Giving up God is really really sad?

[911]

You know the more I think of it the more it seems giving up the concept of God is really really sad.

It seems to me the most brilliant idea ever conceived by Humanity.

Could God have put God in into man's head all those years ago into every human society?

Let me explain. From my observations so far; based on state of the art discoveries by science; based on the rules science have limited itself with...

Certainly when God was conceived or implanted into the human brain; there was no way anybody could have forseen Evolution.

Yet; matter>protein>......>hominids>intervention by God> man; seems for now the most logical.

We have the bones of dinosaurs and yet the missing link which is so much more recent cannot be found.

The Theory of Everything. It seems to me, pardon my french; somebody is fucking with us. Let humanity go so far and then hahaha; how's this for size?

If you were to make any exceptions; not that you have to or want to; only when you you make the exception for "God" does it seem reasonable.

If we accept that Falsifiability itself is not an internally limited concept.

Falsifiability: True for every case and if you want to make an exception; matters regarding God would qualify if not automatically; at least reasonably -

All atoms in the whole universe are part of God (not Falsifiable.)
Like man is made of atoms; man is sentient (not Falsifiable.)
You and your cat are one sentient being (not Falsifiable.)
All atoms in the universe and All sentient beings make up God (not Falsifiable.)

If the whole world accepts this : World Peace.

OK Shoot me.

[B.S. Lewis]

Wow, your post reads like poetry. (I mean that in a bad way).

Who says you have to give up the idea of God? I agree, some of the attributes you might currently attach to him (omnimax or some part of omnimaxness), or certain miracles you might attribute to him, are possibly pretty doubtful. But the idea of God is infinitely malleable. Modify, and believe on.

[911]

Wow, your post reads like poetry. (I mean that in a bad way).

Who says you have to give up the idea of God? I agree, some of the attributes you might currently attach to him (omnimax or some part of omnimaxness), or certain miracles you might attribute to him, are possibly pretty doubtful. But the idea of God is infinitely malleable. Modify, and believe on.

Isn't it amazing?

"infinitely malleable;"

another one for the books

[911]

If you do not give up the idea of God, then? This is a serious question.

[FFT]

Could God have put God in into man's head all those years ago into every human society?But there are societies which have no concept of Gods. Most notably some tribe in the east Govi Basin in Mongolia.

Dawkins: “Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants.� [The Blind Watchmaker, Oxford University Press (1988), p316]

Yet; matter>protein>......>hominids>intervention by God> man; seems for now the most logical.A lovely assertion. Care to back it up with a logical argument?

We have the bones of dinosaurs and yet the missing link which is so much more recent cannot be found.Every fossil is a "missing link."

[911]

Dawkins: “Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants.� [The Blind Watchmaker, Oxford University Press (1988), p316]


Hey if every atom is God then excrement of ants qualify!

[FFT]

You have done nothing to show that this is so, however.

[911]

You have done nothing to show that this is so, however.

Neither has science shown us where the missing link is and what the Theory of Everything is.

I like rickyroma.

To him; Science is not absolute; it just happens to be the best of the alternatives.

When you include personal experiences with God;

God then becomes the one realm science cannot touch.

[FatherMithras]

Neither has science shown us where the missing link is and what the Theory of Everything is.

The missing link nonsense is a blatant statement of your lack of knowledge. We have plenty of "missing links". We have them with dinosaurs (archeopetryx and such) and with "transitional" fossils http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
even though all fossils are transitional.

Also, the intervention by God insertion is not the most logical. Violates ocham's razor AND has no support via evidence at al.
When you include personal experiences with God;

God then becomes the one realm science cannot touch.

Sadly, incorrect. We can study and induce these "experiences" using psychology and have showed them for what they are. Reactions of a brain "tricking" the individual due to a set of observable, repeatable psychological phenomona accompanied by certain neurological effects. Science CAN tuch those experiences. It has. Inserting God and claiming that you can't test it shows a lack of knowledge. Not anyone's fault, but simply factually in error.

[David B]

Neither has science shown us where the missing link is and what the Theory of Everything is.

I like rickyroma.

To him; Science is not absolute; it just happens to be the best of the alternatives.

When you include personal experiences with God;

God then becomes the one realm science cannot touch.

Hmm. What about the idea that personal experiences with ghosts, allegedly holy or otherwise, is within the realm of psychology?

David B

[Atheos]

You know the more I think of it the more it seems giving up the concept of God is really really sad.

It seems to me the most brilliant idea ever conceived by Humanity..Which concept of god? Thor? Zeus? Vishnu? Baal? They are all so different. How can one imply that there is just one "concept" of God? Even among those who follow Yahweh there are so many different concepts, doctrines, conflicts that it's laughably absurd to try to sum it all up as if were some singular, cohesive "god concept".

But more importantly than that it doesn't matter whether it's "sad". Even if it's "really really sad". Truth is truth. Doesn't depend on how happy it makes you or how sad it makes you. It's SAD that there are starving children in 3rd world countries. Doesn't make it any less true. I think it would be sad if the Judaeo-Christian concept of God (at least the one I was brought up to believe in) were true. It would be sad if there really was a god who damnned people to eternal torment just because they found it impossible to believe in a god for which there was no evidence. Maybe that's just me, but it sure seemed supremely evil, especially considering that the vast majority of people who'd ever existed were destined for hell.

But it doesn't matter whether or not I think it's "sad" for this god to exist. TRUTH doesn't depend on how happy or sad it makes you.

It would be nice if the horrible events of September 11, 2001 were just a dream. It would be nice if children hadn't lost their parents that day; if family ties hadn't been permanently severed.

There's a reason why they call it reality.

Could God have put God in into man's head all those years ago into every human society?Answer: No. God doesn't exist.

Let me explain. From my observations so far; based on state of the art discoveries by science; based on the rules science have limited itself with...

Certainly when God was conceived or implanted into the human brain; there was no way anybody could have forseen Evolution."No way anybody could have..."? If this "god" person you talk of had the ability to implant a god concept into the human brain then this same entity had the ability to implant evolution into the human brain. Unless, of course you're arguing that god purposefully withheld pertainent information and substituted a lie (such as a creation myth) in its place.

Yet; matter>protein>......>hominids>intervention by God> man; seems for now the most logical..What seems by far the most logical is that homo-sapiens is one of several products of millions of years of evolution from some common ancestor shared by humans, chimps, orangutangs, gorillas and other primates.

We have the bones of dinosaurs and yet the missing link which is so much more recent cannot be found."The missing link?" There is no "the missing link". Get over it. The fossil record is incomplete but it's not like nature was trying to make sure homo-sapiens would have a complete set of fossil remains showing every single adaptation of every single species that ever existed in the 3.5 billion years since life began on this planet. Fossilization is a relatively rare thing and we only get to study things that happen to fossilize. Still yet we have a rather complete picture of our origins.

Hope this helps clarify things a bit.

-Atheos

[FatherMithras]

It seems to me the most brilliant idea ever conceived by Humanity.

It seems to me like one of the worst. An explanation of phenomena that states "This did it!" The most basic understanding of a complex scientific theory is mor ecomplex and itneresting. Physics is by far more brilliant then such a useless creation of the human mind.

[Noggin]

Which concept of god? Thor? Zeus? Vishnu? Baal? They are all so different. How can one imply that there is just one "concept" of God? Even among those who follow Yahweh there are so many different concepts, doctrines, conflicts that it's laughably absurd to try to sum it all up as if were some singular, cohesive "god concept".

But more importantly than that it doesn't matter whether it's "sad". Even if it's "really really sad". Truth is truth. Doesn't depend on how happy it makes you or how sad it makes you. It's SAD that there are starving children in 3rd world countries. Doesn't make it any less true. I think it would be sad if the Judaeo-Christian concept of God (at least the one I was brought up to believe in) were true. It would be sad if there really was a god who damnned people to eternal torment just because they found it impossible to believe in a god for which there was no evidence. Maybe that's just me, but it sure seemed supremely evil, especially considering that the vast majority of people who'd ever existed were destined for hell.

-Atheos

Right on Atheos. According to believers, humans get an average of 60 years to figure out which of all the hundreds of gods is the "True" one to follow. If they fail... they spend eternity perched on a pitch fork.

Yet, oddly, none of the theists want to actually delve into which god is the True one. Each is perfectly satisfied with his god... yet unknowingly (I guess) is signed up for the doom proclaimed by the other gods.

It is ludicrous.

As for the theory of everything not being available... I suggest 911 read Brian Greene, "Fabric of the Cosmos" whereupon he will find that String theory and M theory are progressing towards a final solution. We are miles away from digression. 911 has the mind set of those who would have poo poohed the idea that men could actually fly or horrors... travel faster than the speed of sound.

Travel faster than the speed of sound? Why! That is impossible! Everyone knows that one's lungs would explode if we humans did that!

:rolling:

~Noggin

[911]

So we are going from science is simply a method and does not contain any "truths" to science is the truth? Welcome to the club folks.

Science is the preferable method; no doubt, to learn about the world around us.

Science observes "Reality" sounds more reasonable and straightaway the question arises: whose reality is it anyways?

By stating that it only observes reality; science admits that it is limited. It does not and cannot observe as yet unknowns.

As for missing link; sure, one day we might come across a link; for the time being, state of the art?

When this link is found so what? You can bet your life another problem arises?

What is missing link? A creature "that bridges the gap between earlier, primitive animals and later, modern creatures."

Don't give me that crap that we are any closer to the Theory of Everything.

The maths was already close; but for those solution to the problem; we have to assume 10 dimensions and how does one account for 10 dimensions in reality?

So it was back to the drawing board.

rickyroma stated it brilliantly: even the established theories of gravities are not "out there." These theories are in people's heads only until a new theory comes forth.

