[CanadaSue]

Monday night I worked bingo from 1700 to midnight thirty. It's a weird setup with a total of perhaps 45 minutes of work during the entire evening. It involves automatic, electronic bingo during breaks & between sessions in the main bingo hall. Suffice it to say most of the time is spent sitting. I hate it & only so it ecause volunteers to work such a long session - especially around the supper hours, are few & far berween. The other three I work with are not interested in discussing anything other than the latest 'hysterical romance' they're reading, whose kids has been suspended/expelled & sharing new ways to screw welfare/disability... :re:

In short, one wants to scream with boredom. I generally show up with my clipboard, several pens & several nonfiction or what I call 'heavy fiction' in an attempt tp shut out the white noise but bless them, they seem to feel obligated to help me 'relax' & do their best to distract me from my pastimes. Damn it! That stuff IS relaxing - in a mind stimulating way - for me - lol

The boss is now off on maternity leave - health baby boy, good stuff all around & her replacement - yeah! - loves to have interesting conversations. We ended up in a fascinating chat Monday night which drew in the cleaner, the bingo caller from that back room, 1 of the cooks & a surplus volunteer from the main room.

It was absolutely fascinating to have 1 atheist, 2 agnostics, 1 Catholic, 1 Free Methodist, 1 Salvation Army & 2 'church goers' actually sitting down & having a wide ranging discussion on matters of faith. We touched on just about everything. No one became angry, no one died, no one felt an urge to convert anyone else. Instead, all learned a bit about how each INDIVIDUAL had developed their personal belief system & a bit of what they did bvelieve it.

We had marrieds, divorced, singles, gay, straight, old, young... and it worked.

Did we agree on anything? No really - save that everyone comes to their own beliefs or lack thereof in their own way. Most agreed no one answer or set of answers fits all. I"m sure we all took away something new, questions, understanding of others' POV, a realization that we can disagree on points without the other(s) being horrid people...

Wouldn't I love to see more of that kind of discussion?

[Anita]

SO and I [BOTH nonbelievers] hosted dinners about three times that included our Palestinian Muslim neighbors and our Jewish friends. There's ALWAYS common ground SOMEWHERE! For THIS group, it was Politics, so if the religious discussion got a little heated, we KNEW we could take off the heat with Politics. Of course, EVERY discussion seems to go better with FOOD involved! :yes: Our Muslim neighbors wouldn't allow alcohol in THEIR home, so when THEY hosted a dinner, they outshone us all with an amazing array of homemade cultural dishes. We learned a LOT from each other, and I think that's what discussions should be about...learning from each other.

[DarkRose]

I agree. So often a question about someone's faith or lack of faith is interpreted by them as an insult toward them and they insult back, when it is simply an earnest inquiry about their beliefs. I don't learn well when that hapens. I'm not saying that I want to be converted to their way of thinking, but I deeply want to understand why people believe as they do. Not to criticize it, but only to understand. I'd also enjoy a conversation on how they came to believe in those things that involves a sincere attempt to explain the thought processes behind it. The appreciation I gain for their beliefs and the respect I come to have for them is greatly enhanced, even if I can't share their faith.

[Flint]

There is a vast difference between sharing beliefs and imposing beliefs. Why should I have someone else's beliefs printed on my money, but they don't have to have my beliefs in exchange? Why must my tax dollars be used to fund "faith-based initiatives" founded on someone else's faith, but they aren't taxed to support mine? Why should I be called a murderer if I support everyone's right to make their own personal decisions? Why should I have to get up and go to the door to fend off even polite intruders who have come to preach at me uninvited? Hey, I'm fascinated with why people believe different things, and glad to exchange views. It's when someone starts pushing their views onto others that the trouble starts.

[CanadaSue]

I thoroughly enjoyed Monday night's discussion. For a change & I've rarely seen this happen - no one shoved anything down anyone's throat. Those there with different faiths, actually questioned each other on points of doctrine & in the case of the Christians took notes in order to look up different items at home.

When folks saw matters differently, they were able to calmly elaborate on the differences. They may not have agreed with each other but there was no strife. Initially we'd tacitly agreed that disagreement was not carte blanche to 'push' one view over anothe. It worked.

The young atheist cook who walked in - I asked him if he had been RAISED without a faith or had come to atheism via a different route. He'd been raised in an indifferent Sunday church attending family & drifted away. Turns out he'd never really questioned his lack of faith, it's simply the way it is for him. He's offered to ask his peers, many of whom are also atheist or agnostic, how they 'got to where they're at'.

I wish Brian had been there. I deliberately raised him without a faith - not as an experiment but so that he could freely explore & choose for hiself. He's very logic based & to him, faith has no basis in anything he can justify. Fair enough. I asked him yesterday afternoon - if he's a determined atheist - which is how he appears to be - what keeps him on the 'straight & narrow'; what's his moral/ethical operating paradigm? We had no time to discuss that but will at some point.

Curiously, those among us who'd said they never thought about what they believed in, simply attend church weekly, appeared the most uncomfortable by the discussion. At several points, some found excuses to leave for varying periods of time. Unfortunate - id the basis for one's actions not worthy or examination?

[Anita]

not as an experiment but so that he could freely explore & choose for hiself.

I did the same with MY three, although I taught them the Bible stories, along with Greek and Roman mythology, Aesops fables, etc. so they'd be culturally literate.

My son has had a Christian friend since preschool [both are in their early 20s now], and when my son was about 5, he asked, "What do WE believe, mom?" I said, "Son, there's no WE in belief. Belief comes from inside you and can't be imposed on you. You'll determine what YOU believe when the time comes."

[Yammy]

From the sounds of everything I'm reading here this board has a great mix :)

Looking forward to some great conversations with you all!

[Annmarie]

It's interesting to me to learn about others faiths and beliefs. I love spending time in the Buddhist chatroom and various other religious rooms. I have always had an interested in philosophy and religion and I think the key is to keep an open mind and try to suspend judgement so you can really get what they are saying. It makes for fascinating conversation as long as there are no heavy attempts at conversion. I believe there is a God and I believe he speaks to us in ways we can understand. One of my best friends is an atheist and we obviously have no trouble communicating about many things including religion.

[SmartAZ]

I get along well with people of other religions because I understand that I don't understand. You can only understand a religion if you believe it. Without belief you can only memorize ceremonies. That is in the bible, but many people never realized what it says.

1 Corinthians 2:14 - But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[Anita]

I think you may have stumbled onto the reason why Christians can't understand why other Christians don't believe as they do, or even why different interpretations exist in the various sects of ANY religion. Those little notes put on the ceiling got different responses, methinks. :)

[Darkimbolc]

I get along well with people of other religions because I understand that I don't understand.

Therein lies the key. I'm am staunchly Pagan, always have been, always will be. However, there is no greater fun than talking theology with my Catholic and Protestant friends. They are Christian, always have been always will be. We al simply agree-to-disagree on the specific theological sticky-wickets and move on with the discussions.

[Aleph Null]

It's a pleasure to see this thread. And nice to see you with us, Darkimbolc. :tup:

-A0-

[Darkimbolc]

It's a pleasure to see this thread.
:yes: It most certainly is.

And nice to see you with us, Darkimbolc
Thanks, A0! It's a pleasure to be here. (Seems populated with more, shall we say, level-headed people from across the spectrum). It's good to see you here too. :)

[CanadaSue]

I'm looking forward to the next Monday night I have to work bingo - those are the deadly quiet nights where such discussions can happen - loads of time & captive audiences... :lol:

It was really interesting to start a discussion about various forms of comminty service then so smoothly segue into discussions of faith. That in itself can & did serve as a springboard to other fascinating discussions - many of which looped back to faith... lack thereof & alternatives. We ended up with more questions then we began with - always the sign of a good discussion in my books.

We thought of setting a 'topic' for next time we're all there Mondays then thought better of it - more fun to let the faith based conversational chips fall where they may. Looking forward to it.

[pop pop]

Religion, faith, and "belief" have shown up in this forum and others but I thought here might be the best place for what I have to say/ask. There are a number of you that describe yourselves as nonbelievers, agnostics, and atheists. I just don't understand. Somebody explain it to me. I mean, I have some concept of atheism and agnosticism (maybe it's wrong) -- one does not believe in God at all; the other neither believes that God exists nor that God does not exist. Nonbeliever ... what the hell does that mean? You believe in nothing? I'm sorry. The concept is totally foreign to me. And -- you can take this anyway you want (sexist) -- but how a woman, who can or has given birth, cannot believe in some form of higher power is unfathomable to me.

[SmartAZ]

Nonbeliever ... what the hell does that mean? You believe in nothing?
You confuse the positive, belief in nothing, with the negative, no belief in something.

Suppose I tell you there is a demon on your shoulder which you can't see. You have no way to confirm or deny that, but you still have the choice to believe or not believe.

The difference is action: if you act on my revelation, you believe, even if you say you don't. If you don't act, you don't believe, even if you say you do.

[Flint]

pop pop:

I can assure you that the lack of comprehension is entirely mutual. Try as I might, I simply cannot imagine what it must be like to actually believe in what isn't there, for which there is no evidence. I have to tell myself, purely as an intellectual exercise, that those who claim to believe in gods, great spirits, holy trees, and the Great Green Arkleseizure must be addressed as though they are actually serious. They claim to be serious, and certainly these manifest delusions often (and seriously) distort their apprehension of reality in significant ways, so they more-or-less consistently ACT as thought they believe it, but still I find it impossible to internalize.

Surely, some of these people who have adopted one irrational and baseless belief can see what I can - that others believe in equally unlikely fantasies. Do people who believe in Thor, or Zeus, or the tooth fairy, or Allah, regard those who believe in the Christian God as confused? How DO people who claim belief in any one particular arbitrary god (I still can't accept that they actually *believe* it - I keep assuming basic sanity) respond when they meet or learn of people who claim belief in another different undetectable supernatural anthropomorphization? Do they just reject one another as holding "false belief" and completely miss the irony?

