Without God...

I don't know, it'd make me perk up and want to hear.

 

And claims that are extraordinary should require extraordinary proof. With religion this is certainly not the case proving the big lie theory, i.e., the bigger the lie, the less prove is required. If the lie is a supernatural claim, then apparently no pruth is required.

 

And how do you explain that speaking, loving, being sad, etc. are functions that can be dramatically impacted by brain damage, or chemicals/drugs that impact brain activity? Does that fact not suggest that these functions are caused by brain activity and not some soul or spirit? Is not what you claim to be a self evident supernatural reality the result of some indoctrination by a religion or exposure to claims made by some religion? Because if it was, than the claim of "self evident" is not exactly true.

More and more it is being demonstrated by science that emotions, rewards, and contentment are a function of dopamine, serotonin, and receptors in the brain for these neurotransmitters. Religion creates a release of serotonin, as do claims of a "self evident" supernatural reality.

https://www.catholiceducation.org/e...fore-brainsoothing-god-created-serotonin.html

According to authors Lionel Tiger, an anthropologist, and Michael McGuire, a psychiatrist, human beings invented God long ago as a way of soothing themselves, given the troubling realization that one day they will die. Death, it seems, is too horrible to bear. In self-defense, man created God, together with the comforting thought of an afterlife and religious stories that explained life and the surrounding world.

These consoling myths release serotonin, a brain chemical that acts as a natural stress reliever. The prospect of death gives us "brainpain," which serotonin alleviates by "brainsoothing." Thus the brain creates God and religion, and then feeds on its creation to offer comfort.

 

They say god, but there have been 1000s of gods of men on earth.
And of all those gods man has/had, no one in history of mankind ever proved any god is the god. Just one they happen to believe.

Just like people believe in Santa. Or leprechauns.

 

I believe all religions start out as cults with a cult leader and a few followers. Some progress to the next stage becoming an established religion and outliving the cult founder.

As far as proof of claims, It all comes down to circular logic using often anonymous scripture, annecdotal stories, a claim to talk to God, or a claim to have intuative knowledge. And when science contradicts scripture people who never took a science class in their life will often proceed to explain how science with respect to genetics, evolution, radiometric dating, geology, paleontology, astrophysics, etc. are BS.

 

Yes, nobody wants to do any of that to the police.

And, NO society condones killing officials, so claiming that came from YOUR god is nonsense.

 

What is the purpose of religion in people's lives?


Religion ideally serves several functions. It gives meaning and purpose to life, reinforces social unity and stability, serves as an agent of social control, promotes psychological and physical well-being, and may motivate people to work for positive social change.

Sociological Perspectives on Religion – Introduction to Sociology
https://pressbooks.howardcc.edu › soci101 › chapter › 17...

 

Cool so we can have religion in a pill?

religions start out as an answer.

science makes a lot of mistakes and like religion in many cases is subjective to methodology.

 

Who was sitting outside the capitol building with a scaffold threatening to hang the Vice President for upholding his oath to the constitution.

There were a lot of Republicans who resigned from working for Trump that day because what happened was wrong, but you can’t honestly claim that murderous intentions only dwell in the hearts of Democrats.

It took a lot of fake media and lies to make January 6 happen. You can’t claim Republicans are not the flip side of the same coin.

 

Science strives to correct mistakes. As new knowledge becomes available, scientific theories evolve. Science is based on proof of claims. Science never makes any absolute claims, e.g., which is why we have a theory of gravity, a germ theory, etc. Yes, Science is subject to a methodology, i.e., the scientific method. But science is not subjective, it is objective. Religion provides no proof of their claims and never evolves. The idea that Bronze Age goat herders had a knowledge of the supernatural God that created everything and interacted with them, but could not enlighten them as to things like the germ theory should give people pause as to the claims of religion. Think about how the Black Plague that swept Europe and Asia in the 1300s causing massive death and suffering might have played out if a supernatural God had enlightened people to the simple fact that germs cause disease.

I agree with you that religion provides a lot of social benefits, but is it a positive thing to suspend critical thinking to gain these benefits? I would say to some degree religion is not a positive thing, because when religion and sicnce conflict believers deny science, and science is something that has provided real benefits to all of us. Religion allows a lot of people to be conned out of their money. Religion causes people not to prepare for their future believing God will provide. Religion causes people to be passive about bad things proclaiming those things to be "God's will." For example, many people avoid medical treatment for cancer and the like based on their religion. Religion causes people to behave badly towards other humans, and then at the last minute say "I believe in Jesus" or the like and be saved. Religion causes Crusades and Jihads directing extreme violence against non-believers. Or attack and massacre a wagon train of immigrants (Mormon Mountain Meadow massacre. Or to take another example, the modern day attempts by Scientologists to frame critical journalists in fabricated crimes, etc. Then of course, there is the fact that practitioners of religions want their brainwashing brought into the public school systems, legislated into law, etc.

