Is God All In The Mind?

[White Crane Feather]

Why do you think they are famous?

Because their minds are better than most. That is their claim to fame.

That is right, because spirituality is superstition, it's like Science investigating Winnie The Pooh or Leprechauns.

No, it is superstition.

Everything should be if claimed as real.

You mean man made God up so only man can direct Gods existence don't you?

Science overrides philosophy too. It does not ponder the questions, it drill down into them.

I would say that is why they do not take that final step, they say there is no need for God to exist for everything in the Universe, and the Universe itself to exist, it says God is redundant. We do not need him to explain things anymore, the tale of creating the heavens and the earth is wrong, we have better information. We can stop making stuff up, and learn by way of observation.

LOL, that is such poppycock!!

No, Science just does what it does, we do not direct it, natural processes do. God has no say there, science is brutally honest and will kill God if God challenges it. God is man made, not the omnipotent being man has brainwashed generations to think he is.

And yet the scientist are the ones putting God out of a Job. The religious protest this all day long, but cannot refute a single fact. Science however just keeps growing it's knowledge each and every second.

That is not scientific thinking, that is an appeal to authority, which is why you posted so many when I was happy to provide a few simple and illustrative examples. However, lets actually have a look at those examples shall we? I wont be wasting my time with every name on that list so I shall pick the first two.

Max Planck

Six months before his death a rumour started that Planck had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God."

Erwin Schrödinger

Catholic by birth default to his father, his mother was Lutheran. . Despite being raised in a religious household, he called himself an atheist. However, he had strong interests in Eastern religions, pantheism and used religious symbolism in his works. He also believed his scientific work was an approach to the godhead, albeit in a metaphorical sense.

Mate, I do feel you need to look a bit deeper before offering these sacrificial cows. These men are not the believers in God that you make them out to be.

Not only that, but I feel it is a bit underhanded of you to mostly pick names that were pioneers, the men who took us out of the shadows of religion, and took the first steps that freed these shackles of superstition, the men you speak of were brought up to completely believe that Adam and Eve were our ancestors, and our greatest grandmother was made from grandads rib.

I think what you call "philosophy is actually just asking people to step back, and accept silly excuses when the tall tale of a God goes awry.

I am not surprised one bit, you have invested a great deal of your life and your families life into believing we have spirits inside of us that carry in when we are dead. You are not even going to consider that you might be wrong for some ADD anonymous poster on the Internet. This is that high ground that religious people stand upon, which I feel is rather falsifiable. Which I find somewhat amusing, particular when you feel religious people have some sort of secret knowledge. They do not, they have faith, it is not the same thing as knowledge at all.

Science is not philosophical, it gets right to the point.

What philosophy? As far as I know, they only philosophy atheists have is to share factual knowledge and rationalise superstition. And I do not know if that can be described as "philosophy"

What is wrong with a stated principle?

What problems are you speaking of? Surely not the elusive nature of imagination? Science allows God to exist, it is just that there is no reason for him to exist. As such, God is redundant.

All that sounds like is "I have no answers, so do not ask me, I will refer you to God" which is not an answer, it is avoiding the question. Science has proven the written word of God to be wrong, yet you claim now that the written word is proven wrong, you shift position to a spiritual realm.No doubt should science prove that 100% to be bunkum, religious people will have some other poor excuse. If you do not have an answer, "God will provide" does not suffice, you need to be able to accept the very fact that you have no answer, but wish to hold onto your faith. To be religious is to refuse to be brutally honest with yourself when the hard questions come up. Heck, even when the easy ones like the veracity of the Bible come up.

Hahah I don't think you know me very well. I'm not religious. Nor do I have what is commonly thought of as religious faith. It gets very hard for me to respond to a multitude of quotes on my little I phone. I'll respond to all that when I'm not on my phone.

[psyche101]

What amazes me is the sheer number of people (based on my observation of folk in this thread, and others like it) who think and (more importantly) act like science and religion are mutually exclusive concepts. And while the common perception brought up here is of the typical creationist religious believer who ignores the science of evolution at the expense of their faith in God, the fact is that there are just as many atheists who treat religion and science as mutually exclusive concepts. The truth is that (as has been mentioned several times already) science is unable to comment one way or the other on the issue, but atheists who hold science in such high regard are just as blind (I'm trying to find a less prejudicial term, but "blind" fits, so I'll stick with it) as their creationist cousins who dismiss science.

To me, the fields of science and religion are addressing fundamentally different questions of life, the universe, and everything. The existence of one neither proves nor disproves the existence of the other.

Sorry, considering the tone of the posts in the past few pages (and I've been in Sydney without wifi internet for a week now, so I'm only just now adding my thoughts) I just felt I needed to add that into the discussion.

Because you consider heaven, and the spiritual realm to be fact. Religious people will not consider they might be wrong, so how do the two find common ground? What you are saying is OK, science proves the bible was "interpreted" but the ghostly stuff is real. I mean come on!! How is that compatible with science? It is not saying, have your science, but leave my religion alone, and conceding that the Bible is indeed factually flawed? It is not a true historical record and as that has become apparent, religion simply dismissed that and moves onto the spiritual realm? All religion requires is verbal assurances, which do not work in the real world due to the very nature of man.

How is discussion a "tone"? Do you not mean a common theme?

[psyche101]

Hahah I don't think you know me very well. I'm not religious. Nor do I have what is commonly thought of as religious faith. It gets very hard for me to respond to a multitude of quotes on my little I phone. I'll respond to all that when I'm not on my phone.

No, you are native American and have vision quests and all that, but we were discussing the Abrahamic traditions. And that seems to me the be what the OP is referring to. Your native beliefs if anything buck religion as far as I can see.

[+Paranoid Android]

LG, if you are reading this, look two posts up to psyche101's response to me - my point exactly in the point of atheists claiming that science and religion are mutually exclusive!

[psyche101]

We believers always make accommodations for scientific truths so they don't hinder in any way the spiritual aspects of our religious lives. I'm not a Biblical literalist and I think that--while every word in the Bible has it's significance, not all of them can be taken at face value. I've always been amused by people preaching the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures from Bibles with center columns of corrections. God is infallible, but the Bible needs to be read with Him looking over one's shoulder. I worship God, not the Bible. I have no particular reverence for the vast corpus of scientific knowledge either, because that story isn't finished yet, and what we have of it is still subject to revision. Science is all about knowledge and religion is about belief and in my life, they are not mutually incompatible, and there's room enough for both.

Is this why you got upset? No reply yet? Give me a moment to catch up man!! I post intermittently.

How do you worship God and not the Bible if the Bible is supposed to be the word of God written by man?

2 Timothy 3:16-17New International Version (NIV)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

Yes, there is room enough for both, it just happens one explains the other into redundancy. Religion should always remain recorded as part of our history. Many people have trouble letting go of the ideal of a spirit that lives on after death. That will keep religion alive for quite some generations I expect, people are scared of death, nobody likes death, death is a filthy dirty horrid smelly skank, because death comes for everyone. I hate death, it is normal to, but pretending an afterlife exists only makes it harder for the rest of the world to grow up too.