Certainly I (and probably everyone else) hold plenty of beliefs. The distinction is, the belief is based on something. And because it is, the belief is subject to change as my understanding of the basis improves. It's even subject to rejection on this basis. The real world, the objective universe, is such a wonderful fascinating place as it is, I see no reason to make up nonsense and believe in what I made up. All this would accomplish for me (as it obviously does for others) is to blind them to what IS, to their great loss. Why do they do it? This is something I have learned that I will never be able to understand.

how a woman, who can or has given birth, cannot believe in some form of higher power is unfathomable to me.

Have you considered the possibility that the woman might have even a rudimentary concept of biology? It doesn't take much, just a smidgeon of curiosity and a willingnes to learn something...

[Aleph Null]

There are a number of you that describe yourselves as nonbelievers, agnostics, and atheists. I just don't understand. Somebody explain it to me. I mean, I have some concept of atheism and agnosticism (maybe it's wrong) -- one does not believe in God at all; the other neither believes that God exists nor that God does not exist. Nonbeliever ... what the hell does that mean? You believe in nothing? I'm sorry. The concept is totally foreign to me.

pop pop...

If you want to understand these concepts better, I strongly recommend starting here: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

-A0-

[Anita]

a person who has no religious beliefs.

There ARE religions wherein the concept of a supreme being doesn't exist, but a nonbeliever doesn't embrace any of those either.

As Flint mentioned, giving birth is a simple biological event. :yes:

My daughter has a friend who's a practicing Pagan. She went to drive her friend somewhere else at the end of a session, ceremony, ritual... ??? what it's called, and was grateful that everyone there had their backs to her when she arrived. She'd hoped that she could innocuously slip in, wait a few minutes until it was over and then go on to wherever they were going when the group suddenly turned around and was facing her. :no: :D Her friend laughed at her embarrassment in the situation.

[pop pop]

I'm sorry to say that as much as I like A0's new forum, I'll have to abandon this thread after what I post here. At his suggestion, I went to the link that he provided and glanced at the information there in an effort to understand the beliefs, or lack thereof, that some of you so proudly espouse here. I accept the fact that they are belief systems that I don't understand and that those of you who hold them likely believe in them strongly. However, I find I have to exercise some self restraint and self protection with regard to how those belief systems make me feel. At the risk of your wrath, which I will not face anyway, I will only say that I find them repugnant. I could say much more. You can and will believe what you want to, and go about your lives being proud of it. So will I.

Just because you can't prove something, or don't have the capacity to do so -- right now -- doesn't mean it can't be so. To steadfastly believe otherwise seems to me to be effectively and ironically asserting that you are God-like -- you can't see it, you can't touch it, you can't hear it, you can't smell it, you can't taste it, you have no empirical evidence to "prove" it, therefore it isn't so. End of story. If you use science as the sole foundation and framework for your arguments supporting the non-existence of a higher power, your logic fails and your argument falls apart before it even begins. As Einstein said in 1940, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Science alone never has been and never will be capable of explaining everything in the universe. I refuse to even begin to consider a belief system to be remotely valid that says that the universe, life, and all of humanity are one cosmic accident -- that you and your children are no more special or significant than pond scum; that there is only one reality -- that you exist now and you will not exist later; that your existence is the result of "a simple biological event", and nothing more; that you are totally and completely inconsequential, you are irrelevant.

Sometime in the not too distant future my physical life will be coming to an end. As I take my last earthly breath, I will have something that you who are atheists, agnostics, and non-believers will not. I will have had a belief and a faith that provided me comfort throughout my life. The mathematician, physicist, and philosopher Blaise Pascal had it right 348 years ago. If God does not exist, I have lost absolutely nothing by believing. If God does exist ... well, you have my sympathy, whether you want it or not.

I'll leave this thread with this excerpt taken from an article by Michael D. Lemonick and J. Madeleine Nash:

Many of the most fundamental characteristics of our cosmos--the relative strengths of gravity, electromagnetism and the forces that operate inside atomic nuclei as well as the masses and relative abundances of different particles—are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it would not exist.

If the so-called weak nuclear interaction were a tiny bit stronger or weaker than it is, for example, stars wouldn’t blow up in the mammoth supernovas that spread elements like carbon and oxygen out into space—and without those elements, there would be no water and no organic molecules. If the strong nuclear force were just one-half of 1% stronger or weaker, stars would not make carbon or oxygen in the first place. In 1999 Martin Rees postulated that there were “just six numbers” that make life possible, although other theorists have since added several. And because there is no known law that requires those forces to have the values they do, scientists figure there must be another explanation for how we got so lucky.

I wonder what the other explanation will be.

[Jimmy Splinters]

pop pop,

Well said, sir! You've expressed my own thoughts on the subject better than I could.

Dan V.

[Flint]

pop pop:

Just because you can't prove something, or don't have the capacity to do so -- right now -- doesn't mean it can't be so. To steadfastly believe otherwise seems to me to be effectively and ironically asserting that you are God-like -- you can't see it, you can't touch it, you can't hear it, you can't smell it, you can't taste it, you have no empirical evidence to "prove" it, therefore it isn't so. End of story.

This is misleading, I think. There is literally an infinite number of things for which there is -- right now -- no evidence or indication. All of these might be so. How could anyone know? Nobody can say these things don't exist. What A0's link called "weak atheists" are simply keeping an open mind, and not ASSUMING that something they WISH to exist, really does exist simply on the basis of no evidence AGAINST it. For these people, saying something exists without a trace of evidence is unpersuasive.

I refuse to even begin to consider a belief system to be remotely valid that says that the universe, life, and all of humanity are one cosmic accident -- that you and your children are no more special or significant than pond scum; that there is only one reality -- that you exist now and you will not exist later; that your existence is the result of "a simple biological event", and nothing more; that you are totally and completely inconsequential, you are irrelevant.

Here, I think you have reached the very heart of the issue. In a nutshell, you have ego problems. You NEED to feel superior to other forms of life, so you SAY you are, so there! You NEED to have some meaning and be consequential, your little ego can't tolerate the reality, so you MAKE IT UP and then believe it. For you, it works. For others, it fails and they need actual evidence, rejecting wishful thinking for what it is.

As I take my last earthly breath, I will have something that you who are atheists, agnostics, and non-believers will not. I will have had a belief and a faith that provided me comfort throughout my life.

And kidding yourself on your deathbed is worth kidding yourself throughout your life? You consider this a good bargain? I can assure you that atheists feel no less satisfaction with their selves and their lives. They do not NEED to tell themselves silly stories and pretend to believe them. And for these people, the satisfaction is at least as profound.

Many of the most fundamental characteristics of our cosmos...are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it would not exist.

Of course, it's entirely likely that life as we do NOT know it would exist, and they'd be saying the same thing about THEIR fundamental characteristics. From the player's viewpoint, hitting the jackpot is vanishingly unlikely, a miracle from heaven. From the state's point of view, someone is sure to win the lottery sooner or later, probability is unity. Same lottery, different frame of reference.

And how about all the losers, the universes that never got started because the fundamental values couldn't work that way? Since we don't know of any, we can't calculate the odds like a casino can. So should we extrapolate from a known sample of one? Those who do, find their preconceptions verified no matter what preconceptions they start with. But belief isn't logical, it's emotional.

Atheists (or at least weak atheists, according to the link) find that they don't have the emotional need to make up stories for which there is ZERO evidence, to help themselves feel more self-important. You may quiver in fear at their emotional independence and self-reliance, and find such a condition repugnant. Fortunately, you have an alternative that fits your needs equally well. Everyone wins.

[Anita]

I went to the link that he provided and glanced at the information there in an effort to understand the beliefs, or lack thereof, that some of you so proudly espouse here. I accept the fact that they are belief systems that I don't understand and that those of you who hold them likely believe in them strongly. However, I find I have to exercise some self restraint and self protection with regard to how those belief systems make me feel. At the risk of your wrath, which I will not face anyway, I will only say that I find them repugnant. I could say much more. You can and will believe what you want to, and go about your lives being proud of it. So will I.

:yes: :beer:

Pride seems to be your other issue; you'd prefer that if we didn't share YOUR beliefs, we'd be somehow ASHAMED. Interesting approach to life.

[Anita]

Just wanted to add a few final thoughts: If you chose to leave this thread less due to the repugnancy of our thoughts and more due to a fear that we'll flame you for having said that, reconsider. I'm interested in your thoughts [including why you see our philosophies as repugnant]. It's up to you, but I may never understand why you see my philosophies as repugnant if you don't explain it to me.

Regarding fear of death and comfort, some Eastern religions have the same needs as you, even though they don't believe in a Supreme Being. They chose reincarnation as an alternative to Heaven/Hell. It's another approach to NOTHINGNESS, which seems to strike fear in many people.

[Annmarie]

I am curious about something. Why do atheists claim (if I am understanding correctly) that they do not believe in God because they cannot observe him, yet they believe (or have faith) in things in the material they cannot see or directly observe. Isn't that faith too? You cannot see an atom (I don't think), you cannot see a thought, yet these things are the basis for the world we observe through our senses. How do you know you know all about senses? How do you know there is not a sixth sense, that sense that is in direct contact with Universal Mind (God). I am not talking about the Christian God of the Bible, but rather the concept of a Univeral Mind or Intelligence that created all that is.

[Anita]

I've never really heard of observation being a factor. I can't see gravity, but when that hammer falls out of my hand and lands on my toe, I KNOW it exists. I can't see air, but when deprived of air, I KNOW it exists. SOME things that I couldn't see with the naked eye, I was able to see using an electron microscope [going back to my University days on THAT one].

[SmartAZ]

Science alone never has been and never will be capable of explaining everything in the universe.
By definition! Science deals with things that can be measured. Science has no dealings with love, or peace, or beauty, or anything that cannot be measured. All those things fall in the realm of spirit. Why should anyone take care of a baby? Everyone knows the answer (or an answer), but the answer didn't come from science.

