God still with me 2008

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:20 PM

What makes them good is the same thing that made us - nature. And in the human case, the mental pain of one's self or of others is bad, since we live in the world of information about our own and others' feelings. Pain is bad. That's why it's what you feel when you need to move your hand off the hot stove. Pleasure is good, which is why it's what you feel when you've done something nice.

Is our children learning? (That's supposed to be funny.)

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Nickhere
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 07:41 PM

Mrrzy - but why are these things 'good'? Why should food, shelter, comfort and sex be 'good'? What makes them 'good' and other things 'bad'? Then there are permutations - where we move towards food - by grabbing it off our neighbour. Is the food still 'good'? Is our actions to get it 'good'?

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 06:41 PM

Hi, you got ""Science CANNOT measure the essence of a person. It cannot determine character or the WILL to succeed" from something Slag said, not me. I am all offended (not!) that you would think something like that of me, ha ha!

Nickhere: in the real world, Good is that which nature has us motivated towards: food, comfort, shelter, sex. This is done by providing pleasure as a consequence of committing acts that foster survival in the animal. Yes, the pathways are mapped.

Bad (or in religious terms, evil) is that which nature has us motivated away from, usually through the medium of pain.
Human animals' perceptions include the emotions of others as communicated through facial expression, gesture and (recently) language.

Thus what we are motivated towards (one amygdala) and away from (the other amygdala) includes a different kind of learning through experience, such that the psychic pain of others is generally bad but rug burns on your knees might be OK in some situations.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:54 PM

"Are there any scientists out there who can answer these questions?"

In so far as they try, they are not BEING scientists. Everyone can wear multiple hats, and everyone can have an opinion on moral & religious matters.

The point is that in matters moral & religious, NO ONE can prove any particular idea, so no one should claim any ultimate answers.

This does NOT mean that the legal system cannot attempt to define certain behaviors as detrimental to society. This does not always clarify 'morality', but only what happens when laws are broken.

Yep...it DOES get awkward when folks try to slip personal ideas of morality in as legal principles and affect private considerations.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:21 PM

Well, no--because they are alike considerations imposed on subdivisions of existence. We generally like to say that goodness is an attribute which forwards the continuity of our self-structures, our families and groups, and our species, and the world in general -- with its creatures. But that is just a preference; there is nothing inherently more good about surviving, except that the consideration of it makes it so.

None of which is essentially scientific, although it could be measured what choices prolong life, increase the financial success or longevity of marriages and families, and make for long-lived prosperous groups. Scads of books have been written about all of these, but only some are "science". Most are anecdotal, if persuasive.


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:13 PM

1. Soft music
2. Rush Limbaugh
3. One is loud and obnoxious, the other is not
4. Stuff a sock in Rush Limbaugh and stop global warming. That will prove it!

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Nickhere
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:00 PM

Are there any scientists out there who can answer these questions?

1) what is 'goodness'?
2) what is 'evil'?
3) How do we distinguish between them?
4) Is there any empirical proof of either?

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: GUEST,Pseudolus at Work
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:35 PM

"The answer, clearly, is that he would answer to himself, an ethical proposition with which I have no problem. You don't need a "boss" to be ethical, you need your own conscience."

I totally agree with that statement. You don't need a boss to be ethical, nor do you need to be a Christian to be moral, caring, a good parent, a good sibling or a friend. None of these things come as a bundle for Christians any more than they do for anyone else. Add to the list mentally ill, abusive and cult member and these too do not come as a bundle for Christians.

It's a lot easier to have these kinds of discussions when they are attack free and I want you to know that I appreciate that we are capable of having, dare I say, an intelligent discussion on the subject.

Frank

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:08 PM

Hi Mrrzy,

"Science CANNOT measure the essence of a person. It cannot determine character or the WILL to succeed."

I think it can and does. There are forces in environment, psychology and behavior that can be measured and certain predictions can be made. As for "essence", this is a concept unsupportable by physical or scientific means and as a result it is also questionable that
it exists.

" I have known incredibly intelligent people who have done little with their lives and I have known "plodders" who plod on and do quite well because of other intangibles that make up their personality."

Yes, but these characteristics can be explained by sociology and psychology. These are no t necessarilly unpredictable.

" Race and cranial capacity play no identifiable role in a person's intelligence."

1. This is determined by scientific means.
2. There are different kinds of intelligence. IQ's are only one form.

" I recall seeing a special on PBS about the human brain and one Japanese person was missing over two thirds of his brain. Only his right occipital lobe functioned but he had an extraordinary and intelligent mind.   Science can get at some things but it is those "intangibles" that make all the difference."

