How do the non-spiritual explain it?

[sealybobo]

Nothing helps keep the poor in a state of poverty quite like religion and that is by design. You think Constantine decided Christianity was the official religion of the Roman Empire because he believed? That’s funny. Religion keeps people in intellectual shackles and chains them to subservience.

You know, I realize the Anti-Christian Storm Trooper Zombies see threads like these and feel compelled to fill them full of their volatile diarrhea, but the OP is not a defense of Christianity and no one here is arguing Christianity. The topic of this thread is phenomenon beyond physical explanation. Ironically, you have previously stated you believe in "Karma" which fits into this category and is part of this topic.

Now the question is, can you control your inner Zombie Storm Trooper and rationally discuss the OP topic, or do we have to wade through 50 pages of your emotional diarrhea because you can't control yourself?

Just trying to help. Like I said, understanding god doesn't exist isn't a one sentence fix. It took me years to stop believing as you do. Only I never believed or thought god talked back to me like you do. Sorry.

 

[RandomVariable]

Nothing helps keep the poor in a state of poverty quite like religion and that is by design. You think Constantine decided Christianity was the official religion of the Roman Empire because he believed? That’s funny. Religion keeps people in intellectual shackles and chains them to subservience.

You know, I realize the Anti-Christian Storm Trooper Zombies see threads like these and feel compelled to fill them full of their volatile diarrhea, but the OP is not a defense of Christianity and no one here is arguing Christianity. The topic of this thread is phenomenon beyond physical explanation. Ironically, you have previously stated you believe in "Karma" which fits into this category and is part of this topic.

Now the question is, can you control your inner Zombie Storm Trooper and rationally discuss the OP topic, or do we have to wade through 50 pages of your emotional diarrhea because you can't control yourself?

Just trying to help. Like I said, understanding god doesn't exist isn't a one sentence fix. It took me years to stop believing as you do. Only I never believed or thought god talked back to me like you do. Sorry.

I think you have your posters mixed up.

 

[sealybobo]

Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....

Astral projection experiences.
Near-death experiences.
Transcendental meditation.
ESP and telepathy.
Ghost stories and paranormal experiences.
Other unexplained supernatural phenomenon.
Spells, curses and black magic.
Edgar Cayce.
Nostradamus.
Prophecy in general.

Is every single bit of it a bunch of hooey caused by our fears and imagination?

To me, it just seems as if there might be something more here. Especially in the case of people like Edgar Cayce. If you've never studied up on him, it's worth a search and read... fascinating man. His uncanny ability to predict the future was beyond anything we've ever known. He gave over 14k readings but that includes a brief period where he didn't do them because he was getting headaches. People were exploiting his power to win horse races and trade stock and he believed this was why he was getting the headaches. After some time, he did more readings but only his trusted wife was allowed to ask him questions.

Can our physical sciences understand this?

Which of these things don't you believe in and why?

 

[sealybobo]

Nothing helps keep the poor in a state of poverty quite like religion and that is by design. You think Constantine decided Christianity was the official religion of the Roman Empire because he believed? That’s funny. Religion keeps people in intellectual shackles and chains them to subservience.

You know, I realize the Anti-Christian Storm Trooper Zombies see threads like these and feel compelled to fill them full of their volatile diarrhea, but the OP is not a defense of Christianity and no one here is arguing Christianity. The topic of this thread is phenomenon beyond physical explanation. Ironically, you have previously stated you believe in "Karma" which fits into this category and is part of this topic.

Now the question is, can you control your inner Zombie Storm Trooper and rationally discuss the OP topic, or do we have to wade through 50 pages of your emotional diarrhea because you can't control yourself?

Just trying to help. Like I said, understanding god doesn't exist isn't a one sentence fix. It took me years to stop believing as you do. Only I never believed or thought god talked back to me like you do. Sorry.

I think you have your posters mixed up.

Why? Boss says god talks to him.

Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur. The existence of a miracle would pose logical problems for belief in a god which can supposedly see the future and began the universe with a set of predefined laws. Even if a ‘miracle’ could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.

Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.

Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.

Note: Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular god’s ‘infinite mercy’ or ‘omnibenevolence’ involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease – all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed. See also: Euthyphro dilemma, Confirmation bias,Cherry Picking.

 

[sealybobo]

I remember my childhood friends who were also religious very much believed in ghosts. One of them shit their pants when we handcuffed him in the basement closed the lights and left. He swears he saw a ghost down there.

I attack your evidence the same way. Do I believe he saw a ghost? Nope. Does he? Yes.

RE: ghosts
I met someone at a Buddhist retreat who said that all her family witnessed the ghost of their father walk into the room after they were gathered for his funeral services.
The Buddhists teach that the soul is still on this plane after death but is outside the body.

You can question that until it is proven,
but "attacking" someone in a non-neutral fashion
biased AGAINST stories of ghosts being true, instead of open either way,
shows an emotional bias caused by not forgiving people in the past
and projecting this onto other people. How is that different from a religious bias
that judges and rejects people for having different beliefs?