As Einstein said in 1940, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
"Religion" is a word that very few people understand. Everybody thinks it is a catchall word for "anything spiritual", or "any sytem of belief", but it does not mean that. The word appears in the bible just four times, and the Greek word actually means "service". Religion is what people do because of what they believe, and what they force each other to do. By that definition, science is a religion. (So is politics.)

"Faith" is another word that people use without knowing the meaning. English has two words, faith and belief, but the bible uses only one Greek word, pistis, for both. Belief is a natural ability; anybody can do it. But then the bible says, "Faith came by Jesus Christ." Faith is also listed as one of the manifestations of the spirit. So that establishes two contexts for the word, one before Jesus and one after. So we have a natural ability to believe, and a spiritual ability to believe. That spiritual ability is faith.

Of course I am not suggesting that you should expect anybody to understand these things in casual conversation. Most people need some study time to sort them out for themselves before they can really accept them. (Just like you do, just like I did.) One of the benefits of doing that sorting process for yourself is that you will understand why congress is forbidden to make any law respecting an establishment of religion: if government is a form of religion, it is not proper to allow it to dictate the forms of any other religion. And if science is a religion, it is not proper to allow government or any church to dictate scientific principles.

[Flint]

Annmarie:

Just speaking for myself, I'm not opposed to the use of instrumentation for making observations; I know the universe has more happening in it than I evolved to sense directly. I also know that some of the "things" are operational models. Atoms and the particles that make them (for example) are described indirectly based on models derived from experiments. What these actually "are" depends on what we're trying to do. Similarly with thoughts - we describe these indirectly, as side-effects of processes. When I speak of evidence, I'm speaking of things that suitably equipped people can agree is there, and on that basis construct predictions that prove correct. There is no sin in incomplete understandings, but in my world there IS sin in completing those understanding by making things up to paper over genuine ignorance.

So far, as well as I can understand, there is no requirement to suppose any universal mind. For me, it's enough to bear in mind that my best understandings will remain forever both incomplete and uncertain. Where my knowledge is nil, I'm limited to saying "I don't know." A great deal gets lumped into that last category.

Here's something important also: Everything I accept as probably so, is therefore subject to being replaced with something better, that is MORE probably so. What I accept as probably true, then, is regularly supplanted. This is what evidence means. I can't possibly know if there is anything for which no evidence currently exists. Maybe there ARE some gods out there. Maybe we DO have a sixth sense nobody has discovered. Maybe the tooth fairy is "real" and is influencing the behavior of parents with respect to pillows. Maybe lots of things. How do we know which of these things might be real and which are imaginary? Again, this is what evidence means.

[Robert]

There is only conflict when an individual actions are outward. That is when they believe their religious perspective is the ‘absolute truth’ and expect others to follow that ‘truth’. When their outward actions, like the Inquisition, cause suffering to others for example.
This is the marked difference between the nonviolent individual and the individual whose actions are outwardly violent and based on his or her religious perspective.

While the possibility for both individuals to be wrong in their perceptions exists the nonviolent individual’s actions are internal and his errors cause no suffering to others but him. The individual who is violent brings suffering to others through his or her out ward expression of their beliefs.

That suffering can be expressed in many forms as violence can be expressed in many forms. The individual whose hostility to those with a different or even atheistic belief system, is expressing his or her inward doubts about their own belief system, whether subliminal or not and that expression manifests outwardly as for example, verbal hostility.
Indeed, they can be genuinely shocked that someone doesn’t see life or ‘god’ in the same light they do and the more shocked the greater the hostility. The individual whose thinking is open to possible growth and their own fallibility is less inclined to externalize their actions but this thinking is absent in the religious fanatic, Paul Hill for example.

[Robert]

Fine Flint but what do you say to the individual who has had a past life regression and validated it, found a grave stone or whatever? Are you willing to look at the possibilities?
Because it seems to me that if I was an atheist I would do a lot of reading in the area of life after life or individuals who have died and come back even if it was to disprove their hypothesis. I would want to know. It’s no different then the individual who believes in ‘god’. In order to be honest with himself he must explore the avenue of atheism. It’s not enough to say, “prove it to me”, although we can do that, it’s myopic.
For me it would be hard to believe that there isn’t life after death, regardless of whether ‘god’ exists. There’s just to much hard evidence and I would have been just as happy to accept either finding.

[Annmarie]

The argument can be made that there is no evidence for God, but again, it depends on what you mean by evidence. Anita can see the result of gravity, but cannot see gravity, or air. The same can be said for God, but first there has to be agreement as to what God "is." For me God is an experience of unconditional love and peace. God is not someone or thing that sits up in the sky and judges his creation. For me, God experiences himself through his creation. In other words if you are breathing, you contain God within you. YOU are the evidence you seek for the existense of God.

Flint, it wasn't too long ago that scientific people thought the earth was flat. Their evidence was that it was flat where they were standing, I suppose. I think thought comes first, then comes the seeking of evidence to support the thought. In ohter words, first one has a belief, then looks for evidence to support that belief. So, first you have to be looking for something in order to find it. If you are not looking for God, you won't see him because you don't want to.

Scientists do the same thing, however their interests lie in the material world.
Spiritual types search inward rather than outward, and that is the only difference between the two.

[Flint]

Robert:

Fine Flint but what do you say to the individual who has had a past life regression and validated it, found a grave stone or whatever? Are you willing to look at the possibilities?

Depends. Yes, there are claims made such as this one. There are also claims made that astrology works, that mind-reading happens, that people have out-of-body experiences, and a long long list of other phenomena for which the evidence is equivocal at best, and beyond verification. This isn't to say that claims that cannot be verified are always false, of course. Only that in such cases, we need to be very careful that our credulity is not compromised by our desires.

Because it seems to me that if I was an atheist I would do a lot of reading in the area of life after life or individuals who have died and come back even if it was to disprove their hypothesis. I would want to know.

But how do you know what would interest you if you were an atheist? I personally tend to lump all of that kind of stuff into the "vanishingly unlikely unless and until something a lot more substantial is presented." When there is no verifiable evidence for a claim, then that claim can't be disproved. I can claim invisible aliens are looking over our shoulders. Prove me wrong!

For me it would be hard to believe that there isn’t life after death, regardless of whether ‘god’ exists. There’s just to much hard evidence and I would have been just as happy to accept either finding.

There isn't a shred of hard evidence. There is an almost irresistible, overwhelming desire to BELIEVE that our lives won't end. So you are right that it's hard to accept death, but the difficulty isn't at all due to evidence, and entirely due to desire. As I wrote above, desire compromises credulity.


Annmarie:

The argument can be made that there is no evidence for God, but again, it depends on what you mean by evidence. Anita can see the result of gravity, but cannot see gravity, or air.

Once again, this argument is worthless. Consider that you have FIVE senses - sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Anita directly experiences gravity using touch. But even things invisible to all the human senses can still exist. You listen to radio and watch TV, yet you have no way of sensing the radiation directly. So let's try to move past this point, and consider the evidence for radio waves. Are you persuaded that they exist, because we have instruments that can detect them, we can control them, we can receive and broadcast them, we can modulate both frequence and amplitude, etc? These questions are important, because they hint at what evidence really is.

The same can be said for God, but first there has to be agreement as to what God "is." For me God is an experience of unconditional love and peace. God is not someone or thing that sits up in the sky and judges his creation. For me, God experiences himself through his creation. In other words if you are breathing, you contain God within you. YOU are the evidence you seek for the existense of God.

OK, I can easily accept this description of your god. It is an entirely subjective interpretation of your general state of mind, as it feels like to you and nobody else. I prefer less, uh, woolly descriptions of my internal state -- descriptions more widely understood and more easily communicated. Things like happy, or hungry, or sleepy.

Flint, it wasn't too long ago that scientific people thought the earth was flat. Their evidence was that it was flat where they were standing, I suppose.

Yes, you would have to guess, because the "flat earth" theory was in fact never held by anyone, much less by any scientist. Indeed, the ancient Greeks and Phoenicians understood that the planet was a ball, and even had some quite reasonable estimates of its circumference.

I think thought comes first, then comes the seeking of evidence to support the thought. In ohter words, first one has a belief, then looks for evidence to support that belief.

I agree that this bass-ackwards approach is inherent in belief. In general, science collects evidence and attempts to explain it. Believers make up whatever turns them on, and then go out to cheery-pick or fabricate "evidence" to support the belief. And as you imply, believers tend to think that EVERYONE works that way. The very idea of NOT making things up baffles them. OF COURSE scientists make stuff up first, and gin up the evidence for it second!

So, first you have to be looking for something in order to find it. If you are not looking for God, you won't see him because you don't want to.

But the same can NOT be said for, say, the flu. It makes you ill whether or not you seek it out, or even whether or not you've ever even heard of it. The rain falls on you whether you were seeking it out or not. Now I agree, scientists go out looking for things because their theories say those things should be there. However, there is an absolutely critical difference that you are missing: If the theories are wrong, the scientists DO NOT FIND what isn't there. In your case, you find your god simply because you WANT to. No actual gods are required. In the great outside world where I live, this is called "kidding yourself."

Scientists do the same thing, however their interests lie in the material world.
Spiritual types search inward rather than outward, and that is the only difference between the two.

Nope, the only difference lies in whether you can find what isn't there to be found. If you can't find it, you are thinking like a scientist. If you CAN find it, then you are believer, and no thinking is really required.

[Anita]

but first there has to be agreement as to what God "is."

I don't think that's possible. Deists tend to see God as creator, but dismiss anything beyond that. Theists tend to see God as creator AND someone/something worthy of worship. Others see the concept as something within ALL [differing on whether creation had anything to do with it]. Others dismiss the concept entirely, concentrating on good deeds in an attempt to obtain a next life different than the current life. Polytheists see many Gods in many different forms. There are so many variations on a theme that I think it's REALLY got to boil down to "whatever works for YOU works for YOU."

For a glimpse at the difficulty of the task you suggest, Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/var_rel.htm)
offers a synopsis of spiritual thought from around the world.

