How did the Universe get here?

[emilynghiem]

I did not say that. I said we see no evidence that other animals spiritually connect like humans. Also, it appears you think I've said that emotions are spirituality, and that's not what I've said either. I said emotions are spiritual in that they are not physical and they involve our spirit. Spirituality is specific connection with spiritual nature and I don't think other animals have that. Now, you will also notice I said "I don't think" here... it means, I am not standing on a mountaintop proclaiming my words to be infallible and golden and that everyone must genuflect toward me and respect my word as The Truth eternal. I get the feeling that's how you interpret my opinions sometimes, and I wanted to clarify this. I am capable of being wrong, and you are always welcome to disagree.

Hi [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] I don't think Montrovant is one of those closeminded types you are worried about imposing a problematic bias. And I think any issue of whether "you meant this or changed that" is not really necessary where this conversation is going anyway. Sorry to see you were taken wrong for things that aren't what you mean at all. I think that misperception is mutual, and should not be used to reflect unfairly on either person.

I think you are both mutually worried about each other, imposing some closeminded bias that is then projected on the other, but I am not worried about either of you as you are about each other. The process does not have to be that perfect to work itself out, or we'd never make it.

As for your above points, I have friends who see it both ways.
1. my mother who is Buddhist agrees with me that animals do not have the same ego that people do; I call it responsibility for choices and karma; Christians call it people being "stewards" and having more control and responsibility for animals and the planet etc.
2. I have friends who do believe animals have souls and relate to each other similar or equal to humans (such as the bonobos and their mating behaviors, and the elephants who grieve for lost companions, and organize in matriarchal packs)

Since this cannot be proven, or not yet, this cannot be a point the discussion relies on.
Universal truth we can agree on clearly must remain unconditional and leave room for whatever is going on, if people are connected to animals by conscience or karma or not.

in the meantime, even without agreeing on all that, we can agree that disrupting the ecosystem causes damage that may not be reparable. So we can agree what to avoid in terms of physical and "collective" harm. So again the "collective level" is abstract enough to represent the same things that spiritual connections would describe.

Boss if you need someone here to confirm you are open minded, and what you say is all clearly you presenting points, and not trying to push that as the truth period, then I back you up and already see this is what you mean. And same with Montrovant and others that already know we cannot prove these things, and the point is to acknowledge it is based on faith in one's perspective or angle on the truth out there.

I think most of us here are open minded that way, when we speak it is clearly for ourselves, we may hold to certain limits and project those but it is not any more or less than anyone else; I think that is good enough to work with and no need for defensiveness
to "prove" anyone is open minded and didn't mean to imply "that's the absolute truth."

the one truth I think we all agree on is we don't know and can't prove definitively
one way or another, though we have our proven points we know for ourselves are not going to change because those are given as true. Again we all have those and that is good enough to work with.

Where would you like to start with the proof process that all our points can be reconciled without changing our systems?

Do you want to start with medical proof that spiritual healing works to heal sick people of demon voices (so even if this is all mental delusion the PROCESS of forgiveness and healing still works to measure the change from incureable illness to normal mind function)

Would you like just to start a collection of blogs for each person to represent their views and prove that all people can interact and agree on principles independent of language and beliefs? And just challenge the public to throw out a conflict they think cannot be resolved and show how this diverse team of people from various backgrounds can work out an agreement or solution that includes and satisifies all the different people and groups?

Would you like to co author a series of video shorts, where we each take a concept argued about between theists and nontheists and illustrate how our team resolved it without changing or converting anyone's views or religion to something else?

What do you think about how to share these ideas with more people?

 

[Boss]

Where would you like to start with the proof process that all our points can be reconciled without changing our systems?

Emily, I can appreciate your efforts and I admire what you are trying to do. It's inspirational to see you are so passionate about helping us all reach consensus and harmony. However, I think you misinterpret the intentions of many in this thread and on this forum. They are not interested in reaching consensus or finding harmony. It is the furthest thing from their minds, which explains why you're getting such little response.

So I think you have to start by understanding this. Until you can convince these people to lay down their swords and stop fighting their crusades against Christ and God, you will get nowhere. And the thing about that is, the only way you will ever convince them to do this is by showing them how your approach will defeat Christ and God. Otherwise, they are just not interested.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So you know more then the scientists who say the universe had a beginning ? and ever since the big bang, everything was the result of a cause and it produced an effect.

Scientists don't say that the universe had a "beginning" meaning that it was "created". They just mean that the current form of the universe started with the big bang. Before that was the singularity and they have no way to measure what existed prior to that. However that don't say that there was nothing which is what you are falsely implying.

