PROOF that GOD Exists......

afrawfraw

afrawfraw

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
I'm sure that's how it would be, having had you best me all my life in physical contest, I'd turn to being the man behind the curtain, enjoying your protection and manipulating your superstitions. This suggests it is the natural, prototype state. Even connecting sex with birth must be far in the future.

It's a bit bald however to suggest that one day a guy made fire and was the magic man. The first magic man figured out out to bring fire back to camp. Then there were ages of just guarding fire. I am interested in what proof you have that the natural state is atheist
and not merely agnostic.
Click to expand...
Atheism has no doctrines. That's how. Without being introduced to information which can not be questioned, we act on what we observe, not what we don't.

Agnostics have information on deities. Without that information, they would be Atheists. Atheist simply means no belief in Gods. Neither religion hater, nor science nerd, nor antagonist. Just no belief.

You believe even in a secluded room, raised from birth with no knowledge of any Gods, a human will suddenly invent religion. No. Religion is not society, or values, or family. It's a group of ideas never to be questioned, ever. Pretty lame to me. My first clue is when someone says, "trust me." That's when I run.

"The first thing to understand about religion is that it does not activate one particular capacity in the mind, a “religious module” or system that would create the complex set of beliefs and norms we usually call religion."

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/why_is_religion_natural/

So while it has integrated itself into our nature it is in fact, unnatural to participate in religion. You MUST have external knowledge (Remember, can't be questioned) to be religious.

"Refutation is more difficult than belief. It takes greater effort to challenge and rethink established notions than just accept them. Besides, in most domains of culture we just absorb other people’s notions. Religion is no exception. If everyone round about you says that there are invisible dead people around, and everyone acts accordingly, it would take a much greater effort to try and verify such claims than it takes to accept them, if only provisionally."
[youtube]AsUW8JcnzZs[/youtube]
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
These are just made up definitions. And then Ace Ventura movie snips? Laughable. But, meaningless.

What is the proof and what was the experiment that shows a rejection of God without ever knowing about IT? Hold on! Are you even seeing your own paradox? I hope you read my thought experiment about this. What say you?

The book, Lord of the Flies, is a great and eye opening treatment of this subject. You perhaps are claiming more thickness to the skin of civil behavior than I do.

And it is very interesting that the link you provided is a double-speak web page on being told what to say.

Don't say, this, say that. The word substitution of religion. A entire page of catechism.
Do not say...But say...
Religion answers people’s metaphysical questionsReligious thoughts are typically activated when people deal with concrete situations (this crop, that disease, this new birth, this dead body, etc.)


Atheism is a fools religion of fear and rejection. You have to know about IT to reject IT. Agnosticism is not dependent on knowing anything or being exposed to anything. It's really about not caring about the definitions of IT. Atheists care passionately for some reasons they are very vocal about.
 
Dislexicmidget2021

Dislexicmidget2021

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Doer
The religions have sought to humbly describe, as science has.


LOL,Now heres a sig waiting to happen.....carry on.

 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I am a bit surprised by this. Why would we not want the best, healthiest, most productive society? It seems a sure way to be one up on the survival sweepstakes.
I have been following the "is religion or atheism the default condition?" with some interest. My studies of the world to date suggest that religious sentiment/sensibility is hardwired into the human brain at some level. The sheer traction of the idea of engaged spirits can only have its basis in a shared neurochemical quirk ... unless, of course, some of the magic DOES turn out to have real power behind it. But I am diffident of that. cn
Click to expand...
In quantum speak, we actual change our world by Observation. Therefore the worldview in the past was not only different, the world was different, in that we were closer in our perceptions to the Many Worlds. That is scary and so we tried and tried to get to an Objective basic for Reality. But, the quantum case is practically closed, imo. There is no Objective basis for Reality.

We don't even know if dark matter was "there" before we observed the pans of galaxies rotating as if they were spheres. Preception is Conception, I'm afraid.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Dr.J20 said:
I kind of resent the claim that I am trying to distract from the actual discussion by bringing up art. I took a view from the perspective of effect, a tactic i thought a bunch of science nazis might appreciate or at least be open to. the effect of art on humanity is wide ranging and shares some motives with these philosophies: what is the endgame of answering these questions? presumably, a better existence, right? So art takes a different approach: instead of trying answer questions, it provides an aesthetic moment, a point of repose for the mind, enabling that mind to consider an unbounded reality, a realm of pure potential. This kind of centering has been shown to be good for individuals (like meditation)--art therapy comes to mind as well.
That art moves individuals to alter their lives, alters their existences, even changes the way they perceive the world, places art in the category of "attempts at making life better" as do philosophy, religion, science, metaphysics.
I had hoped to open the discussion from another angle to see if we could arrive at some kind of common understanding; fruitful argumentation, ideally, results in both parties coming away with something new, something gained.IMO.
But it seems as though there will be no tolerance for the idea that a diverse society (a) is the best, healthiest, most productive society, and (b) requires diverse individuals, including those of differing beliefs.

