Do you believe in God?

[Exorcet]

God of course.

That's a meaningless answer.

Thats like saying all thats in a computer is hardware.
More to it than that.

More like all there is to a computer is the computer. You can find the software, it's on the hard disk. The soul or spirit on the other hand is no where.

Faith is of and by your spirit, or soul, heart and will.
The intellect cannot percieve the reality of it, because it is outside the dimensional capacity of the carnal intellect.
However, I would say that the intellect can examine it, and fully well realize there is something to it.

This is self contradicting. But if we ignore that, you say that the mind can examine it. Good, now we can apply the scientific method and finally settle the debate. How does the mind examine it? Where can the spirit be found?

They are interconnected.
Electrical knowledge must also, and does, include magnetic knowledge.
Two different entities, which are present simultaneously.
That which comes through the spirit is instantly percived, intellectually, even though it did not originate there.

And what is electrical knowledge?

This is a difficult concept possibly, for you to grasp, since you are convinced the intellect functions on it's own and is all there is.

Again this is why I draw attention to relational aspects with women.
They, generally speaking, do not operate primarily from a logic intellect,
position as we men do.

Please do not insult women.

 

[TJC_69]

Uh oh ... Jesus is back guys !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t6npABeFcI&feature=related
And he's recruiting us all.

 

[Famine]

God of course.

[Citation needed]

Thats like saying all thats in a computer is hardware.
More to it than that.

Not quite.

I can destroy your legs and you'd lose no "spirit". I can destroy your arms and you'd lose no "spirit". I can destroy all of your organs (and replace them with mechanical equivalents) and you'd lose no "spirit". I can destroy all of your body except your brain and you'd lose no "spirit". But if I destroy your brain, your "spirit" is gone.

Do you disagree?

On the faith, no I wouldn't.
Faith is of and by your spirit, or soul, heart and will.
The intellect cannot percieve the reality of it, because it is outside the dimensional capacity of the carnal intellect.

There is no part of your body that contains anything that makes you who you are except your brain. You don't become someone else if your heart is removed and replaced with another person's heart - or an artificial one. You do become someone else if the biochemical balance of your brain is altered.

Your brain is all that makes you... you.

It's no wonder, God gave you two daughters.

Nope. One of them is all my own work. The other is just biology.

Knowledge is knowledge, and there are all kinds of knowledge.
Where it originates, is irrelevant.

The only problem here is the reluctance to percieve spiritual knowledge, is to a degree, just another branch of science, although it is much more than that.
However, due to it's unique nature, it has to be pursued and conducted under different procedures, than normally instituted.

Unfortunately your two paragraphs here contradict.

Knowledge - and let's remind ourselves that the word "science" is Latin for "knowledge" and means nothing different - has many subdivisions but it's always knowledge. It's always science. The scientific method - that is "the method by which knowledge is obtained" - covers all knowledge.

The concept that a certain kind of knowledge has to be acquired differently is conceit - often seen in practitioners of the paranormal.

The relevance is, like Dr. Hugh Ross, I can't unknow the dimensional reality of someone and something that I know, because there is no scientific evidence, it exists, or evidence appears contrary to the someone's account.

You can change what you know by acquiring better information.

We all know certain things that are wrong - this is the original basis of the TV show "QI" which asks really obvious questions that everyone knows the answer to but, it turns out, that everyone knows the wrong answer to. By acquiring better information, what we knew is erased and replaced with what we know.

Again this is why I draw attention to relational aspects with women.
They, generally speaking, do not operate primarily from a logic intellect,
position as we men do.

Wow.

Just...

Wow.

 

[Touring Mars]

Uh oh ... Jesus is back guys !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t6npABeFcI&feature=related
And he's recruiting us all.

He is the Messiah... and I should know, I've followed a few...

In all seriousness, I despise people like this guy - to paraphrase the late Christopher Hitchens, it's a pity there isn't a hell for people like this to go to.

 

[arora]

First no one is trying to 'disprove God', as has been covered many times you can't disprove a claimed existence, burden of proof and all that.

As for interpreting it correctly I'd would be interested in you demonstrate a clear and unified consensus on that among Christians.

Not possible as you know, it's just as or even more twisted by christian then atheist.

Really? Throwing around borderline digs is not an attempt to 'stir pots'?

Yes really, no digs, just said what I thought about you guys silly arguing over genesis story.

It does look interesting in the vein that NDE is, but as proof of life after death correct me if I'm wrong but he didn't die?

Didn't die no, cortex stopped? he said it did, it's interesting when you consider the conscience, obviously not something for you, good thing I didn't waste the time posting it just for you. It does not surprise me in the least that you want to contest something about the article, I posted it for others.

You win, all the atheists win, you guys own the earth and logic 👍

EDIT: I didn't mean to skip you over exercist, thanks for the condolence. As for dream happening after he came back, clearly possible.

