Religious people: You all tend to have the same reasons for believing...

I believe that the religious beliefs of most people stem from childhood indoctrination.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

Dr. Geoffrey Fisher, the Archbishop of Canterbury talking about a nuclear power

I don't get the funny part at all. I mention, "Nuclear meltdown" and you think it's funny? Mention something
what a catholic has to say and I guess you find humor in that? Check this out giggles I couldn't care less about
what any archbishop has to say about anything. Even if it's something I'm positive they know about. Like young boys. I have nothing to do with that abomination of apostacy never have never will.

Do you have anything else you might think is worth a giggle ? Maybe something relevent to what I have presented
here. I mean you did address me didn't you ? Let me check ? Ya! ya you did.

For me it is about everything. I have not seen anything that just made itself without a maker. Throw some bolts, nuts, and anything you want to in a cup. Cup your hand over it. Shake it. Now when something comes out of the cup that is put together and can be useful, then I might think that all this we see around us could just happen by chance. But everything happens for a reason.

reply to post by Conclusion1


*facepalm* The argument from design is silly. I've never seen a deity forming itself either, but that doesn't stop you from asserting that it did.

Originally posted by Conclusion1
For me it is about everything. I have not seen anything that just made itself without a maker. Throw some bolts, nuts, and anything you want to in a cup. Cup your hand over it. Shake it. Now when something comes out of the cup that is put together and can be useful, then I might think that all this we see around us could just happen by chance. But everything happens for a reason.

The same general argument from the OP holds here also.

Even if 'design' turns out to be part of cosmogony, it doesn't point to any specific creator-deity as THE candidate. And as Madness pointed out, the Abrahamic 'god' is rather low on the list, because you would expect a creator to have a fairly accurate idea of his own creation (and genesis 1 demonstrates clearly, that this is not the case).

(The buddhist part-of-the-way 'it's-all-in-the-mind' answer is, while not absolute or ultimate, at least more compatible to contemporary knowledge).

Besides there's a level of understanding on this, which you either from ignorance or unwillingness didn't bring up:

We DO know, that when we move observation from mundane existence ('visible' existence) beyond the socalled 'event horizon', causality (as it's manifested in the 'known') breaks down. So even stretching it, using the word 'intent' instead of 'design', doesn't give us much (if any) information about motives, methods or whatever a 'creator-god' would apply. All the religious regressive arguments on the nature of a 'creator-god' are just so much idle speculations, based on subjective values.

Although god is known, i could not say i believe in god.
I, as everyone did, heard about god/religion in the society i grew up in. I didn't take much notice, it never meant anything to me. In fact i can remember asking for gods help, assuming he could help, when i was a child and came to the conclusion there was no one there. I never went to church or anything except weddings and funerals, my family was and is not religious.
However when i was 26 something happened and i saw what all these different religions were pointing at. That was many years ago now. Knowing this 'thing' or 'not a thing', some call god makes the experience of life much sweeter.

I do not believe in god and i don't advise anyone to.
It has to be through your own knowing, and knowing is different to belief.
Knowing is a taste, a fragrance.
Belief is a stamp, an impression.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Facepalm? Your to funny.
The idea to you is silly. That is all. You and I reason differently. You of no faith are trying to say you know why faith is wrong....even when you do not have the faith.

And I never inserted that my God formed himself. He has always been there. You know how there are answers to questions that we will never be able to comprehend because we cant even imagine the question? Well its like that. That is where faith comes in.

reply to post by bogomil

Even if 'design' turns out to be part of cosmogony, it doesn't point to any specific creator-deity as THE candidate. And as Madness pointed out, the Abrahamic 'god' is rather low on the list, because you would expect a creator to have a fairly accurate idea of his own creation (and genesis 1 demonstrates clearly, that this is not the case).

I would happen to disagree here.

We DO know, that when we move observation from mundane existence ('visible' existence) beyond the socalled 'event horizon', causality (as it's manifested in the 'known') breaks down. So even stretching it, using the word 'intent' instead of 'design', doesn't give us much (if any) information about motives, methods or whatever a 'creator-god' would apply. All the religious regressive arguments on the nature of a 'creator-god' are just so much idle speculations, based on subjective values.

No most are based on faith.

reply to post by Conclusion1


Well, I don't have smallpox either, I can still tell why it's wrong.

Now, if your deity has always been there...why can't that just apply to the universe in some form or another?

And no, I can't understand that assertion. All questions have at least one answer. I mean, it's not like I'm asking what the smell of the square root of negative 1 is, this is you creating an exception to a universal statement for the sake of rationalizing your own universal statement.

