New study proves someones "god" is nothing more than one's own image! Religion crumbles...

reply to post by onlylonely


The mods are definitely not biased and although they are not at liberty to discuss the reasonings behind a ban. I am not a mod. If you go back to around the middle of this thread when the first mod shows up he politely asks reasonable to refrain from insults and all that jazz. Reasonable is known to be...well....not reasonable when it comes to religious matters. He's very outspoken and I applaude him for that, however, he doesn't always go about it the proper way. It's in the T&C that when a Moderator asks you to do something(such as refrain from insults and such) that you oblige them. It was legitimate.

Now, on to the OP...
The only way religion will ever lose it's power is if there is a definitive "NO, there is no God." Which, well, in my book will never happen. It's just so damn hard to prove that something DOESN'T exist.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Guys, we're not supposed to discuss the reason behind bannings. And no, to put everyone's mind at ease, it had nothing to do with this thread. Sometimes it's not always apparent like someone having multiple accounts or committing u2u violations like harassing other members or sending spam. It's not always a public event that results in a ban.

Please nobody panic. We don't ban due to opinions and no one has been banned or will be banned due to their opinions expressed in this thread. Sometimes things happen behind the scenes and it's unfortunate. Sorry to be off topic. It just seemed a lot of members were concerned and I wanted to help get the thread back on track.

[edit on 12/1/2009 by AshleyD]

Isnt it a funny coincidence how you are a christian and reasonable gets banned?

Its funny that isnt it?

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


I'd be happy with, ok a supreme all seeing all knowing being exists, but doesnt do jack squat at all for anybody.

You can prove that with the lack of evidence of intervention.

I got no problem with believers, im agnostic myself because i dont like blind atheism, But believeing in 'god' is just retarded.

just like when you grow up you find out santa isnt real.

Its time for you all to grow up a tiny bit



[edit on 2-12-2009 by Reading]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Like I said before, I'm not a big "God" believer, but what does my belief or your belief or anyone else's belief have anything to do with whether or not God exists?

The topic of this thread is that "God" is merely a reflection of your own individual personality. This lack of consistency between believers strongly suggests that they are not describing the same being that is alleged to exist independently from their beliefs. Rather, they are simply describing their own opinions about an "ideal God" who is most compatible with their already ingrained beliefs. The fact there is no objective evidence of the existence of God seems to beg the question: What are these beliefs actually based on?

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...And what do the sins of organized religions have anything to to with the existence or non-existence of God?

The "sin" of organized religion is that it has exploited the existence and power of God in order to recruit more followers and establish themselves as powerful authority figures. Whenever one is investigating a particular wrongdoing, it's usually a good idea to scrutinize the actors involved to look for motivations to lie for personal gain.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...And what difference does it make that a human brain decides to use its past experiences to create God in its own way?

As I said above, evidence that God is merely a personalized delusion goes a long way toward proving that God does not exist.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I'm sorry, but if supreme creator of the universe exists, it exists whether we believe, don't believe, hate to believe, create "a God in our own image" in our brains, or create one that is totally foreign to us. What we believe about God could be irrelevant.

That might be a good point if people were worshiping this generic God, but they aren't. They are worshiping the personification of their individual ideas, celebrating particular traits and acts of their God without evidence. The issue of this thread is whether or not THAT God exists because that's the one people believe in and follow blindly. If you think that religious beliefs are completely irrelevant, that would be a big surprise to the millions who have died in religious wars throughout history.


[edit on 2-12-2009 by andrewh7]

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by reasonable

 

I don't find it devastating at all. I don't even find it intriguing. We were made in His image and hence share similar qualities. Of course when thinking about God we normally reference our own opinions and point of view. What else are we going to do?

This doesn't effectively prove anything...

Extremely well put, and quite correct indeed. Consider your post starred, and I fully support everything you just stated.

Originally posted by 其中一許多
There is a limit to what science can and cannot explain. Higher consciousness exists beyond that limit. That being the case, it can neither prove nor disprove it's existence. However, one cannot exist without the other.

This is quite lovely. I completely agree.

reply to post by AshleyD

Sometimes it's not always apparent like someone having multiple accounts or committing u2u violations like harassing other members or sending spam. It's not always a public event that results in a ban.

As there were no warnings of off topic post or manners and decorum etc are we to conclude that the offense was one of the above ?

Please nobody panic. We don't ban due to opinions and no one has been banned or will be banned due to their opinions expressed in this thread.

Given the circumstances of the banning,the topic of the thread and your religious leanings how do we know this to be true ?

Sometimes things happen behind the scenes ------

That in the interest of national security you little people should not know about because you may be scared?

My first thought upon reading the OP was, "how do you prove a negative?"

You can't. It's a logical fallacy, and therefore the researchers, the OP, and this whole thread is retarded.