And no, we cannot really have religion in a pill. So maybe people should just accept that they are going to die, their family members are going to die, there is no magic man in the sky who will to cure brain cancer, or find lost car keys, etc. -- and deal with it.

Recommended reading.

 

A vehicles purpose is not in the vehicle, but in the operator. So if it malfunctions, it is no reflection on the operator, neither does it give purpose unto itself. If the brakes fail, it doesn't mean that the brakes decide when or not to apply.

As for fear of death... that has not been my experience or anyone I'm aware of, though it may be for some. I found God (that sounds hokey) or he me, while searching for a solution to an intellectual/psychological/spiritual issue I was having, and which was negatively impacting my life. It had nothing to do with fear of dying. Neither was I even searching for God or salvation or anything of a divine or religious nature. That was the last thing on my radar. I was not religious in any sense. I just wanted to fix my issue so I could get back to my life, not complicate my life even further with concerns about the eternal welfare of my soul.

But it went down how it went down. My conversion came by way of the intercession of Gods spirit. Not by scriptures, or hearing or reading or reasoning or convincing or by any physical means whatsoever. Neither was I flung into rapturous madness. But rather overshadowed and known and called to a most sober appointment by our living and divine God. There is no empirical evidence for something of a spiritual nature. And I don't know why God seems to hide and work thru his spirit. But I trust it to a good cause, that there is more to Gods purposes than only me and what I think.

As for the serotonin/fear of death theory. It is as likely a theory concocted for self insulation, a self imposed prison for a myriad of reasons as varied as its adherents, moreso than it is an accurate measure of those like myself. And it seems to me that the more one labors to empirically prove the theory's validity, the stronger the prison it becomes to its adherents than it is a key to those already made free by God.

 

I dont have an issue with religion and science being in conflict, they are entirely different systems of 'measurement' which can be used on the same or overlapping subject matters, my yield both different or the same answers.

Before science there is religion. "thou shalt not eat pork".

The only thing the people knew was that eating pork was killing them regardless how foolish the 'then reasoning' may have been.

Science comes around in this case and says oh yeh pork can carry trichinae and its the trichinae in the pork that is killing people.

In this case science has proven that the 'beliefs' which is the foundation of all 'religions' (both secular and nonsecular) are correct. Science has also proven that there is another solution, that well cooked pork wont make you sick.

That said people often to hold to familiar historical tradition, since it is after all part of their heritage and identity.

The problem you are running into here is the traditional use of the word religion is not in context since the version most people defer to is deity worship. That is a very narrow definition of religion and does not accurately represent the substance to the question 'what is religion'.

Religion is your set of beliefs that you govern yourself with. Before it was science not eating pork was strictly a religious belief.

Im agnostic, my religion said "HELL TO THE NO" for that fake vaccine the guv was pushing not a guinea pig here! My beliefs, my religion.

So now we compare science above to religion below:




science does not assign value, it just provides data, religion on the other hand is 'evaluative' and assigns a value which is why people go to war over something unseen, maybe beliefs are not seen, yet a belief is in fact understood.

Its not religion that is the problem here, it is the "contents" of any given religion (belief system) that conflicts with the contents of some other belief system, does not matter to people if the measurement systems can be rationally compared, both sides dig in their heels and claim their belief system (religion) is the best and most correct.

Books like that on either side of the coin launch from a faulty premise and for all intents and purposes do not serve to promote understanding of the macro system.

your religion is what ties your beliefs to your actions, or that is what religion is intended to do. your beliefs are the content of your relsigion

 

Conscience=Morality=God
Or
Democrat Politicians=Anarchy=Lawlessness=Destroying Innocence.

 

God and consciousness are the only ones compatible with the quoted statement of mine. What I refer to is in a spiritual sense.

 

I'm more spiritual, than religious. I've studied religions, and spirituality, since I was 15, as a theologist.

 

I am too. As I grew up in a Roman Catholic family. 20 years ago I learnt of the sh!t that religion did and does and excommunicated myself from it.