Did time begin with the big bang ?

Depends upon your definition of time. Our current measurement of time does but that is only because we don't have a way to measure the time that elapsed prior to the big bang. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a prior space/time continuum or even billions of them before now.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is only speculation and is not scientific .there is no evidence to support this view.

BZZZT Wrong!

The Laws of Physics and the Math all support the theory of a cyclical universe. The more it is is explored the more sense it makes. So yes, there is evidence to support this theory.

No it don't, this theory conflicts with the 2nd law. like I said this is a way to hide from the truth that the Universe and time began at the same time.Your theory can't stand in defiance of the 2nd law and be considered a legitimate theory.

The onus is on you to prove your allegation that it "conflicts with the 2nd law". Use both sides of the page and show all of your work.

 

[sealybobo]

How did man discover human spiritual connection with something greater than self?

So when someone figured out the wheel and how to use it, that was discovering human spiritual connection with something greater than self?

What is the conscience ? I think it is the voice of God within each of us. It helps us to know right from wrong and when we make a bad choice, it lets you know you have made a bad choice.

Is this conscience guiding our morals and is it the spiritual connection between God and man ?

If not,how do you explain the conscience ?

Other animals besides humans have conscienceness and therefore they too have a conscience. A conscience is an emotion that we feel when we have done something wrong. There is no evidence of any connection to your imaginary God involved since people who don't believe in your imaginary God also feel bad when they do something wrong.

Woop there it is. Now they'll tell us we really deep down do believe but it is Satan that makes us deny god. But then they would have to believe the Adam & Eve, Noah, Moses stories too and 7 out of 10 christians know those are just stories. How long until they put 2 and 2 together and realize the jesus story is just a story too?

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is only speculation and is not scientific .there is no evidence to support this view.

BZZZT Wrong!

The Laws of Physics and the Math all support the theory of a cyclical universe. The more it is is explored the more sense it makes. So yes, there is evidence to support this theory.

BZZZT Wrong!

Stephen Hawking claims victory in gravitational wave bet | Science | theguardian.com

Hawking has claimed victory in a bet with a fellow scientist over the discovery of primordial gravitational waves, ripples in the structure of space-time from the birth of the universe.

The Cambridge cosmologist bet Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute in Canada, that gravitational waves from the first fleeting moments after the big bang would be detected.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Hawking said the discovery of gravitational waves, announced on Monday by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, disproves Turok's theory that the universe cycles endlessly from one big bang to another.

The fat lady hasn't sung yet!

From your own link;

But Turok was not ready to concede just yet. He told the programme that the bet rested on results from the European Space Agency's Planck space telescope, which last year failed to spot any signs of gravitational waves.

Turok urged caution over the latest claims. "First of all, I should say this is just a spectacular result, and right or wrong, it actually indicates we are right on the threshold of a completely new window into the big bang and what happened at the big bang, so it's tremendously exciting," he said.

But he added: "I have reasons for doubts about the new experiment and its results. It's not entirely convincing to me, but they have clearly seen what they claim to have seen. Verification is very important and it's wise to be a little bit sceptical at the moment when there is no confirmation. The experiment was extremely difficult, and they don't entirely explain why they are so convinced of what they claim … The problem with the inflationary theory is that it really doesn't explain the beginning. Stephen has postulated a way of starting the universe off, but it doesn't seem to work."

Hawking is well known for making bets with other scientists. He recently lost $100 to Gordon Kane at the University of Michigan after betting that scientists at Cern, home of the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, would not find the Higgs boson. They discovered the particle in July 2012.

Turok said he needed to see more evidence for gravitational waves from the big bang before conceding the bet to Hawking. "The great thing about science is that it doesn't matter how many [scientists] you are up against. Ultimately the right ideas win out. Science is not a popularity contest. Galileo was right, but his ideas weren't popular at the time. The bet is still open," he said.

 

[GISMYS]

What is the conscience ? I think it is the voice of God within each of us. It helps us to know right from wrong and when we make a bad choice, it lets you know you have made a bad choice.

Is this conscience guiding our morals and is it the spiritual connection between God and man ?

If not,how do you explain the conscience ?

Other animals besides humans have conscienceness and therefore they too have a conscience. A conscience is an emotion that we feel when we have done something wrong. There is no evidence of any connection to your imaginary God involved since people who don't believe in your imaginary God also feel bad when they do something wrong.

Woop there it is. Now they'll tell us we really deep down do believe but it is Satan that makes us deny god. But then they would have to believe the Adam & Eve, Noah, Moses stories too and 7 out of 10 christians know those are just stories. How long until they put 2 and 2 together and realize the jesus story is just a story too?

