature of reality or the history of their language is of no consequence.


This human expression (with the sofa) is a mix (mixture) of instict and society cheques, and differs from one society to another.



Sojourner said:


> I wasn't really saying that intelligence was the deciding factor in the search for meaning that has been wired into us. I'm really asking why that search isn't viewed as a product of evolution, like everything else.


Why should it be?

Intelligence is a characteristic. It is, most possibly, a result of evolution. The fact that we question ourselves about stuff like "meaning" is just involved to the intelligence that we have.

Remember Sojourner, this is all a very friendly reply


----------



## Brainsilence02

Martinlev said:


> rainboteers said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do have proof that God exists
> 
> 
> 
> Go on then, hit me with it.
Click to expand...

Martin, I am glad you feel better  And, of cource, you haven't lost your sense of humor 



Martinlev said:


> I've asked too, sincerely. No answer. Which either makes me spiritually unworthy, unable to understand or recognise the answer, or perhaps - as the millions of starving children around the world that ask and pray everyday, there is nobody 'up there' to answer in the first place.


That's a good question. If there was a god, he/she wouldn't let this happening. But, Martin, I am afraid they already have twp answers to that

1. "you can't understand god's will" -- but can always say "can he?"
2. "the ones that suffer in this life will be rewared to the next" -- so it's logical to ask "why don't you go suffer in order to be rewarded to the next life?" 

That's all very fun, but I really think that we shouldn't go deep and analyze the doctines of each religions. There is not point, since the doctines must be accepted after the proof that god exists.



Martinlev said:


> I will get back to this thread at some point. Be warned. :twisted:


When said that, I imagined you having something to say that will cause an "explosion" 



Martinlev said:


> Because I am an atheist (someone who lacks belief in god/s) I do not have to prove a single thing. The burden is on the person making the claim, in this case Homeskooled, and back it up with proof.


Of cource mate! My initial post about the "proof" has covered that issue:



me said:


> You can't proove that there is no god
> - I do not have to give you a proof. The one that makes the suggestion must give a proof. You are the one that suggests that there is this thing called "god".


And to make it even more clear, I will say this:



brainsilence02 said:


> One day someone told me that there is this thing called "god". When I asked him why should I believe that, he told me to proove to him that "god" doesn't exist.






Martinlev said:


> If I were to make an astonishing claim, such as there is an invisible Leprachaun under my bed, I'd be required to substantiate this claim, any you'd expect it, and rightly so.


I really liked this one  That post of mine had a "Proove to me that I am not thinking of a red hat right now" but yours is so much clearer than mine. The only problem with religion is that it is a global illusions due to:



me said:


> a. our lack of knowledge
> b. our fear of the unknown
> c. things in out psychology and physiology that we cannot beat


----------



## Brainsilence02

rainboteers said:


> I am terrified to jump in here


Why is that? Did I or someone else said something that hurt you?



rainboteers said:


> I do have proof that God exists, but don't you realize that proof of God has to be individual.


Why?



rainboteers said:


> It is a unique experience.


I don't want to insult you, but if (I repeat, "if") you are wrong about this, then believing in god is an illusion. And illusions can be pleasant, and of cource, unique.



rainboteers said:


> God proves herself/himself to each of us in different ways


Why?



rainboteers said:


> You can't ask for a some big revelation that would prove that God exists to everyone because I don't think it works like that.


Although I didn't ask, why can't it be a some big revelation?



rainboteers said:


> I promise you I have proof, but it is MY proof. I got it because I asked for it. It would mean nothing to you


I think I understand what you mean. I am prejudiced that god doesn't exist, and you are prejudiced that god exists. Your prejudice gives you all the proof that you need, and mine does the same? I don't know if you will agree about that thing that I just said for you (about prejudice), and I certainly hope it's not insulting, but my prejudice is making me beeing logical. And it was logic that caused man's survival and prevail all these (thousands of) years.



rainboteers said:


> Those who believe can't prove God to you. You have to find it for yourself, but that won't happen unless you let it.


"Let it"? How am I stopping it?


----------



## Brainsilence02

rainboteers said:


> If there was no suffering there would be no compassion.


Why?



rainboteers said:


> God can't magically fix it all because it is the very reason we are here.


Why cant he/she fix it? So that we (humans) suffer? Why suffer? In order for god to evaluate us? Why? Since he created us.



rainboteers said:


> Life doesn't last long, we get home and we are glad we took that tough class on earth because it made us a more magnaimous spirit and we learned so much. Sorry if I am rambling. I have some excellent books if you are at all interested... (they explain it much better than I)


I now see what you mean. You are making extended usage of your religion's doctrines. I made an exception to my behavior and delve some problems of Christendom. However, I will not keep doing this. You will first need to proove the existance of your god (it was the same religion I used to believe in) in order to use the doctrines of your religion.



rainboteers said:


> [...] it is very hard to show a person a sign and get through to them, if they are protesting and expecting a negative outcome.


No, not "expecting", but "protesting": yes! This is whole point of this thread/topic. Would you expect to accept something without examining it first?



rainboteers said:


> I also do not believe in hell. Perfect love and someone who condemns souls to hell is a complete contradiction and is oviously ridiculous. These are just my opinions...


Yes, but religion accepts the exictance of hell. So, that makes you a heretic  (it was a joke)

Anyway, you must first proof the existance of (your) god, in order to start tweaking stuff from your religion.


----------



## Brainsilence02

Martinlev said:


> Look, and I've said this a million times, the onus is not on me to disprove god/s existence, because I'm not even making a claim. If I were, then I'd except you to ask for proof, but I'm not. The burden of proof is on you because you are making the claim.


Yes, I believe this too. Since illusions reside on the sentimental part of the brain, they prevail proof. The sentimental part of the brain always overrides the logical part.



Martinlev said:


> I don't feel 'hurt' when, as an atheist, I walk past a church.


In fact, some of the most interesting buildings are churches. For example: Nortre Damme. And churches bring people together. Besides, women are always well-dressed in churches 



rainboteers said:


> I will never be able to prove God to someone else, noone could ever prove it to me. I had to find my own path.


What things led you to start believing that there must be a supreme beeing? Why did you choose this religion from all the ones around? What does "find my own path" involves?


----------



## Brainsilence02

double post :|


----------



## Brainsilence02

triple post :|


----------



## rainboteers

This is a sore spot for me so I should have stayed out of it. Most of my family thinks I am going to hell for what I believe. So yes that is precisely why I was afraid to jump in. Like I said it is just my experience and I wanted to throw it out there. I am not good at debating this topic, I spend to much time at home doing it with my family. Martin I am sorry I must of misunderstood you. I did feel like the, "lunatic" comment was directed at me, not my beliefs. Okay all done.


----------



## Sojourner

Brainsilence,

Perhaps I didn't express myself all that well, but regardless of the reason, I don't think you understood precisely what I was saying. But thank you for the reply.

It might be better if I responded to each of your statements rather than try to address them globally, so I will try to do that sometime.

So many things to quibble about....so little time! :roll:


----------



## Sojourner

brainsilence02 said:


> Sojourner said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that evolution brilliantly evolved only those creatures who (at least at first) had a chance of surviving and reproducing in their environment;
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is random mutations. Due to random mutations, some speciments presented random characteristics that allowed them to survive. Man had the brain, and it appears that it was one of the best, or even the best thing around. If an atomic bomp explodes, we will not have what it takes. However some creatures (rats and insects) will survive. The fact that radiation, in my example, is something that is caused by man, is not important.
> 
> Soj: I'm usually good with software, but I can't figure out how to quote properly. When I click Quote (and the tooltip says it will reply with quote) it doesn't quote you, so if I just respond, it's impossible to tell where my comments begin and yours end. I'll just preface my comments with Soj:.
> 
> Soj: That sounds like a "yes," more or less, to me.
> 
> 
> Sojourner said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that intelligence of all kinds is the product of evolution;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, since _evolution = random mutations_, Our intelligence is the product of evolution.
> 
> Soj: OK.
> 
> 
> 
> Sojourner said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that the end result of evolution is the presence of creatures who are perfectly suited to their environment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Evolution does not have a purpose,
> 
> Soj: I said nothing about "purpose." Read what I wrote again.
> 
> and does not have an end. It's luck. And it is as likale to produce speciments _perfectly suited to their enviroment_ as it is to produce ones _better suited to their enviroment (than some or all other creatures)_ or _well-enought suited to their enviroment_, or _just a bit more well-suited to their enviroment_.
> 
> 
> 
> Sojourner said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you account for the fact that human beings have evolved a search for meaning since as far back as we can observe human behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of, what makes so sure that humans are important?
> 
> Soj: I asked a question; you ask another. I said nothing about humans being "important." Whether I think they are or not is a subject we could explore, but I don't want to do that now.
> 
> That what we call intelligence is nothing but the difference that the dog has in comparison to the worm (if you doubt of the "amount" of intelligence or the kinds of them, you will find more details following).
> 
> Secondl, what excactly do you mean with "search for meaning"? You mean why do humans believe instictly that there must be a purpose for all these? Why do humans choose to believe that there must be an order even though this thought does not come from objective proofs --or at least indications?
> 
> Soj: Science quite clearly and objectives shows that there is order and intelligence in the universe. Even if you posit that everything is random, you still need to address the behavior of matter.
> 
> Well, because they want to know and explain everything. That's the motivation of science. When man can't find the answer, he must replace it with something else. Religion fills the void of our knowledge. The more knowledge we acquire, the less religion we will need. Check what was happening in the middle-ages.
> 
> Soj: The history of science refutes you. Many great scientists have also been believers.
> 
> 
> 
> Sojourner said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have hunger; the concept of evolution assures us there will be food (or we wouldn't be here). We have food. It is provided for us; it is a gift from the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept of evolution is this: since you are still alive, it means that you are well-enough suited to your enviroment: you have food and you have a stable population.
> 
> Soj: Yes, thank you, we agree.
> 
> Well, hunger is there because nature wants to give us the motivation to eat. Food is the energy source. If the food wasn't tasteful, we wouldn't eat it. Food is not a gift from the universe. It is rather a function of human, and human is part of the universe. Remember that man can be a food for other animals. If food wasn't tasteful, you would characterize it as the "curse of the universe" because you would have to eat it (in order to survive) but wouldn't like eating it. And that is the importance of instict. I am not sure if man would get motivated to eat as an infant if there wasn't hunger. And you know, it's difficult to explain to an infant that "you have to eat".
> 
> Soj: OK, another yes, thank you.
> 
> The feeling of "gift of the universe" is in fact the expression of satisfaction. Since you need it and you have it, you feel good. Freud sais that "happyness is the (preferably sudden) satisfaction of needs". You might feel grateful depending on the society and religion that influenced you. Religions try to built-in their doctrines into man's insticts. This is a very powerful propaganda.
> 
> Soj: Yes, I see that our needs are met. I was making an argument, so I don't want to digress into the details and every little thing right now.
> 
> 
> 
> Sojourner said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have social needs; the concept of evolution has wired us all to need this to varying degrees. We have other people. They are provided; they are gifts from the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the concept of evolution really take under consideration the social needs of some speciments? (like humans)
> 
> Soj: I am speaking of the concept in the most general terms, for the purpose of my overarching question.
> 
> But, yes, we have social needs. Man is a social animal (one ancient dude/guy said that, I am forgeting his name right now).
> 
> Soj: So, that's another yes.
> 
> This attitude is common to some animals and starts from quite back (at older times). First, you need to find a female (I am talking for myself, since I am a male). Then you need to stay with (stick together!) with the rest of your race to improove the chanses of survival.
> 
> Since humans have greater processing capacities (also known as "are smarter"), some complications apply to man's social behavior. But that, of cource, is irrelevant with the issue, I just wanted to say it for completeness reasons.
> 
> Soj: OK, we basically agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Sojourner said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have questions about our own existence; the concept of evolution assures us that this was one of the items that led to survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The processing capabilities of man involves self-awareness till some level. This self-awareness is the most bold we have ever met on earth. We haven't explored all of earth yet, and we haven't explored all the universe yet.
> 
> Soj: Read what I wrote again, please. My statement is quite limited to the words that I wrote.
> 
> These questions that you mention, is unavoidable consequenses of our intelligence.
> 
> Soj: If evolution is true, it would seem to be part of our arsenal for living -- provided by evolution. Whether you argue, "No, it's from our brain," then I will say, "So the brain has not evolved?"
> 
> What makes you say that they led us to survival?
> 
> Soj: Humans are apparently "wired" that way. The desire to know truth is built into us.
> 
> 
> 
> Sojourner said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who believe in God do not do so because they were told something and automatically believe it. People who today, here on this forum, say to you that they believe in God do so for one primary reason and one primary reason only: God has touched them personally, and it wasn't a hallucination or mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. I never said it was mental illness, religion it is perfectly natural to humans
> 
> Soj: OK, now we are getting somewhere. That was what I was trying to get to -- the desire to understand reality is "perfectly natural to humans." You and I apparently agree on that. My main question was: Given that fact, why wouldn't an intelligent person then conclude that such a "perfectly natural" result of evolution was basically of the same nature, if you will, as all the other features that evolution has brought? I am interested in an answer to this question.
> 
> 2. You cannot use your religion's doctrines if you don't first proove your god's existance
> 
> Soj: I would refer you to St. Thomas Aquinas, and I defer to him.
> 
> 2. Peoples' imaginations and illusions are not able to form reality
> 3. The reasons why people choose to believe in god is:
> - the lack of knowledge
> - the fear of the unknown
> - things in out psychology and physiology that we cannot beat
> 
> Soj: So the following human beings you categorize with your above comments? Or perhaps Georges Lema?tre (and millions of humans from the dawn of time), the Roman Catholic priest who proposed the Big Bang theory, perceives something you have not perceived?
> 
> Andr?-Marie Amp?re (Catholic)
> Thomas Aquinas (Catholic)
> Roger Bacon (Catholic)
> Antoine Henri Becquerel (Catholic)
> David Brewster
> Georges Buffon (Catholic)
> Georg Cantor
> Augustin-Louis Cauchy (Catholic)
> George Washington Carver
> Nicolaus Copernicus (Catholic Priest)
> Charles Augustin de Coulomb (Catholic)
> John Dalton (Quaker)
> Ren? Descartes (Catholic)
> Freeman Dyson
> Sir Arthur Eddington
> Leonhard Euler (Calvinist)
> Michael Faraday (Sandemanian)
> John Flamsteed
> Alexander Fleming (Catholic)
> Gottlob Frege (Calvinist)
> Augustin Jean Fresnel
> Galileo Galilei (Catholic)
> Luigi Galvani (Catholic)
> Josiah Gibbs
> John Herschel
> William Herschel
> Edward Jenner
> James Joule
> Lord Kelvin (William Thomson)
> Johannes Kepler (Lutheran)
> Donald Knuth
> Antoine Lavoisier (Catholic)
> Anton van Leeuwenhoek (Dutch Reformed)
> Gottfried Leibniz (Lutheran)
> Georges Lema?tre
> Carl Linnaeus
> Joseph Lister (Quaker)
> Guglielmo Marconi (born Catholic, converted to Anglicanism)
> James Clerk Maxwell (born Presbyterian, converted to Baptist faith)
> Gregor Mendel (Catholic Abbot)
> Edward Morley
> Samuel Morse
> Isaac Newton (born Anglican, converted to Arianism)
> Nicholas Oresme (Catholic)
> Blaise Pascal
> Louis Pasteur (Catholic)
> Bernhard Riemann
> George Stokes
> Urbain Le Verrier (Catholic)
> Wright brothers (Brethren)
> 
> I think that they are a drawback to our race (especially with the way they happen), since they (these questions) can block other tasks/procedures. But I am open to discuss if they are indeed a drawback or not.
> 
> Your are Catholic eh?. My family is Orthodox (you know, like Russians). If you study some Asian religions, you will find religions with less holes in their theory than Christendom.
> 
> Soj: I suggest you read _Foundations of Christian Faith_ by Karl Rahner, S. J.
> 
> Let's just pause here for a while to see a spicy point  Both words, "Catholic" and "Orthodox" are greek. "Catholic" translates to "universal" (which means "the one(s) that includes all) and "Orthodox" does not have a direct translation in english, but it means "the one(s) that has the right opinion"
> 
> ...As I have said beafore, religion gives relief. But it also gives fanatism, war, puritanism, etc..
> 
> Soj: I disagree. It is not religion; it is people who misuse religion, who pervert it. It is a basic logical fallacy to condemn an idea because some people who hold the idea are sinful.
> 
> 
> 
> Sojourner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you may say, "I don't look for meaning," but I hope you know that nobody will believe you. That's a defense against the frustration of not having personal knowledge that God is real.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It's all nature my friend  Nature has the meaning. What else could I expect than that. Everything is part of nature. If I need to find a meaning I search to my insticts, to my logic, to the understanding of other people and the world.