Originally posted by 其中一許多
There is a limit to what science can and cannot explain. Higher consciousness exists beyond that limit. That being the case, it can neither prove nor disprove it's existence. However, one cannot exist without the other.

Wrong. What is that limit and what exactly are you basing it on? What is your proof of "higher consciousness?" In order for you to define God, you would need to lay out a list of requisite abilities that, if satisfied, would lead to the classification of a particular being as the God or a God.

If man can one day use science to carry out all the tasks that are currently seen as the sole realm of God, then what is man? If scientists can eventually create life in a laboratory from scratch, starting with bare chemicals. There may currently be a limit on the ability of science to answer particular questions, that does not mean that science will never be able to do so.

A long time ago people didn't know how to build an internal combustion engine or the equipment necessary to get a man to the moon and back. Just because science is incapable of carrying out certain tasks in the present, that is not a guarantee that humans never will. We have reassessed and expanded our own limitations many times. So many things have been viewed as impossible before they were successfully achieved.



[edit on 2-12-2009 by andrewh7]

Originally posted by jaktenstid
My first thought upon reading the OP was, "how do you prove a negative?"

You can't. It's a logical fallacy, and therefore the researchers, the OP, and this whole thread is retarded.

While the OP may have overstated the findings of this study, I would not fault the researchers and the study itself. Its purpose was not to prove that God doesn't exist. The point of the study was to demonstrate whether or not a person's own personality and values are related to or can be used to predict their own personal beliefs about the nature, role, and motivations of their chosen divine being. This does not conclusively prove that God doesn't exist but it certainly lends credence to the idea that God is a human invention.

Source

The fallacy of demanding negative proof
Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven

From a scientific standpoint, the initial burden is never on the skeptical party to prove something does not exist because they would have an infinite number of possibilities to attack. Rather, this burden initially rests on the shoulders of someone claiming that something does exist. If this were not the case, then people would be busy trying to disprove the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, giant pink elephants, or anything else that may potentially exist somewhere in the Universe. Without evidence of any kind, the initial presumption should be that God does not exist. If we presume that he does, then we must also presume that leprechauns, unicorns, and giant pink elephants all exist until someone has scoured every corner of the universe.

It's pointless to debate the ineffectiveness of the study to conclusively prove that God doesn't exist because the burden currently rests on those who claim that God does exist.


[edit on 2-12-2009 by andrewh7]

I do not think that the experience is trying to answer the question as if God exist... It just chows the way peoples think when asked questions in a particular way.

Even if we are asked what should God do if... well i think its obviously what will ''I'' do if.... that will answer the question since basically we are living with the liberty of choice. Nobody can refuse to admit that on earth everybody can choose to do what he wants to do.

Why does God is not stopping a murderer to kill a young child... well cus everyone has the choice to kill or not to kill. Or why is this guy helping the poor givving his time and money to help the homeless feel a little love? well because he choose to.

If peoples choose not to believe in god well its good for them and if they believe in it well its their choice to. I dont think its nice from the OP just to laugh at peoples just trying to argue a bit on the subject even if they say they ton beleive in religion or whatever storie, calling then ''Godsquad'' acting as if they are just like Godtards... At least show that you can talk about something instead making simple comments like that.

I think the OP didn't even respond to any intelligent argument here... just the somes that were so easy to bash.

Anyway every thread has his cons and pros so... I neither believe in what religion is and is trying to make. Just look what they are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan... But i think that The one that be exist, He is not trying to rule anybody he does not call himself LORD neither he his going to bring us to hell if we dont beleive...

Love cannot exist without Sin, Good cannot exist without Bad, etc...

reply to post by moocowman


Don't get your panties in a bundle moocowman. Have you read the entire thread? Page 14 is when neformore(moderator) steps in. It has nothing to do with the mods being biased, because, well frankly, they're not. I expect that one would become a moderator by showing that they can handle themselves with manners even when people are trampling toes, much like reasonable does in the religious forum. neformore clearly states which conditions are being violated and politely asks reasonable to digress.


Don't jump to conclusions friend. I give the moderators the benefit of the doubt, as should anyone else.

he was clearly attacked by others, the mod said nothing regarding those attacks, did not even remove them. The OP was called a loser, tool and laughed at and ridiculed that he had children. I guess the mods can't be perfect and see everything, oh well sux to be the OP. once again sorry for off-topic banter.

reply to post by onlylonely


No one came in throwing bibles at the guy. Read the thread.

First page: Reasonable:"Didn't see that response coming -sarcasm-

You lack an understanding of the article but it is to be expected."

Tell me, who attacked first? He was ready with his mashin stick the whole time....

[edit on 2-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Take your own advice buddy and dont jump.

Over the last couple days i have seen some seriously biased and bad modding in this thread alone their has been a couple of instances.