I remember that special. They did state a plausible reason for this having to do with the
firing of available neurons. Research on this issue is now taking place.

When talking about undefinable terms such as "essence" or even "intelligence", they are
so vague as to question whether they exist at all. There are many forms of intelligence that are measurable. "Essence" is a vague term but if we define it as being something that is felt by others in an individual, this is also measurable in psychological reactions.

You state previously:

"Unfortunately this doesn't sit well with the PC crowd as it makes distinctions which seem to predetermine that some will succeed in life and some will never do well."

We have to ask what "succeed in life" means. Succeed on whose terms? These questions are answerable and science can play a role in this.

" Could an intellectual triage be far away??? The practitioners of science measured the cranial capacity of black folks and found that there is a significant statistical difference between the white race and the black!!! Now THERE is something that is quantifiable! What does it mean? Are black people inferior to white people? It's true! It's science!"

The conclusion doesn't support the supposition. You stated the cranial capacity may not have anything to do with intelligence even with a statistical difference. This can be
verifiable by scientific means and undoubtably has been. When you say "inferior" we need to know what you mean. Inferior in what way? I maintain that there are individual differences between every individual that can be measured in a scientific manner.
Cranial capacity may only be one variable if it is shown to be one at all. There is an argument suggested by some anthropologists that the notion of "race" is perhaps
a misnomer. The common characteristics associated with race have been questioned
as to whether there really is a distinct caucasion or negroid or (?) race. These questions which have always assumed to be true are being questioned by science today and new conclusions are being drawn.

There is nothing mystical or supernatural about the conclusions we draw of human behavior and psychology. This is measurable by science. Science is not a religion.
It maintains a flexibility always in light of new information. Religion tends toward dogma
but science must reject dogma to progress.

"Essences", "spirits","souls" and other vague metaphysical terms are up for grabs as being valid when subject to scientific scrutiny.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 02:33 PM

The answer, clearly, is that he would answer to himself, an ethical proposition with which I have no problem. You don't need a "boss" to be ethical, you need your own conscience.

The belief I was referring to, which may not be one of yours, is held by some Chroistians and states, roughly, that the natur eof man is that he is born as a sinner, if by Original Sin only, and that he cannot avoid this condition and must expiate it by catering to The God in various ways.

A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: GUEST,Pseudolus at Work
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 02:24 PM

If what you are talking about is that as a Christian I believe that I am a creation, ok, I do. endowed with innate sin? Well, I believe that no one is perfect and that I will make mistakes. OK, I agree there too. "instead of capable of unlimited goodness"? Why does it have to be a choice between the two? We are all capable of unlimited goodness, As a christian it is what I strive for. The fact that I believe I will be forgiven for my faults and mistakes is not (as it has been portrayed in this thread) a license to do whatever I want. And the fact that I am human and will make mistakes does not eliminate me from being capable of unlimited goodness.

   The point I am trying to make is this, you have made the comment about how Slag used terminology...here is the quote...

"The line I draw is not against any person's beliefs, but against the need to impose them. OVertly, the way Jehovah's Witnesses try to do, or covertly, which is done (in one way) by selecting terminology intended to be overpowering, freighted with towering meanings, but which for many of us are without experiential or discoverable referents. "

    There is a fine line between stating a fact and stating a belief. Stating a belief as a fact is imposing YOU beliefs on the people who you are talking to. So if I said to you that if someone doesn't believe in God, it is because he is limiting his responsibility because then he will have no one to answer to, what kind of reaction would I get? Whether I believe that is possible or not, to say that as a fact would be wrong. It doesn't eliminate it as a possibility, but it certainly can not be made a hard and fast rule. While I am certainly willing to believe that what you are saying is possible, it can not in fairness be considered a rule of thumb.

Frank

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:17 AM

Pseudolus:

(You are right, i don't know if these things are part of your beliefs or not, and I was not addressing you individually). As long as a person considers himself a creation instead of a creator, endowed with innate sin instead of capable of unlimited goodness, he is constraining himself with limitations to his responsibility and ownership, as a general proposition, IMHO.


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Pseudolus
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:20 AM

Amos, I'm not sure where you're coming from on that one but my faith is not a susstitute for responsibility. to say so without knowing me is, well, irresponsible.

theleveller, there are a lot of generalizations going on in this thread and to bring up an example of a christian capapble of abuse is either indicting the group or it is stating the obvious that it can happen in any group.

My statement was a reaction to the attacks in general in the thread, if I am guilty of anything it is resorting to sarcasm, which I truly apologize for, the sentiment I stand behind...

