How many GODS do you have?

[Baruch]

I spoke no ad hominem in that post.  You are correct about the paint-by AND freeform.  I couldn't draw a deer to save my life.  Seriously, the time I tried, family thought it was a dog.

But what this about an ad hominem?

How will you go "paleo" if you can't paint?  Can you even outline your hand on the cave walls? (sarc).

[trdsf]

Everything in physical reality is not uniform either.  People interpret the same historical events very differently.  Yet you don't question that reality.  If your measure of reality is the degree of consensus then there is much up for dispute here in the physical. There are people who can levitate, people who can move material with their minds.  But even this is only by an advanced understanding of natural laws, not "paranormal".  That can't prove the supernatural either.  Nothing can.  The only way to see it is first belief, and then the awareness enters the mind.  You had experienced this, then found a way to explain it away.

Apples and oranges.  History is not a science.

Here's an experiment to try: give an equation to fifty mathematicians.  You're going to get the same result fifty times.  Now give your birth date, time and place to fifty astrologers.  You're going to get fifty different results.  This is the difference between reality and woo.

And if the supernatural can't be proven, then I don't have to take it into account.  Until it can be, I can discount it with complete legitimacy.

Since everything experienced from higher realms must be filtered through the physical brain it is no surprise that people interpret things differently.  Your mind can't perceive pure energy so it translates that into dreams and hallucinations that best symbolize the nature of that energy.  The fact that I don't see the same spider you do is no bother--because each brain will translate non-material reality into its own unique set of symbols.  Furthermore each individual is a world into themselves energetically speaking.  No two fingerprints are the same and no two energy signatures are the same.  Same goes for religions; each religion was tailored to the cultural norms into which it was revealed.  But if you dig down, you find that for the most part all religions are pointing to the same goal.  I have personally done this.

If it can't be perceived the same by two people independently, it's by definition completely without merit as evidence.  No two fingerprints are the same, but an unequivocal one-to-one match can be made between any fingerprint, and its possessor.  It is rooted in physical reality, not mysticism, meditation, or the spasms of a brain in distress.

You still are dodging the fact that your religious experiences and mine are mutually exclusive.  You cannot assert the validity of yours without denying the validity of mine or vice versa, nor can you assert the equivalent validity of both yours and mine.

If you want to claim my experience was a genuine encounter with the divine, you must deny the god of the Qu'ran.  If you assert the god of the Qu'ran, then you must deny the validity of my experience.  You can't have it both ways.  It's like trying to assert that 1=2.

Also, if you think all religions are "pointing to the same goal", you clearly haven't actually studied world religions.

And. "higher realms" are only asserted, not demonstrated.  You need to show that, not just state it.  Everything that follows collapses without verifiable demonstration that "higher realms" exist.

Also, pi and anything in Euclidean space are purely mental abstractions.  I can guarantee you've never seen a Euclidean circle, or any other geometrical form because they don't exist in the physical world.  Funny you had to resort to the immaterial to drive home your claim that only the material exists.

Abstraction or not, pi has a very specific and precise meaning.  Any circle I give you is going to have 3.1415926... as the ratio of the perimeter to the diameter.  It can be measured to any precision you care to take it to.  The paranormal doesn't have that reliable repeatability.

Also, I've never seen a perfect gas, but that doesn't stop the ideal gas law from working.  There's nothing hinky about an abstraction rooted in reality that never gives anything but congruent answers.

You know, unlike religious experiences and prayer that almost always tell different people different things.

[Arik]

OK, for argument's sake, I'll accept that there is a god, and he foresaw that many of his creation would reject his existence.

Then why did he even create those of us that find us in that position? I am not sure if you believe in eternal punishment, or annihilation theory, but either way, your god is still creating billions of people, knowing ahead of time that they are destined for punishment (or not being rewarded), all because he fails to provide us with evidence.

If there is a god, and he wants to punish me for not being gullible enough to believe he exists, I guess there's nothing I can do about it. But how does that not make him a moral thug?