Worst offender is semper fortis for his posts the other day when he stated you are an inferior human being if you didnt serve in the military

Moderators are people to you know there is a page about it that they throw up everytime somebody questions them.

Oh and then their is elevatedone who removes a post that didnt break no TC's and then when i question him he fines me 2000 points like i give two bricks

Take the rose tinted glasses off,Like i said its funny how in two instances in two threads anti christians have been penalised and the posts from those supporting christianity remained, even though some of them had been much more acidic

reply to post by Reading


Then why don't you take up the responsibility if it's so bad? It's like politics. If you don't like who gets elected, do something about it. Don't just sit there and sulk.

Besides, in this thread in particular I did not see any mods being biased. I saw them embracing opinions and stating their own. It just so happens that some people aren't very respectful when it comes to religious intolerance/tolerance.

reply to post by reasonable


Stating

"New study proves someones "god" is nothing more than one's own image! Religion crumbles..."

I think you do not understand science anymore than the layman.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Ha`la`tha

 

So reas is banned ?
Well I'm not at all happy to hear that.

In his profile he is banned and comments disabled. I've seen more obvious attempts to be offensive by people here in the past, that at best rate a warning or 3. I don't know what may have transpired between reasonable and the mod in U2U, but I would be inclined to think that is why he was banned.

See what reas didn't even know any of the people He was so
quick to insult. If you seen me on the street you would never guess I was a Christian. In fact the only reason I claim Christianity is because
I will never deny Christ. Believe this no matter about anything else.
I believe in God nothing else makes any sense to me. I believe the Christians have it right. I seperate my self from everything in org.
religion that you say you hate

I didn't say anything. But I don't believe in god, for the record. I do believe in spirituality, but not any omnipotent being that considers us so important.

because, this is the kicker you aren't the only one who hates that crap.
So I don't write off God just religion.Now what is the difference between you and me? You have the advantage over me on that. I would assume his lifestyle. What I'm not supposed to say that. right away he is on me for that and he never let up. So now this.

All over nothing. Not one thing accomplished accept hard azz feelings.

shakes head. whatever.

As far as I can tell, the OP was about a study that showed that the way the human brain works when dealing with faith is almost the same when dealing with self.

Perhaps it was the tone of reasonable's opinions that started people on the attack toward him, maybe that is what he wanted, but ultimately it spiraled downwards into ad hom attacks avoiding the topic almost completely.

In replying to these attacks reasonable gave as he/she got, in my opinion, and in doing so stated reasons as to why he/she has a dislike for religion, which fueled even more negativity from everyone.

It's not about what YOU want to believe - why would anyone want to change that? But the study is not suddenly invalid because you choose not to accept the outcome. It doesn't prove god's existence of lack thereof as the thread title indicates, but it gives a reason why the human brain needs to adopt the concept of god in order to make everything fit.

As if we know everything already, and thats all there is to it, so we use the notion of god to fill the gaps.

We don't know everything. But the more we do learn, the more we do understand, it does appear that there are people who will poohpooh any studies done that reveal anything that may shed light on why we need such an explanation.

That opposition is not helpful.

If you had a broken leg and walked on crutches and never checked to see if the bone has healed, then after a year discover that you can now walk then you don't need to keep using the crutches. Some people just refuse to accept the leg has healed and keep the crutches saying it's what they need in order to walk.

(edit, it's reasonable, not reasoning... for some reason.. lol)


[edit on 2/12/2009 by Ha`la`tha]

Originally posted by cheeser
reply to post by reasonable

 

Stating

"New study proves someones "god" is nothing more than one's own image! Religion crumbles..."

I think you do not understand science anymore than the layman.

I agree i think humans like to think they understand religion, but they have no clue how it works really. For instance why did ancient man worship the sun? I think you people think these ancient people where useless eaters, and worth nothing. But i think your missing something.

quitea funny article on how people subconsciously think they are god. the responses are also hilarious yet kinda sad at the same time.

Religion is nothing more than a placebo for humanity.

It is swallowed by many out of mans fears. It's effects have been long lasting with no realistic answers... and often in controling and judgmental conclusion.

The concept of a loving, caring, God falls under this confusion, where "biblical scale" miracles have mysteriously been dormant for our modern age. I thought God was the ultimate Mover & Shaker??

Where is the man in the golden chair when billions are in dire straights? Has God really saved anyone... or is he just a Houdini trick of spiritual fanatics? I think the latter...

Many fanatics say God is everywhere and in everything... this may be true... But has anyone of them ever confirmed there was GOD?? Or is this a concept drafted on a sheet of paper to control the masses?

This is were the fanatics are cornered... and stumble to find answers they themselves are just guessing on. But even then, If there can NEVER be any confirmation of a God... at least there should be some confirmation of his work..... So please show the world some.


[edit on 2-12-2009 by Level X]