Frank

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: theleveller
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:30 AM

"Clearly because some idiot dragged his/her kids to church by the hair, ALL Christians do that because after all, we're taught that in Cult 101"

Oh, grow up Pseudolus; nobody is saying that at all. Just stop perverting other people's posts; it does your argument no good. Georgiansilver asked me a question. I answered it. I am talking of my personal experience of someone who thought that his religious beliefs meant he could behave in this way - nothing to do with his other attributes, just his convistion that god gave him the right to do this and that he should be applauded for it. I suppose we should be grateful that he didn't take them to the edge of the village and stone them to death as is advocated in the bible.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 12:12 AM

For Mrrzy--

Definition: perception

Search dictionary for

Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

perception
    n 1: the representation of what is perceived; basic component in
          the formation of a concept [syn: percept, perceptual
          experience]
    2: a way of conceiving something; "Luther had a new perception
       of the Bible"
    3: the process of perceiving
    4: knowledge gained by perceiving; "a man admired for the depth
       of his perception"
    5: becoming aware of something via the senses [syn: sensing]



Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Perception \Per*cep"tion\, n. [L. perceptio: cf. F. perception.
   See Perceive.]
   1. The act of perceiving; cognizance by the senses or
      intellect; apperhension by the bodily organs, or by the
      mind, of what is presented to them; discernment;
      apperhension; cognition.

   2. (Metaph.) The faculty of perceiving; the faculty, or
      peculiar part, of man's constitution by which he has
      knowledge through the medium or instrumentality of the
      bodily organs; the act of apperhending material objects or
      qualities through the senses; -- distinguished from
      conception. --Sir W. Hamilton.

            Matter hath no life nor perception, and is not
            conscious of its own existence.       --Bentley.

   3. The quality, state, or capability, of being affected by
      something external; sensation; sensibility. [Obs.]

            This experiment discovereth perception in plants.
                                                 --Bacon.

   4. An idea; a notion. [Obs.] --Sir M. Hale.

   Note: ``The word perception is, in the language of
         philosophers previous to Reid, used in a very extensive
         signification. By Descartes, Malebranche, Locke,
         Leibnitz, and others, it is employed in a sense almost
         as unexclusive as consciousness, in its widest
         signification. By Reid this word was limited to our
         faculty acquisitive of knowledge, and to that branch of
         this faculty whereby, through the senses, we obtain a
         knowledge of the external world. But his limitation did
         not stop here. In the act of external perception he
         distinguished two elements, to which he gave the names
         of perception and sensation. He ought perhaps to have
         called these perception proper and sensation proper,
         when employed in his special meaning.'' --Sir W.
         Hamilton.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Slag
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 11:31 PM

Mrrzy states:

    "The human mind does not perceive *anything* beyond the physical plane. if's (sic) it's not physical, it can't be perceived."

If you want to win an argument just redefine the terms to fit your conclusion. Perception means to become aware of. Period. Again, you enter the realm of epistemology. What is "knowing"? Are there different types of knowing? It is your assertion that physical existence is the only reality and that nothing else has reality or validity. Beside being tautological it's just flat our wrong. We can "grasp" (which is what the suffix "-cept" means) ideas, taxonomies, extrapolations, intuitions, nuances, etc. a whole host of things that do not exist in a physical, i.e. sensual plane.

The fact that this is a BS forum everyone here must concede to generalities. I just finished rereading Bertram Russell's papers on defining the perception of a thing physical. It runs on for almost 20 pages and it is really just a sketch written for scientists not necessarily involved in the philosophical aspect of their chosen profession. And other philosophers have disagreed with Russell prompting more books. Libraries are filled with such discussions. Interesting reading if you have the patience and stomach for it. However I think we could all agree that no one here is going to "prove" anything, one way or the other. Have your say and be done with it. I am about at that point in this thread myself. It does get tedious after a while. The thing that prompts me to jump back in is when I see an outlandish unsupported statement asserted as known fact. It flies in the face of logic. If it's your opinion, admit it. Opinions are like elbows, everybody has a couple. A CONSIDERED opinion is one that is supported by fact and reasonable argument. And the word "argument" doesn't necessarily mean an emotional set to. It means to make a case for or against something.


Stringsinger states:

" I can't agree. Science has tested some of these fields and has not been found wanting.
Politics can be tested and examined for its validity in social engineering. Love is in the province of psychology and there are numerous scientific approaches regarding it.
There are different forms of love and psychological viewpoints toward the subject.
Things of heart and soul requires that one believes in a soul. I don't think I do.
The heart is a vital organ but when we speak of love, we speak more of the brain and its functions."