Soj: This again is precisely my question, apparently we agree: the search for meaning is built into us and is a product of evolution. I am concluding from your remarks that you agree with this.

-------
Thank you, Brainsilence. People who believe in God generally believe that God is the author of all -- in particular evolution, if it is in fact more than a theory and truly the way matter has evolved.

All in all, I think that you and I do agree that evolution produced the world as we know it and that world includes what you called the "perfectly natural" tendency of human beings to seek to know the truth.

The conclusion I must draw, then, is that you also agree that this tendency has promoted survival. Though surely I agree that some people have perverted religion, that's not the question. The issue is a logical one: is man's search for meaning of the same nature as the number of limbs he has?

You seem to be saying "yes." Thank you.

Soj: I would be remiss if I didn't now further suggest that you think about that for a little while. Also, without intending to hurt your feelings, I would suggest that your proclamations of what does or does not exist and what is or is not real tends to make your readers assume that you think you are omniscient and know the truth of the universe; in fact, you and I know that you do not.

This has just been a friendly discussion on my part, as well.

Sojourner


----------



## Sojourner

brainsilence02 said:


> Sojourner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think intelligence is the most fundamental element of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you have seen everything in the universe and thus you conclude to this, right?
> 
> Soj: I would have assumed that someone would read my statement knowing that I would not intend such a claim and that my statement was based on my knowledge of science.
> 
> 
> 
> Sojourner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we really say that complex mathematical computations are not performed by animals and by their constituent elements such as proteins?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are doing the same mistake: "just because I feel it is like this, I want someone to proove to me that it's not like this in order to stop believing on it".
> 
> Soj: I said nothing to even suggest I felt that way. What I am suggesting is that "intelligence" is a property of everything that is contained in the universe. All you have to do is look at nature on the largest and smallest scale to see that everything in the universe *does* something (i.e., obeys certain physical laws), whether it's acting like a chemical factory or navigating the planet. Do you think these things are the product of mindlessness?
> 
> Let me help you see this in another aspect: what reason do you have to believe that?
> 
> Soj: To explain away complex mathematical calculations made by animals is to explain nothing. You use the word "instinct" and that is really a label for a phenomenon that we don't understand. I am maintaining that the phenomenon is the intelligence that is built into every animate cell and every inanimate subatomic particle.
> 
> 
> 
> Sojourner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not look down on other creatures as less intelligent than humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals don't have logic.
> 
> Soj: Of course they do. Haven't you ever seen an animal think about doing something, such as jump from one place to another, and then change it's mind because it concludes it cannot make it? When a gorilla speaks sign language with a human and when any animal performs and is rewarded and does the same thing over and over again to get the reward, are you seriously going to say that the animal doesn't perform the action because it knows the result? If that isn't logic, then I give up.
> 
> _Logic = what leads you to your (preferably best) interest_. My dog doesn't want to go to the doctor, because it knows that there will be a surgery. It's afraid of surgeries, so it does everything possible to avoid it; even attacking the doctor. I am afraid of surgeries too (subconsious stuff that I share in common with my dog). But I understand that if I don't do that surgery, I will die. So I do it. I either get over or accept my fear and do the surgery.
> 
> Soj: I never said animals' intelligence was equal to ours.
> 
> You know, less intelligence doesn't mean inferior. It's like saying less tall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know they have complex social organizations, complex systems of communication, and so forth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the ants. You see what instict does?
> 
> Soj: Now THAT'S a perfect illustration of the pot calling the kettle "black." You cling to your belief by using the label "instinct," when in fact, science has shown that ants are using a complex chemical language to communicate. We don't know for sure the content of the "conversations," but you will claim it's "instinct" and have no interest in seeing more deeply into reality.
> 
> --
> 
> They just do what they sense it is porper for them. Each one has its part. Their society is more efficient in doing things than ours, but they are not individuals, they are a sum.
> 
> Soj: You do not know that. Why make pronouncements about things of which you do not know but only have superstitions? It is a superstition to explain away anything in nature by saying its cause is "instinct."
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> Sojourner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their intelligence is suited to their anatomy and their lives; ours is simply different, not better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence is just another characteristic. Characteristics, like intelligence and anatomy, actually define what the creature is capable of. In order to say if this intelligence is better than the other, we need first to define our criteria. What was yours when equalizing man with other animals?
> 
> Soj: As I said before, I'm not equalizing them. Read what I wrote again. "Different" does not mean "equal."
> 
> 
> 
> Sojourner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they cannot sit next to us on the sofa with a cup of tea and talk to us about their musings on the nature of reality or the history of their language is of no consequence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This human expression (with the sofa) is a mix (mixture) of instict and society cheques, and differs from one society to another.
> 
> Soj: If you want to believe that there's some division between nature and culture, go right ahead. I think they are all part of a spectrum of reality that reaches from the material to the spiritual and that ultimately, everything is related to everything else. Your attempting to dispense with the issues by labeling things "instinct" only tells me that you don't understand that science today rarely speaks in those antiquated terms because it has observed what causes things we used to call "instinct." As I said earlier, ants use a complex chemical language. You can call it "instinct" if you like, but that puts you squarely in the 19th century.
> 
> 
> 
> Sojourner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't really saying that intelligence was the deciding factor in the search for meaning that has been wired into us. I'm really asking why that search isn't viewed as a product of evolution, like everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Why should it be?

Soj: Because it's genesis is the same.

Best wishes to you Brainsilence,

Sojourner


----------



## Martinelv

Brainsilence, inhernit my mantle and suprpass my feeble achievements. It's up to you buddy for a while, because I'm so knackered I can barely type.

Last thing though. Sojourner, your list of famous Catholic people - which includes physicists and philosophers, is called 'The Appeal to Authority' argurment, and is a logical fallacy. Even a psychiatrist wouldn't realise he was schizophrenic so why would a catholic phyisicist be able to shake off the chains of his faith?


----------



## Guest

A man who can (correctly) know and reference the argument concept: "appeal to authority" is sexier to me than any amount of muscles or body tone or financial prowess could ever provide.

sigh.

done now. just had to share. (have I mentioned that there are some REMARKABLY intelligent people who frequent this ol' Board?)

:wink:


----------



## Martinelv

:lol:

I'm all yours Janine. Although I except you wouldn't want me as I am. Incidently, I told someone yesterday (yes, in a bar) that I have Leuakemia and, to cut a long story short, they thought it was infectious, and backed away like I had Ebola seeping from every pore. Ignorant f------rs. And no, I don't forgive them for it.

Oh, sigh, what a world.


----------



## Monkeydust

*sigh*

...If only all women had the same preferences for men as Janine..._then _ I'd be in luck.


----------



## Brainsilence02

Martinelv said:


> ...Leuakemia...


oh no
is it currable? (i now understand the leak you said, the chemo and the such)

and... don't misunderstand them, they are afraid... in a number of ways. mostly, they are afraid of beeing in your place (i mean, i would)

and... i am trying to understand what "appeal to authority" means. does it mean that someone uses famous (and achknowledged) people to support his oppinion?


----------



## Sojourner

Brainsilence wrote:
and... i am trying to understand what "appeal to authority" means. does it mean that someone uses famous (and achknowledged) people to support his oppinion?
-----------

My argument was not based on an appeal to authority at all, as a matter of fact.

I was actually challenging your comments about people who believed in God. You said: "The reasons why people choose to believe in god is: 
- the lack of knowledge 
- the fear of the unknown 
- things in out psychology and physiology that we cannot beat"


----------



## Brainsilence02

hi, i will answer sometime soon, it's just that there are other priorities


----------



## Brainsilence02

Sojourner said:


> So many things to quibble about....so little time!


Unavoidable dear interlocutor


----------



## Brainsilence02

Sojourner said:


> Soj: I'm usually good with software, but I can't figure out how to quote properly. When I click Quote (and the tooltip says it will reply with quote) it doesn't quote you, so if I just respond, it's impossible to tell where my comments begin and yours end. I'll just preface my comments with Soj:.


Yes, it is OK. Here is what you do to create a "quote":



Code:


[QUOTE="brainsilence02, "]A statement of brainsilence02[/QUOTE]

You can also "nest" quotes like this:



Code:


[QUOTE="Sojourner, "]
[QUOTE="brainsilence02, "]A statement of brainsilence02[/QUOTE]<br />
A statement of Sojourner[/quote]

And make sure that "BB code" option is enabled when you make a new post or reply.



Sojourner said:


> If you believe that the end result of evolution is the presence of creatures who are perfectly suited to their environment





brainsilecen02 said:


> No. Evolution does not have a purpose,





Sojourner said:


> Soj: I said nothing about "purpose." Read what I wrote again.


That about the purpose was a redundancy of mine. Ignore it for now.



Sojourner said:


> brainsilence02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of, what makes so sure that humans are important?
> 
> 
> 
> Soj: I asked a question; you ask another. I said nothing about humans being "important." Whether I think they are or not is a subject we could explore, but I don't want to do that now.
Click to expand...