If you reject people in a biased fashion against them, instead of being neutral,
they tend to respond to you in the same biased rejecting way. that is a natural
law. So if you don't like when religious people do this, why would you behave the same way?

Nonsense. But buddhists don't claim god told them this. They just believe it. Of course they do. If you just died and you believe the soul continues then of course they believe the spirit is present. Just wild speculation. Could it be true? Sure. As long as people

They worship the same god? Not what the bible says.

Do you even know the Mormon story? Do you believe it? Then its a man made up religion. A lie.

You can teach how forgiveness is good for your health and prevents wars. No god needed.

sealybobo

If you are teaching there is more than one god that's you doing that here.

I am saying there is only one God or source of universal truths,
and all religions/laws are attempting to represent this in limited language.

Of course there are going to be flaws, biases and conflicts
because people aren't perfect.

As I pointed out before,
if there is any denial or bias going on, which you "unneutrally" call LYING,
it is because of fear and unforgiveness that skews people's judgments
including yours.

You do not mean to project out of denial, but you do.
If you are not intentionally lying, then neither are they.
If you call them "liars" that's why believers say you are "lying."

The reason I don't see this as intentional
is that I can forgive these biases and conflicts
so I can see they are not intentional.

Sorry that you do not forgive these so you see it as deliberately lying.

Why are you so sure there is only one god? You seem to me like the kind of person who would have really believed in the deep thought that came up with the Greek gods. One for every occasion. Why are you so sure there is only one god? It takes 2 to make a baby, right?

I don't think theists are lying. I believe they have been lied to by society that doesn't realize it's been lied to and forced to believe for so long they now believe the lie.

Why can't you realize that I'm truly trying to help people? Your trying to say, "forgive and forget that they are wrong, just focus on the good that can come of it and go along". Try to get them to focus on the good and not the fire and brimstone shit. And meanwhile we watch ISIS chop heads off for their god. Stop going along Emily for they know not what they are saying. Neither do you.

Facts are our country has the luxury of being the world super power and we were smart enough to make ourselves a secular nation. So we can handle radical theists and we don't have to worry about becoming a theist nation.

So stop being a completely bullshit artist. I know your intentions are good but you are just way off base. I know you know your truth is the best truth going on USMB but it is not. You're just another person who's still in the stone ages when our ancestors were superstitious wants to believe in god so bad no amount of information is going to get you to see your god is imaginary. And it is no good for you. And it is no good for me living in a society full of dopes either. Pretend you are living in 1940 Catholic Nazi Germany or Italy and those god fearing people are about to do the unthinkable. How did they justify this with their god? I don't know but they did. God is doing a horrible job running the show. Let us atheists take over.

Hi sealybobo
1. if "you atheists" were truly all inclusive by accepting ALL explanations as right for that person,
you might be objective and universal enough to cover ALL and protect equal "religious freedom for all"

But since you have shown contempt and bias AGAINST certain views
then you are not objective and all inclusive either. that's why you are not the default.

I would say the Buddhists are probably the closest to being neutral
and letting all people follow their own paths.

2. as for "one God"
it depends how you define this

a. if you mean the way Christians teach God is the only way to teach God
and you try to impose that on everyone else including nontheists, no, that
is not the best way. That still doesn't negate the concept of one God,
it just shows that teaching just one way is not enough to include everyone

b. if you teach that the one God can be EXPRESSED and experienced
in different ways, that MIGHT be closer to universal and including all ways:
God as Life or Source of Life
God as Nature or Creation or Universe
God as Truth or Wisdom, Universal Laws, Justice
God as love, divine forgiveness, spiritual peace

so if you teach that there is one God that all the different ways
describe or point to,
then you can include BOTH
the beliefs in "one God as absolute"
as well as the "relative expressions" of this one God or Source of all truth in life.

Since B. is closer to all inclusive
that is the way I recommend.
I believe in accommodating everyone's free exercise of religion
or their beliefs equally, including secular or political beliefs,
so I try to take the more inclusive approach
and then resolve any conflics from there.

I have never seen any form of conflict resolution
work by EXCLUDING one or both parties in the conflicts.

The first step in mediation is to set up a neutral ground that includes
the parties' views equally, and then letting them work it out between them.

So sealybobo if you want atheists or nontheists to be the
neutral starting ground, then you would have to ALLOW for
the beliefs of theists within that set and not verbally or
emotionally threaten such people to make them feel excluded
or discriminated against. When people are put on the defensive
it blocks the communication process to be skewed and not equally open and free.

If you cannot forgive theists or religionists for their beliefs,
that introduces a bias that makes your starting point NOT neutral and NOT objective.
So you will have difficulty proving anything from a biased starting point
that is already on the side of rejection.

What theist would step foot in a courtroom knowing the judge is already
biased against them? Mediation fails when the process is skewed against one side.

“There are those whose views about religion are not very different from my own, but who nevertheless feel that we should try to damp down the conflict, that we should compromise it. … I respect their views and I understand their motives, and I don't condemn them, but I'm not having it. To me, the conflict between science and religion is more important than these issues of science education or even environmentalism. I think the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief; and anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.”
― Steven Weinberg

Re: False division between science and religion
Dear sealybobo
doesn't it make sense that whatever is true about human nature
would have to be consistent with science if it is true
and also consistent with what religions teach in order for them to be true.