If anybody tell you that God create billions of people, knowing ahead of time that they are destined for punishment that is something very very silly to say.
Even the so called believers get punishment if they do the wrong thing.
Reactions to previous actions hit everybody regardless whether they are theists, atheists or materialists and the reactions that you may call them  punishment are all about restoring the lost balance.

There is no permanent hell so the reactions to previous actions are of temporary nature.
The only permanent thing that exist is the nirvana all the rest come and goes as evolution take place.

[josephpalazzo]

The kid has been brainwashed pretty good. So much in love with his belief that he cannot see the simple nonsense of all religions. Problem with brainwashing is most the brain gets thrown out with the water.

You're assuming there was a brain, riiight...

[Absolute_Agent]

I do go along with the above and try to live my life in that manner.  But I would remove the words: "You are fulfilling the requirements of God", because for me I don't see any evidence for any god.  And if all could live like that, we would have world peace in my time.

As do many atheists.  Which is fascinating, really.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

As do many atheists.  Which is fascinating, really.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

I find it fascinating that people need the concept of god in order to do good.   

[Absolute_Agent]

I find it fascinating that people need the concept of god in order to do good.

It was assumed that the masses need a perpetual carrot and stick system to synthesize morality.  Stalin and Hitler are examples of how evil people can become when those constraints are removed.   The case of genuinely ethical atheists is an anomaly worth investigating.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Simon Moon]

As do many atheists.  Which is fascinating, really.

Are you saying it is fascinating that atheists live good, moral lives, just because we don't believe in gods?

Are you saying that there are no other good reasons to behave morally, other than because a god said so?

If not, please correct me if I am mistaking.

[josephpalazzo]

I find it fascinating that people need the concept of god in order to do good.   

People are brainwashed to believe there is someone powerful watching you, so if you transgress, you will be punished. As a toddler, you have your parents watching over you. But as an adult, you need someone all present, all knowing to do that job of oversight. And God is the perfect prop for this - the Wizard of Oz is just a parable that has been going over for centuries.

[Simon Moon]

It was assumed that the masses need a perpetual carrot and stick system to synthesize morality.  Stalin and Hitler are examples of how evil people can become when those constraints are removed.   The case of genuinely ethical atheists is an anomaly worth investigating.

What a load of BS.

First of all, Hitler wasn't an atheist. And under Stalin's rule, the Soviet Union was a quasi-religious government. He just replaced the bad dogma of an infallible god, with the bad dogma of an infallible State.

All one has to do is look at the most atheistic countries in the world today, to see that ethical atheists is the norm, not an anomaly. Sweden is about 80% atheist, Denmark is about 70%, Finland and Norway also about 70%. If ethical atheists are an anomaly, where are the mass murdering Swedish or Norwegian regimes?

Fact is, these countries, and a few others with a high percentage of atheist populations, have lower murder rates, rape rates, teen pregnancy rates, higher education rates, lower infant mortality, and almost every other measure of societal health is better.

You don't have the facts to back up your statements.

[Absolute_Agent]

Apples and oranges.  History is not a science.

Technically no; but what better way is there to study actual events that happen in the actual world?  Anything you do in a lab that is termed science is in many respects, a mere simulation.

Here's an experiment to try: give an equation to fifty mathematicians.  You're going to get the same result fifty times.  Now give your birth date, time and place to fifty astrologers.  You're going to get fifty different results.  This is the difference between reality and woo.

Again, you can do all the equations you want, it's all abstract, a simulation of reality.  Astrology is an art but there are  rules and guiding principles.  Somewhat like life. 

And if the supernatural can't be proven, then I don't have to take it into account.  Until it can be, I can discount it with complete legitimacy.

This is understood--and by design.

If it can't be perceived the same by two people independently, it's by definition completely without merit as evidence. 

That's an exaggeration.