Of cource, there are other issues in priority.



Sojourner said:


> Soj: Science quite clearly and objectives shows that there is order and intelligence in the universe. Even if you posit that everything is random, you still need to address the behavior of matter.


Science is a procedure that (among other things) involves the recording of our observations about the world. It is as good as we are, no more than that. I don't posit that everything is random. In fact random is a statistical term (or "state" you would like) where the generator factors cannot be fully percieved (by us, the observers). Today's Physics claims that knows some things about matter. Future will tell if Physics changes it's mind as it did many times in the past.



Sojourner said:


> Soj: The history of science refutes you. Many great scientists have also been believers.


Emotion overrides logic. But even if we ignore this, only one science has declared an open front with religion: psychology. Ahhh, good old times when I was having a cold beer with my buddy Sigmount Freud...  ...Fortunately his English was better than my German 



Sojourner said:


> brainsilence02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The feeling of "gift of the universe" is in fact the expression of satisfaction. Since you need it and you have it, you feel good. Freud sais that "happyness is the (preferably sudden) satisfaction of needs". You might feel grateful depending on the society and religion that influenced you. Religions try to built-in their doctrines into man's insticts. This is a very powerful propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> Soj: Yes, I see that our needs are met. I was making an argument, so I don't want to digress into the details and every little thing right now.
Click to expand...

Of cource. I had the obligation to reach till a decept depth, it is required for the people who read us. But what exactly do you mean "our needs are met"?



Sojourner said:


> The have social needs; the concept of evolution has wired us all to need this to varying degrees. We have other people. They are provided; they are gifts from the universe.





brainsilence02 said:


> Does the concept of evolution really take under consideration the social needs of some speciments? (like humans)





Sojourner said:


> Soj: I am speaking of the concept in the most general terms, for the purpose of my overarching question.


Well, the "concept of evolution" does not take action in order to "wire us", it only makes an effort to explain things. As for the "gifts from universe" my previous statement about it remains:



brainsilence02 said:


> The feeling of "gift of the universe" is in fact the expression of satisfaction. Since you need it and you have it, you feel good. Freud sais that "happyness is the (preferably sudden) satisfaction of needs". You might feel grateful depending on the society and religion that influenced you. Religions try to built-in their doctrines into man's insticts. This is a very powerful propaganda.





Sojourner said:


> We have questions about our own existence; the concept of evolution assures us that this was one of the items that led to survival.





brainsilence02 said:


> The processing capabilities of man involves self-awareness till some level. This self-awareness is the most bold we have ever met on earth. We haven't explored all of earth yet, and we haven't explored all the universe yet.





Sojourner said:


> Soj: Read what I wrote again, please. My statement is quite limited to the words that I wrote.


Oh no, I have nothing to change in that reply of min. You seem to show a lot of importance to the fact that man has questions about it's own existance, but that is only a consequence of intelligence; that is clear from the comparison between the behavior of the ant and the dog. It would be very egoistic to think that man is the center of the world.

Man has questions about himself. When these questions are not answered, he ends up in indulging to organized illusions (also known as "religions") that function as painkillers. A creature that behaves such as this cannot be considered acceptably evolved.

It's not bad having questions about our existance. But it's bad ending up in religion to solve them.



Sojourner said:


> brainsilence02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These questions that you mention, is unavoidable consequenses of our intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> Soj: If evolution is true, it would seem to be part of our arsenal for living -- provided by evolution. Whether you argue, "No, it's from our brain," then I will say, "So the brain has not evolved?"
Click to expand...

The seek for truth (knowledge) and the seek for safety --safety: a need rising from our weeknesses-- are two different things. Of cource, this is a weekness which is not common to all invididuals of our speciment.

Everything is a product of random mutations. We characterize "evolution" those random mutations that enable the creature to survive (or survive better) in its enviroment. Having greater intelligence than the rest of the animals involves beeing aware that we exist and that the world exists. Such an awareness, in humans' case, creates a fear of death, illnesses, and unknown. These fears are covered by religion.

As you see, some of the features of random mutations are not welcome. You could call this, "the cost of evolution". Man is not the only speciment that has complications with his evolvement. For instance camelopards had once short neck. A random mutation enabled the individuals with the long neck (as we see them today) to survive because they could access food at higher places. The camelopard evolved, and survived. Unfortunately it has become more unwieldy due to the long neck. Cost of evolution.



Sojourner said:


> brainsilence02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you say that they led us to survival?
> 
> 
> 
> Soj: Humans are apparently "wired" that way. The desire to know truth is built into us.
Click to expand...

The previous answer I gave can cover this issue too.



Sojourner said:


> brainsilence02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I never said it was mental illness, religion it is perfectly natural to humans
> 
> 
> 
> Soj: OK, now we are getting somewhere. That was what I was trying to get to -- the desire to understand reality is "perfectly natural to humans." You and I apparently agree on that. My main question was: Given that fact, why wouldn't an intelligent person then conclude that such a "perfectly natural" result of evolution was basically of the same nature, if you will, as all the other features that evolution has brought? I am interested in an answer to this question.
Click to expand...

_let's examine that statement in more detail:_



Sojourner said:


> the desire to understand reality is "perfectly natural to humans."


Yes, as perfectly natural is the desire to feel safe from death, illnesses, and unknown. Religion comes to cover these three items.



Sojourner said:


> [...] why wouldn't an intelligent person then conclude that such a "perfectly natural" result of evolution was basically of the same nature, if you will, as all the other features that evolution has brought?


One of my previous replies, also answers this one. It's a few lines above, but I will repeat it for readability reasons:



brainsilence02 said:


> The seek for truth (knowledge) and the seek for safety --a need rising from our weeknesses-- are two different things. Of cource, this is a weekness which is not common to all invididuals of our speciment, it is still present in me though.
> 
> Everything is a product of random mutations. We characterize "evolution" those random mutations that enable the creature to survive (or survive better) in its enviroment. Having greater intelligence than the rest of the animals involves beeing aware that we exist and that the world exists. Such an awareness creates a fear of death, illnesses, and unknown. These fears are covered by religion.
> 
> As you see, some of the features of random mutations are not welcome. You could call this, "the cost of evolution". Man is not the only speciment that has complications with his evolvement. For instance camelopards had once short neck. A random mutation enabled the individuals with the long neck (as we see them today) to survive because they could access food at higher places. The camelopard evolved, and survived. Unfortunately it has become more unwieldy due to the long neck. Cost of evolution.





Sojourner said:


> brainsilence02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. You cannot use your religion's doctrines if you don't first proove your god's existance
> 
> 
> 
> Soj: I would refer you to St. Thomas Aquinas, and I defer to him.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, that is not an argument. If you would like to present an opinion of another author, you are welcome to try. When you decide to do so, you should try and tranfer to us the meaning of what you want to say. Pasting a long text in order to cause fuzz (dust and confusion) would not be a wise choice.



Sojourner said:


> [big list of Catholics scientisics] Soj: So the following human beings you categorize with your above comments? Or perhaps Georges Lema?tre (and millions of humans from the dawn of time), the Roman Catholic priest who proposed the Big Bang theory, perceives something you have not perceived?


The scientifical and industrial explosion of the past 1-3 centures were unstopable. Religion had to adjust.. or "evolve" if you would like  So religion started to incorporate science's revealments.

Since religion stoped making a conflict with science (in wherever it could afford to) it is no suprice that great scientists were religious. But even if we ignore that, scientists sometimes keep an altered version of their religion in order to balance their psychology (to cope) and satisfy their need to deal with an item. Of cource, I have no idea is this is the case with the one who told us about the Big Bang.

As I have said beafore, the only science that makes an open war with religion is Psychology.

But, let's look at two spicy points of the history of the Catholic Christendom:

- A Pope once decided that coffe was a product of the Devil (Satan) but when he tasted it later, he said "this marvelous thing cannot be a product of Devil!". 
- Another Pope (he could be the same, I don't remember) was publishing forgiveness-papers and anyone who could buy it, would go to heaven.

Under my humble opinion, those two things reach beyond ridiculousness. If I was religious, I wouldn't stay with the Catholics, nor the Othrodox. I would try to find an Asian religion. They have much less flaws ("holes").



Sojourner said:


> Soj: I suggest you read _Foundations of Christian Faith_ by Karl Rahner, S. J.


You suggest that for a second time. My reply remains the same:



brainsilence02 said:


> I am sorry, that is not an argument. If you would like to present an opinion of another author, you are welcome to try. When you decide to do so, you should try and tranfer to us the meaning of what you want to say. Pasting a long text in order to cause fuzz (dust) would not be a wise choice.





Sojourner said:


> brainsilence02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...As I have said beafore, religion gives relief. But it also gives fanatism, war, puritanism, etc..
> 
> 
> 
> Soj: I disagree. It is not religion; it is people who misuse religion, who pervert it. It is a basic logical fallacy to condemn an idea because some people who hold the idea are sinful.
Click to expand...

Religions is a shelter that allows people to act nasty. No, it's not a "fallacy to condemn" religion. The extend of the "sinful" and "preverting" phenomenon gives away it's nature:

There is not a single person, who, given the oportunity and the proper pressure (usually initiating from an inner conflict of religion to social-life or insticts) haven't exercised psychological force to another person, using religion or religious content. There are today, whole countries which base their political, economical, and military systems to religious pressure. And I mean developed countries.

The extend of the phenomenon gives away it's nature.



Sojourner said:


> brainsilence02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all nature my friend  Nature has the meaning. What else could I expect than that. Everything is part of nature. If I need to find a meaning I search to my insticts, to my logic, to the understanding of other people and the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Soj: This again is precisely my question, apparently we agree: the search for meaning is built into us and is a product of evolution. I am concluding from your remarks that you agree with this.
Click to expand...

_I search to my insticts, to my logic, to the understanding of other people and the world._ but not to some god or religion.

This reply is been completed with one previous statement of mine:



brainsilence02 said:


> The seek for truth (knowledge) and the seek for safety --a need rising from our weeknesses-- are two different things. Of cource, this is a weekness which is not common to all invididuals of our speciment, it is still present in me though.
> 
> Everything is a product of random mutations. We characterize "evolution" those random mutations that enable the creature to survive (or survive better) in its enviroment. Having greater intelligence than the rest of the animals involves beeing aware that we exist and that the world exists. Such an awareness creates a fear of death, illnesses, and unknown. These fears are covered by religion.
> 
> As you see, some of the features of random mutations are not welcome. You could call this, "the cost of evolution". Man is not the only speciment that has complications with his evolvement. For instance camelopards had once short neck. A random mutation enabled the individuals with the long neck (as we see them today) to survive because they could access food at higher places. The camelopard evolved, and survived. Unfortunately it has become more unwieldy due to the long neck. Cost of evolution.





Sojourner said:


> Thank you, Brainsilence. People who believe in God generally believe that God is the author of all -- in particular evolution, if it is in fact more than a theory and truly the way matter has evolved.
> 
> All in all, I think that you and I do agree that evolution produced the world as we know it and that world includes what you called the "perfectly natural" tendency of human beings to seek to know the truth.
> 
> The conclusion I must draw, then, is that you also agree that this tendency has promoted survival. Though surely I agree that some people have perverted religion, that's not the question. The issue is a logical one: is man's search for meaning of the same nature as the number of limbs he has?
> 
> You seem to be saying "yes." Thank you.
> 
> Soj: I would be remiss if I didn't now further suggest that you think about that for a little while. Also, without intending to hurt your feelings, I would suggest that your proclamations of what does or does not exist and what is or is not real tends to make your readers assume that you think you are omniscient and know the truth of the universe; in fact, you and I know that you do not.
> 
> This has just been a friendly discussion on my part, as well.


I will comment this at my last post. Scroll doooown please (what a long posts this topic has!)


----------



## Brainsilence02

Sojourner said:


> I think intelligence is the most fundamental element of the universe.





brainsilence02 said:


> So, you have seen everything in the universe and thus you conclude to this, right?





Sojourner said:


> Soj: I would have assumed that someone would read my statement knowing that I would not intend such a claim and that my statement was based on my knowledge of science.


That was exactly my point. We don't have sufficient knowledge of nature in order to say _"intelligence is the most fundamental element of the universe"_.



Sojourner said:


> Can we really say that complex mathematical computations are not performed by animals and by their constituent elements such as proteins?





brainsilence02 said:


> You are doing the same mistake: "just because I feel it is like this, I want someone to proove to me that it's not like this in order to stop believing on it".





Sojourner said:


> Soj: I said nothing to even suggest I felt that way.


Of cource. That was my estimation. It appears that I was wrong. Sorry.



Sojourner said:


> What I am suggesting is that "intelligence" is a property of everything that is contained in the universe.


I agree that all beeings have intelligence. Some more than others. From all beeings we know of, man is the most intelligent. However, it may not be the most optimal beeing.