Just as the Greek and Roman Gods are no more than historical record today, who were once held in the same light.

[+Paranoid Android]

Because you consider heaven, and the spiritual realm to be fact. Religious people will not consider they might be wrong, so how do the two find common ground? What you are saying is OK, science proves the bible was "interpreted" but the ghostly stuff is real. I mean come on!! How is that compatible with science? It is not saying, have your science, but leave my religion alone, and conceding that the Bible is indeed factually flawed? It is not a true historical record and as that has become apparent, religion simply dismissed that and moves onto the spiritual realm? All religion requires is verbal assurances, which do not work in the real world due to the very nature of man.

How is discussion a "tone"? Do you not mean a common theme?

As was shown to you in an earlier post, a link to a university science program pointing out that science simply cannot say anything on matters of supernatural, one way or the other. It simply cannot be addressed. Science measures the material universe, and it does that very well. Because that is what it was designed to do. But it cannot answer questions about God since God is not part of the material universe. Of course, since there is no empirical proof that a non-material universe exists (how can there be) then it is a matter of faith that it exists (though I have personal experience that tells me it's real, and thus I feel such faith to be justified). But the point is that science cannot say "it does not exist", it can only say "we have no empirical evidence that it exists". Those are two qualitatively different questions, and when one goes from one to the other, it ceases to be science and becomes philosophy.

[+Liquid Gardens]

What I am saying is that those who insist that science and faith cannot walk hand in hand together are equally blind on the matter, regardless of which side of the religious/non-religious fence they happen to be sitting on. I don't see why the two have to be taken as an either/or proposition. I'll take both science and religion, and happily do so at that

Thanks for the clarification, maybe I missed it but I didn't really interpret the most recent comments as indicating that science and religion are exclusive, so that threw me off. Some specific things obviously must be either/or, but in general I don't think they can't 'walk together' depending on what you mean. As far as what each is trying to accomplish though, science seems to benefit faith much more than faith benefits science.

And this was my reference - faith asks the questions of the meaning of life, why we exist, who are we, that kind of thing? Science asks the material questions - what are we made of, what processes brought about life as we know it, how does the world "tick"?

But to be clear, of the three examples you cited, only the second one ("Jesus rose from the dead") is a matter of science, the questions of "God exists" or "there is an afterlife" are also unanswerable by science. And on the matter of Jesus' resurrection it's already clear I take that as a matter of faith.

Not sure, but this seems a little contradictory. You say faith asks questions of the meaning of life, you say only my resurrection example is a matter of science, and then say you take the resurrection on faith; well, then faith is not just for questions about the meaning of life. I'm unclear on why only the resurrection is a matter of science, God's existence and the afterlife would be also if there was some evidence for them, a problem the resurrection also suffers from. All it would take is one cooperative ghost and it's going to be the scientists swarming, not the philosophers.

[+Hammerclaw]

Is this why you got upset? No reply yet? Give me a moment to catch up man!! I post intermittently.

How do you worship God and not the Bible if the Bible is supposed to be the word of God written by man?

2 Timothy 3:16-17New International Version (NIV)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

Yes, there is room enough for both, it just happens one explains the other into redundancy. Religion should always remain recorded as part of our history. Many people have trouble letting go of the ideal of a spirit that lives on after death. That will keep religion alive for quite some generations I expect, people are scared of death, nobody likes death, death is a filthy dirty horrid smelly skank, because death comes for everyone. I hate death, it is normal to, but pretending an afterlife exists only makes it harder for the rest of the world to grow up too.

Just as the Greek and Roman Gods are no more than historical record today, who were once held in the same light.

You have no Faith, have no inkling of what it's like or what it means and you continually embarrass yourself with your ignorance of it. I would have as much chance of imparting a glimmer of it to you as I would the glory of a sunrise to a blind man or the exquisite beauty of Beethoven's music to one without hearing. You are of the world and your mind is concluded. I don't mind conversing secularly with you, but theologically I shook your dust off my shoes a long time ago, in accordance with my religion, as a waste of time. I don't think you realize how nasty about it you come across, and if I didn't like you I would put you on ignore. I have come to accept that you are theologically disabled, but your tirades have become tiresome, never-the-less. I'm not angry at you, I'm your friend, and we just happen to see things differently. PAX

[psyche101]

The atheistic belief faces the same issue. If you state that 'there is no God or no 'cause', you are making a claim.

Your sentence is inaccurate though, there is no belief, there is the most likely option based on gathered evidence, there is no claim of "No God" by the same token, all the things God did have been explained by science via nature, and the cause is outlined with results from things like the WISE mission. God exists as a human construct, I do not deny that much.

If that claim isn't supported by evidence and not merely assumptions then it still belong in the realm of human beliefs. You can't escape it.

I gave you links, you can read, the claim is supported and has evidence. It is not an assumption, it is the most likely outcome based upon observable evidence. Who wants to escape that? Accountability is what I am calling for. Religion cannot provide that, but science can.

The reality is that we don't know, we can't be sure and anyone telling you otherwise is either a fundamentalist or suffer from intellectual dishonesty.

We have many proven theories, we have mountains of data, we have verifiable results. The LISA mission supports E=MC2. We can be sure that all that put together gives us the most accurate description of the most likely outcome.

Honestly, how do you see religion as being on a level playing field here? The smoke and mirrors of "spirituality" as BS. Your "spirit" is your very nature,. how you act, a bold person, a meek person, it is not some ghost inside your mortal coil that is freed upon death - in fact that seems rather silly. And just because people have believed it for a long time does not make it true.

People fear challenging religion, because I think deep down, most people know the outcome already. Emotions do not constitute fact either though.

A fact remain: we don't have all the answers. What existed before the big bang occurred? Why did this initial singularity came out of 'nowhere's land' to burst and become our Universe and it's physical laws that we are observing? Even if you throw a Multiverse model into the arena (which has not yielded solid proof so far BTW and may offer only circumstantial evidence at best) the question of ultimate origin beyond these networks of Universes is still up in the air. Why should they even exist in the first place? You are only postponing the inevitable question or avoiding it altogether. The Atheist/Physicalist worldview tell us that 'Nothingness' and 'Pointlessness' is the ultimate answer.

It's that your brain is not wired to think outside of a maro world. That's all. Religion helps man create easy answers that most swallow without question. Nobodies brain is wired that way, we have to train it to meet new concepts such as the chaotic nature of Quantum Physics.

You keep asking what existed before the big bang, like I say, Brian Greene can give you those detailed answers, and I suggest you look at his work. No matter how many times I explain it, nobody gets it. There are several viable models for the Big Bang, personally I think eternal inflation has merit, clashing of dimensions seems plausible, but more beyond me, so I tend to take the fall back on the theory I know better, and it seems to mimic what the Universe is now doing - examples in nature I find very convincing. The big bang might be a bit left over from another Universe, it might be the clashing of dimensions, it might be a white hole, they are all viable models that all predict the same outcome, what we need to find in this vast place is the clue that tells us which precursor it was, and then that mystery will be solved too. And I have no doubt, one day, that answer will be forthcoming.

