Henotheism and Atheism

[BreezeWood]

pffft... socialist education.

.
would that be free of financial cost .... or the secular curriculum - you hate, or both.

is it even possible for a secular education to corrupt the young - the same as a sectarian persuasion.

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach.

.

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach.

.
brainwash much, christian.

such madeup fantasy, no less destitute or appealing as your 4th century religion ... the difference being socialism does not require a book for its existence.

 

[Blues Man]

Because there are no eternal consequences for bad behavior.

Behavior has consequences.

Yeah societal consequences but not supernatural consequences.

.

Because there are no eternal consequences for bad behavior.

Yeah societal consequences but not supernatural consequences.

I'm not an atheist I am a non-theist

.
denial of the supernatural is hardly qualifying as a non theist for being anything than a mindless void.

Not true.

Why does a person who doesn't think it matters if gods exist have to believe in the supernatural?

If any gods exist don't they kind of have to be a natural phenomenon?

 

[Blues Man]

you are excluding the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is.

Actually I didn't. Like I said before... I started my journey by looking at the only two options which exist; God created existence (aka space and time) or existence created itself. So, no. I did not exclude the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is. In fact what I have said before is this...

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.

So I started my evaluation from two possible mutually exclusive positions; 1. the universe was created by God intentionally and has a purpose. And 2. the universe was not created by God and has no purpose.

So you are wrong again.

When you start with a preconceived and arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities you cannot come to any conclusions that are not preconceived or arbitrary.

They aren't arbitrary. There are the only two options which exist. All other options will simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options. The fact that you can't name another possible option which does not simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options proves that your statement that I started with an arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities is WRONG. You can always prove me wrong by naming another possibility which does not simplify to one of the only two options which exist.

Are these two options preconceived? Well I did start with everything I could think of and they all simplified into one of these two mutually exclusive options. So it was only preconceived like all evaluations are preconceived when one is trying to list all of the options. It was not preconceived in the manner you are suggesting which is to mean biased. If I were biased I would only consider one of these two options like YOU have done.

The fact that we cannot conceive of more than 2 options is proof that we are limited in our thinking and are most likely physically incapable of understanding the processes of the inception of the universe. We are beings that can only perceive 3 dimensions but we live in a space that has at least 4 dimensions. For all we know, the only way to grasp the inception of the universe is to be able to perceive that 4th dimension.

If we were 2 dimensional beings living in a 3 dimensional space we would think that anything entering our 2 dimensional world from the third dimension would simply appear as if from nowhere and we would only ever be able to perceive a 2 dimensional cross section of that thing.

My dog will never comprehend prime numbers and she evolved out of the same stuff humans did. It is therefore not only reasonable to assume but also probable that the human brain has its own limitations.

The invention of a god to explain what we do not comprehend is a human characteristic and we've done that very thing throughout our existence

There no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

These are your opinions. We have no idea what god is or isn't.

This universal code you claim that somehow exists outside of human beings is nothing but the culmination of our ability to imagine a behavior and its possible outcomes while never actually engaging in that behavior. Since all human brains evolved the same way then all human brains are capable of such thoughts.

In doing this we determined what would be the most acceptable outcome and we then taught these things to future generations. these ideas did not exist outside of the human experience nor did they predate the existence of humans.

Once again you are viewing the end result of the evolutionary process and saying that people have always been as they are today. This simply is not true.

Correct, I don't know what God is or God isn't. I even said, The closest I can come is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

I believe to discover God one must start with some realistic perception of God. And that was the closest I could come to understanding God. People that argue there is no God are really arguing there is no God as that they can perceive. What they are really saying though is that they have no perception of God other than fairytales. Which is why everything they see is skewed to fairytales. So naturally they aren't looking for God. They only look at things to confirm their biases.

The universal code is logic and truth and exist independent of man. All humans are capable of seeing truth and logic if they are objective instead of subjective. The problem is that most people are not capable of being objective all of the time and about everything. Especially about themselves.

Humans are free to establish any standard they wish but they are not free to avoid the consequences of choosing a lower standard. Different standards have existed through out time and man has reaped what he has sown when he followed a lower standard.

Physiologically speaking, humans 10,000 years ago are pretty much the same as today but shorter. So I am not making the claim that people have always been as they are today. But for the past 10,000 years, man's intelligence probably has a similar distribution as we have today. Mind you I said intelligence and not knowledge. I do see repeating patterns of behavior and I do believe there are explanations for those patterns just as their are explanations for those behaviors. But what you have to know is that for almost any given thing there will usually be a distribution which always should be taken into account.

I don't assume there is a god to be discovered. And as I said before I don't think it matters if any gods actually exist or not. The beginning of the universe while interesting from both a physical and metaphysical perspective doesn't really matter either. Like I said we came into the theater after the movie started and we will leave before the movie ends so neither the beginning nor the end really matter as far as we human beings are concerned.

The oldest Homo Sapiens fossil has been dated to about 315,000 years ago and some anthropologists think H Sapiens may be as old a 500000 years.. 10000 years ago is the estimated period when agriculture began which also marked the end of the Neolithic Age.

So you make these sweeping statements like humans have always thought this or that but you are really only referring to the last 10 thousand years?

It is my position that our behaviors were evolving from at least 315,000 years ago and those behaviors from the very beginnings of H Sapiens emergence as a species are just as if not more important than anything that happened in the last 10000 years.

Sweeping statements, huh? Actually you saying I made sweeping statements is a sweeping statement. I was pretty specific which is the opposite if a sweeping statement.

As for you not believing it matters if one believes on God or not, you have never tested it. I have. I've walked both paths. You haven't. And despite your denial that religion offers functional advantages, Darwin disagrees.

So which is it man has always believed in the spiritual or man has believed in the spiritual only in the last 10000 years?

When you use words like always you are not just indicating a very specific point in history but rather are referring to ALL of history.

It's those pesky definitions again.

And you need to reread what I said.

I said I don't believe it matters whether gods exist or not.

Darwin wasn't a sociologist. Religion as a social institution provided a control on society not dissimilar to government.

Ummmm... always, at least once he became aware. But I only know that physiologically speaking man is pretty much the same now as he was 10,000 years ago. Could that have been earlier? Sure.

I know what you said and I know what you meant. And I know that you have never tested if it matters or not. I have. God, like all of reality is made manifest by mind.

If religion offered no functional advantage, then according to Darwin's principles, religion would have died out.

So it is your assertion that man has only been aware for the last 10000 years?

Now you say gods only manifest because of the human mind so then they must not have existed before men invented them.

Religion doesn't offer an evolutionary advantage. It offers a sociological advantage.

When humans were nomadic tribes it didn't matter if they believed in gods or not as far as their everyday survival was concerned.

Religion didn't become organized until we left the nomadic life behind and started living in larger and larger societies.

It was realized pretty quickly that as populations grew that controls were needed to ameliorate human behaviors religion was and still is one of those controls.

You are like a dog with a bone on this 10,000 year thing. The only claim I am making is that in the terms of intellect and physiology man hasn't changed much over the last 10,000 years. I make no other claims beyond that.

Religion offers FUNCTIONAL advantage. It is FUNCTIONAL advantage that determines if a trait will be retained or not. If there is no FUNCTIONAL advantage, then according to Darwin it is discarded.

Homo Sapiens is homo sapiens from a day ago or 200000 years ago.

Religion isn't a trait it's a social institution that didn't become organized until we moved from nomadic tribes to living in large stationary groups.

Religion acts as a control on the population and as the populace of a society grows those controls are beneficial to the long term success of the society. Religion does not help a person survive the rigors of life as a hunter gatherer.

I don't believe that physiologically speaking that homo sapiens from 200,000 years ago are the same as they are today. Do you have anything which supports that belief? I know there was little difference 10,000 years ago because there was a body recovered from the Alps that had been frozen and the comment that was made was that physiologically he was effectively the same as us today.

If you want to deny Darwin, that's your call. But it makes a ton of sense that believing in God has functional advantages that atheism does not have.

The only difference is the influence of society. Society has made us who we are more than mere evolution. You cannot separate modern man from the society he has lived in. Society is responsible for most of our belief systems. Everything from religion to morals and ethics has been shaped by societies and as those societies become more homogeneous the differences in those societies become less meaningful and will ultimately disappear.

This is the reason you think some patterns of thought are universal absolutes.

Again... from a natural selection perspective believing in God must have functional advantages that atheism does not have and that is why religion persists.

Again believing a gods has nothing to do with survival or evolution and more to do with the fact that as our intellect grew and our survival skills increased humans had more time to ponder things and one of the things human did was invent gods to explain things in the natural world.

I will propose that we didn't invent gods until we were so adept at survival that we had more time for activities other than merely surviving.

I never said it did. I said the reason religion persists is that religion provides a functional advantage that atheism cannot provide.

Only in a sense that it is a societal control.

What advantage do you have over an atheist?

Only in a sense that it is a societal control? Wrong. In the sense that it brings peace and joy through the storms of life.

The advantages believers have over atheists are peace and joy through the storms of life and meaning and purpose from being God's creatures; Meaning in God, Meaning in Creation, Meaning in Human Existence, Meaning in History, Meaning in Morality, Meaning in Justice, Meaning in Suffering and Meaning in Messianism.

You don't need religion to experience joy or weather the storms of life.

And You don't need religion to live a meaningful life.

There is no advantage to being religious.

William James sees it different.

When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of religion, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the religious life, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill.​

So what?

I don't need a god to feel I am part of the universe because I was part of it the day I was born.

I just explained the so what.

no you gave the opinion of a guy that you think is some kind of authority.

Who explained why there is a difference. It's the why that matters not the who.

Why does what James said carry so much weight that everyone has to agree with him?

 

[Blues Man]

SIns are nothing behaviors seen as unacceptable as deemed by society

At best. "Sin" is a silly, magical concept invented when people didn't understand anything about the world or about human behavior. The concept is a child's toy that we need to put away, now that we have grown up.

If you don't start with a reasonable perception of God then you can't possibly have a reasonable perception of sin.

If there are any gods it's pretty clear they don't care if people behave badly

That's your opinion. The basis of Christianity is that He does. Jesus wept.

And that's just another bit of religious dogma

 

[Blues Man]

Clearly you were never a Catholic.

Clearly! I was born an atheist, as are all babies but I was born into a family living in a country that was mainly some brand of Christians.

Had I been born in a country that is predominantly Muslim then I would have likely been thoroughly indoctrinated into that superstitious belief and become powerless to escape from it.
You can equate the indoctrination of children into a religion as the same as a baby duckling imprinting on the first moving object it sees, as it's mother.

Christianity's future depends on the indoctrination by parents not failing. A child of 12 or 13 generally has become too smart to accept any of the bibles.

What do you teach your children? Read the bible but keep in mind that it's full of lies that can't be interpreted as the literal truth?

So you were born an atheist because your family were atheists? Otherwise, your life has just defeated your own argument.

I teach my children not to be like you. Critical theory is a failed behavior.

The fact is most people tend to follow the religion of their parents. And is choosing one flavor of Christianity over another the same thing as changing your religion? I don't think it is.

Everyone grows up and eventually decides for themselves what is important for them to believe.

And the fact is most adults follow the religion of their parents.

And like I said changing one flavor of Christianity for another doesn't count as a change in religion.

Again... Everyone grows up and eventually decides for themselves what is important for them to believe.

And again most people don't change their beliefs that much so most people just accept what they have been taught

I wouldn't presume that as that was not my experience. I will only go so far as to say that whether or not their beliefs change they own their beliefs as an adult. Saying they only have beliefs because their parents had those beliefs is incorrect. Everyone's beliefs are informed by their experiences.

I didn't say it was only because of their parents. I said most people just accept what they have been taught. I said most people follow the religion they were raised in.

But society has just a great an influence on people and maybe even more than their parents.

People are for the most part predictable and not all that different from each other.

Most people become adults and think for themselves. Didn't you?

Most people do not reject everything they have ever been taught growing up and that conditioning never really goes away.

And even as an adult your choices are still shaped by society.

No one is immune from the influences of society

 

[ding]

you are excluding the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is.

Actually I didn't. Like I said before... I started my journey by looking at the only two options which exist; God created existence (aka space and time) or existence created itself. So, no. I did not exclude the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is. In fact what I have said before is this...

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.

So I started my evaluation from two possible mutually exclusive positions; 1. the universe was created by God intentionally and has a purpose. And 2. the universe was not created by God and has no purpose.

So you are wrong again.

When you start with a preconceived and arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities you cannot come to any conclusions that are not preconceived or arbitrary.

They aren't arbitrary. There are the only two options which exist. All other options will simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options. The fact that you can't name another possible option which does not simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options proves that your statement that I started with an arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities is WRONG. You can always prove me wrong by naming another possibility which does not simplify to one of the only two options which exist.

Are these two options preconceived? Well I did start with everything I could think of and they all simplified into one of these two mutually exclusive options. So it was only preconceived like all evaluations are preconceived when one is trying to list all of the options. It was not preconceived in the manner you are suggesting which is to mean biased. If I were biased I would only consider one of these two options like YOU have done.

The fact that we cannot conceive of more than 2 options is proof that we are limited in our thinking and are most likely physically incapable of understanding the processes of the inception of the universe. We are beings that can only perceive 3 dimensions but we live in a space that has at least 4 dimensions. For all we know, the only way to grasp the inception of the universe is to be able to perceive that 4th dimension.

If we were 2 dimensional beings living in a 3 dimensional space we would think that anything entering our 2 dimensional world from the third dimension would simply appear as if from nowhere and we would only ever be able to perceive a 2 dimensional cross section of that thing.

My dog will never comprehend prime numbers and she evolved out of the same stuff humans did. It is therefore not only reasonable to assume but also probable that the human brain has its own limitations.

The invention of a god to explain what we do not comprehend is a human characteristic and we've done that very thing throughout our existence

There no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

These are your opinions. We have no idea what god is or isn't.

This universal code you claim that somehow exists outside of human beings is nothing but the culmination of our ability to imagine a behavior and its possible outcomes while never actually engaging in that behavior. Since all human brains evolved the same way then all human brains are capable of such thoughts.

In doing this we determined what would be the most acceptable outcome and we then taught these things to future generations. these ideas did not exist outside of the human experience nor did they predate the existence of humans.

Once again you are viewing the end result of the evolutionary process and saying that people have always been as they are today. This simply is not true.

Correct, I don't know what God is or God isn't. I even said, The closest I can come is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

I believe to discover God one must start with some realistic perception of God. And that was the closest I could come to understanding God. People that argue there is no God are really arguing there is no God as that they can perceive. What they are really saying though is that they have no perception of God other than fairytales. Which is why everything they see is skewed to fairytales. So naturally they aren't looking for God. They only look at things to confirm their biases.

The universal code is logic and truth and exist independent of man. All humans are capable of seeing truth and logic if they are objective instead of subjective. The problem is that most people are not capable of being objective all of the time and about everything. Especially about themselves.

Humans are free to establish any standard they wish but they are not free to avoid the consequences of choosing a lower standard. Different standards have existed through out time and man has reaped what he has sown when he followed a lower standard.

Physiologically speaking, humans 10,000 years ago are pretty much the same as today but shorter. So I am not making the claim that people have always been as they are today. But for the past 10,000 years, man's intelligence probably has a similar distribution as we have today. Mind you I said intelligence and not knowledge. I do see repeating patterns of behavior and I do believe there are explanations for those patterns just as their are explanations for those behaviors. But what you have to know is that for almost any given thing there will usually be a distribution which always should be taken into account.

I don't assume there is a god to be discovered. And as I said before I don't think it matters if any gods actually exist or not. The beginning of the universe while interesting from both a physical and metaphysical perspective doesn't really matter either. Like I said we came into the theater after the movie started and we will leave before the movie ends so neither the beginning nor the end really matter as far as we human beings are concerned.

The oldest Homo Sapiens fossil has been dated to about 315,000 years ago and some anthropologists think H Sapiens may be as old a 500000 years.. 10000 years ago is the estimated period when agriculture began which also marked the end of the Neolithic Age.

So you make these sweeping statements like humans have always thought this or that but you are really only referring to the last 10 thousand years?

It is my position that our behaviors were evolving from at least 315,000 years ago and those behaviors from the very beginnings of H Sapiens emergence as a species are just as if not more important than anything that happened in the last 10000 years.

Sweeping statements, huh? Actually you saying I made sweeping statements is a sweeping statement. I was pretty specific which is the opposite if a sweeping statement.

As for you not believing it matters if one believes on God or not, you have never tested it. I have. I've walked both paths. You haven't. And despite your denial that religion offers functional advantages, Darwin disagrees.

So which is it man has always believed in the spiritual or man has believed in the spiritual only in the last 10000 years?

When you use words like always you are not just indicating a very specific point in history but rather are referring to ALL of history.

It's those pesky definitions again.

And you need to reread what I said.

I said I don't believe it matters whether gods exist or not.

Darwin wasn't a sociologist. Religion as a social institution provided a control on society not dissimilar to government.

Ummmm... always, at least once he became aware. But I only know that physiologically speaking man is pretty much the same now as he was 10,000 years ago. Could that have been earlier? Sure.

I know what you said and I know what you meant. And I know that you have never tested if it matters or not. I have. God, like all of reality is made manifest by mind.

If religion offered no functional advantage, then according to Darwin's principles, religion would have died out.

So it is your assertion that man has only been aware for the last 10000 years?

Now you say gods only manifest because of the human mind so then they must not have existed before men invented them.

Religion doesn't offer an evolutionary advantage. It offers a sociological advantage.

When humans were nomadic tribes it didn't matter if they believed in gods or not as far as their everyday survival was concerned.

Religion didn't become organized until we left the nomadic life behind and started living in larger and larger societies.

It was realized pretty quickly that as populations grew that controls were needed to ameliorate human behaviors religion was and still is one of those controls.

You are like a dog with a bone on this 10,000 year thing. The only claim I am making is that in the terms of intellect and physiology man hasn't changed much over the last 10,000 years. I make no other claims beyond that.

Religion offers FUNCTIONAL advantage. It is FUNCTIONAL advantage that determines if a trait will be retained or not. If there is no FUNCTIONAL advantage, then according to Darwin it is discarded.

Homo Sapiens is homo sapiens from a day ago or 200000 years ago.

Religion isn't a trait it's a social institution that didn't become organized until we moved from nomadic tribes to living in large stationary groups.

Religion acts as a control on the population and as the populace of a society grows those controls are beneficial to the long term success of the society. Religion does not help a person survive the rigors of life as a hunter gatherer.

I don't believe that physiologically speaking that homo sapiens from 200,000 years ago are the same as they are today. Do you have anything which supports that belief? I know there was little difference 10,000 years ago because there was a body recovered from the Alps that had been frozen and the comment that was made was that physiologically he was effectively the same as us today.

If you want to deny Darwin, that's your call. But it makes a ton of sense that believing in God has functional advantages that atheism does not have.

The only difference is the influence of society. Society has made us who we are more than mere evolution. You cannot separate modern man from the society he has lived in. Society is responsible for most of our belief systems. Everything from religion to morals and ethics has been shaped by societies and as those societies become more homogeneous the differences in those societies become less meaningful and will ultimately disappear.

This is the reason you think some patterns of thought are universal absolutes.

Again... from a natural selection perspective believing in God must have functional advantages that atheism does not have and that is why religion persists.

Again believing a gods has nothing to do with survival or evolution and more to do with the fact that as our intellect grew and our survival skills increased humans had more time to ponder things and one of the things human did was invent gods to explain things in the natural world.

I will propose that we didn't invent gods until we were so adept at survival that we had more time for activities other than merely surviving.

I never said it did. I said the reason religion persists is that religion provides a functional advantage that atheism cannot provide.

Only in a sense that it is a societal control.

What advantage do you have over an atheist?

Only in a sense that it is a societal control? Wrong. In the sense that it brings peace and joy through the storms of life.

The advantages believers have over atheists are peace and joy through the storms of life and meaning and purpose from being God's creatures; Meaning in God, Meaning in Creation, Meaning in Human Existence, Meaning in History, Meaning in Morality, Meaning in Justice, Meaning in Suffering and Meaning in Messianism.

You don't need religion to experience joy or weather the storms of life.

And You don't need religion to live a meaningful life.

There is no advantage to being religious.

William James sees it different.

When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of religion, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the religious life, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill.​

So what?

I don't need a god to feel I am part of the universe because I was part of it the day I was born.

I just explained the so what.

no you gave the opinion of a guy that you think is some kind of authority.

Who explained why there is a difference. It's the why that matters not the who.

Why does what James said carry so much weight that everyone has to agree with him?

Again it's not the who, it's the why.

 

[Meriweather]

If any gods exist don't they kind of have to be a natural phenomenon?

Interesting point. It depends on how we define a natural phenomenon. Isn't it usually defined as something that has a physical component? Spirit has no physical component, so do you consider Spirit to be a natural phenomenon?

 

[Meriweather]

No one is immune from the influences of society

While true, not all are (or can be) herded into the same box or in several major boxes. Sure, those are interesting, but even more interesting are those who cannot be sorted into a box. There are more of the "unsorted" than are often credited.

 

[ding]

SIns are nothing behaviors seen as unacceptable as deemed by society

At best. "Sin" is a silly, magical concept invented when people didn't understand anything about the world or about human behavior. The concept is a child's toy that we need to put away, now that we have grown up.

If you don't start with a reasonable perception of God then you can't possibly have a reasonable perception of sin.

If there are any gods it's pretty clear they don't care if people behave badly

That's your opinion. The basis of Christianity is that He does. Jesus wept.

And that's just another bit of religious dogma

Maybe, but every religion professes it. So maybe not.

 

[ding]

Clearly you were never a Catholic.

Clearly! I was born an atheist, as are all babies but I was born into a family living in a country that was mainly some brand of Christians.

Had I been born in a country that is predominantly Muslim then I would have likely been thoroughly indoctrinated into that superstitious belief and become powerless to escape from it.
You can equate the indoctrination of children into a religion as the same as a baby duckling imprinting on the first moving object it sees, as it's mother.

Christianity's future depends on the indoctrination by parents not failing. A child of 12 or 13 generally has become too smart to accept any of the bibles.

What do you teach your children? Read the bible but keep in mind that it's full of lies that can't be interpreted as the literal truth?

So you were born an atheist because your family were atheists? Otherwise, your life has just defeated your own argument.

I teach my children not to be like you. Critical theory is a failed behavior.

The fact is most people tend to follow the religion of their parents. And is choosing one flavor of Christianity over another the same thing as changing your religion? I don't think it is.

Everyone grows up and eventually decides for themselves what is important for them to believe.

And the fact is most adults follow the religion of their parents.

And like I said changing one flavor of Christianity for another doesn't count as a change in religion.

Again... Everyone grows up and eventually decides for themselves what is important for them to believe.

And again most people don't change their beliefs that much so most people just accept what they have been taught

I wouldn't presume that as that was not my experience. I will only go so far as to say that whether or not their beliefs change they own their beliefs as an adult. Saying they only have beliefs because their parents had those beliefs is incorrect. Everyone's beliefs are informed by their experiences.

I didn't say it was only because of their parents. I said most people just accept what they have been taught. I said most people follow the religion they were raised in.

But society has just a great an influence on people and maybe even more than their parents.

People are for the most part predictable and not all that different from each other.

Most people become adults and think for themselves. Didn't you?

Most people do not reject everything they have ever been taught growing up and that conditioning never really goes away.

And even as an adult your choices are still shaped by society.

No one is immune from the influences of society

There's a distribution for almost everything. It would be unusual if most people rejected everything or accepted everything they were taught growing up. Like I said before, most people think for themselves when they grow up. Didn't you?

 

[Donald H]

There's a distribution for almost everything. It would be unusual if most people rejected everything or accepted everything they were taught growing up. Like I said before, most people think for themselves when they grow up. Didn't you?

Most people require some proof that their beliefs are rational, or at the least some evidence in support of their beliefs.

Christians who accept their bibles as the literal word of the god can argue that their bible provides support and proof of their beliefs.

But for those who don't accept that their bibles are the truth then where else do they find support for their christian beliefs?

Does their faith sustain them, and will it sustain them indefinitely?

Is the anger of the christians here on this board an indication that your faith is beginning to let them down. Our modern world is seeming to stack the deck against christians who are motivated by faith alone.

Is there more than just faith that drives modern day christians, and if so then what can it be? Childhood indoctrination into christian beliefs appears to be a factor, especially when there are no other explanations being offered.

 

[ding]

There's a distribution for almost everything. It would be unusual if most people rejected everything or accepted everything they were taught growing up. Like I said before, most people think for themselves when they grow up. Didn't you?

Most people require some proof that their beliefs are rational, or at the least some evidence in support of their beliefs.

Christians who accept their bibles as the literal word of the god can argue that their bible provides support and proof of their beliefs.

But for those who don't accept that their bibles are the truth then where else do they find support for their christian beliefs?

Does their faith sustain them, and will it sustain them indefinitely?

Is the anger of the christians here on this board an indication that your faith is beginning to let them down. Our modern world is seeming to stack the deck against christians who are motivated by faith alone.

Is there more than just faith that drives modern day christians, and if so then what can it be? Childhood indoctrination into christian beliefs appears to be a factor, especially when there are no other explanations being offered.

Don't try to pretend you have looked for any, bro. You have no perception of God other than fairytale. You can look until the cows come home and you won't find that God. So when you can tell me what your perception of God is that you have looked for let me know. Until then all you have done is confirm your bias.

 

[ding]

Is the anger of the christians here on this board an indication that your faith is beginning to let them down. Our modern world is seeming to stack the deck against christians who are motivated by faith alone.

That's some strawman you have there.

 

[ding]

Is there more than just faith that drives modern day christians, and if so then what can it be? Childhood indoctrination into christian beliefs appears to be a factor, especially when there are no other explanations being offered.

It's straw men all the way down.

 

[ding]

Does their faith sustain them, and will it sustain them indefinitely?

Just because I believe that everything works for the good of those who love God doesn't mean my first reaction to adversity is always peace through the storm, but it usually is my second response.

You will find out just how well your worldview serves you over the course of a long human life. I think the best you will be able to achieve is to suffer without complaint. My worldview is much more rich and satisfying than that.

 

[Blues Man]

you are excluding the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is.

Actually I didn't. Like I said before... I started my journey by looking at the only two options which exist; God created existence (aka space and time) or existence created itself. So, no. I did not exclude the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is. In fact what I have said before is this...

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.

So I started my evaluation from two possible mutually exclusive positions; 1. the universe was created by God intentionally and has a purpose. And 2. the universe was not created by God and has no purpose.

So you are wrong again.

When you start with a preconceived and arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities you cannot come to any conclusions that are not preconceived or arbitrary.

They aren't arbitrary. There are the only two options which exist. All other options will simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options. The fact that you can't name another possible option which does not simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options proves that your statement that I started with an arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities is WRONG. You can always prove me wrong by naming another possibility which does not simplify to one of the only two options which exist.

Are these two options preconceived? Well I did start with everything I could think of and they all simplified into one of these two mutually exclusive options. So it was only preconceived like all evaluations are preconceived when one is trying to list all of the options. It was not preconceived in the manner you are suggesting which is to mean biased. If I were biased I would only consider one of these two options like YOU have done.

The fact that we cannot conceive of more than 2 options is proof that we are limited in our thinking and are most likely physically incapable of understanding the processes of the inception of the universe. We are beings that can only perceive 3 dimensions but we live in a space that has at least 4 dimensions. For all we know, the only way to grasp the inception of the universe is to be able to perceive that 4th dimension.

If we were 2 dimensional beings living in a 3 dimensional space we would think that anything entering our 2 dimensional world from the third dimension would simply appear as if from nowhere and we would only ever be able to perceive a 2 dimensional cross section of that thing.

My dog will never comprehend prime numbers and she evolved out of the same stuff humans did. It is therefore not only reasonable to assume but also probable that the human brain has its own limitations.

The invention of a god to explain what we do not comprehend is a human characteristic and we've done that very thing throughout our existence

There no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

These are your opinions. We have no idea what god is or isn't.

This universal code you claim that somehow exists outside of human beings is nothing but the culmination of our ability to imagine a behavior and its possible outcomes while never actually engaging in that behavior. Since all human brains evolved the same way then all human brains are capable of such thoughts.

In doing this we determined what would be the most acceptable outcome and we then taught these things to future generations. these ideas did not exist outside of the human experience nor did they predate the existence of humans.

Once again you are viewing the end result of the evolutionary process and saying that people have always been as they are today. This simply is not true.

Correct, I don't know what God is or God isn't. I even said, The closest I can come is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

I believe to discover God one must start with some realistic perception of God. And that was the closest I could come to understanding God. People that argue there is no God are really arguing there is no God as that they can perceive. What they are really saying though is that they have no perception of God other than fairytales. Which is why everything they see is skewed to fairytales. So naturally they aren't looking for God. They only look at things to confirm their biases.

The universal code is logic and truth and exist independent of man. All humans are capable of seeing truth and logic if they are objective instead of subjective. The problem is that most people are not capable of being objective all of the time and about everything. Especially about themselves.

Humans are free to establish any standard they wish but they are not free to avoid the consequences of choosing a lower standard. Different standards have existed through out time and man has reaped what he has sown when he followed a lower standard.

Physiologically speaking, humans 10,000 years ago are pretty much the same as today but shorter. So I am not making the claim that people have always been as they are today. But for the past 10,000 years, man's intelligence probably has a similar distribution as we have today. Mind you I said intelligence and not knowledge. I do see repeating patterns of behavior and I do believe there are explanations for those patterns just as their are explanations for those behaviors. But what you have to know is that for almost any given thing there will usually be a distribution which always should be taken into account.

I don't assume there is a god to be discovered. And as I said before I don't think it matters if any gods actually exist or not. The beginning of the universe while interesting from both a physical and metaphysical perspective doesn't really matter either. Like I said we came into the theater after the movie started and we will leave before the movie ends so neither the beginning nor the end really matter as far as we human beings are concerned.

The oldest Homo Sapiens fossil has been dated to about 315,000 years ago and some anthropologists think H Sapiens may be as old a 500000 years.. 10000 years ago is the estimated period when agriculture began which also marked the end of the Neolithic Age.

So you make these sweeping statements like humans have always thought this or that but you are really only referring to the last 10 thousand years?

It is my position that our behaviors were evolving from at least 315,000 years ago and those behaviors from the very beginnings of H Sapiens emergence as a species are just as if not more important than anything that happened in the last 10000 years.

Sweeping statements, huh? Actually you saying I made sweeping statements is a sweeping statement. I was pretty specific which is the opposite if a sweeping statement.

As for you not believing it matters if one believes on God or not, you have never tested it. I have. I've walked both paths. You haven't. And despite your denial that religion offers functional advantages, Darwin disagrees.

So which is it man has always believed in the spiritual or man has believed in the spiritual only in the last 10000 years?

When you use words like always you are not just indicating a very specific point in history but rather are referring to ALL of history.

It's those pesky definitions again.

And you need to reread what I said.

I said I don't believe it matters whether gods exist or not.

Darwin wasn't a sociologist. Religion as a social institution provided a control on society not dissimilar to government.

Ummmm... always, at least once he became aware. But I only know that physiologically speaking man is pretty much the same now as he was 10,000 years ago. Could that have been earlier? Sure.

I know what you said and I know what you meant. And I know that you have never tested if it matters or not. I have. God, like all of reality is made manifest by mind.

If religion offered no functional advantage, then according to Darwin's principles, religion would have died out.

So it is your assertion that man has only been aware for the last 10000 years?

Now you say gods only manifest because of the human mind so then they must not have existed before men invented them.

Religion doesn't offer an evolutionary advantage. It offers a sociological advantage.

When humans were nomadic tribes it didn't matter if they believed in gods or not as far as their everyday survival was concerned.

Religion didn't become organized until we left the nomadic life behind and started living in larger and larger societies.

It was realized pretty quickly that as populations grew that controls were needed to ameliorate human behaviors religion was and still is one of those controls.

You are like a dog with a bone on this 10,000 year thing. The only claim I am making is that in the terms of intellect and physiology man hasn't changed much over the last 10,000 years. I make no other claims beyond that.

Religion offers FUNCTIONAL advantage. It is FUNCTIONAL advantage that determines if a trait will be retained or not. If there is no FUNCTIONAL advantage, then according to Darwin it is discarded.

Homo Sapiens is homo sapiens from a day ago or 200000 years ago.

Religion isn't a trait it's a social institution that didn't become organized until we moved from nomadic tribes to living in large stationary groups.

Religion acts as a control on the population and as the populace of a society grows those controls are beneficial to the long term success of the society. Religion does not help a person survive the rigors of life as a hunter gatherer.

I don't believe that physiologically speaking that homo sapiens from 200,000 years ago are the same as they are today. Do you have anything which supports that belief? I know there was little difference 10,000 years ago because there was a body recovered from the Alps that had been frozen and the comment that was made was that physiologically he was effectively the same as us today.

If you want to deny Darwin, that's your call. But it makes a ton of sense that believing in God has functional advantages that atheism does not have.

The only difference is the influence of society. Society has made us who we are more than mere evolution. You cannot separate modern man from the society he has lived in. Society is responsible for most of our belief systems. Everything from religion to morals and ethics has been shaped by societies and as those societies become more homogeneous the differences in those societies become less meaningful and will ultimately disappear.

This is the reason you think some patterns of thought are universal absolutes.

Again... from a natural selection perspective believing in God must have functional advantages that atheism does not have and that is why religion persists.

Again believing a gods has nothing to do with survival or evolution and more to do with the fact that as our intellect grew and our survival skills increased humans had more time to ponder things and one of the things human did was invent gods to explain things in the natural world.

I will propose that we didn't invent gods until we were so adept at survival that we had more time for activities other than merely surviving.

I never said it did. I said the reason religion persists is that religion provides a functional advantage that atheism cannot provide.

Only in a sense that it is a societal control.

What advantage do you have over an atheist?

Only in a sense that it is a societal control? Wrong. In the sense that it brings peace and joy through the storms of life.

The advantages believers have over atheists are peace and joy through the storms of life and meaning and purpose from being God's creatures; Meaning in God, Meaning in Creation, Meaning in Human Existence, Meaning in History, Meaning in Morality, Meaning in Justice, Meaning in Suffering and Meaning in Messianism.

You don't need religion to experience joy or weather the storms of life.

And You don't need religion to live a meaningful life.

There is no advantage to being religious.

William James sees it different.

When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of religion, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the religious life, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill.​

So what?

I don't need a god to feel I am part of the universe because I was part of it the day I was born.

I just explained the so what.

no you gave the opinion of a guy that you think is some kind of authority.

Who explained why there is a difference. It's the why that matters not the who.

Why does what James said carry so much weight that everyone has to agree with him?

Again it's not the who, it's the why.

And what if his why isn't the same as mine?

I don't need to follow anyone

 

[Blues Man]

If any gods exist don't they kind of have to be a natural phenomenon?

Interesting point. It depends on how we define a natural phenomenon. Isn't it usually defined as something that has a physical component? Spirit has no physical component, so do you consider Spirit to be a natural phenomenon?

IMO spirit isn't separable from the body.

You already know I think that the idea of spirit originates in the mind and the mind and body are inseparable.

 

[Blues Man]

No one is immune from the influences of society

While true, not all are (or can be) herded into the same box or in several major boxes. Sure, those are interesting, but even more interesting are those who cannot be sorted into a box. There are more of the "unsorted" than are often credited.

All human behavior exists on a continuum.

 

[Blues Man]

SIns are nothing behaviors seen as unacceptable as deemed by society

At best. "Sin" is a silly, magical concept invented when people didn't understand anything about the world or about human behavior. The concept is a child's toy that we need to put away, now that we have grown up.

If you don't start with a reasonable perception of God then you can't possibly have a reasonable perception of sin.

If there are any gods it's pretty clear they don't care if people behave badly

That's your opinion. The basis of Christianity is that He does. Jesus wept.

And that's just another bit of religious dogma

Maybe, but every religion professes it. So maybe not.

Since religions evolved from the same roots it's not surprising that there are commonalities.

 

[Blues Man]

Clearly you were never a Catholic.

Clearly! I was born an atheist, as are all babies but I was born into a family living in a country that was mainly some brand of Christians.

Had I been born in a country that is predominantly Muslim then I would have likely been thoroughly indoctrinated into that superstitious belief and become powerless to escape from it.
You can equate the indoctrination of children into a religion as the same as a baby duckling imprinting on the first moving object it sees, as it's mother.

Christianity's future depends on the indoctrination by parents not failing. A child of 12 or 13 generally has become too smart to accept any of the bibles.

What do you teach your children? Read the bible but keep in mind that it's full of lies that can't be interpreted as the literal truth?

So you were born an atheist because your family were atheists? Otherwise, your life has just defeated your own argument.

I teach my children not to be like you. Critical theory is a failed behavior.

The fact is most people tend to follow the religion of their parents. And is choosing one flavor of Christianity over another the same thing as changing your religion? I don't think it is.

Everyone grows up and eventually decides for themselves what is important for them to believe.

And the fact is most adults follow the religion of their parents.

And like I said changing one flavor of Christianity for another doesn't count as a change in religion.

Again... Everyone grows up and eventually decides for themselves what is important for them to believe.

And again most people don't change their beliefs that much so most people just accept what they have been taught

I wouldn't presume that as that was not my experience. I will only go so far as to say that whether or not their beliefs change they own their beliefs as an adult. Saying they only have beliefs because their parents had those beliefs is incorrect. Everyone's beliefs are informed by their experiences.

I didn't say it was only because of their parents. I said most people just accept what they have been taught. I said most people follow the religion they were raised in.

But society has just a great an influence on people and maybe even more than their parents.

People are for the most part predictable and not all that different from each other.

Most people become adults and think for themselves. Didn't you?

Most people do not reject everything they have ever been taught growing up and that conditioning never really goes away.

And even as an adult your choices are still shaped by society.

No one is immune from the influences of society

There's a distribution for almost everything. It would be unusual if most people rejected everything or accepted everything they were taught growing up. Like I said before, most people think for themselves when they grow up. Didn't you?

Most people aren't aware that their decisions have been shaped to the extent they have.

I make decisions all the time but that doesn't mean that every single one is an original idea or not a conditioned one.

A large part of personality, some say up to 50%, is genetic so just how much of your thought is solely yours?