Zone1 Why do you need gods?

[Blues Man]

They are searching for the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything.

But the answer given by religions is basically "a god did it" so there really is nothing to understand.

 

[Blues Man]

I dunno but continuing to vote "D" is not helping you.

How do you know who I vote for?

 

[Blues Man]

It makes no difference to me if you're an atheist, or agnostic.
Not sure why people get upset over Christians beliefs or any other religious beliefs.

Why do you assume the question implies I am upset?

It is just a question on the nature of humans

 

[.oldschool]

The Eleusinian Mysteries: The Rites of Demeter

The Rites of Eleusis, or the Eleusinian Mysteries, were the secret rituals of the mystery school of Eleusis and were observed regularly from c. 1600 BCE - 392 CE. Exactly what this mystic ritual was...

www.worldhistory.org

 

[Meister]

Why do you assume the question implies I am upset?

I wasn't, I was referring to Synth's remark that Christianity is a mental disease.
And others do the same type of posting. Your OP is benign in the scheme of things.

 

[Mac-7]

Gods and religions provide strength, comfort, guidance and answers. So man has maintained about 2,500 of them over time.

Unfortunately, a lot of bad comes from (a) organized religions and (b) people who pervert the religion to match their own agenda.

Religion ends up being warped and wrecked by politics, ego, hate, lust and greed. As we see on a pretty freakin' regular basis.

If libs think its bad with religion they (you) aint seen nothin yet

Humans are capable of much worse than we’ve seen so far

But in a totally lib - aka Godless - society we will see it

 

[Clyde 154]

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 ...

Yet "science" can't explain the origins of our physical existence except by telling our children "fairy tales" about a self creating universe that magically created itself from nothing. When you used the word science you forgot add the qualifier to the descriptive NEW.......... its spelled "PSEUDO".

What some are calling "science" today is nothing but PHILOSOPHY (idea's existing only within the mind of men) dressed as science. Today, Theory, Conjecture, Speculation, Hypothesis, and Assumptions are presented as scientific truth when in reality these supposed truths/facts do not contain the observed, reproducible, consistent evidences derived by application of the laws of physics to be called LAWS of SCIENCE.

Example. Ask a supposed modern scientists to date the age of the earth. He/she will quickly declare the earth to be 4.5 Billion years old. When that same question was asked just 50 years ago our children were taught as truth...........the age of the earth was slightly over 3 billion years old........thus the earth has agged over 1 billion years in 50 years.

Another example. Ask a modern scientists if the fossils found that represents large creatures known as dinosaurs are warm blooded or cold blooded.........that is a truth that can't be agreed upon by the philosophers pretending to be scientists. At first these animals were cold blooded, they were reptiles by nature......then someone got an idea that birds must have evolved from dinosaurs......and they became warm blooded or a new type of creature that is both warm and cold blooded.

Notice how your own government uses the word THINK to attempt to tell you a fact/truth? What is thinking? Its an idea contained only in the mind.

www.usgs.gov/faq/were-dinosaurs-warm-blooded-or-cold-blooded

 

[ReinyDays]

What some are calling "science" today is nothing but PHILOSOPHY (idea's existing only within the mind of men) dressed as science. Today, Theory, Conjecture, Speculation, Hypothesis, and Assumptions are presented as scientific truth when in reality these supposed truths/facts do not contain the observed, reproducible, consistent evidences derived by application of the laws of physics to be called LAWS of SCIENCE.

That's an interesting philosophy you've presented ... you've left no room for falsification, so it's not science ...

Newton's Law of Gravity fits the bill here ... it's a theory, and conjecture, and speculation, and a hypothesis ... but moist important, it is an ASSUMPTION ... let's look at our logical statement now: IF (Newton's Gravity), THEN ( Rigid proof of Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion) ... this is useful in spite it being based on assumption ...

Not only CAN we falsify Newton's Gravity ... we actually have ... with Einstein's field equations ... but it's still good science ... very useful, but ... sadly ... the fact is gravity doesn't exist ... it's a pseudo-force ... strictly an artifact of our frame-of-reference ...