It's not some spiritual mystery, which is why they spent so much on building the Large Hadron Collider. It's a real world issue that we are now hunting down. Impatience from an audience does not make religion the correct assumption there either.

I am not religious, I don't subscribe to any particular religion, so I can't relate to what you are saying. But no, science is a method, a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquire knowledge. A very effective tool. Is it the only possible way to acquire knowledge or insights about our world? I cannot be sure, as a spiritual person I think it's possible that mysticism or spiritual experiences that all sort of people have reported in their lives may be another way to see glimpses into the depth of our world.

I didn't think you would subscribe to one faith going by your posts. That's why I qualified that you think "like religious people do". You make concessions for religion like WCF does because you have this belief and want for the spiritual realm to exist, and science dismisses it, so all you have left is religion to support you really don't you? It's not support for your position, it's more like common ground based on the enemy of my enemy is my enemy. And religion has always tried to suppress science, and now a great many know why, hence the Atheist movement.

This is nothing new, and it amazes me that people turn a blind eye to the obvious, which be w\that we have been here before, and not just with religion. One the magical realm of fairies and Gnomes was considered certain to exist, and a hoaxed photo of Fairies even fooled Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. We do not have AFariests anymore, the belief in fairies became redundant, as will the belief in God one day, which is based on the same source - man. One day the term Atheist too, will be redundant. It won't take over, it won't be the "new religion" as people seems to want to believe. It will simply mean that teachers will be accountable for what they teach, and nobody can say that is a bad thing, so how is it not simply great fear of science, and what it will bring that religion wishes to now make friends with?

The term Atheist, will not take over if people wake an and religion is put back into the hall if myth. It will not be needed anymore, so it will simply not be used.

Edited January 14, 2015 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Thanks for the clarification, maybe I missed it but I didn't really interpret the most recent comments as indicating that science and religion are exclusive, so that threw me off. Some specific things obviously must be either/or, but in general I don't think they can't 'walk together' depending on what you mean.

Ahh, what a breath of fresh air!!!!

Good sir, you have much respect from me. I do believe you are the only one "getting" what I am saying. Religion blinkers people into thinking we have level playing fields here, we do not which hobbles discussion from the get go.

LG, if you are reading this, look two posts up to psyche101's response to me - my point exactly in the point of atheists claiming that science and religion are mutually exclusive!

PA, as a teacher, do you not realise it is rude to speak of one in the third person

[Davros of Skaro]

jesus said the way to god was easy for the idiot to understand and impossible for the wise. paraphrased.

LOL!

[psyche101]

As was shown to you in an earlier post, a link to a university science program pointing out that science simply cannot say anything on matters of supernatural, one way or the other.

You did not bother to read the reply obviously. Yes, that was shown, and it was incorrectly interpreted. Religion considers itself in a higher ground because it feels it does not have to qualify it's veracity, the word of man is good enough, because man said it's the word of God.

So, not, that was not shown to me at all, that was interpreted as some sort of boundary where science may not tread, but that is simply not the case.

It simply cannot be addressed.

Yes it can, if religion was more honest, that sentence would say "I do not want science to remove the last piece of hope the religion clings onto". What science cannot do is prove a negative, it cannot offer absolute due to it's nature, that does not give the ideal of God validity, it is a polite way of saying "sure, believe what you want, but the evidence says that belief is unfounded, we have a better model"

As such, one is only fooling oneself are they not?

Science measures the material universe, and it does that very well. Because that is what it was designed to do. But it cannot answer questions about God since God is not part of the material universe. Of course, since there is no empirical proof that a non-material universe exists (how can there be) then it is a matter of faith that it exists (though I have personal experience that tells me it's real, and thus I feel such faith to be justified).

And the ideal of a non material Universe is a man made construct, which it seems more than obvious has been used to mitigate a fear of death, and a way for laws to be introduced to a society. Controlling the masses if you will, however I prefer the term "organising".

Faith is a personal thing it is not tangible, it cannot be shown to be real, many do not have faith, it is not an integral part of existence, it's a thought. Nobody dies from lack of faith although man kills for that lousy reason. This is where science and religion cannot meet, religious people will not entertain the thought that God and Heaven is not real, just a man made construct, and therefore reject any proof that refutes that realm. As far as religion is concerned, God is as real as the keyboard I type this on. Without being able to understand the concept of "no religion no God" there cannot be discussion, there can only be concession, and that is what you ask with your claim that science and religion co-exist happily. They do not exist together, you want people to turn a blind eye to the bits that say God is redundant. I used to be of the same opinion once, but now understand science even better than I thought I would thanks to the brilliant and patient teachers like Krauss and Dawkins. Until one can consider the possibility that God and Heaven do not exist, there can be no real discussion as only one side of the conversation is happening.

Non Material Universe? That sounds a heck of a lot like Poppycock. Leprechaun anyone? They have their own realms too. Honestly, it sounds more like Lord Of The Rings than Science.

But the point is that science cannot say "it does not exist", it can only say "we have no empirical evidence that it exists". Those are two qualitatively different questions, and when one goes from one to the other, it ceases to be science and becomes philosophy.

You did not read what I have been posting either huh? Or do religious/spiritual folk just have trouble with the concept of

Redundancy.

Is that not what I have been saying in every single post? That Science makes religion redundant, and like the Greek Gods we once held in the same light that Abrahamic Gods and now held, they too will have to face that hall some day as well. And I insist in preserving all religious documentation, as part of historical record, religion is of great importance to our existence. We just need to get over the imaginary being bit.

That is what "Redundancy" is.

redundant

rɪˈdʌnd(ə)nt/Submit

adjective:

not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous.

"an appropriate use for a redundant church"

synonyms: unnecessary, not required, inessential, unessential, needless, unneeded, uncalled for, dispensable, disposable, expendable, unwanted, useless; More

antonyms: essential, necessary

BRITISH

no longer in employment because there is no more work available.

"eight permanent staff were made redundant"

synonyms: sacked, dismissed, laid off, discharged; More

ENGINEERING

(of a component) not strictly necessary to functioning but included in case of failure in another component.

"the modules are linked using a redundant fibre-optic cable"

Evidence tells us how the Universe was formed, and it was absolutely nothing remotely like the tale the bible tells, making religion "redundant".

[+Paranoid Android]

Thanks for the clarification, maybe I missed it but I didn't really interpret the most recent comments as indicating that science and religion are exclusive, so that threw me off. Some specific things obviously must be either/or, but in general I don't think they can't 'walk together' depending on what you mean. As far as what each is trying to accomplish though, science seems to benefit faith much more than faith benefits science.

