Why do the God-haters persist?

[sealybobo]

The fact that man uses spiritual placeholders to create an understanding of his surroundings does not mean it is a universally accepted concoction.

But man doesn't. That's YOUR argument and I have debunked it. The understanding of God doesn't explain anything or how it happens. You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown. It's akin to saying man invented the color red to explain why donuts are so delicious.

People applying their rational brains have made discoveries throughout history that have required the adjustment of the prevailing myths.

True, but this applies to both religion AND science.



Imagination LEADS to investigation. Science is a reaction to inspiration of gaining knowledge. It is not a pushback of anything because, again, spiritual beliefs do not explain the unknown. I posted a comprehensive list of the earliest scientists followed by a comprehensive list of contemporary scientists who believed in spiritual nature. It's frankly a brainless and stupid argument that science was invented to explain away spiritual faith because it has obviously done a piss poor job of that.



Not my argument... this is a distortion of my words to create an argument I never made. Propaganda is most certainly useful. There is no example of something that is "meaningless" and also "beneficial."

You yourself have said that the salvation doctrine is false in your opinion...

Again, you twist and distort things I say to make points I never made. I've never said the salvation doctrine is false, I said I don't believe in it. I don't know if it's true or false, I just don't believe in it.

Third, whether or not it has "paid off" could be argued, but it is irrelevant, unless you are simply saying that whatever benefits a man defines it as true and good. Not sure you want to be making that argument.

It really can't be argued unless you are a moron who thinks man would be "better off" living in the trees in the jungle, competing with the great apes and other upper primates for survival. Now I can imagine a moron like you making that argument, but I will always disagree with you.

You said, "You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown.' Really??? Where do you go when you die? Heaven? Man invented god and heaven. Fact is no one knows what happens when you die.

The God Delusion is a 2006 best-selling,[1] non-fiction book by English biologist Richard Dawkins, professorial fellow of New College, Oxford,[2][3] and former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion"

 

[Hollie]

What, exactly, is your argument? Because you have said that if something is an exclusively human trait (specifically you said not found elsewhere in nature), it's not something created to explain the unknown. You said you used science to show that spiritual belief/spirituality are not based on imagined gods, and that was part of your argument. How is that not saying there is some scientific principle that states an exclusively human trait cannot be something created to explain the unknown?

I'm not trying to find proof of your god here. You made a claim about showing that spiritual belief can not be based on imagination using science and I am pointing out that is a false claim. At best you've tried to conflate your beliefs with evolutionary theory and done so poorly.

It doesn't matter if you are completely correct in your spiritual beliefs, if the god you believe in exists, etc. That doesn't mean you have accurately used any sort of scientific principles or research to show that the various religious and spiritual beliefs of mankind cannot have been based on imagined beings.

Look, I've presented my argument. You continue to try and parse my thoughts in distorted context to create false arguments you can defeat. It has become consistent with you and I guess some people think you're brilliant for having this ability, but I am not impressed.

Religious beliefs are something totally different from intrinsic spiritual connection. You keep grouping the two together as if they are joined at the hip and inseparable, when we know that human spirituality predates any sort of religion by tens of thousands of years. Then you make this argument it was "invented by man" but that only applies to religious beliefs, it does not and cannot apply to spirituality. We did not invent our intrinsic spiritual connection, no matter how much you wish that were proven to be the case. It is evidenced to exist in man since the very first civilization and remains our most defining attribute as a species.

Now I don't know about "imagined beings" ...what do you mean by "being" here? A physical manifestation of some kind? Is this your brain not being able to comprehend that which is spiritual? When we apply the word "being" it generally denotes a physical state of presence or "being in existence" in a physical sense. Spiritual nature is not physical nature. It is here where I can understand the god-deniers not being able to accept the existence of God, you simply can't rationalize a spiritual concept. Doesn't mean it isn't true, you just can't envision it.

When we study the inherent behaviors of any living thing, we find that all inherent behaviors are present for a reason. We may not know what those reasons are at first, and it may take many years of research to even have an idea of why the behaviors exist, but we know that they do exist for a reason. Why is that salmon working so hard to swim upstream? Is it because it's stupid and ignorant? Has it deluded itself into believing something is upstream that isn't really there? Is it because it's afraid of the unknown downstream? These are all silly excuses we could have come up with in denial of the fact that we know all inherent behavior has fundamental reason.

"When we study"? Who is we?

It is the science community that is doing the studying. “We” need to understand that the fundamentalist ministries are not doing any studies in the biological sciences that are available for peer review. Why don’t you identify for us the “studies” performed by the Disco’tute that have been submitted for peer review?

What is preventing the ID’iots, from presenting their reliable and supportable data in a manner that will resolve their credibility / reliability and accountability failures? If creationism / ID is as solidly defendable as its religious authorities claim, allow it to be subject to the same process of debate / scientific testing / peer review within the relevant scientific community. Enough of the phony Disco' tute green-screen labs. Why doesn’t the creationist / ID / hyper-religious community do real science? While it is true that creationism / intelligent design pseudo-science is rejected by the vast majority of scientists, (especially those in geology/paleontology, biology, and physics); this group includes Christian scientists and other scientists who are also share theistic views. But, again, those rare scientists in biology, geology/paleontology that accept ID/creationism can step up to the plate and actively undertake the scientific experiments, actively publish in mainstream peer-review science journals, actively attend science seminars and symposiums, etc, to present their research / field study / peer-reviewed papers.

