Zone1 Why do you need gods?

[Blues Man]

I dunno. Find me someone who believes in gods but isn't religious, and we will find out.


Then your thread is flawed because it is based on the unproven assumption that people only believe in gods because they NEED to. Do you need to believe in clouds and sun? Yet you do. Likewise, many people believe in gods because they are self-evident to them and a big part of their life, so the better question is which comes first, the god or the belief/use/need?

The belief in gods is based on faith faith requires no proof.

If you choose to believe in something for which there is no proof then you choose to do so to fulfill some need.

 

[toobfreak]

The belief in gods is based on faith

Which comes first, the faith? Or the thing to have faith in?

faith requires no proof.

How would you know? I say faith requires all the prof in the world! That is why faith is so unshakable.

If you choose to believe in something for which there is no proof then you choose to do so to fulfill some need.

Don't talk out of your ass about things you know nothing about just in order to try to justify your own lack of faith.

 

[Meriweather]

The belief in gods is based on faith faith requires no proof.

If you choose to believe in something for which there is no proof then you choose to do so to fulfill some need.

Are there sounds people can't hear? Are there sounds no animal can hear, either? What is the proof that canines can hear a dog whistle? Our proof is that they respond to the whistle.

I do not respond to a dog whistle. Have I just proved that there is no sound? Wouldn't you say, "Well, dogs do. That is my proof."

Likewise, some people respond to God, have experiences of God. Some do not, and have no sense of a relationship at all. Is this proof that no one senses/observes God? Or does proof of God work much the same as a dog whistle: The frequency is such that some people can hear and respond to God; some cannot.

As you know, I agree with another poster who notes "need" doesn't enter into the equation. Just as a dog responds to what it hears, so do people of faith/belief.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Cro-Magnon fathers had no better answer to children's questions ... "because I say so" works up to roughly the 18th Century, or say about 8-years-old ...

Science is new ...

Christianity and Science run hand-in-hand like oreos and milk.

Science is the pallet on which the Lord paints.

 

[Blues Man]

Which comes first, the faith? Or the thing to have faith in?


How would you know? I say faith requires all the prof in the world! That is why faith is so unshakable.


Don't talk out of your ass about things you know nothing about just in order to try to justify your own lack of faith.

Faith is belief without proof by definition.

But an interesting question comes to mind.

Can a person believe in the existence of gods and still refuse to worship?

 

[Blues Man]

Are there sounds people can't hear? Are there sounds no animal can hear, either? What is the proof that canines can hear a dog whistle? Our proof is that they respond to the whistle.

I do not respond to a dog whistle. Have I just proved that there is no sound? Wouldn't you say, "Well, dogs do. That is my proof."

Likewise, some people respond to God, have experiences of God. Some do not, and have no sense of a relationship at all. Is this proof that no one senses/observes God? Or does proof of God work much the same as a dog whistle: The frequency is such that some people can hear and respond to God; some cannot.

As you know, I agree with another poster who notes "need" doesn't enter into the equation. Just as a dog responds to what it hears, so do people of faith/belief.

I don't see how a physical limitation that people have no control over equates to belief without proof. We have instruments that can register both light and sounds that humans are incapable of seeing or hearing which is how we know those things we mere humans cannot detect with our own limited senses.

And when you can detect that god "frequency" and can prove it exists you let me know.

 

[Meriweather]

And when you can detect that god "frequency" and can prove it exists you let me know.

Re-read what I wrote. It is already proven. Canine's react to to a whistle at a certain frequency. We don't. The reaction is proof. Some react to God, some don't. The reaction is the proof.

 

[Meriweather]

We have instruments

We do not have instruments capable of measuring everything. That lack does not prove "non-existence".

 

[Blues Man]

Re-read what I wrote. It is already proven. Canine's react to to a whistle at a certain frequency. We don't. The reaction is proof. Some react to God, some don't. The reaction is the proof.

We can detect those dog whistle frequencies with audio equipment even if we can't hear them.

So tell me what part of the human sensory system picks up the god "frequency"?

 

[Blues Man]

We do not have instruments capable of measuring everything. That lack does not prove "non-existence".

You are the one comparing gods to a frequency not me.

But tell me if some people can't hear this "frequency" and some can how can you claim that anyone can find a god if they want to?

 

[Meriweather]

You are the one comparing gods to a frequency not me.

But tell me if some people can't hear this "frequency" and some can how can you claim that anyone can find a god if they want to?

I am noting that more than one of us have noted a relationship with God, that you dismiss. More than one of us have brought up what people have observed. You dismiss that as well. What we are saying is that we have experienced something from what we call the spiritual realm. Instead of listening, you dismiss it out of hand. After all, it never happened to you so certainly it could not have happened to anyone else?

 

[Hollie]

Re-read what I wrote. It is already proven. Canine's react to to a whistle at a certain frequency. We don't. The reaction is proof. Some react to God, some don't. The reaction is the proof.

Perhaps we could stop the madness with gods and dog whistles. The transmission of sound pressures and frequency through an atmosphere is well understood. Did you know sound doesn't exist in a vacuum? If gods are speaking to you through some magical form of communication not involving Earth's atmosphere, that's fine. But, if you're hearing a god, why isn't everyone around you hearing the voice?

Why do people in different geographic regions / cultures hear different gods?

 

[Meriweather]

Perhaps we could stop the madness

I am certain you understand the analogy and the point.

 

[Hollie]

I am certain you understand the analogy and the point.

An analogy typically has some rational nexus.

 

[Meriweather]

An analogy typically has some rational nexus.

You have enough rationality to understand the point.

 

[Hollie]

You have enough rationality to understand the point.

There was no rational point. Natural vs. supernatural. I would have thought you had enough rationality to realize that attempting to make an analogy between natural, well documented physical features vs. supernaturalism is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Meriweather]

There was no rational point.

There is no point continuing this. The OP asked a question. People have explained "need" doesn't enter into it. People have explained the relationship aspect of it. It is unfortunate some cannot grasp or even fathom what is being conveyed, that it is beyond their ken. That is the reality.

 

[Hollie]

There is no point continuing this. The OP asked a question. People have explained "need" doesn't enter into it. People have explained the relationship aspect of it. It is unfortunate some cannot grasp or even fathom what is being conveyed, that it is beyond their ken. That is the reality.

No need to get angry and emotive.

Some cannot grasp the absurdity of attempts at analogy between completely natural, rational concepts and claimed supernatural communications.

Dog whistles and gods. Sheesh.

 

[Meriweather]

No need to get angry and emotive.

I am neither, merely matter-of-fact. So, no need to judge or imagine.

 

[Hollie]

I am neither, merely matter-of-fact. So, no need to judge or imagine.

".... It is unfortunate some cannot grasp or even fathom what is being conveyed, that it is beyond their ken. That is the reality."

But... but.... but.... who's judging or imagining?