Sojourner said:


> What I am suggesting is that "intelligence" is a property of everything that is contained in the universe. All you have to do is look at nature on the largest and smallest scale to see that everything in the universe *does* something (i.e., obeys certain physical laws), whether it's acting like a chemical factory or navigating the planet.


No, I disagree on this. It is not intelligence, it is physical rules. Intelligence is subject to biology's and chemisty's rules; both are branches of the physical rules. Some of all these rules we understand, and some we do not. But the most dangerous thing is to think we understand them while we, in fact, don't: "The illusion of knowledge is more dangerous than the lack of knowledge" (I don't remember the name of the man who told that). How many times we have changed our books because we understood that we haven't fully understood a rule?



Sojourner said:


> Do you think these things are the product of mindlessness?


Mindlessness and carefulness is human activity, not nature's.



Sojourner said:


> Soj: To explain away complex mathematical calculations made by animals is to explain nothing.


Sorry, I didn't understood that. Could you re-phrase it?



Sojourner said:


> You use the word "instinct" and that is really a label for a phenomenon that we don't understand.


Instict = directives built-in the animals' brains



Sojourner said:


> I am maintaining that the phenomenon is the intelligence that is built into every animate cell and every inanimate subatomic particle.


I wouldn't call this intelligence, I would call it "interactivity between matter and energy in according to nature's rules". But I now understand what did you ment back then with "intelligence".



Sojourner said:


> Soj: Of course they do [have logic]. Haven't you ever seen an animal think about doing something, such as jump from one place to another, and then change it's mind because it concludes it cannot make it?


I said, "they don't have logic", I didn't say they can't process information. Remember that _logic = what leads you to your best interest_. Also, life on earth is not just two scales. We move from less intelligent creatures to more intelligent ones. The more intelligent is a creature, the more it understands better what things are to his/her best interest. Ergo, humans have more logic than animals. I said "animals have no logic", because the next lowest grade of intelligence under us (the humans) is very low compared to us. The "animals have no logic" was a generilized and under-convention phrase that wasn't entirely true. I phrased that way to simplify and transmit the meaning. I assumed that it would be clear enough. It appears that my assumption was wrong.

Adding to what I have already said, there are individuals of a speciment that present greater level of logic than others. Thus, we have more and less logical humans.



Sojourner said:


> Soj: I never said animals' intelligence was equal to ours.


The piece of your text in which you refer to is:



Sojourner said:


> Hi, Janine,
> 
> I think intelligence is the most fundamental element of the universe. I do not look down on other creatures as less intelligent than humans. We know they have complex social organizations, complex systems of communication, and so forth --- this, right from the galaxies down to the entangled particles. Their intelligence is suited to their anatomy and their lives; ours is simply different, not better. Can we really say that complex mathematical computations are not performed by animals and by their constituent elements such as proteins? Because they cannot sit next to us on the sofa with a cup of tea and talk to us about their musings on the nature of reality or the history of their language is of no consequence. They have tremendous intelligence.
> 
> I wasn't really saying that intelligence was the deciding factor in the search for meaning that has been wired into us. I'm really asking why that search isn't viewed as a product of evolution, like everything else.


The point where I want to focus is:



Sojourner said:


> [...] I do not look down on other creatures as less intelligent than humans. [...] Their intelligence is suited to their anatomy and their lives; ours is simply different, not better.


Your first sentence sais that other creatures as not less intelligent than humans. You second sentence sais that humans' intelligence is only different, not better. I assumed that you have remained on the same issue, thus your "they are not less intelligent" and "their intelligence is simply different, not better" would result into an comparison of humans' and animals' intelligence equalization from your side that you said). That conclusion from my side was empowered from a comfort convention that I made: _better intelligence = more intelligent_, which was, I believe, honest (not intented to twist/falsify what you said).



Sojourner said:


> Soj: Now THAT'S a perfect illustration of the pot calling the kettle "black."


I don't know what the "kettle black" is.



Sojourner said:


> You cling to your belief by using the label "instinct," when in fact, science has shown that ants are using a complex chemical language to communicate.


I have given more in-depth explenations of what do I include in the meaning of "instict" a few lines above.

How, the fact that they are using complex chemical language to communicate, does not make this (complex) procedure of them classificable under instict? You know how complex is the procedure that takes place in a man's brain when he sees a woman? The procedure's complexity does not make it stop beeing an instict: human reproduction.

We don't know for sure the content of the "conversations," but you will claim it's "instinct" and have no interest in seeing more deeply into reality.

We see the result of their communications. I am sure they communicate somehow. I only classified their complext procedure of communication under instict. I never said or implied that there is no interest of seeing their communications (and other procedures) more deeply. However, I will now say that, I have other priorities.



Sojourner said:


> Soj: Now THAT'S a perfect illustration of the pot calling the kettle "black." You cling to your belief by using the label "instinct," when in fact, science has shown that ants are using a complex chemical language to communicate. We don't know for sure the content of the "conversations," but you will claim it's "instinct" and have no interest in seeing more deeply into reality.





Sojourner said:


> brainsilence02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They just do what they sense it is porper for them. Each one has its part. Their society is more efficient in doing things than ours, but they are not individuals, they are a sum.
> 
> 
> 
> Soj: You do not know that. Why make pronouncements about things of which you do not know but only have superstitions? It is a superstition to explain away anything in nature by saying its cause is "instinct."
Click to expand...

Yes I do: they have less liberties in their society than us. For more details about my usage of the term "instict", check in previous parts of this post.



Sojourner said:


> Soj: As I said before, I'm not equalizing them. Read what I wrote again. "Different" does not mean "equal."


_the following text is an exact repeat of a a statement I did above_

The piece of your text in which you refer to is:



Sojourner said:


> Hi, Janine,
> 
> I think intelligence is the most fundamental element of the universe. I do not look down on other creatures as less intelligent than humans. We know they have complex social organizations, complex systems of communication, and so forth --- this, right from the galaxies down to the entangled particles. Their intelligence is suited to their anatomy and their lives; ours is simply different, not better. Can we really say that complex mathematical computations are not performed by animals and by their constituent elements such as proteins? Because they cannot sit next to us on the sofa with a cup of tea and talk to us about their musings on the nature of reality or the history of their language is of no consequence. They have tremendous intelligence.
> 
> I wasn't really saying that intelligence was the deciding factor in the search for meaning that has been wired into us. I'm really asking why that search isn't viewed as a product of evolution, like everything else.


The point where I want to focus is:



Sojourner said:


> [...] I do not look down on other creatures as less intelligent than humans. [...] Their intelligence is suited to their anatomy and their lives; ours is simply different, not better.


Your first sentence sais that other creatures as not less intelligent than humans. You second sentence sais that humans' intelligence is only different, not better. I assumed that you have remained on the same issue, thus your "they are not less intelligent" and "their intelligence is simply different, not better" would result into an comparison of humans' and animals' intelligence equalization from your side that you said). That conclusion from my side was empowered from a comfort convention that I made: _better intelligence = more intelligent_, which was, I believe, honest (not intented to twist/falsify what you said).

I also took the word "intelligence" with it's traditional meaning, while you ment it differently (for a comment to your meaning of the word "intelligence", check some lines above).



Sojourner said:


> Soj: If you want to believe that there's some division between nature and culture, go right ahead.


I believe one of the things that feed culture is nature. By the way, I admire a part of the english style (hat, suit/getup, tea, sofa, etc) 

The reason I said that thing with the sofa, was to explain that in other cultures (such as the Japanese one), people (traditionally) don't have sofas (not like our sofa). And I believe that Japanese people are as smart as everybody else (maybe a bit more smart). So, the activity with the sofa doesn't actually indicate intelligence. However, the sofa is such a good thing of comfortness, that cultures all over the world have adopted it.



Sojourner said:


> I think they are all part of a spectrum of reality that reaches from the material to the spiritual and that ultimately, everything is related to everything else.


I can't say if I agree or disagree if you don't first define what you mean with "spiritual".



Sojourner said:


> Your attempting to dispense with the issues by labeling things "instinct" only tells me that you don't understand that science today rarely speaks in those antiquated terms because it has observed what causes things we used to call "instinct." As I said earlier, ants use a complex chemical language. You can call it "instinct" if you like, but that puts you squarely in the 19th century.


Please check some lines above for comment on this.



Sojourner said:


> I wasn't really saying that intelligence was the deciding factor in the search for meaning that has been wired into us. I'm really asking why that search isn't viewed as a product of evolution, like everything else.





brainsilence02 said:


> Why should it be?





Sojourner said:


> Because it's genesis is the same.


Please make that last phrase more clear: because the genesis of *what?* is the same with *what?*


----------



## Brainsilence02

Sojourner said:


> I was actually challenging your comments about people who believed in God. You said:
> 
> 
> 
> brainsilence02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons why people choose to believe in god is:
> - the lack of knowledge
> - the fear of the unknown
> - things in out psychology and physiology that we cannot beat"
Click to expand...

I have covered the item of religious scientists above. But what does the existance of religious scientists have to do with the reasons I offer "why people believe in god"?


----------



## Brainsilence02

_Although this statement of Sojourner was made two posts above, I wanted to place my replied to it as last. It was fitting better as a "the end"  (just like in movies!)_



Sojourner said:


> People who believe in God generally believe that God is the author of all -- in particular evolution, if it is in fact more than a theory and truly the way matter has evolved.


Sorry, I couldn't understand that.



Sojourner said:


> All in all, I think that you and I do agree that evolution produced the world as we know it and that world includes what you called the "perfectly natural" tendency of human beings to seek to know the truth.


Well... yes, we disagree about details, something that is visible in my previous comments.



Sojourner said:


> The conclusion I must draw, then, is that you also agree that this tendency has promoted survival.


Of cource. It's just that I have different definition for that "tendency", which is visible in my previous commenets.



Sojourner said:


> Though surely I agree that some people have perverted religion, that's not the question.


No, that is the question, because all we have to study is people. I have covered this item in my comments some lines above.



Sojourner said:


> The issue is a logical one: is man's search for meaning of the same nature as the number of limbs he has?


Sorry, I couldn't understood that.



Sojourner said:


> Soj: I would be remiss if I didn't now further suggest that you think about that for a little while.




You flatter yourself.

I don't want you to think that I have been avoiding you. There were other matters that needed my attention. And besides, it allowed a lot of people to take the time and read the long statements in this topic/thread.



Sojourner said:


> Also, without intending to hurt your feelings, I would suggest that your proclamations of what does or does not exist and what is or is not real tends to make your readers assume that you think you are omniscient and know the truth of the universe; in fact, you and I know that you do not.




What makes you phrasing it as "proclamations"?

I understand your intentions about my feelings, but none else, besides you, told that he/she thinks that I am omniscient. You are the only one. Why do you think of that?

Have I hitted a sensitive spot? I find no other explenetion why you start to become rude. And rudeness is weakness. Besides, it has no utility.



Sojourner said:


> This has just been a friendly discussion on my part, as well.


You saw how I took your previous words. This addition that it was a friendly discussion on your part, only makes it stink from 100 yards


----------



## Sojourner

I was not being rude by saying you make statements as if you understood reality completely. You proclaim there is no God.

I did not insult you at all, and I am sorry that you feel that way.


----------



## Sojourner

LOL. I just went back and read my last post and saw that I preceded it by saying I didn't want to hurt your feelings!

Your tone was condescending, but I ignored it because of your "this is just friendly" comment at the end. Nothing I said to you was as rude to you, except perhaps telling you that you come across to me as making proclamations about whether God exists or not when in fact you do not know one way or the other. And I even said before that statement that I didn't want to hurt your feelings.

I can see where you do not feel comfortable exchanging views with someone who disagrees with you. You do not respect the opinions of others, and it's quite sad, really.

Maybe you are this way because of the way you feel, but I think accusing someone of being rude to you when they took special effort and said they didn't want to hurt your feelings is very silly, not to mention intellectually dishonest. I said nothing rude to you, but now I *am* saying you have wrongfully accused me of being rude.

I hope you get better soon, Brain.


----------



## Martinelv

Sooooooooo in summary, people believe in some guy, who there is no evidence ever even lived, 2000-odd years ago, and who said he was the son of god - and all the Christianity horror that has been spawned from it.

That's basically it, isn't it. Metaphysical musings aside. Why don't you just come out and say it?

It we weren't all adults, it would be beneath derision.


----------



## Sojourner

"Early Historical Documents on Jesus Christ"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

"The historical documents referring to Christ's life and work may be divided into three classes: pagan sources, Jewish sources, and Christian sources. We shall study the three in succession."


----------



## Brainsilence02

Sojourner said:


> I was not being rude by saying you make statements as if you understood reality completely.


_(I cover the issue of rudeness at the following lines)_

Truth is the only thing we need to save in a conversation. The only way to unveil truth (if you think that it's under veil at the time beeing) is present me your arguments and repel mine.

I told my opinion about reality, and you told yours. As long as my arguments will prevail against yours, so will my opinion about reality against yours. This doesn't mean that I am right. Each reader will judge for him/herself.