Does that make gravity any less useful? ... I asked a zoologist about it, she bitch-slapped me ... so that's a no ...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why do people have a need to believe in gods?

God created this Earth, and everything on it, including us.

Without God, none of us would exist at all.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So people who do not believe what you do are fools?

People who deny God certainly are fools. That's pretty much the pinnacle of human folly.

 

[SweetSue92]

Why do people have a need to believe in gods?

Because Something does not come from Nothing

 

[Blues Man]

God created this Earth, and everything on it, including us.

Without God, none of us would exist at all.

That is an opinion and there is no real proof of it.

 

[Blues Man]

People who deny God certainly are fools. That's pretty much the pinnacle of human folly.

I don;t deny that there might be gods

There really is no evidence either way.

IMO if gods do exist I do not believe the god in the bible, the Torah or the Koran, and they are all different gods, are among them

Even if today at 9 AM I was given irrefutable proof that gods exist I still would not worship them because I do pot believe that any all powerful being should have the need to be worshiped

 

[Blues Man]

Because Something does not come from Nothing

Not what physicists say.

The fact of the matter is we do not know what happened the nanosecond before the universe came to be so we really don;t know if nothing existed before it.

 

[ding]

This assumes the existence of an ultimate power.

It's not a coincidence the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.

 

[ding]

Why do people have a need to believe in gods?

The data overwhelmingly shows that man is a spiritual being. It is for good reason that David Foster Wallace said that we all worship something and the only choice in the matter is what we choose to worship. We are literally hardwired for it. Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. When we look at the data today we see that more and more people are rejecting organized religion but have not abandoned their belief that they are more than just matter or that there is a force which connects or binds us all. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that spirituality offers a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that spirituality is a behavior which leads to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, it would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic we became the less satisfied we became.

 

[ReinyDays]

People who deny God certainly are fools. That's pretty much the pinnacle of human folly.

We use God to define good and evil in terms of the community ...

We can assume that families that work well together produce more children that grow up and have children themselves ... evolution has no other consideration ... read the Sermon on the Mount and you'll see how important working together is for the average Christian ... the Bible prohibits birth control according to Pope Francis ... [shrugs shoulders] ... so Darwin himself had eight seven of the little darlings ...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why do people have a need to believe in gods?

Fear of death, for the most part – humans are unique in that they’re aware of their own mortality; humans contrived religion, and latter gods, in an effort to assuage that fear, such as the notion of an ‘afterlife.’

With the advent of civilization, humans used religion – its inherent fear and authority – to control populations, oppose political opponents, and to compel conformity.

 

[there4eyeM]

Every human consciousness emerges from a mind born into an unknown world. It has no references, no ability to understand, just feelings, some instincts and needs. When it is uncomfortable, it cries out into its surroundings and usually someone does something that helps. As consciousness and understanding increase, this mind begins to see mother and father and perhaps some others who come to its aid when it expresses need.
It isn't much of a jump for that mind to continue the tendency to address feelings of need to the surrounding universe. This is re-enforced by its society that has already arrived at a similar response and built up practices and explanations.
All of this takes place in humans because of how the brain develops and how we can only exist as social animals. Deity may or may not exist, yet this would still be the case. What few people seem to explore is the evident logic of what "God" would necessarily have to be; i.e., far beyond human comprehension.
With what we now know of the immensity of the universe and the complexity of its processes, all the earthly models of "God" fail to give any more than the vaguest suggestion of what "Divinity" would truly mean. The childish image most hold corresponds more to a Santa Claus than t creator of all and everything.

 

[Clyde 154]

That's an interesting philosophy you've presented ... you've left no room for falsification, so it's not science ...

Newton's Law of Gravity fits the bill here ... it's a theory, and conjecture, and speculation, and a hypothesis ... but moist important, it is an ASSUMPTION ... let's look at our logical statement now: IF (Newton's Gravity), THEN ( Rigid proof of Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion) ... this is useful in spite it being based on assumption ...

