PROOF that GOD Exists......

Some things can be demonstrated inside to our inner Objective. Call it super-micro, outside in, science. The opposite, perhaps of physical science since as Observer, we have a very large role, even in that. In this science, Observer is all. We prep, we observe, we know. And also, the opposite of maco-science, it is proven, but can't be proved. The experience is repeatable, but if one ever gets any tech from it, it can't be shared.

There is this concept of Now, and all who get there, somehow, take great joy from the experience. Every bit of life is Now except that mostly we live, not in the Outer world we see as so Objective. Oh, no, not even that. We live in a mind cloud as I'm sure we know.

We only pay our coin of attention when required. Yikes! The Brakes! At work we get paid to pay attention. For entertainment we force our attention into the very present and call it a great movie, a perfect downhill ski run, that sunset took my breath away.

Now there are those who say this experience is reproducible without the adrenalin, on demand and constantly. This is the scientific verification and is available to all. But, the very thing you require so's ya don't buy a pig in a poke, so to speak, is the one thing that will prevent your prep, and yield no result. And considering all the other quantum paradox principles we've touched on, this is not surprising to me.

As I have learned this pesky belief in a powerful spirit world is part of us. Most of the world today takes it as fact, as they did before the mission of Christ. As they have done for as far back as is known. Not saying the superstitious trappings of fear and control are correct, just that the overwhelming evidence is that it all boils down to the same thing. Some may say it's the fear of the dark and the fear of death, hate and superstition. But, I say, there is something in us that causes this surety of joy. I disregard all definitions of this Self Experience, but this one, Joy, It seems a powerful force if history is a judge.

So, we can say religions of the world don't get it, are the root of many wrongs, but we can't say the world would be better now if we never had religions in this world. We always have. Those that prep may find. But, it's not the questioning plea of religion. The religions have sought to humbly describe, as science has. Yet, both are bent to good and evil. Just breathe deep. Why waste the oxygen? Peace.

tyler.durden said:

Hey, Eye! I'm going to try to field this one, assuming I am understanding you correctly. You ask what is so bad about belief, I assume you mean belief in religion/deities. Belief directly influences one's thoughts and actions; if the belief is grounded in reality this is a good thing, if not beliefs can lead one astray from reality. Speculation is a huge part of science, one speculates on what may be true, then goes about acquiring data to try to prove the assumption incorrect. If they cannot prove it incorrect, the hypothesis starts to gain a foothold as others try to prove it incorrect, and so on. Religious speculation goes about this in reverse; it claims to have answers first, then goes about attempting to find any data to solidify its presupposed truth. We never see theists working arduously to disprove their dogma and ideas, but this is what it takes to responsibly attempt to understand objective reality...

Click to expand...

...Hey Tyler, I agree with a lot of this. No doubt that there are a ton of people who do not know 'any' kind of method. Well, Methodists?

...understanding objective reality takes a good 'dip' into eros consciousness, a certain kind of creative mindset. Reason I say this is because it is other half of 'empiriosity' (sorry, Bill Maher ). It is concerned with the making, not the equating. I could also say it is the voice of intuition, which is something we receive - and not 'go forward and prove' in the way science does (not to say that is 'bad'). Couldn't we even say here that the sun has it's own 'language' and that the earth also has it's own language for 'creating'? How do they communicate to create this 'consensus' we call home? We can't negate one or the other, so far as I currently understand.

I think the two work together, just like the observer and observed idea. In the same way, the sun and earth are in equal need of each other to even give us the chance at trying to figure them out. To me that points to a duality - something mutual. I can't help it man!

Dr.J20 said:

I'm not so sure i agree with this one,...western philosophy has tended to encourage questioning...from the socratic method's basis in questioning to descartes duality via extreme skepticism, western philosophy has approached understanding through question-and-answer rhetoric, but that is not necessary nor is it inherently natural; children are curious, but they don't necessarily question things the way you're talking about.

i see approaching this by constructing the false opposition "unnatural vs. natural" as unproductive and specious. You jokingly discard plastic as unnatural (via sarcasm) but if you trace its processing through the various human manipulations, you find it came from petrol which was produced by the compression of certain geological features over millions of years.--side note, would you consider plastic natural if it came from hemp oil?-- is man not part of nature? are not his efforts, executed within the scope of nature, not subject to and thus part of nature? So basically what I'm saying is this separation of man from and above nature is the result of some very close minded, repressive, imperialists.

be easy

Click to expand...