"he was a christian before"

Here is his passage on that;

Although I considered myself a faithful Christian, I was so more in name than in actual belief. I didn’t begrudge those who wanted to believe that Jesus was more than simply a good man who had suffered at the hands of the world. I sympathized deeply with those who wanted to believe that there was a God somewhere out there who loved us unconditionally. In fact, I envied such people the security that those beliefs no doubt provided. But as a scientist, I simply knew better than to believe them myself.

 

[Scaff]

Not possible as you know, it's just as or even more twisted by christian then atheist.

Yes really, no digs, just said what I thought about you guys silly arguing over genesis story.

Then why interrupt a perfectly civil discussion to basically mock those involved?

You didn't add anything to the discussion, you simply seem happy to belittle those involved in it and are still continuing to do so.

If that is all you have to add to the discussion in case then I strongly suggest in future that you refrain from doing so.

Didn't die no, cortex stopped? he said it did, it's interesting when you consider the conscience, obviously not something for you, good thing I didn't waste the time posting it just for you. It does not surprise me in the least that you want to contest something about the article, I posted it for others.

I quite clearly said that I found the article of interest so it obviously 'was for me', my main question (and it was a question) was in regard to it being presented as proof of an afterlife. If you have not died then how can you have experience of one?

You win, all the atheists win, you guys own the earth and logic 👍

Drop the attitude, no one is being impolite to you and as such it not required, continue with it and you will be taking a time out.

 

[TJC_69]

He is the Messiah... and I should know, I've followed a few...

In all seriousness, I despise people like this guy - to paraphrase the late Christopher Hitchens, it's a pity there isn't a hell for people like this to go to.

Agreed. His head is so far up his nether regions that i'm surprised he cannot see his own throat .

A case in point of dangerous religious cult following I feel .

I wonder if SCJ or similar posters with the same unshakable belief , believe his preachings ? Or , can they recognize and differentiate a conman from the real deal ?

Interesting ...

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

It's a well known fact that male thinking and communication processes are more logical and systematic than our feminine relational/empathetic counterparts. There's nothing sexist about it; so don't make it out to be.

Everything else cobra said... No.

 

[Scaff]

It's a well known fact that male thinking and communication processes are more logical and systematic than our feminine relational/empathetic counterparts. There's nothing sexist about it; so don't make it out to be.

Could you provide a source for that please.

 

[dylansan]

Even if it is a fact, it's certainly not a well known fact.

And even then, just because the average woman is less logical than the average man, the range in logical tendencies within each gender is far greater than the difference between them. It's like saying white cars are faster than blue cars. It may be true on average, but if you're looking for a fast car, it won't help you much to simply look for white ones.

I would also like to see a source.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-female-brain-i-why-do-men-try-figure-out-t-0

http://www.livingbetter.org/livingbetter/articles/gender.html

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/10-ways-men-women-comminucate-differently.htm

Google works just fine.

If you want academic sources then I will pull out my psychology textbooks.

 

[Exorcet]

There is a difference between saying that brains can be wired differently, which is true, and saying that one set of brains doesn't primarily function on logic, which is ridiculous.

It's also ironic that the supposedly logical and therefore less likely to be in tune with God because God isn't logical brains are the ones that are put in control of the church.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

I think what he is saying is that a male's first instinct to something may be to think logically about it, and a female's may be to react emotionally (systemizing and empathizing as said in the first link). He's not saying that men only think with logic and women only think with emotion.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

There is a difference between saying that brains can be wired differently, which is true, and saying that one set of brains doesn't primarily function on logic, which is ridiculous.

It's also ironic that the supposedly logical and therefore less likely to be in tune with God because God isn't logical brains are the ones that are put in control of the church.

No one said that. You picked out one poorly worded sentence without considering the context in which it was used and decided to ignorantly classify it as a sexist attack against women. You throw around the use of a single word as if it makes the whole argument false, which it doesn't.

 

[Exorcet]

Someone said exactly that. Just go back to SCJ's post. It may be poorly worded sure, but it's not up to me to fix it. If my interpretation is wrong, SCJ can simply clarify.

And what makes you think the context was ignored?

I think what he is saying is that a male's first instinct to something may be to think logically about it, and a female's may be to react emotionally (systemizing and empathizing as said in the first link).

Who? SCJ? It didn't sound that way to me. If you're talking about zoo's post I don't have a problem with it.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

True, I was even going to suggest English may not be his primary language, until I saw his location; granted he could still be learning it. It's poorly worded and structured but the intention is there . Only reason I knew exactly what he was talking about is my psych classes. Otherwise I probably would have ignored it.

I read "women are relational and men are primarily logical" or "women are not primarily logical they are relational, in comparison to men."

You read "women do not think logically but men do" (or something along those lines) and decided it was sexist lol. That's what I meant by missing the context. But I understand how easy that is with such poor grammar.

 

[Exorcet]

Although I knew there are differences between men and women already in this area. I don't think his phrasing refers to that, or if it does, it's not immediately clear. I don't think anyone but SCJ can clarify at this point.