Perception is an approach to reality.



Sojourner said:


> You proclaim there is no God.


No proclamations. If you go to page #2, you will that I have writen:



brainsilence02 said:


> [...] I sense that it would be more productive (for the shake or truth AND the rest of the people who seek a logical base on the issue and are reading this) to focus on the repelling (I sure hope this is the right translation of the word I want) of the arguments about the existance of god, and furthermore, adding proof that god doesn't exist (forgive my seeming certainity about the "non-existance" issue, but this way of phrasing made it more easy explain).


Appart from that, if I temporarily accept that "I proclaim that there is no god", then you are apparently doing the same thing (proclaim). I don't think that the word "proclaim" is proper for the occation, perhaps "say" would be a more proper word. Are you using the word "proclaim" because you feel hostile against people who doubt about religion? I don't know, it's just a thought.

Returning to what I said bafore, I did not permanently accept that I proclamed that there is no god, so you, apparently do not either (proclaim).



Sojourner said:


> Your tone was condescending, but I ignored it because of your "this is just friendly" comment at the end.


No, it wasn't condescending. I wrote _"Remember Sojourner, this is all a very friendly reply"_ to because you said "Best wishes to everyone" (page #3). So I though that it would be necessary to ensure that I was in the same friendly possition.



Sojourner said:


> Nothing I said to you was as rude to you, except perhaps telling you that you come across to me as making proclamations about whether God exists or not when in fact you do not know one way or the other. And I even said before that statement that I didn't want to hurt your feelings.


That's were I told you that you are beeing rude, when you said about "proclamations". You still haven't told me/us why you thought of them as "proclamations" (even though, at the previous post, I made an assumption about the origin of why you used the word).

As I have told you, the one that makes a suggestion owes to gives us a reason why should we believe him. Some people make a suggestion that there is this guy named "god". Well... where is this guy? Anyone seen anything? Something that without a doubt can ensure us that god exists? I haven't found such a thing, yet. But the fact that people believe in god without having proof, or even indication, is part of the human nature.

In other words, it's what Martin said beafore me:



Martin said:


> Because I am an atheist (someone who lacks belief in god/s) I do not have to prove a single thing. The burden is on the person making the claim, in this case Homeskooled, and back it up with proof. If I were to make an astonishing claim, such as there is an invisible Leprachaun under my bed, I'd be required to substantiate this claim, any you'd expect it, and rightly so. But I don't make the claim that 'god doesn't exist', because, as the religious know all too well, it is impossible to disprove anything. So I'm free to criticise and question the equally astonishing religious claim, which not just equally ridiculous as my Leprachaun, it also causes far more fret, worry and harm. (Unless anyone has been tortured, persecuted or isolated because of their gender, sexual orientation or differing faith, by my Leprechaun.)


I never claimed the existance of anything. And to show the redicilousness of religions, I will repeat what I have said in a past post:



brainsilence02 said:


> One day someone told me that there is this thing called "god". When I asked him why should I believe that, he told me to proove to him that "god" doesn't exist.





Sojourner said:


> Nothing I said to you was as rude to you, except perhaps telling you that you come across to me as making proclamations [...] And I even said before that statement that I didn't want to hurt your feelings.


The phrase "I don't want to hurt your feelings" was followed by your statement about "proclamations". I think that it is safe to assume that you were still on the same subject.

You now declare that the comment of yours (about proclamations) is a potentially rude attitude (in my opinion, it was rude). And since your "I don't want to hurt your feelings" was at the same subject, isn't it logical to conclude that the "hurt of feelings" was a completion of the "proclamations" statement? Therefor, your "I don't want to hurt your feelings" phrase was not a concern about my feelings

Don't worry about offending me, or beeing rude against me. I am irreligious, I am probably as hard as steel. I noted your rudeness because it was harmful for the conversation: it could act as a boundary for you, me, and other people, to keep up with the conversation. You can probably continue to offend me, I have no problem that, I will just keep answering any arguments that you include.

I have been offended hundreds of times, and your offend was probably one of the most gentle ones... So... no hard feelings 



Sojourner said:


> I can see where you do not feel comfortable exchanging views with someone who disagrees with you.


Where exactly do you see that?



Sojourner said:


> You do not respect the opinions of others


What makes you say that?



Sojourner said:


> Maybe you are this way because of the way you feel


What do you designate my "this"? And what do you include in "the way you feel"?



Sojourner said:


> but I think accusing someone of being rude to you when they took special effort and said they didn't want to hurt your feelings is very silly, not to mention intellectually dishonest. I said nothing rude to you, but now I *am* saying you have wrongfully accused me of being rude.


I have covered the item of rudeness above.



Sojourner said:


> I hope you get better soon, Brain.


If you refer to my general condition, then thanks.


----------



## Brainsilence02

Sojourner said:


> "Early Historical Documents on Jesus Christ"
> 
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm
> 
> "The historical documents referring to Christ's life and work may be divided into three classes: pagan sources, Jewish sources, and Christian sources. We shall study the three in succession."


This topic/thread has gone off-topic, and I have deliberately gone off-topic too. The issue at hand is not specific religions (like Christendom), but "if and why should there be a god?"

But even you are brining these as evidence, you should consider this:



brainsilence02 said:


> - Today we count a great number of religions. Every one of them claims that it is their god that is the real one and everybody's else is a fake. Which one should we trust? And why? Why this one and not that one? Or perhaps there are so many gods and are fighting each other? Do you think that we should wait for the winner in order to decide which religion to choose?


----------



## Brainsilence02

Martin said:


> Sooooooooo in summary, people believe in some guy, who there is no evidence ever even lived, 2000-odd years ago, and who said he was the son of god - and all the Christianity horror that has been spawned from it.
> 
> That's basically it, isn't it. Metaphysical musings aside. Why don't you just come out and say it?
> 
> It we weren't all adults, it would be beneath derision.


Yes. The point is that religion cannot exist without metaphysical musings. In my opinion, that is because man needs metaphysical musings in order to feel safe (safe from his questions).

The interesting part is why is this happening. I offer an explenation, tell me what you think:

1. Man gets more intelligent by random mutations
2. More intelligent means greater processing capacities, which include self-awareness
3. Self-awareness requires answering a lot of things: why things happen? (weather, fire, etc), what is the origin of the world?, why we are here? where do we go after?
4. These questions infuse the motive of science, but also the motive of religion (for coping purposes: in order to feel safe)

_this an adjustment of the opinion offered by a friend, something that I have been suspecting for some time_

...So, here we are today, counting hundreds of religions, and Christendom beeing the dominant one just because the developed countries (West societies) have adopted it. Yet, the majority of people around the globe are non-Christians. What an insult it is to talk about god and refer to Christendom.

I don't know why I keep replying to futile things. Maybe because I am visionary and want to see a world free from the boundaries of the religion, and it's liturgist. It's liturgist... the priests... Soneone told me "I only ask one thing... one thing only.. a boiled priest!". Humanity has suffered vastly from the presence of religions. The idea of religion is not bad, but there is no implementation that hasn't caused good. Maybe in 200 years we will be ready to abolish religion.

Oh.. add something more:

There is a question that religion fails to answer: "Why?"

Why should there be a god?
Why should I believe you that there is a god?
Why should I believe that it's your religion the true one, and not the other?

Freud oppinions about religion are quite different than mine. If you find it interesting, check what he sais about it: http://www.freud.org.uk/religion.html

Sojourner wrote a big list of scientists that believe in god. I am too lazy to find such a big list, but a known face, Freud, said about the illusion of religion.. Would this be enough to change the opinion of a man? Even with the reputation of Freud? No, I guess not. That's because the mind will seek these elements that appeal to it's opinions: the mind will seek religious scientists.


----------



## Sojourner

Brain,

First, I am not saying you should do anything or believe anything. Each person has to look at the evidence and decide for himself or herself.

Second, answers to the questions you raise are available in many places.

Third, when you discuss your views by calling the opposite view ridiculous and offer further insults, you tend to give the impression that you do not respect your opponent.

Fourth, the real subject of this thread was yours: "... is it morally correct to post it here? " The "it" you referred to was proof that God doesn't exist. You wrote, "I have some proof (which will, most possibly have been covered by other beafore me) that god doesn't exist."

Fifth, as a moderator told you, the decision was yours. However, in my opinion, what is immoral is treating your opponent without respect. If you were indeed a "visionary," as you suggested you were, you would know that human beings who are visionary do not call their opponents' views "ridiculous."

Sixth, to you and Martin I would like to just say that I don't think people are as stupid as you evidently do.

Seventh, it is the one who lacks wisdom who resorts to insult of his opponents.

Eighth, and final, if you or anyone would like to *really* have a civilized conversation without the anger that's been shown here, I'd be interested in participating.


----------



## Brainsilence02

Sojourner said:


> First, I am not saying you should do anything or believe anything. Each person has to look at the evidence and decide for himself or herself.


Hmmm... I don't remember if you did. I wouldn't mind though. I hear opinions even if I have decided.



Sojourner said:


> Second, answers to the questions you raise are available in many places.


Post the answers here then. I would be glad to read them. But, don't just throw to us a multi-page text; tell us the resum?, the meaning, the final analysis. All my arguments were brief, while I could "enlargement" in order to tire the readers (some people this is good, I don't, and I don't know about you).



Sojourner said:


> Third, when you discuss your views by calling the opposite view ridiculous and offer further insults, you tend to give the impression that you do not respect your opponent.


I don't have opponents, I have interlocutors. I am not trying to save my opinion; I am trying to save the truth.

The only part where I mentioned the word "ridiculousness" was in this:



brainsilence02 said:


> But, let's look at two spicy points of the history of the Catholic Christendom:
> 
> - A Pope once decided that coffe was a product of the Devil (Satan) but when he tasted it later, he said "this marvelous thing cannot be a product of Devil!".
> - Another Pope (he could be the same, I don't remember) was publishing forgiveness-papers and anyone who could buy it, would go to heaven.
> 
> Under my humble opinion, those two things reach beyond ridiculousness. If I was religious, I wouldn't stay with the Catholics, nor the Othrodox. I would try to find an Asian religion. They have much less flaws ("holes").


Wouldn't you call the behavior of the Catholic church as ridiculous? (I am sorry that I don't remember ridiculous things from the Orthodox church as well)

I have repeled all your arguments and provided proof of the non-existance. The "rediculous" was a characterological addition irrelative to the procedure of repeling your arguments and providing proof of the non-existance; and it expresses my opinion about religion and the relative acticity (about coffee and forgiveness-papers). Do you drink coffee? It could be a sin you know...



Sojourner said:


> Fourth, the real subject of this thread was yours: "... is it morally correct to post it here? " The "it" you referred to was proof that God doesn't exist. You wrote, "I have some proof (which will, most possibly have been covered by other beafore me) that god doesn't exist."


I can't understand this phrase.

The title I used was to ensure that this forum would accept such a thread. In page #2, you can see my initial placement where I say my opinions about why people believe in god, I repel regular proof that god exists, and give additional proof that god doesn't exist.



Sojourner said:


> Fifth, as a moderator told you, the decision was yours.


The decision to continue was first taken by the moderator (Homeskooled). He first agreed by giving his permision. Otherwise I couldn't post a thing.



Sojourner said:


> However, in my opinion, what is immoral is treating your opponent without respect.


I answered about the word "opponent". I assume that the "respect" goes to "ridiculous", which I have answered above.



Sojourner said:


> If you were indeed a "visionary," as you suggested you were, you would know that human beings who are visionary do not call their opponents' views "ridiculous."


I have answered about "ridiculous", "opponents", and the insults.

And I never said I was visionary.



Sojourner said:


> Sixth, to you and Martin I would like to just say that I don't think people are as stupid as you evidently do.


An insult. Cool 



Sojourner said:


> Seventh, it is the one who lacks wisdom who resorts to insult of his opponents.


From the "Art of War"? 

I have already answered you about insults and "opponents". Besides... who sais I am wise? 

I have reached the point where I repeled all your arguments. I use the word ridiculous because this is my opinion about religion. It's useful, but it's implementation is ridiculous. You must have read that I was once religious.

You are trying really hard to do something with the word "ridiculous". If you had any additional arguments to give me, you would have done so by now.

Entering this conversation about the existance of god, is a acceptance that, no mater what you believe, you may have to backpedal infront of arguments that you cannot repel.

I accepted that when I entered the conversation, but you didn't, eh?


----------



## Sojourner

Nobody can prove a negative, Brain, and you have not repelled my argument. Frankly, I have not made an argument and don't intend to make one as such.

I'm sorry that I am unable to properly converse with you, but your mockery of religion, people who believe, and me personally, distracts me from useful conversation.

I'm sorry I'm not a better person, one who is able to take your mockery and derision without commenting on it; I am weak and I am hurting, none of which is your fault.

I am confident that I have caused this whole problem, however, and I humbly beg you to pardon my behavior. I try to be good, but I am probably entirely too sensitive and defensive.