I agree wholeheartedly that science is the preferred method to study reality.

I keep some reserves even as science keep some reserves; just in case you know.

The point is that when people keep some just in case and do not surrender whole heartedly to science; they discovered within themselves "God" if you like.

Sure, state of the art: The "God" concept is controversial.

Just as nobody can predict when the missing link will pop up; nobody can predict when the God concept acceptable to all will pop up.

To say it is impossible is: Welcome to the club.

As rickyroma says: Science assumes nothing; if you like certainty; go ahead and join the "others."

Looks like I need not go anywhere; from the posts in this thread

You are here. Welcome to the club.

[FatherMithras]

By stating that it only observes reality; science admits that it is limited. It does not and cannot observe as yet unknowns.

Silly. NOTHING can observe "unknowns". If you do, they immediately becme known.


As for missing link; sure, one day we might come across a link; for the time being, state of the art?

When this link is found so what? You can bet your life another problem arises?

What is missing link? A creature "that bridges the gap between earlier, primitive animals and later, modern creatures."

Then by that definition we have lots of missing links.

Don't give me that crap that we are any closer to the Theory of Everything.


The Theory of everything? I hear this kinda thing from people who are high. do you mean unfied field theory?

The maths was already close; but for those solution to the problem; we have to assume 10 dimensions and how does one account for 10 dimensions in reality?

So it was back to the drawing board.

11 dimensions. And no, it's not "back to the drawing board" We CAN account for those dimensions. You're obviously not reading much of this stuff are you?

I agree wholeheartedly that science is the preferred method to study reality.

I keep some reserves even as science keep some reserves; just in case you know.


Science keeps some reserves? What?

The point is that when people keep some just in case and do not surrender whole heartedly to science; they discovered within themselves "God" if you like.

What? That's a rather silly assertion. People discover "god" based on logical fallacies and incorrect interpretations of fact based on ignorance that's been taught since th stone age.

Sure, state of the art: The "God" concept is controversial.

Just as nobody can predict when the missing link will pop up; nobody can predict when the God concept acceptable to all will pop up.


There's no reason to assume a God concept acceptable to all will come up. Regardless, "missing link" is outdated terminology, as noted before. Regardless, there's no evidence for any god, so it's silly to choose one.

You ok? You type very odd.

[911]

Giving up God is really really stupid?

I have so much compassion for atheist and many believers.

First the atheists. You people are so easy.

It seems to me that you have by your logic reasoned away "Religious Experiences."

You will never know "religious ecstasy" then.

"Religious ecstasy" for your information is better than sex.

You never knew did you? You will never know will you?

It is only for the believers.

Can you imagine somebody reasoning away sex and love? Art?

Because it is not science?

How I pity you. And you call yourselves people grounded in reality.

NEXT THE BELIEVERS
Many of them are simply idiots; just like many atheists.

Their God is so sanitised it is unbelievable.

God becomes a set of beliefs (my beliefs are better than your beliefs)
God becomes a set of rules;
God becomes as set of practises.

wakey wakey; what the hell are you people thinking about?

That some predefined method or rules or beliefs will bring your to the knowledge of God?

That you will know a person by following certain rules and beliefs?

You have "sex" with them, that's how.

The only thing required is that you have faith in God because God cannot be proven. If you do not believe that God exists; you will never know God.

Go for the "religious ecstasy" people; for only if you have that experience can you say that you truly know God.

The other thing is that God can speak to you just like your spouse speaks to you. Only then can you have the experience that is called "religious ecstasy."

It is not a one off experience but an experience of a lifetime.

I KNOW I AM PISSING EVERYBODY OFF - BOTH BELIEVERS AND NON

I feel like Jesus Christ - everybody out for my blood. Good thing I am behind the internet.

OK shoot me.

[911]

Silly. NOTHING can observe "unknowns". If you do, they immediately becme known.

Then by that definition we have lots of missing links.

The Theory of everything? I hear this kinda thing from people who are high. do you mean unfied field theory?

11 dimensions. And no, it's not "back to the drawing board" We CAN account for those dimensions. You're obviously not reading much of this stuff are you?

Science keeps some reserves? What?

What? That's a rather silly assertion. People discover "god" based on logical fallacies and incorrect interpretations of fact based on ignorance that's been taught since th stone age.

There's no reason to assume a God concept acceptable to all will come up. Regardless, "missing link" is outdated terminology, as noted before. Regardless, there's no evidence for any god, so it's silly to choose one.

You ok? You type very odd.

11 dimensions? OK I am a little rusty and you can account for them?

That's new; OK now dark matter?

Like I said I like what rickyroma said; he said and I agree: Even the accepted Theories of Gravity are not "out there" but is in somebody's head until something better comes along.

[mikem]

"Religious ecstasy" for your information is better than sex.



You must be doing it wrong then.

[FatherMithras]

11 dimensions? OK I am a little rusty and you can account for them?

It's part of M theory, the unification ot the Superstring theories and supergravity theory. You seem to think they worked it out and said" Oh crap this only works with 11 dimensions! time to try again!" NO. They are continuing along this path with the 11 dimensions being part of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_theory

Read this, and the attached articles about string theory and supergravity theory to get an idea.

That's new; OK now dark matter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter


Even IF we couldn't explain what you're asking, that doesn't mean God exists. In order to show evidence for God you have t do more then say "We dunno what did this, therefor GOD DID IT!" That's God of the gaps. If we actually used this we'd never explain things in science. We'd assume God did it and never try to find out, leaving us without theories like evolution and relativity.

[911]

You must be doing it wrong then.

You have no idea. Is there a "sex" sub section here and we discuss whose sex is better?:rolling:

[911]

11 dimensions? OK I am a little rusty and you can account for them?

It's part of M theory, the unification ot the Superstring theories and supergravity theory. You seem to think they worked it out and said" Oh crap this only works with 11 dimensions! time to try again!" NO. They are continuing along this path with the 11 dimensions being part of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_theory

Read this, and the attached articles about string theory and supergravity theory to get an idea.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter


Even IF we couldn't explain what you're asking, that doesn't mean God exists. In order to show evidence for God you have t do more then say "We dunno what did this, therefor GOD DID IT!" That's God of the gaps. If we actually used this we'd never explain things in science. We'd assume God did it and never try to find out, leaving us without theories like evolution and relativity.

OK just like in science you say; until something better comes along.

I plea, until something better comes along?

Am I more grounded in reality now?

[FatherMithras]

Giving up God is really really stupid?

I have so much compassion for atheist and many believers.

First the atheists. You people are so easy.

It seems to me that you have by your logic reasoned away "Religious Experiences."

You will never know "religious ecstasy" then.

"Religious ecstasy" for your information is better than sex.

You never knew did you? You will never know will you?

It is only for the believers.

Can you imagine somebody reasoning away sex and love? Art?

Because it is not science?

How I pity you. And you call yourselves people grounded in reality.

NEXT THE BELIEVERS
Many of them are simply idiots; just like many atheists.

Their God is so sanitised it is unbelievable.

God becomes a set of beliefs (my beliefs are better than your beliefs)
God becomes a set of rules;
God becomes as set of practises.

wakey wakey; what the hell are you people thinking about?

That some predefined method or rules or beliefs will bring your to the knowledge of God?

That you will know a person by following certain rules and beliefs?

You have "sex" with them, that's how.

The only thing required is that you have faith in God because God cannot be proven. If you do not believe that God exists; you will never know God.

Go for the "religious ecstasy" people; for only if you have that experience can you say that you truly know God.

The other thing is that God can speak to you just like your spouse speaks to you. Only then can you have the experience that is called "religious ecstasy."

It is not a one off experience but an experience of a lifetime.

I KNOW I AM PISSING EVERYBODY OFF - BOTH BELIEVERS AND NON

I feel like Jesus Christ - everybody out for my blood. Good thing I am behind the internet.

OK shoot me.


We're not out for blood. Your arguments are just really bad, and provide no evidence to support them. Believing in God with no evidence is like believing in Santa. Oh, and before I became an atheist I had plenty of religious experiences... No where near sex. Your partners must be terrible! You make claims that we reason away religious experiences. That's kind of sad actually. The evidence is all on our side that they're psychological phenomena, since we can recreate and test them. YOU are the one who's "reasoned away" science. You refuse to believe the answer because it's not "Happy."


The idea of god is simple, elegant, and fails to explain anything. It's not a way to learn truth.

[steamer]

Science observes "Reality" sounds more reasonable and straightaway the question arises: whose reality is it anyways?

Whose reality isn't it?


By stating that it only observes reality; science admits that it is limited. It does not and cannot observe as yet unknowns.

This is true, so what?


As for missing link; sure, one day we might come across a link; for the time being, state of the art?

Everyone you see that has children is a missing link. Your worldview cannot be so shallow as not to allow the obvious, can it?


When this link is found so what? You can bet your life another problem arises?
What is missing link? A creature "that bridges the gap between earlier, primitive animals and later, modern creatures."

So you've hit the nail on the head, every creature is the missing link between it's ancestors and its decendants.


Don't give me that crap that we are any closer to the Theory of Everything.


Yes you'd prefer crap that your imaginary sky-daddy thinks you are ever so special.


The maths was already close; but for those solution to the problem; we have to assume 10 dimensions and how does one account for 10 dimensions in reality?

Good question, perhaps someone will refute it, or perhaps we'll learn to discover them if they exist.


So it was back to the drawing board.

Yet so many theories have withstood every attempt to refute them. After awhile you kind of suspect that no one will be able to refute them. Circles really still have a relationship to Pi.


rickyroma stated it brilliantly: even the established theories of gravities are not "out there." These theories are in people's heads only until a new theory comes forth.

