Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Derideo_Te]

Well, the thread would be short if we eliminated all the superfluous commentary, denigration of religion, insults and adhoms toward the thread author, and attempts to derail the topic.

We're not like the monkeys, Joe, that's the whole point here. We possess an attribute the monkeys never will have, the ability to make a spiritual connection to something greater than self. It's not the product of evolution, nothing else in nature does it.

Proof is whatever an individual acknowledges as proof, it is entirely subjective. Those who refuse to accept spiritual evidence, can find no proof... ever. While those who are able to accept spiritual nature, will argue there is overwhelming proof. So it becomes a matter of perception, and the answer is dependent upon whether you accept spiritual evidence. Logic dictates, if we are trying to prove a spiritual entity, we must examine spiritual evidence, just the same as proving a physical entity with physical evidence. But someone who rejects spiritual evidence is the same as someone who rejects physical evidence, trying to prove something physical, it is futile, the mind is closed to that possibility.

"While those who are able to accept spiritual nature, will argue there is overwhelming proof" is just utter nonsense. Spirituality exists because it is a state of mind that can be physically measured and anyone can train their mind to reach this state. Simply because spirituality exists does NOT mean that it is "overwhelming proof" of anything BUT a state of mind. It is completely fallacious to presume that those who reject your bogus "spiritual evidence" are rejecting the factual, provable physical reality of spirituality. So your entire premise is based upon YOUR erroneous ASSUMPTION that there is a "black & white divide over spirituality" itself.

Furthermore your ASSUMPTION that only humankind has any "spirituality" is unproven. Elephants visit the bones of their dead and are obviously making a "connection" of some sort. A pride of lions was filmed paying their last respects to a deceased family member. Endless examples of family pets mourning the loss of their owners and/or other pets abound. Simply because they don't go around preaching and singing hymns and conducting elaborate burial routines does not mean that they are bereft of all spirituality. It is simply arrogance on your behalf to ASSUME that only mankind has this imaginary "spiritual connection". There is plenty of what YOU term "spiritual evidence" to indicate that spirituality exists in the animal kingdom. Of course none of them have ever heard of religion or gods or any other superstitious nonsense. Instead they simply go about their lives killing or being killed as the case may be without "worshiping" any imaginary "creator".

Animals demonstrate emotions of anger, love, affection, etc and have the means to communicate amongst themselves using more highly tuned senses like smell. Under your inane misunderstanding of Darwin mankind should no longer have any sense of smell at all since it is no longer vital to our survival and yet it still persists. The spiritual state of mind serves a purpose to enable us to handle events such as the loss of someone near and dear. That it has been perverted by religion to control people like you does not mean that it is "evidence" of anything else. Your reproductive instincts have been perverted by advertisers to sell you vehicles.

To summarize; spirituality exists, can be physically measured and serves a useful purpose in allowing us to cope with traumatic events in our lives. It is NOT evidence of anything imaginary no matter how much self deception is employed.

The behavior of animals is difficult to use as demonstrations of anything since we do not know what they are thinking. Is the elephant going to the bones of dead elephants in respect of the dead or to get resources located at the place the elephant happened to die, but we project a human motivation not understanding what they gain being at that place? Are the lions mourning their dead or verifying in a simple way if the lion is still unresponsive?

Anthropomorphism is something that spiritualists seem to ignore when making their observations of human like behavior among animals.

You are correct in that we don't know exactly what they are thinking and that we tend to anthropomorphize animal behavior. What we know for facts are that mammals share common behavior patterns such as child rearing. A mother will protect it's child regardless as to whether it is a bear or a human. The emotional bonds that exist between humans are the same as those in other animals probably because they stem from the same survival impulses.

NATURE . Unforgettable Elephants . Elephant Emotions | PBS

Animals and Human Experience the Same Emotions

How Animal and Human Emotions Are Different | Animal Emotions & Human Feelings | Human Brain | LiveScience

 

[JimBowie1958]

"While those who are able to accept spiritual nature, will argue there is overwhelming proof" is just utter nonsense. Spirituality exists because it is a state of mind that can be physically measured and anyone can train their mind to reach this state. Simply because spirituality exists does NOT mean that it is "overwhelming proof" of anything BUT a state of mind. It is completely fallacious to presume that those who reject your bogus "spiritual evidence" are rejecting the factual, provable physical reality of spirituality. So your entire premise is based upon YOUR erroneous ASSUMPTION that there is a "black & white divide over spirituality" itself.

Furthermore your ASSUMPTION that only humankind has any "spirituality" is unproven. Elephants visit the bones of their dead and are obviously making a "connection" of some sort. A pride of lions was filmed paying their last respects to a deceased family member. Endless examples of family pets mourning the loss of their owners and/or other pets abound. Simply because they don't go around preaching and singing hymns and conducting elaborate burial routines does not mean that they are bereft of all spirituality. It is simply arrogance on your behalf to ASSUME that only mankind has this imaginary "spiritual connection". There is plenty of what YOU term "spiritual evidence" to indicate that spirituality exists in the animal kingdom. Of course none of them have ever heard of religion or gods or any other superstitious nonsense. Instead they simply go about their lives killing or being killed as the case may be without "worshiping" any imaginary "creator".