Well, studies on spiritual healing can bridge this gap in understanding
between science and religion. The doctors who have studied it all recognized this
and support medical studies to establish this more publicly.

Curiously enough, both Dr. Peck and Dr. MacNutt BLAME the false
division between science and religion as obstructing this research.

Makes sense that if these two groups are segregated and enforced in society
as incompatible, there won't be motivation or collaboration to do scientific studies on spiritual healing.
If people like you are too busy preaching against any such proof instead of pursuing it.

As more people realize this will solve multiple problems,
then it will finally get support it needs for formal research to go public with it.

Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called ‘moral’ characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.

Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.

The god character of the Bible is a misogynistictyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.

 

[sealybobo]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” – Epicurus

Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....

Astral projection experiences.
Near-death experiences.
Transcendental meditation.
ESP and telepathy.
Ghost stories and paranormal experiences.
Other unexplained supernatural phenomenon.
Spells, curses and black magic.
Edgar Cayce.
Nostradamus.
Prophecy in general.

Is every single bit of it a bunch of hooey caused by our fears and imagination?

To me, it just seems as if there might be something more here. Especially in the case of people like Edgar Cayce. If you've never studied up on him, it's worth a search and read... fascinating man. His uncanny ability to predict the future was beyond anything we've ever known. He gave over 14k readings but that includes a brief period where he didn't do them because he was getting headaches. People were exploiting his power to win horse races and trade stock and he believed this was why he was getting the headaches. After some time, he did more readings but only his trusted wife was allowed to ask him questions.

Can our physical sciences understand this?

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

 

[sealybobo]

Why there is no god

1. I feel a personal relationship with god OR I experienced god.
   Argument from personal experience.
   
   A result of our naturally evolved neurology, made hypersensitive to purpose (an ‘unseen actor’) because of the large social groups humans have and the way the brain associates pattern with intent.
   
   Humans have evolved a variety of cognitive shortcuts to deal with the mass of information provided by our senses. In particular, we tend to filter sensory input according to a set of expectations built on prior beliefs and past experiences, impart meaning to ambiguous input even when there is no real meaning behind it and infer causal relationships where none exist.
   
   Personal revelation cannot be independently verified. So-called ‘revelations’ never include information a recipient could not have known beforehand, such as the time and location of a rare event or answers to any number of unsolved problems in science. They are usually emotional or perceptual in content and therefore unremarkable among the many cognitive processes brains exhibit, including dreams and hallucinations. These experiences may even be artificially induced by narcotics or magnetic fields. Extreme cases may be diagnosed as a form of schizophrenia or psychosis.
   
   Spiritual and religious experiences are not only inconsistent among individuals but are variably attributed to different gods, aliens, spirits, rituals, hallucinations, meditation etc. The fact that medical conditions and other natural processes can induce these experiences is evidence they are produced by our brain.
   
   See also: NPR Your brain on god?, Hardwired for religion?, Searching for God in the Brain, The Economist, BBC Doco, PBS Doco and Dawkins on the topic, Deconversion: Personal Relationship (a must watch), TED – How it feels to have a stroke (a must watch) and TED – Ramachandran on your mind.
   
   Papers: Religion and Hippocampal Atrophy.
   
   “You can tell you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” – Anne Lamott
   
   
   

You are attacking my evidence. How can you say you are open minded?

I remember my childhood friends who were also religious very much believed in ghosts. One of them shit their pants when we handcuffed him in the basement closed the lights and left. He swears he saw a ghost down there.

I attack your evidence the same way. Do I believe he saw a ghost? Nope. Does he? Yes.

Do you believe you are better than God?

I don't believe god(s) exist and if something created the universe it cares about you as much as you care about a fly on a lions ass in Africa. Even smaller than that. You would be a single cell organism half way around the world.

It is you who thinks you are so special that a god built the universe for you and has a heaven awaiting where you will become a god essentially and live forever in paradise. Who's the arrogant one?

So say you think you are better than God. Since it matters not.

I don’t want to go to hell/You will go to hell.
Pascal’s Wager does not actually argue in support of the existence of a god, rather, it simply attempts to coerce insincere worship. There are several issues with this approach:

• Multiple inconsistent and contradictory revelations (Which god/hell?)
• Hell is incompatible with an omnibenevolent god.

• A god could reward reasoning/skepticism.

• An omniscient god would see through feigned belief as a result of coercion.

• If a god wanted everyone to believe and knew exactly what was needed to convince people, then why are there atheists at all? Is god unable to prevent transgression of his will?

• Infallible foreknowledge is incompatible with free will (Are atheists predestined for hell?)

• Most people adhere to the religion they were born into, they have not examined all other religions.

 

[Boss]

Yes man's laws are changing
but that doesn't mean universal laws aren't just what they are
and we just can't pin them down. I know some physicists who know all these same
things and just see it as the Universe and don't personify God as a being, so what?