Conjecture and refutation. Please show us some falsifiable claims about your god and we will be happy to advance his state of the art by refuting those claims.


I agree wholeheartedly that science is the preferred method to study reality.


Unless it requires you to accept things based on evidence and not on warm fuzzy feelings you get from imagining you're god's special little guy.


I keep some reserves even as science keep some reserves; just in case you know.

No, I haven't a clue what your talking about.


The point is that when people keep some just in case and do not surrender whole heartedly to science; they discovered within themselves "God" if you like.

No, I don't see what your getting at. If you admit ignorance you can know god? Does god become larger the less you know?


Sure, state of the art: The "God" concept is controversial.

Not really. The god concept is merely a well developed hedonistic tendancy. Really, if it weren't for the memes continual insistance that others give it credence, I'd understand completely why some people delude themselves. It makes them happy and some delusions can last a life time.


Just as nobody can predict when the missing link will pop up; nobody can predict when the God concept acceptable to all will pop up.

The next missing link will pop up the next time an offspring is created. This argument is pretty silly. Pretending there is a god will not make me happy. So I do doubt that such a concept wil make everyone happy.


As rickyroma says: Science assumes nothing; if you like certainty; go ahead and join the "others."

Looks like I need not go anywhere; from the posts in this thread

You are here. Welcome to the club.

Is English your first language?

[FatherMithras]

OK just like in science you say; until something better comes along.

I plea, until something better comes along?

Am I more grounded in reality now?


Yes! Why should you believe anything then the best explanation we've currently got? science may not have alot of things perfect yet, but it actually explains things like gravity, biology, evolution, chemistry, etc. Whereas god belief and religion, along ith philosphy, have yet to do anything.

[Alter]

Yet; matter>protein>......>hominids>intervention by God> man; seems for now the most logical.

We have the bones of dinosaurs and yet the missing link which is so much more recent cannot be found.


Define missing link!!!!

There have been a TON of hominid fossil remains found in the last 15 years, your data is old. Where exactly do you find a gap???????????


Falsifiability: True for every case and if you want to make an exception; matters regarding God would qualify if not automatically; at least reasonably -

All atoms in the whole universe are part of God (not Falsifiable.)
Like man is made of atoms; man is sentient (not Falsifiable.)
You and your cat are one sentient being (not Falsifiable.)
All atoms in the universe and All sentient beings make up God (not Falsifiable.)

If the whole world accepts this : World Peace.


Let's see: "Everybody accepts MY cockamamie theory and they stop fighting over religion. World Peace."

Well DUH!!!! If the whole world accepts strict Islam, world peace. If the whole wrold goes Zoroastrian, world peace. If the whole world worships the IPU, world peace.

Now let's take that thought one step further: Why exactly are they fighting? The answer: THEY ARE FIGHTING OVER COCKAMAMIE THEORIES.

Instead of all adhering to one of those, why don't we just dump the cockamamie theories, and stick with the scientific ones?

[911]

We're not out for blood. Your arguments are just really bad, and provide no evidence to support them. Believing in God with no evidence is like believing in Santa. Oh, and before I became an atheist I had plenty of religious experiences... No where near sex. Your partners must be terrible! You make claims that we reason away religious experiences. That's kind of sad actually. The evidence is all on our side that they're psychological phenomena, since we can recreate and test them. YOU are the one who's "reasoned away" science. You refuse to believe the answer because it's not "Happy."


The idea of god is simple, elegant, and fails to explain anything. It's not a way to learn truth.

Why do you say I have reasoned away science? Art and science is compatible is it not?

Love exist does it not? I do not mean the Love bound in reasoning and reality.

I man the pride and prejudice type of love?

The idiotic obsessive love?

Have you ever experienced that kind of love?

The kind music keeps talking about non stop!!!!!???

If you apply science to it; well hello, it is not scientific.

Why should anybody love like that?

They are taking a trip more than anything else.

So it is "stupid" as far as science is concern - give it up?????

[911]

We're not out for blood. Your arguments are just really bad, and provide no evidence to support them. Believing in God with no evidence is like believing in Santa. Oh, and before I became an atheist I had plenty of religious experiences... No where near sex. Your partners must be terrible! You make claims that we reason away religious experiences. That's kind of sad actually. The evidence is all on our side that they're psychological phenomena, since we can recreate and test them. YOU are the one who's "reasoned away" science. You refuse to believe the answer because it's not "Happy."

The idea of god is simple, elegant, and fails to explain anything. It's not a way to learn truth.

Is it not obvious to you that if you give up believing in God you will never have the experiences I describe and if you say so; well documented by science?

[911]

Define missing link!!!!

There have been a TON of hominid fossil remains found in the last 15 years, your data is old. Where exactly do you find a gap???????????

Let's see: "Everybody accepts MY cockamamie theory and they stop fighting over religion. World Peace."

Well DUH!!!! If the whole world accepts strict Islam, world peace. If the whole wrold goes Zoroastrian, world peace. If the whole world worships the IPU, world peace.

Now let's take that thought one step further: Why exactly are they fighting? The answer: THEY ARE FIGHTING OVER COCKAMAMIE THEORIES.

Instead of all adhering to one of those, why don't we just dump the cockamamie theories, and stick with the scientific ones?

Like I said; to do that you throw out the baby with the bath water. You do not want to do that.

[Barefoot Bree]

Is it not obvious to you that if you give up believing in God you will never have the experiences I describe and if you say so; well documented by science?
Your mistake is in believing that ecstasy is only found in God. There are as many different ways of finding or creating ecstasy as there are people in the world. Non-religious ecstasy is as valid, as good, and as intense as the religious kind.

[FatherMithras]

Why do you say I have reasoned away science? Art and science is compatible is it not?

What? What does art, something that has nothing to do with investigating reality, have to do with science?

Love exist does it not? I do not mean the Love bound in reasoning and reality.

Umm, no dude, it doesn't. Love is an emotion caused by chemical reactions due to biological, social, and interpersonal causes. Love may cause some people to stop reasoning, but that doesn't mean we can't explain it. You seem to think everything that makes you feel "magical" or "ecstatic" can't be explained because that's makes it less special. It can be explained and has.

Have you ever experienced that kind of love?

The kind music keeps talking about non stop!!!!!???

Yup. I have a wonderful girl I'm still absolutely head over heels in love with and want to be with until I die. I don't pretend it's "magic" though. It's perfectly explainable. That doesn't mean I embrace it any less.

If you apply science to it; well hello, it is not scientific.

Wha? We can explain what love is scientifically. Of course we don't create "plans" to fall in love. The way love is developed (as shown by the science of psychology!) usually needs to be more open and emotional.

So it is "stupid" as far as science is concern - give it up?????

Read the above. You still haven't shown God to be valid at all. Burden of proof old chap.

Like I said; to do that you throw out the baby with the bath water. You do not want to do that.

Ummm... Wrong. We're throwing all the garbage out an dusing a better system. You don't need religion or God to be a good person, fall in love, and love life.

Is it not obvious to you that if you give up believing in God you will never have the experiences I describe and if you say so; well documented by science?

Why should I embrace being wrong to have explained psychological brain chemistry fluxes? I've had them before, and find my new state of clarity to be far more enjoyable.

You seem to think it's more important to turn your back on reality and embrace a lie because it makes the world more magical. I simply refuse. The truth is too important to me.

[Autonemesis]

Neither has science shown us where the missing link is and what the Theory of Everything is.

Neither has any religion. So what?

And what missing link are you referring to? The "Missing Link" between humans and apes arises from a misunderstanding of evolutionary findings. It does not signal any lack of required evidence to prove some preconceived idea about human origins.

Don't give me that crap that we are any closer to the Theory of Everything.

Made up your mind already, hmmm? Physician, heal thyself.

[911]

Your mistake is in believing that ecstasy is only found in God. There are as many different ways of finding or creating ecstasy as there are people in the world. Non-religious ecstasy is as valid, as good, and as intense as the religious kind.

religious ecstasy is the same as nonreligious estasy? huh? religious experience is the same as non religious experience?

you are so desperate aren't you? I assume that I am talking to someone who is talking about sex but never had sex even though he might have read extensively about sex or had even studied sex. duh!

[911]

What? What does art, something that has nothing to do with investigating reality, have to do with science?

Umm, no dude, it doesn't. Love is an emotion caused by chemical reactions due to biological, social, and interpersonal causes. Love may cause some people to stop reasoning, but that doesn't mean we can't explain it. You seem to think everything that makes you feel "magical" or "ecstatic" can't be explained because that's makes it less special. It can be explained and has.

Yup. I have a wonderful girl I'm still absolutely head over heels in love with and want to be with until I die. I don't pretend it's "magic" though. It's perfectly explainable. That doesn't mean I embrace it any less.

Wha? We can explain what love is scientifically. Of course we don't create "plans" to fall in love. The way love is developed (as shown by the science of psychology!) usually needs to be more open and emotional.

Read the above. You still haven't shown God to be valid at all. Burden of proof old chap.

Ummm... Wrong. We're throwing all the garbage out an dusing a better system. You don't need religion or God to be a good person, fall in love, and love life.

Why should I embrace being wrong to have explained psychological brain chemistry fluxes? I've had them before, and find my new state of clarity to be far more enjoyable.

You seem to think it's more important to turn your back on reality and embrace a lie because it makes the world more magical. I simply refuse. The truth is too important to me.

You are sidestepping the issue. To be able to have religious experience you need to believe in God.

[911]

Neither has any religion. So what?

And what missing link are you referring to? The "Missing Link" between humans and apes arises from a misunderstanding of evolutionary findings. It does not signal any lack of required evidence to prove some preconceived idea about human origins.