So you don't recall anyone wondering aloud why it apparently seems so many people "prefer" (yes, that is the word used) ancient superstition to modern science? That certainly suggests taking one over the other as if they are exclusive.

Not sure, but this seems a little contradictory. You say faith asks questions of the meaning of life, you say only my resurrection example is a matter of science, and then say you take the resurrection on faith; well, then faith is not just for questions about the meaning of life. I'm unclear on why only the resurrection is a matter of science, God's existence and the afterlife would be also if there was some evidence for them, a problem the resurrection also suffers from. All it would take is one cooperative ghost and it's going to be the scientists swarming, not the philosophers.

The word "faith" and "religion" are not the same thing, perhaps this is something I should have clarified further. "Religion" is specific to God, what we believe about him/her/it/they/whatever and such. And while miracles form part of that, it is not the be-all-end-all of it. Miracles are a different proposition. They are times when a believer specifically suggests that the laws of nature were broken by that God. While part of "religion", religion is more than this, and so I was making a distinction between this and the faith required to believe that such an event happened, either by a natural event at a fortunate moment or a supernatural event that has no natural explanation.

When it comes to the existence of God and the afterlife, these things cannot be measured by science. They are a belief about what happens to the incorporeal spirit when we die (if such incorporeal spirit even exists). As such, science cannot measure this at all. Not at all. They aren't events that happened in the past that we can say "God broke the laws of nature to create a miraculous event". They simply cannot be addressed by science. As such, I stand by what I said - of the three issues you raised as examples, only Jesus' resurrection can be seen to be a matter of "science", since it is generally agreed that people do not rise again from the dead.

[+Paranoid Android]

You did not bother to read the reply obviously. Yes, that was shown, and it was incorrectly interpreted. Religion considers itself in a higher ground because it feels it does not have to qualify it's veracity, the word of man is good enough, because man said it's the word of God.

So, not, that was not shown to me at all, that was interpreted as some sort of boundary where science may not tread, but that is simply not the case.

I read the reply. I felt it inadequately answered the point, and still maintain that science cannot address matters of religion.

Yes it can, if religion was more honest, that sentence would say "I do not want science to remove the last piece of hope the religion clings onto". What science cannot do is prove a negative, it cannot offer absolute due to it's nature, that does not give the ideal of God validity, it is a polite way of saying "sure, believe what you want, but the evidence says that belief is unfounded, we have a better model"

As such, one is only fooling oneself are they not?

Why "better"? I am not pushing for one model over the other, I am simply happy to use both models for living.

And the ideal of a non material Universe is a man made construct, which it seems more than obvious has been used to mitigate a fear of death, and a way for laws to be introduced to a society. Controlling the masses if you will, however I prefer the term "organising".

Faith is a personal thing it is not tangible, it cannot be shown to be real, many do not have faith, it is not an integral part of existence, it's a thought. Nobody dies from lack of faith although man kills for that lousy reason. This is where science and religion cannot meet, religious people will not entertain the thought that God and Heaven is not real, just a man made construct, and therefore reject any proof that refutes that realm. As far as religion is concerned, God is as real as the keyboard I type this on. Without being able to understand the concept of "no religion no God" there cannot be discussion, there can only be concession, and that is what you ask with your claim that science and religion co-exist happily. They do not exist together, you want people to turn a blind eye to the bits that say God is redundant. I used to be of the same opinion once, but now understand science even better than I thought I would thanks to the brilliant and patient teachers like Krauss and Dawkins. Until one can consider the possibility that God and Heaven do not exist, there can be no real discussion as only one side of the conversation is happening.

Non Material Universe? That sounds a heck of a lot like Poppycock. Leprechaun anyone? They have their own realms too. Honestly, it sounds more like Lord Of The Rings than Science.

It isn't science, I never claimed it was, so your last sentence here is a strawman. Nevertheless, my personal experience is what it is, I cannot ignore it, and therefore accept the existence of a supernatural deity. I can't empirically prove it and I have never claimed I could. I'm comfortable with that, if you're not that perhaps says more about you than it does about me

You did not read what I have been posting either huh? Or do religious/spiritual folk just have trouble with the concept of

Redundancy.

I also read the reply. And once again I simply disagree with your assertion that religion is redundant. It is very much relevant, and in my opinion the most important thing one can do with their life. In saying that, I naturally plug my own world view because it has helped me so much, but everyone will find their own path. I'm comfortable with what they choose, I may speak to them about my beliefs, they may speak to me about theirs, maybe one of us will change the others mind, maybe not. Either way, I'm good with that.

The only reason you think science has made religion redundant is because you believe it to be so. You cannot prove that statement, and I reject it as a nonsensical statement. Religion is very relevant, because that is what I believe to be so. Which of us is right may be borne out in decades and generations to come, we'll just have to see, won't we?

PA, as a teacher, do you not realise it is rude to speak of one in the third person

I was speaking to LG at that time, and as you've obviously noted I also addressed your post shortly thereafter, so I don't think I was being rude at all. Edited January 14, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[psyche101]

You have no Faith, have no inkling of what it's like or what it means

That is right, I have faith no longer, I read enough to realise that religion is a sham. Yes I do know very well what it means to have faith, and in the past have even been asked to tone it down a bit. Not because I was rabbiting on, but simply having a conversation about books people were reading, I happened to be readin the bible, and when I said I was enjoying reading it, some took that to be preaching, which I assure others them it was not. The first time I read the Apocrypha I remember being quite impressed and considering it something of a hidden book personally. It was when my father reentered my life in my early twenties and I again gave religion another go, and enjoyed the Catholic Church very much. I found it far superior to the BAC, JW and COE experiences I had to date.

and you continually embarrass yourself with your ignorance of it.

Nonsense, you are embarrassed that some heretic like me dare speak out, be more honest man!! You want to convert me, but now that will fail, so you go to the next best option and lash out. I see it as a crying shame that you cannot offer the level of tolerance your religion is supposed to impart you with.

I would have as much chance of imparting a glimmer of it to you as I would the glory of a sunrise to a blind man or the exquisite beauty of Beethoven's music to one without hearing.

And that would be an impossible task as we are all individuals, whilst many people may deeply enjoy Beethoven they enjoy it for different reasons, and having a strong background in music, I can see the many delicate intricacies that ignite peoples interests. So if you tr4ied to give me what you see as valuable in religion, chances are that aspect may not appeal to me at all, but another altogether. Tradition is what impressed me with the Catholic Church when I attended regularly.

You are of the world and your mind is concluded.

Actually, my mind is open, as that how science works, if science was able to find this imagined "not material universe" I will apologise and consider the possibility of heaven.

And dimensional hypotheses are not what I consider a "non material universe"

Thing is the realm of heaven is a man made construct. So it will never be proven, you cannot physically walk into a wish. As such, people who feel philosophy is not totally useless, will philosophise that this place man imagined exists.