 

I mean, even though I grew up in Luthern and Presbertyrian and Baptist Churches, and saw a lot of their hypocrisy, it is people who are the sinners. A church doesn't make a believer of God, the person, and thee people do.

Church can be good for children, in the aspect of, there are a lot worse places out there to grow up in, and too many temptations out there. So when my stepchildren were in my life, I signed the permission form for them to go to wednesday nights, and over the summer to vacation bible school.

there are some really good churches out there though.

I simply, try and practice what I preach. No matter if it's with politics or anything, and that is why I'm against hunting animals for sport, and against the death penalty. They go aginst my beliefs, and I don't care, if they go against most of what the Republican party says or not. I will not follow my party blindly, like so many people do, on both sides of the political spectrum.


Besides, I've been on the middle of things, most of my life, and am use to being Judged.

It's where I feel the most comfortable with people, because that way, I know where I stand with them.

 

Says you.

I reject your god, and ALL gods.

I have plenty of purpose to my life, and who are you to tell me otherwise?

Get lost.

 

I came across an article on Jesus's teachings and writings. One I found very interesting was that Jesus said, "not to create religions in my father's name. As it will corrupt the religious leaders and they will mislead their followers."

 

And the source for that was . . . ?

 

This was around 15 years ago. If I find it again, I will gladly post it for you.

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 23&version=NLT

 

God is love.

Love is blind.

Stevie Wonder is blind,

Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
*********************************

Humbly tendered as a gift to mankind,

Patricio Da Silva

 

The Christian's notion of 'God' is a half - baked solution. The Christian mind finds the notion of existence without a creator unsettling. So, to calm this unsettled Christian mind, they manufacture a 'God', as the solution. But, it's a half-baked solution. Why? Well, to assert that existence was created by a God, that's only half the solution, because to so assert begs the other question, 'who created God' and why did He get that job? to that question they just shrug their shoulders. Well, to me, either your solution begs no further questions, or you don't have a good solution. My thinking goes like this.:

Nature is supreme. In nature, there isn't one of anything in any category. There isn't one rock, one fly, one horse, one planet, and probably not one planet with intelligent life. IF there is a God, then, logically, there are many. However, Christian's argue that God is above nature. I don't subscribe to that theory. In my pantheon, God IS nature, they are one and the same. This is the essence of pantheism. Since, in my belief system, nature is infinite, then it is infinity that is God, a concept which exists in the abstract. so God, infinity, nature are all the same abstractions. It's like mathematics, which is a real thing, but it's domain is the abstract.

As for 'purpose', such a thing is a human construct, for outside of the human mind, purpose does not exist, and thus, if purpose doesn't exist for all things, then it exists for no things, given it's an artifice of man. Therefore, in ultimate terms, life has no purpose, it just is and the reason it is is that it can't be any other way. For, if it could, it would, and it's not.

So, if you want to banter about on such lofty thoughts as 'purpose' or 'meaning of life', such things arise out of man's imagination. Just make something up, call it your purpose, and you are good to go.

My 'purpose' is to create music and to find enlightenment.

What's yours?

Oh, and by the way, one doesn't need to believe in anything to be good, moral, decent. Moreover, history is replete with criminality/oppression/supression/ etc., by those who 'believe in God'. Believing in God is not assurance of anything whatsoever, it certainly doesn't protect you from evil, just look at what happened to those nuns, way back when, who were killed in El Salvador. In my book, any man who would allow himself to get crucified in order to 'die for the sins of others' (wtf?) isn't exactly the paragon of wisdom. Such a man is the last person on earth I would entrust my spirituality to. Siddhartha, now there's someone to believe in, or Lao Tzu, or Chuang Tzu, these are men I would favor for spiritual wisdom.

 

Most of your post is certainly true. I also wondered how people claiming everything needs to have a creator, somehow exempt thier God from this requirement.

However, If "spirituality" means a connection of any sort to a supernatural reality, it is a much BS as any diety worship. The Siddhartha concept of somehow pulling enlightenment out of a self induced state of sensory deprivation (meditation) has to be BS, because the results of meditation cannot be any different that the sesults of the experiments conducted by Hebbs in 1957.

The reality, is all of us humans have a verylow tolerance for ambiguity. Religion, claiming to be spiritual, etc. fills a vacumm.


https://ahrp.org/dr-donald-hebbs-se...h-opened-a-tidal-wave-of-similar-experiments/