All things have a cause
Therefore a thing with no cause caused them

That is patently illogical.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

And no, I can't understand that assertion. All questions have at least one answer. I mean, it's not like I'm asking what the smell of the square root of negative 1 is, this is you creating an exception to a universal statement for the sake of rationalizing your own universal statement.

Some people can smell numbers it is called synesthesia, I think is the correct spelling of it.
Hey you brought it up.

No I am not creating an exception for anything. It makes sense to me. To you it does not. Berate me all you wish, but I know what I know, just as you know what you know.

All things have a cause Therefore a thing with no cause caused them

If all things have a cause, then what do you think caused them to have a cause?

That is patently illogical.

To think everything that we know of is an accident is also patently illogical.

Originally posted by Conclusion1
reply to post by bogomil

 

Even if 'design' turns out to be part of cosmogony, it doesn't point to any specific creator-deity as THE candidate. And as Madness pointed out, the Abrahamic 'god' is rather low on the list, because you would expect a creator to have a fairly accurate idea of his own creation (and genesis 1 demonstrates clearly, that this is not the case).

I would happen to disagree here.

We DO know, that when we move observation from mundane existence ('visible' existence) beyond the socalled 'event horizon', causality (as it's manifested in the 'known') breaks down. So even stretching it, using the word 'intent' instead of 'design', doesn't give us much (if any) information about motives, methods or whatever a 'creator-god' would apply. All the religious regressive arguments on the nature of a 'creator-god' are just so much idle speculations, based on subjective values.

No most are based on faith.

Highlighted:

Quote: ["I would happen to disagree here."]

YOU were the one, who in an earlier post brought up 'design'; not me.

'Design' is a kind of pseudo-rational reasoning, mainly used as an 'argument' to support christian positions. Why bring it into a debate, if you're unwilling to clarify it?

Quote: ["No most are based on faith."]

That's actually what I said also. And with some 50.000 religions, denominations, sects, cults, faiths, interpretations and some 3.500 'gods' to choose between, what is your point?

Your presence on a public forum must have some purpose or motive, but your flitting from 'reasoning' to 'faith' in your answer to me makes it difficult for me to discern, what it is. So I must resort to what you write to Madness:

Quote: ["No I am not creating an exception for anything. It makes sense to me. To you it does not. Berate me all you wish, but I know what I know, just as you know what you know."]

This sounds rather solipsistic; .... ofcourse unless you want to continue to the interesting subject of epistemology, where such can give some meaning.

But in the meantime; do you relate to life on general terms this way? Do you e.g. ascribe any collective and objective 'knowledge' about traffic-lights, which can be useful to know and relate to? And what about household-electricity sockets, which can be lethal without prior knowledge?

How do you distinguish between the value and methods of acquisition of different types of knowledge? And if you find my examples from ordinary life (traffic-lights and wall-sockets) as irrelevant compared to the 'higher' considerations of religion, I only need to mention the prohibition of medicine in some forms of the christianities.

Childbirths without midwives or medicine; illnesses, mostly terminal with only 'religious methods', but curable with medicine....do you also have "I know what I know" attitudes on this, or do you relate to non-theist methods.

If not using modern medicine, do you also recommend this for e.g. children having religious fanatics as parents; such children having no say about their own life or death in some situations.

God is aliveness itself.
God is being.
Being is what this is.
This existance is god.
This eternal now is it.
What is happening is god.

Can you see and hear, do you experience sensation?

Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
Where it says 'I' in this statement read it as 'I' as in your own self.

Without you 'being', there would be no things seen.
No things (objects) exist with out you, you are the light that allows all things to be.
Whatever is under the stone can not be known unless you are present, until it is seen.
The seen and the seeing is one.

It is the Presence that allows everything to appear.
Be present, consciously, with this eternal now and you will feel god.
Know god.
He never has left you because he is always right here, right now.
We leave him when we play in the shadows of yesterday and tomorrow.
He can't live then or there.
He lives now.
Walk with him now and always.
Now is always the time, just notice it.

Remember as often as you can.
Say 'I am here I am now'.
Just notice you are.
You are the 'I am'.
You are the 'now'.
You are the 'hereness'.
This is home, this is heaven.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Another 'one-size-fits-all' sermon, with the usual method of clipping a toe and hacking a heel to enforce compability between incompabilities.

Quote: ["Without you 'being', there would be no things seen."]

"Will there be a sound, when a tree falls in the forest, if there's no-one around to listen?"

For the confused new-age cottage-industry philosopher, there will ofcourse not be any sound, because he/she (the new-age pseudo-philosopher) is so caught up in his/her own solipsism, that nothing can take place without his/her (in)famous misinterpretation and misrepresentation of quantum-mechanics.