 

[Boss]

You said, "You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown.' Really??? Where do you go when you die? Heaven? Man invented god and heaven. Fact is no one knows what happens when you die.

The God Delusion is a 2006 best-selling,[1] non-fiction book by English biologist Richard Dawkins, professorial fellow of New College, Oxford,[2][3] and former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion"

I don't know where you go when you die but it has nothing to do with whether humans spiritually connect to something greater than self. Or perhaps it does and I just don't understand that connection? Man invents incarnations of God and heaven because man is intrinsically connected to something greater than self that he cannot explain.

It's anecdotal but nice to know that Dawkins contents it's "almost certain" that God doesn't exist.

 

[Boss]

"When we study"? Who is we?

Human biologists and people who study science.

 

[sealybobo]

The fact that man uses spiritual placeholders to create an understanding of his surroundings does not mean it is a universally accepted concoction.

But man doesn't. That's YOUR argument and I have debunked it. The understanding of God doesn't explain anything or how it happens. You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown. It's akin to saying man invented the color red to explain why donuts are so delicious.

People applying their rational brains have made discoveries throughout history that have required the adjustment of the prevailing myths.

True, but this applies to both religion AND science.



Imagination LEADS to investigation. Science is a reaction to inspiration of gaining knowledge. It is not a pushback of anything because, again, spiritual beliefs do not explain the unknown. I posted a comprehensive list of the earliest scientists followed by a comprehensive list of contemporary scientists who believed in spiritual nature. It's frankly a brainless and stupid argument that science was invented to explain away spiritual faith because it has obviously done a piss poor job of that.



Not my argument... this is a distortion of my words to create an argument I never made. Propaganda is most certainly useful. There is no example of something that is "meaningless" and also "beneficial."

You yourself have said that the salvation doctrine is false in your opinion...

Again, you twist and distort things I say to make points I never made. I've never said the salvation doctrine is false, I said I don't believe in it. I don't know if it's true or false, I just don't believe in it.

Third, whether or not it has "paid off" could be argued, but it is irrelevant, unless you are simply saying that whatever benefits a man defines it as true and good. Not sure you want to be making that argument.

It really can't be argued unless you are a moron who thinks man would be "better off" living in the trees in the jungle, competing with the great apes and other upper primates for survival. Now I can imagine a moron like you making that argument, but I will always disagree with you.

You said, "You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown.' Really??? Where do you go when you die? Heaven? Man invented god and heaven. Fact is no one knows what happens when you die.

The God Delusion is a 2006 best-selling,[1] non-fiction book by English biologist Richard Dawkins, professorial fellow of New College, Oxford,[2][3] and former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion"

 

[Hollie]

"When we study"? Who is we?

Human biologists and people who study science.

Human biologists as opposed to the non-human ones? What "people who study science" and affiliated with the Disco' tute are submitting "study papers" for peer review by the relevant science community?

So, I'm still curious to know who "we" is in connection with "when we study".

What papers, studies, experiments have been performed by creation ministries and submitted to the relevant science community for peer review?

 

[Boss]

Why doesn’t the creationist / ID / hyper-religious community do real science?

Well, ID theory does involve real science. But other than that, spiritual nature is not examinable by physical sciences at this time. Spiritual nature is not physical nature.

 

[Montrovant]

What, exactly, is your argument? Because you have said that if something is an exclusively human trait (specifically you said not found elsewhere in nature), it's not something created to explain the unknown. You said you used science to show that spiritual belief/spirituality are not based on imagined gods, and that was part of your argument. How is that not saying there is some scientific principle that states an exclusively human trait cannot be something created to explain the unknown?

I'm not trying to find proof of your god here. You made a claim about showing that spiritual belief can not be based on imagination using science and I am pointing out that is a false claim. At best you've tried to conflate your beliefs with evolutionary theory and done so poorly.

It doesn't matter if you are completely correct in your spiritual beliefs, if the god you believe in exists, etc. That doesn't mean you have accurately used any sort of scientific principles or research to show that the various religious and spiritual beliefs of mankind cannot have been based on imagined beings.

Look, I've presented my argument. You continue to try and parse my thoughts in distorted context to create false arguments you can defeat. It has become consistent with you and I guess some people think you're brilliant for having this ability, but I am not impressed.

Religious beliefs are something totally different from intrinsic spiritual connection. You keep grouping the two together as if they are joined at the hip and inseparable, when we know that human spirituality predates any sort of religion by tens of thousands of years. Then you make this argument it was "invented by man" but that only applies to religious beliefs, it does not and cannot apply to spirituality. We did not invent our intrinsic spiritual connection, no matter how much you wish that were proven to be the case. It is evidenced to exist in man since the very first civilization and remains our most defining attribute as a species.

Now I don't know about "imagined beings" ...what do you mean by "being" here? A physical manifestation of some kind? Is this your brain not being able to comprehend that which is spiritual? When we apply the word "being" it generally denotes a physical state of presence or "being in existence" in a physical sense. Spiritual nature is not physical nature. It is here where I can understand the god-deniers not being able to accept the existence of God, you simply can't rationalize a spiritual concept. Doesn't mean it isn't true, you just can't envision it.