Yes, you are correct in part. Science does make an attempt to quantify and measure certain ASPECTS of these phenomena but it is limited in various ways. Consider intelligence quotient (IQ), all the rage thirty or forty years ago. Science had quantified "smarts" and it was a hallmark for the art, er, science of psychology ( a word which means "the study of the 'psyche' or soul, spirit, interesting indeed ). We were told that the IQ of a person never really changes unless there is some physical alteration of the brain.

Unfortunately this doesn't sit well with the PC crowd as it makes distinctions which seem to predetermine that some will succeed in life and some will never do well. Could an intellectual triage be far away??? The practitioners of science measured the cranial capacity of black folks and found that there is a significant statistical difference between the white race and the black!!! Now THERE is something that is quantifiable! What does it mean? Are black people inferior to white people? It's true! It's science!

Science CANNOT measure the essence of a person. It cannot determine character or the WILL to succeed. I have known incredibly intelligent people who have done little with their lives and I have known "plodders" who plod on and do quite well because of other intangibles that make up their personality. Race and cranial capacity play no identifiable role in a person's intelligence. I recall seeing a special on PBS about the human brain and one Japanese person was missing over two thirds of his brain. Only his right occipital lobe functioned but he had an extraordinary and intelligent mind.   Science can get at some things but it is those "intangibles" that make all the difference.

And then we come to the language itself. Soul, spirit, "pneuma", nephesh. Does the language reflect the ignorance of the past or does it retain some of the mystery that still raises questions with physical science? Words are the building blocks of thought and of science. How do we define terms and how do we convey meaning? If I use the word "spirit" what does this mean to you? Epistemology is the study or rather the philosophy of "knowing". How do we know things? What determines truth? Is it social, conventional? Emotional? Psychological? Where does the seat of the emotions lie? In the west we say "the heart". In times past, the liver was credited with being the center of being. The Bible talks about the "bowels" of compassion. There are reasons for each of these metaphors and I am sure you can deduce why they are. One Greek philosopher ( I don't recall, it may have been Aristotle) believed the brain was a cooler for the blood because the head was hotter that the rest of the body most of the time and that was how the body got rid of heat. This too, was the conventional wisdom (science) of the day.

A child asks where something comes from and it begins a game of endless regression that usually terminate with God when the adult wearies from the game. Is that one of the functions of "God"? Where did God come from, Daddy? God is. He just is. Or if you don't believe in God you might throw in the Big Bang without really knowing what the Big Bang was/is. "Well, where did the Big Bang come from Daddy?" It just is. It just happened. Does anyone here see a similarity? I do. But maybe, that's just me.

Since there is not a chapter in the Bible entitled "How I Did It" by God, I am perfectly happy to let science do its thing. I'm all for it. I love science and follow it as much as I can and I employ its methods in just about any way I can to whatever situation is at hand. I appreciate John Stewart Mills, Pascal, Newton, Bacon, Mach, Einstein, Heisenberg, Pauling, Dirac, Poincare', Gell-Mann, Schrodinger (and his cat!), Greene, and Hawking, to name but a few, and I have read from each, some more than others. But science is not the "know-all, end-all".

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 11:17 PM

Religion CAN facilitate abuse, but it is not the source. Any group, identity or fixed idea which one elects as a substitute for his own responsibility and his own ownership of his view can do the same. Hell, Darwinism was the facilitating excuse for all kinds of abuse under the label of eugenics and social darwinism. Not a very good application of Darwinism, sure, but then there are many variants of Christianity which are far crueler than any reading of Christ could justify.


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: GUEST,Pseudolus at Home
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 08:59 PM

Religion facilitates abuse? I am no more likely to be abusive as a Christian than any atheist. But when it's put into the context of a religious discussion it indicts all of us. If I was to say that I have a brother in law who is an atheist who has been abusive to his kids while discussing this same subject, I would be telling you that only religious people are capable of taking care of the kids properly because without God in their lives, they tend to be abusive. It would be inaccurate, unsupported and just plain wrong. A lot has been made of how things are being said in this thread. If you don't think that this thread has been full of attacks and generalizations, I think you may need to read it again.

Frank

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 08:10 PM

Psudolus, nobody said *all* religious people are abusive, just that religion facilitates abuse, and here are some examples. I wouldn't expect to fine anybody who posts here, um, religiously, to be that far out of touch, although all of us probably know people who are, none of whom are atheists. The atheists I know tend to live in the real world.

Of course, that real world being defined through its rational investigation, much of which was through what we term science...

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:59 PM

Slag,

You have said, "Except science has a lousy track record in some fields that do not lend themselves to empirical investigation and those fields are often the things most dear to people; matters of love, religion, politics, things of heart and soul."