I don't mind conversing secularly with you, but theologically I shook your dust off my shoes a long time ago, in accordance with my religion, as a waste of time. I don't think you realize how nasty about it you come across, and if I didn't like you I would put you on ignore. I have come to accept that you are theologically disabled, but your tirades have become tiresome, never-the-less. I'm not angry at you, I'm your friend, and we just happen to see things differently. PAX

No, I do not realise I am being nasty at all, these are brutal honest questions, how is that nasty?

What you all theologically disabled I call enlightened, it's all perspective. I have been there, done that moved on. Life is short, I am not going to waste it on someone's imagination. My own keeps me busy enough.

If anyone feels uncomfortable having their faith challenged, I have no idea why they reply to my posts??? Why not just visit another thread if this one upsets one?

All I am getting for these "protests" is that people get very angry if you challenge faith, and that I can only understand as deep down, they know it is what I say it is - a man made construct, and not a real non-material place. I see no reason to consider this "non material universe" or any spiritual realm. All I see is people very uncomfortable when faced with the very fact that religion is being made redundant by science, because science if giving us the answers religion cannot, and correcting the very false assumptions made by man with regards to our existence. 2,000 years does not harden tale into fact.

[Occult1]

You keep asking what existed before the big bang, like I say, Brian Greene can give you those detailed answers, and I suggest you look at his work. No matter how many times I explain it, nobody gets it. There are several viable models for the Big Bang, personally I think eternal inflation has merit, clashing of dimensions seems plausible, but more beyond me, so I tend to take the fall back on the theory I know better, and it seems to mimic what the Universe is now doing - examples in nature I find very convincing. The big bang might be a bit left over from another Universe, it might be the clashing of dimensions, it might be a white hole, they are all viable models that all predict the same outcome, what we need to find in this vast place is the clue that tells us which precursor it was, and then that mystery will be solved too. And I have no doubt, one day, that answer will be forthcoming.

These are fascinating hypothesises, I totally agree. But they are not providing answers or giving us any clue as to the ultimate origin. That the big bang is not the 'beginning' so to speak but a continuation or the evolution of some other phenomenon I can accept, given sufficiant evidence (which there is not), but even a Multiverse, extra dimensions or white holes have to originate from somehwere. You can say that, either what we are experiencing as living beings has meaning and purpose, or you can believe that in the end, we amount to nothing and that we are living pointless lives in a pointless world.

I've reak books (The Elegant Universe, The Fabric Of The Cosmos and The Hidden Reality) by Brian Greene and he does not make any claim about the origin of it all. Nor does he promotes Atheism as a worlview for the masses. He admits he does not know.That we may actually never know. It's also interesting that you are refering to Greene, as well as being a well-known string physicist, the man also hold philosophy in high regard.

''Greene has stated that he sees science as incompatible with literalist interpretations of religion.^[12] He has argued that "But if you don’t view God as the reservoir of temporary answers to issues we haven’t solved scientifically, but rather as some overarching structure within which science takes place, and if that makes you happy and satisfied, so be it. I don’t see the need for that; others do."^[12] He has also stated that there is much in the "new atheism" which resonates with him because he personally does not feel the need for religious explanation. However, he is uncertain of its efficacy as a strategy for spreading a scientific worldview.^[12]''

Source: https://en.wikipedia...ki/Brian_Greene

The concept of an 'overarching structure' is pretty much how I came see it. To me, God is All, God is the Universe. The Energy of which all things are made, and the governing dymanics from which all things are able to operate. The more we can learn about our metaphyscial progenitor, using science, this proven and powerful method or by other means, such mysticism and spiritual experiences, the better.

Edited January 14, 2015 by sam_comm

[+Paranoid Android]

All I am getting for these "protests" is that people get very angry if you challenge faith, and that I can only understand as deep down, they know it is what I say it is

When you begin a comment by calling something someone holds very dear to their hearts a "sham", are you really surprised that people don't take too kindly to it? Think about it, imagine if you were walking down the street arm in arm with your wife and children, and someone who'd gone through a bad divorce a while back turns to you and declares that your love is a "sham" and that you need to "open your eyes", that in the modern world, things like love have become "redundant", I'd be surprised if you didn't take a swing at him for being so rude to you.

[psyche101]

So you don't recall anyone wondering aloud why it apparently seems so many people "prefer" (yes, that is the word used) ancient superstition to modern science? That certainly suggests taking one over the other as if they are exclusive.

Religion lead to science, science has made religion redundant, so as far as explaining things like the rise of man, yes, religion is exclusive in that instance as religion has been proven incorrect by it. Man did not rise from adams rib, we are the hominid arm of the primate species.

The word "faith" and "religion" are not the same thing, perhaps this is something I should have clarified further. "Religion" is specific to God, what we believe about him/her/it/they/whatever and such. And while miracles form part of that, it is not the be-all-end-all of it. Miracles are a different proposition. They are times when a believer specifically suggests that the laws of nature were broken by that God. While part of "religion", religion is more than this, and so I was making a distinction between this and the faith required to believe that such an event happened, either by a natural event at a fortunate moment or a supernatural event that has no natural explanation.

What miracles exist?

When it comes to the existence of God and the afterlife, these things cannot be measured by science. They are a belief about what happens to the incorporeal spirit when we die (if such incorporeal spirit even exists). As such, science cannot measure this at all. Not at all. They aren't events that happened in the past that we can say "God broke the laws of nature to create a miraculous event". They simply cannot be addressed by science. As such, I stand by what I said - of the three issues you raised as examples, only Jesus' resurrection can be seen to be a matter of "science", since it is generally agreed that people do not rise again from the dead.

Science cannot measure belief true, but belief is no indicator of veracity. Assumption is the mother of all stuff ups. And evidence shows that we need no omnipotent being to create the universe including us. Result is God does not need to exist for us or the Universe to exist. So what did he actually do? He did not make man from adams rib, he did not flood the earth, but people said that is what he said he did. And that is where this no material universe resides. Science cannot investigate that which simply does not exist, heaven is a man made construct, and that is why it only exists in the non material universe.

[+Hammerclaw]

That is right, I have faith no longer, I read enough to realise that religion is a sham. Yes I do know very well what it means to have faith, and in the past have even been asked to tone it down a bit. Not because I was rabbiting on, but simply having a conversation about books people were reading, I happened to be readin the bible, and when I said I was enjoying reading it, some took that to be preaching, which I assure others them it was not. The first time I read the Apocrypha I remember being quite impressed and considering it something of a hidden book personally. It was when my father reentered my life in my early twenties and I again gave religion another go, and enjoyed the Catholic Church very much. I found it far superior to the BAC, JW and COE experiences I had to date.

Nonsense, you are embarrassed that some heretic like me dare speak out, be more honest man!! You want to convert me, but now that will fail, so you go to the next best option and lash out. I see it as a crying shame that you cannot offer the level of tolerance your religion is supposed to impart you with.