When we study the inherent behaviors of any living thing, we find that all inherent behaviors are present for a reason. We may not know what those reasons are at first, and it may take many years of research to even have an idea of why the behaviors exist, but we know that they do exist for a reason. Why is that salmon working so hard to swim upstream? Is it because it's stupid and ignorant? Has it deluded itself into believing something is upstream that isn't really there? Is it because it's afraid of the unknown downstream? These are all silly excuses we could have come up with in denial of the fact that we know all inherent behavior has fundamental reason.

You never stop doing exactly the things you accuse others of, do you?

I have not, in any way, tried to prove that spiritual connection or religious belief or spirituality or any of that was invented. What I've done, what I've clearly stated I am doing, is to show that you have not used science to show that man's spiritual connection cannot have been based on imagination. I've even said that you can be correct about spirituality and that you still have not shown, using any kind of science, that it's not possible for spirituality to be based on imagination. Yet here you are, assigning arguments to me that I not only have not made, but have specifically contradicted.

I'm sorry if you find me asking for clarification of your argument, while providing your own words to show why I'm asking, so onerous.

I group religious beliefs with spiritual connection because you have used religious belief as evidence of that spiritual connection. Once again, you seem to have a problem with your own arguments being questioned.

Who is the 'we' that knows spiritual connection predates religion by tens of thousands of years? What is the evidence that spiritual connection was a part of humanity tens of thousands of years before religion began?

In yet another example of your hypocrisy, you decide to take issue with my use of the word beings, when you have complained about others twisting meaning and focusing on minutiae. I didn't say that beings denoted a physical being. In fact, considering the context, it's pretty clear I was speaking of something else; the various gods humanity has believed in.

You compare belief to behavior, but haven't you said those are different things in this very thread? Anyway, the physical behavior of a salmon is not the same as the beliefs of a human. You would need to compare the things people do because of their spiritual beliefs to the salmon swimming upstream, or compare the thoughts or beliefs of the salmon that lead it to swim upstream to human spiritual belief, to really have an accurate analogy.

One more time : I'm not trying to prove or disprove the basis for religion, spiritual belief or spirituality. I'm not trying to get you to prove the existence of god. I'm pointing out that your argument, that you have shown spiritual belief cannot be based on human imagining through some sort of science, is false.

 

[Hollie]

Why doesn’t the creationist / ID / hyper-religious community do real science?

Well, ID theory does involve real science. But other than that, spiritual nature is not examinable by physical sciences at this time. Spiritual nature is not physical nature.

What papers, studies, experiments have been performed by the Disco 'tute and submitted to the relevant science community for peer review?

The 'tute is an "ID" syndicate, so please identify their works for us.


"Spiritual nature" is some invention of yours and yes, how convenient that it is "not examinable by physical sciences at this time". Are there then "supernatural sciences" can be called into service to examine "spiritual nature"™?

 

[Steven_R]

Why doesn’t the creationist / ID / hyper-religious community do real science?

Well, ID theory does involve real science.

You do realize that the proponents of ID outright admit that they have a conclusion but no evidence? That in order for ID to be science, the rules of science have to be expanded to the point that astrology becomes an actual scientific discipline. That every point ID has made has been debunked, including Irreducible Complexity.

 

[orogenicman]

What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown...

Actually, man created god and the religions by which to worship it so he wouldn't feel so small and alone when faced with the unknown, and so he could control the masses. It also is a good excuse to make a lot of money. Ask Pat Robertson.

Actually, if you've kept up with the thread, I've already debunked the myth that man created God or spirituality. Religion is created by man to explain his spiritual connection to God and spiritual nature.

The only time in history I can recall anyone attempting to "control the masses" they were executing the religious and discouraging spirituality.

Do you honestly think that the first snake head idol, created some 70,000 years ago, and which is considered to be the oldest known religious symbol, was created to explain man's spiritual connection to god?

You've never hear of Jim Jones, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker and Tammy Fay, about three or four dozen popes, Jesus Christ, Rev Sun Mying Moon, Buddha, etc., etc., etc.? These people never attempted to control the masses? Ever?

 

[Steven_R]

Do you honestly think that the first snake head idol, created some 70,000 years ago...

Nonsense. The world is no older than 10,000 years.

70,000 years old?

Next you'll tell me that there wasn't a world wide flood that carved out the Grand Canyon.

I'm on to you and your Satan-led ways.

 

[Boss]

What, exactly, is your argument? Because you have said that if something is an exclusively human trait (specifically you said not found elsewhere in nature), it's not something created to explain the unknown. You said you used science to show that spiritual belief/spirituality are not based on imagined gods, and that was part of your argument. How is that not saying there is some scientific principle that states an exclusively human trait cannot be something created to explain the unknown?

I'm not trying to find proof of your god here. You made a claim about showing that spiritual belief can not be based on imagination using science and I am pointing out that is a false claim. At best you've tried to conflate your beliefs with evolutionary theory and done so poorly.

It doesn't matter if you are completely correct in your spiritual beliefs, if the god you believe in exists, etc. That doesn't mean you have accurately used any sort of scientific principles or research to show that the various religious and spiritual beliefs of mankind cannot have been based on imagined beings.