Animals demonstrate emotions of anger, love, affection, etc and have the means to communicate amongst themselves using more highly tuned senses like smell. Under your inane misunderstanding of Darwin mankind should no longer have any sense of smell at all since it is no longer vital to our survival and yet it still persists. The spiritual state of mind serves a purpose to enable us to handle events such as the loss of someone near and dear. That it has been perverted by religion to control people like you does not mean that it is "evidence" of anything else. Your reproductive instincts have been perverted by advertisers to sell you vehicles.

To summarize; spirituality exists, can be physically measured and serves a useful purpose in allowing us to cope with traumatic events in our lives. It is NOT evidence of anything imaginary no matter how much self deception is employed.

The behavior of animals is difficult to use as demonstrations of anything since we do not know what they are thinking. Is the elephant going to the bones of dead elephants in respect of the dead or to get resources located at the place the elephant happened to die, but we project a human motivation not understanding what they gain being at that place? Are the lions mourning their dead or verifying in a simple way if the lion is still unresponsive?

Anthropomorphism is something that spiritualists seem to ignore when making their observations of human like behavior among animals.

You are correct in that we don't know exactly what they are thinking and that we tend to anthropomorphize animal behavior. What we know for facts are that mammals share common behavior patterns such as child rearing. A mother will protect it's child regardless as to whether it is a bear or a human. The emotional bonds that exist between humans are the same as those in other animals probably because they stem from the same survival impulses.

NATURE . Unforgettable Elephants . Elephant Emotions | PBS

Animals and Human Experience the Same Emotions

How Animal and Human Emotions Are Different | Animal Emotions & Human Feelings | Human Brain | LiveScience

But I think there are additional factors such as language and religion that reinforce instinctive evolved behavior, like what a mammal may have for its offspring, or restrain it as language and religion allow us to do today in regard to things such as violent behavior, racism, etc.

From the first generation of human beings that could pass on learned concepts through the media of spoken language, evolution has been more cultural and conceptual among human beings than mere evolved instinct.

If we have an animal capable of speaking complex sentences I think we are speaking of a 'human being' no matter what the genetics may be, but to my knowledge that is only homo sapiens, though that may very well change sometime in the future.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The behavior of animals is difficult to use as demonstrations of anything since we do not know what they are thinking. Is the elephant going to the bones of dead elephants in respect of the dead or to get resources located at the place the elephant happened to die, but we project a human motivation not understanding what they gain being at that place? Are the lions mourning their dead or verifying in a simple way if the lion is still unresponsive?

Anthropomorphism is something that spiritualists seem to ignore when making their observations of human like behavior among animals.

You are correct in that we don't know exactly what they are thinking and that we tend to anthropomorphize animal behavior. What we know for facts are that mammals share common behavior patterns such as child rearing. A mother will protect it's child regardless as to whether it is a bear or a human. The emotional bonds that exist between humans are the same as those in other animals probably because they stem from the same survival impulses.

NATURE . Unforgettable Elephants . Elephant Emotions | PBS

Animals and Human Experience the Same Emotions

How Animal and Human Emotions Are Different | Animal Emotions & Human Feelings | Human Brain | LiveScience

But I think there are additional factors such as language and religion that reinforce instinctive evolved behavior, like what a mammal may have for its offspring, or restrain it as language and religion allow us to do today in regard to things such as violent behavior, racism, etc.

From the first generation of human beings that could pass on learned concepts through the media of spoken language, evolution has been more cultural and conceptual among human beings than mere evolved instinct.

If we have an animal capable of speaking complex sentences I think we are speaking of a 'human being' no matter what the genetics may be, but to my knowledge that is only homo sapiens, though that may very well change sometime in the future.

In essence we are discussing how sentience is influencing evolution. As a life form humankind is terraforming the entire planet in ways that no species since the stromatolites have done. (The Carboniferous period was done by many plant species.) A lot of this is having a negative impact on ecological systems that we (and other species) need to survive.

But to get back to your point about complex sentences. Chimpanzees that have been taught sign language show sentience. Elephants taught to paint show sentience. As you pointed out the ability to pass on "learned concepts through the media of spoken language" is the prime differentiator. We have evolved that ability to where we are capable of having a discussion even though neither of us are within "speaking range".

Religion probably played a role in this "evolution" and it may well have served it's purpose and be superceeded by more evolved thought. Certainly there is a move towards a more enlightened future as the internet provides everyone with a shared platform to communicate as equals.

 

[Boss]

If that were true, this thread would be short, and it would start sans the big shiny ?.

And yet it's true.

"Is there such a thing as a spiritual realm?" "What happens at death?"

"Is God possible?!?"​

These questions have been answered.