And that would be an impossible task as we are all individuals, whilst many people may deeply enjoy Beethoven they enjoy it for different reasons, and having a strong background in music, I can see the many delicate intricacies that ignite peoples interests. So if you tr4ied to give me what you see as valuable in religion, chances are that aspect may not appeal to me at all, but another altogether. Tradition is what impressed me with the Catholic Church when I attended regularly.

Actually, my mind is open, as that how science works, if science was able to find this imagined "not material universe" I will apologise and consider the possibility of heaven.

And dimensional hypotheses are not what I consider a "non material universe"

Thing is the realm of heaven is a man made construct. So it will never be proven, you cannot physically walk into a wish. As such, people who feel philosophy is not totally useless, will philosophise that this place man imagined exists.

No, I do not realise I am being nasty at all, these are brutal honest questions, how is that nasty?

What you all theologically disabled I call enlightened, it's all perspective. I have been there, done that moved on. Life is short, I am not going to waste it on someone's imagination. My own keeps me busy enough.

If anyone feels uncomfortable having their faith challenged, I have no idea why they reply to my posts??? Why not just visit another thread if this one upsets one?

All I am getting for these "protests" is that people get very angry if you challenge faith, and that I can only understand as deep down, they know it is what I say it is - a man made construct, and not a real non-material place. I see no reason to consider this "non material universe" or any spiritual realm. All I see is people very uncomfortable when faced with the very fact that religion is being made redundant by science, because science if giving us the answers religion cannot, and correcting the very false assumptions made by man with regards to our existence. 2,000 years does not harden tale into fact.

The only one upset here seems to be you. You're one of the most hysterical Atheists I've ever encountered. You repeat yourself constantly in boring detail, and freakout at any push back. Your are not here to debate, because all you really do is pontificate about how the religious are all fools and you are the self-appointed guiding light of reason, deeply flawed and deeply disturbed reason, that is. You must be the kind that interrupts and talks over others in public. Afterall, you are right an they are wrong. Well, that's how you see it. You have no empathy or sympathy for believers, are rude, antagonistic and insulting and you are actively preaching and promoting your convictions on this site in a way the religious are forbidden to do. Why do they reply to your posts? It's kind of like having a Tasmanian Devil in a cage that they can poke with a stick every now and then. Good fun. Or, they find you curiously facinating, or maybe they like you, everything not withstanding. Edited January 14, 2015 by Hammerclaw

[+Paranoid Android]

Religion lead to science, science has made religion redundant, so as far as explaining things like the rise of man, yes, religion is exclusive in that instance as religion has been proven incorrect by it. Man did not rise from adams rib, we are the hominid arm of the primate species.

I just finished writing a post in the other Spirituality board where I posted This from a while back, it explains why I would strenously argue against your statement that religion has been "proven incorrect". It was never intended to be taken as literal in the first place. Even ancient theologians note that the account in Genesis is not necessarily a literally historical account, so on all counts your argument fails. I do agree that there was a significant period of time where people did literally believe the Adam-and-Eve account, but that has not always been so (as noted, even ancient theologians questioned the veracity of the text).

What miracles exist?

That would be a matter of faith, wouldn't it? Things like Jesus' resurrection, feeding five thousand people with a few loaves of bread a couple of small fish, that kind of thing.

Science cannot measure belief true, but belief is no indicator of veracity. Assumption is the mother of all stuff ups. And evidence shows that we need no omnipotent being to create the universe including us. Result is God does not need to exist for us or the Universe to exist. So what did he actually do? He did not make man from adams rib, he did not flood the earth, but people said that is what he said he did. And that is where this no material universe resides. Science cannot investigate that which simply does not exist, heaven is a man made construct, and that is why it only exists in the non material universe.

Nevertheless, having had experiences that I can only put down to supernatural involvement, I cannot ignore my personal experiences. How could I, and then turn around and claim to be a seeker of truth? As such, while I cannot empirically prove my position, I am still happy to hold it. As noted in an earlier post, if you can't handle that, maybe it's your problem and not mine (and going by your comments, it seems you can't [or perhaps more correctly, don't want to] handle it). Either way, your non-belief does not affect me at all, I celebrate your right to act as you feel is best. And if that means not accepting supernatural explanations, then that is fine by me. One day we'll find out, one way or the other (maybe neither of us is right, have you considered that - I have!?!?).

[Mr Walker]

That is right, I have faith no longer, I read enough to realise that religion is a sham. Yes I do know very well what it means to have faith, and in the past have even been asked to tone it down a bit. Not because I was rabbiting on, but simply having a conversation about books people were reading, I happened to be readin the bible, and when I said I was enjoying reading it, some took that to be preaching, which I assure others them it was not. The first time I read the Apocrypha I remember being quite impressed and considering it something of a hidden book personally. It was when my father reentered my life in my early twenties and I again gave religion another go, and enjoyed the Catholic Church very much. I found it far superior to the BAC, JW and COE experiences I had to date.

Nonsense, you are embarrassed that some heretic like me dare speak out, be more honest man!! You want to convert me, but now that will fail, so you go to the next best option and lash out. I see it as a crying shame that you cannot offer the level of tolerance your religion is supposed to impart you with.

And that would be an impossible task as we are all individuals, whilst many people may deeply enjoy Beethoven they enjoy it for different reasons, and having a strong background in music, I can see the many delicate intricacies that ignite peoples interests. So if you tr4ied to give me what you see as valuable in religion, chances are that aspect may not appeal to me at all, but another altogether. Tradition is what impressed me with the Catholic Church when I attended regularly.

Actually, my mind is open, as that how science works, if science was able to find this imagined "not material universe" I will apologise and consider the possibility of heaven.

And dimensional hypotheses are not what I consider a "non material universe"

Thing is the realm of heaven is a man made construct. So it will never be proven, you cannot physically walk into a wish. As such, people who feel philosophy is not totally useless, will philosophise that this place man imagined exists.

No, I do not realise I am being nasty at all, these are brutal honest questions, how is that nasty?

What you all theologically disabled I call enlightened, it's all perspective. I have been there, done that moved on. Life is short, I am not going to waste it on someone's imagination. My own keeps me busy enough.

If anyone feels uncomfortable having their faith challenged, I have no idea why they reply to my posts??? Why not just visit another thread if this one upsets one?

All I am getting for these "protests" is that people get very angry if you challenge faith, and that I can only understand as deep down, they know it is what I say it is - a man made construct, and not a real non-material place. I see no reason to consider this "non material universe" or any spiritual realm. All I see is people very uncomfortable when faced with the very fact that religion is being made redundant by science, because science if giving us the answers religion cannot, and correcting the very false assumptions made by man with regards to our existence. 2,000 years does not harden tale into fact.

First, religions aren' t shams. They are human responses to human needs. They are a codifed/regulated form of human spirituality and belief. They WORK effectively and powerfully to improve the human condition. Which explains their endurance over the last100000 years or so..

Of course people get angry when you challenge their beliefs. You are challenging the very basis of their existence. Try challenging a woman's belief that she has a right to an abortion or a gay persons belief that their alignment is "normal" and you will see them get angry, too.