[Robert]

Flint,
There was a time that I would have agreed with you but I joined a group of individuals, mostly by a dare, when I was younger and they experimented with different esoteric and occult ‘sciences’.
First, let me tell you that when I was a very young boy I had very ‘creative’ energy. I saw people, let’s say for argument’s sake, that they were dead but actually I had no frame of reference to catagorize them, I was simple to young and I didn’t have a ‘religious’ back ground to establish any framework in that respect. So I would say there was a good chance they were not socially ‘implanted’ within me.
Later in my life when I was perhaps eight or so I was forced, by a religiously strict mother, to follow Catholicism which I had no fondness or ‘aptitude’ for and came close to excommunication or tar and feathering at the least by the religious ‘profits’ attempting to control my errant mind and ways.
So when I finally entered the experimental group I had no religious proclivities whatsoever and would actually say that I found the system and childish antics naively humorous at best and I mean at best. I had priests and ministers close the point of holding crosses up when ever I passed.
The first inkling that I had any ability to ‘see’ the unexplained was an experiment in astro-projection where a tape was played and we were told to see if we could travel to a town and explain what we found. I remember floating above the town and literally seeing what was there. The individual directing the group had no idea what or where the location was and didn’t make the original tape or hear it before the session.
After I described the town and the unique aspects of it we were shown the town and it was as I pictured it. I was the only one in the group to ‘get it right’ completely although others did have some aspects correct. I attributed this to things that may have been similar in what they perceived a town might have looked like or at the best had glimpses of what I saw.
I didn’t see this ability as remarkable but merely as something I would consider about the level of a parlor trick although others found more in it.
The second event that really started ‘peaking’ my interest in the occult was an experiment that happened several weeks later on in the group.
The director held a group of cards with ‘illnesses’ that people had and we were asked to see if we could determine the ‘illness’ from the age and gender of the individual. I was given an age of seven and a gender of female. As I scanned the body I came to the wrist of the young girl and saw an abrupt jagged end without a hand. I mentioned this thinking that I must be wrong because for one it was not an illness and two it would be out of character, I thought, for a seven your old girl to have had an accident of that type. The director was speechless when I gave the answer.
At this point I began to inquire into different occult matters and now am at the point where I can do some things that are, let’s say, not accepted as existing within the boundary of the five senses. I can sense danger coming for instance. This is a very handy thing to have. Here’s an example:
I was driving my car once and immediately slowed down to fifteen mph for no apparent reason even though the limit was much higher.( I had at that time in my life a ‘lead foot’) Several seconds after I slowed down a small boy ran out between two cars and I stopped in time not to hit him. I remember the feeling leading up to the incident and I believe I was not completely in control of my actions or aware of the world around me. I knew I was driving slowly but it felt ‘right’.
One more thing, I had since a small boy, always believed that there was a women watching closely over me. I found, in my late teens, that my mother had died when I was a year old and my father had remarried.
Sorry for being so long winded on this but I’m attempting to show how I came to inquire into what I would call spirituality.
I do think there are some interesting aspects of Buddhism and how the Dalai Lama is considered to be the incarnation or the original Buddha. They go through a very stringent system of tests to determine the reincarnation. You might want to inquire into it if you haven’t.

[Flint]

Robert:

Google is your friend.

The second event that really started ‘peaking’ my interest...

That's "piquing" your interest. From "to pique", to provoke or arouse.

If the ability you describe (generally lumped under the rubric of "clairvoyance") is at all reliable, you have many opportunities open to you, from stage magician to police specialist to high-paid laboratory test specimen. Don't let it go stale on you! I admit I don't know of anyone able to consistently demonstrate the abilities you claim (but plenty of people guess right now and then).

I presume you are rich, since it doesn't take more than absolutely minimal clairvoyance to leverage it into a fortune. I could do it in a day, with your abilities. Your fortune, by itself (including its history) would be compelling.

[Robert]

I presume you are rich, since it doesn't take more than absolutely minimal clairvoyance to leverage it into a fortune. I could do it in a day, with your abilities. Your fortune, by itself (including its history) would be compelling.

You're right it's 'pique' . Things do slip by when I'm tired.

Someone once asked Ansel Adams the great photographer why he never took a vacation. Ansel replied, ”my life’s a vacation!”

That has always been my goal and I measure success by being able to do with ones time what one wants. I did retire quite young from what society calls a ‘job’.
My creativity is reflected in my designs and patents but absolute wealth in social terms never interested me. My quest has been to discover what I would call my spiritual self with as little illusion as possible although I have no socialized religious belief system and shun most.
My thinking has always been that if I find nothing at the end of my journey then so be it. This, however self deluded I may be, has not been the case.
Also my belief is that anyone can do what I can, although there may be some training required.
There were some things that happened to me as a child and young man that were catalytic to ‘abilities’. I have thought that faced with a certain set of events, perhaps in a unique order these abilities would be triggered in anyone. I think there may be some mathematical sequences like Fibonacci but now that’s been played to the hilt by society and books so I’ll let it go. Twenty five years ago when I was drawing correlations between Fibonacci and orb weavers web ratios I thought I had something but I couldn’t find a path to the unknown. I did do some algorithms to the base seven with PI assigning notes to each number but couldn’t get any real music out of it but maybe I didn’t go deep enough into the progression. Real fun if some of you wantto try it!
Well I see I’m rambling on again and I’m sure I must have some real ‘dooozies’ in my sentences behind me!

[Flint]

Robert:

Have you ever listened to the works of Harry Partch? I enjoyed them a lot.

[Robert]

No but I'll check it out.

Sounds like we're getting back to Gödel, Escher, Bach. I sure spun that top around!

[Shadowfane]

Rob, have you perchance studied at Lily Dale???

Half of what they do there is fleece the rubes but there ARE serious studies that go on there.

if you are unfailiar with the place, it is considered the birthplace of American Spiritualism....

[Robert]

Rob, have you perchance studied at Lily Dale???

Half of what they do there is fleece the rubes but there ARE serious studies that go on there.

if you are unfailiar with the place, it is considered the birthplace of American Spiritualism....

No but I will add it to my list.
Thanks

[ssbn sailor]

Canada Sue:

Thanks for this post. Its great to read it and see the quality of the posts and the effort to build bridges that have come out of it.

[Robert]

How about this scenario:

Is it possible for the individual, within scientific parameters, to die and be reborn, regardless of an existence of a God.
I’ll call it the ‘essence’ that carries on because I don’t want the slant of the word soul to interfere with our inquiry.

Is there any validity to the premise that we lose twenty one grams at the time of death?

We can do things that science hasn’t explained but has recorded. (telekenises, physcokenisis for instance).

I'm looking somewhere between the atheist, the theist and the deist.

How could we go about proving this? Because we are trying to prove, not the existence of God but only the existence of some ‘force’ that carries our ‘essence’ throughout the universe. Not good or bad, not some deity telling us what to do, just a ‘force’.

I ask this because I have verified my own past lives and while I believe in God I still have to question that belief. Question the possibility that I am reaching a conclusion base on my subjective desire to be safe or whatever. Because I never want to be safe if it precludes the ‘truth’.

Well, what do you think??

Flint, A0?

.

[Chills]

Question.... Is the absence of belief the same as believing in no god?

[Robert]

If the absense of belief is with respect to god, yes.

[Chills]

If the absense of belief is with respect to god, yes.

How so?

If something is absent how can it be absent but as you suggest present?

Just wondering.

[Annmarie]

Yes Anita, it is impossible to agree on a definition for God. I can only go by what I feel, so of course that is my definition. I personally think God is a loving force and doesn't interfere at all in our lives.

Flint, your interests lie in the material universe only so of course that is what is real to you. A scientist has to have an idea of what he is trying to accomplish, then he goes out to prove it. I still say thought comes first. You will never believe in God because you refuse to look inward. You can't find God in a rock. I certainly don't care - to each his own.

Robert, I think your scenario is indeed possible. An intersting read is The Holographic Universe - do a google search. The Whole (God) is contained in each part (us). If you have ever experienced revelation you know that there is no separation between us and God. The experience is remarkable and really cannot be explained adequately. It is an instant of being One with All That Is. It's a knowing that embraces all of life, you realize we are all connected. I call that connecting force "God."

[Robert]

Yes Anita, it is impossible to agree on a definition for God. I can only go by what I feel, so of course that is my definition. I personally think God is a loving force and doesn't interfere at all in our lives.



Flint, your interests lie in the material universe only so of course that is what is real to you. A scientist has to have an idea of what he is trying to accomplish, then he goes out to prove it. I still say thought comes first. You will never believe in God because you refuse to look inward. You can't find God in a rock. I certainly don't care - to each his own.

How do we know there isn’t a path through the material universe to ‘god’? Does ‘he’ have to be the unexplained? Shouldn’t ‘he’ stand to reason?


Robert, I think your scenario is indeed possible. An intersting read is The Holographic Universe - do a google search. The Whole (God) is contained in each part (us). If you have ever experienced revelation you know that there is no separation between us and God. The experience is remarkable and really cannot be explained adequately. It is an instant of being One with All That Is. It's a knowing that embraces all of life, you realize we are all connected. I call that connecting force "God."

I've been there. That's why I believe in 'god'. The problem is we have to, as much as possible. define 'god' or at least define what 'god' is not.
OK, "that connecting force "God." seems like a good start.

[Robert]

How so?

If something is absent how can it be absent but as you suggest present?

Just wondering.

What's the problem here?

absent from belief = I don't believe in 'god', 'god' exists or whatever.

I'm saying is it possible to have a unverse without 'god' and still have a thread from life to life with a history, akashic record, whatever.

[Chills]

What's the problem here?

absent from belief = I don't believe in 'god', 'god' exists or whatever.

I'm saying is it possible to have a unverse without 'god' and still have a thread from life to life with a history, akashic record, whatever.

Robert--- there is no problem. There was a question, I asked to help give me some background on the thought processes going on in this thread.

I agree with you that absence of belief i.e. in god =not believing in god.

However it does not work quite so neatly when we suggest that the absence of the belief in a god =believing in the non-existence of god.