Could one of you proof mongers explain to me how your all not just agnostic? I mean you can't exactly disprove the existence of the spiritual/metaphysical, just as much as you can't prove it exists, so wouldn't, "we don't know, yet" be the most scientific answer about this?
Click to expand...
Resent it all you want but that's exactly what your post did. To summarize, you said - if we think philosophy X is better, more useful than philosophy A, B and C, what about this other thing that isn't a philosophy? It's not any different than if we were discussing fruit and you said, "You think oranges are better than apples, bananas or kiwi, but what about television?"
Whether you 'intended' to do this or not, my post should have made you aware that this is what you did and instead of feeling insulted or angry, maybe you should have thought about it a bit so you can learn to recognize when you make a fallacious argument.

My post says nothing about the comparative value of art wrt philosophical endeavors. The point is that they are different things and conflating them into a discussion about belief is meaningless and only serves to attempt to 'trap' your opponent into trying to answer a question that is meaningless.

As for your 'proof monger' comment, I would ask if you decline to seek evidence in other areas of your life as you do here? Do you care whether the medicine you take has evidence that it works or the food you eat won't kill you, or that every piece of technology that you own and use was developed using the principles of critical, skeptical thinking? If it wasn't for people like me and other science-oriented individuals, you would still be making your art on cave walls.


Science is indeed agnostic about every question that is asked. If you believe anyone has said otherwise, I personally would like to see a link to the post.
 
afrawfraw

afrawfraw

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Atheism is a religion. You have to know about IT to reject IT. Agnosticism is not dependent on knowing anything or being exposed to anything. It's really about not caring about the definitions of IT. Atheists care passionately for some reasons they are very vocal about.
Click to expand...
Another sig just screamin'...
 
afrawfraw

afrawfraw

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
I thought you patterned yourself as an atheist. And that is the natural state. But, perhaps you mean that old saw of, you can't reject something that doesn't exist?
Click to expand...
Now your discarding fundamental truths. I can't nor care to argue imaginary scenarios.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Am I getting you mixed up with someone? Are you not proposing atheism as a natural FACT?
 
afrawfraw

afrawfraw

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Am I getting you mixed up with someone? Are you not proposing atheism as a natural FACT?
Click to expand...
Condition. Your trying to straw man but you've seldom encountered an Atheist, and can tell by your arguments, you have no idea how an Atheist feels. You assume an Atheist rejects God. You keep using the word God, not Gods, or Allah, or even Qi.

Folks have been polite, because they are assuming you are ill equipped for a scientific debate. Don't shoot the messenger. To say you have faith is one thing. But to try to support faith with science is Laughable. Then you state dinosaurs were being witnessed by man. Then you accuse me of using a "What to say" site as a source. Written by a man at a university who studies behavior. In a team. Of other scientists. Please understand.
 
afrawfraw

afrawfraw

Well-Known Member
“There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception.” - Aldous Huxley​
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Am I getting you mixed up with someone? Are you not proposing atheism as a natural FACT?
Click to expand...
I'm quite sure you were proposing, just very recently that, a-the-ism is a natural born condition of humans. Are you starting to realize how impossible that is? Any -theism is a result of cognition. "Don't know anything" is how we are born. Not an -ism it's a condition of ignorance. A -tic. Ag-nos-tic.
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
These are just made up definitions. And then Ace Ventura movie snips? Laughable. But, meaningless.

What is the proof and what was the experiment that shows a rejection of God without ever knowing about IT? Hold on! Are you even seeing your own paradox? I hope you read my thought experiment about this. What say you?

The book, Lord of the Flies, is a great and eye opening treatment of this subject. You perhaps are claiming more thickness to the skin of civil behavior than I do.

And it is very interesting that the link you provided is a double-speak web page on being told what to say.

Don't say, this, say that. The word substitution of religion. A entire page of catechism.
Do not say...But say...
Religion answers people’s metaphysical questionsReligious thoughts are typically activated when people deal with concrete situations (this crop, that disease, this new birth, this dead body, etc.)


Atheism is a religion. You have to know about IT to reject IT. Agnosticism is not dependent on knowing anything or being exposed to anything. It's really about not caring about the definitions of IT. Atheists care passionately for some reasons they are very vocal about.
Click to expand...
Atheism is not a religion. It is merely an act; the act of deciding that there is no proof of a "god". Atheism would not exist without religion, it is completely counter to the concept. It makes no sense to call it a religion. A religion requires belief in a god. A belief that an adult had to force upon me as a child. I never conceived the idea of god on my own. I would still not beleive in a god, even if the idea was not brought up. I believe in a higher power just as little, regardless of my awareness of the concept of it. Atheists care, because religion has, and continues to, perpetuate ignorance and atrocities throughout history. I don't see atheists claiming a divine power says that "god hates fags".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top