Over and over and over and over and over etc. in this thread alone.

2,000 + years of bloody discussion and PROOF still eludes the Monkeys...

To Life after Death Possibilities! ​

To the Sentient Monkey life that we know of, which makes it all possible!

Well, the thread would be short if we eliminated all the superfluous commentary, denigration of religion, insults and adhoms toward the thread author, and attempts to derail the topic.

We're not like the monkeys, Joe, that's the whole point here. We possess an attribute the monkeys never will have, the ability to make a spiritual connection to something greater than self. It's not the product of evolution, nothing else in nature does it.

Proof is whatever an individual acknowledges as proof, it is entirely subjective. Those who refuse to accept spiritual evidence, can find no proof... ever. While those who are able to accept spiritual nature, will argue there is overwhelming proof. So it becomes a matter of perception, and the answer is dependent upon whether you accept spiritual evidence. Logic dictates, if we are trying to prove a spiritual entity, we must examine spiritual evidence, just the same as proving a physical entity with physical evidence. But someone who rejects spiritual evidence is the same as someone who rejects physical evidence, trying to prove something physical, it is futile, the mind is closed to that possibility.

"While those who are able to accept spiritual nature, will argue there is overwhelming proof" is just utter nonsense.

No, it's just a matter of fact.

Spirituality exists because it is a state of mind that can be physically measured and anyone can train their mind to reach this state. Simply because spirituality exists does NOT mean that it is "overwhelming proof" of anything BUT a state of mind. It is completely fallacious to presume that those who reject your bogus "spiritual evidence" are rejecting the factual, provable physical reality of spirituality. So your entire premise is based upon YOUR erroneous ASSUMPTION that there is a "black & white divide over spirituality" itself.

Spirituality is not a state of mind, and it does not matter how many times you erroneously claim it is. The fact is, it only exists in humans and has exited in humans as long as we've been humans. Now you say, just because it exists, doesn't mean there is anything to it, but I disagree. There is no other behavior in nature, which exists as figment of imagination. If there were nothing to it, the attribute would have been discarded long ago. It certainly wouldn't be our most distinctly defining attribute as a species. So you have absolutely no scientific basis to conclude spirituality is merely a state of mind.

Let's be perfectly clear, "spirituality" most certainly exists, and has been the most defining attribute of our species as long as man has existed. This is not disputable. There are those who accept spiritual nature and those who reject spiritual nature, but spirituality has always existed.

Furthermore your ASSUMPTION that only humankind has any "spirituality" is unproven. Elephants visit the bones of their dead and are obviously making a "connection" of some sort. A pride of lions was filmed paying their last respects to a deceased family member. Endless examples of family pets mourning the loss of their owners and/or other pets abound. Simply because they don't go around preaching and singing hymns and conducting elaborate burial routines does not mean that they are bereft of all spirituality.

Even ATHEISTS and NIHILISTS mourn death! This is NOT spirituality. Other forms of life do not spiritually worship something greater than self, they have no such awareness. This is why humans are different, and why we aren't swinging in trees and eating bananas, like other upper primates. I will say, it is indeed interesting you are now trying to argue that other animals may believe in god, to prove that god isn't real and doesn't exist, that's pretty freaking amazing.

It is simply arrogance on your behalf to ASSUME that only mankind has this imaginary "spiritual connection". There is plenty of what YOU term "spiritual evidence" to indicate that spirituality exists in the animal kingdom. Of course none of them have ever heard of religion or gods or any other superstitious nonsense. Instead they simply go about their lives killing or being killed as the case may be without "worshiping" any imaginary "creator".

Well which one is it, Darwin, do other animals have this attribute of worshiping spiritually or not? When I can go to the zoo on Sunday and see the other upper primates congregating to pray, I'll believe that they have the capacity to be spiritual. The examples you are mistaking for animal spirituality, are instinctual behaviors, many of which could certainly be guided by spiritual forces beyond your comprehension. Again, it is quite peculiar, you have now decided to prove other animals recognize spiritual nature, in order to prove spiritual nature is bogus. Quite bizarre, indeed!

Animals demonstrate emotions of anger, love, affection, etc and have the means to communicate amongst themselves using more highly tuned senses like smell.

No argument here. Other animals still do not spiritually worship.

Under your inane misunderstanding of Darwin mankind should no longer have any sense of smell at all since it is no longer vital to our survival and yet it still persists.

Heh? When have I said anything of the sort? And why do you believe our sense of smell isn't important to the species? I've never made any claims about "vital to survival" with regard to attributes we retain, and neither did Darwin. The theory is, animals discard unnecessary behaviors that serve no purpose. If spirituality were pure imagination, we would have abandoned it tens of thousands of years ago.

The spiritual state of mind serves a purpose to enable us to handle events such as the loss of someone near and dear. That it has been perverted by religion to control people like you does not mean that it is "evidence" of anything else. Your reproductive instincts have been perverted by advertisers to sell you vehicles.