I think there is a significant difference. But hey that is just me... :)

The problem is we have to, as much as possible. define 'god' or at least define what 'god' is not.

I think this is an interesting thought. However I would suggest an alternative...thought.

The problem is we have to define what we are not.

[Flint]

At least in the make-believe universe of Star Wars, "the force" actually did something now and then. Out here in reality, no such thing happens.

The way I see it, just as part of human nature people have a couple of serious problems. The first is an awareness of death ("Oh no, that's going to happen to me too! I refuse to tolerate it!"). The second is a deep sense of curiosity. We wish to understand everything we see, and manipulate it if possible. We have historically had little or no ability for direct control over things very important to our lives - our health, the weather, our personal lives, the future. Clearly, we needed some solution.

Gods have traditionally provided this solution. They are assigned suitable characteristics for our purposes -- they are very powerful, enough to control everything we care about. But they are enough like people emotionally to share our goals and understand our desires. And of course, to care about us individually. This is an ideal combination of characteristics, because it means that the gods can be bribed and cajoled (with prayer, with huge expensive churches, with virgin sacrifices, whatever) like ordinary people, to do things ordinary people can't do like cause rain, preserve our personalities after death, and "explain" where we came from and what our lives mean. All in all, this is pretty damn satisfying.

There is only one fly in this ointment - there is no indication that any of it is actually true, and every indication that we simply made it all up. Sadly, appeals to the gods, no matter how fervent, don't change our deaths, our weather, our love lives, or anything else. At best, faith in gods helps some people better tolerate what they can't change. At worst, well, the worst is very bad. For many people, believing in gods is harmless daydreaming. For perhaps the majority, this belief inhibits genuine understanding of important aspects of reality, causing serious distortions. For a minority, belief is simply a justification for acting on base impulses. Everyone's gods are different from everyone else's, and commonly change as people grow older and more experienced.

Without question, everyone believes many things for which the evidentiary support is weak or nonexistent. We all construct a mental model of the outside universe, and we all require that everything we experience must fit this model without contradiction. So the question is, what do we do when some observation or experience IS contradictory? We must either change our model (VERY hard to do), or we must "re-interpret" our observation or experience to make it fit (VERY easy to do). The main drawback of the gods-model, then, is that almost nothing fits, forcing us to re-interpret our experiences wholesale (or, on rare occasion, wake up). Is it any wonder that people of OTHER religions, or the most devout believer in our own, behave so strangely?

[Robert]

The problem is we have to define what we are not.

Relative to what?

[Chills]

Relative to what?

Relative to what?


Short reply:
to what I am

I should add so far based on my own queries I can only conclude that I am primarily the awareness of all that I am not.

Longer reply:
In the works, will post later, as time allows.


BTW—interesting discussion.
.

[SmartAZ]

Is it possible for the individual, within scientific parameters, to die and be reborn, regardless of an existence of a God.
Is it possible for a car to be taken apart, merged with the parts of other cars, and another car built from them? Is it the same car? Science can't even define life, so how is science going to verify life after death?

I’ll call it the ‘essence’ that carries on because I don’t want the slant of the word soul to interfere with our inquiry.
Go ahead, call it soul. Nobody knows what that is, so there is no need at all for another word that doesn't mean anything either.

Is there any validity to the premise that we lose twenty one grams at the time of death?
That experiment was done almost a century ago, using equipment that was unreliable even for that period. Given the experimental conditions (somebody has to die, in a special way), it is unlikely that the experiment will ever be repeated.

We can do things that science hasn’t explained but has recorded. (telekenises, physcokenisis for instance).
Inability to explain something doesn't mean it is whatever someone says it is. Science has been unable to verify that any such things exist, but such effects are well known to magicians, who can explain them very clearly. We observe that none of the practitioners of these effects are able to demonstrate their skills in the presence of a magician. For example, Whatsisname was unable to bend forks on Johnny Carson's show because Johnny knew enough to prevent him from messing with the props before the show.

I'm looking somewhere between the atheist, the theist and the deist.
You're playing word games.

How could we go about proving this? Because we are trying to prove, not the existence of God but only the existence of some ‘force’ that carries our ‘essence’ throughout the universe. Not good or bad, not some deity telling us what to do, just a ‘force’.
If there were such a force, don't you think someone would have established its principles by now? People have been trying for as long as there have been people, but the best anyone has been able to do is to found yet another church that asks lots of unanswerable questions.

I ask this because I have verified my own past lives and while I believe in God I still have to question that belief. Question the possibility that I am reaching a conclusion base on my subjective desire to be safe or whatever. Because I never want to be safe if it precludes the ‘truth’.
God gave us a bible to explain these things. Have you read it, or do you only quote what someone has told you it says? The bible says over and over that when you are dead you are dead, and you stay dead until the resurrection.

Well, what do you think??
It sounds to me like you just need to study the bible until you have learned a few things about what you claim to believe. HERE (http://philologos.org/__eb-htetb/) is a free book to get you started.

[Robert]

We all construct a mental model of the outside universe, and we all require that everything we experience must fit this model without contradiction. So the question is, what do we do when some observation or experience IS contradictory?

Ok, I have this happy little paradigm but now I climb out of the box and say, “hey maybe I’m wrong” or I want validation beyond the safe little world I have built around my fears, around death. Now I want to travel a scientific path, a path of reason and see where it takes me if anywhere. Can we look at the contradiction as a blessing and not a curse? As a point to reinitiate our inquiry to go beyond the death of ‘I know so I don’t have to look any further’ because that is death then, isn’t it.

We must either change our model (VERY hard to do), or we must "re-interpret" our observation or experience to make it fit (VERY easy to do).

So why is it hard to do? It shouldn’t be, let’s throw it away and start from scratch, great. Because, again, when we think we’ve found the ‘truth’ we are dead, whether that truth is no ‘god’ or a tree ‘god’.

A clean slate, just reason, just the known. Can we reach the unknown from there? We have in the past.
Can we say, “I had this ‘experience’, this idea of ‘god’ that I based my belief on but maybe it is all wrong so I’m going to put it aside and if I come back to it, fine and if not fine too”?

Can we have a thread from one life to another, some ingredient within man not controlled by ‘god’ or ‘gods’ or whatever?

So let’s look at death and what happens, because we know we die what we don’t know is what we encounter if anything. Is there nothingness? If not why not and if so why so?

[Anita]

Question.... Is the absence of belief the same as believing in no god?

I see it a little differently than Robert. I see it as a semantic difference, a RESPONSE to those who see Atheism as a belief system in no god. It's simply a lack of belief system. IMO, BELIEF comes from INSIDE. This shell of mine has NOTHING inside; my BRAIN is empty, too! :D

[Robert]

God gave us a bible to explain these things. Have you read it, or do you only quote what someone has told you it says? The bible says over and over that when you are dead you are dead, and you stay dead until the resurrection.


It sounds to me like you just need to study the bible until you have learned a few things about what you claim to believe. HERE (http://philologos.org/__eb-htetb/) is a free book to get you started.

Not this nonsense again.

You have your book, your ‘truth’ and that’s fine but it’s not mine. How many other books have you studied? The Gita, Upanishads, Lao Tse? Have you read Nietzsche, Sarte or any other views? But you have this one book riddled with contradiction, this one idea, this one path and with 25 billion people in the world looking for ‘god’ you’re the only one who found him. Amazing!
You can shout from the roof tops that your book is the word of ‘god’ but you can’t prove it any more then anyone else can prove their book is the absolute truth.

Can you put your book aside and reason? Because, really, something that doesn’t stand to reason shouldn’t stand including ‘god’, your book and my book.

Sorry thatshould read Sartre

[Flint]

Robert:

So let’s look at death and what happens, because we know we die what we don’t know is what we encounter if anything. Is there nothingness? If not why not and if so why so?

You are getting ahead of yourself here. We do look at death and see what happens. In fact, we look very carefully for legal reasons. We want to know when someone is really dead. We know that there is a difference between legal death, organism death, and cell death.

As far as we can tell, consciousness is essentially a program running in the brain, and the "self" is simply what that program seems like to itself. When the program stops permanently we consider that the "self" has died. In nearly all cases, the organism and the cells also die.

Asking "why nothingness?" is a meaningless question. Like asking about the nature of all the organisms that were never conceived. Stopped is stopped.

As for why changing our model is hard to do, I'm not sure. But consider SmartAZ as a testbed. Could he decide the number of contradictons between reality and his doctrine has got too large, so it's time to forget his precious Bible and try a new model? Remember (as Robert Bolt said) belief isn't merely an idea the mind possesses. If it were, SmartAZ could drop that idea in favor of ideas with better congruence. Instead, belief is an idea that possesses the mind, a parasitical infection that defends itself against replacement by even vastly superior models.

Anita:

As I keep saying, to the Believer, everything is a belief. Lack of a belief simply does not fit that model; it gets rejected and reinterpreted as a belief in lack. It's not, but the real condition simply doesn't exist in the model.

[Chills]

Long Answer...to Robert ...regarding relative to what...etc..

What am I?

The primary question I suspect is actually, “Am I?” or “How do I know I exist?” This question was answered René Descartes when he stated “I think therefore I am”.

Note: it is awareness, (‘I think’) that leads to both question and answer.

If we consider René Descartes’ observation, “I think therefore I am” and accept it as accurate, (and being universal) would it not logically follow then that what I am, is therefore, a thinking being?

We might also call that, a consciousness or awareness.

Perhaps, if we wanted to be even more accurate, we might describe ‘what I am’, simply as a ‘thinking’, a verb. (Note: this is in fact what I actually believe is the most accurate.)

To elaborate let me refer to Descartes’ observation, again, “I think therefore I am.”
This in itself and of itself does not answer the question,
“What am I?”
Though the question is implied and the answer inherent, it does not explain itself. It simply states the awareness of existing.

(Apparently, we are confronted with an interesting paradox at this juncture. Well at least it appears so.)

Even Descartes, could not think without out data or sensory input and information, for he would have nothing to think of or about. He could only be aware of his existence when he was aware of, that which was not his awareness.