I can't agree. Science has tested some of these fields and has not been found wanting.
Politics can be tested and examined for its validity in social engineering. Love is in the province of psychology and there are numerous scientific approaches regarding it.
There are different forms of love and psychological viewpoints toward the subject.
Things of heart and soul requires that one believes in a soul. I don't think I do.
The heart is a vital organ but when we speak of love, we speak more of the brain and its functions.

As to religion, this needs to be tested far more vigorously for your assertions to carry any weight. There has been a prohibition on the part of religionists to subject their beliefs to scientific inquiry. I think this is a lousy track record.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: GUEST,Pseudolus at Work
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:31 PM

OK, let's review, since I was last here we have now been called mentally Ill, we're unable to live in reality, we're sadists and brutal and it's only of value to know who we are because it may have an effect on how we vote. Clearly because some idiot dragged his/her kids to church by the hair, ALL Christians do that because after all, we're taught that in Cult 101. The person who did that has a lot of other attributes, maybe white , black, asian, tall, short, fat, hairy, bald...etc. Insert any of those into this sentence. "All xxx people are sadists and brutal". If I did, you'd call me a bigot. but if the xxx is Christians, it flies here at the cat. Lovely place.....lovely...

Frank

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 01:50 PM

Well, I am not reserving the sense to humans. I suspect life animates thoughts of various kinds and degrees all down the food chain. I've met racoons smarter than my brother.


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 01:42 PM

Non-human animals have a sense of justice. Ever seen a prairie dog finding a hidden stash? Or am I misunderstanding what you're talking about?

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 12:29 PM

I find that quite un-so, dear Mrrz.

I doubt that a genuine and original sense of justice can be found in any chemical-electronic system. It can be emulated, to a poor degree, but that is not the same thing.


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 11:56 AM

Amos, you can think about justice, justice is real, but what you *perceive* is only the physical aspects thereof, like the prisoner at the bar...

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mr Happy
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 11:52 AM

A reasonably reasoned? argument here:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G5JtxrR6msg

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 11:11 AM

The human mind does not perceive *anything* beyond the physical plane.

Oh, fie, Mrzz!! We have both chastised the religious believers in these threads for using freighted words to make statements which are self-proving, and now you are doing it your own self!

It may well be true that the human body does not perceive anything beyond the physical plane. But in your assertion you are embedding the very freighted proposition that all human minds are only of the body, and have no means of awareness that is not physical. This is a lot of embe4dded freight. And if those assumptions were to be explicated, they would have a lot of debate arou8nd them.

There are at least three general kinds of definitions of the word mind.

1. Brain and central nervous system, exclusively.
2. Constructs of pictures (such as memories, vocabularies, etc.) used by the viewpoint to pose and resolve problems in the physical or any other universe.
3. Consciousness in all its aspects taken collectively as a cosmic ingredient.


Either 2 or 3, allowed as possible definitions, would falsify your proposition excerpted above.


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: theleveller
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 09:02 AM

Georgiansilver asks:
"How many Christian children do you personally know with guilt and paranoia "

I know several within my own family. I also know more who have managed to escape tha damage - such as two well-balanced girls whose father, married to my cousin, boasted (yes, boasted) that he used to drag his children to church by their hair. Not an isolated ocurrence, in my experience. I think more children have been screwed up by a christain upbringing that any other factor. Seems to be an excuse for sadism and brutality (read James Joyce, Samuel Butler or Deuteronomy).

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 09:01 AM

"Riginslinger... your suggestion of surgery..which is something I might need on bits of my body and not my brain is a little juvenile to say the least."


                      Sorry! Just trying to help.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 08:53 AM

The human mind does not perceive *anything* beyond the physical plane. if's it's not physical, it can't be perceived. It can be imagined, thought about, dreamed about - but not perceived. If you feel that something is missing from your life if you limit it to reality, you are not perceiving a true lack, you are imagining one. And not only does not everybody have such a need, but if they don't, it is not necessary to invent one, to paraphrase Voltaire.

I agree that many, maybe even most, people long for something besides reality. That doesn't mean there is anything actually *there* beside reality. Inventing gods to fill the void may allow for the imaginary void to be imaginarily filled, which may well satisfy those longings, still doesn't make the gods real, any more than it's the medicine that makes the placebo effect work.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 06:49 PM

Science cannot know about these things.

Slag,

That was a very fine essay you wrote there.

I would offer a couple of counterpoints, though.

Science is a way of knowing. It has not troubled to reach very much into any area of non-materiality, because mostly of inertia and habit. But a well trained scientific mind, once it comes to terms with the differences in the universes, will have no trouble sorting out the whats and the whos in the world of thought qua thought and spirit.