This is your opinion, but there is no basis for it. Why do other life forms not need a security blanket to comfort them when loved ones die? Why do other life forms not need a placebo for knowledge they are missing? All of the supposed reasons you assume spirituality exists, are the RESULT of our spirituality. It is because we ARE spiritually connected, that we worry about what happens to us when we leave this physical world.

To summarize; spirituality exists, can be physically measured and serves a useful purpose in allowing us to cope with traumatic events in our lives. It is NOT evidence of anything imaginary no matter how much self deception is employed.

The fact that it exists, and has always been present in humans, and defines us as special among all other species, and is fundamental to our species in a profound way, is certainly not evidence it is the product of imagination or delusion. Especially when you can find no other such example in nature. You're absolutely correct, it simply can't be evidence of something imaginary.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well, the thread would be short if we eliminated all the superfluous commentary, denigration of religion, insults and adhoms toward the thread author, and attempts to derail the topic.

We're not like the monkeys, Joe, that's the whole point here. We possess an attribute the monkeys never will have, the ability to make a spiritual connection to something greater than self. It's not the product of evolution, nothing else in nature does it.

Proof is whatever an individual acknowledges as proof, it is entirely subjective. Those who refuse to accept spiritual evidence, can find no proof... ever. While those who are able to accept spiritual nature, will argue there is overwhelming proof. So it becomes a matter of perception, and the answer is dependent upon whether you accept spiritual evidence. Logic dictates, if we are trying to prove a spiritual entity, we must examine spiritual evidence, just the same as proving a physical entity with physical evidence. But someone who rejects spiritual evidence is the same as someone who rejects physical evidence, trying to prove something physical, it is futile, the mind is closed to that possibility.

"While those who are able to accept spiritual nature, will argue there is overwhelming proof" is just utter nonsense.

No, it's just a matter of fact.



Spirituality is not a state of mind, and it does not matter how many times you erroneously claim it is. The fact is, it only exists in humans and has exited in humans as long as we've been humans. Now you say, just because it exists, doesn't mean there is anything to it, but I disagree. There is no other behavior in nature, which exists as figment of imagination. If there were nothing to it, the attribute would have been discarded long ago. It certainly wouldn't be our most distinctly defining attribute as a species. So you have absolutely no scientific basis to conclude spirituality is merely a state of mind.

Let's be perfectly clear, "spirituality" most certainly exists, and has been the most defining attribute of our species as long as man has existed. This is not disputable. There are those who accept spiritual nature and those who reject spiritual nature, but spirituality has always existed.



Even ATHEISTS and NIHILISTS mourn death! This is NOT spirituality. Other forms of life do not spiritually worship something greater than self, they have no such awareness. This is why humans are different, and why we aren't swinging in trees and eating bananas, like other upper primates. I will say, it is indeed interesting you are now trying to argue that other animals may believe in god, to prove that god isn't real and doesn't exist, that's pretty freaking amazing.



Well which one is it, Darwin, do other animals have this attribute of worshiping spiritually or not? When I can go to the zoo on Sunday and see the other upper primates congregating to pray, I'll believe that they have the capacity to be spiritual. The examples you are mistaking for animal spirituality, are instinctual behaviors, many of which could certainly be guided by spiritual forces beyond your comprehension. Again, it is quite peculiar, you have now decided to prove other animals recognize spiritual nature, in order to prove spiritual nature is bogus. Quite bizarre, indeed!



No argument here. Other animals still do not spiritually worship.



Heh? When have I said anything of the sort? And why do you believe our sense of smell isn't important to the species? I've never made any claims about "vital to survival" with regard to attributes we retain, and neither did Darwin. The theory is, animals discard unnecessary behaviors that serve no purpose. If spirituality were pure imagination, we would have abandoned it tens of thousands of years ago.

The spiritual state of mind serves a purpose to enable us to handle events such as the loss of someone near and dear. That it has been perverted by religion to control people like you does not mean that it is "evidence" of anything else. Your reproductive instincts have been perverted by advertisers to sell you vehicles.

This is your opinion, but there is no basis for it. Why do other life forms not need a security blanket to comfort them when loved ones die? Why do other life forms not need a placebo for knowledge they are missing? All of the supposed reasons you assume spirituality exists, are the RESULT of our spirituality. It is because we ARE spiritually connected, that we worry about what happens to us when we leave this physical world.

To summarize; spirituality exists, can be physically measured and serves a useful purpose in allowing us to cope with traumatic events in our lives. It is NOT evidence of anything imaginary no matter how much self deception is employed.

The fact that it exists, and has always been present in humans, and defines us as special among all other species, and is fundamental to our species in a profound way, is certainly not evidence it is the product of imagination or delusion. Especially when you can find no other such example in nature. You're absolutely correct, it simply can't be evidence of something imaginary.

Once again you demonstrate why you are nothing but a time suck. You are incapable of learning or reasoning because your mind is slammed shut against anything and everything that doesn't fit within your limited religious belief cult. YOU might personally and arrogantly define yourself by YOUR OPINION as to what constitutes 'spirituality" but the rest of the world prefers to deal with REALITY and FACTS instead. Have a nice day!