Made up your mind already, hmmm? Physician, heal thyself.

huh? if science can say wait a minute; so can God-concept.

In the meantime; don't tell me that religious experiences are bad and need to be eliminated.

Explain all you want from scientfic observation but the fact remains that you cannot have religious experiences when you discard belief in God.

[Mountain Man]

You know the more I think of it the more it seems giving up the concept of God is really really sad.Actually, you'll see it as the best thing you've ever done. It seems to me the most brilliant idea ever conceived by Humanity.History shows otherwise. Religion has been the worst idea every foisted on humanity.Could God have put God in into man's head all those years ago into every human society?No, how could a god that doesn't exist do that? If it were so, your god lied to some people since not all that believe, believe in the same god or gods. Why would your god lie?

[regis]

911 Quote: . . . "Religious ecstasy" for your information is better than sex.


And believing that you're Napoleon is probably wonderfully consoling & just as wrong.

And who's this rickyricardo you keep mentioning, anyways?

"Yahweh . . . you've got some 'splainin' to do!"


:devil1:

[Mountain Man]

Why do you say I have reasoned away science? Art and science is compatible is it not?....Two different things. You seem to be very confused as to what science really is. Science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism aimed at finding out how things work. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

Art is an expression of someones feelings, a form of communication.

[Mountain Man]

Is it not obvious to you that if you give up believing in God you will never have the experiences I describe and if you say so; well documented by science?I, for one, did not "give up" believing in gods. There are no gods for me to believe in. I do not want the experiences you've had. They are not based on reality. I'd rather LIVE my life than waste time worshiping some non existent god. That you have certain kinds of experiences is documented by science, but that is no proof that the god exists. You can have very profound, and exciting experiences without religion. You should try it.

[911]

Actually, you'll see it as the best thing you've ever done. History shows otherwise. Religion has been the worst idea every foisted on humanity.No, how could a god that doesn't exist do that? If it were so, your god lied to some people since not all that believe, believe in the same god or gods. Why would your god lie?

Well ask God and you will be surprised.

[911]

911 Quote: . . . "Religious ecstasy" for your information is better than sex.

And believing that you're Napoleon is probably wonderfully consoling & just as wrong.

And who's this rickyricardo you keep mentioning, anyways?

"Yahweh . . . you've got some 'splainin' to do!"

:devil1:

rickyroma is one of you - a more brilliant one if I may say so: you can find him in GOD is GOD in the same section as this thread

Are you ignoring reality my friend?

Do 2 billion + people belief that they are Napoleon and find that comforting?

[911]

BTW I never claimed to be Yahweh... but you know what since God is made up of every atom in this universe and every sentient being in the universe... I will not argue with people who believes in Yahweh.

I just want o know if Yahweh talks to them daily and if not; why not!!!

[911]

Two different things. You seem to be very confused as to what science really is. Science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism aimed at finding out how things work. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

Art is an expression of someones feelings, a form of communication.

Let's say for instance; you say that ART as a form of communication is not efficient. There is a better alternative. Science is a better form of communication.

Everybody takes your position. Art died.

[911]

I, for one, did not "give up" believing in gods. There are no gods for me to believe in. I do not want the experiences you've had. They are not based on reality. I'd rather LIVE my life than waste time worshiping some non existent god. That you have certain kinds of experiences is documented by science, but that is no proof that the god exists. You can have very profound, and exciting experiences without religion. You should try it.

Huh? I believe in science as the best alternative. Since science is honest; science tells me that she is not absolute; that there is something else "out there."

Therefore all the experiences you mention are open to me.

Experiences with God is open to me as well.

Of course my God is Allah and Christ and Yahweh and Buddha .... in fact my God makes up the universe.

[911]

But something touched me deep inside, The day the music died....

[makebate dags]

You know the more I think of it the more it seems giving up the concept of God is really really sad.

I think I agree; it is sad to give up god. I think a lot of people who deconvert from religion(s) have an emotional tug of war like your saying, but not just one specific emotion. Maybe a whole spectrum of emotions could result from giving up the concept of god; awe, fear, hate, joy, ambivalence or any other emotion, indeed.

I suppose the question folks have to ask themselves is do they honestly want to take that chance by investigating their beliefs and whether or not they jibe with reality; IOW Is what they believe the truth?

I'd say in as compassionate way as possible from one stranger to any others; if that's not a chance they are willing to take then I'd suspect this isn't the place for them to be; where challenging beliefs; challenging what's true is very much a part of what goes on here.

If think for people that can't accept that sadness; can be a part of knowing the truth; then they are probably not ready for the truth.

:cool: - Dags

In the name of God, stop a moment, cease your work, look around you.
Leo Tolstoy

[911]

I think I agree; it is sad to give up god. I think a lot of people who deconvert from religion(s) have an emotional tug of war like your saying, but not just one specific emotion. Maybe a whole spectrum of emotions could result from giving up the concept of god; awe, fear, hate, joy, ambivalence or any other emotion, indeed.

I suppose the question folks have to ask themselves is do they honestly want to take that chance by investigating their beliefs and whether or not they jibe with reality; Is what you believe the truth?

I'd say in as compassionate way as possible from one stranger to another; if that's not a chance your willing to take then I'd suspect this isn't the place for you to be; where challenging beliefs; challenging what's true is very much a part of what goes on here.

If think for people that can't accept that sadness; can be a part of knowing the truth; then they are probably not ready for the truth.

:cool: - Dags

In the name of God, stop a moment, cease your work, look around you.
Leo Tolstoy

That is what rickyroma said many many posts ago.

Which is why I started this thread. He also said: Live and let Live

Do you agree with that sentiment?

[911]

then I'd suspect this isn't the place for them to be;

There are some who are trying to find a better alternative; looking at reality, which of these evil (if you like) is the best? Can we come up with a better evil? To be able to do that; this precisely is the best place to be.

[Barefoot Bree]

religious ecstasy is the same as nonreligious estasy? huh? religious experience is the same as non religious experience?

you are so desperate aren't you? I assume that I am talking to someone who is talking about sex but never had sex even though he might have read extensively about sex or had even studied sex. duh!
Ecstasy is ecstasy, no matter the cause. The brain functions and chemicals are the same. Doesn't matter if you get high on God, sex, sunsets, or chocolate.

Generally, on message boards like this, it's the one who starts flinging accusations of desperation that comes off looking desperate. And do not presume to assume what my experiences include - or anyone else's here. You'd be surprised.

[911]

Ecstasy is ecstasy, no matter the cause. The brain functions and chemicals are the same. Doesn't matter if you get high on God, sex, sunsets, or chocolate.

Generally, on message boards like this, it's the one who starts flinging accusations of desperation that comes off looking desperate. And do not presume to assume what my experiences include - or anyone else's here. You'd be surprised.

I need to look it up but I think sexual ecstasy in the brain is not the same a chocolate ecstasy. In fact based on my own experience; some sexual ecstasies are better then at other times (just joking here.)

sorry about that bit on desperation.

[Mountain Man]

Huh? I believe in science as the best alternative. Since science is honest; science tells me that she is not absolute; that there is something else "out there."Alternative to what? Fantasy? "Science" says nothing about something "out there", and I'm assuming you mean some god thing.Experiences with God is open to me as well.As are experiences with invisible pink unicorns, or the ISM.Of course my God is Allah and Christ and Yahweh and Buddha .... in fact my God makes up the universe.Claiming your god is the Universe is defining the god part out of existence.

[rickyroma]

Hey thanks for all the complements, 911. Seems I made quite an impression.

And who's this rickyricardo you keep mentioning, anyways?
That would be me (http://www.infidelguy.com/userinfo-rickyroma.html).

The thread where 911 and I met is here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=146304).

[911]

Hey thanks for all the complements, 911. Seems I made quite an impression.

That would be me (http://www.infidelguy.com/userinfo-rickyroma.html).

The thread where 911 and I met is here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=146304).

You sure did mate. I particularly like your intellectual honesty. Did I mention intelligence? :wave:

OK I better not go on or the mod might sent these posts elsewhere - you know, "Nothing to do with EoG!

[911]

Alternative to what? Fantasy? "Science" says nothing about something "out there", and I'm assuming you mean some god thing.As are experiences with invisible pink unicorns, or the ISM.Claiming your god is the Universe is defining the god part out of existence.

Alternative to what at present a couple of billion people live by and if you ignore them, you ignore reality or a big part of reality.

Something "out there" refers to scientific theories - they are there only until something better comes along. They are not truths or absolute truths, it you like.

There are 2 billion people claiming experiences with invisible pink unicorns; then I better try to find out more about those invisible beings.

Claiming that every atom is indeed part of God is to see reality for what it really is. We need to work out the maths no doubt; if mathematicians can accept 11 dimensions in their model for the Theory of Everything; what cannot you not believe?

Some parts of this post are meant to be funny - hope you can work out which parts.

[Sarpedon]

But what do we do when six billion people claim experience of many different, mutually exclusive deities? Perhaps we look for something that can be explained naturally, that they are misinterpreting to be an experience of some deity? As much as you'd like to believe that other people are deluded and only your sect knows the truth, it seems that they believe it as much as you...So, the reality is that since there's so much disagreement between these so-called experiences of the divine, that they cannot be taken at face-value. It is YOU who are discounting the big hunk of reality...by ignoring the experiences of all those who's beliefs differ from yours.

[Noggin]

Hello 911. How is Singapore this fine day? A few comments if I may.


911:Giving up God is really really stupid?

I have so much compassion for atheist and many believers.

First the atheists. You people are so easy.

It seems to me that you have by your logic reasoned away "Religious Experiences."

You will never know "religious ecstasy" then.

"Religious ecstasy" for your information is better than sex.

You never knew did you? You will never know will you?

It is only for the believers.

911, you only know so much about online people. You assert that an atheist knows no ecstacy. How can you know that? You cannot. Your assumptions are the runaway freight train of irrational thought. How do you not know, for example, that sex for you is just really, really horrible? And therefore meditation or whatever you use for "religious ecstacy" easily overshadows your sex experience in terms of ecstacy?


NEXT THE BELIEVERS
Many of them are simply idiots; just like many atheists.

Their God is so sanitised it is unbelievable.

God becomes a set of beliefs (my beliefs are better than your beliefs)

And, just what do you think you are doing? You assert that your way is better than believer's or atheists way. Please see this.

At this point, I will just stop. But I will read further to see what affiliation or ideology you actually ascribe to.

Noggin

[911]

Hello 911. How is Singapore this fine day? A few comments if I may.

911, you only know so much about online people. You assert that an atheist knows no ecstacy. How can you know that? You cannot. Your assumptions are the runaway freight train of irrational thought. How do you not know, for example, that sex for you is just really, really horrible? And therefore meditation or whatever you use for "religious ecstacy" easily overshadows your sex experience in terms of ecstacy?

And, just what do you think you are doing? You assert that your way is better than believer's or atheists way. Please see this.

At this point, I will just stop. But I will read further to see what affiliation or ideology you actually ascribe to.

Noggin

Here it is hot as always; thanks for asking.

I just made a post in Philosophy/Meaning of Life before I saw this post.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=146187

Maybe that will give you some inkling?

I really needed to know what goes on in intelligent Atheists heads.

Also I needed to know what possible criticisms I might expect with my beliefs.

If I may say so myself; so far so good.

In the sense that the answer I got from the atheists was: we have what we think is the best of all the alternatives. I beg to differ.

[911]

But what do we do when six billion people claim experience of many different, mutually exclusive deities? Perhaps we look for something that can be explained naturally, that they are misinterpreting to be an experience of some deity? As much as you'd like to believe that other people are deluded and only your sect knows the truth, it seems that they believe it as much as you...So, the reality is that since there's so much disagreement between these so-called experiences of the divine, that they cannot be taken at face-value. It is YOU who are discounting the big hunk of reality...by ignoring the experiences of all those who's beliefs differ from yours.

Actually no. You cannot discount religious politics; scam artists; opportunists and those sorts....

Also, I sincerely believe that anybody who seeks God finds God in whatever religion they suscribe to. They need to "give up their religion" and seek God directly if they do not find God through their religion - the key is not religion but God.

[premjan]

God is just a philosophical hypothesis that has probably the benefit of eliminating personal responsibility (and hence stress) but Buddhism which eliminates the ego rather than postulate God is another way to go.

There is no good experimental evidence for God.

[Mountain Man]

Alternative to what at present a couple of billion people live by and if you ignore them, you ignore reality or a big part of reality.Then why are you ignoring the 4 billion that do not believe in your god? It seems the numbers are not on your side. 2 million people can be wrong.Something "out there" refers to scientific theories.....Scientific theories are not "out there."There are 2 billion people claiming experiences with invisible pink unicorns; then I better try to find out more about those invisible beings.They're called christians.Claiming that every atom is indeed part of God is to see reality for what it really is.Then the reality you're missing is that the god part does not exist.:rolleyes:

[regis]

911 Quote: . . . There are 2 billion people claiming experiences with invisible pink unicorns . . .

There are all kinds of people making all kinds of claims - so what? Quantity of argumenters doesn't trump quality of argument.

(hands over ears) FSM! FSM!! FSM!!!


:devil1:

[mikem]

You are sidestepping the issue. To be able to have religious experience you need to believe in God.

Or to put it another way, in order for an ecstatic experience to be religious in your sense, one has already to believe in God. It all comes down to interpretation. Descriptions of religious experience, from across the range of religions, are notoriously vague, and notoriously similar.

One has an "oceanic feeling of indescribable joy, in which one feels at one with "God", or the "universe" or whatever". I am not belittling the experience, I have had several similar myself. However, they are not proof of God, only the experiencer's belief in God, or whatever s/he wants them to be proof of. Philosophers desribe them as self authenticating experiences.

Given that is the case, it is not unreasonable for nonbelievers to exercise a little scepticism when people come along and say "I know there is a God, I have experienced him personally".

[Danon72]

911,

Can you do me a favor and give a name to your hodgepodge religious ideas? Oh, and please make an attempt, however feeble, to address the scientific holes in your arguments. Many posters have pointed them out, but you have not replied to any of them. And please try to refrain from the "Art-Life-Love-God" ideas that you have been floating in. Try for something a little more, how you say, tangible. Something that can be review'd by the other posters. Either stick to an argument that can be review'd by people, or take your "ideas" to a more fantastical section. Thanks

[911]

God is just a philosophical hypothesis that has probably the benefit of eliminating personal responsibility (and hence stress) but Buddhism which eliminates the ego rather than postulate God is another way to go.

There is no good experimental evidence for God.

You can only observe sentience. You can even describe it scientifically.

Can you come up with a mathermatical formula for "sentience?"

In the same way "God."

[911]

Then why are you ignoring the 4 billion that do not believe in your god? It seems the numbers are not on your side. 2 million people can be wrong.Scientific theories are not "out there."They're called christians.Then the reality you're missing is that the god part does not exist.:rolleyes:

I am not ignoring them. You just do not get it. Science has its place for me. Where science hits a brickwall :banghead: I go with Faith; you go with OK let's give science more time.

You see in my world; your argument is moot. You are telling a science true believer that science is the best of the alternatives. I am ever so willing to go all the way with you on science accept for those parts that says: 11 dimensions. Sure 11 dimensions; please work in out. In the meantime I go by Faith. You on the other hand similarly accepts science and when you come to 11 dimensions; "well I will wait for you to work that bit out." In the meantime?

I saw a couple of post that says: the reality is that the absence of positive is not just negative. In reality there is also "maybe." We have the ability to suspend "finality" for the time being or we can go with Faith.

So why go with Faith? Well 2 billion people thinks that that is a good idea.

As for the other 4 billion; I really truly suspect that the majority is in the "suspend" or "I could not care less" or "let the experts work it out" or "I am too busy earning my living or making my first million" category.

If you think that they are all like you; you are absolutely mistaken and I can bet my "right nut and left nut" on it (to quote a post I read.)

[911]

911 Quote: . . . There are 2 billion people claiming experiences with invisible pink unicorns . . .

There are all kinds of people making all kinds of claims - so what? Quantity of argumenters doesn't trump quality of argument.

(hands over ears) FSM! FSM!! FSM!!!


:devil1:

Please see the first of my posts directly above this one.

[Mountain Man]

I am not ignoring them. ....You are, here's proof:
So why go with Faith? Well 2 billion people thinks that that is a good idea.....4 million disagree with you. Your belief is in the minority. Since you want to go with the numbers, you are on the wrong side. ;)

[911]

Or to put it another way, in order for an ecstatic experience to be religious in your sense, one has already to believe in God. It all comes down to interpretation. Descriptions of religious experience, from across the range of religions, are notoriously vague, and notoriously similar.

One has an "oceanic feeling of indescribable joy, in which one feels at one with "God", or the "universe" or whatever". I am not belittling the experience, I have had several similar myself. However, they are not proof of God, only the experiencer's belief in God, or whatever s/he wants them to be proof of. Philosophers desribe them as self authenticating experiences.

Given that is the case, it is not unreasonable for nonbelievers to exercise a little scepticism when people come along and say "I know there is a God, I have experienced him personally".

You have every right to to exercise a little scepticism.

I first started out by saying (those post sent ~elsewhere~)

"What you believe - that is the truth."

The question then is whether or not you want to continue with your "scepticism."

If not that is your truth and I assert; that is the truth.

As of now; The Theory of Everything assumes that there are 11 dimensions in the universe. If you can believe that, what can you not believe?

As far as you are concern; there are a few dimensions you can see and you operate on.

So I will tell science; thanks mate, please work it all out for the progress of humanity.

In the meantime? Here and now? As I go on with living?

Science might take another millenium to work it all out.

I do not for a minute belittle science - how can I? I believe that God gave man "science."

But at the sametime; like I said in the other thread; pardon my french but somebody is fucking with humanity: work it out all if you want.... come up with the theory of the big bang? Well I give you (drum roll) "Dark Matter!!!!"

Come up with relativity? Now please unify it.

While I say God gave us science; in the same breath I say God gave us Faith.

[911]

911,

Can you do me a favor and give a name to your hodgepodge religious ideas? Oh, and please make an attempt, however feeble, to address the scientific holes in your arguments. Many posters have pointed them out, but you have not replied to any of them. And please try to refrain from the "Art-Life-Love-God" ideas that you have been floating in. Try for something a little more, how you say, tangible. Something that can be review'd by the other posters. Either stick to an argument that can be review'd by people, or take your "ideas" to a more fantastical section. Thanks

I hope that you can be crystal clear that I will never give God a name.

As for what name to use when you are talking about what I am talking about; well let me think:

Universility of God? I like this because as yet it is not in the dictionaries.

[FFT]

You can only observe sentience. You can even describe it scientifically.

Can you come up with a mathermatical formula for "sentience?"Not yet. We're working on it, though, with AI research. We get closer and closer as time goes on. We're pretty close, too.

Can't really say the same for God.

[911]

Not yet. We're working on it, though, with AI research. We get closer and closer as time goes on. We're pretty close, too.

Can't really say the same for God.

Great I am so glad; AI comes from God; but you know what?

Everytime man comes up with Eureka.....

"pardon my french but somebody is fucking with humanity: work it out all if you want.... come up with the theory of the big bang? Well I give you (drum roll) "Dark Matter!!!!""

"Come up with relativity and feeling smug with yourself? Try this for size: Now please unify it."

While I say God gave us science; in the same breath I say God gave us Faith.

[Danon72]

I hope that you can be crystal clear that I will never give God a name.

As for what name to use when you are talking about what I am talking about; well let me think:

Universility of God? I like this because as yet it is not in the dictionaries.


I hope you realize that calling God "God', is giving it a name. Calling me Danon72, and calling me a human are along the same lines. Both are labels. To even have the word God is to give a name to the beast. But more importantly, which world religion do you most identify with?

[FatherMithras]

You are sidestepping the issue. To be able to have religious experience you need to believe in God.

I did.

Well ask God and you will be surprised.

He always says different stuff to different people. Maybe it's because it's a psychological thing, like science proved. Yeah.

BTW I never claimed to be Yahweh... but you know what since God is made up of every atom in this universe and every sentient being in the universe... I will not argue with people who believes in Yahweh.

I just want o know if Yahweh talks to them daily and if not; why not!!!

Ummm... You have yet to prove God IS in anything.

Huh? I believe in science as the best alternative. Since science is honest; science tells me that she is not absolute; that there is something else "out there."

Therefore all the experiences you mention are open to me.

Experiences with God is open to me as well.

Of course my God is Allah and Christ and Yahweh and Buddha .... in fact my God makes up the universe.

science does not say "other stuff is out there." It says "I don't know everything yet."

Also, I sincerely believe that anybody who seeks God finds God in whatever religion they suscribe to. They need to "give up their religion" and seek God directly if they do not find God through their religion - the key is not religion but God.

Once again you make assertions not based on anything except what you want to be true. We already explained why people believe in divine messages, psychological issues. you love to make assertions based on nothing. You have the right, but you assert it like you know it's true based on evidence.


You can only observe sentience. You can even describe it scientifically.

Can you come up with a mathermatical formula for "sentience?"

In the same way "God."

Completely wrong. There's evidence of sentience. There ain't any for God unless you interpret info wrong.

You see in my world; your argument is moot. You are telling a science true believer that science is the best of the alternatives. I am ever so willing to go all the way with you on science accept for those parts that says: 11 dimensions. Sure 11 dimensions; please work in out. In the meantime I go by Faith. You on the other hand similarly accepts science and when you come to 11 dimensions; "well I will wait for you to work that bit out." In the meantime?

You go on faith. Faith has never proven anything correct and is based on nothing. 11 dimensions has been worked out and I sent you links. Your refusal to real them is your own fault.

So why go with Faith? Well 2 billion people thinks that that is a good idea.

So what? Almost everyone alive used to believe the earth was flat. Popularity does NOT make something true . Evidence does, and you have no evidence for your beliefs.

I do not for a minute belittle science - how can I? I believe that God gave man "science."

But at the sametime; like I said in the other thread; pardon my french but somebody is fucking with humanity: work it out all if you want.... come up with the theory of the big bang? Well I give you (drum roll) "Dark Matter!!!!"

Come up with relativity? Now please unify it.

While I say God gave us science; in the same breath I say God gave us Faith.

IE "I don't want to believe science because it's not common sense!" So what? your refusal to believe makes it no less true. You love God of the Gaps for some reason. It's a logical fallacy chap. You can say god gave us faith and god gave us science. But that's only based on what you want to be true, NOT on any kind of logic or reason. It's ok to believe that, but not... in line with the reality we observe through unbiased means.



Your arguments sound half cocked man. you sound like a really great guy, BUT... It's not based on anything. No evidence, no logic, and it's frusterating to see you spouting off posts based on nothing. please think about that.

[911]

I hope you realize that calling God "God', is giving it a name. Calling me Danon72, and calling me a human are along the same lines. Both are labels. To even have the word God is to give a name to the beast. But more importantly, which world religion do you most identify with?

I think you need to do some research on what constitute a "name."

[911]

I did.
He always says different stuff to different people. Maybe it's because it's a psychological thing, like science proved. Yeah.


When God says different things to different people you say "psychological thing."

When Science says different things at different times; it is just fine.

Why the double standard?

Many religions believe that there will be a final "revelation."

How do the Buddhists put it? Enlightement; yes.
Christians? "Now I see but darkly... as a child sees..." or something like that.

How does science out it? Please wait while we work out what and where the 11 dimensions are. In the meantime we try to figure out why we have to assume that there are 11 dimensions.



Completely wrong. There's evidence of sentience. There ain't any for God unless you interpret info wrong.



So what it boils down to is that while many (a couple of billion people) says that God at leasts intervene in their lives; you choose to accept the scientists who says that it is all in the mind. The same scientists who tells you that they have to assume 11 dimensions to make it all come together with the following disclaimers:

We could be wrong but for the time being; please accept this as God given truth.



You go on faith. Faith has never proven anything correct and is based on nothing. 11 dimensions has been worked out and I sent you links. Your refusal to real them is your own fault.



see paragraph above



So what? Almost everyone alive used to believe the earth was flat. Popularity does NOT make something true . Evidence does, and you have no evidence for your beliefs.



Including scientists



IE "I don't want to believe science because it's not common sense!" So what? your refusal to believe makes it no less true. You love God of the Gaps for some reason. It's a logical fallacy chap. You can say god gave us faith and god gave us science. But that's only based on what you want to be true, NOT on any kind of logic or reason. It's ok to believe that, but not... in line with the reality we observe through unbiased means.


I believe science but up to a point. For you to say that I do not believe in science is nonsense - reread my posts.



Your arguments sound half cocked man. you sound like a really great guy, BUT... It's not based on anything. No evidence, no logic, and it's frusterating to see you spouting off posts based on nothing. please think about that.

As long as science comes with disclaimers; I have the right to "FAITH."

[FFT]

I believe science but up to a point.Where do you draw that line, exactly?

[Mountain Man]

When God says different things to different people you say "psychological thing."I call it a lie. Why would someone worship a god that lies?When Science says different things at different times; it is just fine.that's just science self correcting. Religion cannot do that. Once a religion gets something wrong, it can take thousands of years to fix it.So what it boils down to is that while many (a couple of billion people) says that God at leasts intervene in their lives;Billions don't. Again, your argument from numbers does not work. Try something new. you choose to accept the scientists who says that it is all in the mind.No, in science one does not choose anything. The evidence shows what is or isn't. So far, there is nothing to show your gods exist.

Giving up on reality is really really sad.

[911]

Where do you draw that line, exactly?

Where science left off or says wait a millenium or 2 while we work on it.

Let me just tell you that the unified theory does not exist as yet. Strings seem promising at the present moment but is at present only promising. Even at its best; strings use to assume 6; then 10 and now 11 dimensions for the maths to be even promising.

Science is now trying to come up with the maths to help man formulate the Theory of Everything. Even when the maths is finally worked out; you need to develop experiments to test the theory. To do that you must be able to come up with the experiments in the first place. It must be faslifiable and must be observable and the experiment must be replicable and so on.

How does one do experiments when the maths assume 11 dimensions for the math to work?

You see science is imperfect and limited. But even as you accept science; so do I but I accept science only up to a point.

[911]

I call it a lie. Why would someone worship a god that lies?that's just science self correcting. Religion cannot do that. Once a religion gets something wrong, it can take thousands of years to fix it.Billions don't. Again, your argument from numbers does not work. Try something new.No, in science one does not choose anything. The evidence shows what is or isn't. So far, there is nothing to show your gods exist.

Giving up on reality is really really sad.

Nobody is giving up on reality; mind you.

[FatherMithras]

When God says different things to different people you say "psychological thing."

Yes. Based on the evidence, which can be reproduced and verified. AND has been. It's the logical conclusion.

When Science says different things at different times; it is just fine.Why the double standard?

Here's where you're wrong. Science doesn't make "inconsistencies" in the same way. With science, old theories are replaced with new, better ones that explain the evidence better. With religious revalation, we get conflicting stories at THE SAME TIME. We don't get better explanations with more time, thus they're not at all alike. No double standard.

Many religions believe that there will be a final "revelation."

So? Some people in the middle east think the earth is flat.

So what it boils down to is that while many (a couple of billion people) says that God at leasts intervene in their lives; you choose to accept the scientists who says that it is all in the mind.

You continue to argue from popularity. It's a logical fallacy. Popularity does not a n argument make. I choose to trust the scientists. Why? Because their explanation FITS THE DATA. It explains what happens based on actual experiments, from an unbiased perspective. The scientists have evidence it's all in the mind. The people who are religious and believe it is infallible proof have none. I HAVE HAD THIS KIND OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. I had it when I believed in God. I understand the temptation, but the mind plays tricks on people. Don't like it? You don't have to believe it. However, you are purposefully ignoring the logical answer that fits the data. You can believe 2 and 2 is 5 all you want, but claiming it's a better answer is simply wrong.

The same scientists who tells you that they have to assume 11 dimensions to make it all come together with the following disclaimers:

We could be wrong but for the time being; please accept this as God given truth.

You are once again simply stating incorrect information. The 11 dimensions aren't "assumed". They are based on the evidence collected. You continue to refuse to actually read up on the theory, and so continue to make claims that show ignorance of the topic.

And science doesn't say "We could be wrong BUT accept this as truth for now! " It says "Here is the explanation that best fits the data, so far." I'm not saying God cannot exist. I'm simply sayingo far, the evidence does not point to a God or gods of any kind existing. BURDEN OF PROOF again.

see paragraph above

Refuted in my earlier statements above.


Including scientists

False dichotomy. Science isn't based on how many scientists agree on something. It's based on what best fits the data. The 2 billion religious people's beliefs are based on untested personal intuition, and is unverified. Scientific theories are based on tested information, data, etc. You should trust people who are experts in the field and do science. Not trusting them is like not believing the doctor you go to when he says you have cancer, or not listening to an architct when building a house.

I believe science but up to a point. For you to say that I do not believe in science is nonsense - reread my posts.

According to your posts you believe in science ONLY when it agrees with your notions about the universe. You don't agree with 11 dimensions and the explanation for religious experiences. THAT is science too. You DO reject science when you want to, which is why we continue to bring it up.

As long as science comes with disclaimers; I have the right to "FAITH."

You have the "right" to believe anything you'd like. however, your beliefs are against logic, reason, and are not based on the evidence. 2 and 2 can be five in your head, but claiming your beliefs are valid based on the evidence is simply untrue.


Let me just tell you that the unified theory does not exist as yet. Strings seem promising at the present moment but is at present only promising. Even at its best; strings use to assume 6; then 10 and now 11 dimensions for the maths to be even promising.

You're WAY behind! They unified the string theories with supergravity theory. It's called m-theory. Why do you keep ignroing my refutations? and why do you try to make the scientists look like they're "guessing". The theory is simply changing to be in line with the evidence. Even though a unified theory doesn't exist, saying "god did it" is foolish. God of the gaps is a logical fallacy you repeatedly make over and over. Maybe you're unfamiliar with the term?

Science is now trying to come up with the maths to help man formulate the Theory of Everything. Even when the maths is finally worked out; you need to develop experiments to test the theory. To do that you must be able to come up with the experiments in the first place. It must be faslifiable and must be observable and the experiment must be replicable and so on.

How does one do experiments when the maths assume 11 dimensions for the math to work?

You see science is imperfect and limited. But even as you accept science; so do I but I accept science only up to a point.

You continue to misunderstand science utterly., and it's methods. We can do experiments on string theory, OR look for evidence of it in wavelengths and the way particles move. Regardless, you have shown you only accept science when it agrees with you. You claim to accept it and then put "God" where science hasn't found out yet. That's untrue. Science discovered how religous experiences happen and you simply ignore it.

Nobody is giving up on reality; mind you.

Not entirely. BUT you continue to simply disregard information that doesn't suit your beliefs. You claim giving up Gods would be sad. EVEN if that were true, the truth is more important then that. If evidence for God existed, and was shown to me, I'd embrace it and have to accept it. However, since NONE does, I don't embrace the concept. I don't say "god did it" for every piece of information science has yet to find. You continue to insert the "god of the gaps". It's a logical fallacy you have every right to. However, it is a terrible argument.


I hope I don't seem mean! I have nothing but respect for your views and sometimes my approach can seem rude. If anything above sounds angry, I didn't intend for it to at all! It's hard to convey inflection and emotion on the internet, and be assured this is playful debate on my part.

(I've beeng etting warned about meanness, didn't mean to guys!)

[FFT]

Where science left off or says wait a millenium or 2 while we work on it.So you do understand that neurologists have determined that thought, desire, and experience are entirely dependent on the brain?

[DMC]

Neither has science shown us where the missing link is and what the Theory of Everything is.

I like rickyroma.

To him; Science is not absolute; it just happens to be the best of the alternatives.

When you include personal experiences with God;

God then becomes the one realm science cannot touch.
So then, through ignorance, it must be God.

[DMC]

Where science left off or says wait a millenium or 2 while we work on it.

Let me just tell you that the unified theory does not exist as yet. Strings seem promising at the present moment but is at present only promising. Even at its best; strings use to assume 6; then 10 and now 11 dimensions for the maths to be even promising.

Science is now trying to come up with the maths to help man formulate the Theory of Everything. Even when the maths is finally worked out; you need to develop experiments to test the theory. To do that you must be able to come up with the experiments in the first place. It must be faslifiable and must be observable and the experiment must be replicable and so on.

How does one do experiments when the maths assume 11 dimensions for the math to work?

You see science is imperfect and limited. But even as you accept science; so do I but I accept science only up to a point.


I finally realized what you are doing. You are attempting to use every logical fallacy in one post.

Simple difference between a progressive system (science) and a religion (God). Religion is based on what was written while science is based on what is discovered. Science does not require a system of apologetics to explain away it's contradictions. When a scientific theory is found to possibly be lacking, many scientists, except possibly the one who came up with the theory to begin with, sets out to show why that theory is lacking. If evidence was uncovered that indicated Jesus of Nazareth was a character in a play, not a real human being, that evidence would be disregarded and labeled as something God planted to throw people off (God so hates for people to find out the truth).

Certianly, no Christian I am aware of would believe that anyone alive today actually got a message from God on what we should do. Christians have their book, and they have walled themselves in with their book and proclaimed for all to hear that the book is the infallible word of God. Now, any new discoveries just get sidestepped by them, except over time it seems some of these discoveries penetrate that wall and the Christians are forced to adopt the new information into their way of thinking. Dinosaurs come to mind. How many times has someone here read "the Bible mentions dinosaurs... it says "behemoth". as if to suggest dinosaurs existed, alive, a few thousand years ago. Obviously they did not so let's not get all kindergartenish here. Still, if the dinosaur was only a suggestion based on tracks or other discoveries, Christians would call it hogwash, because the Bible doesn't mention them.

The best thing that could ever happen to promote the healthy growth of a world culture would be the absense of the concept of a God or an afterlife, and a universal language, of course.

[Danon72]

So what your saying is that when people say "Praise God", they are really saying "Praise Generic Deity"? The raw term for a divine entity is Deity. God is a title laid down by man.

[Mountain Man]

Where science left off or says wait a millenium or 2 while we work on it. So, you admit it's a "god of the gaps." Those gaps are getting smaller and so is the god you put in them. It seems you've been reduced to claiming that you'll just believe no matter what science, or logic, has to say.You see science is imperfect and limited. But even as you accept science; so do I but I accept science only up to a point.Then why are you replacing something that is readily admitted to be imperfect by scientists with something that is by far more imperfect? Just admit you'll accept science up to the point where it leaves out gods and other myths. You'll be happier and you'll be on the road to giving up this god fantasy. You'll be glad you did.

[Mountain Man]

Nobody is giving up on reality; mind you.By closing your mind to science, and only believing what you want, you have given up on reality. That's sad. :(

[911]

You are once again simply stating incorrect information. The 11 dimensions aren't "assumed". They are based on the evidence collected. You continue to refuse to actually read up on the theory, and so continue to make claims that show ignorance of the topic.

And science doesn't say "We could be wrong BUT accept this as truth for now! " It says "Here is the explanation that best fits the data, so far." I'm not saying God cannot exist. I'm simply sayingo far, the evidence does not point to a God or gods of any kind existing. BURDEN OF PROOF again.



http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dimens.html:
Quote from link above:
"by assuming that, during the big bang, 6 of the 10 dimensions curled up (or "compactified") into a tiny ball"
Unquote

State of the art: M-theory still looks "promising" only.

Even before The Theory of Everything has been formulated which so far only M-theory which has to assume 11 dimensions (assume, mind you) seems vaguely promising to be able to come up with T.O.E. the issue of where all those 11 dimensions are and how to demonstrate then all has come up.


And science doesn't say "We could be wrong BUT accept this as truth for now! " It says "Here is the explanation that best fits the data, so far." I'm not saying God cannot exist. I'm simply sayingo far, the evidence does not point to a God or gods of any kind existing. BURDEN OF PROOF again.


"Here is the explanation... so far" means it could be wrong - it is a disclaimer.

========
Will make more posts as soon as possible...

[regis]

911 Quote . . . "Here is the explanation... so far" means it could be wrong - it is a disclaimer.

Hand the lad a cee-gar, folks. Yes, it could be wrong!!!! Exactly the point! If yer looking fer certainty, then go to the ragged, ancient writings & the multitudes of ancient & modern interpretations of same. Pick & choose the interpretations that you like & voila - you have certainty. It doesn't mean they're true, but they are certain. The bible, writings of rickyricardo, whatever.

Have at 'em!


:devil1:

[911]

911 Quote . . . "Here is the explanation... so far" means it could be wrong - it is a disclaimer.

Hand the lad a cee-gar, folks. Yes, it could be wrong!!!! Exactly the point! If yer looking fer certainty, then go to the ragged, ancient writings & the multitudes of ancient & modern interpretations of same. Pick & choose the interpretations that you like & voila - you have certainty. It doesn't mean they're true, but they are certain. The bible, writings of rickyricardo, whatever.

Have at 'em!


:devil1:

Did you read seriously the tone of "FatherMithras" postings?

He kept insisting that I am wrong with regards to T.O.E. in the sense that science cannot be "wrong and cannot make tentative assumptions."

BTW rickyroma is one of you (one of the intellectually more honest speciments, if I may add) but now I am not so sure that all of you hold the same position.

My position is misinterpreted by you as you based the thrust of my position as equivilent to those of people holding on to established current religions.

Look at my profile and you will see under preferred religious beliefs (or something like that) as UNDEFINED.

[911]

sorry, can someone tell me why that smiley face (in my post above) popped up inspite of the fact that I did not put it there?

This is not the first time that it happened - maybe PM me or it will be sent ~elsewhere~ for being "smiley face chatter"

[Mountain Man]

Did you read seriously the tone of "FatherMithras" postings?

He kept insisting that I am wrong with regards to T.O.E.He was wrong. The argument you keep using the TOE for is an argument from ignorance. Since science cannot explain everything, there must be a god. Well.... science can explain a lot, a lot more than it could just a few decades ago. Could it be wrong? Possible, but there, so far, is no indication it is. Claiming there is a god explains nothing because you now have to explain the god and how it works and so on. So far there is no evidence there is a god. (No, don't give me that BS about a few million believers since that is not a valid argument.)

