Why God Created Atheists?
Our first 'Gods' are Mommy and Daddy (And other adults as we, personally assign them importance) Your dog sees you as a god. Your wife used to, but if she still does...that will change.
Ha, at this point she tolerates me. Like an old chair that still matches the walls. If she paints the walls I'm gone.
I won't think my future husband a god. I'll tell him to move his own lazy ass to make dinner....not me (I don't cook)
God has evolved along with us, but God has been there the whole time. Knowledge of God is first about knowing the self, and it is mankind, and mankind alone who strives to understand the inner being. Know yourself and you do know God. If God doesn'texist, then we don't exist because we are all gods. It is all a matter of context and perspective. From here to the end of the universe, is there anyone in our way?(Evidence, please!) Then I rest my case...we are the big boy in the universe. Soon as someone bigger comes along, we'll step aside, and they can be God.
God did not create atheists. Man always have a freewill to believe in God or not.
God did not even create religious practices...
-Johnathan-In which OT book does God give sanction to religion?
In any OT book you care to name where He determines which rituals are to be performed and the way in which they are to be executed.
That's the thing, the only ritual God ever gives deliberate sanction to is Sacrifice, and even then he states to burn 1/10 of whatever you own.
I've not read any other example of him dictating anything. It's all implied and assumed because that's what the people were doing. That's not God dictating it though, that's people dictating it.The size and shape of the Tabernacle were dictated by God. The way the sacrifices were performed were dictated by God. I know a lot of people think that since men wrote it, it must be the product of men, but it isn't. It's God working through men.
An assumption on your part, Chris. There is nothing to show it was god working through men but the word of men. Now you are taking the words of dead men as fact. People you've never personally met nor know the names or reputations of.
How old were you when you studied all of the most popular religions and decided to chose your present one? Or was christianity the first you encountered?
Neither, Randy.
If you've read my posts and/or my hubs, then you already know that.Read some of your posts and none of your hubs, Chris. So, what was the first religion you remember encountering then? Please don't make me read your hubs to find out!
You should read the hubs! Fresh ammunition!
Slightly misunderstood the question. The only thing I will say is, I didn't choose a religion, it chose me. And if you think you understand that answer, you're probably wrong.
Not adverse to being wrong occasionally, Chris. But I still feel as if I understand how you first came to your epiphany.
The thing about the Tabernacle is, God never said anything about it. It's assumed he did. What God said regarding churches, temples, and the tabernacle is that where ever 3 or more gather together in his name shall worship be held. That's literally what God said, he didn't say anything more about it. Churches and Temples, including the Tabernacle were man made and were felt needed by men. It had nothing to do with God.
As I said, God said to burn the sacrifices. That's the only "performance" there is to it. You put it up on the Altar, Kneel and give your prayer, then set it to the flame and your done.Obviously, I disagree. God designed the Tabernacle.
Many people wish to take human assumption and inference over what God actually states. That's ok though. It doesn't make either of us right or wrong, it just is.
God didn't create aetheists. God created man and man has free will to believe or not believe in God. So man himself creates what he believes. If man choses not to believe in God then God ends up with an aetheist. But, man is not finished until he dies, so I would think that God would hope that an atheist man could change to a believer in God man. We are all works in progress until the moment we die.
If people do not accept Yahweh as the one and only right God . Then what about the 10.000 other Gods who are not Yahweh. Would they be called atheist or worst ...satanism.
Oh no, musnt say that word..people might think the worst
Christians want to save everyone, why not Save Satan?, all you need is to believe in in God (Yahweh) Satan believes in God (Yahweh)
A long while back I heard a story of a people who believed that Satan is simply the scorned lover of God. What better way to ensure God's continued presence in your existence then through either love or hate? To hate something you simply cannot let it go and must keep it central to ones life. It sorta made me feel sorry for the devil, so far as one can feel sorry for a fictional character
I can have fun over super hero in Hollywood movies anytime, just like the next guy and maybe pick up the odd metaphor. Yet to dig up fictional ancient Character like super Satan all the time and then Yahweh comes in to save the day, is beyond my logic and understanding
Since Satan and God don't have bodies, that's impossible. Mitt Romney believes Satan and Jesus are brothers. Don't vote for him or else you will be on the Satan team. It's tempting to laugh at this if it wasn't so grave.
Because they believe satan is evil, god knows how many times ive had preaches tell me that satan is oh so bad
Satan is not so bad. I made a Save Satan hub Fan club for him.
Nobody has caught on fire yet.or stroked by lightning
That is absolute nonsense. There's a difference between knowing Jesus exists and having a belief in Him in a loving relationship. Satan doesn't want saving from God. He'd rather go to hell than bow his knee to Jesus.
You say this in complete ignorance to who Satan is. He needs suffering of the good to survive. Without it, he'd perish. It's like a drug.Satan is already an absolute ignorance concept to fear people into joining you and most of your membership into Christian fight club.
I will bow down to Love and kindness, not to insanity concepts like Hell where people are against each continuallyHell exists whether you believe in it or not. You can't change that truth.
Then that is your choice of a gift to yourself
You made your bed with the conflict of hell in it, and you will sleep in it 24/7
When Christians try to get rid of the concept of Hell, watch for membership dropping off like flies on a grand pile of....You are right about the last thing you said. Many Christians only are Christians because they are afraid of hell. That is bondage.
According to Jesus you can change it Claire. You speak of the Bible as if it's Absolute Fact, yet you yourself say that parts of it are just kinda jammed in there.
Where in the Bible does it say Jesus said hell could cease to exist?
When he said "What you hold true on earth, so shall I hold true in heaven." If you hold it true that hell doesn't exist, then it doesn't. As long as people continue to it being real and a must and what not though, it will continue to be there.
Where there is heaven there is Hell and God take pleasure in evil as he created it all.
God did not create evil. You can point to the Old Testament all you like but it doesn't make it so. How can Jesus die for our sins when the Lord created sin in the first place? Surely Jesus would have preached evil if God was the creator of evil? No, He did not. He did not tolerate evil in the slightest.
How do this prove that hell will no longer exist? If I hold it true that the earth is flat, then it must be flat, right? The definition of hell is the complete separation from God. If people want to estrange themselves from God then they make their own hell.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create calamity: I the LORD do all these things.
American King James Version
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
The same in-
American Standard Version
Douay-Rheims Bible
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Darby Bible Translation
forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.
English Revised Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.
Webster's Bible Translation
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
I could not live by this book or it's over all behavior today results. The bible lacks intellect, flexibility, and it separation us from a friendlier World. Remember your God is a jealous God, he really lack getting along with live and let live attitude and threatens us to fear him, and must take pleasure in it.I don't want Old Testament stuff. I told you how corrupt it is. Show me where Jesus advocated evil.
"The bible lacks intellect, flexibility, and it separation us from a friendlier World."
I disagree. In my view it is persons that lack intellect and flexibility, and it is us who cause separation from a friendlier world.
I also venture to suggest, the United States of America is just about the most overtly religious nation in the world at this time. People in this nation are some of the most fanatical and proselytizing individuals when it comes to promoting their interpretations of the bible. Everyone is preaching "forgiveness" for "sins" because it makes them feel good about themselves... no other reason.
What "sins" are they talking about? Corruption in business? Cheating on your neighbour? Lying about your products? Having an affair with one of your congregation? Turning a blind eye to wanton destruction of natural habitats and resources? Oh No! These are not important. "Anyway, the Lord has already forgiven me for these, and continues to forgive me, as long as I can say the words "Born Again" in public and get believed."
All those examples of sin mentioned above have a very serious negative affect on other people involved. You cannot get away from the fact - they are all brought on by selfishness and greed. They hurt people.
Now, when it comes to something which involves love, and agreement, and mutual concern; which hurts no one; something which can enhance a personal relationship and lead to productive, caring lives, like being gay! then that is another matter. "The Lord might forgive those queers, but damned if I will!"
All this grand-standing of quotes from the bible do us no good at all. It only serves to get your minds off the real task and joy of living a life.
Claire, I am speaking to you in particular, but all of us here in this Hub need to take a long hard look at ourselves and our attitude to life.
I rest my case.You just brought back memories of the Donahue show. As a kid I loved watching that show because I felt it gave me a glimpse into the U.S. On just about every show where there was some big debate someone would eventually stand up and bring up the bible or Jesus or God and the argument would stop dead. No one ever wanted to be the one to stand up and say "I don't care what it says in the bible, it's wrong to..." It's the Righteousness that needs to stop.
Sins are what is an affront to God; all those things you mentioned above. I personally am not comfortable with the gay lifestyle but I live and let live. They are people like the rest of us and deserve to be treated with respect.
I do hope you aren't insinuating I am fanatical. There are very few fanatics in South Africa that I have come across. SA is a secular country.
Quoting from the Bible should be used to support an argument when needed. Jesus quoted the scriptures after all. What I have a problem is when people throw scriptures around when they are backed into a corner, especially scriptures about how unholy people are. In the past I have been the victim of that and it is the most annoying thing.Claire, no I don't see you as fanatical, although I am not here to judge you anyway. You do have some questionable and unusual interpretations of the bible and christianity in general, that is your right, and everyone else has the right to accept of reject what you say.
Thank you for respecting other peoples' "lifestyles," although please be aware there is not such thing as a "gay lifestyle."
Probably your best course here in Hub Pages is to research what you are saying carefully, try to explain your points of view carefully and clearly, and hope that we can understand you through that.
Keeping an open mind to new perspectives is also a good way to advancement.I do a lot of research. Have you been missing my links?
It doesn't matter how I explain myself people still won't understand. I just come from a different world.Claire, is that Different World for you a prison? or an open parkland?
It isn't a prison. Knowing Christ is the freest feeling ever. Strangely enough, I do live in an area called Parklands.
Ok, Claire, it seems to me that you don't have any concept beyond the christian, so there is no point continuing that line of discussion with you.
However, in a later post, you used this expression: "People who are fanatical religious cause a lot of suffering." Previously I said I did not think you were fanatical..... maybe I was wrong.
Could you describe to us what you see as "fanatically religious?"Those who condemn non-believers to hell and won't attempt to discuss anything but spew around scriptures and those who step over everyone else's rights. Those devoid of all reason.
You mean king James and American standard is not grand and new enough and OT is not the roots.of your faith history. What kind of bible or Christian science books are you cherry picking from?
You still haven't shown me the part in the Bible that says hell may cease to exist.
That is EinderDarkwolf claim about the bible I assume
Personally I think Hell is too dumb and dumber to exist because I have more faith in Mankind to solve it's own abuses,
The definition of Hell is:
hell/hel/
Noun:
A place regarded in various religions as a spiritual realm of evil and suffering.
Exclamation:
Used to express annoyance or surprise.
Synonyms:
inferno - hades - pandemonium - underworld - abyss
You also have:
hell [hel]
noun
1.
the place or state of punishment of the wicked after death; the abode of evil and condemned spirits; Gehenna or Tartarus.
2.
any place or state of torment or misery: They made their father's life a hell on earth.
3.
something that causes torment or misery: Having that cut stitched without anesthesia was hell.
4.
the powers of evil.
5.
the abode of the dead; Sheol or Hades.
It's not a separation of God, as I doubt it would be separated from anything it created. Even still, Jesus was speaking of all his followers holding it true, not just a couple. If no Christian believed that Hell existed, then it would never be a worry. Unfortunately though, most have to believe in Hell in order to stay their path.Beats me how you can be separated from an omnipresent being in any case.
This is just the politically correct lie they tell when they really believe the fire and brimstone nonsense.The time I felt the furthest from God is the time I suffered the most. I really did think I was experiencing a piece of hell. People who have had Near Death Experiences say they have experienced hell and it entails partly the worst sort of desolation ever and demons taunting them saying there is no God there.
God did not create evil. Evil cannot be near God. Don't base your claim just on what Isaiah said. People did not understand God and that is why Jesus had to come.
You do not know the context in of what Matthew 16:19. It means you reap what you sow basically. Those who did good will see the results of that in heaven and those evil, unremorseful people will see the results of what they have done on earth in hell.The first part of this is your opinion based on something that happened to you, in which you involved your faith. That's fine, but that's only speculation.
As for Near Death Experiences, 99% of people who claim them, don't have them or anything remotely like it. Considering how rare the phenomenon is to begin with, that means the more you hear about it, the more people are lieing through their teeth.
Where as I agree that God did not create evil, my claim has nothing to do with Isaiah. I think people created Evil, because with out it, they couldn't possibly do the right thing all the time. They needed something to be scared of in order to keep them doing the right thing. That's neither here nor there though. As for Why Jesus had to come, according to the Gospels he had to come to purge the world of sin, never mind that people were already born without sin and choose to be sinful. Again though, neither here nor there. What Jesus said still stands, all you have to do listen to it.
I think your mistaking Galatians 6:7-9 with Matthew 16:19. In Matthew God is talking about what is held true as being of him, will be held true on heaven and earth so that it will actually come to pass. In Galatians however, Paul is saying that you will reap what you sow. That if you do evil, then evil will come back to you (karma or dharma).
I would appreciate further insults as to my understanding to be kept to yourself. We can both read the same thing and walk away with two different understandings of it.No, it's not, but you can think so anyway and rightfully so.
Well, that's for you to find out one day what the truth is.
So where'd you get the idea God created evil? Somewhere in the OT, right? Evil is from the devil who people allowed themselves to be played by. Ironically by "scaring" people to do the right thing, it actually does the opposite. People who are fanatical religious cause a lot of suffering. Jesus saved us from sin by redeeming us and taking on the penalty of sin. He did not come to purge the world of it. Sin is alive and well. He cannot purge sin in a world who won't listen to Him.
And so you use Matthew 16:19 to claim that Jesus said if you deny hell it will no longer exist? To if you didn't hold hell true on earth it won't exist thereafter? Hell and heaven and God and Satan do not exist because people choose to believe they exist. You clearly are taking this out of context. Is it truly an insult to disagree with you? Be reasonable.
Out of interest sake, is their commentary on the Internet of the relevant verse that corroborates your interpretation?With all the I's and such that you used, it clearly shows that it's something Personal and not the rule for everyone. You can try and force it on people, but it doesn't make it any more relevant to them.
Who say's I don't already know? Your assuming I don't because you want to be right, but you could just as easily be wrong.
Didn't I just say that God didn't create evil? I don't know how to be more clear on it, perhaps bolding it, putting it in all caps, and maybe some italics will drill it home? Your jumping to a conclusion which is the exact opposite of what I just said, which leads me to believe your not actually reading what I'm saying but only skimming it.
Jesus did not take on the penalty of sin, if he had, there would not be any danger of going to Hell. If the penalty had already been paid in full, it would never be a concern.
It's not something any one person could do by themselves, but something that if it had what's known as a "peoples sanction" would have to be adhered to by God. I don't expect you to know how that works though. I'm not pulling it out of context, I'm actually reading it as it's written instead of taking someone elses word for it.
It's not an insult to disagree with me, it's an insult to say I don't understand something just because you choose to have a different understanding of it. As I said, we can both read the same thing and have two completely different understandings. If you can't accept that, then perhaps you should just stop replying to me.
As it is my interpretation I can't show you any internet commentary on it. However, I can show you internet commentary that says it does NOT mean that you reap what you sow.
http://bible.cc/matthew/16-19.htm
http://rcg.org/questions/p184.a.html
http://www.crivoice.org/bindloose.html
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/c … hed-Christ
http://fruitoftheword.com/2009/03/bindi … thew-1619/It can't be the rule for everyone because not everyone knows Satan and has a relationship with Christ. Anyway, I'm not forcing on you. You don't have to believe it.
If you knew what it was like to feel distant from God then you'd agree with me.
I find this rather ambiguous what you wrote?
"It's (hell?) not a separation of God, as I doubt it would be separated from anything it created. Even still, Jesus was speaking of all his followers holding it true, not just a couple. If no Christian believed that Hell existed, then it would never be a worry. Unfortunately though, most have to believe in Hell in order to stay their path."
Hell is the ultimate evil.
Got confused by all the "its". So you are saying that God cannot be separated from us humans since he created us as opposed to hell cannot be the separation from God because He created hell?
Jesus took on the penalty of sin for us PROVIDED we truly repent. It is no use giving a gift to someone who doesn't want it. The evil don't want salvation. They do not want to bend their knee to Christ.
I should have consulted more sources but even though I believe my context wasn't right, it still is more right than yours. I looked at the links you provided and the best explanation was based on the legal "loosing and binding". I'm sure you have read it but I believe Jesus meant that it applied to practical Christianity. In other words, we know the Gospel but how do we apply it to real life? I can find no corroboration, however, that it means if you don't believe someone on earth then it won't exist. It has nothing to do with believing or disbelieving in hell to determine it's existence.
Reason tells me it's just plain wrong. Never did Jesus say hell is a figment of our imagination; that it exists because we keep it alive in our heads.
Claire
Hell is a gift from your God within your heart, my God would not ever give or allow a gift so unlovingInteresting that the Varuna Text is mentioned here. When you realise that the Hindu "gods," although they tend to be worshipped as deities, they are in fact metaphors depicting human traits. E.g., Ganesh, Shiva, Kali, etc. Each has an aspect of human life. It's a sort of reflection of ourselves.
Now turn to the christian religion. It too is trying to depict human traits by the use of metaphor. "God," the Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary, the various Saints..... each has an aspect which we desire to admire and draw unto ourselves.
So, Claire, I encourage you, if you will, to look beyond the narrow biblical interpretations. They only drag you down into the depths of ignorance. Let the biblical analogies lift you up, give you new vistas of understanding.
jonnycomelately
One good reason I got along with so many people traveling around the world many times over was the fact that I rarely brought up topics of religion and politics. It creates such great separations, boundary and conflict with so many people.
How can someone attached a jealous God from my country and think it could blend with an other cultures and their righteous God core beliefs.
Jesus says, I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me (Matt. 10:34-39). If dose not even work in their own homeland and Jonny, it sound like you more agree with me than disagree when you were describing Christian America.
If this Jealous God is truly an intelligent, worldly behavior for a friendlier world order, than I will eat rock of ages with a gain of salt The get rid of my brain for thinking on my own, and be Yahweh slaveI assume you are referring to me and not Johnny? When Jesus said, "I have come not to bring peace but a sword", He meant that the truth of Him was going to cause division. Non believers and believers are going to clash as demonstrated on this hub. The truth hurts and that is why there is division. People who accept it and those who deny it are going to collide big time.
So much for live and let live,
Yahweh is against most people because they do not worship him as he claims he made everything. Yahweh claims all light, the truth and the way which is greater than just hurtful, it's harmful and dishonest.
