PROOF that GOD Exists......

[eye exaggerate]

Pointless thread

...there are none, just ask light

 

[cannabineer]

...very true. Most of the reading I've done is by scientists who tread these waters...brave people for sure. What it takes are the ones who are not in it for the Nobel / Cash / Societal prize to reduce falsifiability?

I have traveled in quite scientific circles, and for the majority, tradable prizes were a secondary concern. Many (including your humble interlocutor) were motivated by the quest for understanding.
However the old right/left-brain dichotomy means that scientists who can also communicate happily with semioticists and poets are a rare breed indeed. Ime. cn

 

[Dr.J20]

As for anyone remarking,"I'm ethical and religious, so there!" Do you believe that treating homosexuals like we treated newly released slaves is ethical? Yaaaa, thaaaaanks.

who is this we you're talking about? is it americans? is it american christians? is it american christian evangelicals of a particular subsect? Again, coercive exercises advocated for by persons claiming a religious affiliation is scant evidence that the world would be better without religion. Also, that the majority of scientists and professors of whom you are aware identify as "atheist" says only that your experience is limited to just that.

 

[Dr.J20]

Name another condition, besides indoctrined, which would allow you to execute children, To look at a new born and not see just a human, but an abomination?

Self-ascribed Nazi. That is, one who approached Nazism of his own reasoning, not by being told that it was right and never questioning it. A Nazi would definitely look at a jewish newborn and see an abomination.

 

[Heisenberg]

It is the blind progress that leads to the discovery of germs, how they work, how they effect us, and how to control them. Why some choose to help, and others to hate, is a matter of environment. Nature VS Nurture.

This is pretty close to what I was looking for. All that is needed to understand why science is used for constructive progress is to demonstrate an aversion to suffering. Survival and well being has shaped our values, such as possession, and moral expression is simply a summary of those preferences modified by culture. Survival depends on mating, this naturally gave rise to sexual jealousy and the desire to covet others, which through the lens of modern culture is expressed as seeing adultery as a moral failing. Our values can be reduced to the desire for sentient beings to flourish, no god is necessary to provide a moral foundation, especially not one who, depending on his mood, seems perfectly fond of genocide, slavery and human sacrifice.

Because objective reasoning would NEVER lead one to commit crimes unless necessary for survival. Name another condition, besides indoctrined, which would allow you to execute children, To look at a new born and not see just a human, but an abomination?

Very good point. Religion often serves as a moral blind-spot, a tool to rationalize atrocities that would sicken reasonable people. Unless most religious people are willing to kill their child when God commands, then they must get their morals some place else.

One can not be ethical, and religious. But you can be Ethical without religion. Good enough? As for anyone remarking,"I'm ethical and religious, so there!" Do you believe that treating homosexuals like we treated newly released slaves is ethical? Yaaaa, thaaaaanks.

I imagine you will get enough blowback from these statements without me playing devils advocate. I would propose that one can be religious and ethical, but one must engage in some serious cognitive dissonance to avoid feeling conflicted.

 

[cannabineer]

Very good point. Religion often serves as a moral blind-spot, a tool to rationalize atrocities that would sicken reasonable people. Unless most religious people are willing to kill their child when God commands, then they must get their morals some place else.

To me, that right there illustrates the moral horror I feel at the Abraham/Isaac story (subversion of a deepest human instinct in service of God, interrupted) and the crucifixion (essentially the same story allowed to run to a conclusion, most cruelly).

Does that mean I hate all religion? No. But THAT pair of stories ... I am astounded that so few people see the naked human control motive in it. Once your honor is called Loyalty, it's all over. cn

<add> Can God lose on a thread that's being Godwinned?

 

[afrawfraw]

Self-ascribed Nazi. That is, one who approached Nazism of his own reasoning, not by being told that it was right and never questioning it. A Nazi would definitely look at a jewish newborn and see an abomination.

Informing Hitler that you feel comfortable questioning his divinity and motives, well...

 

[afrawfraw]

I imagine you will get enough blowback from these statements without me playing devils advocate. I would propose that one can be religious and ethical, but one must engage in some serious cognitive dissonance to avoid feeling conflicted.

One can have FAITH, and be ethical. But how can one participate in a community that has unethical beliefs, while being ethical? The only way one could be religious and ethical, is by participating in one that promotes ONLY ethical practices and beliefs. I know of none.

 

[Dr.J20]

One can have FAITH, and be ethical. But how can one participate in a community that has unethical beliefs, while being ethical? The only way one could be religious and ethical, is by participating in one that promotes ONLY ethical practices and beliefs. I know of none.

Buddhism?....

as for your previous statement about hitler, nazism, etc....perhaps it would have helped if i had said a contemporary nazi. he has simply read some fucked up shit and decided it was right, then slaughtered the baby jew. he calls himself a nazi.

 

[canniboss]

I think that the truth about the world, reality, and consciousness is so totally fucked up that if you learned what it was all about your head would implode.

 

[Heisenberg]

One can have FAITH, and be ethical. But how can one participate in a community that has unethical beliefs, while being ethical? The only way one could be religious and ethical, is by participating in one that promotes ONLY ethical practices and beliefs. I know of none.

Actually I misspoke, lemme correct my own quote.

I imagine you will get enough blowback from these statements without me playing devils advocate. I would propose that one can believe they are perfectly religious and ethical, but one must engage in some serious cognitive dissonance to avoid feeling conflicted.

I find many people side with morals over religion, and then tell themselves God understands, God doesn't care about that rule anymore, God changes with the times, ect. Also known as cognitive dissonance reduction, or rationalizing. This is how most religious Americans can be morally against murder, yet participate in a cult that celebrates human sacrifice.