2000+ plus years AND THE ETERNAL LIVING WORD OF GOD GOES ON INTO ETERNITY!!! PTL.

 

[Montrovant]

Ah, another example of you not being upset here, huh? More insults that you complain about in others, too!

Well I am not upset, you're free to think whatever you please. What you are interpreting as me being upset is sheer sarcasm. I am very sarcastic. I don't think I've complained about insults from others. It's a forum policy that you can't just lob insults without discussing the thread topic, and I've pointed out that rule a few times, is that what you're talking about?

Quick question. You have said you don't believe animals are spiritual/have spiritual nature. Does that mean you don't believe animals experience emotions?

I did not say that. I said we see no evidence that other animals spiritually connect like humans. Also, it appears you think I've said that emotions are spirituality, and that's not what I've said either. I said emotions are spiritual in that they are not physical and they involve our spirit. Spirituality is specific connection with spiritual nature and I don't think other animals have that. Now, you will also notice I said "I don't think" here... it means, I am not standing on a mountaintop proclaiming my words to be infallible and golden and that everyone must genuflect toward me and respect my word as The Truth eternal. I get the feeling that's how you interpret my opinions sometimes, and I wanted to clarify this. I am capable of being wrong, and you are always welcome to disagree.



No no no.. you brought up the computer, so let's use that here... When you turn on your computer, does it just randomly start doing things like coming here and posting, or are you having to click on links and type on the keyboard to make that happen? So the "impulses" in your computer are the result of your input, what you're doing to tell the computer what to do. The computer is not generating impulses to tell you what to do, is it?

Yes... our brains provide a physical incarnation for our thoughts. Brains also enable the same physical incarnation of our spirituality. However, the brain is not controlling what we think or believe, that is done through our mind and conscience. Yes, the brain is the functional component of our physical body where that happens. That doesn't make our mind and conscience physical. (clarification: I am using physical in the sense of materially physical here, not to be confused with things generally associated with any physiology.)



Yeah, but it only seems to be with YOU for some reason... wonder why that is?

I understood your ice cream analogy. You, clearly, did not understand when I repeatedly said that there are cases in which beliefs are contradictory. Do you understand the word contradictory? Do you need me to post a definition for you? If you have a belief, and someone else has a different belief, and those two beliefs cannot be true simultaneously, they are contradictory. Because of that, in such a situation, belief in the one thing inherently comes with disbelief in the other thing. What I have said is that some of your stated beliefs about god and the spiritual seem to be incompatible with religious beliefs, which would make those beliefs inherently incorrect to you. For example, if you do not believe that a person must accept Christ to find salvation, if you believe salvation can be had another way, then you would automatically consider a person who thinks salvation can only be found through Christ to be wrong. I think your ideas of an impersonal god are incompatible with the personal god of the Abrahamic religions, your singular god is incompatible with the polytheism of at least some Hinduism, etc. Spiritual nature may affect people differently, but unless you are saying that your stated beliefs about the nature of god are not true for anyone but yourself, there is contradiction there.

I am saying that all I can attest to is what is true for myself. Spiritual nature doesn't have to conform to your sense of logic and order...or mine, for that matter. As I pointed out in my analogies, there can be more than one truth. Perhaps.... and this is just a point to ponder... God is individually custom-tailored? Our minds are all different, our personalities are not the same, we are all unique in our own way... why can't a spiritual entity be? Remember, God doesn't have to conform to a physical logic, where God is God no matter who you are. Again... I am just tossing that out there, I don't know that's true and I am not claiming it as such. It's just a possibility. This is why I can't sit here and condemn a Christian or say Muslims are wrong, or Hinduism is nuts. It's possible for us to all be right at the same time.

So now simply thinking is a sense? You have changed your statements about humanity's supposed spiritual sense as we've gone along. So spiritual sense works differently than our physical senses....how then does it work, and how do you know how it works? Saying, "Human history" is not actually answering that question, by the way.

The only thing I have changed is my approach to explaining things to you, because you seem to not understand the most simple elementary concepts. So is your strategy to play dumb and force me to explain something a different way, where you can then make the claim that I have changed my statements? Do you not find that to be a dishonest way to converse?

Look man, this is really simple... If you don't like me, just say... Hey, Boss... I don't like you, I think you're a jerk. Or... Boss, your avatar makes you look like a prick and I hate you! There is really no need for you to waste your time going through these long-ass threads and posts in order to get to the heart of the matter here.