I've had this debate before. If we regard everything as natural, then case closed. I stated earlier that I defined natural in this case as occurring in the wild. Also, I think your confusing Religion with tradition. Religion begins when you are told information, commanded never to question it, and then change your brain patterns through repetition. Acknowledging a change in seasons is not religion. Claiming there's a Joo Joo who controls the tides is religion. Children are VERY inquisitive. It's funny how everyone hates the "WHY" phase of toddlers. I love it! Why the fuck are you doing that, Mom? Why do you believe that, Dad. Then they rejoice when they train their child not to question motives. We should continue this practice to death. Where would we be if we never questioned the answers we are given? As for western Psychology, I'm not sure I accept it's practices. Psychology NOW is more about adjusting people to their society rather than making people happier through understanding. So according to you, Crystal Meth and the A-bomb are natural. I have no argument if this is your definition of nature. "Nature" is billions of years old. Our species is 50-75K years old. Humans have changed the model more than any other species, and we're doing it to fast for our bodies to even adapt. This is what I consider Unnatural. Delusion on the other hand runs rampant in our species. This is what will kill our species. Perhaps Sociopaths are an evolutionary step, in order to curb our emotional delusions.

Doer said:

You are claiming many changes of subject here. And still with the unknowable and broad generalizations. I'm really doubting that you have ever looked into it.

So, here's a little story. I got to thinking that there must be some evolution to organized religion. Since Al Gore and I invented the internet I got busy. Very, very busy. You have no idea where the most modest search terms will lead. But, I had super fast computers and got past all the hatred of the muslins vs hindu and all the opinions of modern religiousness, with dismay. I was looking for when a belief in One God began. And, I am not religious. I know the Inner Objective. I have time on my hands, what can I say. I searched for many months and got too exposed to hate. But, I found there is no time when there was not a sure acceptance of One God. I can go back as far a 2500 BC when the Aryans invaded the Indus, also in the three rivers area, now China. The sad mistranslation of Heaven for God, in Imperial Chinese is an anti-wog expression of the British.

I turned to anthropology and the study of oral traditions. Guess what? The concept of the Sky God above all other spirits is as old as there is old. We cannot say, that religion is unnatural, unless humans are unnatural.

In fact, the animism, paganism, Baalism, and worse, including all -isms, up to today, are imposed. The natural state seems to be an assumption of Oneness with Self and nature at all levels.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is in IGNORANT's nature to practice religion. Question: Why is it that the more knowledge Humans collect, the more Atheism grows? Religion was strongest when ignorance prevailed. Instead of looking at Man's ignorant, simple beginnings, try looking at the actual evolution of religions. As information becomes available, religions have to adapt. Why are the religions adapting if it's in our nature. I believe what you are saying is it is in an Ignorant Man's nature to practice religion. I would agree with this statement.

And sorry, but Atheism is older. As soon as the first man decided to Worship, he became a participant in a religion. What was he before that?

Doer said:

The religions have sought to humbly describe, as science has.

Click to expand...

Uuh..OK. Ya. Religion and Science are so close in motive, or practice, or...WHAT!? Name one "Humble" religion. I can name 1. Fundamental Buddhism.

[h=3]The Three Trainings or Practices:[/h]These three consist of:

1. Sila: Virtue, good conduct, morality. This is based on two fundamental principles:
   

   	The principle of equality: that all living entities are equal.
   	The principle of reciprocity: This is the "Golden Rule" in Christianity -- to do onto others as you would wish them to do onto you. It is found in all major religions.