 

[Boss]

Once again you demonstrate why you are nothing but a time suck. You are incapable of learning or reasoning because your mind is slammed shut against anything and everything that doesn't fit within your limited religious belief cult. YOU might personally and arrogantly define yourself by YOUR OPINION as to what constitutes 'spirituality" but the rest of the world prefers to deal with REALITY and FACTS instead. Have a nice day!

Because I pointed out that spirituality is what distinguishes us from all other living things?

My mind is open to everything, I have not closed my mind to any possibility here. You repeatedly seem to want to return to the religion well, and I think it's because you are angry at religion, which is your basis for rejecting spiritual nature. This is very common, and I completely understand, religion is very often contradictory (imo) to spiritual nature. While religions are indeed strong evidence that man does make some kind of spiritual connection, it's also evidence of man's arrogance and hubris. I think it is simply man's attempt to comprehend and understand something beyond their ability to comprehend.

As flawed as organized religion may be, it doesn't disprove spiritual nature. If anything, it reinforces that a real spiritual connection is being made by humans. Even as you vehemently argue against spiritual nature and insist it is imagination run wild, you acknowledge that it is indeed fundamental to the species and present for a reason. To me, this is a very important distinction and piece of vital physical evidence.

While discussing the human psyche, a noted psychologist once said, "If god didn't exist, man would have to create him." His point was, mankind is intrinsically tied to the belief in a power greater than self, we are hard wired this way, it is our natural state. We could not be what we are, without spiritual belief in something greater than self. I can't accept this is delusional or imaginary, or that humans can simply abandon spirituality any more than humans can abandon philosophy. It will always exist in some form, and most humans will practice it, and you can fight this little "war on religion" until you are worm food, it won't make a bit if difference regarding human spirituality, and the very REAL connection humans are making with spiritual nature.

 

[BreezeWood]

Boss: Other forms of life do not spiritually worship something greater than self, they have no such awareness.

- your statement above does not negate Spirituality, just your understanding of it.


most other creatures communicate visually and do so prolifically and use the same means in demonstrating an awareness greater than theirselves -

and "worshiping" as observed by the other creatures of mankind's behavior is undoubtedly interpreted by them as a regression of fear.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Once again you demonstrate why you are nothing but a time suck. You are incapable of learning or reasoning because your mind is slammed shut against anything and everything that doesn't fit within your limited religious belief cult. YOU might personally and arrogantly define yourself by YOUR OPINION as to what constitutes 'spirituality" but the rest of the world prefers to deal with REALITY and FACTS instead. Have a nice day!

Because I pointed out that spirituality is what distinguishes us from all other living things?

My mind is open to everything, I have not closed my mind to any possibility here. You repeatedly seem to want to return to the religion well, and I think it's because you are angry at religion, which is your basis for rejecting spiritual nature. This is very common, and I completely understand, religion is very often contradictory (imo) to spiritual nature. While religions are indeed strong evidence that man does make some kind of spiritual connection, it's also evidence of man's arrogance and hubris. I think it is simply man's attempt to comprehend and understand something beyond their ability to comprehend.

As flawed as organized religion may be, it doesn't disprove spiritual nature. If anything, it reinforces that a real spiritual connection is being made by humans. Even as you vehemently argue against spiritual nature and insist it is imagination run wild, you acknowledge that it is indeed fundamental to the species and present for a reason. To me, this is a very important distinction and piece of vital physical evidence.

While discussing the human psyche, a noted psychologist once said, "If god didn't exist, man would have to create him." His point was, mankind is intrinsically tied to the belief in a power greater than self, we are hard wired this way, it is our natural state. We could not be what we are, without spiritual belief in something greater than self. I can't accept this is delusional or imaginary, or that humans can simply abandon spirituality any more than humans can abandon philosophy. It will always exist in some form, and most humans will practice it, and you can fight this little "war on religion" until you are worm food, it won't make a bit if difference regarding human spirituality, and the very REAL connection humans are making with spiritual nature.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Actually, the true beauty for us is also the true terror. No matter what any Monkey tells you... the unknown is called the UNknown for a reason.

But there are different kinds of unknowns.

Some unknowns are known categorically, such as how many miles are there between Miami and the location of the next meteorite landing.

Some unknowns are not even known categorically, such as what possible events might disrupt the construction of a new, never been done before, machine. As an engineer, I can assure you that no process is ever executed exactly according to plan.

Some unknowns are unknown personally though it may be known by others, like lookup information you haven't looked up yet, or a set of experiences you have not yet experienced and so cannot conceive of what some specific experience really is because it is completely unknown to you.

Some unknowns are unknown only because our technology and/or conceptions of the universe are not adequate to understand them, like radio waves were unknown to the 18th century sciences. Radio waves still existed but no one was yet able to perceive them due to lack of ability.