Logically it would appear that, he did not exist, without the awareness of something other than himself, or at least it would appear so, if we were to apply his observation to the letter.

More precisely it would appear that awareness is not, until it is aware of, that which is not awareness. (A paradox perhaps?).

So we can answer the question “What am I?” by simply identifying “What I am not”.

Above we can see that what I am not, is, that which I am aware of ‘that is not of my awareness.’ (Note: I qualify the “that which I am aware of” with “that is not of my awareness”, because we are aware of our awareness.)

Therefore the answer to the question “What am I?” is essentially the awareness of all that I am not. (For example I am not my foot, though I am aware of my foot and know that I can effect its movement. But I am not my foot.)

This may sound impossibly simplistic. I believe the reason it appears simplistic is because it is exactly that, simple.

If I have managed to communicate well, and you have managed to follow my convoluted logic and meandering path, to this point then hopefully you understand where it is I begin.

If all the above is true you may also be able to identify ‘where I begin’ as being a place much like, if not exactly the same place as ‘where you begin’.
I begin knowing that ‘what I am’ is the awareness of all I am not.
From that awareness and perspective I can investigate all that I am aware of and all that I will ever become aware of.

[Robert]

Yes, I understand this very well, “Cogito ergo sum” Descartes.

Is this what I’m inquiring about? No. Not while we are alive. After death, what happens, not to the remains, the corpse.

---------------------------------------

So now we die, the physical body, the brain activity, etc. Is there something beyond that? Is it possible for thinking, perhaps action, to go outside of the physical body. To abandon the physical body at death. We are looking at the body, what happens if thinking is outside the body, outside what we are measuring at death?
Have you ever astro-projected? Because if you have then you know that it is thought and not the self that experiences the action. The body is not there.

So then we must look at thought. We know that thought takes time to move from one point to another so if we know it takes time then we know it has mass. (Newton’s second law F=MA or force = mass x acceleration).
Is it possible then for this mass to exist beyond the physical body? Can we prove it? Can we find the origin of thought, perhaps?

Is it possible for thought to be completely outside the body in Reich’s ‘ethers’ perhaps and each of us ‘tunes’ into these thoughts that become unique to us and like a radio station we resonate to a specific frequency?




.

[Anita]

Fun time, THAT, but enough nights with no sleep pondering, IMO. If y'all haven't got this behind your belts already, you're about 30 years or more younger than I.

I think I'll just lurk on this one, because the subject always was an interesting one; I just came to my conclusions earlier than y'all.

Have fun! :beer:

[Chills]

Have you ever astro-projected?

Not that I am aware of.

Because if you have then you know that it is thought and not the self that experiences the action. The body is not there.
Since I have not experienced this state I will have to accept your experience as being valid.
Much the same as having not experienced a personal relationship with Jesus or his presence in my life, I will have to accept the experience of some one who has had that experience as valid as well.

For I can neither validate nor invalidate either so to speak.



Is it possible for thought to be completely outside the body in Reich’s ‘ethers’ perhaps and each of us ‘tunes’ into these thoughts that become unique to us and like a radio station we resonate to a specific frequency?

I guess you would have to define or quantify 'thought'.

As far as can discern to date thought is simply processing data consciously...

Interesting stuff.
:beer:

[Chills]

Fun time, THAT, but enough nights with no sleep pondering, IMO. If y'all haven't got this behind your belts already, you're about 30 years or more younger than I.

I think I'll just lurk on this one, because the subject always was an interesting one; I just came to my conclusions earlier than y'all.

Have fun! :beer:

Theres nothing like a refresher course to make me feel my gray. :rolleyes:

And indeed is fun... :beer:

[Robert]

Not that I am aware of.

Since I have not experienced this state I will have to accept your experience as being valid.

Please don’t, find out for yourself.

Much the same as having not experienced a personal relationship with Jesus or his presence in my life, I will have to accept the experience of some one who has had that experience as valid as well.

For I can neither validate nor invalidate either so to speak.

Exactly and we shouldn’t accept anything that doesn’t stand to reason.

I guess you would have to define or quantify 'thought'.

We know it exists, we know we think and that thinking drives us to action. How do you want to quantify it? Can we approach the possibility that it has mass because there is inertia involved?

As far as can discern to date thought is simply processing data consciously...

But we’re not answering the question, does thought extend beyond the self?

Interesting stuff.

Well at least it’s different thinking.



Come on Anita, we’re all old hippies here. We were yakking about this stuff thirty years ago. Only difference is some of us were ‘stoned’

[Anita]

Only difference is some of us were ‘stoned’

Well, there IS THAT! :yes: :beer:

[Chills]

Since I have not experienced this state I will have to accept your experience as being valid.

Please don’t, find out for yourself.

Much the same as having not experienced a personal relationship with Jesus or his presence in my life, I will have to accept the experience of some one who has had that experience as valid as well.

For I can neither validate nor invalidate either so to speak.

Exactly and we shouldn’t accept anything that doesn’t stand to reason.

I guess you would have to define or quantify 'thought'.

We know it exists, we know we think and that thinking drives us to action. How do you want to quantify it? Can we approach the possibility that it has mass because there is inertia involved?

As far as can discern to date thought is simply processing data consciously...

But we’re not answering the question, does thought extend beyond the self?

Interesting stuff.

Well at least it’s different thinking.



Come on Anita, we’re all old hippies here. We were yakking about this stuff thirty years ago. Only difference is some of us were ‘stoned’


Robert... I am quite pressed for time.... have to drive up to the city to see my grandson's christmas concert.... however I am very interesting in this discussion....so I will get back to it as time allows.

However I would like to ask this: To proceed as you suggest with reason and ask the various questions you point to, do we not need a premise at which to begin?

In my earlier post regarding -awareness and what I am being the awareness of what I am not ...was actually my attempt to find a premise or a point at which we could begin to reason. Actually it is from a much larger work.. I wrote while looking into the variations of human awareness etc...

Laters

[Robert]

Well, there IS THAT! :yes: :beer:

I personally was in the group that didn’t inhale.

[SmartAZ]

Robert:
Not this nonsense again.
Robert, you asked what I thought and I told you. If you didn't want to hear it you shouldn't have asked. Your response is quite rude.

[Robert]

In my earlier post regarding -awareness and what I am being the awareness of what I am not ...was actually my attempt to find a premise or a point at which we could begin to reason. Actually it is from a much larger work.. I wrote while looking into the variations of human awareness etc...

Laters

I starting with the premise that thought is mass and exploring the potential for it to be separate from the self.
I’m looking at the possibility of mass being separate or to be able to separate, from the living physical body. We can explore that avenue without being dead and hoping to extend it beyond the life of the body.

So, while we don’t necessarily have to establish the origin of thought to examine it, we do have to establish its relationship, or independence from the physical body.
My thinking is that there may be a path through math with respect to resonance. For instance we know that the brain during Alpha state resonates about 4 Hz (4 to 7) if I remember. I know that I can ‘leave’ the physical body in alpha so this may be the avenue to begin exploration. Do we know the frequency of the individual just before death? Because if my hypothesis is correct it should be somewhere between alpha and delta. We have instruments that can, in fact, measure that exact frequency although I don’t know if it has ever been done. My father would have let me do the experiments when he was on his death bed but I wasn’t making the inquiry then * and I’m sure the hospital would have had some revisions. (Gee, why would I ever think that!)


* My father, shortly before his death, was having some interesting spiritual ‘illuminations’ and was eager to propose them to my analytical mind. After his death he was involved in some personal matters relating to his life and we haven’t gone back to verify many of his ideas as of yet.
Another note her to those who think that after death the universe is opened to every reality. From what I have explored it is not but these are other ‘issues’.



.

Chill, thanks for your input and have a safe trip.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by SmartAZ
God gave us a bible to explain these things. Have you read it, or do you only quote what someone has told you it says? The bible says over and over that when you are dead you are dead, and you stay dead until the resurrection.

It sounds to me like you just need to study the bible until you have learned a few things about what you claim to believe. HERE is a free book to get you started.

Robert, you asked what I thought and I told you. If you didn't want to hear it you shouldn't have asked. Your response is quite rude.

You didn’t give me your opinion you gave me your perception of ‘god’ as absolute truth and as though it was all I needed to bring balance and understanding into my life.

Quite rude.

Do you think that I’m inquiring into a subject about the after life and that I somehow missed the bible in my inquiry? Did you think that I was incapable of understanding and analyzing the bible for myself?
Did I return to you and say,” look all you have to do is read this book that I believe in”? We’re doing an inquiry here and that requires an open mind, an ability to put aside our predisposed ideas and think from a clean slate and that’s what I believe I asked you for.
I’m sorry to be rude but please think about your demeanor and what you say.

[Chills]

I starting with the premise that thought is mass and exploring the potential for it to be separate from the self.
I’m looking at the possibility of mass being separate or to be able to separate, from the living physical body. We can explore that avenue without being dead and hoping to extend it beyond the life of the body.

So, while we don’t necessarily have to establish the origin of thought to examine it, we do have to establish its relationship, or independence from the physical body.
My thinking is that there may be a path through math with respect to resonance. For instance we know that the brain during Alpha state resonates about 4 Hz (4 to 7) if I remember. I know that I can ‘leave’ the physical body in alpha so this may be the avenue to begin exploration. Do we know the frequency of the individual just before death? Because if my hypothesis is correct it should be somewhere between alpha and delta. We have instruments that can, in fact, measure that exact frequency although I don’t know if it has ever been done. My father would have let me do the experiments when he was on his death bed but I wasn’t making the inquiry then * and I’m sure the hospital would have had some revisions. (Gee, why would I ever think that!)


* My father, shortly before his death, was having some interesting spiritual ‘illuminations’ and was eager to propose them to my analytical mind. After his death he was involved in some personal matters relating to his life and we haven’t gone back to verify many of his ideas as of yet.
Another note her to those who think that after death the universe is opened to every reality. From what I have explored it is not but these are other ‘issues’.



.

Chill, thanks for your input and have a safe trip.