More slavery in the world now than ever before in human history, our ability to think for our selves and self reliance has been harmed greatly. For any self rightfulness Religious groups claiming everything in it's grandiose ego way in the future, will experience a new side effect, shrink, shrank, shrunk as Man will no longer put up with this this kind of abuse. So much for live and let live with One world ReligionCastlepaloma, with the premise that each of us here is sending comments from a very personal perspective, let me make a suggestion or two:
Religion, or the individual promoting the religion, presents to each of us some kind of threat. Mostly that threat is in the form of control, or at least the perception they want to control us. But especially if that control is over something I feel is a genuine part of me. This brings up an instinctive defense mechanism that's also part of my genetic makeup. I get angry, retaliate, fight back, refuse to bow down to that threat, kick out, argue, confront, even threaten to destroy if necessary!
The religious zealots who confront us here in HubPages are in it for their own sense of ego. They want the power to control, and their self-proclaimed belief in a god that backs up their power base is a bonus. No one can defeat them in their quest for power. Feeling powerful brings with it the knowledge that one is more likely (no - definitely) a winner in the fight for survival; again, this is a basic animal instinct.
I am not saying those individuals are evil; just opportunists, trying it on. Part of their instinctive fight for survival.
What I do call evil is the blatant insistence that they are right, when they can see what they are doing is hurting someone else; when they are lying to themselves, refusing to see themselves in the mirror which the oppressed are holding up to them. I believe this was true of the good christian sadists who perpetrated such dreadful acts upon helpless slaves.
Getting to know the nature of one's opponent is a sure way of understanding one's self. Don't you think?
If God was tyrannical, would He not enslave us now? Why would such an egomaniac allow people to reject Him?
Why blame God for this? Why not Satan?
It would be worst if everyone was just like me, how much fun would that be?
Plus great things still, we can learn from extremistClair
In the beginning after 5 billion years of evolution which most people believe or think so, Man created Yahweh in it's region in the middle east along with controlling the Military. Then Politics was invented to protect the people because more people were killed in the name of God than for any other reason and it was blamed on Satan, It's much easier to kill someone thinking they are sub human demons. Peoples average life expectancy did not gain more than age 40 until Darwin and Science came along and more than double it.
Christian grew into Europe then America, At one time there was 5 times more population of native Americans than there were European and no Christians.
American Christianity first came along with Columbus's European piracy, slavery, and gold rush and created the greatest human genocide mankind has ever known to our American natives within 500 years. That is Lord sweet Yahweh for you, good thing most people do not blame Yahweh for the big flood as Satan shortly follows.Lol. So the Varuna text is one of the things you are describing? And you assume humans evolved in a linear fashion when there is the possibility of genetic engineering by aliens?
Claire
human evolved from genetic engineering by aliens?
wOWOw your way over my head, I have no proof as of yet of any living thing from another planet
With a mind like this, who need drugs..
Claire Evans
Where in the Bible does it say Jesus said hell could cease to exist?
She may be right, In my Logos searches 6 versions of the bible and Logos found the word "hell" 286 times.
Guess it does not matter which god you decide to follow. They are all the true god right? If you believe in one you must believe in all right? Otherwise there are an awful lot of wrong people out there.
If it's gods word and not mans, why would he create heaven and earth, would'nt he have created heaven, earth and all of the other planets and stars in the universe. He may have just dictated it wrong to one of the prophets maybe? He sure has a sense of humor!And you are the self-appointed nemesis of misinformation, isthat it?
Yes, that's correct. And you said you were through responding to me on the forums. So now I must bust you for distributing misinformation on the forums. Do you have any last misinforma...er....words?
There are many people in the world who are always ready accept that
2+2=5Maybe it's not important to the Creator that we believe in him. Our beliefs put money in the pockets of people who claim to be specially anointed to speak for God. But what does it do for God? The cells of my body don't have to believe in me to carry out their functions. They digest my food and circulate my blood. .Tthey even carry me across the room and allow me to pick up a piece of paper without the slightest idea of who I am and what my will is. Atheists do all the things a human being is capable of doing without any statistically significant difference in the quality of their lives
If I did not want my child to burn I would not create a fire and tell him to choose. In trying to defend Christian doctrine, you create a horrific image of the Creator. Your defense of this horrific image evinces nothing more than the Stockholm syndrome.so many manipulations and obscurantism in religion, always division...so we know we need to question to get a glimpse at understanding, love, peace, compassion, life in its full...love and peace to all
Yes, and there is no real love—no real peace without knowledge and freedom of thought. There is only one group controlling another by substituting a loving illusion in place of reality.
Unless you do not belong to a group, then your unattached love can be given out to everyone much more freely, much more free of ego self and much more free of ego group
But to some people this is not, i dont believe in god, jesus or even satan, not do I believe there is an afterlife
We will know there is afterlife when we arrive there, not before
I wonder if it's crowded with Jews
Engineers of the Prometheus created humans on the Earth...
Lolz.....Well, jainismus, you seem to believe that God created people who do not believe in God, so they could have some "un-godly" thing to happen to them. God is Divine Principle, not a man in the sky, so the out-working of the Principle is as consciousness is or not aligned with that Principle. The nature of God is absolute good, therefore, there can be no evil, as God is Infinite, eternal, changeless and unchanging. Maybe I might be considered an Atheist if I need to believe in God as a man, because I don't, yet I am a dedicated Christian. I can see why so many people do not believe in God, per se, because so many of the older religions, and Hebrew Religion had what were known as gods of their pantheon, and each religion had them - as a matter of fact, the Hebrews borrowed their gods from the Canaanites. El of Shaddai (El Shaddai) was a female god (a god with breasts) or called the god of the mountain/god of the rocks - Jerusalem, then when the males took over from the women who were the goddesses, all of a sudden their god became a male - YHWH. When Masoretic Text was added (vowels inserted in a former all consonant language), it became Yahweh.
I think if you study Hebrew History, it might help you to understand things a little better, from a Jewish or Christian perspective.
Getting back to an explanation of things: Quantum Physics explain that everything is energy expresed or depressed. If all is energy expressed as in what we call God, there you have it, the concept of a human figured god goes out the window.From my point of view a very acceptable statement. Would you also agree that the corollary is true, i.e. "Man is Finite, impermanent, subject to change and is always changing... even unto death?"
I have maintained for some time that I do not accept the existence of a "judgmental" god, because the judgment is always made by humans. However, the Infinite, Unchanging, Creator of the finite I can accept with awe and humility. I don't know who he/she/it is, but the manifestation of that Creator is all around me.Yes, Johnnycomelately, because the Law of Life allows him/her to choose to manifest from his Oneness into a body. The Organizational Associational Area at the back of the Pariteal Lobe allows the time-space manifestation, and it is the "self" which allows us to be separate from others in the finite or infinite state. When they lose input from the self, the consciousness returns to Oneness with all.
Don't you think we're already enslaves? Suffering is the direct and immediate object of the existence. Look at the needs and necessities inseparable from life. And life serves no purpose at all. The pleasure in the world overweight's the pain.
That explains the fact that we find pleasure not even nearly pleasant to what we expected, but pain is very much painful.
Anyways, I don't think that God created Atheist, it was an Atheist who created God.
Healthy post, keep it going.
Cheers (: Claire and JainsmusGod didn't create atheist. The better question would be, why does God allow atheism to exist? tsk grow up mate. -_-
If there was not a path to failure, there would really be no test. We see plainly that God tests us. Plus, God said "test all things" and He is no hypocrite.
God sent Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. God sent him on a three-day journey so Abraham had plenty of time to think about it, too....and after Abraham had had that journey, had tied Isaac up and just as he's about to pierce Isaac's flesh with a dagger-knife thing god says "OOPS! My bad, I meant kill a firstBORN not YOUR firstborn son! LOL, that was just a 'test' " yeah, kill your firstborn son (Jesus) and then have ancient prophets do the same mistake you did. Doesn't that make sense? Killing all around! At least in the Bible
Why are people so obsessed with getting another life when they can not even live this one?
We are born atheists, so it's the same as asking "Why did God create human kind?".
However, we are born with a number of psychological dispositions that make it easy to become religious. These have been shaped by evolution. We curse lady luck, we see gremlins in our machines, and we see ghouls in the shadows because millions of years ago the superstitious among us survived at a greater rate than the rational. Even if you are mistaken most of the time, one positive identification of a beast in the shadows would have been the difference between life and death. Cognitive scientists call this our "hyper active agency detector".
We are born atheists, but at some point we can be tempted into becoming religious.
Isn't it ironic. The real temptation isn't the devil, it's religion.God didn't make atheists or Christians. He made man with free will. Everybody makes a choice to believe God or not. If all is happy with their own choices, isn't that good?
Humankind created God in their image. Seriously, how can a God who preaches love yet throw a hissy fit if you dont believe in him be a God. It sounds way too human to me than godlike.
The gates of hell is a Christian concept that was creatively created to scare the living crap out of people. People often do not think things through and follow anything that scares the crap out of them.
Jesus is demonstrated to be very human and very unforgiving, and he is similiar to a bloody screaming child. To me there is no attraction to a religion who has the negative traits of humans.What God do you know that preaches love? Sure Jesus did, but you reject him and that's okay, but what about the OT where God is so angry with humans he destroys every living thing and the earth? That's not loving.
It's all about context. God would not be angry if He didn't also love. You know the bit in the NT that says 'For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten son'? Well, what you're referring to in the OT was what was necessary to make that happen. For all the world. He gave humans free will. For Jesus to be born in the flesh God had to protect and preserve this particular bloodline in a land populated by naturally evolved humans. Breeding outside of their own line diluted 'God's spirit', which was breathed into the nostrils of Adam when he was created. It's God's spirit that then became the 'Holy Spirit' freely given to all through Jesus' death/resurrection.
Genesis 6:3 - 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever ....
The Israelites continuously disobeyed. Free will is by nature hard to control. What He did in the OT was for the sole purpose of allowing for the savior to be born so that all could be saved. And the whole reason this is even necessary is because God wanted us to have free will, which means we're capable of evil. All of it was so that you and everyone else could have the choice whether or not to love Him back. That is love.
Leviticus 19:18
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Deuteronomy 7:7
The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:Let me get this straight. Your God loves us and wants us to have free will. He is in all places and time at once, but doesn't know he's going to have to kill all people and animals and the earth before it happens, but after he does say's he won't do that again.
13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
Perhaps you can rationalize senseless violence, but I can't. Just how was Noah supposed to repopulate the entire earth with plants and bees?It's not senseless. And Noah still had his family and an entire planet populated with humans. They were just humans not 'of Eve' so they did not have free will.
Free will means we have our own minds. God knows are hearts, knows us better than we know ourselves, but even He doesn't know what we'll do until we do it, because the decision is not His, it is ours.
He is in all time/place at once, that is true. When time is not linear there's only what IS and what ISN'T. What exists and what doesn't. The universe, the planet, the animals, us, we're all created by God. Our decisions and our actions, however, are created by us. We are able to create things in this existence that are not 'of God'. That's what makes us dangerous. That's what all the fuss is about. What we do, what we decide, becomes part of existence. That's why eternal life cannot be allowed if you don't acknowledge God as the authority. Because you're powerful. Dangerous. A potential cancer in existence.
Look at the story of Abraham and Isaac. God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and let him get right up to the point of doing it. God created a situation that forced Abraham to make a choice because God does not know what we do until it's done. Because time is not linear to God, if God had not created the situation to make Abraham make a choice, then his choice wouldn't have existed. God actually had to create a situation to make Abraham choose because He really didn't know.
Adam and Eve's descendants intermingling with humans was not part of the plan. That's why it says God 'regretted' putting humans on the earth. That's why He sent the flood. Free will is a powerful gift.With all do respect I don't think you understand the concept of time that you describe your God exists in. If God exists in all times at the same time he know increments of the future, so he knows what Abraham's decision will be before he makes because he is both 10 seconds ahead and 4 million years ahead. So your God was just being cruel.
None of this stuff makes any sense even inside your own context. God didn't know he'd have to kill people and so he got angry and killed all the animals and plants and insects? Then somehow trees and plants survived and all these different kinds of bees repopulated the earth fast enough for plants and trees to survive.
Critical thinking is in order here my friend.I understand the concept of time. If an observer exists outside of the dimension of time, then time is not linear. There is no difference between past/present/future. There is only what IS and what ISN'T. You're right, God knows increments of the future. But, if God had not told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac then he never would have. God telling Abraham to do this means He created a situation in which Abraham had to make a choice. Whether or not God could see the future wouldn't matter if Abraham was never put in the position to have to make a decision. The same goes for the garden of Eden. God tested Adam and Eve to see what they'd do. He commanded them to not eat of that tree. God's will equals natural law. All things behave according to natural law, including the humans that came before Adam/Eve. Adam and Eve were different. They were the exception. So, He tested His creation by creating a situation that allowed them to choose for themselves.
And if you'll remember, God instructed Noah to build a huge boat so that he could bring, not just his family, but a bunch of animals as well. The flood was only regional. There was still a planet full of animals and plants outside of this.
That is one trick for filling in the gaps, but outside of scripture and so purely speculative.
Nope, it's totally within scripture. It's just that the majority of the traditional interpretations we've always been taught were formed centuries ago when nobody knew any better. Now we do. If you re-read Genesis with the understanding that the humans created in Genesis 1 were the homo sapiens that populated the planet between 200,000-10,000 BC, and Adam's creation in Genesis 2 as happening in an already populated world, it makes way more sense.
It explains who the 'others' were that Cain feared would harm him in Genesis 4. It explains who the 'mortal' 'daughters of humans' were at the beginning of Genesis 6 that the 'sons of God' (Adam's family) had children with. It's why the Israelites were given such specific commands of who they could and could not intermingle with. It clears up a lot of otherwise confusing things about the bible because it places the stories in the proper context.It is a plausible explanation, but it is not in scripture. Other plausible explanations have been offered throughout history.
Yes, but our modern understanding of history is the first time we've ever had such a clear picture of what really happened. Every other explanation was conjecture created by fallible humans who did not have the knowledge base we do. Our modern understanding of history is based on scientific process which removes the fallible human element. And that un-flawed history gives proper context to Genesis.
And yes, it is in scripture. Think about this. The humans in Genesis 1 were given very specific commands; multiply, fill/subdue the earth, establish dominance in the animal kingdom. Commands that took numerous generations to accomplish. At the end God looked on all He had made and deemed it 'good'. We now know this is exactly what homo sapiens did in a very short amount of time. They followed these commands to the letter. But Adam and Eve were different. Rather than being given specific commands of exactly what to do, they were given just one command of what NOT to do. And they did it anyway. If they were so capable of following their own will/desire, then how could they be capable of carrying out God's commands to populate the earth and all of that?
Just give it another read with this in the back of your mind. You'll see what I"m talking about. Once set in the proper context, Genesis, as well as the rest of the bible, makes WAY more sense.
Or the Israelites gave themselves those commandments much like nazi germany did. And are you really saying that Noah, his wife, their boys and their wives were the only descendants of Eve at that time. And those 3 pairs populated the entire earth? Because that certainly doesn't explain the genetic diversity of humans.
Maybe sentient free will is a dominant genetic trait... but it implies that people took spouses who were basically non-human animals and that is kind of icky.
Not necessarily. Basically a human without free will is no different than an indigenous tribal human as they still exist today. Like aborigines. If you study aborigines, or any other indigenous culture who has not been too heavily influenced by 'civilized' humans, you'll find they don't have a very sharp sense of self. They don't have individual possessions. They don't even understand the concept of ownership. They can't grasp how someone could own land, because to them the earth belongs to everyone. Even their names will change throughout life. They may have the same names in a given tribe, but the names get passed around to different individuals at different times. They can still reason, imagine, speak, dance, laugh, all of that, they just don't have an individual will. Adam and Eve were the introduction of human selfishness.
You think first nations people living a traditional life style don't have free will?
That strikes me as an extremely prejudiced and weird belief.
And even neolithic people had personal possessions, Australian Aborigines most certainly did before colonization. So you might want to read up on that.
I hope your Biblical scholarship is better than your knowledge of anthropology.I understand that, but I assure you I'm not being prejudiced. It's a view based on extensive observation of both indigenous cultures in existence today as well as primal human cultures from long ago. There's no war or violence, no social stratification, no male dominance. Basically, all the things that make 'civilized' humans who they are is a sharpened sense of self. An individual ego. Primal people do have a sense of self, but not nearly as acute as those of us from 'civilized' societies. That's why primal people only make up about 5% of the population today. They have been no match for 'civilized' humans who took whatever they wanted. Human history is the same story over and over again. Civilizations spreading, fighting back the 'savages' or 'locals', killing them, taking their women, enslaving.
They are just different. It's just a fact. Do a search on James DeMeo and the studies he's doing. He's got a book called Saharasia that goes into this quite deeply. It's a highly documented difference.If you think all "uncivilised" societies had all those features you are simply wrong. Many of those societies had life long names, had personal possessions and there is nothing to suggest their sentience was any less than our or their lives were determinist whereas ours are fee will--whatever you think that means.
I am also completely baffled as to how you think, for example, a Maori of 300 years ago is profoundly different to one today such that you could say one has "free will" (post-Eve) and the other doesn't.No, I'm not saying all were universally the same. I was giving specific examples. But the overall view is that these people simply don't have the same heightened sense of self that we do. I'm not making this up, and this is not some skewed view I've adopted through my alternate biblical perspective, if that's maybe what you're thinking.
Look up James DeMeo and the studies he's doing. Or read his book Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World.
Or Steve Taylor's book, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era
Neither of these guys are christians or are trying to advance some christian view. In fact, in Steve Taylor's book he makes the case that religion and belief in God or gods is the result of what he calls the 'ego explosion' as well.
This view is based on extensive research.So if some uncivilized cultures have all the basic features of civilized ones, how on earth do they lack free will. And if they do why is free will significant?
I genuinely don't get it. Even the Bible says all people fell, not just some. Otherwise God is punishing them with short lives etc for no reason at all.
And I said it sounded prejudiced ('uncivilised'= no soul or something like that). To be racist you would have to be saying the Middle Eastern people (given the likely place of Eden) are the only true race of God and I don't detect that.No, I'm not saying they don't have a soul. What I'm saying is that their decisions and their thinking is much more selfless than ours. They make decisions for the good of the tribe. For tribe survival. Just like Eve and her deciding to eat of the forbidden tree because it looked delicious and because she would personally gain wisdom. It was a selfish act. That's us. If anything, primal cultures are better than we are because they don't persecute others or take more than they need. They just make simple lives for themselves and are much more content than you or I will ever be.