So if the existence of God is an unknown to you, perhaps a more relevant question is 'Why is this an unknown?' Is it unknown because you don't have the ability to perceive God while others may, or is it because you haven't bothered to look into the matter? The latter describes most of the agnostics I personally know; it simply doesn't bother them one way or the other and the whole subject is tldr, lol.

Turn the tables, Brother... How can you be so fucking cock-sure?

The ancient stories? Give me a break!



I'll stand by what I said. Any Monkey who tells you he KNOWS what happens at death is the Monkey deceived.

 

[Hollie]

No.

And there we have the summation of rational argument against the existence of God.

On the other hand, the only argument for the existence of the currently configured Judeo-Christian gods amount to "I read it in a book". Obviously, the Judeo-Christian gods are only one configuration of gawds.

Unfortunately, these religious perspectives, human configurations of gawds, books of gawds, tales of gawds, etc., have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants (Gregorian and otherwise), magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!

 

[AVG-JOE]

You forgot Rastafarian.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yXRGdZdonM]Bob Marley - Redemption Song - YouTube[/ame]


And you're absolutely right about the funny hats. It's scary.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No.

And there we have the summation of rational argument against the existence of God.

On the other hand, the only argument for the existence of the currently configured Judeo-Christian gods amount to "I read it in a book". Obviously, the Judeo-Christian gods are only one configuration of gawds.

Are you serious? Ever read Aristotle? Aquinas?

The 19th century debate between theists and atheists regarding the age of the universe was finite duration from a creation event vrs an infinitely aged universe from the steady state theory. Guess who won that debate? Guess who wrote the Cosmic Egg theory that we now call the Big Bang? Yeah, a Christian priest.

Your ignorance of these things is proof of nothing other than your ignorance.

Unfortunately, these religious perspectives, human configurations of gawds, books of gawds, tales of gawds, etc., have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants (Gregorian and otherwise), magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!

So you disbelieve charicature of the gods?

Great. Way to go. I don't think anyone else believes that nonsense either.

So what you are saying is that you disbelieve something that appears to only be a straw man conception of your own mind and that of other uninformed atheists.

 

[Hollie]

And there we have the summation of rational argument against the existence of God.

On the other hand, the only argument for the existence of the currently configured Judeo-Christian gods amount to "I read it in a book". Obviously, the Judeo-Christian gods are only one configuration of gawds.

Are you serious? Ever read Aristotle? Aquinas?

The 19th century debate between theists and atheists regarding the age of the universe was finite duration from a creation event vrs an infinitely aged universe from the steady state theory. Guess who won that debate? Guess who wrote the Cosmic Egg theory that we now call the Big Bang? Yeah, a Christian priest.

Your ignorance of these things is proof of nothing other than your ignorance.

Are you serious? Have you ever studied a science text? How about a history text?
It seems you’re unable to confront the fact that religious institutions (christianity being an example), have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part that’s because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions. Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.

The various bibles, as a holy books, are fine with that limitation. As science texts, however, they are indefensible. The key is in their interpretation, which in the realm of science, should best be undertaken by scientists. Religious studies do not preclude scientific studies. Nor is the converse precluded. But they are separate realms, with separate goals and separate methods. It is a rare being who can work well on both levels, and the best minds in each discipline do not try to bridge the divide.

I do not seek spiritual enlightenment in Darwin's "Origin of Species." Nor do I seek observation, hypothesis and experiment in any of the bibles.

While great Hindu philosophers have done even more with mathematics, great Greek pantheistic philosophers more with medicine, great Buddhist (and Taoist!) philosophers more with chemistry ... and every last one of them has been superseded by entirely secular scholars as the boundaries of knowledge have been pushed back by specialized researchers.

The day of the pre-eminent religious/philosophical/scientific polymath has come and gone.

Your ignorance of your own ignorance is no excuse for such pointless argumentation.

Unfortunately, these religious perspectives, human configurations of gawds, books of gawds, tales of gawds, etc., have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants (Gregorian and otherwise), magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!

So you disbelieve charicature of the gods?

Great. Way to go. I don't think anyone else believes that nonsense either.

So what you are saying is that you disbelieve something that appears to only be a straw man conception of your own mind and that of other uninformed atheists.

So what you’re saying is that you find it galling that someone would point out that your gods are no better demonstrated than any other of the 14,000 or so asserted gods invented by mankind.

What theists (and their bellicose apologists), need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian theistic (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of God(s), you must hold that god(s) to the same standards of proof that all gods must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies believers in the Greek Gods with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.

 

[JimBowie1958]

On the other hand, the only argument for the existence of the currently configured Judeo-Christian gods amount to "I read it in a book". Obviously, the Judeo-Christian gods are only one configuration of gawds.

Are you serious? Have you ever studied a science text? How about a history text?