Second, the unrest and emptiness you describe does not necessarily lead to "God-shopping", by any means at all. Many, many people resort to contemplation, meditation, and find their own spiritual sides, and fulfillment and peace, by what you might call "Self-shopping" -- in other words, clearing the clutter of false version of who they are until they arrive at a truer center from which to view and be in the worlds.

The argument of the universal center which is God, to many, could equally well be applied to the higher reaches of that Self. Thou art God, if you can grok it.


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Slag
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 06:24 PM

So Stringsinger et al, assert that "science" is the ultimate arbiter of all things. And why not science? I works. It provides all the miracles of modern life; medicine, entertainment, insights into the nature of atoms and the universe. And how does science proceed? Incrementally, phenomenon, hypothesis, experiment, analysis, synthesis. Science uses inductive thought, a preponderance of evidence rather that the deductive method of conclusions drawn from premises. Why not?

Except science has a lousy track record in some fields that do not lend themselves to empirical investigation and those fields are often the things most dear to people; matters of love, religion, politics, things of heart and soul. Science cannot know about these things. Sure, it can analyze the human brain and tell you which areas look blue or green when you are thinking of dear old Mom. It can theorize as to why but it misses the essence of human existence. What science cannot perceive does not exist!? Is that right? Have you ever met a scientist who claims to know everything? That would be unscientific, wouldn't it? If anything, science is a quest for knowledge using a particular method of thought processes.

Theories are conjectures of the human mind. Proven theory we call fact but many theories are in various states of limbo (irony intended)and the history of science has a pretty substantial trash heap of discarded theories. The point is that every age of man claims to have ultimate or at least, penultimate grasp of the TRUTH.

Science and religion (not corporate, organized ritual) part company in the realm of transcendence, that area where the human minds perceives of something beyond this physical plane. I'm not talking about imagination, from which, incidentally, science immensely benefits. In fact science could not advance at all, if not FOR imagination. I am talking about the perception that something is missing in a person's spiritual life. I assert that there is an "emptiness of being" which most honest folks have had to come to terms with in one way or another. What you fill that emptiness with is your business. Somethings work fine for some folks. Jesus works fine for me. He fills my every longing, give encouragement and meaning to my life and much more. As stated in a post above, some folks try to fill that need with wealth, fame, money, friends, folk music, alcohol, suicide, thrills, sex, you name it. We are all trying to fill that need. Some even use science to fill the need. Hey, if it works for you, I won't question it but don't use your human endeavors of "science" (from the Greek for "knowledge") to attempt to deny the reality of what I know to be true. Scientific knowledge is NOT the only type of knowledge accessible to humans.

In addition to the miracles mentioned above which bless our lives remember that science has provided us with genetic engineering, bigger and better machine guns, atom bombs, pollution, nerve gas, etc., etc. If I were God-shopping I don't believe "Science" would be my first choice nor would I turn to it as the ultimate arbiter of my spiritual well being.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 06:07 PM

And continuing to discuss something so important is a good thing.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 03:34 PM

Amos asks why threads like this persist.

I think there is a natural reaction on the part of people to not want to be sold on religion of any sort. I think it's fine for people to state what they believe and for people like me to
criticize or analyze statements that they make.

I believe that any god is a myth. I believe myths and memes exist. I believe that gurus are a form of humanizing gods as myths.

I don't think people are very accurate in defining their beliefs however. What one person defines as a god, another disputes or introduces contradictory material.

I think this discussion is important, however, because how many of us believe has an affect on how we vote, what we support socially, how we treat others and how we deal with dogma that results in abberations such as "faith-based initiatives".

To make a claim and not back it up with evidence is begging the question.

There is no scientific evidence that supports a notion of a god. The emotion of spirituality is there and has been defined by Einstein in his pursuits in science.

Organized religion is one of the leading causes of war in the world. It has a violent history and many of its leading historical figures have been witch-burners, dictators, torturers,
book-burners, and murderers. This is why this thread keeps coming up.

Today, many scientific breakthroughs are being opposed by organized religious leaders.
Stem cell research, safe pregnancy terminations, solutions to the AIDS epidemic, opposition to psychaitry and psychology advances, promotion of evolution as a tested scientifically validated experiement, carbon-dating, and even the scientific testing of the nature of religion itself.

This thread will keep coming up as long as these concerns need to be answered.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 03:26 PM

Riginslinger...having God in my life is immeasurably rewarding.... so your suggestion of surgery..which is something I might need on bits of my body and not my brain is a little juvenile to say the least. I am so blessed having God in my life and you have your choices but please desist from trying to ridicule something you don't really understand. If you have some insight to disclose then please feel free.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 02:06 PM

And it gets even funnier every time somebody says, "goD is still with me."