There are many documented cases of large populations of primal humans living together in harmony. When agriculture was first discovered, or more accurately horticulture, there were settlements in the northern middle east and europe for over 3000 years before the dawn of civilization with populations that numbered in the thousands. Yet there was no conflict, no war, no class stratification, no male dominance, and they didn't hoard possessions. Graves were always the same size and never contained valuables.
The spark that ultimately brought about civilization didn't come from these already established settlements. It came with the arrival of nomads who came from the growing Sahara desert after the 5.9 kiloyear event. These people brought with them very different behaviors. They were violent, they treated their women as inferior, and they loved their possessions. It's after these people arrived that the first human civilizations came about. The story is the same in Sumer, in Egypt, and in the Indus Valley. I believe these were the descendants of Noah dispersed at Babel. DeMeo and Taylor believe their heightened individual egos came from their land turning into a desert and forcing them to be more selfish and hostile.
The people the bible speaks of are the ones 'of Eve'. Other humans in that regard were not of concern, other than the role they played in the overall story, because they behaved just as God created them. It was those 'of Eve' who were causing all the problems and required so much attention.
That is extremely racist, and simply not true. Perhaps they don't need possessions to know who they are. Perhaps they have a greater sense of self then you do.
They are simply way less selfish than we are. And please don't call me a racist. I am pointing out well documented, highly studied facts. Don't make this personal. There is a clear distinction between us and them which is why 'civilized' humans so quickly took over the entire planet. It's a sad story, one that's been told over and over again, but it's still true. So don't try to put it on me that I'm being racist. Just look at the evidence.
When you describe a particular people as having no will, it's sounding prejudiced. Saying that those who are not of israeli decent are not the same as us, simply sounds racist/prejudiced. Do you think we need possessions to have a sense of who we are? Clearly you mean that simply being accustomed to possessions brings forth this will you are talking about or All of Africans would be wondering around without names or land.
I will call out a racist or some acting with bias when someone thinks a particular group or culture is somehow inferior. Suggesting they don't have the will, could mean a lot of things, are you suggesting they don't have free will? They can't make their own choices because they are incapable?I didn't say they have no will. Look, I get how this can sound. And I will be right there with you calling out that kind of behavior if I see it. The differences I'm talking about are based on evidence. And you can't tell me you don't see the difference. It's apparent throughout our history. Civilization first started in Mesopotamia and spread from there. It's the people from those civilizations who have since taken over the planet. You can look at it as an evolutionary change if you like, but the fact is the difference that came about in the humans that formed those first civilizations made them a dominant and very aggressive force that has practically pushed indigenous cultures out of existence.
The evidence I'm referring to is still relatively new. Here's a snippet from DeMeo's website to give you a better idea ....
"James DeMeo's Saharasia is the largest and most in-depth scholarly study on human behavior and social violence around the world which has ever been undertaken. The findings summarized in Prof. DeMeo's book cover the entire globe, from early prehistory into modern times, integrating on world-maps a full sweep of standard research data from the fields of archaeology and history, plus an in-depth cross-cultural review and mapping of data from over 1000 distinctly different human societies, from standard anthropological data bases. It employed standard cross-cultural correlation tables on over 60 different variables, plus geographical mapping and quadruple blind research procedures to insure objectivity, and all the basic starting assumptions are clearly elucidated in advance."
The fact is, those already well established horticultural settlements that we've always assumed evolved over time into violent war-mongering civilizations are not actually the ones that started it. It was the semetic and indo-european speaking nomads from the Sahara that came into these already established settlements and dramatically changed them. And it's not long after that that we begin to see a plethora of human inventions that serve much more individualistic needs, like writing being invented to track commodities and labor to keep track of what an individual is owed.
In my view, these nomads, who DeMeo and Taylor refer to as Saharasians, were the descendants of Noah dispersed at Babel. The dispersion coming in the form of the 5.9 kiloyear event.
Headly, I would strongly question what you talk about Aboriginal peoples. It sounds like you are talking theoretically from some book, or books that you have read. How about asking a community of aboriginal people if you can go and live amongst them for a year?
Find a way of giving them the respect they deserve and learning their ways, their background and their ways of thinking. I bet you will be changing your assumptions about them.If I could I would, Jonny. If I could just put my life on hold and go live with the aborigines for a year, or a month, I would. I would spend my life going from one thing to the next experiencing everything about life that fascinates me first-hand if I could, but it's just not feasible. Fortunately, there are people who do. And they write about it. So I read. That's the best I can do. And I read a lot. Is there something I've said that you know to be inaccurate? Or are you assuming that I am making assumptions?
I have a deep respect for, and am fascinated by, the aborigines. They're ancestors migrated out of Africa as early as 70,000 years before our more recent ancestors left. They traced the southern coastline of the Asian continent and somehow managed to cross great distances of ocean from one island to the next to reach the Australian continent. For 120,000 years they existed completely independent of our more recent ancestors until civilization finally reached them.
Maybe I'm just oblivious, but I don't see that I'm being disrespectful. I'm not saying they're any less intelligent or capable than we are. The difference is they're simply content with a simple tribal life living in harmony with the natural world where we definitely are not. They don't feel the need to 'better' their lives through destruction as we do. They don't aspire to take over and control their environment like we do. I don't have to live with them to see that. Their history tells us that. The humans of civilization are clearly different and always have been.
That's something I find amusing when someone says the bible is all made up by the Jews. If they just made all this up, they sure went way out of their way to make themselves look bad. Usually, you'd think it would be the other way around.
Yes, they were the only descendants of Eve at that time (with at least the exception of Anak, a descendant of the Nephilim and flood survivor (Numbers 13)). But, there was a planet full of naturally evolved humans not 'of Eve'. Again, the flood was limited to the southern Mesopotamian region. There was a whole world of humans who Noah's descendants then bred with. That's why the lifespans decreased so quickly. Because humans are 'mortal' and only live 120 years (Gen6).That part you are making up, because the story/account clearly states God wanted all of the human race dead.
7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
It is clear in language. All living things dead. The entire earth. Please show me where is says the flood was only regional?
17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
Everything on earth will perishThe Hebrew word is the same for both 'earth' and 'land'. This was a regional account. Bible translators obviously lean towards global meanings, but that's them. Just do a search on Nephilim in the bible. You'll find they're mentioned twice. Once in Genesis 6 just before the flood where it says they were 'on the earth in those days', the second in Numbers 13 when the spies report back to Moses that descendants of Anak, descendant of the Nephilim, were in Hebron. There could be no survivors in a global flood.
Aren't you mixing half-baked science with conjecture?
It sounds like something he copied from `Answers in Genesis'. It never ceases to amaze me how Christians will reinterpret their religious beliefs in the face of modern science. He probably believes that the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old because a day in the old testament was actually equal to a million years in today's time. They believe this rubbish because they are desperately seeking validation for comforting religious beliefs in the face of seemingly contradictory scientific facts. It's the same old story: desire fuels belief.
"Free will means we have our own minds. God knows are hearts, knows us better than we know ourselves, but even He doesn't know what we'll do until we do it, because the decision is not His, it is ours."
Ok, I needed to hear this from a Christian before I said anything. What you've said is a direct contradiction of an omniscient, timeless God. If he's all-knowing, he should know the future. This is just another example of a believer giving God human characteristics (see the work of Justin Barrett for more examples).I get why you think that. But the part I think you're not getting is the concept of an individual will. If God created the universe and all life in it, then it is created according to His will. As the creation account describes, all of existence, whether animate or inanimate, behaved according to God's will. God's will equals natural/physical/chemical/biological law. This planet and all life on it operates in a delicately balanced ecosystem. Things must behave in just such a way to maintain that delicate balance.
An individual will is a will apart from God's. Free will is the capability of creation. The ability to create decisions and actions that are not of God/natural law. Humans are an anomaly in the natural world. Rather than living in harmony with the delicate balance of this earth's ecosystem like everything else, we have an innate tendency to be destructive. We are not content with simply living in harmony with nature. We must first understand nature for ourselves and then find a way to control. To make it work for us. We make our own way. We create actions, decisions, technologies, that are not 'of nature/God'.
God is described as being the creator of the universe, meaning He exists before/outside of the universe, which means He also exists outside of the dimension of space-time. From His perspective both time and space are like a single point. There is no difference between here/there/before/after. Therefore, from within this universe, He exists in every moment everywhere consistent and unchanged. When time isn't linear, there is only what does and does not exist. We are able to create/add to existence. Without our individual wills this existence would not be as it is. Knowing past/present/future doesn't matter. It's only what exists and what doesn't.I think what Thomas is saying is that if God transends time, the notion of free will could not exist. A universe that is capable of being altered by the will of a single human being cannot be known. If a being such as God is outside of space and time and sees our entire timeline simultaneously then we do not have free will because if we did He'd have no way of seeing it. I believe what you are describing is a deterministic universe, where the physical mechanics of interacting matter dicate all future events with 100% certainty. This would give God something "solid" to look at... a single point as you say. However, as you can tell from the very deterministic nature of such a universe, there'd be no way of ever chaning it. Our perception of free will would be a mere illusion, an inevitable electro-chemical event in our brains making us do what we were meant to do without us consciously realizing that we weren't in control. It's a tricky on alright.
If you're talking about willful action, volition, then it's really about the perspective of the one who's will is determining the action. From our perspective, our actions are freely chosen because we are experiencing time linearly. From our perspective, the future is not yet set. From the perspective of God being outside of the dimension of space-time, His willful action to give beings within this existence a will of their own has only one determined outcome because only one willful action was taken by each individual in each linear moment. So there's still only one determined existence. But this does not take the choice away from the one who willfully chose in the moment.
The free will versus determinism debate is certainly a tricky one, but ultimately I have to say it seems pointless to me. Because time is linear, each moment only happens once. Whether or not you could have chosen differently in any given moment is moot. You still made that decision and there's no going back.
Now, if we're talking about whether or not our behavior is physically determined by 'electro-chemical events' beyond our control, this basically boils down to the question of accountability. If it turns out that all human behavior is a result determined by physical processes outside of the control of the individual, is it ethical to hold them accountable? Some argue that free will is an illusion, and that refusing to acknowledge that fact we hinder our ability to maybe find more constructive ways to address undesirable behavior by striving to better know and understand the quality and inclination of all the forces bearing upon human nature. Then again this concept in and of itself suggests having a certain level of control in how we conduct ourselves in the future. Unless, of course, acknowledging determinism and altering conduct are determined results as well.
Unless we're someday able to actually forecast human behavior with 100% accuracy, there's really no end in site where this debate is concerned. And given the inherent uncertainty involved in the workings of matter on the quantum level, it would seem the ability to calculate human behavior with absolute certainty will never truly be attainable. So, what do you do?
HeadlyVonNoggin, if God doesn't know the future, he doesn't know everything, so he isn't omniscient. Pretty simple premise really. It doesn't matter if he's outside of time. Either he knows what we'll do or he doesn't. If he doesn't know what we're going to do (like you said), he's not omniscient (all-knowing).
Just to let you know, other Christians have said the exact opposite of what you're saying. All these things you say about evolution and physical laws, and God's perspective being a single point... where does it say that in scripture? Other Christians say the opposite to you. So are you just making it up as you go along, or do you have some evidence?
I dont follow him either. No need to follow someone who is about destruction. What these Gods do is beneath me. As a mother, I would not destroy my child. As a God these gods do. They are into some serious punishment that harms more than heals.
Didnt Jesus teach love each other? Isnt that a bit hyprocritical? In christian view, you can have 2 people with the same moral code, and of different faiths. One goes to heaven and the other goes to hell. How in the world does that make sense? Two people who love life, help people, love animals, etc etc. but one is Christian and the other isnt, and one goes to heaven, while the other one is subject to damnation. I will never follow a god so low in character.
Do not create a god who fits human shadow traits, for it causes so many bloody wars. Not just physical war, but the war of invading peoples space who live a happy life. We do not need to be save. We do not need to follow a god like yours.It doesnt have a name or religion. I refer to It as Grace, Gratitude and Unconditional love of everything.
I am an atheist. More people have been killed in the name of religion than anything else I can think of. I do good for people and it comes back to me. simple life.
When my mom was still living, she said there must be evil if there is to be good. If there were no unbelievers there would be no believers.
Who cares about gods? If a god-being exists, I can personally attest to the fact it could give a damn about lending a helping hand around here in even the most trivial of matters. So, it seems to me, we are all on our own folks. Don't believe it? Well, that is because you do not trust your common sense. Religion will do that to ya though. Too much "faith" blinds you.
Try this: Become all the good qualities you assign to your "god." Now ask yourself if its really you that lent that helping hand... or do you really wanna belittle yourself and give the credit to an invisible entity who really cares less whether or not you exist?
Tip for those who desire world domination: Teaching people to hope for the white knight that never really comes is a great way to make an entire population live in a state of mind that robs them of discovering their own personal greatness. This is where you come in and enslave them by stating that YOU and your personal cohorts are the sole messengers from the white knight and are given the divine ability to interpret his wishes. This of course can not be proved, but yet you tell them the white knight encourages your slaves to have "faith," and that they are indeed precious but more importantly "unfinished" sinners who need his divine salvation to be freed from their tainted existence (Their lives) and after death be given a ''better'' one. This of course is your ace in the hole because this kind of thinking gives them a problem in which they believe death is the ultimate solution, thus all you need to do now is ''humble'' the people, and give them 'work' that will make them worthy of remembrance in the eye of their savior..
Ain't that a bitch?This is a difficult concept, I know. Let me try it this way. If we're dealing with an existence that consists of a God with one constant unchanging will, and a planet populated by beings who each have an individual will of their own, then you've got multiple sources who are capable of creating things that are a part of existence. One of those, God, existing outside of time where past/present/future are all one, and the other a bunch of individuals within the dimension of time experiencing it moment to moment in a linear fashion.
Now, if God were to create existence exactly to His will, and that existence did not consist of beings capable of their own individual acts of volition, then you have that one universe that plays out that one way. If God were to create existence exactly to His will, and that existence DID consist of beings capable of their own individual acts of volition, then you have THAT one universe that plays out that one way. And if God created existence exactly to His will, and that existence consisted of beings capable of free will, and in one specifically chosen moment God willfully chose to intercede which resulted in an alteration to how things would have played out if He hadn't, then you would have THAT one universe that played out that way. If you take the same scenario, only this time God willfully chose to intercede in TWO specifically chosen moments that resulted in TWO alterations to how things would have played out if He hadn't, then you'd have THAT one. And so on and so on. There's still only one 'determined' existence from God's perspective, yet the freedom to choose how to behave for those within existence remains in tact.
Now, let's consider the story of Abraham and Isaac in that context. As I'm sure you're familiar, in the story God tests Abraham's commitment level by commanding him to take his son Isaac up on the mountain and sacrifice him. Right at the point that Abraham was about to do as he was told, God stopped him. Now, if God had never created the situation that caused Abraham to have to choose whether or not he would actually kill his son because God told him to, then God would not know for certain what Abraham would do. Whether or not God intervened in this instance would result in two potential outcomes. Either an existence where Abraham was never put in the position to have to choose and therefore never made the decision, or an existence where he was and he made a willful choice. In only one of those would God KNOW what Abraham would have done. And in that moment, where God actively participated, He still in that moment within time, as well as simultaneously outside of time, would not know until Abraham made a decision in that moment.
I wouldn't say I'm making it up, but I will say that this comes from no other source other than me if that's what you mean. I'm not parroting somebody else's views. And yes, I am very aware that my views differ greatly from most Christians. My views are formed through my own obsessive need to constantly contemplate existence from every conceivable angle. But it's far from 'made up'. I have never doubted science and I have never doubted God. In my mind, God is the creator of the universe and everything in it, and science is the most in depth look at His creation that you could ever hope for. And most importantly, the scientifically attained facts about this universe and everything in it are void of human flaws. While I have never doubted God, I have always doubted the human interpretation of Him. I believe the bible is exactly what it needs to be and that ultimately God reveals His nature to us through the 'book of scripture' and the 'book of nature'. If at any time the two seem to contradict, then it's human interpretation that is flawed.
As far as finding the stuff about evolution and the physical laws and God's perspective of time in the bible, it's really all summed up right at the start when it says 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. Existence is God's creation. It is the result and He is the cause. Understanding time as we now do, I look at it from that perspective. There are physical laws that matter is affected by in particular ways, if God is the creator, then He created these. They are 'of Him' as well. As for evidence, well, that's a tricky one. For what we're discussing here, no. One thing about God existing before/outside of existence is that this would mean He existed before the big bang. We can only scientifically study matter and energy from the big bang forward. So, in that regard, God is outside of the jurisdiction of science and therefore there is no evidence of His existence.Being an atheist, Christian, etc. is a choice. You are not born as an atheist. You are born with a mind to choose what you want. God created man and gave us free will. He wants you to choose Him, but only if you choose to. When you are born, you don't come out of the womb saying "I love God" or "I hate God." You are taught to believe what those around you believe. The older you get, the more you begin to think freely and make your own decisions. That is when you choose God or you don't.
Of course everyone was born an atheist. You were born an atheist and like you said, man is taught what to believe...if not for indoctrination or any religious affiliations that one was exposed to at a young age he/she would never be called a believer...maybe believer in something else but not on god.
I disagree. If you are not taught to believe in God as a child, it does not mean you will never be called a believer. We believe in things at different stages in life. God is timeless so there is no day, hour, minute, or second marked as the time you have to say I believe. You believe in God because you have chosen Him and accept Him as your Lord and Savior.
Nonsense. There is no such thing as god - you have been fed a line. Sorry - no one starts believing this nonsense without being fed it as a child. Hard to get out of your head once you start thinking for yourself, but you can do it.
You should try it.Geez Mark! You are still at it. Happy Thanksgiving!
I will always be at it all the time nonsense and drivel is being spouted. When that stops - I do.
Happy Thanksgiving to you also.
Wrong! God is just a human concept. It comes with culture. And god is NOT TIMELESS. God's time ends when people cease to believe. I used to believe that there is something up there, looking out for me, etc, etc but when I realized my delusion god concept is gone and what is left is reality...there is no god/s...!
Sorry, you've been told it's a choice, but it's not. Could you choose to believe in the tooth fairy or Santa?
I don't. Thanks for honouring my free choice, Renee.
But of course, this does not mean I lack love, or life, or concern, or responsibility, or passion, or anything which anyone attributes to "god."