Look, I've presented my argument. You continue to try and parse my thoughts in distorted context to create false arguments you can defeat. It has become consistent with you and I guess some people think you're brilliant for having this ability, but I am not impressed.

Religious beliefs are something totally different from intrinsic spiritual connection. You keep grouping the two together as if they are joined at the hip and inseparable, when we know that human spirituality predates any sort of religion by tens of thousands of years. Then you make this argument it was "invented by man" but that only applies to religious beliefs, it does not and cannot apply to spirituality. We did not invent our intrinsic spiritual connection, no matter how much you wish that were proven to be the case. It is evidenced to exist in man since the very first civilization and remains our most defining attribute as a species.

Now I don't know about "imagined beings" ...what do you mean by "being" here? A physical manifestation of some kind? Is this your brain not being able to comprehend that which is spiritual? When we apply the word "being" it generally denotes a physical state of presence or "being in existence" in a physical sense. Spiritual nature is not physical nature. It is here where I can understand the god-deniers not being able to accept the existence of God, you simply can't rationalize a spiritual concept. Doesn't mean it isn't true, you just can't envision it.

When we study the inherent behaviors of any living thing, we find that all inherent behaviors are present for a reason. We may not know what those reasons are at first, and it may take many years of research to even have an idea of why the behaviors exist, but we know that they do exist for a reason. Why is that salmon working so hard to swim upstream? Is it because it's stupid and ignorant? Has it deluded itself into believing something is upstream that isn't really there? Is it because it's afraid of the unknown downstream? These are all silly excuses we could have come up with in denial of the fact that we know all inherent behavior has fundamental reason.

You never stop doing exactly the things you accuse others of, do you?

I have not, in any way, tried to prove that spiritual connection or religious belief or spirituality or any of that was invented. What I've done, what I've clearly stated I am doing, is to show that you have not used science to show that man's spiritual connection cannot have been based on imagination. I've even said that you can be correct about spirituality and that you still have not shown, using any kind of science, that it's not possible for spirituality to be based on imagination. Yet here you are, assigning arguments to me that I not only have not made, but have specifically contradicted.

But what you are doing is taking my response to that argument from someone else, then retroactively presenting your argument and pretending my response is to your argument instead. It has been argued that human spirituality is invented, made-up, imaginary, created by man to explain the unexplained and console fear of the unknown, etc. I am responding to THAT argument, and you are free to disagree with my response but you can't pretend it's a response to some other argument you'd like to make.

And let me clarify, I have never intended to state that it's "not possible" for spirituality to be based on imagination, it's highly improbable and not scientifically supportable.

I'm sorry if you find me asking for clarification of your argument, while providing your own words to show why I'm asking, so onerous.

That's not what I find onerous. Having to go through and straighten out your mess of distorted context and meaning, having to restore my arguments to their original points being addressed, and having to deal with you retroactively trying to establish arguments not previously presented, are becoming very onerous and not worth my time.

I group religious beliefs with spiritual connection because you have used religious belief as evidence of that spiritual connection. Once again, you seem to have a problem with your own arguments being questioned.

I don't have a problem with my own arguments or them being questioned. Religion is man made invention to better comprehend spiritual nature. It's like science and physical nature. If I stated that man invented science AND physical nature to explain the unexplained.... that would simply be an incorrect statement because man didn't invent physical nature. We can argue science all day long, we can't argue physical nature, it exists and is true.

Who is the 'we' that knows spiritual connection predates religion by tens of thousands of years? What is the evidence that spiritual connection was a part of humanity tens of thousands of years before religion began?

Archeology. The oldest human civilizations ever unearthed reveal evidence of human spiritual belief through ceremonial rituals and burials. There is no other context for this other than spirituality.

In yet another example of your hypocrisy, you decide to take issue with my use of the word beings, when you have complained about others twisting meaning and focusing on minutiae. I didn't say that beings denoted a physical being. In fact, considering the context, it's pretty clear I was speaking of something else; the various gods humanity has believed in.

But that is my point, the various incarnations of "GOD" have taken on physical characteristics of physical beings and entities. This is because man has a difficult time imagining something "being" that isn't physical. The fact that no evidence exists to suggest a physical being called "God" existing physically in our universe, has nothing to do with human's intrinsic spiritual connection that can't be denied. It only serves to prove that man is connecting with something he doesn't understand or comprehend.

You compare belief to behavior, but haven't you said those are different things in this very thread? Anyway, the physical behavior of a salmon is not the same as the beliefs of a human. You would need to compare the things people do because of their spiritual beliefs to the salmon swimming upstream, or compare the thoughts or beliefs of the salmon that lead it to swim upstream to human spiritual belief, to really have an accurate analogy.

I didn't say they were the same. But you are conflating "beliefs" with what caused the beliefs to happen. The "behavior" is human spiritual connection to something greater than self. The "beliefs" are assorted incarnations derived from that behavior. Perhaps a salmon "believes" it is going upstream to receive salvation? It doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with the reason the salmon has this behavioral characteristic.

One more time : I'm not trying to prove or disprove the basis for religion, spiritual belief or spirituality. I'm not trying to get you to prove the existence of god. I'm pointing out that your argument, that you have shown spiritual belief cannot be based on human imagining through some sort of science, is false.