2. Samadhi: Concentration, meditation, mental development. Developing one's mind is the path to wisdom which in turn leads to personal freedom. Mental development also strengthens and controls our mind; this helps us maintain good conduct.
3. Prajna: Discernment, insight, wisdom, enlightenment. This is the real heart of Buddhism. Wisdom will emerge if your mind is pure and calm

No hells or murders. No commandments to condemn non-believers. No incontestable claims.

afrawfraw said:

"FAITH". The ONLY way religion works is faith. Because without faith, you would call your minister a blathering idiot. "Faith" forces you to change the parameters of your logic. Why does deductive reasoning work for every other scenario in life EXCEPT religion? Hmmmm. Also, the universe is not, "Nothing." Just because you were sold a religion, doesn't mean you should ignore science. There are two earth type planets we have discovered SO FAR. We are also on the verge of discovering how matter can shed mass. This would answer the "Something from nothing".

Since we're on the Bible, some good 'ol Christian reading for ya!

Exodus 21:1
Judges 11:29
Isaiah 13:16
Hosea 13:16
Psalms 137:9
Joshua 6
Judges 21

In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.
He condones slavery, child abuse, as well as devaluing females.

You should REALLY ask yourself, if GOD is without time, why would he state the same ignorant bull shit that farmers 1,500 years ago thought. The reason why Atheists are in awe is because if you hadn't been sold a religion, you would NEVER condone these behaviors, ever. The same passage that condemns homosexuals ALSO condemns shaving your face! So grow a fat beard before screaming at gays, or GOD will hate you.

Click to expand...

Just thought this should be here, too.

afrawfraw said:

As information becomes available, religions have to adapt. Why are the religions adapting if it's in our nature.

Click to expand...

...here's an honest question: why do people study to become better at natural talents? Same thing as religion adapting, imo Ever notice how people say that they 'practice' a certain religion? Nothing's perfect, or there would be no need for evolution in the first place - I guess.

...I wonder if science is also a 'practice'?

afrawfraw said:

Perhaps it is in IGNORANT's nature to practice religion. Question: Why is it that the more knowledge Humans collect, the more Atheism grows? Religion was strongest when ignorance prevailed. Instead of looking at Man's ignorant, simple beginnings, try looking at the actual evolution of religions. As information becomes available, religions have to adapt. Why are the religions adapting if it's in our nature. I believe what you are saying is it is in an Ignorant Man's nature to practice religion. I would agree with this statement.

And sorry, but Atheism is older. As soon as the first man decided to Worship, he became a participant in a religion. What was he before that?

Click to expand...

I see your viewpoint. You strictly define religion as ignorance go from there. You don't pick up on the fact that there was no deciding one way are the other. What you call religion is the outcome of the organizational efforts of society. But, I wish that you could take yourself back to a huddling band of early humans. It's getting dark. The wood got wet and the fire is low. Dangerous. The hunt was bad that day and so it's only roots and a few berries. Getting colder.

Sir, it is only a construct of your Imagination to think that a member of that tribe was free to not believe in what ever joo joo du jour, they had going. You think anyone at that fire could say, screw it, I'm not singing these stupid songs. They all grab a rock and that's it for you. That attitude will not be tolerated in this dire situation. You, today enjoy an anonymous freedom of expression and yet you still get torqued up. You would not last a day in that band of ancestors unless you zipped it and keep it zipped.

The thing is, the situation for man has always been dire, and a faith in a higher purpose has alway been with us. And there has always been an un-tolerated fringe that will deny the experience of the rest of us.

The liberalism and altruism of modern western society created a situation where atheism is a new experiment in tolerance, like democracy. Many see it as a religion , with precepts and passions, also. Before, society did not allow someone to deny God. They just burned them. The situation was too dire.

And I have lookied into Buddism, To the very roots. These are the guys that get the tech to rise above pain from Self and then show off by burning themselves alive. Fundamental Buddhism is a very cold and cruel culture to the ones that are not of fortunate birth. The disenfranchised are excoriated and made to feel guilty for past lives. Made to suffer more, now.