I thank my parents and all who were around me as a child. They imparted what they could to me. They did not insist I take on everything they showed me. Life is a journey, each of us is on a unique journey! Let's start honouring this unique, i.e. one-ness, quality in each other. Then we find we are not entitled to coax, implore, urge our neighbour to follow any other path but his/her own path.
Surely it's the Unconditional Love which will allow us to do this. If anything, this the true message of that man called Jesus.
And this coming from myself who does not regard myself as a "christian!" Let's look for the unique gifts and assets of each other instead of arguing for conformity.
From the conversation above; I deduce that God created Atheists so preachers can practice their debating skills.
- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
0Want A sarcastic post ?........ Here it is , I am sooo sick of you guys trying to Stuff God down my throat, why just the other day I had to drive by a church .....a CHURCH can you imagine that ? And then at the food store I had to walk by a woman some little girls selling baked goods for a church trip . oh man it almost killed me , but on my way home on a hill near here is a huge lit cross at a small resort .........I almost threw up I'll tell you now ! And hey , whats with these clean cut LDS kids walking around the neighborhood wishing me a good day ? What are they bullies or something. I don't have to have any kind of a day at all if I chose not to . AND NOW , all those little baby Jesus things are going to pop up on the library lawns ! Hey thats my dammned library tooo! Well my throat is raw now from having all you Christians stuff your bibles down my poor little throat. I'm tired now , So Im going tp move on to the next religious forum and insult another Christian child of God ! This is a blast ! Its more fun than pac-man !
Once you give over your "charge" over to something or someone else, well now you are not really you anymore... You are now part of some other conglomerate of minds.. all speaking the same thing. Its like those seagulls in Finding Nemo. *MINE MINE MINE* Its really an inside joke for actual individuals to get, because the masses all say "mine", in the same tone, pattern, movement.. etc. This keeps me up at night... Laughing.
When I look around I no longer unique humans, but rather ''copies'', and plagiarizers of billboards, TV shows, religious nuts and ideologies, etc.. I especially like when people try to literally sell themselves to me, not knowing they are merely saying the same bullshit I hear on the TV, read in the news, and then when i finish their thought for them, they are ASTOUNDED at my mental prowess.
RAWRR.
Seriously, if one were so inclined you could easily gather a mass following and make them all jump off a cliff in the name of... god, save the earth, the mayan calendar, reptilians, etc... Come on people. You are starting to make me believe that I am in fact a higher species.
Vanity :] I am going to hell.- jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years ago0
Just thinking, as I read the last couple of posts, about the ramifications of belief in an "after-life."
Funerals; Churches; Synagogs; Mosques; ... these depend upon such a belief, otherwise where would they get their followers, and their income? Flowers, grave stones, memorials, commemorations, all the people who gain a living from these things benefit from the belief.
Capital Punishment: there is the presumption that the person you are executing will feel the punishment, somewhere in Hell. Yet without there being any after-life, that person you have killed is out of it! Nothing more to feel -- so no punishment! (At least not after you have applied the physical or mental torture). It's usually those left behind, the relatives, loved ones, who feel the punishment, for the remainder of their lives, usually.
Last but not least, there is the power that some people exercise over others, just by the threat of an eternally nasty place where you will be sent.
So maybe we are being a bit selfish trying to dispel the belief.
Sorry, I'm just an agonising Atheist!Yes, these things should be considered. The bigger issue in my mind is the very real possibility that people could begin to see death as relief from the pain of life. Parents could see ending the lives of their children as merciful when there seems to be little hope. It may be seen as selfish to try to hold on to the lives of others. Generally, I don't see that kind of viewpoint as having a very positive impact on humanity.
Oh dear, this time you've completely missed the boat. Every time I've ever read about parent killing there child out of despair they have always given the reason is that they wanted their child to go to heaven before they see the cruelty of this world or commit a crime that doesn't allow them to get into heaven. It's the promise of an afterlife that causes these crimes.
I was referring to that one millennium when humans first invented astrology/astronomy, mathematics, the written language, and when the first civilizations sprang up; Sumer (3500BC), Egypt (3400BC), the Indus Valley (3300BC), Akkad (sometime before 3000BC). It's when images of war and violence first made an appearance in art work. It's when humans first began to build defensive walls, when weapons became much more common, and when humans invented organized militaries. It's when we begin to see distinct differences in living quarters and burial methods that clearly illustrate class stratification. The beginning of slavery. The beginning of female repression. The beginning of child abuse.
The 6,000 year mark is extremely relevant.Not really. Although - I do think it is fantastic that you have such extensive knowledge of prehistory. Well done. Did god tell you this stuff into your head?
Odd - all I see is a logical progression of development. Great that agriculture had nothing to do with it as well, because that seems to be the demarcation line - what with the food surplus and all.Agriculture allowed us to settle in one place and is hugely important. But the 'logical progression' you're referring to, while it makes sense and has been the assumed view of many including myself for quite a while, the evidence simply doesn't support it. The changes I'm talking about were rather abrupt. Human behavior was the same throughout the thousands of years that came between the invention of agriculture/horticulture and the dawn of civilization as it was during the entirety of the hunter/gatherer phase. Even in large settled communities humans remained egalitarian, women were equal contributors and were treated equally, and humans weren't nearly as concerned with possessions.
What I'm referring to is an obvious shift in human behavior which suggests a dramatic change in the human psyche.
"the prevailing view is still that male dominance, along with private property and slavery, were all by-products of the agrarian revolution...despite the evidence that, on the contrary, equality between the sexes - and among all people - was the general norm in the Neolithic." -Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian
"If this was the case - and most scholars agree that it was - then we would expect the transition to agriculture to be accompanied by a great deal of conflict as the groups competed over dwindling resources. But as we've seen, there is almost no evidence of warfare in these areas until the fifth millennium BCE, more than 3,000 years after the advent of agriculture" - Steve Taylor, The Fall
"In any case, anthropological studies have shown that scarcity of resources does not necessarily lead to conflict between groups. Data collected by the anthropologists Carol and Melvin Ember establishes that "chronic, ordinary resource shortage is not a significant predicator of war." Or, in the words of R. Brian Ferguson, "the data just does not support a direct association of increasing [population] density and increasing war." - Steve Taylor, The FallOdd - you claim, "evidence," and then cut and paste "opinion." Once again I think we have a mis communication. The evidence is as it was.
Yes - switching from hunter gatherer to agriculture was a rather large shift in human behavior.
The evidence simply does not support your statements.You don't have to take my word for it, but I'd suggest you do some more reading before making those kinds of statements.
Um, we have. Perhaps you could suggest some evidence that contradicts our positions rather than just implying you are better informed than us based on... you saying so. That isn't really a good scholarly argument.
I have done so. Yours is the minority "opinion." and you have not presented any "evidence," to contradict the actual evidence.
Rad Man, I think you're trying to assign a very narrow idea of what you think that means, and I think you're selling the moon short. The moon provides indirect light to the earth for a majority of every month, with the only exception being when it is between the earth and the sun. I think you're underestimating the level of darkness we would experience if not for the moon.
I'm not sure what you want from me here. We're talking about the entirety of human development over the course of 3-4 thousand years. The evidence I'm referring to isn't some little-known tidbit of information. It's everything. A "good scholarly argument" usually entails both sides are well-versed in the topic.
You two, and psycheskinner I'm assuming you're totally in agreement with what Mark has been saying here, seem to be referring to the common views formed in the field of Evolutionary Psychology. I get it. The general assumption has always been that the discovery of farming led to larger settled populations, which led to increased social interaction, which led to the sharing of ideas, which led to advances in inventions and technologies, which eventually led to the dawn of civilization. The logic here in regards to changes in human behavior is that a settled lifestyle would allow for the accumulation of possessions which would create social stratification, it would create divisions of labor between those who work the fields and those who build homes or provide other services, and farming would give value to land and therefore make people territorial, eventually leading to war when resources were limited.
While this is a logical view, archaeological evidence simply doesn't support it. If it did, we'd know it. If there were a gradual progression in these settled communities from simple, to gradually more complex, from the beginnings of agriculture all the way to the first civilizations, we'd see it. But we don't. We don't know why/how humans first started practicing agriculture and we don't know why/how they turned into civilizations. The general view you two seem to be referring to is simply an assumption based on little evidence. When compared to actual evidence, it doesn't hold up. These changes were abrupt. It wasn't gradual. Something significant happened during the 4th millennium BC.
The evidence that supports this is simply too vast to include here. It's up to you to make sure you know what you're speaking about. Mark, your statements clearly show you are not very informed in the area we're discussing. I'm not trying to be rude. It's just the truth. It wasn't a gradual progression like you suggest. So, rather than give you ridiculous amounts of data, it's easier just to quote those who do know what they're talking about because they have studied it.....
"The thousand years or so immediately preceding 3000 BC [5000 years after the beginning of Agriculture] were perhaps more fertile in inventions and discoveries than any period in human history prior to the sixteenth century AD" - Archaeologist and Philologist V. Gordon ChildeWhat I want is some evidence. Sorry sweetie - it seems I just can't get you to understand the difference between "evidence," and "opinion."
The archeological record supports the opposite of majikal intervention. Sorry. Try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yocja_N5s1I
All changes to human development have been significant. Picking one and sezing "it were a goddunit" is just silly. And your minority opinion.It's okay, Snookums. I'm assuming you actually watched the video link you provided. I'm not sure you noticed, but he didn't say a single thing that conflicts with what I'm saying. In fact, I've discussed a lot of what he discusses specifically.
How agriculture was first began - "Maybe population pressure necessitated agriculture even though it was more work, or abundance gave people leisure time to experiment with domestication or planting originated as a fertility right or as some historians have argued, people needed to domesticate grains in order to produce more alcohol."
Human behavioral change - "Many historians argue that without the agricultural revolution we wouldn't have many of the bad things that come with complex civilizations like patriarchy, inequality, war, and unfortunately famine."
In other words, we don't actually know in either case.
"When major climate change took place after the last ice age (c. 11,000 BC), much of the earth became subject to long dry seasons. These conditions favoured annual plants which die off in the long dry season, leaving a dormant seed or tuber. These plants tended to put more energy into producing seeds than into woody growth. An abundance of readily storable wild grains and pulses enabled hunter-gatherers in some areas to form the first settled villages at this time." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture
So as a result of climate change, at the beginning of a series of dry seasons, the conditions made for abundant plantlife that produced a lot of seeds, which possibly led directly to the discovery of horticulture and the first human settlements.
Genesis 1: 29-31 - And God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat"; and it was so. And God saw every thing that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Notice here, before the creation of Adam in Genesis 2, Genesis 1 describes God actually teaching humans about seed-bearing plants, herbs, and fruit trees. For both humans and mammals it speaks of them using herbs and fruits for food, but only with the humans does it specifically talk about using the seeds that bear other herbs and fruit trees. This falls right in line chronologically with how it actually happened, after humans accomplished populating the earth (as they were commanded) and before the creation of Adam (free will/ego/selfishness).
And, of course, the discovery and ongoing excavation of Gobleki Tepe has only confused matters further as far as what we thought we knew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
"Recent DNA analysis of modern domesticated wheat compared with wild wheat has shown that its DNA is closest in sequence to wild wheat found on Mount Karaca Dağ 20 miles (32 km) away from the site, suggesting that this is where modern wheat was first domesticated."
This site dates back to when we thought humans were still in the hunter-gatherer phase, yet this site is made up of incredibly heavy and well-carved stones much more detailed and intricate than anything else that dates as far back. And while this was obviously an important place, nobody actually lived there. Then there's the added mystery in the fact that this place was purposefully buried more than once. Experts the world over are currently meeting to discuss the findings of this site. It appears to be tied to the beginning of agriculture, but many aspects of it don't fit the traditional thoughts about how it all happened. However, this site does fit my theory rather well.
No, I was talking about when you used the same line on me. While suggesting indigenous people lack free will until some unspecified anthropological event in no way associated with what Eve apocryphally did with a apple.
p.s. feel free to assume I know about evolutionary psychology. I have written textbook chapters on the subject.Maybe 'free will' is a confusing term to use. When I say free will I'm talking about a will apart from God's, which only really makes sense from the understanding of a God who created existence actually existing. But you can look at it as an individual will, or ego, or acute sense of self, or enhanced self-awareness. Basically, the point in history when human behavior became decidedly selfish and self-serving. There's a stark contrast between the humans of the hunter-gatherer/horticultural era (including those of the large settled communities that existed for thousands of years after the discovery of farming), and the humans that first created civilizations, beyond the inherent need to clothe ourselves. Behavioral traits not developed within these settled communities, but traits introduced by nomads who had these traits before they ever arrived in the settled communities. Traits that transformed the communities they settled in.
Considering you're familiar with evolutionary psychology, you understand the importance of using the information provided through evidence to form a psychological understanding of the evolution of the human mind. There's a lot of still very new information on the topic learned through studying a broad range of research data. Like what James DeMeo describes in his book Saharasia ...
"James DeMeo's Saharasia is the largest and most in-depth scholarly study on human behavior and social violence around the world which has ever been undertaken. The findings summarized in Prof. DeMeo's book cover the entire globe, from early prehistory into modern times, integrating on world-maps a full sweep of standard research data from the fields of archaeology and history, plus an in-depth cross-cultural review and mapping of data from over 1000 distinctly different human societies, from standard anthropological data bases. It employed standard cross-cultural correlation tables on over 60 different variables, plus geographical mapping and quadruple blind research procedures to insure objectivity"
http://www.orgonelab.org/saharasia.htm
I haven't had a chance to read this book yet myself, but I am very familiar with DeMeo's work, the theory he's presenting in this book, and the evidence it's based on. It's on my Christmas list, and yes, I am that big of a nerd to have a book about the evolution of human behavior on my Christmas list. That's how I roll.You need to specify wether you are talking about free will the philosophy or the theology. This has been our problem in the past and you will continue to confuse people if your not specific.
I'm already too wordy as it is. I have to make some assumptions as far as what needs to be specifically stated and what can be 'a given'. In my defense, we are in the 'Does God Exist?' portion of the forums. It's under the 'Religion and Philosophy' category, true, but in a subcategory that leans more towards the Theology side. I'll try to be more clear and, at the same time, less wordy. It's a delicate balance I struggle to find.
In my humble opinion, you are doing just great. I love the information you bring and bring out of others.
We can't all be biologists, ATM. Are you a biologist? But we can still comprehend and appreciate biology learned through all sorts of different media.
No, science does not make guesses, but people make guesses based on science, and that's what we're talking about.
We're discussing the evolution and development of the non-physical human mind. The mind, or psyche, is something that can develop and change significantly without altering physical structure. The mind itself cannot be observed or quantified. Whether we're talking about the development of the human personality, how we developed a sense of humor, why we cry, or whether we're talking about how or why humans assign purpose and meaning to their lives, you're still ultimately dealing with speculation and guess-work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of something 'coming about on its own' is the antithesis of scientific understanding, isn't it?
You're claiming that science knows things that it doesn't. These are assumptions. Assumptions that one day we'll arrive at how it all happened on its own through continued scientific investigation. Even if it's long after you and I are gone. It's faith, really. You're just invoking a different God to fill in the gaps where the answers aren't readily available to you.
Science doesn't understand anything. Science is a collection of methods to ascertain truths about the physical world. The stuff you fill in between the facts is you. You might arrive at your 'answers' through your own logical/philosophical deduction, or you may just be parroting someone else who you trust to know what they're talking about, but everybody fills in their gaps with something. You kind of have to. The key is to keep an open mind and to not too quickly dismiss something as 'impossible'. It only hampers growth. I'm open to being wrong. Are you?There you go again Headly, stating that there is something non-physical to the human mind. I particularly enjoyed the "The mind, or psyche, is something that can develop and change significantly without altering physical structure." Here's the thing, you can go around trying to connect genesis with the human evolution and archeology, but stating that the brains physical structure doesn't change is absolutely ridiculous. The structure of the brain changes constantly, it's called Neuroplasticity.
Neuroplasticity (from neural - pertaining to the nerves and/or brain and plastic - moldable or changeable in structure) refers to changes in neural pathways and synapses which are due to changes in behavior, environment and neural processes, as well as changes resulting from bodily injury. Neuroplasticity has replaced the formerly-held position that the brain is a physiologically static organ, and explores how - and in which ways - the brain changes throughout life.
I've studied neroplasticity quite a bit because a few years back one of my children was diagnosed with a few learning disabilities. The first thing I did was put him in the arrowsmith program where they have the child or adult to specific brain exercises to strengthen the particular part of the brain that isn't functioning properly. And let me tell you it worked.
Headly, just because you have a limited understanding of the brain and it's function doesn't mean everyone one does. There is nothing non-physical to the brain. When it's injured it changes ability and or personality, when it's exercised it changes ability an personality.
You're right, Rad Man, the mind does alter physical structure in this way. I do understand that. I was more speaking in terms of changes in human behavior over numerous generations with little to no physical alterations in the brain since we've been anatomically modern, and not so much physical changes during the course of a lifetime. Being that the brain is what it is at birth, that's what is passed on genetically. So, I guess the question is, can physical brain changes learned during the course of a parent's lifetime up to the point of breeding then be passed on to the child to continue on genetically? Do physical neural changes throughout life alter our genetics? I would think the answer to that is 'no', but that's something I do not know for certain and will have to investigate.
But I do have a hard time with reducing everything that makes me me and you you down to biological mechanics. Just the idea that if someone were capable and felt so inclined, they could alter the physical structure of my brain and completely change who I am as a person, what I hold dear, what I feel passionately about, what music I like, my favorite color, what I feel inspired or compelled to do, who I love, who I am.... that just seems cold. That would mean there's nothing to us that isn't already determined by our physical make-up or the influence of outside forces. That would mean that you and I don't actually control anything we do. It was all predetermined by things we had no control over. Is that really what you think?What makes humans human is our ability to adapt and learn. We are born with an empty slate and have 25 years to develop our brain. After that the brain is still plastic, but requires much more effort. It's thought that one of the things that was the demise of the neanderthals was that they had a much shorter child development. That and our ability to trade information is what made us who we are. Left to my own devises I would be unable to build a car, but for money it can be supplied to me.
The reality is brain damage can changes personality. Damage to a particular part (see diagram) result in lack of function to that behaviour. If you've ever witness someone with Alzheimer's as unfortunately I have, you would understand that changes to the brain result in changes to ability, personality and behaviour. YES, this does mean that here's nothing to us that isn't already determined by our physical make-up or the influence of outside forces. NO, it dosen't mean that you and I don't actually control anything we do. Actually it mean we have complete control, no spirits telling us what to do. Nothing was predetermined because there is no God. I believe in the philosophical free will. We have choices to make and these choices bring us down a possible different path. I choose a different college at the last minute and that's where I met my wife 31 years ago. "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." Rush.Haha, I love that I got a Rush quote from an authentic Canadian! You are Canadian, aren't you?