So, thank you for allowing me to once again learn that responding emotionally, as I have, is ultimately unproductive. I have destroyed whatever rapport I had with you or anyone else.

I am a failure and I apologize for my being rude to you. I need to go and live in a cave and then die.

Please accept my apologies. I wish you peace, happiness, joy, and all things good.


----------



## rainboteers

Sojourner,
It is perfectly natural to feel attacked when someone mocks your beliefs because it is a peice of who you are. I can't seperate myself from my beliefs, because they are a part of me (I am assuming it is the same for you). I feel that you are being to hard on yourself, and you are extremely brave for sticking up for what you believe in, especailly knowing someone is going to disagree with you. I backed out of this conversation a long time ago (moslty because it didn't feel like a conversation), but I have admired you for how passionate you are about what you believe.


----------



## Brainsilence02

Sojourner said:


> Nobody can prove a negative, Brain, and you have not repelled my argument. Frankly, I have not made an argument and don't intend to make one as such.


I was refering to the arguments of the previous pages: about evolution and the such.



Sojourner said:


> I'm sorry that I am unable to properly converse with you, but your mockery of religion, people who believe, and me personally, distracts me from useful conversation.


I am sorry for that. It cames naturally, I have this dislike against religion, like a "puke" sense. I am not sure why, but I suspect the reason.

I don't make mockery of people who believe in god(s). I only hate how religions are beeing implemented and it's liturgists. As I have said beafore, religion is a useful thing, a necessary thing, but as it is today, it ends up beeing a bad thing. Things could have been better.

You could do the following: read again everything we have said and prepare a text as reply. Take the time to overcome distraction, let it be even one month, two months, as long as it takes. Even if you are not open to the possibility that god may not exist, you could empower your religion like this (which is of cource true for a religious preson). Of cource, you could lose you religion probably very easy or start to feel really really bad (I remember myself). It's a twin-edged knife. I can't recommend you to do it because the impact could be great, and besides you already have other things to worry about. Heck, it's one of the things that brought me in this condition (DP or anything that looks like it).



Sojourner said:


> I'm sorry I'm not a better person, one who is able to take your mockery and derision without commenting on it; I am weak and I am hurting, none of which is your fault.


"Mockery and derision"... Hm.. I am not sure, but I think you are right.

Relax man, whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger 

I didn't knew it was starting to get to you, I thought you were OK.



Sojourner said:


> I am confident that I have caused this whole problem, however, and I humbly beg you to pardon my behavior. I try to be good, but I am probably entirely too sensitive and defensive.


No, not as a whole, I am troublemaker myself  Come on, you didn't do anything bad, there is nothing to pardon. You went as far as I did. However, beeing overly sensitive could be a problem, generally speaking.



Sojourner said:


> So, thank you for allowing me to once again learn that responding emotionally, as I have, is ultimately unproductive. I have destroyed whatever rapport I had with you or anyone else.


I responded emotionally myself once. Stepping away from it is a long-term procedure. I done well the last 2 years, but I have been preparing for this for the last 4 years.



Sojourner said:


> I am a failure and I apologize for my being rude to you. I need to go and live in a cave and then die.


Hey hey hey, stop this nonsense!  You are not a failure. As for beeing rude, I told you that I don't mind. We are people, and we have our moments. Forget the cave, and get a nice appartment 



Sojourner said:


> Please accept my apologies. I wish you peace, happiness, joy, and all things good.


Thanks, but, escorted by all the stuff you wrote above, it was a pestimistic acceptance, you can't afford for these right now. Don't indulge into misery, just find the reason and wipe it out.

OK, and a joke, it's a good one since Woody Allen told it:

"Not only is there no God, but try finding a plumber on Sunday."


----------



## Guest

hey sojourner,

You are doing the work of the Lord, and i am very glad to see someone not giving in to te thoughts of the blind. May God richely bless your ministry(whatever it should be) and give you 24/7 Holy spirit guidance in what you say and do in your life. In Jesus name, love from me to you.


----------



## Sojourner

Thank you, robbie! God bless you!

And thank you, Brain! Maybe I will be able to talk with you again and address some of the issues you think you "won" in our discussion (no, seriously! I appreciate your good humor and I loved the Woody Allen joke, actually -- because today I felt that way about God.

There's a book that was the basis for a PBS (public TV in the U. S.) series that's been shown this year. Actually, it's from a couple of years ago, but they are rerunning it now.

I think you might be interested in hearing about it. It's a "dialogue" between the materialist world view and the spiritual world view using the writings of Sigmund Freud and the writings of C. S. Lewis.

There's lots more information here, if you're interested:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/

--------

It would be fun to examine their viewpoints and discuss them, I think, along with how we may differ. It's a very good synthesis of the arguments, and after each segment that contrasted their views, there was a roundtable discussion led by Armand Nicholi.

Unfortunately, they appear to have closed down the discussion board.

Have you ever read anything by C. S. Lewis, Brain?

Take care,


----------



## Sojourner

Go here, too, for their works:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/r ... index.html


----------



## Sojourner

Removed by Sojourner

(I don't see any way to delete messages)


----------



## Sojourner

Hm. Strange there's no "Delete" function that I can find.


----------



## Sojourner

http://www.stnews.org/index.php

This is GREAT for those interested in science and theology.


----------



## Martinelv

:roll: Before I click on that link - be honest, was it written by the Christian Scientist movement ?


----------



## Sojourner

Martin,

No, that link is to Science and Theology News.

Catholics do not go for Christian Science, you know. You think Catholicism is weird? :lol:


----------



## aldo1987

i am semi-drunk right now but that doesnt matter as i feel it frees my creative side a little as a result of stemming my anxiety. humans are a product of the natural earth, universe and all its workings. humans and everything we have manufactured around us are as natural a part of the earth as the rocks and the oceans, we are the result of an entirely natural chemical composition sustained by the variables in the chemical and physical content of the earth. self awareness is not a factor and does not truly exist in the way we try to express it. just like one chemical interacts with another, the millions of complex chemicals which comprise us merely interact, albeit in a hugely complex way ,with the rest of the chemicals and atoms around us. some may consider this a simplification, however i consider the many ponderances of life, existence, spirituality etc. an overcomplication of something entirely natural and in parallel with all the chemical and physical reactions that take place around us.


----------



## aldo1987

* science is truth


----------



## Pancthulhu

You can't say 'Science is truth' because the views of mainstream science are constantly being revised, and even scientists have differing opinions on the 'truth.' If God were proved to exist then he would become 'scientific fact.'

Saying that 'science is truth' is rather like saying 'politics is truth.'


----------



## Martinelv

> You can't say 'Science is truth' because the views of mainstream science are constantly being revised


Absolutely. You should work for the science lobby who are trying to eradicate the travesty of not allowing children to be taught evolution.

You are right, science is a learning process. We don't have all the answers, YET, unlike............religion, which seems to me takes ten steps back from it's doctrine everyday. So, let me think, who would I trust? Hmm. Difficult one.

The universe and everything in it, including us, is just the result of a quantum spike in a sea of probable quantum particles. There was no before, no god. We just, are.


----------



## Homeskooled

> The universe and everything in it, including us, is just the result of a quantum spike in a sea of probable quantum particles.


_*This*_ is why you feel empty. You are adrift in a sea of nothing, that you know (ie, mistakenly beleive) will never amount to more than...._nothing_.



> There was no before, no god.


I'm not going to comment on the assumption that there is no God - this an experiential doubt, and not something that can be solved in type. There is no before, however? I wouldnt beleive _every_ theory that Stephen Hawking postulates. He is in the minority in beleiving that it may be possible for the universe to travel backwards in a neverending numberline. He also states that it is a less likely theory than the Big Bang. Here is the simplest mathematical explanation of why it is difficult to justify. Here is a numberline representing the course of human history as it is usually viewed:

Beginning 
*---------------------------------------Present Day----->Future

In a sequential numberline, one can make concrete steps forward to reach the "Present Day". This relies on the principle that the distance to traverse between the "Beginning" and "Present Day" is a finite mathematical integer. Below is the timeline with no beginning:

Past <----------------Present Day-------------> Future

Lets say that in the first numberline, the space between the beginning and the present day is 500 years. That is a finite amount of time that can be traversed. On a numberline that travels infinitely _backwards_, however, the amount of time to travel from any point in the past to the present day is _infinite_. And any section of infinity, is of course, also infinite. Therefore, no matter how long you wait, or what place you choose on the numberline, you can never reach the present day on a numberline that travels infinitely backwards. By definition, any space of time within it would have no limit or end. More than likely, there is a finite number of years before us, because we have reached "Today".

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## CECIL

In all seriousness, if you truly believe the universe has no meaning, then why do you still draw breath? I'm not saying go and kill yourself, I mean why does your heart continue to beat and your lungs continue to draw air? Why, if there is no meaning in any of this?

Listen closely to your heart and your breath (they are alive just as much as you are and this world is) and you will find the answer


----------



## Martinelv

> In all seriousness, if you truly believe the universe has no meaning, then why do you still draw breath?


This is such a gift to us atheists. You just don't understand do you, and it makes it blatently obvious why you NEED a god. You need a God to have purpose.

We make our OWN purpose. Love, family, ambition...whatever, because we know this is the only chance we are going to get. Why do we need an afterlife, or a god/s, to have purpose?

Homeskooled - I'll get back to you. I'm in a real hurry.....football is on in ten minutes.


----------



## Martinelv

Just a quick one..



> This is why you feel empty. You are adrift in a sea of nothing,


To begin with, I thought you said I felt 'empty' because of my TLE? Regardless, you are utterly wrong my friend. I am in awe of the universe we live in. I am adrift in a sea, a universe of wonders, not nothing! I live!

I'm empty because I don't believe in your god? :lol: Belch out another religious cliche, and I might reply. :wink:


----------



## Homeskooled

How about I belch out an atheist cliche, written by one who is more of an expert on you than I am:



> It's almost like I'm in a message is a bottle, so to speak, enjoying the ride and the thrill, but looking out and all I can see is miles and miles of deserted ocean. And knowing that is all there will ever be


I really dont forget anything I read, which is how I pick up on your contradictions. Yes, that sounds to me like adrift in a sea of nothing. Perhaps these aberrations just illustrate your mood swings. Although, regardless, when you wrote that post, the philosophy sounds painful to hold.

When I explained to you the factors that I think enter into your rage and emptiness, it wasnt as black and white as "Beleive in my God and you will be healed" nor was it as black and white as "Take a pill and you will be whole". Human beings are layers of spirit, mind, and matter. All three need to be looked after. If one suffers, so will the other two. Spirituality is the journey of taking care of all three, not just the spirit. The goal of spirituality is wholeness as a person. I will quote myself again to illustrate exactly what it is I said:



> But your philosophical world is built on the premise of loneliness. Not only that, but your problems. You will figure them out. You will scatter them to the winds. You exist in a perpetual state of solitude. It doesnt matter how many people you have around you - you are still lonely inside. Now that's something that Tegretol will not help you with. Escape Martin. The cosmos is not a void. Let down the walls of your heart and let Love enter it. Let in the eternal presence that keeps the laws of physics you cherish in motion.


You need to address _all_ of the concerns you have, not just the medical or the spiritual, to find peace. Was that a good belch of a religious cliche?

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## CECIL

Martinelv said:


> In all seriousness, if you truly believe the universe has no meaning, then why do you still draw breath?
> 
> 
> 
> This is such a gift to us atheists. You just don't understand do you, and it makes it blatently obvious why you NEED a god. You need a God to have purpose.
> 
> We make our OWN purpose. Love, family, ambition...whatever, because we know this is the only chance we are going to get. Why do we need an afterlife, or a god/s, to have purpose?
> 
> Homeskooled - I'll get back to you. I'm in a real hurry.....football is on in ten minutes.
Click to expand...

You've misinterpreted what I said. Actually I don't need a god to have a purpose (Don't lump me in with the christians, my beliefs are different again  ) and I think we are on the same page about finding your own meaning 8)

You don't need an afterlife or god(s) to have purpose, though the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive either.

My comment was more to the atheists who believe everything is chemical chance, dead is dead and in the end nothing you do has any meaning whatsoever (i.e. you don't even make your own meaning). If those are your beliefs, then why are you here at all and why do you continue to live?


----------



## Martinelv

Yes, Homey, that was more than enough, so'll reply. I know it makes you happy.

Right then, going back to what we were discussing.