That a forest consists of trees (if nothing else), which can register the impact of soundwaves in their own tree-ish way counts ofcourse for nothing compared to the absence of new-age speculators, who will give the final dualistic 'reality' confirmation to any situation by their presence.

Schroedinger's cat's fate is indeterminate, until another new-ager opens the box. It's soooo convenient to disregard the box itself and the rest of the universe for that sake, if it can 'prove' some existential postulate.

But not to my surprise, this sweeping generalization ofcourse turns out to have some not so neutral and broad implications. Once established, the great 'now' and the great 'everything' can be reduced to more specific and detailed components: 'God' and Jesus, in this case. (And on a former thread 'sin').

If it wasn't for this sneaking in religion by the backdoor, I would just have considered this post as a result of over-exposure to new-age'ism and left it at that. At it is now, it's just the increasingly more popular way of introducing religion via complex non-sense adaptions of science/logic.

This is a religious forum discussing god bogomil, what's your point exactly?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Well...you might get the point if you bother reading the reply instead of saying something unrelated.

reply to post by bogomil


How would you know if there was anything existing separate to your experience?
Your experience is the only 'thing' you know.

A 'soundwave' does not exist until a consciousness has named it 'sound'.
Sound is a wave of potential and does not exist as such until it hits an eardrum and is turned into electrical signals recieved by a brain that makes a mouth move that says 'sound'.
The word 'sound' is also a sound.

reply to post by Conclusion1

Originally posted by Conclusion1
Some people can smell numbers it is called synesthesia, I think is the correct spelling of it.
Hey you brought it up.

Yes, but those smells very immensely between people.

No I am not creating an exception for anything. It makes sense to me. To you it does not. Berate me all you wish, but I know what I know, just as you know what you know.

Well, you are claiming things without actual evidence, so clearly you don't 'know' them.

All things have a cause Therefore a thing with no cause caused them

If all things have a cause, then what do you think caused them to have a cause?

I don't think they all have to have a cause.

That is patently illogical.

To think everything that we know of is an accident is also patently illogical.

...I'm sorry, but why is the absence of meaning from the universe illogical?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Sound existed before humans did. The wave exists without ears or measurement. It still effects the environment. Sure, it is unperceived, but that doesn't mean it's not real. To think that half of my room ceases to exist because I turn around doesn't fit with the evidence.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I have read the reply madness. This is a religious forum discussing god and time and time again we have the same posters ridiculing and attacking.
I was asking bogomil what the point of his reply was to me. Maybe you should let him/her answer.
I guessed you must be around when i saw the star appear on boggys post.

reply to post by bogomil


The fact that you are questioning is good. I will try to answer some of your questions if I can. I believe that medicine does help some people. Sometime placebos help also.

'Design' is a kind of pseudo-rational reasoning, mainly used as an 'argument' to support christian positions. Why bring it into a debate, if you're unwilling to clarify it?

So you need the concept of design clarified? Okay here is what I believe. God made everything. How? By speaking it into existence. How did he do that? I do not know. That level of advancement is greater than my knowledge.

That's actually what I said also. And with some 50.000 religions, denominations, sects, cults, faiths, interpretations and some 3.500 'gods' to choose between, what is your point?

My point? Christ was right.

Quote: ["No I am not creating an exception for anything. It makes sense to me. To you it does not. Berate me all you wish, but I know what I know, just as you know what you know."] This sounds rather solipsistic; .... ofcourse unless you want to continue to the interesting subject of epistemology, where such can give some meaning.

Solipsism is exactly right and it also gives meaning.

But in the meantime; do you relate to life on general terms this way? Do you e.g. ascribe any collective and objective 'knowledge' about traffic-lights, which can be useful to know and relate to? And what about household-electricity sockets, which can be lethal without prior knowledge?

Yes. Traffic-lights are very useful on streets that need them. Electric sockets can be lethal I agree. Good thing we know about them and books are written about them to teach us what their purpose is. What is your purpose?

How do you distinguish between the value and methods of acquisition of different types of knowledge? And if you find my examples from ordinary life (traffic-lights and wall-sockets) as irrelevant compared to the 'higher' considerations of religion, I only need to mention the prohibition of medicine in some forms of the christianities.

I think all knowledge is good. But wisdom and knowledge must go hand in hand for it to be so.

Childbirths without midwives or medicine; illnesses, mostly terminal with only 'religious methods', but curable with medicine....do you also have "I know what I know" attitudes on this, or do you relate to non-theist methods. If not using modern medicine, do you also recommend this for e.g. children having religious fanatics as parents; such children having no say about their own life or death in some situations.

Yes. I use I know what I know on everything. If I don't know something but the subject intrigues me I try to learn about it. I hope I have answered your questions.