Again, "beliefs" are the manifestation of a spiritual connection. I can't prove ANY belief. In science OR religion. Human spiritual connection is intrinsic and part of who we are. Science certainly demonstrates this intrinsic behavioral attribute is not superficial or imaginary. We find no such other examples in nature. "Beliefs" are a different matter, we see all kinds of "beliefs" manifested through spiritual connection. We also see beliefs manifested through imagination as well as science.

 

[sealybobo]

You said, "You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown.' Really??? Where do you go when you die? Heaven? Man invented god and heaven. Fact is no one knows what happens when you die.

The God Delusion is a 2006 best-selling,[1] non-fiction book by English biologist Richard Dawkins, professorial fellow of New College, Oxford,[2][3] and former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion"

I don't know where you go when you die but it has nothing to do with whether humans spiritually connect to something greater than self. Or perhaps it does and I just don't understand that connection? Man invents incarnations of God and heaven because man is intrinsically connected to something greater than self that he cannot explain.

It's anecdotal but nice to know that Dawkins contents it's "almost certain" that God doesn't exist.

That's because the proper position to have on this subject is agnostic athiesm. But the fact is the existence or non existence of a god are not equally probably outcomes. Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims.



No one can say 100% there is no god. The people who say they are 100% certain are saying so because there is absolutely zero hard evidence. All believers have is their faith and they are ignoring a whole lot of evidence that says they are talking to an imaginary/made up person in the sky. Just the fact that all the organized religions are so full of shit is all the proof I need. And IF there is a God, he doesn't care what you think or do, just as he doesn't care when a lion kills a deer, when you smash a mosquito or when a woman gets an abortion.

Why would god hide from us? Think about it.

 

[sealybobo]

"When we study"? Who is we?

Human biologists and people who study science.

By the way, the other day I said athiests are starting churches and you mocked the idea. I don't think you understood. In our church, the only thing not present is god. But like religious people we would like a tax exempt organization where we can amass a lot of money and not have to pay uncle sam. We would like to do good in the name of athiests. AND, we would like to get together with people who think like we do, just like religious people like to get together and praise an imaginary man. Like they talk about sinners, we will talk about the fools who believe in fairytales and how they want to impose their ideology on the rest of us and what can we do to stop them. I guess then we would also like to lobby our politicians so they fear our vote the same way the GOP fears the so called moral majority.

P.S. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is not a belief or claim that we know. Instead it's the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism.

Every human ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of god and must be indoctrinated with it.

Atheism doesn't require faith, just like it doesn't take faith to not believe in Leprehauns.

 

[Montrovant]

Look, I've presented my argument. You continue to try and parse my thoughts in distorted context to create false arguments you can defeat. It has become consistent with you and I guess some people think you're brilliant for having this ability, but I am not impressed.

Religious beliefs are something totally different from intrinsic spiritual connection. You keep grouping the two together as if they are joined at the hip and inseparable, when we know that human spirituality predates any sort of religion by tens of thousands of years. Then you make this argument it was "invented by man" but that only applies to religious beliefs, it does not and cannot apply to spirituality. We did not invent our intrinsic spiritual connection, no matter how much you wish that were proven to be the case. It is evidenced to exist in man since the very first civilization and remains our most defining attribute as a species.

Now I don't know about "imagined beings" ...what do you mean by "being" here? A physical manifestation of some kind? Is this your brain not being able to comprehend that which is spiritual? When we apply the word "being" it generally denotes a physical state of presence or "being in existence" in a physical sense. Spiritual nature is not physical nature. It is here where I can understand the god-deniers not being able to accept the existence of God, you simply can't rationalize a spiritual concept. Doesn't mean it isn't true, you just can't envision it.

When we study the inherent behaviors of any living thing, we find that all inherent behaviors are present for a reason. We may not know what those reasons are at first, and it may take many years of research to even have an idea of why the behaviors exist, but we know that they do exist for a reason. Why is that salmon working so hard to swim upstream? Is it because it's stupid and ignorant? Has it deluded itself into believing something is upstream that isn't really there? Is it because it's afraid of the unknown downstream? These are all silly excuses we could have come up with in denial of the fact that we know all inherent behavior has fundamental reason.

You never stop doing exactly the things you accuse others of, do you?

I have not, in any way, tried to prove that spiritual connection or religious belief or spirituality or any of that was invented. What I've done, what I've clearly stated I am doing, is to show that you have not used science to show that man's spiritual connection cannot have been based on imagination. I've even said that you can be correct about spirituality and that you still have not shown, using any kind of science, that it's not possible for spirituality to be based on imagination. Yet here you are, assigning arguments to me that I not only have not made, but have specifically contradicted.

But what you are doing is taking my response to that argument from someone else, then retroactively presenting your argument and pretending my response is to your argument instead. It has been argued that human spirituality is invented, made-up, imaginary, created by man to explain the unexplained and console fear of the unknown, etc. I am responding to THAT argument, and you are free to disagree with my response but you can't pretend it's a response to some other argument you'd like to make.

And let me clarify, I have never intended to state that it's "not possible" for spirituality to be based on imagination, it's highly improbable and not scientifically supportable.



That's not what I find onerous. Having to go through and straighten out your mess of distorted context and meaning, having to restore my arguments to their original points being addressed, and having to deal with you retroactively trying to establish arguments not previously presented, are becoming very onerous and not worth my time.