I am a disadvantage here, for when you start to talk about mass and those things you are talking way above my head.

I always thought of thoughts kind of like light... a wave.... I guess I assumed that from the word brain waves . I do know that light might be a wave and or a particle.

However I get the jist of the notion.

I guess what is required is some empirical (?) evidence of some sort to determine the nature of thought. Perhaps through tests as you suggest.

It would definitely be an interesting turn of mind (pun intended) if we were to find thought had mass.

I have focused my own queries on brain function relative to awareness.
So this very interesting to me.

BTW-- I had a great time with the grandson.. after the concert he tried to teach me how to play yu-gi-oh ............I never heard of it...and still dont have a clue how to play it...LOL. :rolleyes:

[SmartAZ]

Do you think that I’m inquiring into a subject about the after life and that I somehow missed the bible in my inquiry? Did you think that I was incapable of understanding and analyzing the bible for myself?
Did I return to you and say,” look all you have to do is read this book that I believe in”? We’re doing an inquiry here and that requires an open mind, an ability to put aside our predisposed ideas and think from a clean slate and that’s what I believe I asked you for.
I’m sorry to be rude but please think about your demeanor and what you say.
Not this nonsense again.

[Flint]

There is, we can hope, a distinction between saying "Here is what I believe" and "Here is what you should believe." The first is calmly discussing our beliefs, the second is preaching.

Sounds simple until we get to the part about "Here is WHY I believe what I do." And it's nearly impossible to avoid saying "I believe this because it's the Truth, because if I believed anything else I'd be (fill in pejorative adjective). Now I insist that everyone discuss their beliefs in (inferior) relationship to mine, so that we can do a (negative) comparison between what everyone believes, and what I believe."

My personal reading is that SmartAZ has presented his beliefs NOT by saying "Here is what I believe and why I believe it" but rather by saying "Here is the Truth!" He writes "you just need to study the bible until you have learned a few things." and THAT, folks, is preaching.

Rob retaliates by saying "We’re doing an inquiry here and that requires an open mind, an ability to put aside our predisposed ideas and think from a clean slate and that’s what I believe I asked you for." But this is nothing less than a full-frontal demand that SmartAZ drop his faith ("put aside predisposed ideas") and approach belief in Rob's terms ("I asked you to think from a clean slate.") This is NOT what the thread is about. Rob is free to explain what he believes and why, not to demand anything from anyone.

And so Smart AZ says "read your Bible and see the light" and Rob says "forget your Bible and see the light" and both are preaching. And both understandably resent being preached at. Preaching belongs on another thread, perhaps called "From the pulpit: Why I am right and you are wrong and how you should correct the errors of your beliefs."

[Robert]

There is, we can hope, a distinction between saying "Here is what I believe" and "Here is what you should believe." The first is calmly discussing our beliefs, the second is preaching.

Sounds simple until we get to the part about "Here is WHY I believe what I do." And it's nearly impossible to avoid saying "I believe this because it's the Truth, because if I believed anything else I'd be (fill in pejorative adjective). Now I insist that everyone discuss their beliefs in (inferior) relationship to mine, so that we can do a (negative) comparison between what everyone believes, and what I believe."

My personal reading is that SmartAZ has presented his beliefs NOT by saying "Here is what I believe and why I believe it" but rather by saying "Here is the Truth!" He writes "you just need to study the bible until you have learned a few things." and THAT, folks, is preaching.

Rob retaliates by saying "We’re doing an inquiry here and that requires an open mind, an ability to put aside our predisposed ideas and think from a clean slate and that’s what I believe I asked you for." But this is nothing less than a full-frontal demand that SmartAZ drop his faith ("put aside predisposed ideas") and approach belief in Rob's terms ("I asked you to think from a clean slate.") This is NOT what the thread is about. Rob is free to explain what he believes and why, not to demand anything from anyone.

And so Smart AZ says "read your Bible and see the light" and Rob says "forget your Bible and see the light" and both are preaching. And both understandably resent being preached at. Preaching belongs on another thread, perhaps called "From the pulpit: Why I am right and you are wrong and how you should correct the errors of your beliefs."

No, Rob says, accept your book but if you want us to accept it then prove it by reason. If you want to use it to establish life after death or whatever then give us something more then subjective opinion. Am I saying I have the truth, the light? No, absolutely not. That’s the difference. I’m inquiring.
Can we start from a ‘clean slate’? Can we say,”look this is the system I have justified my actions through but maybe it’s wrong.”? Isn’t that what I said? Is it demanding to ask for reason? Because if we don’t have reason then we are simply giving our opinion, aren’t we?

We have this physical proof, it isn’t hearsay it is documented, regardless of whether it is by individuals who follow a religion or not. We have people picking their next religious leader by their belief he is reincarnated from the previous leader but not simply by the belief but by a series of validations that these children have passed. Not by whim and not just one but fourteen incarnations. Can we explore this, regardless of whether it establishes a path to ‘god’ or not?

Can we explore thought and its relationship to mass through reason and not subjectivity? Or should we just say it’s never been done, forget it?

[Flint]

Rob:

No, Rob says, accept your book but if you want us to accept it then prove it by reason. If you want to use it to establish life after death or whatever then give us something more then subjective opinion.
Why should he? Proving things by reason is YOUR schtick. Accepting received wisdom on faith is HIS schtick. Again, you are demanding that he follow your path. This is preaching.

Am I saying I have the truth, the light? No, absolutely not. That’s the difference.
OK, then your approach is different. You keep implying that his approach, being different from yours, is inferior and incorrect, and that he should drop his approach and adopt yours instead. I suggest you should simply be explaining why YOU believe what you do.

I’m inquiring. Can we start from a ‘clean slate’? Can we say,”look this is the system I have justified my actions through but maybe it’s wrong.”? Isn’t that what I said? Is it demanding to ask for reason? Because if we don’t have reason then we are simply giving our opinion, aren’t we?
You can say whatever you wish about what you believe, and how you came to believe that way. Just don't tell anyone else what to do.

We have this physical proof, it isn’t hearsay it is documented, regardless of whether it is by individuals who follow a religion or not. We have people picking their next religious leader by their belief he is reincarnated from the previous leader but not simply by the belief but by a series of validations that these children have passed. Not by whim and not just one but fourteen incarnations. Can we explore this, regardless of whether it establishes a path to ‘god’ or not?
Explore away. I think we understand that you consider your methods superior; otherwise you wouldn't use them. You need to understand that this attitude is shared by those whose methods are different from yours -- they ALSO think theirs are superior. But when you come across as saying "*I* don't believe in any silly whimsical bible because *I* am rational and thoughtful, unlike those who spout nonsense" then you are preaching. Not to mention insulting.

[Anita]

But when you come across as saying "*I* don't believe in any silly whimsical bible because *I* am rational and thoughtful, unlike those who spout nonsense" then you are preaching. Not to mention insulting.

Just seems ODD coming from you, since you spent so many years saying JUST THAT.

Robert: I think a new thread titled something like "What I believe and how I came to this conclusion" is a good idea. I'd start it myself, but then I'd have to do a whole lot of typing and that could interfere with all that inhaling and exhaling I've got going on. :beer:

[Robert]

Rob:


Why should he? Proving things by reason is YOUR schtick. Accepting received wisdom on faith is HIS schtick. Again, you are demanding that he follow your path. This is preaching.

No, proving by reason through data is scientific. Receiving wisdom on faith is fine for the individual but subjective for society.


OK, then your approach is different. You keep implying that his approach, being different from yours, is inferior and incorrect, and that he should drop his approach and adopt yours instead. I suggest you should simply be explaining why YOU believe what you do.

No, he is welcome to his approach but again, does it fit into scientific parameters?

You can say whatever you wish about what you believe, and how you came to believe that way. Just don't tell anyone else what to do.

Anyone can say whatever they want if they want science to accept it then it must fit certain criteria. That includes me, you and Santa Claus.

Explore away. I think we understand that you consider your methods superior; otherwise you wouldn't use them.

I’m asking for scientific analysis is that superior? Have a better way? I’d love to hear it.

You need to understand that this attitude is shared by those whose methods are different from yours -- they ALSO think theirs are superior.

Maybe theirs are but we need proof?

when you come across as saying "*I* don't believe in any silly whimsical bible because *I* am rational and thoughtful, unlike those who spout nonsense" then you are preaching. Not to mention insulting.

Is this Flint talking? The man who says there is no proof of life after death of ‘god’ so I don’t accept it.

Are you saying we shouldn’t be rational, we shouldn’t use reason? It has nothing to do with superiority. We have no choice how someone decides to justify their beliefs but if we are going to look for an avenue to establish a hypothesis to establish gravity then we must use reason. We cannot just say the apple falls because I think it should.

Am I telling people what to do? And why are you interjecting between SmartAZ and me, think you’re superior? Can he defend himself? Then let him?


I have no desire to get into a confrontation with you Flint. I want to explore thought and this is not accomplishing that.

Now, what I will do is start a new thread to continue the debate that is at this point a thread drift.

The new thread will be called. ‘An Inquiry into Thought’.
Thank you

Boy Anite, we do think alike! I wrote this and then read your post just before I hit the submit.

[Flint]

Rob,

No, proving by reason through data is scientific. Receiving wisdom on faith is fine for the individual but subjective for society.

So what?

No, he is welcome to his approach but again, does it fit into scientific parameters?

Why is that important? You go to your church, he goes to his.

Anyone can say whatever they want if they want science to accept it then it must fit certain criteria.

Granted. But there is no requirement that science accept anyone's faith. Science is about the worst measure of a faith's validity that you could select.

I’m asking for scientific analysis is that superior?

Nope.

Have a better way? I’d love to hear it.

You DID hear it. You dismissed it as "nonsense".

Maybe theirs are but we need proof?

Proof of any sort is not available. For ANY belief system.

Is this Flint talking? The man who says there is no proof of life after death of ‘god’ so I don’t accept it.

This is Flint, who says there is no evidence of life after death, and I have problems trying to internalize a belief unsupported by any evidence. Others don't have this problem.