For the third time, you have rejected what I have said and asked me again to explain how I know humans are spiritually connecting. If I find another way to explain this, you plan to attack that by claiming I am changing my statements. You probably won't accept anything I tell you because you've made your mind up that you're going to disagree with me no matter what. So regardless of what I present, you will find a way to deliberately misinterpret it or skew it out of context and try to turn it back around on me. That seems to have become your game, and I guess you must enjoy playing it. Me, on the other hand, I'm tired of your games. I want an honest conversation with someone of intellect, and that doesn't seem to be yourself.

I'm not going to go wading through the posts from this and the god-haters thread right now, but I'm pretty sure on more than one occasion you've complained that someone using insults was a sign they had no good argument, or were intellectually incapable of crafting one, things of that nature.

I am not the only one you've had semantics arguments with. That's entirely false. You had an ongoing semantics argument with, I think, Derideo_Te (although it may have been someone else) about the word rationalization.

I don't believe that the functions of the brain are random. Well, some may be, but in general they are not. However, I believe who we are is based on a combination of genetics and environmental factors. So the functioning of our brains, our thoughts, our emotions are based on physical things. I believe that if we could see ourselves living a different life, with different experiences; a parent who died instead living, a love not met, a talent not found; we could be extremely different people because our brains would have developed differently with different stimuli. However, I'm perfectly willing to consider this one of those agree to disagree situations.

If you believe god may be different for others than yourself, that's fine. The impression you give is that you understand the true nature of god and spirituality, though, not that what you describe is only your personalized facet of god.

I have not again asked you how you know humans are spiritually connecting. That is entirely, demonstrably false. I've asked how you come by specific information such as particulars about the nature of god, that we have a way to sense the spiritual, that emotions are examples of spiritual sense, and various other declarations you have made about the nature and behavior of the spiritual or the physical as it relates to the spiritual. I already know about your belief that humans have always connected to something spiritual and the reason you have given for that belief. I very clearly have said it is the many specifics you have gone on to give about the spiritual that I'm asking about. Perhaps this is another case where those things you describe are only applicable to you?

Whether or not I like you has no real bearing on whether or not I feel the urge to argue any points you make. When you say things I disagree with or consider based on faulty reasoning, I will argue. I haven't made up my mind that everything you say is going to be wrong. You just say a lot of things that I do think are wrong. There's no game to deliberately misinterpret what you say. In fact, as I've pointed on numerous occasions, including this post, you have often misinterpreted or skewed out of context things I have said. Perhaps you should worry more about your own twisting of other people's words rather than complaining so often about it happening to you.

I don't need to insult you or make claims about your lack of intelligence to have this conversation with you. That seems to be your game.

 

[Montrovant]

Where would you like to start with the proof process that all our points can be reconciled without changing our systems?

Emily, I can appreciate your efforts and I admire what you are trying to do. It's inspirational to see you are so passionate about helping us all reach consensus and harmony. However, I think you misinterpret the intentions of many in this thread and on this forum. They are not interested in reaching consensus or finding harmony. It is the furthest thing from their minds, which explains why you're getting such little response.

So I think you have to start by understanding this. Until you can convince these people to lay down their swords and stop fighting their crusades against Christ and God, you will get nowhere. And the thing about that is, the only way you will ever convince them to do this is by showing them how your approach will defeat Christ and God. Otherwise, they are just not interested.

Yes, of course....it is those other people that aren't interested in reaching consensus or harmony. It is also strange that you turn to people fighting against Christ when you have told us, again and again, that you are not Christian. Unless you are talking about someone(s) particular with that, why specify Christ?

I agree that most people are not on a message board to reach consensus, though. We're here to discuss and to argue. That applies to people of any faith.

 

[emilynghiem]

Where would you like to start with the proof process that all our points can be reconciled without changing our systems?

Emily, I can appreciate your efforts and I admire what you are trying to do. It's inspirational to see you are so passionate about helping us all reach consensus and harmony. However, I think you misinterpret the intentions of many in this thread and on this forum. They are not interested in reaching consensus or finding harmony. It is the furthest thing from their minds, which explains why you're getting such little response.

So I think you have to start by understanding this. Until you can convince these people to lay down their swords and stop fighting their crusades against Christ and God, you will get nowhere. And the thing about that is, the only way you will ever convince them to do this is by showing them how your approach will defeat Christ and God. Otherwise, they are just not interested.

1. I arrived at the opposite conclusion when I asked some of these same people.
Why are you more concerned about what they believe is possible? If you believe it is possible, as I do, to form consensus by aligning point, why not just prove it by demonstration?