                But if this is a condition that has been going on for an extended period of time, it might be a good idea to look into surgery. It might be the only way to recover.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:54 PM

Life isn't the tragedy. Life is the COMEDY.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Slag
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 04:00 AM

Everyone dies of something. In that respect, all of life is a tragedy. "It is appointed once unto Man to die..."

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 05:05 PM

the only comment I have is the woman from California who was interviewed after she had survived the tsunami couple of years ago..
she said 'I believe we were blessed by God'...
(too bad about the 250,000 others who weren't)

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 04:58 PM

It is. It's just labled wrong.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:44 PM

Also, why isn't this thread BS?

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:43 PM

Georgiansilver, please see the other thread. You aren't answering my question, but telling me why it doesn't apply to you. I wasn't TALKING about you. I was posing a hypothetical. Thanks.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Slag
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:13 AM

Amos! My apologies! There, proof that I am only a fallible human. Gee, I COULD be wrong! The response was, of course, for Guest PMB.

In regards to Christian jargon it can be quite off-putting. But just about every specialized endeavor develops its own jargon which the insiders share and that creates a we/them thing. Sailors, miners, military, mathematicians, physicists, doctors, lawyers, all of them. Some do tend to be esoteric or Byzantine, arcane, convoluted (you can stop me at any point along here...)or incomprehensible. The Christian religion has been around so long and is so often quoted that it comes across cliche' and the fact that many do not want to stray from the Word, it becomes limited.

The best sermons I have heard very seldom quote Scripture but expound upon the same in such a way that one may think he has been listening to Scripture, but again, that's just me. You don't have to listen. You don't have to read it or this. There is no "force" about it.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 11:23 PM

Frank:

I honor the comfort you find in prayer, and I offer any comfort I can by being kind -- when I AM being kind. Which is less constant than it should be, I admit.

The line I draw is not against any person's beliefs, but against the need to impose them. OVertly, the way Jehovah's Witnesses try to do, or covertly, which is done (in one way) by selecting terminology intended to be overpowering, freighted with towering meanings, but which for many of us are without experiential or discoverable referents.   

Whatever God may be I am pretty darned sure he is not the maelstrom maker of the Old Testament, or the old man with beard drawn by Michaelangelo, or anything male or embodied in any dimension with a form. So my hackles go up at this assertive, insistant vocabulary and the invisible but telling consequences, intellectually, of taking it on.

But I wish you and Slag and Ted all the blessings that can be had, and the joy of your own personal truths.


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: GUEST,Pseudolus at Home
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 10:19 PM

I think that frankly it's a trap question. If we answer one way, we're not following the bible that is at the heart of the religion we believe in. If we answer the other way, then we are hating, disliking, disapproving, whatever of someone else which also would be against our religion. why don't you ask if god is so powerful, can he create a rock that even he can not lift? the question has no answer. The plain truth is that we can try as we might to interpret the bible and the teachings of Christianity but none of us knows what heaven looks like and none of us will until we get there. None of us knows for sure if someone who is gay will be denied Heaven for being gay. If I was a betting man I would like the chances of a gay man with character over a man who hates him because he is gay. All of this is like saying, "So you believe in Jesus? well prove that he exists." but that's the beauty of it, because I don't have to. I believe what I've already stated in this thread and when my time comes, there will be no one here on Mudcat or anywhere else that will get a vote as to whether I get into Heaven or not.

I have never complained or put anyone down for not believing the same thing I do, it's simply not my place to do so. But here on this site, the comments are constant that are there either to berate or degrade me. My intelligence is questioned. I may not be singled out but I am a Christian and therefore I am included. I'm responsible for my actions and for my words, attack me when they offend you. If my opinions and beliefs offend you, there's nothing I can do about that.

Frank

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 10:14 PM

Um, Slag, ole buddy. I don't think it was I who misquoted you -- the post you are battling just above here is not mine!!


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Slag
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:35 PM

Amos said:

"Still no answer Slag:

You claimed that there is a god that:

(1) Creates people with full knowledge of their fate
(2) Decides whether or not to give them the grace to save them
(4) Gives them no other means by which their own efforts can save them
(3) Condemns the ones he didn't decide to save to torture

Why is such a god good? "

1. I never said God created people with full knowledge of their fate. Those are YOUR words. Rather I said that people are responsible for the light that they do have. Do you mean "fate" as future indicative? I would not use that word either. That is the language of determinism to which I don't subscribe except in a very limited sense. Determinism is the antithesis of freewill.

2. I very explicitly stated that God gives His grace to All. Again, you are making straw men and attacking the same. Don't you take time to actually read what has been written? A smart boxer doesn't just flail away at his opponent. He studies and analyses what is going on and looks for weaknesses and openings. You are flailing.