Doer said:

I see your viewpoint. You strictly define religion as ignorance go from there. You don't pick up on the fact that there was no deciding one way are the other. What you call religion is the outcome of the organizational efforts of society. But, I wish that you could take yourself back to a huddling band of early humans. It's getting dark. The wood got wet and the fire is low. Dangerous. The hunt was bad that day and so it's only roots and a few berries. Getting colder.

Sir, it is only a construct of your Imagination to think that a member of that tribe was free to not believe in what ever joo joo du jour, they had going. You think anyone at that fire could say, screw it, I'm not singing these stupid songs. They all grab a rock and that's it for you. That attitude will not be tolerated in this dire situation. You, today enjoy an anonymous freedom of expression and yet you still get torqued up. You would not last a day in that band of ancestors unless you zipped it and keep it zipped.

The thing is, the situation for man has always been dire, and a faith in a higher purpose has alway been with us. And there has always been an un-tolerated fringe that will deny the experience of the rest of us.

The liberalism and altruism of modern western society created a situation where atheism is a new experiment in tolerance, like democracy. Many see it as a religion , with precepts and passions, also. Before, society did not allow someone to deny God. They just burned them. The situation was too dire.

And I have lookied into Buddism, To the very roots. These are the guys that get the tech to rise above pain from Self and then show off by burning themselves alive. Fundamental Buddhism is a very cold and cruel culture to the ones that are not of fortunate birth. The disenfranchised are excoriated and made to feel guilty for past lives. Made to suffer more, now.

Click to expand...

Except for the man who started the fire, using science. The tribe calls him magic fire man. And the Bard who wrote the first song, Magic music man. You, sir, are forgetting every religion had a first participant. We wern't "Born Religious" if that's what your getting at. It has been proven, that given no doctrine, man chooses atheism.

As for killing me. That came later. The early religions were much more tolerant. "NO, I won't sing these stupid songs. Want to learn how to make a bow like mine?". "Ugg want bow for more food. Ugg no care what Moon you sing to."

You see the situation was to dire to refuse science. It wasn't until religion had established control over huge populations did violence erupt. Or did I miss the chapter on the Moon God Crusades?

P.S. I'm 72" tall and way over 300lbs. If we were in a cave community, I'd instruct you. Perhaps you could be my shaman.

eye exaggerate said:

...here's an honest question: why do people study to become better at natural talents? Same thing as religion adapting, imo Ever notice how people say that they 'practice' a certain religion? Nothing's perfect, or there would be no need for evolution in the first place - I guess.

...I wonder if science is also a 'practice'?

Click to expand...

So you're postulating that Religion is in our DNA and is evolving with us? Where's Uncle Buck when you need him!?

Why do people study natural talents? Which natural talents? If you mean running, we didn't always need to practice running. We ran down our prey. It took over 1,000 calories just to gather berries. We practice physical movement because the model has changed quickly, and our bodies haven't been given enough time to adapt or evolve.

Did you just call science a religion. I hope not. It would clearly illustrate an ignorance of both.

afrawfraw said:

So you're postulating that Religion is in our DNA and is evolving with us? Where's Uncle Buck when you need him!?

Why do people study natural talents? Which natural talents? If you mean running, we didn't always need to practice running. We ran down our prey. It took over 1,000 calories just to gather berries. We practice physical movement because the model has changed quickly, and our bodies haven't been given enough time to adapt or evolve.

Did you just call science a religion. I hope not. It would clearly illustrate an ignorance of both.

Click to expand...

...actually, yes, I am saying that in order for us to even have dna required 'religion' - 'union'. There are atheists in this very forum that have posted their belief in the 'religious dna'. My answer was "well, it takes a lot of abuse, this gene".

*if you follow science, you can't know every minute detail about it. You take it on faith that your forefathers were accurate in their apprehension of concepts. Since then, people have built on those 'truths' that can't exactly be seen. Math is pretty mystical until an object is produced. So, yes, I say that the methods of science are religious in nature - ritualistic even.