Okay, so you believe in the philosophical idea of free will? That we do actually choose our actions and that those alternate choices were actually options we could have taken but willfully didn't? If that's the case, then I have to ask, how does that work mechanistically? How can a biological mechanism have a preference beyond what's dictated by the ego's want to avoid displeasure or the id's need to feed a desire? I agree that we have an individual choice that we can willfully take, but don't understand how a brain made up of nothing more than biological materials, chemical happenings, and ever-changing neural pathways can equate to 'free will'. What is it in your biological, mechanistic mind that compels you to come here and have existential discussions with believers? I know you like to challenge people and make them think to see what they'll say. How do you equate that desire to a mechanistic brain?Yes, I am Canadian. Rush was my favourite band when I was young, why? Because they made me think. Who else talked about free will? Your other question is very deep and I'll have to give it some thought.
I think you are asking about thought, or how we control our thoughts and desires. I know a little about this because it's one of issues one of my son's has/had. When the frontal lobe is underdeveloped or damage you see a person unable to control their thoughts or desires. There is specific brain exercises that can help develop this area of the brain. For instance reading the word blue when it's colour red, or asking the person to tell you what colour the word blue is when it's red.
We know control our thoughts is a product of the brain because when there is damage to this are the persons abilities are limited. My 13 year old said to me a few months ago "Dad, I can think about thinking about stuff" That's being self aware.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_functions
Executive functions is an umbrella term for cognitive processes that regulate, control, and manage other cognitive processes, such as planning, working memory, attention, problem solving, verbal reasoning, inhibition, mental flexibility, task switching, and initiation and monitoring of actions. The executive system is a theorized cognitive system in psychology that controls and manages other cognitive processes. It is responsible for processes that are sometimes referred to as executive functions, executive skills, supervisory attentional system, or cognitive control. The prefrontal areas of the frontal lobe are necessary but not sufficient for carrying out these functions.
I hope this answers your question.We don't control the thoughts but the thoughts control us.
Speak for yourself please. I'm in control of most of my thoughts. I know when it's time to work and I can keep my brain on track to get the job done. Sure my sub-conscious want in and asks, "hey, lets go get a beer" but I'm in control. If I wasn't I'd be psychotic.
It does help draw a distinction between what I'm talking about and what I agree are mental processes of a physical brain. I'm talking about your will. The desires and ambitions that drive you that have nothing to do with survival. Your motivations and why you're motivated by them. Everything you're referring to, planning, working memory, attention, problem solving, verbal reasoning, etc, these are all mental processes we use as tools to accomplish what we 'willfully' want. I can see how these work mechanistically and how damage to the physical regions that process these functions would inhibit your ability to do so. But what about the 'will' itself that motivates you to do what you do? How can you equate your will, your desires and ambitions, or the pride you feel for your children or in a job well done, to something mechanical? How can, and why would, a biological machine 'want' to challenge the belief system of others to see what they'll say? What need/want does that serve in a biological mechanistic system?
Just like in the case of life itself, there has to be a motivator, something to drive the process. When something begins to move, you expect there to be a cause. Something that caused the motion/action to begin. The same goes for mental processes. Something has to initiate the blood flow to change and the neurons to fire in unison to focus attention. Our body works just like every other animal. Living things have an inherent will to survive, to seek those things that are pleasurable (eating, disposing of waste, sexual desires) and avoid/relieve things that are not (pain, hunger, a full bladder). But we humans want things far beyond simply satisfying our base needs and desires. What I'm talking about is the 'will' that actually motivates us to use these mental tools to accomplish whatever outcome it 'willfully' wants.
Our brains certainly make us much more capable of ingenuity and imagination than other mammals. But it's not just the more capable brain that makes us different. The difference is in what we want. We want beyond what's needed. Just look at the distinction I'm trying to point out between humans of civilization and primal/tribal cultures. We are genetically identical. Physically the same. Same physical brains. Same capabilities to reason, imagine, conceptualize, etc. Yet our output is dramatically different. Primal/tribal humans are content. 'Civilized' human history tells the story of a decidedly discontent and selfish species unlike any other in nature that takes way more than it needs, that destroys the environments it inhabits through a desire to control it and not be controlled by it, and who will destroy anything and anyone that gets in the way. This is what distinguishes us from them. The desires that drive us.
That's the part I'm talking about. That's the part that simply does not make sense as being nothing more than a mechanistic biological process.So, you didn't bother to do any research on the will to find out it is indeed a property of our minds, hence a biological process?
Yes I did, enough to know you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you can include some specific substance to substantiate your statement? Something like this ...
"Many brain activity measures have been insufficient and primitive as there is no good independent brain-function measure of the conscious generation of intentions, choices, or decisions. The conclusions drawn from measurements that have been made are debatable too, as they don't necessarily tell, for example, what a sudden dip in the readings is representing. In other words, the dip might have nothing to do with unconscious decision, since many other mental processes are going on while performing the task. Some of the research mentioned here has gotten more advanced, however, even recording individual neurons in conscious volunteers. Researcher Itzhak Fried says that available studies do at least suggest consciousness comes in a later stage of decision making than previously expected - challenging any versions of "free will" where intention occurs at the beginning of the human decision process."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
In other words, the jury is still very much out. What we do know is that there is, of course, physical activity in the brain that corresponds to when decisions are being made. No surprise there. But nothing about this says 'the will ... is indeed a property of our minds, hence a biological process'. You're simply stating another one of your unproven beliefs based on your philosophical view of known facts.
What does appear to be the case is that our intentions seem to come even before we're fully aware of them consciously. We have other intentions, like bodily needs and desires, that come up from somewhere deeper than consciousness as well, but then we humans clearly have so much more than that. Something that we can't seem to capture using all the latest gadgetry. It's just something that seems to be there right from the start. It must have a cause beyond bodily need or a means to survival. So, what would that be exactly?You see, this is one of the reasons why it is pointless to discuss anything with you. I didn't say anything about "free will", because that's not what you said, you said this...
"I'm talking about your will."
So, it would appear that in order for you to accuse me... "you don't know what you're talking about" it requires that you move the goalposts in order to talk about something else. Your dishonesty knows no bounds, which is what we have observed from you all along. Of course, we also expect the same dishonesty from those who would toss out such remarks as...
Let us then go back to the source you referred to see if indeed I do know what I'm talking about...
"Will, in Western philosophical discussions, consonant with a common English usage, refers to a property of the mind, and an attribute of acts intentionally performed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_%28philosophy%29
Really? Even if I were to use your own reference of free will, can we find anything contained within it to show that it is a property of the mind?
How about these qualifiers...
"brain activity measures...independent brain-function measure of the conscious generation of intentions, choices, or decisions...mental processes... individual neurons..."
Notice that all of those are properties of the mind?
And, you are dishonest for moving the goalposts. Even within that statement, you copied my post which stated "the will" and then proceeded to refer to the "Neuroscience_of_free_will"
Once again, your dishonesty and incredulity rule your worldview, as you resort to inferring your religious beliefs.
Okay, now your just talking about ego and greed.
Wikipedia;
Ego is a Latin word meaning "I", cognate with the Greek "Εγώ (Ego)" meaning "I", often used in English to mean the "self", "identity" or other related concepts.
Ivan Boesky; "greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."
You should be aware that greed is cultural. My family is from an island off the Canadian east coast and I can tell you they are culturally different then those from the Toronto area. My family from the east coast not only do not show greed but the seem to despise it. I someone from the community makes it big they generally being to hate that person. They don't care what car they drive or how big their house.
Greed has nothing to do with something that happened a few thousand years ago. It's cultural and it's driven by how we want others to perceive us.Nice touch with the 'Wall Street' quote. Although I thought that was Gordon Gecko, the character from that movie, and not the quote of an actual stock trader involved in scandal, but maybe that quote was taken directly from him. That sounds like something Oliver Stone would do.
That is true now, but hasn't always been. And yes, it has everything to do with what happened a few thousand years ago because it didn't exist in any environment before that. Like what Mr. Gecko said, "Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind". Depending, of course, on your definition of 'upward'. That 'upward surge' began in Mesopotamia just over 6,000 years ago.
"The Ubaid period as a whole, based upon the analysis of grave goods, was one of increasingly polarized social stratification and decreasing egalitarianism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_culture
It happened in one specific place. Large, highly populated communities existed in Europe and northern Mesopotamia for many, many centuries without it. It started in southern Mesopotamia, first during the Ubaid period, then continued on in the Uruk period. Then it happened in Egypt, then the Indus Valley, then Akkad, Syria, Greece, Rome, China. But didn't happen in those regions of the world that could not be so easily reached for a very long time; Australia, Africa south of the Sahara, North/South America.
No matter the environment, no matter the conditions, no matter the density of population or scarcity of resources, it didn't exist all throughout Eurasia until it was brought in by nomads from the Sahara. These people changed every settled community they came in contact with. This is what's becoming apparent in the archaeological record and what I've been trying to point out this whole time.
It's what the whole bible is about. Free will. An individual want and whether or not you 'want' for yourself or for the many. Would you or I knowingly and willingly be one of the thousands of cells that first have to form for a human fetus to form, that then die off when they're done? For the good of the whole? Like the cells that form the webs between the fingers? Or do we individually feel that we're more important than just serving the role of a temporary cell that serves a selfless purpose for the greater good?
Human selfishness and greed and pride is the key. That's the difference. That's what the individual/free human will is. That's what can't be boiled down to mechanistic mental processes, isn't consistent with ideas of it being cultural or societal based on environment, and is the whole purpose to Jesus, salvation, sin, all of it. It's all the same thing.Greed is simply the sub-consious mind wanting things, those with a good strong conscious mind are able to control greed or impulses that arise from the sub-conscious. People struggling to service typically don't have time for greed, there effort is to supply food. Once people started farming they had more time to think about what they want and not need.
As I've said before the culture of the east coast of Canada has significantly less greed, because it's what's taught in their culture. I have a good friend from a different part of the east coast how has moved to the Toronto area and he happens to be a well paid corporate lawyer. He has a modest house and modest cars and modest friends. He is like no other lawyer I've ever met. People from the east coast don't show off. It's cultural. Sorry, there is nothing spiritual about the brain. Nothing invisible that can't be detected or explained.
greed |grēd|
noun
intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.
To illustrate my point lets look at individuals with problematic brains.
Autism for example, these people seem to have very few wants including social interaction. What is the difference between an autistic person and a non-avistic person? Brain function is the answer as both people according to you would have a soul and free will. Therefore brain function is directly connected to greed.Listen to what you just said. "Greed is simply the sub-conscious mind WANTING things". Exactly. Our wants and desires come from that little-understood realm of the mind that we put everything that's not part of the 'conscious' mind into. So, how exactly does greed beyond what's needed, pride in a job well done, or the desire to challenge the belief systems of others, equate to a mechanistically produced subconscious mind?
Humans have always been a social animal. Always migrating in packs, or tribes. So looking at human behaviors like greed or the love of possessions and equating them to naturally evolved behaviors that supported successful survival doesn't jive. If anything, these would be tendencies that would get you excluded from the tribe. The traits that are most uniquely modern human don't make sense in the natural world, even in our own species.
And unlike your assumption that hunter-gatherers spent all the their time gathering food, research shows very differently ....
"When anthropologists began to look systematically at how contemporary hunter-gatherers use their time, they discovered that, far from exhausting themselves in their search for food, they only actually spent 12 to 20 hours per week searching for it - between a third and a half of the average working week in the modern world." - Steve Taylor, The Fall
"There is every reason to conclude that human life in the Pleistocene {between 1.8 million years and 10,000 BCE) was - relative to our own lives and even more so when compared with the lives known to Hobbes and his own contemporaries - rather low-stress, communal, peaceful, and rich in many important ways." - Christopher Ryan in response to Thomas Hobbes summary of human life as "nasty, brutish and short".
In Robert Lawler's studies of Australian Aborigines, he noted that they still live as hunter-gatherers and only spend around four hours per day searching for food, and devote the rest of their time to leisure activities such as music, storytelling, artwork and being with family and friends.
Like bBerean brought up, the physical brain gives the spiritual soul a means to interact with the physical world. People with physical disabilities in the brain can have the same wills and desires as everyone else, they're just hindered by these physical brain disabilities to carry out these desires.Greed is most definitely a product of evolution. In some societies culture allows for greed and in these cultures the person who is good a getting what he greeds for will be successful and will propagate many times over, thus passing on his or her genetic ability to get more stuff. Look, as I've said my culture is not one of greed, but I've been raised in a greedy culture so I have wants that my relatives do not. My brother in law (passed away at the at of 38) was greedy for many things including food. His need for food was his demise. His son shows the very same greed and usability to share even though the child was only about 4 when his Dad passed. Genetics.
Again do you have any evidence of someone with a brain disability wanting the same things that many of us do? Does the autistic have the same wants as a wall street broker? Why does my friend that's a very well paid lawyer from a culture that despises greed not drive an expensive car when he has the means?
Sorry Greed is cultural and genetic and is a perfect example of how evolution works. You cannot see that because of your indoctrination into a fantasy world.Yes, you're right. There are cultures that exist where these behaviors are actually rewarded. These cultures are known as patrist, as opposed to matrist, which is what hunter-gatherer and early horticultural human cultures were. All throughout history these traits were treated like you say your relatives treat them. That's how tribal humans behave. Hunters give an arrow to another hunter who gets a kill, but then the one that made the kill refuses to take credit for the kill, instead giving credit to the one who gave him the arrow. When someone would begin to try to push their weight around and take over control in a tribe, they would be systematically dealt with by the tribe. In fact, it's these tenants seen in tribal humans that both the American constitution was based on as well as the foundations behind the philosophical idea of socialism. The problem is, socialism doesn't work with modern humans because we simply don't like the idea of everyone being treated and provided for equally. We are patrist. But these societies and cultures have only existed for the very last .000001 percent of human history.
You're making assumptions that the archaeological record doesn't support.I'm making assumptions? Your the one assuming thought is not an ability of the brain with no evidence to support as you have already admitted and you say I'm making assumptions about greed and culture.
Don't get what I'm saying twisted up. You, and others here, are trying to say that we already know and understand the mind through science and that it can be factually proven that there is no room for our beliefs. Basically, you're trying to tell us that our views are irrational because we're ignoring proven facts. I'm simply trying to show you that is not the case. If a spiritual soul/will did in fact exist, this is where the gap in our physical understanding still allows for that. I'm not trying to prove my beliefs, or 'assumptions'. I'm trying to illustrate how your objections to my view are not substantiated by known facts.
We have very little understanding where the mind is concerned because it is ultimately a non-physical entity that doesn't conform well to our standard methods of investigation. We're trying to understand it by studying the brain because that is where the most physical activity happens in relation to mental activity. We do, however, have a much better grasp of human history and human behavior because there is much more substantial physical evidence. My 'assumptions' don't conflict with known facts. Yours do. That's the difference.
Again, maybe you can explain to me how your desire to challenge the belief systems of others to see what they'll say can be reduced down to a mechanical process of a biological brain. Or how you equate that to naturally evolved human behaviors.I've done all that, time and time again. You are the one making the claim that our thought doesn't come from the brain in the face of the overwhelming evidence. You've made that claim, it's time to back it up with evidence. I've supplied evidence evidence showing that one of the brain's actions is thought, I'll wait for yours.
You keep doing this, Rad Man. You keep misrepresenting my stance and then arguing against that version rather than what I'm actually saying. That is not at all what I said. Again, I never once said that thought doesn't come from the brain. I can't know that factually, and neither can anybody else. All I have pointed out is the gaps in our understanding. I have agreed with you time and time again that things like processing light/visual images, sound waves, sampling particles through olfaction/smell, touch, taste, learning, memory, are all things that we can associate to physical happenings in the brain. We're both talking about the same evidence.
The will that drives us, that 'causes' our behavior, is barely understood. We know that the body has certain needs and desires programmed through countless generations of evolution and adaptation. Needs and desires that bubble up from the 'subconscious' that our conscious mind/ego then negotiates with reality to make happen in some way that doesn't ultimately bring about displeasure. This happens in all mammals to some degree. But the wants and desires that are decidedly human, specifically modern humans, cannot yet be reduced down to mechanical/biological processes. There's a reason we're so different than the rest of the natural world. Far beyond how we react to seeing our own reflection. There's a reason our wants/desires cause us to destroy and overpower and force our will on others and live in such contrast to the natural cycle of life like no other species.
Your stance, the one that just assumes there's nothing to 'life' beyond what's understood that causes all living biological species to exhibit homeostasis, organization, adaptation, growth, response to stimuli, etc, the one that assumes everything that makes humans what there are is nothing more than physical processes of a physical brain, all of that, is just as limiting as attributing it to God. It's assuming we know more than the facts actually prove that is the death of progress.
That's why I go a step further in actually illustrating that the ancient document that claims the existence of a God and claims to describe the formation of the planet and all life on it, and that claims to describe how humanity began, can actually be seen in our history. It actually goes a long way towards explaining things we're still trying to figure out. I'm positing an alternate hypothesis that's supported by copious amounts of evidence. I'm not just injecting God into the mix all willy-nilly. I'm trying to offer an actual explanation supported by a very misunderstood ancient document of unknown origin.
Maybe I'm totally off-base. If we could actually get past these baseless objections to a God even existing then maybe we could actually get into the meat of this hypothesis. Instead, you and many others here try to object to the idea of a God existing categorically so that this discussion isn't allowed to go any further. Basically, it's that same death of progress based on assumptions that we know more than we do.Am I still waiting for your evidence? Talk, talk, talk and change the goal posts. I will not object to the existence of a God, any God, when you show evidence of such God. Will you object to me saying that aliens are in my tub? Do you want evidence or will you accept my word for it? For crying out load, I just watch an episode of the myth busters that showed how fMRI's, EMG's can detect thought and can determine which section or lobe of the brain the thought is coming from.
You did a few time confess that thought does not come from the brain, we both know that. When I give you evidence of the contrary you quickly change the goal posts, and talk about will for free will, but those things are also thought.You frustrate me, Rad Man. We have talked about this at great length. First of all, you're rolling an awful lot of mental phenomena up into the umbrella term 'thought'. Clearly, there are multiple facets to a thought. Thinking, planning, imagining, conceptualizing, envisioning, these are all things that happen in the brain. The physical brain processes physical information, light, sound, smells, tastes. Information. You then access and use this information. The physical brain allows us to interact with the physical world.