I don't have a problem with my own arguments or them being questioned. Religion is man made invention to better comprehend spiritual nature. It's like science and physical nature. If I stated that man invented science AND physical nature to explain the unexplained.... that would simply be an incorrect statement because man didn't invent physical nature. We can argue science all day long, we can't argue physical nature, it exists and is true.



Archeology. The oldest human civilizations ever unearthed reveal evidence of human spiritual belief through ceremonial rituals and burials. There is no other context for this other than spirituality.


But that is my point, the various incarnations of "GOD" have taken on physical characteristics of physical beings and entities. This is because man has a difficult time imagining something "being" that isn't physical. The fact that no evidence exists to suggest a physical being called "God" existing physically in our universe, has nothing to do with human's intrinsic spiritual connection that can't be denied. It only serves to prove that man is connecting with something he doesn't understand or comprehend.

You compare belief to behavior, but haven't you said those are different things in this very thread? Anyway, the physical behavior of a salmon is not the same as the beliefs of a human. You would need to compare the things people do because of their spiritual beliefs to the salmon swimming upstream, or compare the thoughts or beliefs of the salmon that lead it to swim upstream to human spiritual belief, to really have an accurate analogy.

I didn't say they were the same. But you are conflating "beliefs" with what caused the beliefs to happen. The "behavior" is human spiritual connection to something greater than self. The "beliefs" are assorted incarnations derived from that behavior. Perhaps a salmon "believes" it is going upstream to receive salvation? It doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with the reason the salmon has this behavioral characteristic.

One more time : I'm not trying to prove or disprove the basis for religion, spiritual belief or spirituality. I'm not trying to get you to prove the existence of god. I'm pointing out that your argument, that you have shown spiritual belief cannot be based on human imagining through some sort of science, is false.

Again, "beliefs" are the manifestation of a spiritual connection. I can't prove ANY belief. In science OR religion. Human spiritual connection is intrinsic and part of who we are. Science certainly demonstrates this intrinsic behavioral attribute is not superficial or imaginary. We find no such other examples in nature. "Beliefs" are a different matter, we see all kinds of "beliefs" manifested through spiritual connection. We also see beliefs manifested through imagination as well as science.

Here is where you seem to have a problem. You are starting from the point that spiritual connection is an inherent human behavior, without actually defining it, then expecting others to accept that hypothesis. Can you describe the behavior of spiritual connection? Since you say that beliefs are a manifestation of spiritual connection, but spiritual connection is a human behavioral attribute, what exactly IS that attribute? You keep saying humans have this connection, but what does that actually mean? Do humans feel something with a sense we don't realize we have? Is that sense a part of our physical bodies or some spiritual attribute in humans? Does this connection mean the physical and the spiritual can interact, and if so, wouldn't that imply that it is possible for humans to at some point observe, test, and define the spiritual through physical scientific means?

You say that science demonstrates that spiritual connection is not superficial or imaginary but provide no actual scientific evidence of this. You've attempted to connect evolution to your ill-defined behavioral attribute without actually sensibly following evolutionary theory. Other than that, I haven't seen any kind of scientific research, law, principles, etc. to agree with your contention. You have, in fact, dismissed questions about this with excuses about distortion and parsing words (things you have, as clearly shown, done yourself over and over in this thread) despite the questions being accompanied by your own statements.

So do you want to define this spiritual connection that you say is an inherent behavioral attribute of humanity, as demonstrated by some form of science? Or should be just continue to argue about it without you explaining what it actually is?

 

[thebrucebeat]

The fact that man uses spiritual placeholders to create an understanding of his surroundings does not mean it is a universally accepted concoction.

But man doesn't. That's YOUR argument and I have debunked it. The understanding of God doesn't explain anything or how it happens. You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown. It's akin to saying man invented the color red to explain why donuts are so delicious.
You have debunked nothing. Earliest religions specifically explained how things happened and attributed anything unknown to a god.your last sentence just announces you are a very, very stupid man.

People applying their rational brains have made discoveries throughout history that have required the adjustment of the prevailing myths.

True, but this applies to both religion AND science.



Imagination LEADS to investigation. Science is a reaction to inspiration of gaining knowledge. It is not a pushback of anything because, again, spiritual beliefs do not explain the unknown. I posted a comprehensive list of the earliest scientists followed by a comprehensive list of contemporary scientists who believed in spiritual nature. It's frankly a brainless and stupid argument that science was invented to explain away spiritual faith because it has obviously done a piss poor job of that.
If you can produce a comprehensive list then they are obviously in a very tiny minority.
No one has said that science was invented to explain away religion. It was an inevitable result of curious minds seeking answers, not settling for facile ones.


Not my argument... this is a distortion of my words to create an argument I never made. Propaganda is most certainly useful. There is no example of something that is "meaningless" and also "beneficial."
No one has ever said religion is meaningless. It has great meaning for those that invest in it, just like any rationalization is clung to with great tenacity to protect the ego. The false can also be meaningful and beneficial. It doesn't make it true.
No difference.

You yourself have said that the salvation doctrine is false in your opinion...

Again, you twist and distort things I say to make points I never made. I've never said the salvation doctrine is false, I said I don't believe in it. I don't know if it's true or false, I just don't believe in it.
which is another way to say you think it is false.