It's not about God, emily. Universal laws are not what they are. They are what we think they are. That was my point. We can't know things, we can only believe we know things. Do you know why there is a "zeroth law" in thermodynamics? It is because the laws of thermodynamics were originally written without the zeroth law. However, it is more of a fundamental than the first law, thus it became the zeroth law.

But because we put "law" behind something in science, we often become misled into believing that is empirical truth that can't be disputed. Actually, the term "law" is simply a placeholder for what we assume is a universal constant. Many of the physical laws of nature and the universe break down inside black holes and at the subatomic level.

You can't confirm that you presently exist. I know, that sounds preposterous, doesn't it? You say, well I can look in the mirror and confirm I presently exist.... you're wrong. You can confirm that you existed a fraction of a second ago.... it takes time for the light to reflect off you, reflect off the mirror and reach your eye. What you see is what was there a fraction of a second ago, not presently.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

There was a time 13. something billion years ago when there was no universe ....what existed then ......

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes man's laws are changing
but that doesn't mean universal laws aren't just what they are
and we just can't pin them down. I know some physicists who know all these same
things and just see it as the Universe and don't personify God as a being, so what?

It's not about God, emily. Universal laws are not what they are. They are what we think they are. That was my point. We can't know things, we can only believe we know things. Do you know why there is a "zeroth law" in thermodynamics? It is because the laws of thermodynamics were originally written without the zeroth law. However, it is more of a fundamental than the first law, thus it became the zeroth law.

But because we put "law" behind something in science, we often become misled into believing that is empirical truth that can't be disputed. Actually, the term "law" is simply a placeholder for what we assume is a universal constant. Many of the physical laws of nature and the universe break down inside black holes and at the subatomic level.

You can't confirm that you presently exist. I know, that sounds preposterous, doesn't it? You say, well I can look in the mirror and confirm I presently exist.... you're wrong. You can confirm that you existed a fraction of a second ago.... it takes time for the light to reflect off you, reflect off the mirror and reach your eye. What you see is what was there a fraction of a second ago, not presently.

Hi Boss
do we agree, then, that God is separate from what our laws and religions say the relationship is?
This would be a great first step.

the atheists keep rejecting the religion but throwing out the self-existing laws/God as part of that.

if we can agree there ARE laws of nature and the universe out there
INDEPENDENT of how these are REPRESENTED in our limited science and religious terms
then we can agree to set aside the religious layers
and just focus on what we agree on WITHOUT that layer.

What do you say, Boss?

 

[Boss]

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

But no one is positing anything, I am asking how you explain the overwhelming amounts of phenomena which can't be physically explained? So far, the only explanation I am getting from the non-spiritual, is simply blanket dismissal. I think this points to a mental disorder of someone in denial.

I am not a religious person. I am not here to defend Christianity. I am not here to lobby for my God over your God. I'm not interested in promoting my religious views over yours. I'm not here to condemn you and tell you that you're going to hell. If that's your perception of what this thread is about, you are delusional.

So can we stop with the persistent bashing of theocracy for a moment and get back to the OP topic? Or does every single thing in your entire pathetic existence revolve around being an anti-Christian Storm Trooper Zombie? Are you beyond rational conversation?

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: ghosts
I met someone at a Buddhist retreat who said that all her family witnessed the ghost of their father walk into the room after they were gathered for his funeral services.
The Buddhists teach that the soul is still on this plane after death but is outside the body.

You can question that until it is proven,
but "attacking" someone in a non-neutral fashion
biased AGAINST stories of ghosts being true, instead of open either way,
shows an emotional bias caused by not forgiving people in the past
and projecting this onto other people. How is that different from a religious bias
that judges and rejects people for having different beliefs?

If you reject people in a biased fashion against them, instead of being neutral,
they tend to respond to you in the same biased rejecting way. that is a natural
law. So if you don't like when religious people do this, why would you behave the same way?

Nonsense. But buddhists don't claim god told them this. They just believe it. Of course they do. If you just died and you believe the soul continues then of course they believe the spirit is present. Just wild speculation. Could it be true? Sure. As long as people

sealybobo

If you are teaching there is more than one god that's you doing that here.

I am saying there is only one God or source of universal truths,
and all religions/laws are attempting to represent this in limited language.

Of course there are going to be flaws, biases and conflicts
because people aren't perfect.

As I pointed out before,
if there is any denial or bias going on, which you "unneutrally" call LYING,
it is because of fear and unforgiveness that skews people's judgments
including yours.

You do not mean to project out of denial, but you do.
If you are not intentionally lying, then neither are they.
If you call them "liars" that's why believers say you are "lying."

The reason I don't see this as intentional
is that I can forgive these biases and conflicts
so I can see they are not intentional.

Sorry that you do not forgive these so you see it as deliberately lying.

Why are you so sure there is only one god? You seem to me like the kind of person who would have really believed in the deep thought that came up with the Greek gods. One for every occasion. Why are you so sure there is only one god? It takes 2 to make a baby, right?