If you want to claim my experience was a genuine encounter with the divine, you must deny the god of the Qu'ran.  If you assert the god of the Qu'ran, then you must deny the validity of my experience.  You can't have it both ways.  It's like trying to assert that 1=2.

Let's talk about this, since you are obviously big on mathematics.  Do you accept the concept of infinity as valid mathematical construct?

And. "higher realms" are only asserted, not demonstrated.  You need to show that, not just state it.  Everything that follows collapses without verifiable demonstration that "higher realms" exist.

There is scientific evidence for the existence of higher realms.  Check out Dr. Michael Newton's work on soul realms

Abstraction or not, pi has a very specific and precise meaning.  Any circle I give you is going to have 3.1415926... as the ratio of the perimeter to the diameter.  It can be measured to any precision you care to take it to.  The paranormal doesn't have that reliable repeatability.

Neither does life.  That's why pi is an abstraction.

Also, I've never seen a perfect gas, but that doesn't stop the ideal gas law from working.  There's nothing hinky about an abstraction rooted in reality that never gives anything but congruent answers.

Religious beliefs in the supernatural work too.

You know, unlike religious experiences and prayer that almost always tell different people different things.

Answers to prayer are always tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of the individual.  We wouldn't logically expect them to be uniform.


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Absolute_Agent]

Are you saying it is fascinating that atheists live good, moral lives, just because we don't believe in gods?

Are you saying that there are no other good reasons to behave morally, other than because a god said so?

If not, please correct me if I am mistaking.

Neither of those ideas were implied.  I think this points to the reality of an innate goodness, undermining the distorted doctrine of "original sin" in Christianity.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Absolute_Agent]

What a load of BS.

First of all, Hitler wasn't an atheist. And under Stalin's rule, the Soviet Union was a quasi-religious government. He just replaced the bad dogma of an infallible god, with the bad dogma of an infallible State.

All one has to do is look at the most atheistic countries in the world today, to see that ethical atheists is the norm, not an anomaly. Sweden is about 80% atheist, Denmark is about 70%, Finland and Norway also about 70%. If ethical atheists are an anomaly, where are the mass murdering Swedish or Norwegian regimes?

Fact is, these countries, and a few others with a high percentage of atheist populations, have lower murder rates, rape rates, teen pregnancy rates, higher education rates, lower infant mortality, and almost every other measure of societal health is better.

You don't have the facts to back up your statements.

Well you're looking at modern civilization.  I was more referring to ancient history.  Your argument about Hitler and Stalin is mainly a matter of interpretation.  Fact is they were both atheists.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

It was assumed that the masses need a perpetual carrot and stick system to synthesize morality.  Stalin and Hitler are examples of how evil people can become when those constraints are removed.   The case of genuinely ethical atheists is an anomaly worth investigating.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

I think the words and concepts of ethics and morality need to be defined.  I don't find that any of the major religions are ethical nor moral.  I'm not sure Stalin was an atheist--he was very close to being a priest when he quit the church.  I don't think the Russian Orthodox church suffered an unusual amount under Stalin--could be wrong, but I think Stalin encouraged the church's growth.  That being said, it is clear Stalin was an evil person--but the church did not denounce him.  Hitler wasn't an atheist either, I don't think.  In fact, he used religion to fuel his drive to wipe out the Jews--he especially liked Martin Luther's teachings on the subject of Jews.  And while it is clear Hitler was an evil man, I don't think the Roman Catholic church officially was all that active in denouncing Hitler. 

I find it worth investigating the anomaly of the very religious being ethical or   moral--they have to be beaten over the head with threats of hell and damnation to do good.

[Absolute_Agent]

I find it worth investigating the anomaly of the very religious being ethical or   moral--they have to be beaten over the head with threats of hell and damnation to do good.

It's linked to the concept of original sin, an entrenched doctrine that people are intrinsically evil.  I don't agree with this doctrine, but have experienced its impact personally due to growing up in a fundamentalist environment.  When I detached from that environment, I found that internal impulses towards negative behavior subsided.



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk