And the currently as yet unexplainable. Eg: The previous post to mine.

I love the Doors.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot my definition. God is a bragging right in the game of DoTA.

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Dec 12 2009, 09:57 PM

Why must there be an extrinsic reason to life? Why can't the meaning of life be the meaning we give it?

The philosophical theory called absurdism describes it best. From Wikipedia:
"Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to find meaning in the universe ultimately fail (and hence are absurd), because no such meaning exists, at least in relation to the individual."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

But this isn't the end of the world. Absurdists believe that once you have embraced the notion of absurdity, you can then define the meaning to your own life.

I personally subscribe to this philosophy, and have never been happier since I've embraced absurdity. Much like believers "seeing the light".

Even if we are living a second life, there is no way to know. Neither will we know what our past mistakes were. So why does it matter? If I were to live again, knowing what I did wrong this life, I certainly wouldn't repeat my mistakes. But phrase it differently, do I regret my past mistakes? No, not at all. If I did not make the mistakes I made, I wouldn't have known what my mistakes were.

Learning from others is indeed an important thing. It is what drove the evolution of language. One reason why our species is so much more advance than the other species is that our species has gain the ability to communicate through language. It is therefore imperative to our survival that we keep learning from one another. Hence why debating should not be seen as an hostile act, but rather as a means of learning from one another.

Is our dream the product of our own thoughts and observations? Or were they put there extrinsically? Does a man with congenital blindness dream in colour? How does green look like to him/her?

Even if we gained experience from our dreams, experience we can never otherwise gain in this life, why think of it as our previous life? It could just be the manifestation of our subconscious.


You must not be human then, since you do not question the existence of this so called creator. Way to go in ridiculing all your fellow believers.

But why must the mysteriousness of our dreams be put down as "from god?" Why can't it be a manifestation of our own subconscious? Many of us dream of perfect things. The perfect spouse, a Utopian society, A in exams etc. So who is to say your Utopian dream is heaven, while mine isn't?

I have just borrowed Freud's Interpretation of Dreams from the library. Yet to read it, but my current understanding is that dreams are just the manifestation of our subconscious. Which is why humans think God created us in his image, and heaven is eternal (because we fear death), among other things. So you are right when you said that the notion of religions stem from dreams, but that in no way shows that God does exist.

We all have dreams. What makes Prophet Mohammad's dream more worthy than mine. Why isn't God a version of Megan Fox that stays 25 forever? Why must we meet God at the gates of heaven? Why can't we meet Megan Fox instead? That is my dream. Daydream. Still a dream.

You need to stop trolling these threads if you have nothing constructive to add. We are trying to learn here. By the way, it's Karl Marx, not Carl Mark. You wouldn't like me calling your God 'Elloh', do you?

Just to forewarn you, I will be clicking the 'report' button on your next insensible post. After a while, the humour is lost.

What you have is English problem. You need to read more English books and articles. Start with English language newspapers. You don't need a Phd to understand most of what have been said here.

As for ignorance, I think the person who claims humans came from blood clots is the ignorant one. Which book have YOU been reading? Oh, that's right, the Quran. Just to let you know, I did not ridicule the Quran, you did. Since you were the one that made outrageous claims from it.

Think twice.

I have not read the Quran but I am in the process of reading The Holy Bible. I am also planning to read Homer's masterpieces soon. I am not reading these books for the sake of argument, I am reading them as I am truly interested in religion. Not in believing in it, but in understanding it. I believe the history of religion tells a great deal about "The Human Condition".

That said, one does not need to have read any scriptures to argue for or against religions. Understanding religion can come from a wide array of sources. Newspaper, opinion pieces, blogs, talking to people, and, of course, thinking. My ideas so far are formed from what religions have done and what ideologies they stand for, as well as how they stand up against science and reasoning. I can elaborate on this if you like, but only if you will read it, as it will be rather lengthy.

Hence, not having read scriptures does not make ones opinions biased. It could be, but not necessarily, as like I said before, understanding religion can come from many different sources.

I find this ironic. Don't take offence. Maybe it is just a misunderstanding. But if one cannot define God, how is one suppose to understand God? Subsequently, without understanding God, how does one know that God "purposefully make us doubt of his existence?" That, to me, seems like putting words in God's mouth (if he has one). And I know if I'm God I wouldn't like that.

To me that is pure speculation.

Don't get me wrong, if religion makes you happy, stick with it. However, why does a failure have to be attributed to God? Why can't we realise that we made a mistake and rectifying that mistake will put us in better stead for the future? Your rationale is not far from -- blaming God for your failures.

Personally, I don't see "thinking what you did sucked" as a bad thing, as long as you do not repeat the same mistakes. To the contrary, if you attribute your failure to God, and fail to recognise your mistakes, you will no doubt fail again.

To put it bluntly, I see this as human's ego being unable to accept failure and hence push it onto someone else, in this case, a supernatural entity. Humans, after all, are famous for their blame game.

Not a small matter, it is disrespectful to mutilate someone's name. FYI, 'k' and 'x' are pretty far apart. Don't seem like a typo.

If you want to report, go ahead. But to make sense of doing that, you would have to report the post he quoted too, as he was merely saying the opposite of what that post said, which it seems, was a post of yours. Your choice.

Close mindedness is when someone refuses to learn something altogether. I would think anyone reading these posts wouldn't be close minded. A denialist, maybe.

No no, I'll do it in a post, but not this one. And since it seems we are going a little off topic here, as this is about God, and that is about religion, I'll post it in the "All About Religion" thread. Check there.

As for bias, I don't think the comparison is accurate. If you have not tasted the food, you certainly should not comment on the taste of the food, but if you have seen it, commenting on its aesthetics is fine. Religion is completely different. You can read food reviews, but it still wouldn't beat tasting the food first hand. However, in religion, there is no hard and fast rule as to what it really is. The Bible itself has several hundred different interpretations. Same for the Quran and other scriptures. Some say they should be taken literally, some say metaphorically, some say it is entirely up to the individual. They are often contradictory to one another.

Therefore, one can say that religions are much more complex than "the taste of food." Hence, it is not uncommon for an individual to be against certain aspects of religion, but not entirely. I, for example, mainly oppose religion because it undermines rationality. That means, I do not oppose someone visiting church for its socialising aspect, but I do oppose someone who thinks that by visiting the church, God will "take care of them." I know what rationality is, I have a fair understanding of science, and I have seen how religions have opposed certain aspects of science. So, I don't see how not having read the Bible will make my stance on rationality biased. If your argument is to hold, believers would have a VERY biased view too if they don't understand rationality. Which means, even if my views are biased, it would be no more biased, in fact far less, than those arguing against me.

Furthermore, many illiterate people are believers. And many Christians have not read the Bible even once. It shows that reading scriptures is not essential to understanding religions.

So once again, if you are arguing without any understanding of religions, yes, it would be biased. But not having read scriptures does not equal no understanding of religion.
(This does not mean I fully understand religions, or I wouldn't be here!)

And also, debating is a good way of furthering one's understanding of the topic. It allows one to realise flaws in their own arguments, and to rethink them. Hence full understanding is not essential at all!

Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll check it out.

Open-mindedness is one's willingness to listen and comprehend different viewpoints. This does not equal acceptance. Most of us here are reading and trying to understand the viewpoints of each side. This, to me, means that most of us here are open minded. You might be referring to denialism. Different thing.

As for your final sentence there, if God cannot be defined, and all you know about him is his existence, how do you know what he "let you" and didn't "let you" define about him? Is that pure speculation again?

If he is not, then how do you explain the absurdity of the world? Earthquake kills bad people just as it do good ones. That would imply that the non-absurd God had nothing to do and, in fact, no power, over an earthquake. Believers isn't going to like this.

Wrong. Science is to help us understand things around us, not to prove God exist. To the contrary, it has shown that prayers do not work. And prophets' prediction of the end of the world is wrong. And that the world is not 10,000 years old like your prophets claim it is. The list goes on.

FYI, atoms vibrate due to forces around it. If you ask who created the forces, then I would have to ask who created God. And if your retort is God is never created, he was always there, then I can say the same for forces, it was always there, why does it need to be created? First law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Unless you say energy IS God. Then I would have nothing left to say, except, that explains why prayers doesn't work.

---

Added on January 7, 2010, 6:19 pmLike I said above, then what created God?

And how sure are you that what we don't know today won't be answered in 500 years?
200 years ago The Big Bang Theory would probably be the name of a chilli pepper sauce, not a Phd research topic.

I disagree. (Not your entire post, just that quoted bit). Believing in the notion of an interventionist God itself is counter-productive to science. Science attempts to explain things with evidence and reasoning, something we can see or comprehend. Believing in an interventionist God directly opposes the notion of science, as it explains things with a, like you said, non-provable, supernatural entity.

Why do we die when there is a shortage of inhaled oxygen? Because it is God's will.
Not exactly useful in treating acute asphyxiation.

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Jan 7 2010, 06:20 PM

If I am "shoving myself away from religion," I wouldn't be here. I am here to learn, but so far believers don't seem to be very good at teaching, as my stance against religion seems to be growing stronger.

If it is full of metaphor, who decides which interpretation is correct? Educate me. I have never read the Quran. But if you can make it seem worth my while, I will. By the way, if I went to a mosque to borrow a Quran, will they lend it to me (as a non-Muslim)? Is that offensive?



So you don't like the "fury of mother earth" too? But I thought it was God's doing? Isn't that blasphemy?

I wasn't referring to Islam specifically. I wouldn't do that as I have never read Islamic scriptures. There are plenty of religions around that have made those claim. (Spare me your "Islam is the only true religion" nonsense here. Thanks.)



This is majorly wrong. This is the epitome of ignorance.

I have already stated, and will state it again. If you want to ask who created the natural laws, you would have to ask who created God too. So, tell me, who is the creator of your creator? If natural laws are the basic of the basic, and God created them, wouldn't God be the most basic of them all?

"Science are there originally to prove the existence of God."
Prove please.
And does that mean, science not being able to prove God exist, God does not exist?

Science has definitely improved our understanding of things around us. Without science, we wouldn't have electricity, your fellow religious friends would not have bombs to use, there would not be a single cancer treatment out there. These things arise from our understanding of how electricity works, how chemical works, and how cancer kills. If man attributed everything to God, they wouldn't know any of these.

Now, I would like you to say it again, "science did not help our understanding of this world." Go ahead, please. Then proceed to go back into the jungle, stop using that computer, stop using that car to go to work (or train), and don't take the Quran. Paper came about from scientific discovery too. Naked, no tree leaves either. Using tree leaves was thanks to rationality.

Science does not have the explanation for natural laws does not mean it is created by God. Let me ask you again, since you ignored it previously, how sure are you that in the future science will not have the answer? Let me remind you 500 years ago humans think the sun revolves around the earth. Only 500 years.

Please use some common sense. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, logic is not the strength of God's followers.


Refer above. Be honest. Don't use science's invention to ask that question. Makes you look stupid.

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Jan 7 2010, 09:04 PM

Hang on, I am not rejecting scriptures! I wouldn't attempt to read them otherwise. What I was saying is scriptures are not the only source of information about religion. Before Christianity and Islam (Judaism etc as well), there were many other religions. Not all of them had scriptures. If scriptures are the only source of information, why do people preach?

I am not saying it isn't essential just because there are illiterate believers. What I'm saying is, if there are illiterate believers, it means understanding religion can happen through means other than scriptures. Unless you are telling me all illiterates have misunderstood their religion.

The "wronger" line was perhaps a little out of place. It was meant to ask, why do you single out non-believers for being bias but not believers?

In the end of the day, I'd say it depends on how you define bias. If you expect someone to have 100% understanding of both sides, it would be impossible, and it would be pointless debating him/her. After all, debating is suppose to raise questions we previously have not thought about. And as I believe I have enough knowledge of religious believes, perhaps more than some believers themselves (note: "some" does not equal "most", or, "all"), and I am constantly increasing it, I do not consider my views, well, "uninformed". Uninformed would probably be a better word than bias for the points I was making.

Sorry, I did not mean to quote that line. I do agree science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God. I was disagreeing with believing in God can be complementary to science.

Science may not have the answer to death, but there are theories. Theory of evolution for one. If there is no birth and death, there would be no evolution, which also means we wouldn't even be here. On the contrary, religions do not "explain" death. Afterlife, heaven, hell, are all speculations. And they aren't even logical speculations. Why do I say so? Because, how do you decide which one is more plausible than the other? There is nothing to base that decision on. No evidence, nor reasoning.

I get your point of not pushing believes onto anyone else, and I agree. But I also believe, to make an informed choice, one has to understand both sides of the story.

I strongly disagree to saying "I don't know". Yes, when you don't know, say you don't know. But if you leave it at that, it is wrong. Science say it is ok to say you don't know, as it will spur you to find out about what you don't know, instead of making up an answer, which seems to be what religions are doing. If humans made no attempt to find out what they don't know, there would be no progress. Questioning and thinking is important for new discoveries. And believing in an interventionist God is counter productive to that. If you believe there is an all powerful God, when do we decide if something is "done by God" or when something can be understood by research?

As a side note, there is no evidence to suggest that God has ever communicated directly with humans. This leaves a high probability that this all powerful God was created by humans. If it is, wouldn't it be good to understand why? It is based on this that I am interested in understanding religions, as I believe it is the key in understanding "The Human Condition".

Not questioning it is similar to saying "If you get cancer, you die. Don't bother with new drugs. Live with the fact."

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Jan 7 2010, 11:22 PM

Well, each to their own. But since there are so many different religions, it'd be difficult to start from the "inside" wouldn't it? I prefer looking at it as a whole before going into the specifics. At this stage, I have pretty good idea of the general picture, which is why it is time to look into the different religions. However, religions somehow involve a supernatural being, that can't be denied. And based on that alone it doesn't appeal to me, though I'm not always against it. Because, so far, I have not faced a question that cannot be answered without a supernatural being. Or at the very least, does not have just as good a theory to explain it that does not involve a supernatural being.

And I do not agree on needing to be a believer before being able to understand the religion. Because if so, then people will be converting to religion prematurely. Usually, it's understand first, then convert. Or so I think it is.

You completely missed the point. I am not here to prove or disprove God's existence. That would be playing God. Understanding God does not explain the Human Condition. But understanding why humans need a God does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition

If God was created by humans, why shouldn't we understand it (it not being God, but why humans created God)? What makes it any different from trying to understand how a gun works?



If I am unwilling, why would I read the Bible, and why would I ask where I can get a Quran?
I am willing to learn science. Why aren't you?
Ignorant? That makes two of us. But I'm learning. We'll see who can shed that tag first.



Let me ask you, not as an argument, but to understand your religion (since I don't know anything, right?), if we are not to know the reason, then wouldn't life be meaningless? How does that solve the existential question of humanity?

Prove? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_time
Not all have a date, but many do. You want the source, look it up yourself from there. References at the end of the page. I am not interested in proving religions wrong. I am interested in understanding why they do what they do, because not all make sense (for now).

Tell me, how difficult is it for humans to see white fluid (drop) coming out of a penis, stuck (hanging) inside a vagina, the swell (bite size) in the belly, and bones with flesh after the foetus is born?

How difficult is it to see those things, and make those connections? People in the 600s aren't idiots.
You have successfully called your prophet an idiot because you think he can't make simple connections.

Next "prove" please.

When did I claim fondness of the western world? Sorry, don't recall. Not all non-Muslims are fond of the western world, I can tell you that much.

I'm sorry, sir, but you are wrong again. There are more diseases not because of science, but because human lifestyle changes. Jump down from the third floor and land on your feet. Then, try again but land on your head. I assure you that you will have different injuries. And microbes (bacteria, virus etc) constantly evolve to fight for their survival. If we find a cure, they will evolve. Thanks for raising the fact that evolution is a viable theory, thus again showing that it is unlikely your God created humans.

So can I call energy God? Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Seems fair to me. Sounds like God too.

God remains a theory too. What is your point?

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Jan 8 2010, 06:28 PM

But energy has no genitals, cannot be created, and cannot be destroyed. That is what you claim your God to be.

I don't have any prove of that. Neither do I intend to find it. But the more important thing is, YOU don't have any prove God exist. When scientist come out with a new hypothesis, they seek evidence to support or refute it. Believers came up with the God Hypothesis, but they have yet to prove it.

As it currently is, they are more evidence to support the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution than your God Hypothesis. By far.

Firstly, I did not know that I was representative of the general human population. Thank you for the ego boost. But then again, I wonder why so few share the same music and books taste as me. Hmm.

Secondly, you contradict yourself. If God is a delusion, where does that delusion come from, if not imagined up by humans? If it was conceived by humans, my previous argument remains. Unless you mean it is ok to be ignorant, and that we shouldn't understand how computers work either.

I think he means the One True God.

I don't think you even know what you are talking about anymore. By any chance are you a member of this Facebook group?

The Human Condition has nothing to do with rationality. (And I am against religion mainly because of it undermines rationality. So, me, irrational? Ha.) The Human Condition concerns mostly with human psychology. I don't know if you have read the page, but I can say you have very, very limited understanding of psychology. Try reading about Existentialism. It is a main subject in The Human Condition.

Humans don't create something out of the blue, for no reason, and without purpose. Even if they do, it wouldn't exist for long if it serves no purpose. So if humans created the notion of God, which you admitted so, then there must be a reason for it. THAT, is what I am interested in: Why humans created this so-called God?

How is that irrational? Or delusional? Are you saying all studies into humans are delusional?

Next thing. If believing in God is delusional, why is arguing that God does not exist delusional? Are you saying a psychiatrist is delusional for diagnosing a patient with dementia, and trying to treat said patient? When you witness a crime, do you report it, or ignore it?

Finally, you speak of rational, but you are against "comparing delusion with a concrete fact and proven science." Do you even know what rational means?

You ought to give more thought to your posts. It is difficult to take your posts seriously if it is filled with paradox and hypocrisies. Thinking is the main pillar of rationality. Think first, before you write.

We seem to be going around in circles here. I think the fault lies in your definition of delusion.



So, how do you define delusion?
If a man walked in to a psychiatrist office claiming he works for the secret service, everything else about him seems normal, how would you know if he is delusional?
Simple, call up secret service and ask for confirmation or ask him for prove of identity. Is that not using facts and evidence to prove a delusional case?
Since when you are against that? Well, I interpreted that sentence there to mean I am comparing them, and I should not. Plus, there again you just stated "you cannot compare how true a delusion is against scientific facts." So are you, or aren't you against it? You seem confused about your own stance. If you are a member of that Facebook group, do say so, so I'm not wasting my time.

FYI, science require evidence, not just anything that is acceptable. In fact, it is ALL ABOUT evidence. If not, it will only be a hypothesis. The generally accepted consensus is that God created the world in 6 days, and the earth is 10,000 years old. So is that what you believe? Since that is what majority thinks. Science disagree.

Acceptable is subjective. Facts are not.

Back to your first sentence, if we do not compare a delusion to a real thing, how do we know if it is a delusion?
Delusion (from Wikipedia): A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception.
If Nike does not exist, there will be no fake Nikes. So how is something a delusion if it cannot be compared to something real?

In your second paragraph, are you suggesting that the study of existentialism and Human psychology is irrational? If you are, I would say you are seriously deluded. If not, I don't understand the paragraph, please rephrase.
Existentialism does not compare anything, neither does psychology. It attempts to explain several questions about humanity.

You seem to be against ignorance, yet you seem to think some questions should not be asked at all because there is no single definitive answer.


Yes, imagination, but why did they imagine up something like God. That is what I want to know. Good or bad, humans invented things for a reason. Good or bad happens after the conception of that idea. Nikola Tesla did not invent the AC motor for no reason, he saw its potential and knew it would be extremely useful.

As for asking if I have found a consistent answer, of course not, or I wouldn't be trying to understand it, would I?
There are however many suggestions as to why, and many seems very RATIONAL.
The most common one being humans need a sense of security, and believing there exist such a supernatural entity voids them of that insecurity. To me, that seems rational, what do you think? Another theory for The Bible's concept of Heaven and Hell is that it would help humans overcome one of their greatest fear: Death. You may say that this is another delusion, but death is not a delusion. Hence fear of death is no more a delusion than fear of being eaten alive by a lion.

I realise this thread is about "defining God", but from the start, I have stated, and I will state it again, I am not interested in the definition of God. I am interested in why so many humans embraced the notion of God. God's hair colour does not interest me (though it would be helpful for trivia night), but why so many people believe in God does. And stating they are merely delusional does not explain it, because there is a conscious or subconscious reason behind a delusion.



PS. You seem to have no understanding of psychology, and hence not what I am getting at. Please, please read something about it before replying to this post, or it will go back in circles. Here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis to start you off.

---

Added on January 13, 2010, 1:14 amAs some already suggested, emotions are a result of chemical and electrical stimulation in the brain. The exact mechanism is still unknown, as neuroscience is a relatively new field. Which scientist claimed emotion is a delusion? Emotion is an important part of our evolutionary survival.

Which leads to this, which is simple. Anger, love, happiness are all feelings, we acknowledge them to be feelings. God, is claimed by believers to be all powerful, omnipotent and omniscient. Is anger omnipotent? Are you so angry reading this post now your anger can kill catering with a thought? If believers claim God to be a feeling, then it would be a different argument. Can it be an emotion? Possibly. But then, what actions provoke this "God feeling"? I sure haven't heard anyone say "I feel Godly." Godlike maybe. Not Godly. There is no common consensus in any actions provoking a Godly feeling.

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Jan 13 2010, 01:14 AM

Yes. Certain emotions trigger activity in certain parts of the brain. And likewise, certain actions trigger certain emotions almost all the time. Feelings are not something random.

Epiphany is a feeling. But "to God"? Not quite, it can be anything, how do you know it's God? The epiphany is the feeling, what it is towards is the object. The object can be something real, or it can be a fantasy. Either way, doesn't make the epiphany fake, neither does it make the object real.

I am God too. My father told me I was the only one. I was speshal.

But I guess this thread does let you make that claim. I just have to change my title to Supergod.

I too believe God's existence cannot be proven or disproved. But how then, if it can never be proven or disproved, can one claim such an entity to be omnipotent, listens to prayers, and intervenes with Earthly activities?

No, God's existence is not what I was arguing for. I already stated clearly "I too believe God's existence cannot be proven or disproved."

If it is a believe based entirely on faith, then when evidence arise to oppose it, does one still continue to believe. If yes, it would be blind faith, and I will not argue further, as there is nothing to argue. If no, then why aren't people changing their believes based on currently available evidence?

There is no evidence for God's existence or non-existence, yes. And so, yes again, that believing in him is faith and not blind faith. BUT, there are ample evidence that God isn't omnipotent, or if he is, he does not exercise his power on Earth (neither moon nor Mars, but we don't know enough on those). So, believing in things like "God will protect you" or "it is in God's hands" is, in fact, blind faith. There are also plenty of evidence suggesting prayers do not work. So believing in that is blind faith again. Blind and misled, I would say.

So there is a lot of blind faith out there, not on his existence, but on his powers and capabilities, on Earth at least.