I don't think theists are lying. I believe they have been lied to by society that doesn't realize it's been lied to and forced to believe for so long they now believe the lie.

Why can't you realize that I'm truly trying to help people? Your trying to say, "forgive and forget that they are wrong, just focus on the good that can come of it and go along". Try to get them to focus on the good and not the fire and brimstone shit. And meanwhile we watch ISIS chop heads off for their god. Stop going along Emily for they know not what they are saying. Neither do you.

Facts are our country has the luxury of being the world super power and we were smart enough to make ourselves a secular nation. So we can handle radical theists and we don't have to worry about becoming a theist nation.

So stop being a completely bullshit artist. I know your intentions are good but you are just way off base. I know you know your truth is the best truth going on USMB but it is not. You're just another person who's still in the stone ages when our ancestors were superstitious wants to believe in god so bad no amount of information is going to get you to see your god is imaginary. And it is no good for you. And it is no good for me living in a society full of dopes either. Pretend you are living in 1940 Catholic Nazi Germany or Italy and those god fearing people are about to do the unthinkable. How did they justify this with their god? I don't know but they did. God is doing a horrible job running the show. Let us atheists take over.

Hi sealybobo
1. if "you atheists" were truly all inclusive by accepting ALL explanations as right for that person,
you might be objective and universal enough to cover ALL and protect equal "religious freedom for all"

But since you have shown contempt and bias AGAINST certain views
then you are not objective and all inclusive either. that's why you are not the default.

I would say the Buddhists are probably the closest to being neutral
and letting all people follow their own paths.

2. as for "one God"
it depends how you define this

a. if you mean the way Christians teach God is the only way to teach God
and you try to impose that on everyone else including nontheists, no, that
is not the best way. That still doesn't negate the concept of one God,
it just shows that teaching just one way is not enough to include everyone

b. if you teach that the one God can be EXPRESSED and experienced
in different ways, that MIGHT be closer to universal and including all ways:
God as Life or Source of Life
God as Nature or Creation or Universe
God as Truth or Wisdom, Universal Laws, Justice
God as love, divine forgiveness, spiritual peace

so if you teach that there is one God that all the different ways
describe or point to,
then you can include BOTH
the beliefs in "one God as absolute"
as well as the "relative expressions" of this one God or Source of all truth in life.

Since B. is closer to all inclusive
that is the way I recommend.
I believe in accommodating everyone's free exercise of religion
or their beliefs equally, including secular or political beliefs,
so I try to take the more inclusive approach
and then resolve any conflics from there.

I have never seen any form of conflict resolution
work by EXCLUDING one or both parties in the conflicts.

The first step in mediation is to set up a neutral ground that includes
the parties' views equally, and then letting them work it out between them.

So sealybobo if you want atheists or nontheists to be the
neutral starting ground, then you would have to ALLOW for
the beliefs of theists within that set and not verbally or
emotionally threaten such people to make them feel excluded
or discriminated against. When people are put on the defensive
it blocks the communication process to be skewed and not equally open and free.

If you cannot forgive theists or religionists for their beliefs,
that introduces a bias that makes your starting point NOT neutral and NOT objective.
So you will have difficulty proving anything from a biased starting point
that is already on the side of rejection.

What theist would step foot in a courtroom knowing the judge is already
biased against them? Mediation fails when the process is skewed against one side.

“There are those whose views about religion are not very different from my own, but who nevertheless feel that we should try to damp down the conflict, that we should compromise it. … I respect their views and I understand their motives, and I don't condemn them, but I'm not having it. To me, the conflict between science and religion is more important than these issues of science education or even environmentalism. I think the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief; and anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.”
― Steven Weinberg

Re: False division between science and religion
Dear sealybobo
doesn't it make sense that whatever is true about human nature
would have to be consistent with science if it is true
and also consistent with what religions teach in order for them to be true.

Well, studies on spiritual healing can bridge this gap in understanding
between science and religion. The doctors who have studied it all recognized this
and support medical studies to establish this more publicly.

Curiously enough, both Dr. Peck and Dr. MacNutt BLAME the false
division between science and religion as obstructing this research.

Makes sense that if these two groups are segregated and enforced in society
as incompatible, there won't be motivation or collaboration to do scientific studies on spiritual healing.
If people like you are too busy preaching against any such proof instead of pursuing it.

As more people realize this will solve multiple problems,
then it will finally get support it needs for formal research to go public with it.

Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called ‘moral’ characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.

Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.

The god character of the Bible is a misogynistictyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.

1. RE morality
What studies have you even looked at
that examine the effect of FORGIVENESS on human perception, health and RELATIONSHIPS
or perhaps, since you do not want to forgive certain things
but want to keep with your current mindset and resist change,
then such studies would introduce a CONFLICT OF INTEREST
so you prefer to avoid this factor and any studies that might show FORGIVENESS correlated with health and healing
(not only of mind and body but of RELATIONSHIPS and thus affects MORALITY in terms of SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Any interest in this approach?

2. I AGREE that you can use Secular laws. And the same issues of FORGIVENESS applies to both laws.
people who forgive can resolve their religious or political issues, using either religious or secular laws.
people who cannot forgive cannot resolve their religious or political issues, using either religious or secular laws.

The issue lies with HUMAN NATURE

do you AGREE that both religious and secular laws ATTEMPT to define HUMAN NATURE and RELATIONS
between the INDIVIDUAL will and COLLECTIVE will

Don't the same Laws of Human Nature apply to both religious and secular laws and authority?

3. Ok so if you don't agree with this definition of God DON'T USE IT.
You can reject the geocentric model of the solar system and NOT negate "all science and all the universe"

Why revolve your whole argument around something you don't even agree exists.

Plenty of Christians and Buddhists and others can relate to the Source of Life as self-existent.

I wish you were Buddhist so I could tell you to DETACH yourself from this unhealthy
ATTACHMENT to some false idol you have made out of rejecting a certain image of God.

Since you have a Christian background I ask you to FORGIVE it and let it go.

If you can start there, from a state of forgiving and letting go, you might be neutral.
As long as you hold on to this thing you don't believe is true and keep harping on it,
that is an emotional attachment that is biasing your judgment and limiting it
until you agree to let go of this thing you don't even want in your life.

How rational is that? To keep holding on to and "ragging on" if not "railing against"
something you DON'T believe in.

Especially if you don't like people clinging to something you think is false,
why are YOU clinging to it and dragging it around with you?

If you don't like a stinky smelly sock, do you drag it around with you
in order to complain about it?

What does it take to let go of this which you do not believe in and do not want in your life?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The more science looks at reality at the physics the more ethereal the conclusions....

 

[emilynghiem]

• Most people adhere to the religion they were born into, they have not examined all other religions.

BTW sealybobo if you compare Languages with Religions
Most people can FORGIVE different languages and treat them as NEUTRAL.

Most people do not expect a native speaker to RENOUNCE or CONVERT away
from one language to another. with languages it is considered an ADVANTAGE to speak more than one.

Why not so with religions? When we study a new system of representing concepts,
why don't we see this as ADDING another language so we can communicate with
more audiences?

Again see my other note about human nature and FORGIVENESS.
if people can FORGIVE then we can be neutral and open.

sealybobo is your goal to be objective and open?
or is it to continue to rail about false teachings you don't want in your life
so you keep attaching arguments to them and these remain in your life?

 

[Boss]

Yes man's laws are changing
but that doesn't mean universal laws aren't just what they are
and we just can't pin them down. I know some physicists who know all these same
things and just see it as the Universe and don't personify God as a being, so what?

It's not about God, emily. Universal laws are not what they are. They are what we think they are. That was my point. We can't know things, we can only believe we know things. Do you know why there is a "zeroth law" in thermodynamics? It is because the laws of thermodynamics were originally written without the zeroth law. However, it is more of a fundamental than the first law, thus it became the zeroth law.

But because we put "law" behind something in science, we often become misled into believing that is empirical truth that can't be disputed. Actually, the term "law" is simply a placeholder for what we assume is a universal constant. Many of the physical laws of nature and the universe break down inside black holes and at the subatomic level.

You can't confirm that you presently exist. I know, that sounds preposterous, doesn't it? You say, well I can look in the mirror and confirm I presently exist.... you're wrong. You can confirm that you existed a fraction of a second ago.... it takes time for the light to reflect off you, reflect off the mirror and reach your eye. What you see is what was there a fraction of a second ago, not presently.

Hi Boss
do we agree, then, that God is separate from what our laws and religions say the relationship is?
This would be a great first step.

the atheists keep rejecting the religion but throwing out the self-existing laws/God as part of that.

if we can agree there ARE laws of nature and the universe out there
INDEPENDENT of how these are REPRESENTED in our limited science and religious terms
then we can agree to set aside the religious layers
and just focus on what we agree on WITHOUT that layer.

What do you say, Boss?

Emily, I don't have a religion. Therefore, I can't very well have religious layers. This OP really has nothing to do with religion. What happened is, as soon as the OP posted, the Anti-God Zombie Storm Troopers arrived and began filling the thread with their typical volatile diarrhea. All I asked for was an intellectual discussion on paranormal events, things beyond the physical.

There have only been a few grown-ups here willing to tackle the OP and have an honest discourse. The Zombies want to make it about theocracy and turn this thread into yet another Christian bashfest. I'm trying to bring the conversation back to the intent of the OP and you are not helping by pretending to be a conscientious moderator of dialogue between the religious and atheist. Again, this is not a thread about religion, God, or theocratic belief.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, I don't have a religion. Therefore, I can't very well have religious layers. This OP really has nothing to do with religion. What happened is, as soon as the OP posted, the Anti-God Zombie Storm Troopers arrived and began filling the thread with their typical volatile diarrhea. All I asked for was an intellectual discussion on paranormal events, things beyond the physical.

There have only been a few grown-ups here willing to tackle the OP and have an honest discourse. The Zombies want to make it about theocracy and turn this thread into yet another Christian bashfest. I'm trying to bring the conversation back to the intent of the OP and you are not helping by pretending to be a conscientious moderator of dialogue between the religious and atheist. Again, this is not a thread about religion, God, or theocratic belief.

You may not have a formal religion,
but if you have views and beliefs about God then those are your beliefs.
If you have a preferred way of expressing your knowledge or understanding
then that is your language.

So if someone like me wants to reach agreement with you about God
then we have to align YOUR language and beliefs/perceptions with mine.

And likewise if you are trying to communicate with Hollie or sealybobo
who speak from their understanding and experiences.

We all have beliefs and ways of expressing our perceptions.
You may not call that a formal religion, but it is a layer because we all see
different parts of life and nobody can see, know or describe the whole of what God means as infinite.

So the most we can present is a layer based on
* our perception based on our experiences
* our language for that based on what terms we understand and/or other people we are sharing with

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The World s Largest Clairvoyance Experiment Has Begun VICE United States

http://www.thegreatquestion.com/books/On_the_Edge_of_Etheric.pdf


59:01
Rudolf Steiner and the Science of Spiritual Realities ...

 

[sealybobo]

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

But no one is positing anything, I am asking how you explain the overwhelming amounts of phenomena which can't be physically explained? So far, the only explanation I am getting from the non-spiritual, is simply blanket dismissal. I think this points to a mental disorder of someone in denial.

I am not a religious person. I am not here to defend Christianity. I am not here to lobby for my God over your God. I'm not interested in promoting my religious views over yours. I'm not here to condemn you and tell you that you're going to hell. If that's your perception of what this thread is about, you are delusional.

So can we stop with the persistent bashing of theocracy for a moment and get back to the OP topic? Or does every single thing in your entire pathetic existence revolve around being an anti-Christian Storm Trooper Zombie? Are you beyond rational conversation?

Like you've decided there must be supernatural I've decided they don't exist. None of those things you listed are real. So far that's my belief but I remain open to new information.

All the evidence suggests all that's in your heads.

No anger or animosity from me. And I hope you don't believe I'll be punished for my skepticism? If you do that's more of an indication to me you're just superstitious and cherry picking what you want to believe from the big 3

 

[sealybobo]

Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....

Astral projection experiences.
Near-death experiences.
Transcendental meditation.
ESP and telepathy.
Ghost stories and paranormal experiences.
Other unexplained supernatural phenomenon.
Spells, curses and black magic.
Edgar Cayce.
Nostradamus.
Prophecy in general.

Is every single bit of it a bunch of hooey caused by our fears and imagination?

To me, it just seems as if there might be something more here. Especially in the case of people like Edgar Cayce. If you've never studied up on him, it's worth a search and read... fascinating man. His uncanny ability to predict the future was beyond anything we've ever known. He gave over 14k readings but that includes a brief period where he didn't do them because he was getting headaches. People were exploiting his power to win horse races and trade stock and he believed this was why he was getting the headaches. After some time, he did more readings but only his trusted wife was allowed to ask him questions.

Can our physical sciences understand this?

How do you explain all these things?

 

[sealybobo]

Nonsense. But buddhists don't claim god told them this. They just believe it. Of course they do. If you just died and you believe the soul continues then of course they believe the spirit is present. Just wild speculation. Could it be true? Sure. As long as people
Why are you so sure there is only one god? You seem to me like the kind of person who would have really believed in the deep thought that came up with the Greek gods. One for every occasion. Why are you so sure there is only one god? It takes 2 to make a baby, right?

I don't think theists are lying. I believe they have been lied to by society that doesn't realize it's been lied to and forced to believe for so long they now believe the lie.

Why can't you realize that I'm truly trying to help people? Your trying to say, "forgive and forget that they are wrong, just focus on the good that can come of it and go along". Try to get them to focus on the good and not the fire and brimstone shit. And meanwhile we watch ISIS chop heads off for their god. Stop going along Emily for they know not what they are saying. Neither do you.

Facts are our country has the luxury of being the world super power and we were smart enough to make ourselves a secular nation. So we can handle radical theists and we don't have to worry about becoming a theist nation.

So stop being a completely bullshit artist. I know your intentions are good but you are just way off base. I know you know your truth is the best truth going on USMB but it is not. You're just another person who's still in the stone ages when our ancestors were superstitious wants to believe in god so bad no amount of information is going to get you to see your god is imaginary. And it is no good for you. And it is no good for me living in a society full of dopes either. Pretend you are living in 1940 Catholic Nazi Germany or Italy and those god fearing people are about to do the unthinkable. How did they justify this with their god? I don't know but they did. God is doing a horrible job running the show. Let us atheists take over.

Hi sealybobo
1. if "you atheists" were truly all inclusive by accepting ALL explanations as right for that person,
you might be objective and universal enough to cover ALL and protect equal "religious freedom for all"

But since you have shown contempt and bias AGAINST certain views
then you are not objective and all inclusive either. that's why you are not the default.

I would say the Buddhists are probably the closest to being neutral
and letting all people follow their own paths.