Sure have, and they show how Christianity along with Islam helped to carry the ancient knowledge through the Middle Ages and expand on it; men like Kepler, Galileo, Pasteur, Newton and more. Almost all of the great scientists after 1800 were Christians working from a scholastic perspective on Nature which they believed to be orderly as God is orderly.

Have you ever studied a science text or history text that wasn't a slanted agit-prop rag?

It seems you’re unable to confront the fact that religious institutions (christianity being an example), have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery.

Bullshit. Christianity, Islam and judeaism practically restarted science after it nearly died out. This yolk you speak of is a myth.

I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part that’s because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions.

Throttled? Well, they are trying but they are doomed to failure just like the atheist bastards failed in the Soviet Union and the Eastern block.

Persecution simply makes Christianity grow faster. BTW, you might want to look at the growth of Christianity and how many adherents there are in the world. The only loss of members are among the tired old Protestant heresies that gave up on the core of Christian theology decades ago, and thus should die off.

Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.

No, but scientists are getting their careers wrecked by secular radicals that cant fathom the theological meaning of creationism and how it can be compatible with evolution.

The various bibles, as a holy books, are fine with that limitation. As science texts, however, they are indefensible.

Dude, the books of the Bible aren't science books to begin with.

The key is in their interpretation, which in the realm of science, should best be undertaken by scientists. Religious studies do not preclude scientific studies. Nor is the converse precluded. But they are separate realms, with separate goals and separate methods. It is a rare being who can work well on both levels, and the best minds in each discipline do not try to bridge the divide.

I totally agree.

I do not seek spiritual enlightenment in Darwin's "Origin of Species." Nor do I seek observation, hypothesis and experiment in any of the bibles.

Again, agreed. Man, you sure know how to pick a fight, lol.

While great Hindu philosophers have done even more with mathematics, great Greek pantheistic philosophers more with medicine, great Buddhist (and Taoist!) philosophers more with chemistry ... and every last one of them has been superseded by entirely secular scholars as the boundaries of knowledge have been pushed back by specialized researchers.

I think celtic herb lore should count in there somewhere, but still what you say is true, but from about 1400 to 1950 the vast majority of scientific advances in almost every field was done by Christians, Jews and Muslims.

The day of the pre-eminent religious/philosophical/scientific polymath has come and gone.

I think the polymath is about to be reborn. Human intefaces with computer memory is going to enable such men once again.

Your ignorance of your own ignorance is no excuse for such pointless argumentation.

Ignorance you have not demonstrated.

So you disbelieve charicature of the gods?

Great. Way to go. I don't think anyone else believes that nonsense either.

So what you are saying is that you disbelieve something that appears to only be a straw man conception of your own mind and that of other uninformed atheists.

So what you’re saying is that you find it galling that someone would point out that your gods are no better demonstrated than any other of the 14,000 or so asserted gods invented by mankind.

No, the Abrahamic Gods are far better demonstrated and the theological concept of the Creator directly led to the discovery of the Big Bang in investigating the concept of the Cosmic Egg.

Perhaps a good remedial reading course could help you with that.

What theists (and their bellicose apologists), need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods.

That is total bullshit. Polytheistic 'gods' are born in time and space. The Abrahamic God created time and space. Big diff though you cant wrap your brain around it.

The sectarian theistic (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of God(s), you must hold that god(s) to the same standards of proof that all gods must meet.

No problemo.

To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies believers in the Greek Gods with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.

Hardly.

You really should learn a little bit about theology before shooting your mouth off about things you obviously do not comprehend.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Any time some idiot starts spewing that religion is not scientific, someone should kick his ignorant ass up between his shoulders.

It's not that it will do anything to open his closed, rusted mind. It's just that it would be great fun.

They will never, ever catch on to the fact that it is their willful ignorance and lack of thought that keeps them from realizing God.

You honestly cannot do anything about hidebound ignorance like that. There's no reasoning with them because they don't understand reason. They only understand method. The concept of logos is beyond them. The idea that human knowledge is limited by our very existence evades them. The idea that anything could exist beyond their limited sensory input or ability to measure doesn't even enter their small minds.

The only God of which they can conceive is an anthropomorphic construct consistent with their comic book education.

Hindus give idiots like that mantras and the insturctions to chant them in the wan hope that it will keep their vapid minds occupied so they will do little, if any, harm. At least it keeps them out of mischief for a while.

They think that how and why are the same. They are unimaginative clods who are incapable of thinking in the abstract. They didn't let idiots like that into universities not too long ago. They put them in factories tightening bolts, or into office cubicles adding figures. Now our educational system encourages the idiots in their foolishness. The government pays them to do it.

They don't have a glimmer that the subject/object dichotomy is keeping them from seeing anything of value. They'll never get beyond it.

Don't bother with them. They are benighted. Ignorance is bliss and they seem wonderfully happy.

 

[Boss]

Once again you demonstrate why you are nothing but a time suck. You are incapable of learning or reasoning because your mind is slammed shut against anything and everything that doesn't fit within your limited religious belief cult. YOU might personally and arrogantly define yourself by YOUR OPINION as to what constitutes 'spirituality" but the rest of the world prefers to deal with REALITY and FACTS instead. Have a nice day!