Then, there's you. The 'you' that uses these mental processes, which will obviously show equivalent brain activity, to figure something out, or to make a plan of action, or to imagine a desired outcome and what actions will most likely result in that desired outcome. The user of the computer. The ghost in the machine.
What evidence do you suggest? You're basically asking me to prove a negative. I can show you the lack of evidence or understanding where physical brain activity can be associated to our will/volition, maybe through quoting somebody much more qualified than myself basically stating that we don't know much of anything. Is that what you want?
From one artist to another, you honestly perplex me where the mind is concerned. You even acknowledge free will, yet you stick to your guns about everything we are being the process of a biological machine. As an artist you've actually described inspiration coming up from the subconscious and being 'in the moment' or 'in the zone' when you most successfully act on that inspiration. You yourself describe the subconscious as this entity that 'tells' you things when it's ready. Then you throw your hands up and say, look, there's activity in the brain while we think. That's all it is. Blood and sugar and electricity and there you have it, a reasoning being capable of freely, willfully choosing his/her own destiny. A will that apparently is somehow simultaneously the result of the chemistry of our brains while at the same time apparently being exempt from the laws of physics so that it may actually be 'free'. Just biological happenings that make you 'want' to challenge the beliefs of others to see what they'll say. How does that even make sense?You're getting closer, but you just don't understand what free will means outside theology. Free will basically means our choices matter. I can't explain it unless I explain the argument against free will. On the big scale the stars and planets are aligned. We (not me specifically) know where each planet or star will be in the night sky for the foreseeable future. With enough knowledge we can predict the future. On a smaller scale if one were to know what every molecule on the earth or universe for that matter were doing and any given point, that person or people would be able to predict the future. Say goodbye to free will, every choice would already be made or predicted. I don't think that's possible because I don't think it possible for anyone or any group of people to obtain that knowledge.
So, in other words, you do believe in determinism ultimately, but just think we'll never be able to know enough to actually predict the future exactly. Determined, but unattainable.
Here, try these ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF54xqYhIGA - Boundaries of the Knowable (1/10) - Consciousness and the limits of science
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8EI4obG5zM - Boundaries of the Knowable (2/10) - Free Will and DeterminismHeadly, I've just watch the first in the series and will get to the second, but I can tell you that intelligence has very little to do with faith. He clearly has an agenda and constantly contradicts himself. He actually said that fundamental science will one day stop and then says we will always need bigger tools for science. Well which one is it. He even said there can be no reason evolution gave us these brains, but then stated that chimps experience self-awareness as well. Why would chimps need self-awareness and not us? Why not instead ask why are humans smart. What did we do that chimps or other primates not do? We use tools to hunt our prey. What does one need to successfully launch a spear a few hundred feet and hit a target? Try to do the math with pencil and paper and then go outside an through a ball. The math happens instantly in most of our head. We just know how hard or high to throw some to hit a target. Evolution has left us with a large complex brain because of our need for survival.
An agenda? Now you're just being cynical. And he doesn't contradict himself. This is a highly respected man doing a series that accomplishes exactly what it set out to do. Exactly what the title suggests. It outlines the 'boundaries of the knowable'. There are boundaries and limitations to science. Fundamental science will someday stop. Not for quite a while, most certainly, but there will be an end to what's knowable. The 'tools' he was talking about were the products and technologies that come from our knowledge gained through science.
Here you are, claiming to know more than this respected particle physicist/professor because you assume he has some kind of religious-based agenda and by that are suggesting he's being purposefully deceptive?Not necessarily. Feel free to investigate for yourself, but I assure you that no scientist worth his/her credentials would tell you any different.
Any scientist letting his/her religious views into the picture is not being a good scientist. Science doesn't care about religion, in good science religion is not part of the equation, because it limits the direction and depth of the work. For instance, if you think there is a limit to our understanding of the brain because your religious views tell you that is the case, you will stop looking. Much like the middle ages.
There will always be more to learn. Time travel or a warp drive for example. All CERN has done so far is create more questions. I invite you to study the human brain and how we know what the different parts do without jumping to the conclusion that there is something spiritual to the brain. You might just learn something, but like this you're stuck attempting to prove yourself right.These videos have nothing to do with his religious views. If you don't get what he's saying then you don't get science. I'm not sure what else to tell you.
Wikepedia
Russell Stannard is a retired high-energy particle physicist, who was born in London, England, on December 24, 1931. He currently holds the position of Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Open University. In 1986, he was awarded the Templeton Prize for ‘significant contributions to the field of spiritual values; in particular for contributions to greater understanding of science and religion’.
So these videos that you like so much have nothing to do with his religious values? He just happens to share your values and says we have a limit to what our knowledge can be? As I said he's now letting his religious views cloud his otherwise scientific mind.
Are you really going to stand there (or sit there) and tell me these videos that you like so much do not reflect his religious views?No, you're letting your anti-religious view cloud yours. Much like you do with me, you're willing to make all kinds of assumptions and accusations about intentions when you don't agree. It can't be that you're just wrong? It has to be everyone else forcing their views down your throat?
When it comes to that accusation, you seem to be overlooking the log in your own eye.
Yes, when you try to shove your religious views down my throat I start to question motives. What's wrong with that? You ask us all to view these videos of this guy you admire so much because he will explain the universe for us. His explanation is that scientific knowledge is limited, but upon further review of his credentials we find he has awarded the the Templeton Prize for ‘significant contributions to the field of spiritual values; in particular for contributions to greater understanding of science and religion’.
The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works.
But on further review I don't see him on the list at http://www.templetonprize.org/previouswinner.html?
I do see him here http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-890151-36-2
The Templeton Foundation, known for sponsoring the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, also encourages friendly conversations between religion and science.
I also find him here
http://templetonpress.org/author/russell-stannard
His novel title are:
Www.Here-I-Am
Science And The Renewal Of Belief
God For The 21st Century
And my personal favourite;
Curious History of God, The
Stories in the Bible present pictures of God that can be confusing, but author Russell Stannard shows young people how apparent inconsistencies in descriptions of God in the Bible stories are merely people from different places and times getting to know God better. In the same way as people's understanding of the world has changed and improved over time (through science), so their ideas and understanding of God have changed and developed.
Here again, but even more confusing because he is again listed as being awarded the Templeton Project Trust Award ‘for significant contributions to the field of spiritual values; in particular for contributions to greater understanding of science and religion’ (1986).
http://www.counterbalance.org/bio/stann-frame.html
"I am now concentrating on lecturing, writing and broadcasting. These concern two fields of interest:
Science and religion
I have written a number of books on the subject (Science and the Renewal of Belief, Grounds for Reasonable Belief, Doing Away With God?, Science and Wonders, and contributed chapters to Evidence of Purpose, How Large is God?, and Spiritual Evolution).
Doing Away With God? was shortlisted for the Collins Biennial Religious Book of the Year.
I gave the 1987 and 1988 Gifford Lectures at Aberdeen University and this led to the book, The God Experiment, published by Faber in October 1999, and by HiddenSpring in the USA.
In 1999 I led a team of 50 scientists drawn from eight countries, writing newspaper articles aimed at reviewing how we are to see religious belief in the light of modern science at the dawn of the new millennium. It gave rise to a book, God for the 21st Century, published by the John Templeton Foundation Press and by SPCK in Spring 2000.
In 1996, I devised and presented Science and Wonders, a series of five 45-minute programmes for BBC Radio 4, based on conversations I had with 40 scientists, philosophers, psychologists and theologians. It was voted the Number 1 Radio Achievement of the year by The Sunday Times.
In 1994, with financial backing from the John Templeton Foundation, I devised and wrote a series of four 20-minute videos, The Question Is... dealing with the relationships between science and religion for young people. These were produced by a BBC team. To date, 40% of all UK secondary schools have bought it for use in Religious Education lessons.
Over the past 4 years I have delivered 50 broadcasts in the Thought for the Day series on BBC Radio 4.
Recent other broadcast appearances have included Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman (9 Dec 99) on the subject of religion, Moral Maze (18 Dec 99) on evolution and morality, In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg (23 Dec 99) on prayer, and Heart of the Matter with Joan Bakewell (7 Mar 00).
I give many talks and lectures on science and religion. In 1996, at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury, I and the Archbishop of York conducted an all-day seminar on science and religion for all 100 bishops of the Church of England. The most notable talks delivered in the last 18 months were a Friday Evening Discourse at The Royal Institution and a Public Lecture at The Royal Society, both on the topic of God and cosmology.
Books for children
Since 1989 I have written 11 books for children, mostly about science. These have included the Uncle Albert trilogy (The Time and Space of Uncle Albert, Black Holes and Uncle Albert, and Uncle Albert and the Quantum Quest) which covers the work of Einstein - the special and general theories of relativity, together with quantum theory - in a way that is accessible to children of 10+. The last book in the series was for a time the Number 1 children’s best-seller in the UK, and got to Number 5 in the overall (adults) paperback bestseller list.
The books have been translated into 18 languages, shortlisted for the Science Book Prize (4 times), the Whitbread Children’s Novel of the Year, the American Science Writing Award, and nominated for the Carnegie Medal and the Kate Greenaway Medal.
The Curious History of God in which I trace out how the conception of God developed over Biblical times - and is still developing today, came within three votes of being selected Children’s Book of the Year by the Christian Booksellers’ Convention.
Press reviews over the last year have included comments such as:
‘Wonderfully lucid child-friendly answers’ Sunday Telegraph.
‘Enough to make a parent weep with gratitude’ The Guardian
‘The best has just got better... Russell Stannard is the very best writer of science books for children’ The Independent
In addition to writing books for children, I give many talks at schools and literary festivals, such as those at Edinburgh, Cheltenham, Guildford, Hay-on-Wye, etc. On four occasions I have delivered multi-media, pyrotechnic presentations on astronomy, cosmology and relativity to audiences of 800 8-13 year old school children each time at Imperial College London and at Glasgow University. These events have been sponsored by the Institute of Physics, the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and the government’s Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council."
Please don't insult me by telling me his videos are from a purely scientific perspective.
Okay, he's described Free will exactly as I had just done about an hour ago. Nothing new here.
Someone with a brain disability is not relevant to the question. I want different things as I age and my needs change. So too, people with disabilities have different needs and perspective. If my disabled child were not disabled she would be wanting an apartment, college tuition and perhaps a nice car. Instead she wants all the love and attention we can give her, 24x7. I am very familiar with disabilities. I get clear glimpses, from time to time, of the true character and personality striving to interact with us through a very limited interface.
Sorry to hear your family has to deal with a disability. You did however make my point. An injured brain wants different things. That is exactly what I was saying. I also have a child with learning disabilities and it's a constant struggle and I can feel his pain because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. I struggle through grade school, high school and collage not being able to take the courses I wanted to because of my own limitations. Once again this world looks more like a survival of the fittest world then a loving God/father taking care of us world.
Ok, Rad Man. Describe "thought" to us. What is it? What does is look like? Has it got physical dimensions? Has it height, length and breadth? Can you hear it, feel it, bump into it?
If it has none of these characteristics or attributes, then it is not physical.
But if it does not in fact come "from the brain," then your statement could be held to be true.Yes, thought is a physical product of the brain and this has been proven through MRI and CT scans on people with all kinds with problems including the people once thought to be brain dead. Any injury to the brain can cause changes in personality or intelligence. I can do the research for you or you could do a simple google search for yourself.
MRI and CT scans do not show you thought. They give an indication of where the chemico-biological activity is most taking place in the brain, and where it can be assumed the thoughts are emanating from. And of course they can give a demonstration of where such activity has departed from the norm.
In a similar fashion, a volt-meter can show a graphic analogy of the electrical potential across a conductor; an ammeter can give an analogy of the current flowing in a conductor. In neither case does it show you the applied force or the actual electrical current. Measurements can be stated but they are still analogous.
You cannot put a bundle of thoughts into a box, tie it up with string and present it for examination.
Thought is not a finite "thing."Ah, you're a little behind in your knowledge on this one. Doctors have been recently communicating with people previously thought to be brain dead. That's right, communicating.
Behind? !!!! You are back in your belief system, Rad Man.
It's certainly true that deeper knowledge and understanding, coupled with advances in technology, has enabled minute interactions within the brain to be detected. Individuals thought to have been brain dead have survived and revived surprisingly. I have seen this first hand. The fact was that person was not "dead" in the first place. I am not up to date in this area of knowledge, probably you have been researching with Google maybe, and drawn your own presumptions based upon your desire to prove a point.
Having spent 45 years of my life working in diagnostic radiography, I do not claim to have been the best radiographer by a long shot....but it has given me some insights....In the latter years of my career I was literally amazed when working in the operating theatre and witnessing what can be done with modern techniques and digital equipment. Paramedic crews are so skilled these days that a person very seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, who would formerly most certainly have died on the way to hospital, can be brought successfully to hospital, resuscitated, receive intensive therapy, be operated upon and survive to a new lease of life. He/she might have appeared dead to the uninformed, but they were not in fact dead.
You said "communicated with." A response, regardless of magnitude, can hardly be called "communication." Would you say that touching the leg of a frog, severed from it's former body, with an electrical probe attached and seeing it jump, would be a communication?
But then you are probably doing an ATM trick here, just trying to stir the argument, with little substance. I can laugh at jokes too. 
I agree with John. To use an analogy, thoughts are like computer software. You can open up a computer, see the circuits, ic chips and transistors and even get a shock, but will never be able to see/touch the software.
Sorry, you are both wrong. Thoughts can be seen using functional MRI scanning. For instance asking the patient to think about a horse will show you what his/her brain does when they think of a horse. Thereafter when his/her brain show the same pattern you'll know she is thinking of a horse. It's primitive right know, but it won't be long before it's much more functional. Moreover during brain surgery thoughts can forced upon a person. For instance if the patient smell burnt toast before a seizure they look for the area of the brain the forces them to think they smell burnt toast.
fMRI won't show you the' thought' but only that area of the brain with which we think.
Say your horse, when we think about the horse some areas of thread brain are activated. The blood supply to that area compared to other areas increases as that area is exercised and hence it need more energy. fMRI detects that increased supply of blood and energy not thought as such. In a black and white picture of the brain we get yellow or red areas indicating that area is working more, at that particular instant.I am aware that the fMRI detects blood flow. The blood flow is an indication of thought. Hence blood flow is a product of thought so the fMRI is detecting when and where thought is happening.
Exactly, it detects when and where thoughts are HAPPENING not thoughts
"Hence blood flow is a product of thought...." No, it's the other way round. The flow of the blood brings sugars, oxygen, nutrients to the nerve cells so they get the energy they need to function, that function is manifest in thought. You can say the thought is the awareness, the consciousness. In the unconscious state we have no thought, no awareness.
I'm not sure why you are arguing with me, we are saying the same thing. Thought comes from the brain, not some soul, and this can be proven.
What you say here is fine, I agree with you, but I have come to the point where I don't need to prove the existence of a soul or otherwise.
I feel totally comfortable in others having their belief provided they don't put it up as a "fact" that everyone needs to accept. And provided they leave me to have my understanding without being ridiculed.
I feel that this argument has got to the point where a lot of ridicule is being thrown at religious believers. Don't you think we need to step back and gain a bit of mutual respect?Sure, respect is good, however this is the "Why God Created Atheists?" forum. So I think in this case we are allowed to defend our position. I have no problem with you feeling you have a soul. You will however notice that no Atheist has ever knocked on your door and tried to convert you. In my world I keep my opinions to my self, because Christians don't like the word Atheism, I've lost a few friends that way.
If I have shown some disrespect I am sorry. Please point it out the next time you see it and I'll apologies then as well.Ok, to go back to that fundamental question then, it makes the presumption that a god exists that can do the creating. The second presumption is that an "atheist" can indeed be created.
It has taken many years for this to happen, but gradually I have allowed myself to become atheist in my attitude to the possibility of a judgmental "god." So you could say I have been an "atheist in the making."
In the course of that journey I became atheist in total, for a time at least. That is to say I disbelieved in a god totally, whether in the form of a "creator" or in the form of a "judge."
For reasons which I have tried to state in previous posts, I now feel more accepting of the existence of some kind of creator, or organiser would be a better term, of this finite world I find myself in. I cannot conceive of an "old man in the sky" with the appearance of the Wizard in Lord of the Rings. I would look more into the subatomic realms to contemplate the energy or force which led to the existence of this finite form.
The acting out of finite existence, in my view, would be done by the life forms of biology, plus the matter within the stars and planets of the universe, the volcanic upheavals, the workings of time and space. All this being a mass of mysterious happenings which we, the human biology form, are trying to unravel and understand. Maybe this mission is the very reason we humans have come into existence. Admittedly it tends to put us up on a superiority pedestal if we accept that. Yet what is the place of the ant and the bacteria? How important are they in the whole scheme of things?
Look at me! If you're a god out there, planning to make judgement of me, you don't have a look-in mate! I don't believe in you!Fair enough, I just don't understand what would propel you to think or consider that there must be something out there. There is no evidence at all for such a God and why can't we just be here, now? Humans don't need to have some purpose, we are just like every other animal, biological. We just happen to be able to create and share our creativity. It's the sharing part that has brought us where we are and given us the time to be able to think. As hunters and gatherers we hadn't had the time.
My "god out there" was said tongue-in-cheek. I don't accept there is a god out there any more than there is a god "in here."
I accept your call to just be and share and live with each other.... in harmony? But then even a harmony needs to be ever changing, and to have dimensions, extremes of one sort or another.
To have a purpose is important for me. It has become much less of a striving "out there" or "in here" and more an acceptance of "just is." This attitude is having a very calming effect up my life as I get older. So the understandings of this Theism/Atheism is also dependent on where each one of us "is" in life.
It's just important for me to consider what everyone in this forum has to say as it is to look in my mirror and see what I need to sort out for myself.
I did error when I said brain dead, I meant in a vegetative state.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/s … state.htmlYou saw more than there is. We have different areas in our brain. So when a question is asked, the areas related to the answer like pain area or visual area get activated and we are able to guess what the patients think, but we won't be able to get any specific answer only which area is working, hence no complex answers. There is one more problem, the one you said-plasticity. Say a limb is amputated, then the brain areas that corresponds to that limb will be redistributed or taken over by other parts of the body. So even our prediction may not be correct in a vegetative patient whose major chunk of brain is idle.
What is interesting is that they can communicate with someone in a vegetative state. They can see the brain's activity change on demand. This is seeing thought, I didn't say reading thought now did I. The question asked was can we see thought, to that question the answer is yes. Thought is a product of the brain.