2. as for "one God"
it depends how you define this

a. if you mean the way Christians teach God is the only way to teach God
and you try to impose that on everyone else including nontheists, no, that
is not the best way. That still doesn't negate the concept of one God,
it just shows that teaching just one way is not enough to include everyone

b. if you teach that the one God can be EXPRESSED and experienced
in different ways, that MIGHT be closer to universal and including all ways:
God as Life or Source of Life
God as Nature or Creation or Universe
God as Truth or Wisdom, Universal Laws, Justice
God as love, divine forgiveness, spiritual peace

so if you teach that there is one God that all the different ways
describe or point to,
then you can include BOTH
the beliefs in "one God as absolute"
as well as the "relative expressions" of this one God or Source of all truth in life.

Since B. is closer to all inclusive
that is the way I recommend.
I believe in accommodating everyone's free exercise of religion
or their beliefs equally, including secular or political beliefs,
so I try to take the more inclusive approach
and then resolve any conflics from there.

I have never seen any form of conflict resolution
work by EXCLUDING one or both parties in the conflicts.

The first step in mediation is to set up a neutral ground that includes
the parties' views equally, and then letting them work it out between them.

So sealybobo if you want atheists or nontheists to be the
neutral starting ground, then you would have to ALLOW for
the beliefs of theists within that set and not verbally or
emotionally threaten such people to make them feel excluded
or discriminated against. When people are put on the defensive
it blocks the communication process to be skewed and not equally open and free.

If you cannot forgive theists or religionists for their beliefs,
that introduces a bias that makes your starting point NOT neutral and NOT objective.
So you will have difficulty proving anything from a biased starting point
that is already on the side of rejection.

What theist would step foot in a courtroom knowing the judge is already
biased against them? Mediation fails when the process is skewed against one side.

“There are those whose views about religion are not very different from my own, but who nevertheless feel that we should try to damp down the conflict, that we should compromise it. … I respect their views and I understand their motives, and I don't condemn them, but I'm not having it. To me, the conflict between science and religion is more important than these issues of science education or even environmentalism. I think the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief; and anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.”
― Steven Weinberg

Re: False division between science and religion
Dear sealybobo
doesn't it make sense that whatever is true about human nature
would have to be consistent with science if it is true
and also consistent with what religions teach in order for them to be true.

Well, studies on spiritual healing can bridge this gap in understanding
between science and religion. The doctors who have studied it all recognized this
and support medical studies to establish this more publicly.

Curiously enough, both Dr. Peck and Dr. MacNutt BLAME the false
division between science and religion as obstructing this research.

Makes sense that if these two groups are segregated and enforced in society
as incompatible, there won't be motivation or collaboration to do scientific studies on spiritual healing.
If people like you are too busy preaching against any such proof instead of pursuing it.

As more people realize this will solve multiple problems,
then it will finally get support it needs for formal research to go public with it.

Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called ‘moral’ characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.

Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.

The god character of the Bible is a misogynistictyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.

1. RE morality
What studies have you even looked at
that examine the effect of FORGIVENESS on human perception, health and RELATIONSHIPS
or perhaps, since you do not want to forgive certain things
but want to keep with your current mindset and resist change,
then such studies would introduce a CONFLICT OF INTEREST
so you prefer to avoid this factor and any studies that might show FORGIVENESS correlated with health and healing
(not only of mind and body but of RELATIONSHIPS and thus affects MORALITY in terms of SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Any interest in this approach?

2. I AGREE that you can use Secular laws. And the same issues of FORGIVENESS applies to both laws.
people who forgive can resolve their religious or political issues, using either religious or secular laws.
people who cannot forgive cannot resolve their religious or political issues, using either religious or secular laws.

The issue lies with HUMAN NATURE

do you AGREE that both religious and secular laws ATTEMPT to define HUMAN NATURE and RELATIONS
between the INDIVIDUAL will and COLLECTIVE will

Don't the same Laws of Human Nature apply to both religious and secular laws and authority?

3. Ok so if you don't agree with this definition of God DON'T USE IT.
You can reject the geocentric model of the solar system and NOT negate "all science and all the universe"

Why revolve your whole argument around something you don't even agree exists.

Plenty of Christians and Buddhists and others can relate to the Source of Life as self-existent.

I wish you were Buddhist so I could tell you to DETACH yourself from this unhealthy
ATTACHMENT to some false idol you have made out of rejecting a certain image of God.

Since you have a Christian background I ask you to FORGIVE it and let it go.

If you can start there, from a state of forgiving and letting go, you might be neutral.
As long as you hold on to this thing you don't believe is true and keep harping on it,
that is an emotional attachment that is biasing your judgment and limiting it
until you agree to let go of this thing you don't even want in your life.

How rational is that? To keep holding on to and "ragging on" if not "railing against"
something you DON'T believe in.

Especially if you don't like people clinging to something you think is false,
why are YOU clinging to it and dragging it around with you?

If you don't like a stinky smelly sock, do you drag it around with you
in order to complain about it?

What does it take to let go of this which you do not believe in and do not want in your life?

My parents believe something must have made us and we get along just fine. But they agree all religions are made up.

My mom says "we say we believe which means we don't know". Well I don't believe. So what? Still a good person in fact better