Third, whether or not it has "paid off" could be argued, but it is irrelevant, unless you are simply saying that whatever benefits a man defines it as true and good. Not sure you want to be making that argument.

It really can't be argued unless you are a moron who thinks man would be "better off" living in the trees in the jungle, competing with the great apes and other upper primates for survival. Now I can imagine a moron like you making that argument, but I will always disagree with you.

This is too stupid to deserve a response.

 

[sealybobo]

You never stop doing exactly the things you accuse others of, do you?

I have not, in any way, tried to prove that spiritual connection or religious belief or spirituality or any of that was invented. What I've done, what I've clearly stated I am doing, is to show that you have not used science to show that man's spiritual connection cannot have been based on imagination. I've even said that you can be correct about spirituality and that you still have not shown, using any kind of science, that it's not possible for spirituality to be based on imagination. Yet here you are, assigning arguments to me that I not only have not made, but have specifically contradicted.

But what you are doing is taking my response to that argument from someone else, then retroactively presenting your argument and pretending my response is to your argument instead. It has been argued that human spirituality is invented, made-up, imaginary, created by man to explain the unexplained and console fear of the unknown, etc. I am responding to THAT argument, and you are free to disagree with my response but you can't pretend it's a response to some other argument you'd like to make.

And let me clarify, I have never intended to state that it's "not possible" for spirituality to be based on imagination, it's highly improbable and not scientifically supportable.



That's not what I find onerous. Having to go through and straighten out your mess of distorted context and meaning, having to restore my arguments to their original points being addressed, and having to deal with you retroactively trying to establish arguments not previously presented, are becoming very onerous and not worth my time.



I don't have a problem with my own arguments or them being questioned. Religion is man made invention to better comprehend spiritual nature. It's like science and physical nature. If I stated that man invented science AND physical nature to explain the unexplained.... that would simply be an incorrect statement because man didn't invent physical nature. We can argue science all day long, we can't argue physical nature, it exists and is true.



Archeology. The oldest human civilizations ever unearthed reveal evidence of human spiritual belief through ceremonial rituals and burials. There is no other context for this other than spirituality.


But that is my point, the various incarnations of "GOD" have taken on physical characteristics of physical beings and entities. This is because man has a difficult time imagining something "being" that isn't physical. The fact that no evidence exists to suggest a physical being called "God" existing physically in our universe, has nothing to do with human's intrinsic spiritual connection that can't be denied. It only serves to prove that man is connecting with something he doesn't understand or comprehend.



I didn't say they were the same. But you are conflating "beliefs" with what caused the beliefs to happen. The "behavior" is human spiritual connection to something greater than self. The "beliefs" are assorted incarnations derived from that behavior. Perhaps a salmon "believes" it is going upstream to receive salvation? It doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with the reason the salmon has this behavioral characteristic.

One more time : I'm not trying to prove or disprove the basis for religion, spiritual belief or spirituality. I'm not trying to get you to prove the existence of god. I'm pointing out that your argument, that you have shown spiritual belief cannot be based on human imagining through some sort of science, is false.

Again, "beliefs" are the manifestation of a spiritual connection. I can't prove ANY belief. In science OR religion. Human spiritual connection is intrinsic and part of who we are. Science certainly demonstrates this intrinsic behavioral attribute is not superficial or imaginary. We find no such other examples in nature. "Beliefs" are a different matter, we see all kinds of "beliefs" manifested through spiritual connection. We also see beliefs manifested through imagination as well as science.

Here is where you seem to have a problem. You are starting from the point that spiritual connection is an inherent human behavior, without actually defining it, then expecting others to accept that hypothesis. Can you describe the behavior of spiritual connection? Since you say that beliefs are a manifestation of spiritual connection, but spiritual connection is a human behavioral attribute, what exactly IS that attribute? You keep saying humans have this connection, but what does that actually mean? Do humans feel something with a sense we don't realize we have? Is that sense a part of our physical bodies or some spiritual attribute in humans? Does this connection mean the physical and the spiritual can interact, and if so, wouldn't that imply that it is possible for humans to at some point observe, test, and define the spiritual through physical scientific means?

You say that science demonstrates that spiritual connection is not superficial or imaginary but provide no actual scientific evidence of this. You've attempted to connect evolution to your ill-defined behavioral attribute without actually sensibly following evolutionary theory. Other than that, I haven't seen any kind of scientific research, law, principles, etc. to agree with your contention. You have, in fact, dismissed questions about this with excuses about distortion and parsing words (things you have, as clearly shown, done yourself over and over in this thread) despite the questions being accompanied by your own statements.

So do you want to define this spiritual connection that you say is an inherent behavioral attribute of humanity, as demonstrated by some form of science? Or should be just continue to argue about it without you explaining what it actually is?

Here is the other thing for people who don't believe Jews, Christians or Muslims but they still believe in "God". If you do not believe in the Christian or Muslim God but you believe "something" then your argument is even weaker. Without the made up stories you really have zero reason to believe in God.

 

[sealybobo]

You never stop doing exactly the things you accuse others of, do you?

I have not, in any way, tried to prove that spiritual connection or religious belief or spirituality or any of that was invented. What I've done, what I've clearly stated I am doing, is to show that you have not used science to show that man's spiritual connection cannot have been based on imagination. I've even said that you can be correct about spirituality and that you still have not shown, using any kind of science, that it's not possible for spirituality to be based on imagination. Yet here you are, assigning arguments to me that I not only have not made, but have specifically contradicted.