Are you saying we shouldn’t be rational, we shouldn’t use reason?

I'm saying this is not a requirement, and other people have fully satisfying faiths *because* they are not rational and don't use reason. I can't say they're wrong, I can only say that their approach won't work for me.

Am I telling people what to do?

Yes, you are. You are demanding that people be rational, you are requiring a justification for their faith that meets YOUR requirements, you are dismissing faiths that fail to fit YOUR requirements as nonsense. This thread is explicitly supposed to avoid this.

Anita:

I'm sympathetic to the other believers here, including you. My compliant is that this thread is for explaining our beliefs, not proselytizing them. Other threads are more suitable for preaching, in which case I'm glad to condescend to others in insulting ways. It's fun!

[Robert]

My opinion is, as Shakespear put so well “I think the women doth protest to much”

That you are being disruptive because it challenges your belief system.

I started a new thread. Don’t like it? Don’t participate. Simple.

[Robert]

Canada Sue,
Thank you.

[SmartAZ]

Flint:
As for why changing our model is hard to do, I'm not sure. But consider SmartAZ as a testbed. Could he decide the number of contradictons between reality and his doctrine has got too large, so it's time to forget his precious Bible and try a new model? Remember (as Robert Bolt said) belief isn't merely an idea the mind possesses. If it were, SmartAZ could drop that idea in favor of ideas with better congruence. Instead, belief is an idea that possesses the mind, a parasitical infection that defends itself against replacement by even vastly superior models.
Flint, it might surprise you that I do exactly that, frequently. The bible commands, "Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good." I follow that command literally. I would guess that you follow it too, and just haven't found anything good yet. Keep plugging away until you find something worth holding fast to.

Sounds simple until we get to the part about "Here is WHY I believe what I do."
Flint, very few people have a good reason for believing what they do, if they even know what the reason is. A lot of people believe what their parents told them to believe. A lot of people refuse to believe because they were offended by some person so they reject that person and his entire church. I was one of those until I was 30. All the religious preachings I had heard were senseless. Most christians don't know the first thing about their religion. I was bored to listen to them, so I just refused to listen. When I met someone who could actually explain the stuff I realized that it made sense and decided I would believe it. I still examine that choice frequently and I keep believing because it keeps making sense.

How about you? I can tell from your posts that you have been hurt. You are not examining anything, you are mostly just yelping about inconsistencies in other people's beliefs. Do you ever examine the inconsistencies in your own beliefs? I have to say that in spite of all your posts, I have no idea what you believe, if anything. I see only complaints about other's beliefs. Suppose you demonstrate your principles by discussing what you believe instead of griping about other people's beliefs.

Aside:
Most christians don't know the first thing about their religion.
If the practitioners don't understand it, what makes you think that you, a non-practitioner, understand it? (There is an underlying assertion here, that you don't have to understand anything to be a christian; it is not an intellectual choice.)

[Robert]

The problem with systems and I’m not trying to be argumentative here, is that the individual allows someone else or a book to define ‘god’ for him or her. Why should we externalize God? Can’t we find out for ourselves? Go out and sit under a tree or something and find out for ourselves?

We get stuck and we grab our book and it tells us exactly what to do, how to live, act and all the rest. We don’t have to think, “My book tells me what’s right and my book is the absolute truth”. Can we use reason? Can we say simply, harm none. There, no books no rituals and no churches. Complete mortality. Because our books and our systems are really subjective and when we act on that subjectivity we are not being moral, we are not using reason. We are simply following someone else and subjective action results in chaos. And we have chaos in society in the form of war and hate and all the rest of it.

[SmartAZ]

Chills:
If we consider René Descartes’ observation, “I think therefore I am” and accept it as accurate, (and being universal) would it not logically follow then that what I am, is therefore, a thinking being?
M. Descartes was working on proving a theorem. As mathematicians often do, he followed his argument down to very basic levels and decided that to fully prove it he needed to first prove that he himself existed. So the context of his statement was very limited, and most people who quote him have no idea what he was actually talking about at the time. My point here is that this is not the great philosophical principle that it seems to be; it was merely one step in a mathematical theorem.

[Chills]

M. Descartes was working on proving a theorem. As mathematicians often do, he followed his argument down to very basic levels and decided that to fully prove it he needed to first prove that he himself existed. So the context of his statement was very limited, and most people who quote him have no idea what he was actually talking about at the time. My point here is that this is not the great philosophical principle that it seems to be; it was merely one step in a mathematical theorem.

SmartAZ...

Very interesting, however, regardless of how or why he arrived at that observation does not diminish the validity of the statement in anyway.


If it is some how diminished can you explain to me how and why etc?

[SmartAZ]

Chills,
You are correct, the statement is not diminished. My point was that it is easy to take a statement out of context, and then it does not say what one thinks it says. "I think, therefore I am" is pretty easy to shoot down when it's used by itself. What if you think wrong? What if you don't think? What if you only think you think? A computer sort of thinks, does that mean a computer sort of is? All of these examples are silly because they are out of context.

Re "the book" - No, reason is not sufficient, because reason is not reliable. For instance, almost no man is reasonable when he's near a friendly lady. The important thing about a book is that it's printed and can't be changed in the heat of the moment. An important principle of pagan religions is the absence of scriptures. They specifically avoid printed laws in favor of oral traditions and ... human reason!

I said "laws". That's a hard word. If you violate a law, something hurtful happens. If Mama says don't touch the stove, and baby touches the stove, baby gets hurt. That's not Mama's fault, she warned him about the law. God warned us about some laws too, but people insist on blaming God when they violate a law and get hurt. God told Adam not to eat that fruit. Adam ate the fruit, and all of his descendants die because of it. It's not God's fault, it's Adam's.

God did something else that He didn't have to do, something that a lot of people don't notice. The Tree of Life was in the garden. Adam could have eaten the fruit any time and had everlasting life. God never told him not to eat it. If he had eaten from the Tree of Life, the devil could have kept him in his sinful state FOREVER! To prevent that, God drove Adam out of the garden and blocked the entrance until the savior could be sent. God didn't have to do that, He did it because He wanted man to have everlasting life, even after Adam had committed treason against Him.

The important thing about a book is that this story has been preserved in print long enough for us to cut through the misunderstandings thrown up by sloppy students substituting oral interpretations for the original story. THAT is why we need our precepts in books! "Reason" isn't good enough!

[Chills]

SmartAZ

Well I am glad you agree that it isnt diminished.

My earlier statement, actually the excerpt I posted, had nothing to do with religion or god etc specifically. I was and continue to look at awareness/perception etc.

I find the biggest problem in discussing religions is the notion that one persons perception is more valid than anothers.

I do not actually discuss religion or at least I do try my best to avoid it basically because I believe if your (example only) religion is worth following I will see it in your behavior and the behavior of other followers of the same philosophy/religion etc.

[SmartAZ]

I find the biggest problem in discussing religions is the notion that one persons perception is more valid than anothers.
Uh, ... that is the ONLY reason for discussing religions!

[Chills]

Uh, ... that is the ONLY reason for discussing religions!

oh
:rolleyes:

[SmartAZ]

Continued from previous post:

I find that the biggest problem in discussing religions is that very few people know the meanings of the words. Almost everybody jumbles the words and uses them interchangeably.

- God is a spirit, but not all spirits are God.
- "Spiritual" may or may not be the same as "godly".
- Religion is neither spiritual nor godly. Religion is what men do, or compel each other to do, because of what they believe. Government, science, and academia are included in that definition.
- Worship does not have to be directed to a spirit. Most people worship their own reason to the exclusion of spirits.

I usually don't bother discussing religions because religion is only a symptom of a belief. In many people, religion is a symptom of their upbringing - they don't actually believe anything. And I don't discuss spirits much because we can't know anything about a spirit unless a spirit reveals it to us. There are three sources of spiritual information: prophecy from God, prophecy from Satan, and prophecy from some man's own invention. People with no training are unable to figure out which is which, so it takes a lot of teaching before we can discuss anything. And people often will not tolerate being taught because they are completely distracted by all the stuff they have already learned that doesn't make sense, and all the pain inflicted on them while they were learning it. As you might have figured out by now, it's awfully hard to get into a meaningful discussion!

[Chills]

yeah like I said... I try to avoid discussing religion..or more correctly debating it.

I dont mind listening to someone telling me why they believe what they believe
I just see no profit in arguing about it.

[Deb Mc]

Aside:
Most christians don't know the first thing about their religion.
If the practitioners don't understand it, what makes you think that you, a non-practitioner, understand it? (There is an underlying assertion here, that you don't have to understand anything to be a christian; it is not an intellectual choice.)


Good evening all!

SmartAZ,

A comment here that ties in with your aside:

I was recently enrolled in a college course with a harshly anti-Christian professor and a colleague who was also harsh, but Atheist. I also had two colleagues who were Christian and had done quite a bit of Bible research/study.

I've been a Christian, though I didn't know (and still have a LOT to learn) much about the Bible or the history of the Church, etc...

Things came to a head near the end of the quarter, when the Atheist student said that the Bible "proved" that Jesus was homosexual, based upon the passage where Jesus asked "Do you 'love' me?" to one of his disciples. It turns out that the Atheist had thought that the word 'love' had been that of 'eros', meaning sexual love, when in fact, the term used in the book was that of brotherly love, or "philos", instead.

Another incident was where the professor was trying to disprove the passage where Jesus was said to have walked "on" the water. The prof. said that one of his colleagues said that the Bible had been written in ancient Hebrew, and so the term could have been confused "by" for "on", and so negating a miracle.

One of my colleagues, and friend, was able to disprove that by pointing out the professor's error: The New Testament was *not* written in ancient Hebrew, but rather a variant of Greek that was used at the time in the region. Hence, there was no conflict in terms, and that "on" meant "on", not "by".

Imo, it's the lack of understanding, by both those who call themselves "Christians" and those who are outside Christianity or are non-religious altogether. Fwiw...

Anyhoo, it's been a fascinating thread all! Two thumbs up!