Because I pointed out that spirituality is what distinguishes us from all other living things?

My mind is open to everything, I have not closed my mind to any possibility here. You repeatedly seem to want to return to the religion well, and I think it's because you are angry at religion, which is your basis for rejecting spiritual nature. This is very common, and I completely understand, religion is very often contradictory (imo) to spiritual nature. While religions are indeed strong evidence that man does make some kind of spiritual connection, it's also evidence of man's arrogance and hubris. I think it is simply man's attempt to comprehend and understand something beyond their ability to comprehend.

As flawed as organized religion may be, it doesn't disprove spiritual nature. If anything, it reinforces that a real spiritual connection is being made by humans. Even as you vehemently argue against spiritual nature and insist it is imagination run wild, you acknowledge that it is indeed fundamental to the species and present for a reason. To me, this is a very important distinction and piece of vital physical evidence.

While discussing the human psyche, a noted psychologist once said, "If god didn't exist, man would have to create him." His point was, mankind is intrinsically tied to the belief in a power greater than self, we are hard wired this way, it is our natural state. We could not be what we are, without spiritual belief in something greater than self. I can't accept this is delusional or imaginary, or that humans can simply abandon spirituality any more than humans can abandon philosophy. It will always exist in some form, and most humans will practice it, and you can fight this little "war on religion" until you are worm food, it won't make a bit if difference regarding human spirituality, and the very REAL connection humans are making with spiritual nature.

Why are you fucktards so enamored with the hole digging emoticon? I mean, the first 500 times, it was cute, but it's getting really tired and old. Do you do this all the time, whenever you've been bested in an argument, or is this just a recent trend?

If you are not too closed minded, please allow me to make some alternate suggestions for the next time someone trounces your argument, and you can't find anything to say...

<-- this one is cute, and appropriate for you in particular.

<--another good one to use when ducking and dodging.

<-- this one fits for you as well.

<--this one speaks to your level of discourse.

<--my personal favorite!


So, there you have some alternate suggestions. Please give the digger a break, he is working way too hard in this thread, trying to cover up your cat turds, apparently.

 

[numan]

We're not like the monkeys, Joe, that's the whole point here. We possess an attribute the monkeys never will have, the ability to make a spiritual connection to something greater than self. It's not the product of evolution, nothing else in nature does it.

Perhaps it is simply that our large, complex and unstable brains cause us to be more deluded, and more deeply deluded, about many more things than other animals.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We're not like the monkeys, Joe, that's the whole point here. We possess an attribute the monkeys never will have, the ability to make a spiritual connection to something greater than self. It's not the product of evolution, nothing else in nature does it.

Perhaps it is simply that our large, complex and unstable brains cause us to be more deluded, and more deeply deluded, about many more things than other animals.

Yeah, because all the buildings, monuments, ships, aircraft, power generators, hospitals, etc, etc were all made by critters much more stable than human beings are. /sarcasm

Dude, stop drinking the hate-humans Kool Aid.

 

[daws101]

still no "cause" but lots of effect.
if you take out the god crutch would spirituality still stand?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually, the true beauty for us is also the true terror. No matter what any Monkey tells you... the unknown is called the UNknown for a reason.

But there are different kinds of unknowns.

Some unknowns are known categorically, such as how many miles are there between Miami and the location of the next meteorite landing.

Some unknowns are not even known categorically, such as what possible events might disrupt the construction of a new, never been done before, machine. As an engineer, I can assure you that no process is ever executed exactly according to plan.

Some unknowns are unknown personally though it may be known by others, like lookup information you haven't looked up yet, or a set of experiences you have not yet experienced and so cannot conceive of what some specific experience really is because it is completely unknown to you.

Some unknowns are unknown only because our technology and/or conceptions of the universe are not adequate to understand them, like radio waves were unknown to the 18th century sciences. Radio waves still existed but no one was yet able to perceive them due to lack of ability.

So if the existence of God is an unknown to you, perhaps a more relevant question is 'Why is this an unknown?' Is it unknown because you don't have the ability to perceive God while others may, or is it because you haven't bothered to look into the matter? The latter describes most of the agnostics I personally know; it simply doesn't bother them one way or the other and the whole subject is tldr, lol.

Turn the tables, Brother... How can you be so fucking cock-sure?

The ancient stories? Give me a break!

Don't know about cock sure, but there is a high level of certitude.

I know that time as we know it can not be of infinite duration.

I know that there has to be a cause to everything that originates within time/space, except for some person/force that exists outside our time and space to instigate our universe.

I know that I have consistently seen more joy in the lives of those that follow God's laws rather than those who do not.

These are enough for me though there is much more.

I'll stand by what I said. Any Monkey who tells you he KNOWS what happens at death is the Monkey deceived.

You really shouldn't talk to strange monkeys, or didn't your parents teach you that?