How many theists say; "We could be wrong." Very few since religion is based on inerrant, unprovable, claims.

The important question is what have you learned from all this? You kept claiming to take things into consideration, yet it seems that you have not changed your views in the slightest. Why not?

[911]

The important question is what have you learned from all this? You kept claiming to take things into consideration, yet it seems that you have not changed your views in the slightest. Why not?

I want to know what Buddha meant when he said after the enlightenment:
I am no longer the same man

I want to know what Jesus meant when he said:
I and the Father are one

I want to know what Modhammed meant when he said:
The Archangel Gabriel spoke to me

======================
I want to know:
======================
And he [the Lord] said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind and earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:
And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.
-- I Kings 19: 11-12 (KJV)

/The prophet Elijah
====================

I want to know what The prophet Elijah meant when he said: and after the fire a still small voice.

===============

It is so sad if you give up God - you will never know. I do.

[Barefoot Bree]

You didn't answer the question, 911. Have you changed your views at all since coming here, after all your talk of "taking things into consideration", and if not, why not?

[911]

You didn't answer the question, 911. Have you changed your views at all since coming here, after all your talk of "taking things into consideration", and if not, why not?

I said very clearly that I am on the side of science till as far as science can go.

Am I so stupid as to doubt the importance of science and the excellence of the scientific method?

On the other hand do I treat science as a dogma? No.

If science does not come with any disclaimers; well I have nothing to say anymore.

Since science comes with disclaimers; I am free to pursue where science fear to tread.

Also while I understand that popularity does not mean anything it is however "reality."

According to the Gallup poll; say what you want; 94% refused to flatly say with certainty that there is no God.

I face reality and so should you, IMHO.

Frankly from my point of view, many here are as stubborn as those who cling on to their religious beliefs for their dear lives.

[Mountain Man]

I want to know....That wasn't the question. :rolleyes:

[Mountain Man]

I said very clearly....You have said nothing clearly, and you have failed to answer the question..... again. Why does that not surprize me.:rolleyes:

[911]

IMHO I am so much more with the spirit of science and the scientific method then you are (Mountain Man.)

I am willing to keep my mind open at all times no matter how ridiculous it may seem to everybody else without actually croosing the line into the realm of insanity....

[lenrek]

IMHO I am so much more with the spirit of science and the scientific method then you are (Mountain Man.) ...

I would say, this is something that not just MM find it hard to believe.

I am willing to keep my mind open at all times ...

You also keep an open mind that there is no god?

... no matter how ridiculous it may seem to everybody else without actually croosing the line into the realm of insanity....

Do you know the different between what is "ridiculous" and "realm of insanity"?

[911]

I would say, this is something that not just MM find it hard to believe.

You also keep an open mind that there is no god?

Do you know the different between what is "ridiculous" and "realm of insanity"?

This from somebody who claims to be an orthodox Buddhist?

Tell me why then don't you stick with the best alternative: science and simply give up Buddhism?

[911]

Before you answer I get this strange feeling that the next few posts will be sent ~elsewhere~ or NARP

[lenrek]

Before you answer I get this strange feeling that the next few posts will be sent ~elsewhere~ or NARP

You get this strange feeling? Who cares! :huh:

Address the points that have been directed to you, refute them if you can. Otherwise, this will be a thread for meaningless exchanges words...

Unless, you prefer meaningless discussion?

[911]

You get this strange feeling? Who cares! :huh:

Address the points that have been directed to you, refute them if you can. Otherwise, this will be a thread for meaningless exchanges words...

Unless, you prefer meaningless discussion?

The answer is IMHO the same answer or close to the same answer to the question that I put to you:

Tell me why then don't you stick with the best alternative: science and simply give up Buddhism?

[lenrek]

The answer is IMHO the same answer or close to the same answer to the question that I put to you:

Tell me why then don't you stick with the best alternative: science and simply give up Buddhism?

What on earth makes you think, one needs to give up Buddhism in order for one to accept science?

[911]

What on earth makes you think, one needs to give Buddhism in order for one to accept science?

wow a very good point! I suspected that my answer (which I have been giving ad nauseum) is close to your answer and it is.

[lenrek]

wow a very good point! I suspected that my answer (which I have been giving ad nauseum) is close to your answer and it is.

You suspect? Let me say this again, who cares!

Present your explanation that "believe in god" is compatible with the "knowledge of science", otherwise, this is garbage material in a discussion forum such as here.

PS: So far, you have giving us nothing but personal and unsupported opinion. Do you have anything else to say?

[DMC]

Did you read seriously the tone of "FatherMithras" postings?

He kept insisting that I am wrong with regards to T.O.E. in the sense that science cannot be "wrong and cannot make tentative assumptions."

BTW rickyroma is one of you (one of the intellectually more honest speciments, if I may add) but now I am not so sure that all of you hold the same position.

My position is misinterpreted by you as you based the thrust of my position as equivilent to those of people holding on to established current religions.

Look at my profile and you will see under preferred religious beliefs (or something like that) as UNDEFINED.

Science is merely a system of discovery. Scientists can be wrong, but not science. Science, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Parts of that can be flawed, but the system itself remains intact. If science could be flawed, how could we ever know we got back on the right track? As long as we follow science and scientific methods, we will find our own flaws and correct them. When a Christian points out how past theories were proven incorrect, the Christian needs to remember that scientists disprove theories. I have yet to see any religous leader disprove a scientific theory. I have seen Biblical accounts pretty much shot to pieces by science however.

[911]

I cannot repeat everything I have said. Please reread my posts; it you like or if you "who cares!" then do not.

[Mountain Man]

IMHO I am so much more with the spirit of science and the scientific method then you are (Mountain Man.)You know that is not true.I am willing to keep my mind open at all times....Your unwillingness to even consider that a god doesn't exist shows otherwise. Even though you refuse to answer the question, it is obvious that you have learned nothing here. That's the sad part.

[911]

Scientists can be wrong, but not science.

How is "Scientists can be wrong" not significant? Is not science an accumulation based on those very "Scientists can be wrong" ?

[Mountain Man]

Tell me why then don't you stick with the best alternative: science and simply give up Buddhism?Science is not an "alternative."

[Mountain Man]

How is "Scientists can be wrong" not significant?It's not. Only religion claims to be infallible.... but has been proven wrong on many ocassions. Is not science an accumulation based on those very "Scientists can be wrong" ?No.

[911]

You know that is not true.Your unwillingness to even consider that a god doesn't exist shows otherwise. Even though you refuse to answer the question, it is obvious that you have learned nothing here. That's the sad part.

I have explained many many times why I cannot give up the belief that God exists.

Once I do that; I throw away the baby with the bath water.

If science does not come with disclaimers; I have no choice but to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Reality mate - can you please look at reality?

94% of the people in arguably the most advance country refused to flatly say that God does not exist.

[Weltall]

I have explained many many times why I cannot give up the belief that God exists.

Once I do that; I throw away the baby with the bath water.Funny, I'll bet someone growing up in a predominantly Muslim country might say the exact same thing about belief in Allah (well, maybe that plus some stuff about how Islam is really harsh on apostasy).
Reality mate - can you please look at reality?I did. Guess what, I didn't see any gods there.
94% of the people in arguably the most advance countryEmphasis mine.
refused to flatly say that God does not exist.And your point is? Argumentum ad Populum isn't a valid means of determining reality. Besides, while they may get a representative sample I strongly suspect that the question was loaded. Other surveys have come up with much higher percentages who identify as lacking belief in deities. Also, even if that 94% were true, chances are that most of those would disagree with you over just what this 'god' business was about.

[911]

Funny, I'll bet someone growing up in a predominantly Muslim country might say the exact same thing about belief in Allah (well, maybe that plus some stuff about how Islam is really harsh on apostasy).I did. Guess what, I didn't see any gods there.
Emphasis mine.
And your point is? Argumentum ad Populum isn't a valid means of determining reality. Besides, while they may get a representative sample I strongly suspect that the question was loaded. Other surveys have come up with much higher percentages who identify as lacking belief in deities. Also, even if that 94% were true, chances are that most of those would disagree with you over just what this 'god' business was about.

How do you expect people to respond to these statements:

God does not exists (please read the disclaimers)
All those people are wrong (please read the disclaimers)
The universe is this (please read the disclaimers)
We have the best alternative (please read the disclaimers)
The universe came about from this (please read the disclaimers)
Man is now man because of this (please read the disclaimers)

[Harlander]

How do you expect people to respond to these statements:

God does not exists (please read the disclaimers)
All those people are wrong (please read the disclaimers)
The universe is this (please read the disclaimers)
We have the best alternative (please read the disclaimers)
The universe came about from this (please read the disclaimers)
Man is now man because of this (please read the disclaimers)

It's these very 'disclaimers' that you so loathe that allow science to change in the face of new evidence. Would you prefer statements like these:

God exists (and don't you dare question it!)
We are right and everyone else is wrong (and don't you dare question it!)
The universe has a solid curved roof with doors to let the rain in (and don't you dare question it!)
Man is now man because God breathed into a clay model (and don't you dare question it!)

[lenrek]

I cannot repeat everything I have said. Please reread my posts; it you like or if you "who cares!" then do not.

I see... I guess this means, you have absolutely nothing else to say, nor any evidence, nor any convincing argument, that can be presented here.

Thank you for wasting all our time.

[911]

It's these very 'disclaimers' that you so loathe that allow science to change in the face of new evidence. Would you prefer statements like these:

God exists (and don't you dare question it!)
We are right and everyone else is wrong (and don't you dare question it!)
The universe has a solid curved roof with doors to let the rain in (and don't you dare question it!)
Man is now man because God breathed into a clay model (and don't you dare question it!)