4. (Number order, yours) True. That IS the message of Christianity. either Jesus was an insane ego maniac or he was God incarnate. That has ALWAYS been the question since his advent (small letter pronouns because that IS the question).

Sin and guilt has been around to plague Mankind for a long time. The problem is undeniable. Christianity offers its solution as does psychiatry, volunteerism, masochism, suicide, Hinduism, personal wealth, alcohol, etc. "You pays yer money and you makes yer choices."

3. What an absolutely erroneous misstatement, misquote! I offered just one little book of the Bible; the Book of St. John, the 4th Gospel. Takes about an hour to read, if that, so you could at least sound like you knew what you were talking about. If you had read it you would have not made such an outlandish statement in all honesty. By just the third chapter you would have read, beginning with verse 17 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world (Greek word here is "Kosmos" which means Mankind) through him might be saved. vs 18. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the only begotten Son of God. vs 19. And this is the condemnation that light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. vs 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light lest his deeds should be reproved. vs 21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

I believe that. And apparently you don't. That is your right and privilege. Again, God came in human form to SAVE sinners. If you have no need for a Savior, great! The message is not for you! What I can't understand is why such hostility if I proclaim that I believe it and it changed my life? That it works for me? Again, I do not believe in determinism (or Calvinism) but in FREEWILL!

With regards to eternal torment it is my conjecture that the words used to describe it are an attempt to warn everyone away from it. It is a physical description of, perhaps a spiritual condition. Again, it is my belief that the torment of Hell is a continuance of consciousness in the utter aloneness separated from God. It's like this: If in the face that all God has done to save you from that awful place or state of being, you reject Him, that is the one limit He has set over which He will not pass, your free will. All of your sins HAVE BEEN forgiven, past tense, for your entire life. You ARE FORGIVEN! Period. All a person has to do is accept God's free gift. That sounds like a pretty good God to me. We create our own places of torment and torture. God is ever present, waiting to fish you out of your mess. You can throw a drowning man a rope but if he doesn't believe he is drowning or that he can save himself, you can't really make him take the rope, can you? That's free will. All you can do is point out that it might be a good idea if he took what was being offered. The decision is his. The witness's responsibility is just to make sure he knows what is available.

And as an aside, I think to PBJ or Mrrzy, I too have little use to those who accost folks and harangue them with "Jesus" in public places. It truly does, I believe, turn more people away from the cause of Christ that win then over. There is a lot of ignorance and bad behavior for which some people excuse themselves because "they are Christians". I've gotten screwed over in business deals by the so-called "brethren". I have had trespassers tell me that it was OK that they were illegally on my land because they "were Christians". Well, I could tell you many stories and I am sure you have your own and maybe they are even the reason for your current attitudes, I don't know. but I can understand. But none of that negates the reality of Christ in my life.

Ultimately, if you believe you have a better plan or explanation, fine. Go for it. Just don't deny me the right to have my say. That's all I am asking.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 07:43 PM

It is completely plain to me that both fall under the same social requirements. It makes no difference why they feel as they do. If one of them spouts harmful slander because God told him to, he is actionable for social harm as much as the other doing it for purely Freudian reasons. ;>) In other words they are both assholes, regardless of their rationalizations, and if they act on those assholeries, then they are equally criminals.


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 06:10 PM

....gossip and false witness...and homosexuality, in its sexual form (and I say that because I love all men...ooops and women)...and murder...and theft..and etc etc and many other things are unacceptable to Christians. We still have to love the people, whoever they are or whatever their persuasion. To do that we have to forgive.... and forgiveness is not letting people off as such...it is 'fore' giving.....it is giving away all the bad feelings for anyone no matter what they do to us, even before they do it. I would like to think I would forgive anyone anything before they do it to me or mine or whoever...Jesus did...so should I not do so too? If I live with the hurt other people have caused me.....as an entity at the front or back of my mind.....they still hurt me! If I forgive them..if I give away those feelings..they can hurt me no more!
Every one of us was thrust into this sad world and not by our own choice...we all try to make our own way through it 'as best we can' and of course we mess up! again and again. I mess up less since I have had God in my life....that is a fact!...I even like myself now which I didn't until 1991....so I couldn't like others let alone love them. Whether you believe in God or not...whether you believe my words or not is not important. What is important is that you seek the truth of life and find your own destiny...whatever you perceive it to be.
If you do not find God...the God I know...then be happy being the person you are with your beliefs, whatever they be.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:16 PM

Georgiansilver - not talking about YOU, but as a general question, what would you answer?

Ebbie - pick a different bigotry, then, the question still stands.