I hate to say this, and I will be obviously made to look like a fool by someone who is far more lucid that I, but Homeskooled, your description regarding the ?creation? of the universe is, deep breath, utterly wrong. You quote Hawkings. Popular indeed. Sold lots of books, like the Bible, the Koran, Mein Kampf - easy answers. They appeal to the layman. But Hawkings is a man who is esteemed, but not revered, by his peers. His physics has little to do with Quantum Vacuum Genesis, which whether you like it or not, IS the crutch of the matter. He is primarily a cosmologist, not a physicist. I?ll try to explain, if you have the patience than I have never had. You are attempting to prove the existence of your god/s with a strange denial of quantum physics and, old books and well, personal mysticism. It?s a very appealing concept nowadays. I mean, we cannot dismiss the advance of science, good or bad, and cannot dismiss ?faith? (note ? not religion) because of some peoples NEED for spirituality. Much like the failed attempt at fusing Buddhism with Quantum Physics. That was a great joke, and still is, I gather. All that is left is a lukewarm pseudo-theology dissolving in the wake of truth, or rather ? fact. It goes on and on and on. Like a pestilence. Trust me, malaria will be around long after religion is.

I?ll try to explain again without sounding patronising. I know the religious hate that. It is their exclusive domain.

The theory (theory ? not proved YET, unlike the supposed ancient truths of religion) of Quantum Physics can be seen, touched, felt, tangibly. Without the discoveries of Feynmann, Dirac, and above all, quantum physicists you can find on Google like Shin?ichiro Tomanaga, Wheeler, Swinger, etc ? we would not have televisions, the computer you are looking at right now, microwave ovens?. and so on. And this physics, at the fundamental level, entertains a universe that had no beginning, no creator, nothing. At the quantum level, as I?m sure you know, quantum particles can erupt from nothing ? rather, a virtual particle. A particle that may exist. Strange eh? Strange to you and me and everyone else who lives in a world of A = B, causality and effect, up and down, three or four simple dimensions. You can?t believe it because you can?t or ? more probably, don?t want to. In the same way that I don?t believe the ranting of terrified gentiles who believed or misinterpreted the ravings of a schizophrenic who may or may not have existed. It is, however the church?s raison, especially the Catholic Church (and I don?t want to sound like Dan Brown here) continually, even in this day and age, to try and repress, simple, logical and sometimes seemingly paradoxical facts and, indeed, most of science that annihilates the ancient fears and ramblings. They?ve been doing it for years, since Galileo to today. When will it end? Who would you listen to? A manic street preacher of xyz denomination or someone who could show the collisions of meson, hadrons, and other exotic particles. I?d presume you?d rather listen to the preaching. Am I wrong? Tell me I?m wrong, and tell me that the manic street preacher, despite his psychosis, wouldn?t make you feel all warm and cuddly inside.

The universe, most probably ? following on from the physics that I have mentioned, erupted from a sea of virtual quantum particles. So you see, there was no before. We just are. We are here, us and everything else in the universe, because if we were not, we wouldn?t be here to argue to the point.

As to the laughable idea (and frankly, it?s a tired one?), that my feeling of emptiness is due to my lack of faith in?whatever it/he/she/them are called (there is a huge list of gods and deities on Google, do you want me to list them for you?), doesn?t really dignify a response. I find it curious why so many people are on this board with a stern belief in?xyx are still suffering. But that?s beside the point and cruel on my part. All part of god/s plan? Yes, of course it is. We learn by suffering. A child in Ethiopia who walks forty miles a day to collect some water to feed to his AIDS ravaged parents is leaning, just before dropping down dead (Wow ? he must have learnt a lot). Just as a Billionaire who survives a car crash and thanks god/s, is learning. But I guess god/s moves in mysterious ways eh? How utterly convenient. It?s a perfect escape clause, and I applaud you for that. I wish I had such a get-out clause.

I am in awe because knowing nothing for certain is best. I am not empty in that regard, although it was clever trick by you to suggest it. The universe that I live in is full of such wonders, wonders that we can see, wonders that we may or may not one day understand, and that is enough for me. I am lucky enough to be born onto a blue orb orbiting a sun, with enough (just) intelligence to wonder at the awesomenes of it all....and enjoy it. Purpose enough.

Why isn?t it enough for the religious? Do you ever ask yourself that question? Or do you just rely on ancient books ? Aquinas, St Augustine, and the teleportation of Padre Pio and so forth? If so, do you close your eyes when you cross a busy road? It?s a similar and terrifying dichotomy. Born out by history, I?m sure you?ll disagree. Religion and a large body count usually have a direct correlation. I know it?s difficult for the religious to look before anything that happened before the First (atheists in foxholes!) World War, but give it a try. You might notice some (cough) religious atrocities. Here and there. And we are told to forgive them, forget them.

Whenever I walk past the spire of a church, all I see is the arm of the desperate reaching about the heavens for an answer. Sad really. I won?t use the word pathetic.

But hey, we are all in the same boat. Paddling up s**t stream without a paddle. I don?t want anyone (and this is the FINAL time I will say it) to lose his or her personal faith. I don?t give a rat?s arse what you believe. I just find it amusing that the religious think that us ?amoral? atheists live without purpose. It does make me laugh, especially when I hear the phrase: ?I am a god fearing?.?. God fearing. God fearing. Hmmm? You obey your god/s only because you fear him/them/it/she? Dear lord, imagine the carnage on the street if you didn?t, like us atheists! It makes me laugh because us atheists have nothing to fear but life itself. Atheists have far more purpose in life than those who have?. what?s it called again? Blind Faith? (has ever a phrase been more apt?) You could remove my eyes, wiggle a probe around in my temporal cortex and I?d have blind faith as well.

(Disclaimer: I wrote all of this myself, after the b?stard Portuguese (spit) won the football. No Google references or stuff. Just to ensure you that I?m not a total idiot. But you can keep on trying, as is your wont, (it?s a form of self-defence) and, after my EEG today and the strobe light experiment, forgive me, as you must, for being a little dazed and ending my discourse with a smile)


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
Kudos. Kudos to you. That was the most excellent reply I've ever received from you - PERIOD. Straightforward. Restrained in tone. A point for point rebuttal. We *are* getting somewhere.

Let me make something clear. _*Why*_ we argue. The reasons most people argue. We are insecure. And perhaps, we enjoy arguments. I've gotten to the point in my faith this year, however, that I am no longer insecure, or at least, no longer to the point that I feel challenged by these debates. At this point, I'm simply pointing out what I see to be of (some) constructive use to you. And I never, ever, use my intelligence to try to make someone look stupid. I brought up Googling once, long, long ago, when you incorrectly stated the date of a writing of Josephus Flavius - and I did so because it was your wont, at the time, to taunt the religious for being unlearned. I thought I would try to correct that assumption.

Now, I willl return later to discuss the physics, not to make you look unintelligent (because you are not, and because I honestly dont know half of the quantum physicists names whom you mentioned, which therefore makes me look stupid) but rather because I enjoy a good debate, as I think you do as well. I hope your EEG went well, and that they get you on a little stronger medicine for your cortical achilles heel.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Guest

Simply math: Martinelv = Winner.

Easy.


----------



## Homeskooled

Okay. I'm back. I was writing that from my school, the Franciscan University of Steubenville. Its been hectic down there. The Academic Affairs department will simply NOT accept my days absent due to illness. I even had my porphyria specialist in Oregon fax them a letter. They said it gave "insufficient explanation". Finally, after having gone to the President's office, they have been overruled - but the registrars office now has a problem! It never ends....and this, after having edited my film for 30 hours last weekend, and having had my car impounded while I was editing! I would think that there was some sort of curse on me, except that I am also so blessed.....Ah, well such is life. Now back to the physics at hand.

I'm actually not a Hawkings fan. Has anyone read his speech he gave in Hong Kong last week? A little out of his depth, I thought.

I was, rather, suggesting that the theory is weak_ because_ he espouses it and because the majority of scientists still beleive in the Big Bang. I see from your post, however, that your quantum explanation was not the one I was thinking of.



> You are attempting to prove the existence of your god/s with a strange denial of quantum physics and, old books and well, personal mysticism.


On the contrary, I am quite pro-quantum physics. I wrote a monograph on the Implications of Quantum Physics on the Dynamics of Determinism and Free Will. A completely Newtonian world does not allow for free will. The brain, itself a collection of atoms, would simply be responding to the every action= reaction postulate. Of course, there are also ways to justify determinism using quantum physics as well, but it introduces unknowability, mystery, spontaneity - and dare I say it - personal responsibility into the mix of life, personal choice, and the mechanisms in the brain. Quantum physics allows for the possibility of free will and a First Mover. Both the first mover, lower case (the "person" within that commands the brain, instead of being commanded by it) and the First Mover upper case (who commands the universe rather than being commanded by it).



> Trust me, malaria will be around long after religion is.


Not if the Bill Gates Foundation has anything to do with it. I just want to point out, once again, that the leading killers in Africa at this juncture are :
(1) Malaria, and (2) Tuberculosis. Its a really excellent foundation. I've thought of working for them.



> At the quantum level, as I?m sure you know, quantum particles can erupt from nothing ? rather, a virtual particle.


Martin, I hate to tell you something I'm sure you've already thought of (you've used this excuse before when talking of your psychic gift), but there is a good possibility that we _will_ figrue out where these undetectable particles are coming from. If you've ever seen What the Bleep do We Know?, which I utterly despise, you'll see that they postulate that when they dissappear from our universe they pop in another alternate one, and when they appear here, they come from that alternate universe. This is a melding of science fiction, New Age ideas, and physics. But this being said, we may find they come from somewhere other than nothing, and I hope for your argument's sake that they _do_ come from somewhere - because saying that matter appears from nowhere and that there is a finite limit to our capabilities of knowing matter's state or origins (the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the theory of Quantum Vacuum Genesis) reinforces the idea of something _unseen_ behind it all.

Really, I think it is alot simpler. You said I would rather listen to the preaching. No. I would rather listen to *everyone*. Both the preacher and the physicist. I listen, remember, and try to integrate all worlds. I dont have time for short-sighted scientists or scienceless theists. I have a feeling that the Big Bang theory is quite close to being accurate. That there will be future quantum tweaking of the theory. After all, where did the raw materials for the Big Bang come from? That future physics discoveries will continue to reinforce a sense of mystery about the universe and our capabilities to control it. And that we will get closer to accurately dating this "beginning", because it did indeed have a finite "begin" point - even if this was the point at which matter first "appeared".



> As to the laughable idea (and frankly, it?s a tired one?), that my feeling of emptiness is due to my lack of faith in?whatever


Its not laughable, and frankly, its not even the idea. I'm not suggesting to you a remedy. I'm just pointing out the obvious. You are riding the waves on miles and miles of deserted ocean. Does it not then, stand to logic that you feel deserted? If a man tells me he is hungry, isnt it logical to point out that he needs to eat?

As for walking past a Church and feeling sad when you see them raise their arms to heaven - _that_ is a place we can agree. Its sad to see so many people desperately seeking God above them, when with a little bit of silence, they could sense his presence next to them, in them, always. God loves the good as much as he loves the evil. He just waits for us to accept it. Yes, it is sad.



> I find it curious why so many people are on this board with a stern belief in?xyx are still suffering. But that?s beside the point and cruel on my part. All part of god/s plan? Yes, of course it is. We learn by suffering. A child in Ethiopia who walks forty miles a day to collect some water to feed to his AIDS ravaged parents is leaning, just before dropping down dead


Why, if God loves us, is there suffering? Suffering exists in spite of God's love, not because of it. "God allows suffering, but He does not enjoy it." Death is a wage of sin. The ancient explanation was that the first sin, by the first human, in the first moments of creation forever twisted creation, allowing pain and disease. This probably an overly simplistic explanation, and I'm sure the parable in Genesis in no ways resembles the actual situation, which may have occurred on a tiny island outside of Ur, Bablyon (the island is now desert) called Gilgamesh. Snakes have been found in burial mounds on what was once an ancient paradise. Suffice it to say, many cultures share the idea of an "original sin" causing suffering in the world. Who knows how it happened? Perhaps it was a mystical exchange between God and the first human soul, before life was even breathed into the body. We'll never know. Something in us changed what is around us into what it is. See it happen in real time in today's world. "Fast" lives age people prematurely and introduce them to the possibilities of more disease, more stress. And sometimes, the direct result of our selfishness, or evil choices, is the suffering of innocents like those in Africa. Why is it that these people dont have enough money to buy malaria medicines at 10 cents a pill? Could it perhaps be ruthless colonization by Europeans and the modern tendency to use Africa as the world's ashtray? Could it be that capitalism's God, the bottom line, isnt sufficent for the needs of man? No, suffering is the cost of our abuse of free will. Lay the blame where it squarely belongs, my friend - on us.

But what about innocents who contract disease? No one is oppressing them, they have done no wrong, and yet they are suffering. Why are they allowed to feel the burden of the evil in the world? First of all, we are all in this together. If God allows the sun to shine on both the good and the evil, then should He not allow the drawbacks of our actions to affect both the good and evil? Lastly, there is one far more powerful reason. God is so great that He can even turn that which is not Him , the nothingness that is evil, into good. Any evil which is allowed on this earth can be overcome and turned into an even greater good than before. The child with autism will teach his parents what it truly means to love. The person with polio will learn the willpower needed to become President. I myself would not have been able to save my priest friend's life or the life of a bipolar who wished to commit suicide unless I was forced to study medicine to diagnose my porphyria. Is porphyria evil? Is it suffering? Did I want to die from the pain? Yes. Am I a better, smarter, more solid person with the ability to save lives because of it? Yes. The world is a far better, more positive place than you know. "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Guest

That's quite a reply....