Not only CAN we falsify Newton's Gravity ... we actually have ... with Einstein's field equations ... but it's still good science ... very useful, but ... sadly ... the fact is gravity doesn't exist ... it's a pseudo-force ... strictly an artifact of our frame-of-reference ...

Does that make gravity any less useful? ... I asked a zoologist about it, she bitch-slapped me ... so that's a no ...

Science is a creation of man and its been proved WRONG (falsified) more than its been validated by proving facts through experimentation known as the Scientific Method. You can falsify the creation model anytime you wish using the scientific method......if you can present the observable, reproducible, consistent evidences required by the scientific method.

The law of the excluded middle: look it up. Nothing can be truth and false. Its either true and its negate false or the inversion. Its called using logic and reason to determine truth based upon the prima facie and inspite of what you are attempting to suggest, PRIMA FACIE evidences stand as truth until YOU prove them wrong (falsify) those evidences via a presentation of objective facts in evidence. I can understand why........you declare there is no room for falsification. Truth is never subject to falsification.

You have just attempted to use "phychological projection" and invert reality. Its you that is not capable of Falsifying the creation model, while Evolution has never been subject to verification via the scientific method, i.e., proven to be a fact of science. THERE IS NO LAW OF EVOLUVTION.

Don't agree with me? How about Carl Sagan. Quote -- "Science thrives on errors.....cutting them away one by one. False conclusions are drawn all the time, but they are drawn "tentatively" (not final). HYPOTHESIS ARE FRAMED SO THEY CAN OF BEING DISPROVED.......science gropes and staggers toward understanding." -- Carl Sagan

In other words Mr. Sagan is concluding that Science does not have the truth at this moment and it may never have the truth in the future (due to a lack of evidences) but men BELIEVE (faith) they're getting closer to the truth all the time, and what we know now at this moment in time can be projected to be a constant in both directions, eons past and eons yet to come.....until PROVEN WRONG it stands as truth.....until a better truth comes along.

Truth does not evolve. Societies evolve, governments evolve, men's thinking might evolve......but truth does not evolve or it was never truth. Its based upon the faith that evidence will one day prove what you believe to be true is just around the corner.

Pasteur's experiment has been in existence since the 19th century and its never been falsified........not because there is no room for falsification but because there is no evidences in fact to falsify Mr. Pasteur.

ABIOGENSIS: CRY FOUL, NO FAIR and attempt to distance yourself from Darwin's idea that life began as pond scum and eventually evolved into men.

But that does not involve truth in the least, as the Scientific Method has proven time and time again....the Universe is in a constant state of flux, changing, expanding, using up the finite amount of energy that consists within all closed systems, eventually exhausting itself (dying) from age. Just as God has informed us........all physical things are created with an expriation date and we know the Universe is not eternal (by application of the very laws that govern it).........thus the philosophy about multiple universes which simply kicks the can down the street.....at some point there must have been a First that still can't explain its own existence.


No room for falsifaction? There have been no experiments attempting to create life from non living matter using the "scientitifc method? You have just presented a FALLACY. Louis Pasteur "falsified" the supposed theory of abiogensis in the 19th century. Any way you slice it........Darwin suggested that life came from pond scum exposed to nature in just the right conditions eons ago. There have been many ATTEMPTS to reproduce living cells from non-living cells........using the scientific method, all have been falsified.

Life evolving from dead non living matter is the fundamental and basic tentent of naturalism...i.e., the theory of evolution

Another example of falsification would be Stephen Hawing........who suggested that the Universe created itself from nothing using the laws of gravity. Reality: Gravity is something rather than nothing and it is subject to Quantifiation (measurment) because of its observable potential and the effects thereof. Where did the Law of Gravity come from?

If you want to deal in facts and truth..........try using APPLIED SCIENCE instead of the philsophy laced Theroretical Sciences that exist only in the confines of the human mind. There is something wrong when a theory does not allow for the possiblity of falsification...........AS YOU JUST DEMONSTRATED. What do you have or the PSEUDO'S have to hide? Perhaps its the addiction to the billions of dollars in government grants that makes theory a for profit industry instead of a SCIENCE which accepts all challenges.