But what you are doing is taking my response to that argument from someone else, then retroactively presenting your argument and pretending my response is to your argument instead. It has been argued that human spirituality is invented, made-up, imaginary, created by man to explain the unexplained and console fear of the unknown, etc. I am responding to THAT argument, and you are free to disagree with my response but you can't pretend it's a response to some other argument you'd like to make.

And let me clarify, I have never intended to state that it's "not possible" for spirituality to be based on imagination, it's highly improbable and not scientifically supportable.



That's not what I find onerous. Having to go through and straighten out your mess of distorted context and meaning, having to restore my arguments to their original points being addressed, and having to deal with you retroactively trying to establish arguments not previously presented, are becoming very onerous and not worth my time.



I don't have a problem with my own arguments or them being questioned. Religion is man made invention to better comprehend spiritual nature. It's like science and physical nature. If I stated that man invented science AND physical nature to explain the unexplained.... that would simply be an incorrect statement because man didn't invent physical nature. We can argue science all day long, we can't argue physical nature, it exists and is true.



Archeology. The oldest human civilizations ever unearthed reveal evidence of human spiritual belief through ceremonial rituals and burials. There is no other context for this other than spirituality.


But that is my point, the various incarnations of "GOD" have taken on physical characteristics of physical beings and entities. This is because man has a difficult time imagining something "being" that isn't physical. The fact that no evidence exists to suggest a physical being called "God" existing physically in our universe, has nothing to do with human's intrinsic spiritual connection that can't be denied. It only serves to prove that man is connecting with something he doesn't understand or comprehend.



I didn't say they were the same. But you are conflating "beliefs" with what caused the beliefs to happen. The "behavior" is human spiritual connection to something greater than self. The "beliefs" are assorted incarnations derived from that behavior. Perhaps a salmon "believes" it is going upstream to receive salvation? It doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with the reason the salmon has this behavioral characteristic.

One more time : I'm not trying to prove or disprove the basis for religion, spiritual belief or spirituality. I'm not trying to get you to prove the existence of god. I'm pointing out that your argument, that you have shown spiritual belief cannot be based on human imagining through some sort of science, is false.

Again, "beliefs" are the manifestation of a spiritual connection. I can't prove ANY belief. In science OR religion. Human spiritual connection is intrinsic and part of who we are. Science certainly demonstrates this intrinsic behavioral attribute is not superficial or imaginary. We find no such other examples in nature. "Beliefs" are a different matter, we see all kinds of "beliefs" manifested through spiritual connection. We also see beliefs manifested through imagination as well as science.

Here is where you seem to have a problem. You are starting from the point that spiritual connection is an inherent human behavior, without actually defining it, then expecting others to accept that hypothesis. Can you describe the behavior of spiritual connection? Since you say that beliefs are a manifestation of spiritual connection, but spiritual connection is a human behavioral attribute, what exactly IS that attribute? You keep saying humans have this connection, but what does that actually mean? Do humans feel something with a sense we don't realize we have? Is that sense a part of our physical bodies or some spiritual attribute in humans? Does this connection mean the physical and the spiritual can interact, and if so, wouldn't that imply that it is possible for humans to at some point observe, test, and define the spiritual through physical scientific means?

You say that science demonstrates that spiritual connection is not superficial or imaginary but provide no actual scientific evidence of this. You've attempted to connect evolution to your ill-defined behavioral attribute without actually sensibly following evolutionary theory. Other than that, I haven't seen any kind of scientific research, law, principles, etc. to agree with your contention. You have, in fact, dismissed questions about this with excuses about distortion and parsing words (things you have, as clearly shown, done yourself over and over in this thread) despite the questions being accompanied by your own statements.

So do you want to define this spiritual connection that you say is an inherent behavioral attribute of humanity, as demonstrated by some form of science? Or should be just continue to argue about it without you explaining what it actually is?

I love these people who want to argue with science and fact. Boss thinks people are born believing in god but the fact is we all start out as implicit atheists and have to be taught the concept of god. Maybe if no one told you about god you might come up with it like our ancient ancestors did but most of your reasons would be flawed. You may want to do good on a test so you might come up with an imaginary person who watches over you but I doubt it if no one ever told you God existed. Or if you were in the ocean and sharks were swimming around you, if you were never told about God would you know to pray to a higher power or would you instead talk to the shark and beg him not to eat you? Fact is, you are better off talking to the shark than to an imaginary lord.

In the future Boss should say "I believe despite all the facts". That at least I would respect because he would at least be acknowledging that it is a faith/hope of his and not a real reason to believe. Lets put it this way. If it could be proven one way or the other, I would bet all my money that there is no God and Boss would lose all his money. But since it can't be proven I guess they can continue to remain ignorant but that's ok because it makes them feel better. But just don't try to impose that fake ass shit on the rest of society. Keep that hogwash to yourselves!

 

[sealybobo]

I would love to go back in time and see when man first invented god. When he told his friends his concept didn't they look at him like he was crazy? Maybe he was a person of power and influence and the smartest guy in the village so instead of telling people he didn't know he came up with god to explain droughts, floods, death, etc. As George Carlin said it is the absolute greatest bullshit story ever invented.