----------



## Homeskooled

Yes, it was. It must be more fun for me to type than for you guys to read. You know how it is when you want to say something, but in type it looks completely different than it did in your head? And then how sometimes, it just hits the nail on the head - a perfect transfer of thought to written word? This post just flowed for me. Probably, though, causing the length. I'll try to keep them shorter.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Epiphany

Wow...great couple of hours reading here guys. I love it!!! I don't often test how deep the water is (through a fear of being totally out of my depth) but I am daring to dip a toe in here. Can't help myself...I love a good debate as well.

Martin...I tend to follow a lot of the same lines of belief a yourself (without the total abhorrance for all things religious / spiritual in nature). You are 100% correct...quantum physics is not popular in many circles despite our everyday contact with all things quantum. Many of the "theories" (since proven or otherwise) are frightening, clinical and open up realms of possibility that are almost incomprehensible for most people. Certainly not like the much friendlier, comforting "theories" of eternal love and "purposeful" existence.

But in reference to your statement, I have a hard time understanding how you cannot see the contradiction in believing there was nothing before.



> So you see, there was no before.


I have to agree with HS when he mentions that "there is a good possibility that we WILL figure out where these particles are coming from".

Don't you question this? Although the word vacuum derives from the Latin word "vacuus" which means empty, space can never be truly empty...this has been proven by quantum physics (sorry, I've never been great with learning which laws apply to which theory). So, I am inclined to agree with HS that perhaps we just aren't aware yet of where these particles come from or go to (or perhaps that prior to the "nothing "that you speak of there was millions of particles of "something" as yet undiscovered...which seems more likely to me but of course I am just a layman).



> And that we will get closer to accurately dating this "beginning", because it did indeed have a finite "begin" point - even if this was the point at which matter first "appeared".


But then Homeslooked...you say almost exactly what Martin has said...that there was a definite beginning. What makes you so sure???? Not having a beginning or end to things is unfathomable, I know, but so is the thought that there is a begining and end. Sure, a beginning and end to things as we know them but not for everything...things beyond our common human understanding must still exist before and after (even on some minute scale) as mind-blowing as that is.

Sorry...have to bring this up as well.



> Quote:
> As to the laughable idea (and frankly, it?s a tired one?), that my feeling of emptiness is due to my lack of faith in?whatever
> 
> Its not laughable, and frankly, its not even the idea. I'm not suggesting to you a remedy. I'm just pointing out the obvious. You are riding the waves on miles and miles of deserted ocean. Does it not then, stand to logic that you feel deserted?


Homeskooled...perhaps you never feel the aloneness that was mentioned. Or perhaps you do and don't acknowledge it. At times, I feel it...overwhelmingly so...but I aso feel the total awe and wonderment at everything around me that Martin describes, with as much overwhelming force as the other (perhaps even more so...the aloneness brings me to tears far less than the feelings of wonderment do). Both can be triggered by something seemingly insignificant and I can feel them wash over me like a giant wave. It stands to reason that the "aloneness wave" would rate more of a mention than the "wonderment wave" because some people tend to acknowledge their feelings of melancholia rather than rapture (I know most of my poetry and writing is quite dark and emotive because these feelings drive me to express myself internally while feelings of happiness I like to share).

What I'm saying is that perhaps it has nothing at all to do with a lack of faith and is more to do with him being an emotive person (besides, even if Martin never puts it into words it is more than likely he has "faith" in something...even if it is just faith in himself). Anyway...blah, blah, blah. Just more theories.

That's all we have anyway...theories. Personal ones. None of us "know" any more than the other about how these things work and if one of us does then we'll never know which one of us it is anyway. :wink:

But I do love these debates. Even if I am drowning. Must be time to come up for air.


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Epiphany, 
"Those who are not frightened by quantum physics do not yet understand it" - attributed to a contributor of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.



> Many of the "theories" (since proven or otherwise) are frightening, clinical and open up realms of possibility that are almost incomprehensible for most people. Certainly not like the much friendlier, comforting "theories" of eternal love and "purposeful" existence.


Einstein, a Newtonian physicist, when confronted with the possibility that one could never truly know the speed or location a subatomic particle would "choose" (Heisenberg), declared "God would not play "dice" with the Universe!". But I tend to find that truth and the "theory of eternal love and purposeful existence" as you clinically put it (I have to admit, it made me smile) are not mutually exclusive. Part of true spirituality is knowing the truth - you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. You see, prior to quantum physics, the world was looking more and more fatalistic. The Newtonians just _knew_ that everything that is in motion in the universe (including us) was simply reacting to a preset governing body of rules. In Newtonian physics, there is no room for free will. It ultimately leads to the philosophy of determinism, the philosophy that "free" choice does not exist, but is rather predetermined by outside, physical forces which we react to, because we must. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Every action of ours is governed by a brain composed of atoms. Each atom is reacting to another one - and so on and so forth, and you can trace all the reactions right back to the Big Bang. Everyone, every atom, is just another dominoe in this really, really long chain reaction. Newtonian physicists thought that if they could just know every rule that governed things, they could perfectly predict what anything - _anything_ - would do - from how a rocket would fly, to what society would become. Step in quantum physics.

In quantum physics, we cant know more than one important subatomic detail at a time. You want to know the speed of a particle? Okay. But you cant know its location. Fine. Want it the other way around? You can know the location, but not the speed. And what happens to the speed or location when you arent looking? The subatomic particle exists in all _possible_ states (which isnt infinite, like most people think). The best a physicist can do is use the law of averages to decide which position or speed the particle is MOST likely to choose, and plan accordingly. But the actual decision the particle will make is unknowable. Its spontaneous. It means that anything made of atoms, both people and rockets, have a bottom line, so to speak, in what can be predicted about them. That there is a certain degree of spontaneity, free choice, and mystery, built right into nature. Yes, it frightens those who need "control". But that isnt the essence of life anyways. The essence of love of God, love of neighbor, is _trust_.



> Although the word vacuum derives from the Latin word "vacuus" which means empty, space can never be truly empty


Did you take Latin, Epiphany? Oh, and I just want to point out during this debate, that when we say "proven" about nearly anything in quantum physics besides the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, that it just means "widely accepted" or "newly" theorized. None of this is scientific law (even Relativity is not proven, thus its status as a theory). We are currently just making best guesses. Even the Copenhagen interpretation is not set in stone. It is, however, widely accepted to be true.

Is it possible for the universe to have no beginning? It is _possible_. Is it difficult given the time problem I graphed earlier in this debate? Yes. Even to have quantum particles appear from nowhere still gives the universe a start point. It is not necessary that it has an end point. There may be a theory that supersedes logic in explaining how the universe could go infinitely bacwards and still make any headway forwards, but it really just looks like clutching at straws to me. Things in the universe are usually much more intuitive than we like to think. A child could have told people that there was an element of chance and unpredictability in the universe. But the "wise" learned scientists of the day just knew that things could be controlled with Newtonian physics.



> Homeskooled...perhaps you never feel the aloneness that was mentioned. Or perhaps you do and don't acknowledge it. At times, I feel it...overwhelmingly so...but I aso feel the total awe and wonderment at everything around me that Martin describes, with as much overwhelming force as the other (perhaps even more so...the aloneness brings me to tears far less than the feelings of wonderment do). Both can be triggered by something seemingly insignificant and I can feel them wash over me like a giant wave. It stands to reason that the "aloneness wave" would rate more of a mention than the "wonderment wave" because some people tend to acknowledge their feelings of melancholia rather than rapture (I know most of my poetry and writing is quite dark and emotive because these feelings drive me to express myself internally while feelings of happiness I like to share).


Its funny. I _used_ to experience that aloneness before several things occurred. One, before my DP was treated with an anticonvulsant. Two, before I discovered that I had porphyria and could medicate my anxiety and mood swings using the proper dietary changes and lowering my exposure to chemicals. Three, before I realized how simple God was and that having a relationship with Him is not a mental exercise, something we can only theorize about until we die and meet Him. He is a Living God, and as such, people can hear Him right now if they listen.

Your right. Martin _is_ an emotive person. So am I. So, evidently, are you. But what is he emoting? Being sensitive to people, to ourselves, is a quality. Its neither good or bad. It tells us about ourselves, about what we choose to see in the universe, in people. What I emote is not the same as what Martin does. You can feel the difference in our posts. Is it just because we are different people? Or is it because we have made different choices? Is it possible to emote different things about the universe as we grow? Is it possible to be mistaken about things we "emote"? About the purpose, or purposelessness of the universe? About the hopelessness of the human race? Is there something that is deeper, a presence or truth, that even transcends our emotions?

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Sojourner

The longing for meaning found in humanity since the beginning is not a human creation any more than the atom's affinity for other particular atoms is its own creation.

The longing for contact with ultimate meaning and ultimate being is part of human nature and human beings did not create it. It is present throughout history in every single culture in the world.

All suffering, all evil, all crime, all unhappiness, all anxiety, all DP is a manifestation of a frustrated desire for unity with ultimate meaning and ultimate being, which, in case you missed it, is offering itself to you during every moment of your existence, even now, while you read my typical "Sojourner rant." Can you feel it?

You would think educated people could see so simple a thing! But no, they are the arbiters of what is real, even though they suffer from extreme malaise of spirit and mind.

Such desires were given to everything that lives, but in particular to human beings.

Ignoring such desires in yourself is why you are sick, if you are sick.

I know, because I am you.


----------



## Martinelv

Hells loudly trumpeting bells! Hold on guys....I can only handle so much!!

This is all very interesting, and some of it over my head, so I'll going to print it off and go away and try and think about it before I reply. But yes - Homeskooled, we are getting somewhere. At least we are being civil. We, meaning I, of course. As much as I can be with a raging tempest inside my head.

Just a quick one though:



> But in reference to your statement, I have a hard time understanding how you cannot see the contradiction in believing there was nothing before.
> 
> I have to agree with HS when he mentions that "there is a good possibility that we WILL figure out where these particles are coming from".


I can't see any contradiction at all. Because these particals were, and are, 'virtual', as in they didn't exist until they did (I know that sounds barmy, but Quantum physics....), how can there possibly have been a before, if there was nothing there in the first place.

So I disagree again, no - I don't think we will figure out where these particles came from, because they are/were virtual, therefore they didn't come from anywhere. I say again, and this is what I believe, the universe and everything in it is just the result of a virtual particle popping into existence. That's it. End of story.

But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that these virtual particles did come from somewhere....why did they have to come from something, or someone. And if people believe that might be the case, where the hell does god/s fit in? And why a Catholic god, or a Muslim God, or the hoolooopoinan god of the Maldives ?

It seems to me, when it boils down to it, all religion is (apart from the comfort thing - and KUDOS to that.) is a way of labelling the beginning under a certain name, and then applying the rules and regulations that are deemed fit for that certain society. There is no 'truth' behind it, but a need, a fear, to put it all in a nice little box and ingore the reality of it.

But anyway, great posts guys. I'll get back. Apart from the physics debate, I going to really try and make clear the distinction between the emptyness I feel and why it has nothing to do with god/s.


----------



## schtink

I imagine no one is still working this thread, but for anyone reading to the end, this is for you.

Maybe God is something you make up in your head. He is as real as you believe him to be. The stronger your faith, the more real your God becomes. I'm sure all can agree that the power of positive suggestion is not an illusion.

I can safely say that God exists in the mind of the believer. And since this is also a depersonalization thread I can say that reality also exists in the mind of the believer.

Depersonalization proves that what we are able to touch, see, smell, and hear is truly a fraction of "reality". That said, if God were to be proved, either with tangible evidence or spiritual/emotional evidence, who's to say it's not something we both made up in our heads in the first place? Mutual hallucinations are not uncommon.

To prove God would force me to acknowledge his presence. However, this only proves that my brain was able to complete the given task of acknowledgement. My brain is also capable of acknowledging "The Leprachaun" as mentioned in a previous post, whether I prove him or not.

Am I not the only one who can lie to himself so intensely he believes it? It seems like that's how I got here anyway. And like everyone else I will use marijuana and "I don't know what happened" as a scapegoat for my DP problem because lies beget lies.

Deep inside everyone knows how they got here. It's all a matter of uncovering the truth. And if you are a God *fearing* person, you will agree with me when I say that your search is not for God, but for yourself. And before you disagree  let me rephrase that by saying you must remove the plank from your own eye before you attempt to remove the splinter from your brother's.

Hence, God does not exists for those who do not acknowledge him. Likewise, reality does not exist for those who do not embrace it.


----------



## yoyo

Yes, it is morally wrong, but it is your choice and everyone should respect that choice. You will have to take full responsability of your actions.

That was quite a clear reply. Just being sincere here, do not get uppset.


----------