[psyche101]

I read the reply. I felt it inadequately answered the point, and still maintain that science cannot address matters of religion.

To be frank, I cannot see how you did and come to the same reply. Samm tended to cherry pick a bit there, but look at the entire page. It says "Science cannot tell you what colour you like, it cannot tell you what you will find pleasing to your eye, Science cannot tell you to be a murderer or a priest, it cannot even tell you how to use science, so it cannot decide if you want to believe in a God or not". Science does not make personal choices for you, it can help one make better choices, but it cannot do that for you.

That does not mean some non material universe exists that science is baffled by. It means, hey, if you want to do something that personally floats your boat, science wont stop you, but it can inform you that you have placed faith in an unreliable source, and give you correct answers. Science wont force you to follow it, it will just place the answers under your nose for you. It is up to the individual if they wish to devour them or not. Science won't transform you, it will inform you.

Can you explain better than the non material universe? Making up things to explain made up things just doesn't help one understand your point. What it comes down to, is there is no reason this non material Universe exists, emotion makes you want it exist. And I am not, and have not said it was a scientific theory, but I need more to go on than "a magical place".

Why "better"? I am not pushing for one model over the other, I am simply happy to use both models for living.

That is hardly a surprise, the old saying "if you can't beat 'em" comes to mind.

Science is better because it is accountable and repeatable. Moral high ground does not come from having faith. It comes from within, as per above. Science wont change that, it will simply inform you, and allow one to make their own decisions. That is how this thread came to be. taniwha and I were discussion the validity of God in another thread.

It isn't science, I never claimed it was, so your last sentence here is a strawman. Nevertheless, my personal experience is what it is, I cannot ignore it, and therefore accept the existence of a supernatural deity. I can't empirically prove it and I have never claimed I could. I'm comfortable with that, if you're not that perhaps says more about you than it does about me

No, it is not an argument, so it is not a strawman, I said that the non material Universe sounds a lot like poppycock, not that it had to be qualifieds, how can something that does not exist in the real world be qualified? So why is man so sure it exists, when everything else associated with the concept, such as Adams rib, is definitely wrong. That is poppycock, yet this non material realm is not?

Shame your experiences are personal, I would love to know what convinces you that such a place actually exists. It seems like Santa's workshop to me, and take that offensively if you will, I simply cannot think of another analogy at this point in time. I got over Santas workshop, and I moved on from religion too.

I also read the reply. And once again I simply disagree with your assertion that religion is redundant. It is very much relevant, and in my opinion the most important thing one can do with their life. In saying that, I naturally plug my own world view because it has helped me so much, but everyone will find their own path. I'm comfortable with what they choose, I may speak to them about my beliefs, they may speak to me about theirs, maybe one of us will change the others mind, maybe not. Either way, I'm good with that.

Well, how do you expect me to understand your world view? Nothing tangible supports faith and you speak of non scientific terms that are your own experience. I cannot possibly see how religion is the most important thing a person can have in their life, to me, that sounds offensive. My family is far more important than other peoples belief systems, of which there are many.

How do you not see it as a big ask to throw away actual gathered data that explains existence for one mans (or many for that matter) personal assurances? When they contradict, as with Adams Rib, then we do not have two answers do we? We have one correct, and one incorrect.

We should not be changing minds, we should be offering he actual data, and letting minds work for themselves. That is where religion seems very underhanded to me, ingraining this belief from birth. IF one had a decent education, and was given religion in adult years, it would be laughed away.

The only reason you think science has made religion redundant is because you believe it to be so. You cannot prove that statement, and I reject it as a nonsensical statement. Religion is very relevant, because that is what I believe to be so. Which of us is right may be borne out in decades and generations to come, we'll just have to see, won't we?

Nonsense, of course I can prove that statement and already have, God did not make man from Adams Rib, God did not create the Universe.

Religion is important to your life, so you want others to be in on it too. The first paragraph up here explains why that will not work. What we have here is you stating your personal experiences trump science, for you they do, where hard data is concerned, that is simply not the case.

I was speaking to LG at that time, and as you've obviously noted I also addressed your post shortly thereafter, so I don't think I was being rude at all.

Not very tolerant are you!! The smiley was to indicate the comment was tongue in cheek. You religious people seem to be taking this much more personally than I am.

[+Hammerclaw]

I just finished writing a post in the other Spirituality board where I posted This from a while back, it explains why I would strenously argue against your statement that religion has been "proven incorrect". It was never intended to be taken as literal in the first place. Even ancient theologians note that the account in Genesis is not necessarily a literally historical account, so on all counts your argument fails. I do agree that there was a significant period of time where people did literally believe the Adam-and-Eve account, but that has not always been so (as noted, even ancient theologians questioned the veracity of the text).

That would be a matter of faith, wouldn't it? Things like Jesus' resurrection, feeding five thousand people with a few loaves of bread a couple of small fish, that kind of thing.

Nevertheless, having had experiences that I can only put down to supernatural involvement, I cannot ignore my personal experiences. How could I, and then turn around and claim to be a seeker of truth? As such, while I cannot empirically prove my position, I am still happy to hold it. As noted in an earlier post, if you can't handle that, maybe it's your problem and not mine (and going by your comments, it seems you can't [or perhaps more correctly, don't want to] handle it). Either way, your non-belief does not affect me at all, I celebrate your right to act as you feel is best. And if that means not accepting supernatural explanations, then that is fine by me. One day we'll find out, one way or the other (maybe neither of us is right, have you considered that - I have!?!?).

We might awaken naked, young and in the flesh on the banks of an endless winding river. If we die, we again are resurrected at some point on that river. Phillip Jose Farmer To Your Scattered Bodies Go.

[+Hammerclaw]

To be frank, I cannot see how you did and come to the same reply. Samm tended to cherry pick a bit there, but look at the entire page. It says "Science cannot tell you what colour you like, it cannot tell you what you will find pleasing to your eye, Science cannot tell you to be a murderer or a priest, it cannot even tell you how to use science, so it cannot decide if you want to believe in a God or not". Science does not make personal choices for you, it can help one make better choices, but it cannot do that for you.

That does not mean some non material universe exists that science is baffled by. It means, hey, if you want to do something that personally floats your boat, science wont stop you, but it can inform you that you have placed faith in an unreliable source, and give you correct answers. Science wont force you to follow it, it will just place the answers under your nose for you. It is up to the individual if they wish to devour them or not. Science won't transform you, it will inform you.

Can you explain better than the non material universe? Making up things to explain made up things just doesn't help one understand your point. What it comes down to, is there is no reason this non material Universe exists, emotion makes you want it exist. And I am not, and have not said it was a scientific theory, but I need more to go on than "a magical place".

That is hardly a surprise, the old saying "if you can't beat 'em" comes to mind.

Science is better because it is accountable and repeatable. Moral high ground does not come from having faith. It comes from within, as per above. Science wont change that, it will simply inform you, and allow one to make their own decisions. That is how this thread came to be. taniwha and I were discussion the validity of God in another thread.