2. My point is that as long as we forgive our differences, we can reconcile despite them.
Are you okay with that? Do you find that to be generally true and demonstratable?

3. As for "defeating Christ and God" isn't the point to "END religious abuse" of any sort?
So if by aligning our concepts, where it does not rely on converting people's beliefs,
wouldn't that achieve the goal of preventing the cause or need of any such abuses?

To the Christian believer, this satisfies what they believe in establishing one truth.
To the nontheists, this shows they do not need to be converted or changed for
truth to be established, but their approach to science is equally valid and needed for them to participate, equally as other people use their religions.

Are you okay with approaching the process this way, in order to demonstrate how consensus can be reached without "focusing on changing other people."

Do you recognize you are "focusing on changing other people" which is the reason
they object? If it is more clear you are equally focused on expanding your own perception, as you interact with others, that is not seen as anything to reject.

My impression is that you Montrovant and Derideo Teo are broader minded than that, and have more than enough potential to work through existing biases we each have.

[MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] if you don't want them to underestimate you and sell you short, why underestimate them? Even if what we thought was the focus of the process ends up being something else greater, what's wrong with that, why not go with the flow and try it?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Other animals besides humans have conscienceness and therefore they too have a conscience. A conscience is an emotion that we feel when we have done something wrong. There is no evidence of any connection to your imaginary God involved since people who don't believe in your imaginary God also feel bad when they do something wrong.

Woop there it is. Now they'll tell us we really deep down do believe but it is Satan that makes us deny god. But then they would have to believe the Adam & Eve, Noah, Moses stories too and 7 out of 10 christians know those are just stories. How long until they put 2 and 2 together and realize the jesus story is just a story too?

2000+ plus years AND THE ETERNAL LIVING WORD OF GOD GOES ON INTO ETERNITY!!! PTL.

Civilization has been around for 6000+ years. That means your God hasn't even been around for as long as civilization has, let alone eternity.

 

[Boss]

We already have a name for that it's called your conscience and we know where it comes from. It comes from your brain.

No, it doesn't come from your brain. If this were true, all human conscience would be the same. I love how this brain thing we have is being used to explain away every bit of evidence we have spirit, thoughts, dreams, consciousness. The brain is an organ, made up of gray matter, blood vessels, tissue, etc. It's not some magical mystery box where all ideas and thoughts reside until conjured up. Your conscience comes from your mind, not your brain. Your mind is a collection of information compiled over your lifetime, your education, wisdom, experiences, what has worked for you and what has failed. Yes, your organ known as the brain is used to assimilate these elements of mind into animation or projection by your physical being, as well as introspective and contemplative concepts which remain in your mind.

When you're a smart ass saying "we already have a name for that" it sounds as if you are trying to argue that spirituality is somehow on the outside looking in... hoping for the chance to prove itself by finding a word to define it! Nope, sorry spirituality, we already have a word for that! Well guess what, asswipe? You wouldn't have any words for anything if it weren't for spirituality giving humans the inspiration to create language. You would have grunting noises like the other upper primates.

Other animals besides humans have conscienceness and therefore they too have a conscience. A conscience is an emotion that we feel when we have done something wrong. There is no evidence of any connection to your imaginary God involved since people who don't believe in your imaginary God also feel bad when they do something wrong.

The concept of "wrong" is a learned behavior. Animals in the wild do not have a conscious understanding of "wrong" unless it is instinctively taught by their peers, and the same is true for humans as well. A conscience is not an emotion, GUILT is an emotion that we feel when we've done something perceived to be wrong. Humans have the added bonus of moral conscience, which is directly related to spiritual connection. Through moral conscience we establish various "wrongs" and "rights" and call them ethics or ethos.

Now, our moral conscience doesn't require a person be spiritually connected. It is a learned behavior. This is why Atheists can "feel bad" when they do "wrong" things.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Where would you like to start with the proof process that all our points can be reconciled without changing our systems?

Emily, I can appreciate your efforts and I admire what you are trying to do. It's inspirational to see you are so passionate about helping us all reach consensus and harmony. However, I think you misinterpret the intentions of many in this thread and on this forum. They are not interested in reaching consensus or finding harmony. It is the furthest thing from their minds, which explains why you're getting such little response.

So I think you have to start by understanding this. Until you can convince these people to lay down their swords and stop fighting their crusades against Christ and God, you will get nowhere. And the thing about that is, the only way you will ever convince them to do this is by showing them how your approach will defeat Christ and God. Otherwise, they are just not interested.