 

[eye exaggerate]

Americans can be morally against murder, yet participate in a cult that celebrates human sacrifice.

...yep, human proclivities for divine attributes. The 'little man' for the 'universal man'. The crucifixion, if this is what you are referring to, is a daily inner event.

...you forgot to point out the incest

"In alchemical manuscripts conciunctio is depicted as the union or coitus of King and Queen, of the red man and the white woman, or just by man and wife. "Connect the slave with his fragrant sister and by themselves they will make the entire work; because as soon as the white woman has been married to the red man, they will hug themselves firmly and become one, they will decompose and perfect each other: from the two bodies they were before they will become one single body that is susceptible for perfection." (Donum Dei, early 16[SUP]th[/SUP] century). As it shows in this quotation coniunctio was often incestuous. We can also find that in other religions, like Sulamith and Adam Kadmon in the Cabala, Adam and Eve in Catholicism, Isis and Osiris in ancient Egypt. In alchemy it usually between mother and son. "Beya mounted Gabricius (her son) and locked him up in his belly, that well that he was not visible anymore. And she hugged Gabricius with such love that she took him completely into her nature and divided him into numerous parts." (Rosarium philosophorum, 1550). A bizarre union but it is entirely symbolic. Carl Gustav Jung says that this symbolic incest is the descent into or the penetration of the unconscious. The mother is the unconscious, the son is the conscious. It is a &#8216;regressus ad uterum&#8217; or the return to the uterus of the mother. Penetration of the female is the same as the penetration of the water or the unconscious. Thus we see that the coniunctio is depicted as the coitus of man and wife, king and queen, but also by the king taking a bath, or drinking water. Sometimes the coitus between man and woman happens in water, in a bath or in a fountain. The water is also synonymous with mercury or quicksilver."

 

[eye exaggerate]

I have traveled in quite scientific circles, and for the majority, tradable prizes were a secondary concern. Many (including your humble interlocutor) were motivated by the quest for understanding.
However the old right/left-brain dichotomy means that scientists who can also communicate happily with semioticists and poets are a rare breed indeed. Ime. cn

...alchemists

 

[afrawfraw]

Self-ascribed Nazi. That is, one who approached Nazism of his own reasoning, not by being told that it was right and never questioning it. A Nazi would definitely look at a jewish newborn and see an abomination.

Your forgetting once you join, your indoctrinated. Sorry.

 

[afrawfraw]

Buddhism?....

as for your previous statement about hitler, nazism, etc....perhaps it would have helped if i had said a contemporary nazi. he has simply read some fucked up shit and decided it was right, then slaughtered the baby jew. he calls himself a nazi.

This "Nazi" didn't just read some shit. He BELIEVES IT! He has altered his logic parameters to align with Nazism. Indoctrination can have many forms. The only requirement is a demand for obedience without question. Can this "Nazi" gather his fellow Nazi's and discuss why they feel Jew's are fit only to die? Fuck no! And for someone to read such hate, and buy into it, requires more than just being literate. This "Nazi" has been subjected to hate and fear. I've read Hitlers works. I'm no Nazi!

As for Buddhism, I think fundamental Buddhism is close. Not the way it's practiced, but the way it's written. The original 3.

 

[Dr.J20]

This "Nazi" didn't just read some shit. He BELIEVES IT! He has altered his logic parameters to align with Nazism. Indoctrination can have many forms. The only requirement is a demand for obedience without question. Can this "Nazi" gather his fellow Nazi's and discuss why they feel Jew's are fit only to die? Fuck no! And for someone to read such hate, and buy into it, requires more than just being literate. This "Nazi" has been subjected to hate and fear. I've read Hitlers works. I'm no Nazi!

As for Buddhism, I think fundamental Buddhism is close. Not the way it's practiced, but the way it's written. The original 3.

seems to me your real gripe is that you wish people were smarter.

 

[Dr.J20]

And here's the thing about your definition of indoctrination: what happens when someone questions all of the principles of a 'doctrine' and is met with a lucid, glib, proponent of the doctrine. each of his questions is answered or bested by this proponent, and, because our questioner isn't that well educated, thinks all of the proponents answers make sense? He is only indoctrinated from the perspective of someone who can retort to the proponent and show how his answers do not follow logically or factually. So basically, you can claim that anyone who disagrees with you has been indoctrinated.

and really, if you're going to draw the same distinction between practice and text that i did pages ago and in other threads of the similar bent, what was the point of all this?

 

[afrawfraw]

seems to me your real gripe is that you wish people were smarter.

Perhaps, yes.

 

[Dr.J20]

Your forgetting once you join, your indoctrinated. Sorry.

ok, so to avoid the joining, he is not a nazi, he is an anti-semite. there is no anti-semitic doctrine, just the notion that jewish people are evil, subhuman, etc. this is wrongheaded, for sure, but he would definitely look at a newborn jew as an abomination because all jews are abominations in his eyes. he has no faith himself, either.

 

[afrawfraw]

And here's the thing about your definition of indoctrination: what happens when someone questions all of the principles of a 'doctrine' and is met with a lucid, glib, proponent of the doctrine. each of his questions is answered or bested by this proponent, and, because our questioner isn't that well educated, thinks all of the proponents answers make sense? He is only indoctrinated from the perspective of someone who can retort to the proponent and show how his answers do not follow logically or factually. So basically, you can claim that anyone who disagrees with you has been indoctrinated.

and really, if you're going to draw the same distinction between practice and text that i did pages ago and in other threads of the similar bent, what was the point of all this?

The problem is the logic. Questioning comes from within. When you question the condition of a used car, do you really ask the salesman?