A point of view

No, you say god exists, others say god exists. Maybe god has said something to you but I have never heard anything from god and I don't believe. If I don't believe in god then I have no disagreement with god.

Last time I saw my aunt in the home where she now lives she said she was the Queen of England.

So you are saying that god believes I am dishonest? As this is your god do you agree?
I don't, as I don't believe in your god or any other god for that matter.

Nothing personal. I have no problem if you want to believe.

 

God's existence doesn't depend on your belief.
I believe you are mistaken not dishonest.

 

Then you have superficially plausible deniability, so party on, I guess.

There's no way for anyone to disagree with God without looking really stupid, so again your self-esteem is relatively secure for the time being.

 

es

God could change many minds if he would just make a personal appearance with a miracle or two. Like making the sun reverse its course for a few hours. As he told everyone to grab their phones and film it.

Then the only people who would deny its existence would be mentally ill.

He must not want many people to believe he exists? I dont think this is too much to ask since criminals use invisible god principle to separate people from their money.

 

Perhaps that is not so much what He is particularly interested in changing.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that the only people who deny His existence are mentally ill.

You think the devil doesn't believe God exists?

 

this is true...and yet DESPITE Buddha telling folk not to worship him as a type of deity....people do. But for the very reason you put forth here, many people follow the teachings. I always found that interesting.

 

Again, you have socialist countries that have card carrying atheists living there....along with christians, jews, etc., etc. The stipulation being that there is NO dominant religious (or non-religious) doctrine running the government. That is a matter of fact, a matter of history. The despotic regimes you mention incorporated a forced suppression/elimination of religion, as they saw any organization outside state dictum as a threat. Atheism was not a shield from the iron heel, as many defectors from the old Soviet Union, China and North Korea will tell you. And socialism is Not communism, nor is it a prelude.

 

Okay, but what's your point?

 

Here's the first exchange: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/a-point-of-view.565068/page-2#post-1071279812

As the reader can clearly see, yguy isn't really interested in a debate, but rather a childish retort on his part. Note how he leaves out parts of my previous posts in order to make his blather seem more palatable. When he justifies the death of children by divine "collateral damage", he just assumes they deserved it. Really? toddlers? 1st graders? Then he just blows off the atrocities done to Native people all over the world as Christianity rode the imperialistic armies of Europe.

What type of sick, zealot mindset is that? This is why I had yguy on IA, because he clearly does not have the mental/emotional maturity to honestly debate a subject. I thought he would grow up...clearly he hasn't, so back into the dumpster with him.​

 

That I'm answering you honestly, as I am with other responders. I have to gauge my own preconceived notions with the reality of what people are telling me in relation to how that belief plays out in real life.

 

Why did you choose honesty as a token of reliability? A religious person telling you that sinners will burn in hell is as honest as an atheist telling you hell doesn't exist. An honest person will always tell the truth as that person sees it, but that truth is only the person's opinion. "Objective observer" would make more sense.

 

Merry Christmas to you and yours!

 

Very simply...that history is full of people who were openly accepted & embraced (ie, deemed "sane") by the populace and considered to be the vanguards of knowledge (ie, "honest observers") and even wisdom...but who turn out to be some of the staunchest opponents to a paradigm shift in thinking.

I see this even today in the hallowed institutions we call Universities...particularly among members of the scientific community.

 

Okay, but remember that belief in a prophet or religious leader sometimes requires near blind obedience...that negates the follower/parishioner from being an honest observer.

 

But when you observe the words/teachings of the aforementioned in relation to the rest of the world and daily reality, you must be honest in your assessment. Six and one, half a dozen of the other...as the saying goes.

 

Today, certain scientists, professors & other academicians have taken on rock star/celebrity status...and treated not much differently than the prophets/religious leaders of old (and still today) ----- with awe, admiration, devotion, and often a blind acceptance to their claims & opinions.

In many ways, science seems to have become the new religion...particularly when objective data is cleverly twisted in such a manner that it does not violate the prevailing (subjective) paradigm.

 

The results of science are not accepted blindly. They undergo constant testing and review on a continuing basis. They are cross checked with results obtained from different approaches. Those involved have had decades of training and experience.

What's astonishing to me is the degree to which the results of those who study a toopic for many years are tossed out or even ridiculed by those who have never spent a waking minute considering the topic seriously - those who don't know the evidence, the math or the physics.

Today there is a strongly active cult opposed to the very idea of expert opinion. If you want to know about now some aspect of nature works, they would suggest you ignore science and listen to a politician - or a conspiracy theorist.

 

I don't dispute scientific expertise when it comes to mathematical and engineering principles & applications...which is what you're speaking of.

However, a problem arises when these scientists venture beyond THEIR own expertise, experience, and knowledge into areas that THEIR analytical methods cannot adequately explain away in scientifically mundane terms. I'm speaking, of course, about areas relating to the so-called 'supernatural' and 'paranormal'...including the Achilles' heel of mainstream science ----- consciousness.

 

Well, I'm not saying anything about engineering other than that science is constrained to observation, and so tools created by engineering are often required for observation - thermometers, drills, particle colliders, telescopes, etc.

Theories of conscience - cool topic. My view is certainly not complete, but at least it's clear that ALL our decisions are made by the physical capacity of the brain to make calculations based on memory and physical senses alone. And, that includes our own consciousness. Our brains are incredible meat computers.

So, while the paranormal and supernatural are clearly outside science since it isn't testable, science has a lot to say about brains.

 

What we call 'physical' processes of the brain represents only what is detectable. It tells us little to nothing about the underlying, undetectable processes that lead to observable neuro-biochemical events. There's no scientific basis for understanding the means by which biochemical/bio-electrical processes either emerge from or lead to thought or consciousness. We know that non-external, non-physical stimuli such as thoughts, dreams, meditation, and memories directly influence biochemical events in the body.

Consciousness is not 'thought' per se, but awareness. And awareness of our awareness is what we call self-awareness. There seems to a mysterious 'observer' that silently & impartially watches every experience we have, but seems indifferent to the whims of the ego-mind and our fleeting thoughts.

I think scientists have more to say than what their actual science reveals to them. There are a lot of holes they're filling in with theory & opinion as they stubbornly cling to processes that can be measured in a lab setting, rather than acknowledge that it is consciousness that lies at the heart of our so-called 'material' reality. But there's a growing number of scientists/researchers, more open-minded to non-material & parapsychological experiences, that have been conducting research allowing for alternative forms of data.