Gotta when Boss messes up and inadvertently reveals his true agenda! He makes a mockery of all of his previous posts.



And no, I am not at what Emily is trying to do and neither a I mocking your beliefs. I am at your pretentious BS posts where you try to use "science" and "spiritualism" and all the other illogical drivel that never seems to stop!

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, of course....it is those other people that aren't interested in reaching consensus or harmony. It is also strange that you turn to people fighting against Christ when you have told us, again and again, that you are not Christian. Unless you are talking about someone(s) particular with that, why specify Christ?

I agree that most people are not on a message board to reach consensus, though. We're here to discuss and to argue. That applies to people of any faith.

And if you didn't think there was anything gained from that, why bother.
Either there is value in stating and sharing, or there is some change that can take place.

And clearly none of us stops until we agree key points are settled.
So that is still the same process it takes to form a consensus.
We just keep this going until all points we care about are addressed to our satisfaction.

Here, we just happen to have a few key people able to finish the conversation.

P.S. I find where people use "Christ as the default reference," discussing views of God and Jesus brings up all other issues, unresolved or unforgiven standing in the way of agreement, and otherwise causing division of one level or another.

The point is really to resolve the "personal issues and biases" being projected from the past; but these happen to come up on the same level of conscious discussion in trying to understand what Jesus/God mean and how the conscience works. Again if Christ is a symbol of the collective conscience connecting all people, that cannot be proven or depended upon for all people to believe in, so the point cannot be "Christ" literally; but the "general process" it involves or refers to which DOES affect all people, since we all have a conscience and have perceptions of how we relate to others affected by biases and experiences we carry on our consciences.

I think the real issue is coming to terms with Conscience. If we are okay with Christ representing that unique connection between each person and others "by conscience" or between individual level and collective level of truth/universe/humanity "by conscience."
And if we are NOT okay equating that, what issues do we have, where did they come from and how can they be resolved. So if they can be resolved does that remove past division.

 

[emilynghiem]

So I think you have to start by understanding this. Until you can convince these people to lay down their swords and stop fighting their crusades against Christ and God, you will get nowhere. And the thing about that is, the only way you will ever convince them to do this is by showing them how your approach will defeat Christ and God. Otherwise, they are just not interested.

Gotta when Boss messes up and inadvertently reveals his true agenda! He makes a mockery of all of his previous posts.



And no, I am not at what Emily is trying to do and neither a I mocking your beliefs. I am at your pretentious BS posts where you try to use "science" and "spiritualism" and all the other illogical drivel that never seems to stop!

OK [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] instead of laughing or mocking, let's take it that [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] is honestly sharing this perception that people here are only interested in debunking Christ/God, (which I think does interest sealybobo who does have a thing about "those religious people" in particular which he finds more annoying and destructive)

fine, what is wrong with that. They can both have their biases going into this process,
and as long as they are honest, as Boss is by saying "this is what I see going on"

Hey, we can work with that. We know to map out those quirks or biases or limits.

If we can accept and forgive our differences like this, we can still navigate around them.
If they get corrected in the process, fine, but again the proof of reconciliation between views doesn't depend on changing or converting all these spots.
Just forgiving them so we know they are there and are going to affect how we see and say things, that's all.
In fact, I think the process works smoother the more it "doesn't depend" on changing every bit we find wrong or conflicting. it proves maybe those weren't the main sticking points anyway!

The ones that change change, and the ones that don't will remain. Whatever is universally important will still come out, and these other things may or may not matter so much.

 

[Derideo_Te]

We already have a name for that it's called your conscience and we know where it comes from. It comes from your brain.

No, it doesn't come from your brain. If this were true, all human conscience would be the same. I love how this brain thing we have is being used to explain away every bit of evidence we have spirit, thoughts, dreams, consciousness. The brain is an organ, made up of gray matter, blood vessels, tissue, etc. It's not some magical mystery box where all ideas and thoughts reside until conjured up. Your conscience comes from your mind, not your brain. Your mind is a collection of information compiled over your lifetime, your education, wisdom, experiences, what has worked for you and what has failed. Yes, your organ known as the brain is used to assimilate these elements of mind into animation or projection by your physical being, as well as introspective and contemplative concepts which remain in your mind.

When you're a smart ass saying "we already have a name for that" it sounds as if you are trying to argue that spirituality is somehow on the outside looking in... hoping for the chance to prove itself by finding a word to define it! Nope, sorry spirituality, we already have a word for that! Well guess what, asswipe? You wouldn't have any words for anything if it weren't for spirituality giving humans the inspiration to create language. You would have grunting noises like the other upper primates.