No, it is not an argument, so it is not a strawman, I said that the non material Universe sounds a lot like poppycock, not that it had to be qualifieds, how can something that does not exist in the real world be qualified? So why is man so sure it exists, when everything else associated with the concept, such as Adams rib, is definitely wrong. That is poppycock, yet this non material realm is not?

Shame your experiences are personal, I would love to know what convinces you that such a place actually exists. It seems like Santa's workshop to me, and take that offensively if you will, I simply cannot think of another analogy at this point in time. I got over Santas workshop, and I moved on from religion too.

Well, how do you expect me to understand your world view? Nothing tangible supports faith and you speak of non scientific terms that are your own experience. I cannot possibly see how religion is the most important thing a person can have in their life, to me, that sounds offensive. My family is far more important than other peoples belief systems, of which there are many.

How do you not see it as a big ask to throw away actual gathered data that explains existence for one mans (or many for that matter) personal assurances? When they contradict, as with Adams Rib, then we do not have two answers do we? We have one correct, and one incorrect.

We should not be changing minds, we should be offering he actual data, and letting minds work for themselves. That is where religion seems very underhanded to me, ingraining this belief from birth. IF one had a decent education, and was given religion in adult years, it would be laughed away.

Nonsense, of course I can prove that statement and already have, God did not make man from Adams Rib, God did not create the Universe.

Religion is important to your life, so you want others to be in on it too. The first paragraph up here explains why that will not work. What we have here is you stating your personal experiences trump science, for you they do, where hard data is concerned, that is simply not the case.

Not very tolerant are you!! The smiley was to indicate the comment was tongue in cheek. You religious people seem to be taking this much more personally than I am.

Oh, don't worry. No one takes you serious.

[+Paranoid Android]

To be frank, I cannot see how you did and come to the same reply. Samm tended to cherry pick a bit there, but look at the entire page. It says "Science cannot tell you what colour you like, it cannot tell you what you will find pleasing to your eye, Science cannot tell you to be a murderer or a priest, it cannot even tell you how to use science, so it cannot decide if you want to believe in a God or not". Science does not make personal choices for you, it can help one make better choices, but it cannot do that for you.

That does not mean some non material universe exists that science is baffled by. It means, hey, if you want to do something that personally floats your boat, science wont stop you, but it can inform you that you have placed faith in an unreliable source, and give you correct answers. Science wont force you to follow it, it will just place the answers under your nose for you. It is up to the individual if they wish to devour them or not. Science won't transform you, it will inform you.

Can you explain better than the non material universe? Making up things to explain made up things just doesn't help one understand your point. What it comes down to, is there is no reason this non material Universe exists, emotion makes you want it exist. And I am not, and have not said it was a scientific theory, but I need more to go on than "a magical place".

On the section in bold and red, I would like to go on record as saying that I have never stated this, this is your interpretation of my words. I have never said there is a realm that science is "baffled by". For the rest, your primary argument seems to be "Science has disproven God and religion, it can't help you make the decision to accept that fact, but it gives you everything you need so you should accept that God and religion have been disproven by science". To that, psyche, I call poppycock, Science has done no such thing.

That is hardly a surprise, the old saying "if you can't beat 'em" comes to mind.

Science is better because it is accountable and repeatable. Moral high ground does not come from having faith. It comes from within, as per above. Science wont change that, it will simply inform you, and allow one to make their own decisions. That is how this thread came to be. taniwha and I were discussion the validity of God in another thread.

It is better within its own field, but not necessarily better outside it.

No, it is not an argument, so it is not a strawman, I said that the non material Universe sounds a lot like poppycock, not that it had to be qualifieds, how can something that does not exist in the real world be qualified? So why is man so sure it exists, when everything else associated with the concept, such as Adams rib, is definitely wrong. That is poppycock, yet this non material realm is not?

Shame your experiences are personal, I would love to know what convinces you that such a place actually exists. It seems like Santa's workshop to me, and take that offensively if you will, I simply cannot think of another analogy at this point in time. I got over Santas workshop, and I moved on from religion too.

1- You'll see in a later post that I have already addressed the idea of Adam's rib, and while it is true that for periods of our history this is what we believed, it hasn't always been so, and several ancient theologians questioned it on its poetic grounds (and I shared a link to an old post of mine that covers the situation pretty well if you're willing to take the time to read it).

2- I have no interest in sharing my personal experiences with you. I've shared one or two in my time here at UM, but I sense it would be a colossal waste of time with you. Being personal, the experiences were enough to convince me that they were real, but just like your personal experiences won't convince me of your internal truths, mine won't convince you either, so I won't waste my time trying.

Well, how do you expect me to understand your world view? Nothing tangible supports faith and you speak of non scientific terms that are your own experience. I cannot possibly see how religion is the most important thing a person can have in their life, to me, that sounds offensive. My family is far more important than other peoples belief systems, of which there are many.

How do you not see it as a big ask to throw away actual gathered data that explains existence for one mans (or many for that matter) personal assurances? When they contradict, as with Adams Rib, then we do not have two answers do we? We have one correct, and one incorrect.

We should not be changing minds, we should be offering he actual data, and letting minds work for themselves. That is where religion seems very underhanded to me, ingraining this belief from birth. IF one had a decent education, and was given religion in adult years, it would be laughed away.

You know I didn't grow up a Christian, right? Though my upbringing was "religious", it wasn't Christian, and I wasn't forced to believe. As a teenager I moved away from religion altogether, I thought people who followed it were a little silly, actually. I still believed in God, but in a non-specific Deistic concept (moments of doubt led me to agnosticism, but those periods were brief). I was never taught as a child that Jesus rose from the dead, that he was the son of God, that kind of thing. I became a Christian while studying Music at university (in my first stint at university, as a 19-year old; I quit the course and returned a few years later to do a Theatre degree instead). So while I had heard of Jesus and the whole Christian movement, I didn't turn to Christ seriously until an adult. There was a brief moment as a 12-year old, the first time I heard of Jesus where a fire-and-brimstone preacher scared me into belief - that lasted about three weeks before I realised living my life in fear was stupid. From there I was in and out of Christian groups, and very occasionally professed belief, but I never really accepted the belief as true until that time at university. From there, I've never looked back, and I've been all the better for it.

Nonsense, of course I can prove that statement and already have, God did not make man from Adams Rib, God did not create the Universe.

Religion is important to your life, so you want others to be in on it too. The first paragraph up here explains why that will not work. What we have here is you stating your personal experiences trump science, for you they do, where hard data is concerned, that is simply not the case.

When theologians nearly two thousand years ago already observed the poetic nature of the creation account, you haven't proved squat, I'm afraid.

Not very tolerant are you!! The smiley was to indicate the comment was tongue in cheek. You religious people seem to be taking this much more personally than I am.

I guess I missed that. Sorry

~ Regards,

Edited January 14, 2015 by Paranoid Android