If an amputated limb cause changes in the brain, that is not a problem, it further proves my point that the brain can change and adapt. Thanks for that.I think what we are having is a communication problem. Thought is not a product of brain but an action of brain. We cannot see' run', what we can see is a person running, his legs changing location. Similarly we can see brain, the areas we use for particular thoughts, but not thoughts, for thought is an action. A few neurons producing acetylene choline or dopamine or similar substances which causes changes in the attached neurons which we perceive as thought.
Okay, if you want to get hung up on language instead of the discussion then I'll change my language to suite you needs. The fMRI is detecting the brain's thoughts and not just thoughts. Just like I can see the kid running. I guess I need to stipulate that I can't see run, but I can see someone run. fMRI's detect the brain's thought and not just thought. Happy? I thought when I said fMRI's detect thought one would understand that I mean't a brain's thought and not just thought.
My entire point was to show that thought are products/actions of the brain and not something undetectable and spiritual that has been the direction of others in this forum.I agree with you when you say thoughts are actions of the brain.I also agree with you that there is nothing spiritual about thoughts which is just a chemical reaction. What I am trying to say is that what we call 'thought' is something like a radio program. We see the electricity, the ic chip the speaker, and hear the sound. But however hard we try we won't be able to see/hear the sound inside the radio. We can make which transistor or chip is active at that particular point, but not what sound unless we use the speaker. Similarly we can see which part of brain, which all neurons and chemicals but not thought.
Love the way you guys get your digs in when your arguments fail.
Either you have not taken the time to understand those concepts or you are fettered by your religious beliefs.
Perhaps, it is cold, but it is true, nonetheless. Simply check out folks who have undergone types of brain damage and the effects associated.
Now, you're starting to think.So, you subscribe to determinism? So, according to that view, your view, what we do is determined, not by our own individual wills freely acting as it wishes, but by our biological/chemical make-up in reaction to outside pressures and agents?
In that regard, if we're both motivated to be here butting heads about these existential quandaries by determinism, then we're predisposed by things outside of our control to do so. Because we have the ability to remember the past and reason an imagined preferable future based on programmed desires and guided by lessons of the past, these processes dictate our actions going forward, which lead you and I to here and now.
So, in that environment, which approach do you think would be best from your perspective? Continually telling me I'm ignorant by making generalized non-specific statements that in no way alter my thinking when determining future actions, or teaching me something new by giving specific reasoning for this over that? If I am predisposed by things learned in my past to think this way, moving forward it would only make sense to implant logical and factual information that would then alter my actions in the future and thus affect real change.
Then again, this whole concept suggests you having a level of control in the outcome. Unless it's just not in your determined-beyond-yourself make-up to do so. You're apparently doomed by determinism to continually have these pointless back and forths without making the alteration of providing substance to cause a change in the imagined outcome.We're not here to hold your hand, there is an expectation that you do your own homework.
That would be the same media that runs programs of Bigfoot, ghosts and other ridiculous nonsense. We actually learn about biology from studying biology, not watching tv.
No, we are talking about what you believe about science and how it works, which is something totally different from actual science.
And, it is you who speculates based on ignorance and religious beliefs. Sorry, that's not how science works.
Yes, you are wrong.
No, it's obvious from your posts that you are pretending to know things about science and how it works.
Yes, it is little more than faith and ignorance that drives your 'scientific investigation'.
You are not open to being wrong, you are merely regurgitating garbage based on your religious beliefs and ignorance of science, and are compelled to continue arguing about things of which you have very little understanding.We? So you dissect animals in your spare time?
Is that what you believe people do when they study biology?
No, you're wrong. Your posts make it obvious that you ate making ignorant statements about things you don't understand.
See how easy that is? I can just make general accusations without including any substance too. But that's not a discussion. So why bother? Look at Rad Man's post above. He took something I said in particular and responded with specific information to refute what I was saying. I made an innaccurate statement, yes I was wrong, and he replied with specific information pertaining to the discussion.
If you can't do that, then don't bother responding.Here is the substance to which you refer that you obviously missed.
"...you are merely regurgitating garbage based on your religious beliefs and ignorance of science, and are compelled to continue arguing about things of which you have very little understanding."
That is your position in a nutshell. And, of course, you actually have to provide substance rather than your own personal opinions based on your religious beliefs.
If you can't do that, then don't bother posting.Well then I think we have finally reached the source of the problem. You don't understand what 'substance' is. In your mind the 'substance' your adding to the discussion is unspecific criticisms of my level of understanding or ability to comprehend, based on your assumption of how I think.
Just in this forum discussion alone, over the course of a week, I've discussed specifics about human behavior and how and where it's changed over the course of our existence. I've given specific examples of differences between primal/tribal and 'civilized' humans, specific information about what traits constitute what behaviors and why, and where these traits first appeared and when based on the archaeological record. I've included quotes from scholars and experts in each field related specifically to the topic, and I've referred to specific books documenting the specific studies I'm referring to.
I am providing substance and I am putting myself out there by saying this is what I believe and why. And I've been criticized, at one point even being accused of racism, for doing so. I've got hubs that speak about this in detail. That's the difference. In all of our conversations I still have no idea who you are or what you believe. I only know that you completely disagree with me. Your comments basically tell me that you have a better understanding of science and the natural world than I do that makes the errors of my statements obvious to you. You take the time to tell me, and the rest of the congregation, that I'm an ignorant fool, but don't take the time to share the knowledge that assures you of my foolishness.
Please, share your superior knowledge. I'm reaching out having these discussions because I want to understand. I want my ideas tested and criticized. I don't want to be a fool.Well stated and applicable to many players in these theaters.
Please be aware that I'm sure you are not a racist. But stating that your religious views have brought you to the conclusion that indigenous people are somehow different then the rest of humanity other than language or education starts to sound racist and it starts to sound like your using religion to hid your views. To me it's no different then Germany and Italy's views on Jews durning WWII.
With all do respect.I appreciate that, Rad Man, and I know. We talked it out. And I applaud you for stepping up and saying something when you felt those kinds of views were being spouted. It is, admittedly, a fine line I walk and I recognize that.
But, you aren't really thinking, you're merely attempting to form fit your religious beliefs into reality, which is nothing new, of course.
You've done no such thing. You are pulling nonsense out of thin air and claiming it as evidence.
Yes, you are telling us your beliefs. I get that. But, there is no substance to your beliefs.
I have not called you a racist, hence your point is moot as are your hubs.
I don't hold beliefs.
Of course, your beliefs are nonsensical fairy tales. Agreeing with them would be dishonest.
Many here have a much better understanding of the world around them than you. Many here have shared knowledge that assures your foolishness, over and over and over, again, yet you continue to argue your beliefs and claim them as evidence.
No, you don't want to understand, you have already made that abundantly clear.
Thanks for that. I am most often amused by ATM, but I can see why he can cause frustration. He is like me without the filter, and the filter is most definitely needed. Both sides have people like that. He, I do believe is particularly intelligent, and sometime the very intelligent are short tempered with the people who disagree them themselves. I do believe he is most likely just entertaining himself most of the time.
Thank you for the encouragement. I feel like I'm speaking clearly and making at least some sort of sense when I write, and then I'm not so sure when I read the responses. I'm totally open to just being delusional, but I'm going to need a little more than some random person on the internet telling me so before I'll accept it.
Well - how many will you accept exactly? I have seen dozens do so, and you openly admit that your beliefs go against both what the bible actually says and accepted evolutionary psychology?
Dozens? Mark, it should go without saying that it's not the number of random people on the internet telling me I'm delusional that's the deciding factor. Illustrating that what I'm saying is impossible through known facts is what will convince me. I cannot find a flaw in my logic, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There has to be things I haven't considered. Or facts that I'm unaware of.
Unfortunately, though we've talked and talked about this, and I've explained my perspective to you as best as I know how, your response tells me you still don't get it. And it's not that I don't think you're capable. I half suspect it's purposeful, maybe just to goad me. I'm really not sure what your motivations are.
It's clear to me that your dismissal of what I'm saying comes less from a logical standpoint and more from a materialism-based defense mechanism that protects you against acknowledging anything beyond the observable, as obvious as it may be to others, because opening that door means opening up to bigger possibilities you don't want to consider. I see it more like Einstein put it....
"Einstein rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God's nonexistence. Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ … t_Einstein
So, while I respect your view and your right to have it, I have little use for it. I know you're an intelligent guy, but I can't get past your hang-ups to get to the wisdom you could potentially be sharing.
If I'm totally off-base, just tell me. And I don't mean to insult or hurt feelings and would be thrilled to be completely wrong. This is just my honest, humble opinion based on our extensive conversations.Allow me to beat him to it if I may...."No wonder your religion causes so many wars". lol
LAWL
Just another way of saying "prove me wrong" lololoYou have been told numerous times that your personal opinion is not evidence and lack of understanding is based on incredulity. You also have been told your religious beliefs don't align with science.
Try working on those problems, first.
No, you're just limiting the use of a word that has varying definitions to one specific meaning. You're only allowing the use in this context ... "1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof." I'm using it in this context ... "2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign", or "to support by evidence".
The evidence I refer to supports my claim. If you have evidence that refutes my claim I'd love to see it.
The supporting evidence is the history of humanity in the fertile crescent in a specific time frame based mainly on archaeological and climatological data.
As for what the bible says, if you're really going to dispute my interpretation as not saying what you think is 'actually written', then I'd love to hear your thoughts.I know exactly what you mean. I'm a Rush fan for the same reason. Well, that and I'm a sucker for incredibly talented drummers. Tool was that band for me. Their song '46 and 2' is about chromosomes. Who else talked about chromosomes?
I get the same impression, both that he is very intelligent and that he is most times just amusing himself. I think that's what I find most frustrating about him. I feel he has a wealth of knowledge he could be sharing that could potentially add to these discussions, but he refuses to share it.Good question!! God created Atheists to develop faith in them!!
You're still making baseless assumptions about me. Still no substance. Still just opinion. Unsubstantiated opinion with no substance to qualify it as anything worth listening to.
Here's your chance, ATM, to provide real substance in the discussion. I have claimed something here directly that you're arguing against that is physically documented in this very same forum discussion. I started way back on page 41. From that point forward I've made many statements just about our human history alone that can be proven true or false based on research and known facts. Rather than just saying I'm 'pulling nonsense out of thin air and claiming it as evidence', why not illustrate that? Share your knowledge. If not for my benefit, seeing as how I've clearly illustrated to you that I'm not actually interested in understanding this stuff I read obsessively and discuss at great length for days on end, for others who may be reading along. Refute my 'nonsense' with evidence to the contrary. Assuming you know just by reading what I say without having to go look into any of it yourself, whatever knowledge you have that makes my foolishness so apparent to you must be readily available and on the tip of your tongue already. So share. Now's yours chance to provide real substance by simply completing this very specific task.
This is a perfect example of a major flaw in your logic.LOL! See, you have no interest in learning anything. You will stand by your religious beliefs, your incredulity and keep pretending your personal opinions are evidence.
That is exactly what we have been doing. Pay attention.
That is exactly what we have been doing. Pay attention.
It's merely a statement that shows I hold no beliefs. I attempt to understand rather than believe in things like you do.We? By 'we', do you mean Rad Man? Because he's the only one that has that I can recall. I hold onto my religious beliefs because they do a better job of explaining existence than your view. If your view did a better job I'd subscribe to it. But it doesn't. It leaves out way too much.
Of course you hold beliefs. Your view that life came about on its own is an unproven belief. Your view that the universe just came about on its own is an unproven belief. Like I said, we all fill in the blanks with something. Therefore we all have beliefs where known facts are absent. Your attempt to understand fills in gaps based on your philosophical views. You and I have vastly different philosophical views. You 'believe' existence can and did just come about on its own, though that goes against the very philosophy of science you hold so dear. I hold science dear because it draws a distinctive line between what has an observable cause and what has an unobservable cause. We both use science, but our philosophical perspectives cause us to use it differently to form our beliefs.Yes, fantasy beats reality every time.
Yes, I understand believers operate on belief systems, that's why the have very little understanding of the world around them.
Baloney, you have yet to show any understanding of science.By fantasy, do you mean the idea that this existence, life, and our self-aware/reasoning/intelligent minds just came about on their own? Because whether you believe that or believe in God you still subscribe to a belief system that can't be empirically proven. From what I can tell, you haven't given me any substance to prove you understand science, and by what generalized statements you have made you don't appear to have a very clear understanding of science yourself. Because you seem convinced that these system can and did come about on their own. If you said these things have an 'unknown' cause, that would be different. But you don't say that. So, from that stance, my view is more logical because it includes a cause.
Would you say that Einstein understood science? Because he's quoted as saying, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God."
Einstein didn't believe in a personal Christian God. He subscribed more to the Spinoza version of God ...
Spinozism (also spelt Spinoza-ism or Spinozaism) is the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, and both matter and thought as attributes of such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism
So, Einstein, who I seriously doubt you'll accuse of not understanding science, believed in the existence of a God of some kind, based on his observations and knowledge of the 'harmony' he saw 'in the cosmos'.Although I don't agree with either, I have been enjoying the postings by you and Rad Man. Good meat to chew on. As usual, it seems Mark and ATM just serve more as unwitting muses, prodding you along. I have no doubt we have enjoyed more from you because of it.
I agree with you that Von Noggin has been lucid, luminous, and levitating when expressing his debating points; unhappily they have become exercises in futility, when the likes of Mark Knowles and A Troubled Man are the ones on the other side of the debating chasm.
Interesting that you play the Einstein card. Seeing as you respect him so much, this is what he thought of your "theory" that the Christian God of the Bible is needed for human development:
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
This is the letter he wrote that in:
And - you seem to be arguing that the God you claim exists does not interfere (Spinoza's god) - yet He does when you want him to. That so?
Everything developed naturally with no interference until one day - wham! God jumped in to do majick?
If you understood evolution - you would understand that there cannot be a developmental destination. The dolphins could have as easily reached the point that apes did. Your "theory" requires millions of years of direct manipulation - which we clearly do not see in evolution. Sorry.
I suggest reading up about evolution. I am not going to suggest a particular book - there are thousands of them. None of them suggest direct manipulation to produce a particular species. Which is a major requirement for your "theory" to work.
Or would god have been just as happy to to endow say, felines, with self awareness if they had been the species that dominated? Just lucky happenstance that it was apes?You're off the mark, Mark. Einstein's opinion of the bible isn't relevant to what we're talking about. My reference to Einstein in my response to you was two-fold...
1. He's the perfect example to refute your claims that anything spoken about as being outside of the observable realm of a materialism-based 'reality' is an invocation of 'majik' due to ignorance of science and the natural world.
2. His quote about how he viewed atheists very eloquently stated my opinion of the atheism standpoint in general, and in particular how I view your standpoint as being "mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth". Maybe I'm wrong. I'm open to that.My mistake. I thought you were arguing that Genesis got it right.
LOLOLI am, but when I quoted Einstein I was addressing your generalized objections to my view as being 'majik' based on ignorance of science, the natural world, and 'reality'. So, without those objections to dismiss my views categorically, you have to get to the real meat of the topic by either finding something in the body of evidence regarding that region/timeframe in human history that disputes my claims, or you have to go the route of disputing my interpretation of Genesis more specifically than just saying that I'm 're-writing' it. Or you can simply just agree to disagree.
@M
Your last paragraph seems to imply that felines are not self-aware... only apes. The last time I checked, my feline pet is as self aware as you are....granted not to the point of narcissism.Nope. felines are not self aware. Very few mammals are.
Can you be really aware that they are not? Have you ever asked on? Might be cataclysmic!
Very few animals have past the self aware test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
@RadMan:
Looking at itself in a mirror and not seeming to care what it sees in the mirror is just not your scientific evidence that felines are not self-aware. Canines on the other hand react differently on seeing themselves in the mirror. Does that mean that dogs are self- aware and cats are not?You did even bother to read the link did you? No dogs are not self-aware. Go back and read the link, I'm not going to wast my time explaining it to someone who can't be bothered to read the link.
@radman:
I wasted my time reading all that was in that link... honestly now, if you are so into scientific evidence in proving or disproving assumptions, theories, perceptions and what have you, at least present something that does not have any disclaimer in it. The mirror test is so full of scientific holes, that if you use it as a parachute after jumping from a plane...then I'd say bye-bye.Gray Psychology 5th Edition, Peter Gray is an American psychologist and now professor emeritus at Boston College. He is the author of a widely-used introductory psychology textbook, Psychology, currently in its sixth edition.
"Self-awareness is often described as one of the hallmarks of our species. At about 18 months of age, human infants stop reacting to their image in a mirror as if it were another child and begin to treat it as a reflection of themselves (Lewis & Brooks-Gunn, 1979; Lewis & Ramsay, 2004). If a researcher surreptitiously places a bright red spot of rouge on the child’s nose or cheek before placing the child in front of the mirror, the 18-month-old responds by touching his or her own nose or cheek to feel or rub off the rouge; a younger child, by contrast, touches the mirror or tries to look behind it to find the child with the red spot. The only other animals besides ourselves who have passed the rouge test of self-recognition are the other apes—chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and at least one gorilla and one
gibbon (Parker & others, 1994; Ujhelyi & others, 2000). There is also some evidence, based on other tests, that dolphins may be capable of self-recognition (Sarko & others, 2002). Other animals, including all species of monkeys tested so far, continue to treat the mirror image as another animal—a creature to threaten and try to chase away— no matter what their age or how much experience they have had with mirrors."@radman:
The mirror test relies mainly on visual recogniition. What about smell? I am suggesting that some animals may not and do not rely solely on sight to recognize themselves but significantly on smell i.e . dogs and cats marking their territory rely on their sense of smell to in effect identify themselves as themselves and not any other dog/cat in the neighborhood. What about sound? We know that some animals identify themselves with their own unque sound, that separates them from a group or a herd.If they could identify themselves those various ways then they also pass the self-recognition test.I stil don't think you understand the concept. A dog may recognize his own smell, but not himself. My dog is aware of his family by sight. He smells us to see what we were up to while we were apart. As smart as dogs are (one of only a few animals that understand the human pointing finger, while wolves do not) are not self aware, while any 18 month old baby is. Dolphins when given the same test can't stop looking at themselves in a mirror. And when you mark them in some what they they can't see without the mirror they spend a lot of time looking at the mark, while dogs and cats do not. Look I'm not an animal behaviourist, but it makes sense to me, and it's in the psychology 101 textbooks. Test it out for yourself if you like. Put something on the dog or cat that they can't feel but can see without the mirror and watch them take it off, then put that something on them where they can only see it in front of a mirror and see what they do.