Other animals besides humans have conscienceness and therefore they too have a conscience. A conscience is an emotion that we feel when we have done something wrong. There is no evidence of any connection to your imaginary God involved since people who don't believe in your imaginary God also feel bad when they do something wrong.

The concept of "wrong" is a learned behavior. Animals in the wild do not have a conscious understanding of "wrong" unless it is instinctively taught by their peers, and the same is true for humans as well. A conscience is not an emotion, GUILT is an emotion that we feel when we've done something perceived to be wrong. Humans have the added bonus of moral conscience, which is directly related to spiritual connection. Through moral conscience we establish various "wrongs" and "rights" and call them ethics or ethos.

Now, our moral conscience doesn't require a person be spiritually connected. It is a learned behavior. This is why Atheists can "feel bad" when they do "wrong" things.

Your grasp of human psychology is marginal and your grasp of animal psychology is non-existent. That you constantly make the feeble attempt to equate a "moral conscience" to a "spiritual connection" is just your religious hocus pocus snake oil. There are spiritual atheists and nonspiritual atheists and both have moral consciences. Your religion doesn't have an exclusive on what constitutes a "moral conscience" especially given the atrocities that have been committed in the name of your religion and your God by those who you claim have a "moral conscience, which is directly related to spiritual connection".

 

[sealybobo]

Dear [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION] and [MENTION=26500]Youwerecreated[/MENTION]
The point being we can agree how to talk about conscience, how to form agreements on law and science by conscience, and do not need to argue believe or agree how much is spiritual or physical/chemical in the mind. The point is we can agree there is a mechanism by which we determine what is true/false, right/wrong, good/bad, beneficial/harmful, consensual/coerced, CONSISTENT/INCONSISTENT.

So we can agree to use this mechanism in the conscience to
* form agreements one on one
* resolve relationships individual or in groups
* collectively establish consensual laws and understanding worldwide

And this does not require believing in a personified God as the source of this process.
We can still use the process to reach agreements in a growing consensus,
and can figure out the rest as we go. We may need to forgive our differences along the way in order to facilitate and further the process, instead of blocking it by fighting
over details that are not necessary to the larger process that doesn't depend on all that!

Thank you and I hope that all people here can coordinate this process,
first locally, and then after forming agreements between us how to proceed,
we can expand and help others to facilitate a consensus on laws, God, etc.
And it does not depend on changing or agreeing, but just working with
the systems and ways of thinking we already bring to the table. And that's enough.

What is the conscience ? I think it is the voice of God within each of us. It helps us to know right from wrong and when we make a bad choice, it lets you know you have made a bad choice.

Is this conscience guiding our morals and is it the spiritual connection between God and man ?

If not,how do you explain the conscience ?

We already have a name for that it's called your conscience and we know where it comes from. It comes from your brain.

# 17 on things a theist might say: God is the universe/love/laws of physics/CONSCIENCE.

We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

“To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

Good! So let's use the given terms we have, and agree how to align them and use the communicate critical concepts and what are the key places or points to focus. Great!

Finally! So you'll stop calling it jesus/god? Yes, how do we get back on the right track? We are so off base right now it's pathetic. Parents not staying together to raise the child in a 2 parent home. Our masses are living below poverty. Our government is corrupt. We are destroying this planet with pollution. Kids being bullies in school is a big problem.

Seems we need to do a better job at raising our kids. They're growing up to be ignorant assholes. We also need to respect the poor and middle class more than we do. When jobs are plentiful crime goes down. When jobs are scarce crime goes up. It seems like our government and the corporations sent our jobs overseas because we cost them too much.

I could go on and on, but if you fixed all these things, we'd have a much better society. Going to church is completely unnecessary in teaching love, understanding, empathy, kindness, etc. You don't have to lie or scare me into being a good person.

 

[emilynghiem]

Civilization has been around for 6000+ years. That means your God hasn't even been around for as long as civilization has, let alone eternity.

[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]
I think you mean the Hebrew/Biblical construct/teaching/tradition of God.
What "God" represents is, of course, beyond the scope of the Bible and of mankind.

Are you okay with clarifying "your TEACHINGS of God" only date back 6000 years.

Clearly if God is infinite/all knowing, or the collective of all knowledge/workings
in the universe/creation, that is barely REPRESENTED in the Bible.

GISMYS has stated this God is timeless - "outside of time" which includes Bible history.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So I think you have to start by understanding this. Until you can convince these people to lay down their swords and stop fighting their crusades against Christ and God, you will get nowhere. And the thing about that is, the only way you will ever convince them to do this is by showing them how your approach will defeat Christ and God. Otherwise, they are just not interested.