Math and Science are 'areas' of life to be studied and used appropriately, not life itself. I think some people need to just take the lab coat off for a while and put their feet in the dirt. Ugg Ugg

eye exaggerate said:

...actually, yes, I am saying that in order for us to even have dna required 'religion' - 'union'. There are atheists in this very forum that have posted their belief in the 'religious dna'. My answer was "well, it takes a lot of abuse, this gene".

*if you follow science, you can't know every minute detail about it. You take it on faith that your forefathers were accurate in their apprehension of concepts. Since then, people have built on those 'truths' that can't exactly be seen. Math is pretty mystical until an object is produced. So, yes, I say that the methods of science are religious in nature - ritualistic even.

Math and Science are 'areas' of life to be studied and used appropriately, not life itself. I think some people need to just take the lab coat off for a while and put their feet in the dirt. Ugg Ugg

Click to expand...

I am speechless.

This is some good literature to read while your high, thanks guys

Was I just trolled?

Religion= Union

Science and religion are comparable.

DNA requires religion to exist.

Yup. Damn, yer good Eye. Have you taken on UB yet? He's good too.

afrawfraw said:

Except for the man who started the fire, using science. The tribe calls him magic fire man. And the Bard who wrote the first song, Magic music man. You, sir, are forgetting every religion had a first participant. We wern't "Born Religious" if that's what your getting at. It has been proven, that given no doctrine, man chooses atheism.

As for killing me. That came later. The early religions were much more tolerant. "NO, I won't sing these stupid songs. Want to learn how to make a bow like mine?". "Ugg want bow for more food. Ugg no care what Moon you sing to."

You see the situation was to dire to refuse science. It wasn't until religion had established control over huge populations did violence erupt. Or did I miss the chapter on the Moon God Crusades?

P.S. I'm 72" tall and way over 300lbs. If we were in a cave community, I'd instruct you. Perhaps you could be my shaman.

Click to expand...

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.

To discuss the roots of religion, we need to go back to before 2500 bc or so when it started to get organized. As your shaman, we would not tolerate atheists. We do now, as the straits for us are not so dire. One slant on 'no atheists in foxholes is that they are fragged." The situation is intolerable with so much at stake.

As for this:
"The early religions were much more tolerant. "NO, I won't sing these stupid songs. Want to learn how to make a bow like mine?". "Ugg want bow for more food. Ugg no care what Moon you sing to."

What!? "Much more tolerant....??" You just made that up and it has no basis in anthropology whatsoever. The idea that modern tolerance is allowed in proto-scocieties is just not correct. It's quite the opposite. Tech skills were closely guarded and began the tradeguild format. No one is allow to decide to make hunting tools rather than sing with the tribe. No one is allow to do anything without the blessing of shaman. It just would not occur to them, modern man.

mindphuk said:

IMO, art is a non-sequitur or red herring. Art does not even pretend to answer questions. You may as well say, what about furniture? Philosophy -- whether theological, scientific, political, metaphysical, or whatever-- is an attempt to answer certain questions about the nature of reality or aspects of our life. Out of all of the philosophies man has come up with, science is the only one that has actually given us answers that can be confirmed and has been demonstrated to be accurate time and again. Art is not a philosophy so does not belong in the category of question answering and therefore is a weak attempt to distract from the actual discussion.

Click to expand...

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?

afrawfraw said:

Was I just trolled?

Religion= Union

Science and religion are comparable.

DNA requires religion to exist.

Yup. Damn, yer good Eye. Have you taken on UB yet? He's good too.

Click to expand...

...bleh. I'm sorry that you have not read into the depths of religion. We're meant to emulate the sun, get it? It IS a solar religion. What does the sun do?

There is, to a person who believes in 'Christos', a God 'behind' the sun (Father). This is really why we're 'in it'. If you cannot navigate the symbolic language, please don't jump to calling me a troll.

As far as you know, what created you? Can you answer that?

...either way, yes, for sure - you have just been trolled

afrawfraw said:

I am speechless.

Click to expand...

...I'm changing this post. There, changed.

Doer said:

As your shaman, we would not tolerate atheists. We do now, as the straits for us are not so dire.

Click to expand...

...that is one hell of an interesting point.

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...

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