Magical sky daddies is not a " view that is more logical because it includes a cause", it is an irrational belief based on indoctrination.
And, since you know nothing about science and are indoctrinated, you must resort to claiming science is also a belief system. Then, you have the audacity to demand substance when you only offer dishonesty yourself.
Science shows that the physical laws of our universe can explain how everything came about, and it does not show anything even remotely relating to your religious worldview and your so-called 'cause.'
Ah yes, the believer shows their true colors by misrepresenting Einstein, the final nail in their intellectually dishonest coffin. Mark has of course beat me to the punch by showing you exactly what Einstein said about your "childish beliefs"I never said science is a belief system. I'm addressing your materialism belief system. Science is not your sole domain. As I've said before, it's our philosophies that differ. We're both using scientifically gained knowledge (the facts), and we both fill in the gaps between those facts, in an attempt to understand those facts, using our philosophical views. In my view, believing existence came about on its own is an irrational belief.
And please explain to me how I 'misrepresented' Einstein. Just as I said to Mark above, I used Einstein as the prime example to "refute your claims that anything spoken about as being outside of the observable realm of a materialism-based 'reality' is an invocation of 'majik' due to ignorance of science and the natural world."
Einstein's opinions of Christianity are irrelevant. I'm not invoking him as an expert in theology. I'm invoking him as an individual who clearly understood science and who actually pioneered our modern understanding of 'reality'. Even without the bible, through just his expert analysis of the cosmos, Einstein believed existence had a creator. That it didn't just come about on its own. And it's on that point that I agree with him.
In the interest of properly representing Einstein's view, I'll include the full quote that I only partially included earlier ....
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." - Albert EinsteinYes, I know, that is why it is pointless attempting to explain reality to you as your religious beliefs obscure it.
Okay, we're making a little bit of progress here. You included some actual substance, enough to get a better sense of your perspective. And it's insightful, though not for the reasons you intended.
Either you don't fully grasp the difference between 'mind' and 'brain' and don't understand that the attempt to understand human will/volition through neuroscience has nothing to do with whether or not that will is 'free', or your purposefully being deceitful, accusing me of 'moving the goalposts' as you move them yourself in an attempt at misdirection. I hate to assume purposeful deceit in anyone, something you apparently have no problem with, but I have a hard time believing you just don't understand.
Exactly, a property of the mind. The non-physical mind. The particular statement you made that I was addressing is what you said "So, you didn't bother to do any research on the will to find out it is indeed a property of our minds, hence a biological process?" The problem is in the 'hence'. A property of the mind does not equal (hence) a biological process. It's assumed by those who think that everything the mind is can be boiled down to biological processes in the brain, but this is something that is far from proven. Thus, a belief.
Let's first take a look at the words you omitted ....
"brain activity measures (have been insufficient and primitive as there is no good) independent brain-function measure of the conscious generation of intentions, choices, or decisions"
In other words, we have yet to find observable/measurable brain functions that can be tied to the conscious generation of intentions, choices, or decisions. Again I have to wonder if this misdirection is purposeful, or if you really don't understand the difference between physical brain activity and non-physical aspects of the mind. What you're missing/omitting are the factual/proven ties between the two. Now, there are certainly ties between physical brain function and the parts of our consciousness that have to do with processing 'physical' input (vision, memories, smells, tastes, hearing, learning, etc). But these same ties have not been made where human will is concerned.
So, the assumptions you're making that the human will is just another manifestation of a mechanical/biological/physical brain are your 'beliefs' based on your philosophical view of existence.Just what is this non-physical mind of which you speak? Do you have evidence that suggests the mind or as you've been calling it lately the "will" is not a product of the brain? I've showed you numerous times that thought an action of the brain. As I've said before the "will or greed is cultural and taught.
The mind can be boiled down to biological processes in the brain and that has been proven.
I think it's now time for you to show your evidence that these things that you are describing, ego, thought, learned culture and consciousness are somehow something spiritual as you keep insisting.Look the bible makes a clear distinction between physical and spiritual. I'd go so far as to say that it's a major theme throughout.
Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
God's 'invisible' qualities. What evidence do you suggest I produce to support the claim of a 'non-physical' mind? You experience it. That's how you know it exists. Picture a red bike in your head. You can mentally picture that image and you can read my request and comprehend its meaning to follow suit if you so 'choose'. In that way your mind does actually exist. Yet there's no evidence to support it. I could hook you up to all the latest equipment and scan you while you claim that you're picturing a red bike, but have no way to confirm it. What I see could be you picturing a red bike, a blue ox, or you could just be making your grocery list.
So, if you're going to look for the existence of something 'non-physical', then you have to go about it a bit differently. You're not going to find physical evidence as proof of something non-physical. You have to look at the effects. Just look at the natural laws. Look at gravity. We can't see or measure gravity itself, only its effect on matter. Through observing its effects on matter we can then grasp gravity. Well, life has an 'effect' on biological matter. And, according to the bible, and very specifically in the quote above, existence itself is the 'effect' of God, the 'invisible' creator or existence. So, you have to look at the 'effect' to understand the 'cause'.
As I have illustrated to you and others, some aspects of our conscious minds have been attributed to physical happenings in the brain, mainly those things that have to do with processing physical input, like vision, smell, taste, hearing, memory, and learning. But nothing has been found physically that proves the human will/volition is a biological process of the brain. It has not been proven.
Now, your claim that it has been proven can be backed up with evidence. I'm saying it hasn't. So, in this case, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claim.I given you all kinds of proof that thought is an action of the brain. We may not be able to read it like a book, but it has been proven that thought can be detected using fMRI technology. I've showed you that when the brain is shut down during surgery thought stops.
You are assuming the mind is separate because because you have been taught that.
Gravity is invisible, but can be proven as is electricity.
It matters not to me what a book that describes the earth as flat says about the mind.
I've showed you evidence that there is a connection between the mind and the brain, you must have some evidence that shows it's separate or you wouldn't be so insistent. If you don't have evidence perhaps you should rethink your theory to a theory that have evidence.How would the evidence you consider proof that thought is an action of the brain differ if indeed the brain were merely the mechanism by which a spirit interacts with the material world? Simplistic, but representative, would be seeing a light coming on indicating hard drive activity, or perhaps a different light coming on to acknowledge a known word or keystroke on a computer. They indicate the initiation of electronic activity within the computer. They are not proof of the initiation coming from the computer itself.
That is an interesting thought, but how do you explain how we loose consciousness when doctors shut us down for surgery or how an injury to the head causes us loose consciousness and thought.
Do you have some real evidence for said spirits? They must be detectable somehow?
Or do you think it's possible that having a soul that lives forever is an idea brought forth by man to help us deal with life?Let's stick with the computer analogy for a minute. Given a fully loaded Alienware laptop, with all the best programs at your disposal, you may be able to express yourself in many creative ways. Start damaging the hardware, and or software, and you will lose abilities as measured only by what productivity comes out of that computer. If drugs or physical injury wipes out all software but the basic OS and notepad, and your keyboard is now missing two vowels, what we see produced by your computer will not be too impressive. It is not your fault, but it is the best you can do considering the interface available to you.
An who would let that happen to their computer? This is what got me thinking all those years ago. Why would a god not allow one of his people to be able to show their personality? Why would God allow someone like say Brad Pit to have everything he desires and allow someone with a genetic problem to suffer in pain and with emotion? God doesn't properly answer these questions, but genetics and reality does. This is precisely what got Darwin thinking. It will all make perfect sense once you drop God from the equation. Brad Pit get to reproduce with the best so that they can pass on there superior genes, while the less attractive brain problematic people don't.
Yes, and it's these differences that truly test our resolve. What would there be to gain or lose if all were equal? What would be the definition of happiness or sadness if God 'nerfed' the world and made it equal and joyous for all? What would there be to learn from? Both people with physical disabilities and people like Brad Pitt have challenges they must face based specifically on what makes them who they are. And many of those challenges are based on the very fact that there is so much diversity. It's the various spectrums of good/bad, happy/sad, entitled/less fortunate, that gives life it's nuance.
Like a tree that grows without wind. Without wind it just grows straight and weak. It's the wind that constantly breaks it down and pushes it around that gives a tree its strength and character.That is a complete rationalization. Stop just for one second to honestly read that rationalization. We can't be all equally because there wouldn't be anything to gain or lose? Imagine for yourself if you will two identical homes and families.
In one of the homes the parents have equal rights respect and treat all of the children equally. If one of them has specific needs they get those needs met. Love and affection is shown equally to all. Happy family with well rounded children result from parents how show compassion and fairness.
In the other home you have a father who shows favouritism. Beats his wife on a regular bases and buys his favourite son and expensive car and pays his way through law school. He kids his daughter out at 15 because he did like that she when on a date and constantly tell the youngest he's a useless tool.
Which is the best scenario? Do you really think growing up in the stable house would cause a lack of desire? Please don't try to tell me Brad Pitt's got it bad.
I'm not at all saying we should all look alike, but if there were a loving God/father he would treat his children with respect and love and a sense of equality. The world we live in certainly looks for like the survival of the fittest that got Darwin thinking. Anything other is a rationalization to project a loving God into this world that a loving God does not fit into.You could equally look at it rationally and say we, who have the time and leisure to sit at the computer, discussing theoretical arguments, are so much better off than those who have to go out and earn their meager pittance, just to keep the children alive, even though they might be suffering chronic starvation.
Yes, it's an unequal, unfair, often cruel world. So obviously the goings on in the world are not the dictates of a "loving god." It still does not logically exclude the possibility that some entity started the who ball of creation going. This we will never be able to determine one way or the other, because we exist on a totally different plane from that which could have possibly started us off.Sure we could speculate all kinds of things, but that would be speculation. I could speculate that aliens dropped down and killed of the dinosaurs with with a giant bomb and panted the seed for humanity and will, once we have sufficient enough population come back and harvest us. But that would be speculation and just as likely true as your story. Why don't we instead start where we have evidence?
I do indeed start there, but my mind does not stop there.
And of course, that's where the imagination comes in! I'm certain most people don't have a problem with that. There'd be no arts, or comic books, or stories or anything imaginative if we never used that part of our brains. It's when people become smitten with those imaginings and try to impose it onto us all as some kind of unquestionable, cosmologically grandiose truth that it becomes an issue (of course not you, Johnny). Faith is faith, not fact, and people don't get that. I personally don't want to spend my life imagining what could be, when I'm alive right now. But if it makes people's live easier to fill in the gaps with good feeling speculation, why not? It's only when those gap-fillers are treated as "fact" no if's and's or but's about it without the necessary proof that it becomes dogma and creates problems and conflict.
I know and understand Darwin's story. He had a rough life already. I believe he lost both his wife and daughter to illness. This, plus the 'cruelty' he saw in the natural world caused him to question the existence of the loving God he had been taught and had believed in. I get that and while I cannot say I've been in his situation (at least, not yet), I can certainly empathize, as I can empathize with your view.
Think about it this way for just a moment. Say you're an all powerful God. You've basically got three choices. You can either not create existence or life at all. You can create existence and life where all things, animate and inanimate, obey your will exactly. Or you can create existence that includes living beings that have their own minds. Now, if you chose to create existence consisting of beings with their own minds, how would you go about doing that? Would you just make sure that they have everything they could ever want? Do you protect them from every possible challenge or hardship? Is it not challenges that teach us and mold us?
Again, it's like the tree analogy. Which is the more loving approach? To let a tree grow in an environment that never challenges it, with no storms or strong winds so that tree can just grow and grow, straight up and weak? Is it not those storms and strong winds that give that tree character, beauty, and strength? What would beauty be if we all looked alike? What would happiness be if there were no sadness? Would you even know you're happy if you did not also know sadness, or pain?
Or, just think about it from the parental standpoint. When two parents decide to conceive a child, you are guaranteeing that child will experience life, will know pain and heartache, and eventually death, because both parents know and have experienced what life is. Does that mean you don't love that child? Because you doomed them to a life that will include pain and misery and struggle and eventually death, by simply creating them? Is it not the pain, the heartache, the challenges of life, and our eventual inevitable death that make life worth living? That's what gives life purpose and meaning. The possibility of failure is what makes success what it is. Danger is what makes reward through taking a risk so rewarding.I'm not taking about challenges and I think you understand, but don't want to look at reality. When I say the world is unfair, I'm not talking about hardship or a bad economy. The world makes more sense when you look at it as Darwin did. Survival of the fittest. A weak animal is left behind to be eaten by hyenas or lions. Humans are no different, the weak die sometimes die before they procreate. Huntington's disease is a cruel example of how we most likely were not meant to life past about 40 or 50. Huntington's makes perfect sense looking at it from a evolutionary standpoint, but not from a loving God stand point. Intelligence make perfect sense when looked at from a evolutionary standpoint, but why would a God give some people an IQ of 145 and others 80? Don't rationalize inequality, look at it for what it is. Evolution.
In other words, God as you imagine he would have to be, doesn't jive with reality. So, does that mean it's impossible that God exists? It can't be that you simply have a flawed view of what God must be? You obviously have a very specific view of who/what God is. Can you not see that the whole problem could actually just be your human interpretation of Him? To you, I guess, if God were real then He could and should have just 'miracled' everything into existence to be perfect with no pain or strife. Causing existence to come about through struggle and adaptation, that taught us to balance and walk and hunt and survive and communicate verbally and gain strength and all of that, that doesn't fit your view of what God should be. Doesn't mean I'm wrong and you're right. It just means you have a very narrow idea of what a 'loving God' should be.
Okay, so the only evidence of a God are holy books, or very old books. These books generally describe God as being loving, caring and forgiving (except for the OT which describes God a as psychopathic God).
Now what we see from nature is an eat or get eaten earth, which only jives with a evolutionary version of reality. Are you saying God fits into this psychopathic vision of God? Or are you going to change the goal posts? He can't be both loving and create an unloving universe can he. Don't change the goal posts.Specifically, I'm talking about the books of Moses, Genesis/Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy. More specifically, I'm talking about the first 11 chapters of Genesis. The ones compiled from three different sources of unknown origin and age. The ones in which two sources told a very similar story but with very different focal points that were then edited together. The same ones that share many similarities with the ancient mythologies of the first ever human civilization, the Sumerians. The ones that describe creation, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the flood, and Babel. Nobody knows how old they actually are or who wrote them. Yet, as I can show you in very specific detail, they describe the entire history of our planet, up to and including the dawn of civilization, chronologically. Then the story begins with Abraham, who's father was from the Sumerian city of Ur, interacting with Egyptians. In this context, it makes very clear why God did what He did in the OT that you see has so harsh. That's the story the bible is telling, and when read against the context of actual history, the story becomes much more clear.
I'm not changing the goal posts. The bible clearly depicts God, not only as a loving God, but also a God who can be angry and who punishes and who it says hated certain behaviors. He is just and righteous, but he doesn't pull punches. And the bible also talks very specifically in the language of spiritual versus physical. The spiritual soul and the physical body, or flesh. And it describes the desires of the flesh, much like we understand natural bodily instincts. These very same instincts we curb in society it describes as being the 'wants' of the flesh. Nobody's moving any goalposts. If anything, much like the inaccurate versions of my argument you first pose and then argue against, here again you're simply posing an inaccurate version of God and then arguing against the validity of his existence.I'm pointing out that the various descriptions of God depicted in the bible shows how inaccurate and imperfect the bible is and since the bible is the only reason you and many like you believe in this particular version of God perhaps you should rethink (because of the complete lack of evidence) if there is even any God.
No, you are making no progress at all and it is obviously a waste of time explaining anything to you. Your religious beliefs rule your worldview and like most other believers, facts and evidence have no bearing on your worldview.
On what basis do you say there is a mind at all?
I have no trouble with the idea that my experience/consciousness is a direct product of my brain.
That association is at least broadly demonstrable in that interruptions to the brain interrupt different experiences.
Whereas nothing suggests the mind as an entity exists at all."Don't look at it like it's forever
Between you and me
I could honestly say
That things can only get better"
I Guess That's Why They Call It the Blues by Elton John
What do I win?"...And it won't be long
Before you and me run
To the place in our hearts
Where we hide..."
I would also like to address this statement specifically. You're right, the physical laws of the universe can explain how everything came about'. That is true, almost. They can explain how the physical, material, inanimate world came about. What they don't explain is where that singularity of matter came from in the first place, they don't explain life at all, and they don't explain where they, the physical laws themselves, came from.
What causes the physical laws? Afterall, they had to be in place for the matter to behave the way it did to form existence the way it did. Here, watch this ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9XTNt-c … playnext=3
The whole series is really good, and well worth the watch, but this one in particular addresses what we're talking about well. It's a series done by retired high-energy particle physicist Russell Stannard. I love this guy and could listen to him talk all day.Yes, I understand you wish to invoke your religious beliefs because you believe God was the cause. Yes, they explain life. Sorry, that you don't want to understand that.
Thanks a lot for that Link. I had not heard of him before.
My first and biggest impression of Russell is that he would be last person to say "You must believe what I believe," no matter how strongly he believes it.
The second impression is his great zeal for inquiry. His sense of awe and wonder and wanting to know more about it.
Personally I can connect with his awareness that there is something beyond that which we can "know" for certain.Hey Jonny, in all my arguing with Rad Man and A Troubled Man I completely missed this. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I really enjoyed his whole series. Very informative and easy to understand, even for a 'childlike' simpleton like me.
Related Discussions
- 123
How Are Atheists Created?
by yoshi97 14 years ago
Before I go into this discussion, we all need to understand that I am not a scientist, I am not a prophet, and I am not an expert on the topic. I am merely trying to offer my belief in how atheism occurs. And why some of you might not like what I am about to say, understand that it is not meant as...
- 2102
Why Do Christians Have Such A Problem With Atheism?
by Brittany Williams 4 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...
- 289
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
by PhoenixV 6 years ago
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
- 145
Why do atheists spend so much time thinking and debating about God?
by John Harper 10 years ago
Why do atheists spend so much time thinking and debating about God?I mean why spend time over something they say they do not believe exists?I don't believe in global warming, maybe a wrote a hub sometime explaining why, but then I moved on.Before I came to faith, I never gave God a thought, why...
- 374
What are the most annoying responses Christians give to questions atheists ask?
by Dwight Phoenix 8 years ago
What are the most annoying responses Christians give to questions atheists ask?I'm a christian and I think that it would be helpful in ministry, if Christians new a bit more about how atheists felt about a Christian's rebuttal
- 78
Why would god create atheists who can't be convinced of his existence?
by M. T. Dremer 4 years ago
Why would god create atheists who can't be convinced of his existence?