Gotta when Boss messes up and inadvertently reveals his true agenda! He makes a mockery of all of his previous posts.



And no, I am not at what Emily is trying to do and neither a I mocking your beliefs. I am at your pretentious BS posts where you try to use "science" and "spiritualism" and all the other illogical drivel that never seems to stop!

OK [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] instead of laughing or mocking, let's take it that [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] is honestly sharing this perception that people here are only interested in debunking Christ/God, (which I think does interest sealybobo who does have a thing about "those religious people" in particular which he finds more annoying and destructive)

fine, what is wrong with that. They can both have their biases going into this process,
and as long as they are honest, as Boss is by saying "this is what I see going on"

Hey, we can work with that. We know to map out those quirks or biases or limits.

If we can accept and forgive our differences like this, we can still navigate around them.
If they get corrected in the process, fine, but again the proof of reconciliation between views doesn't depend on changing or converting all these spots.
Just forgiving them so we know they are there and are going to affect how we see and say things, that's all.
In fact, I think the process works smoother the more it "doesn't depend" on changing every bit we find wrong or conflicting. it proves maybe those weren't the main sticking points anyway!

The ones that change change, and the ones that don't will remain. Whatever is universally important will still come out, and these other things may or may not matter so much.

The irony here is that while Boss is pointing his fat finger at everyone else in "moral outrage" the rest of his fingers are pointing right back at him.

He is only correct that your attempts are fruitless but not for the reasons he alleged. He is the problem because he lacks the fundamental honesty and integrity necessary to embark on this endeavor. And yes, that has been established in multiple threads already.

I am more than willing to reach a consensus with sane rational honest people. But there is no point in wasting our time with anyone who isn't even honest about his own agenda and beliefs to begin with.

 

[sealybobo]

We already have a name for that it's called your conscience and we know where it comes from. It comes from your brain.

No, it doesn't come from your brain. If this were true, all human conscience would be the same. I love how this brain thing we have is being used to explain away every bit of evidence we have spirit, thoughts, dreams, consciousness. The brain is an organ, made up of gray matter, blood vessels, tissue, etc. It's not some magical mystery box where all ideas and thoughts reside until conjured up. Your conscience comes from your mind, not your brain. Your mind is a collection of information compiled over your lifetime, your education, wisdom, experiences, what has worked for you and what has failed. Yes, your organ known as the brain is used to assimilate these elements of mind into animation or projection by your physical being, as well as introspective and contemplative concepts which remain in your mind.

When you're a smart ass saying "we already have a name for that" it sounds as if you are trying to argue that spirituality is somehow on the outside looking in... hoping for the chance to prove itself by finding a word to define it! Nope, sorry spirituality, we already have a word for that! Well guess what, asswipe? You wouldn't have any words for anything if it weren't for spirituality giving humans the inspiration to create language. You would have grunting noises like the other upper primates.

Other animals besides humans have conscienceness and therefore they too have a conscience. A conscience is an emotion that we feel when we have done something wrong. There is no evidence of any connection to your imaginary God involved since people who don't believe in your imaginary God also feel bad when they do something wrong.

The concept of "wrong" is a learned behavior. Animals in the wild do not have a conscious understanding of "wrong" unless it is instinctively taught by their peers, and the same is true for humans as well. A conscience is not an emotion, GUILT is an emotion that we feel when we've done something perceived to be wrong. Humans have the added bonus of moral conscience, which is directly related to spiritual connection. Through moral conscience we establish various "wrongs" and "rights" and call them ethics or ethos.

Now, our moral conscience doesn't require a person be spiritually connected. It is a learned behavior. This is why Atheists can "feel bad" when they do "wrong" things.

You may be surprised to find that there is no single, agreed upon definition of the mind. The psychiatric, mental health and medical professions each have their own functional definitions.

It is a common belief that the mind is the activity of the brain. One point is the physical brain and nervous system which are the mechanisms by which energy and information flow throughout our beings.

Our senses take in information from the environment. These become electrical signals which travel through the nervous system to the brain which, then, gives them meaning and responds by releasing neurochemicals and dispatching electrical signals which, in turn, regulate the body, control movement and influence emotions.

A second point on the Triangle of Well-Being is relationships which are the means by which information and energy are shared. An integral part of the mind is comprised of the relational process of energy and information flowing between and among people. This happens through the spoken or written word. In person, this also happens through eye contact, facial expression, body language, posture and gesture.

The more I learn the more I realize you are wrong.