I don't try to assume, but I'm only human. I will say this is not the first time a post like that has come up. Another poster said something similar a little ways back basically saying a woman would override logic in defense of children, or something, as if a woman's only purpose was to have/raise kids. Thinking like this can be found in religion, and Christianity is no exception despite the improvement over time that it has seen. To me, SCJ's post seemed to be of the same type. But again,, all I need to change my mind is some clarification from the source.


EDIT

And the difference between men and women is not that one is more logical than the other, but more relational/emotional. There is a difference. A woman isn't going to form a relationship with a math equation instead of solving it.

Which ever source said "this is why men are better than women at engineering" I am a bit hesitant to buy into without further information.

 

[Maccer_42]

I'm not going to try and jump into the main disscusion here as I can't add anything to it that hasn't already been said.

What I'm interested to know is, has anyone in this thread or on GTP that has read this thread changed their opinion on religion? Any atheists decided to become a christian or any other religion? Or anyone that's christian or any other religion decided to become an atheist?

If anyone wants to know what I am, I am an atheist, always have been since i've been old enough to form an opinion on religion, both my parents are christians but are fairly open minded and allowed me to make my own decision on if I wanted to continue to attend church when I was 13.

 

[arora]

A woman can do whatever she wants to do. It's a very special gift they have though, to bare and nurture children. There may be some bad moms out there but to me it does not change the fact that mom is mom, and it's pretty damn special, even in the worst of conditions.

As for Christianity, if it's not believed it should be, there is no inequality between beings, it's simply that the woman is incased in a weaker physical body. Men and women are different, very different, but of equal importance to humanity and of course equal under God. It always bothers me when Christians are accused of sexism. I'll say it again, a woman can do whatever she wants to do. I won't attend a church where the preacher is a woman, but then again, I don't attend church anyway (because I know there will be some rebuttal to this I'll simply say, just as jack in the box can make a burger, it does not mean I have to buy one.)

Something exorcist said I don't agree with though, God is logic, God is also all emotion, God rightly divides the two by his very nature. To say that a being who's very nature defines logic is not, well, that is silly. Again it does not mater if you believe there is a God, it's more important to understand what a true God would be. I hope you get that.

BTW, not very happy that Scaff can rip my and if I respond my posts are deleted. To say I don't contribute to this thread is insane, and just so you know, I have already covered Genesis more then once in here, go look. I've even said things about it in the creation v evolution thread, go look. I did not come in here with an intent to insult anyone, I came in here to share a link. I used the squabble as a segway and btw, I am right about the bible, Genesis does NOT depict the creation of the earth.

Good day.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Who? SCJ? It didn't sound that way to me. If you're talking about zoo's post I don't have a problem with it.

My bad I meant Zoo.

 

[Exorcet]

As for Christianity, if it's not believed it should be, there is no inequality between beings, it's simply that the woman is incased in a weaker physical body. Men and women are different, very different, but of equal importance to humanity and of course equal under God. It always bothers me when Christians are accused of sexism. I'll say it again, a woman can do whatever she wants to do. I won't attend a church where the preacher is a woman, but then again, I don't attend church anyway (because I know there will be some rebuttal to this I'll simply say, just as jack in the box can make a burger, it does not mean I have to buy one.)

Then why no women popes? And the Bible is full of sexist remarks, though today they are ignored or skirted around, at least for the most part.

Something exorcist said I don't agree with though, God is logic, God is also all emotion, God rightly divides the two by his very nature. To say that a being who's very nature defines logic is not, well, that is silly. Again it does not mater if you believe there is a God, it's more important to understand what a true God would be. I hope you get that.

I don't believe in God, I don't assign any attributes to him except non-existence. My comment was based on SCJ's remarks, that logic can't be used to reach God. If men are the ones that rely on logic, why are they given special status in the church?

I'm not going to try and jump into the main disscusion here as I can't add anything to it that hasn't already been said.

What I'm interested to know is, has anyone in this thread or on GTP that has read this thread changed their opinion on religion? Any atheists decided to become a christian or any other religion? Or anyone that's christian or any other religion decided to become an atheist?

If anyone wants to know what I am, I am an atheist, always have been since i've been old enough to form an opinion on religion, both my parents are christians but are fairly open minded and allowed me to make my own decision on if I wanted to continue to attend church when I was 13.

I think this is an interesting question.

 

[arora]

Fist off, sorry I got your name wrong a few times now

Then why no women popes? And the Bible is full of sexist remarks, though today they are ignored or skirted around, at least for the most part.

I don't believe the bible is full of sexism, but I won't skirt or ignore anything you wish to quote. No women popes; most likely because of a few versus in Corinthians. My take is mixed on the subject, to be completely honest I find the woman sacred, able to maintain perspectives and keep me on my path. I'm gonna leave it there but concede I also don't want to see a woman pope, I'm not catholic anyway lol. I am not sexist, everyone has tools and talents, lets utilize them to their fullest.

I don't believe in God, I don't assign any attributes to him except non-existence. My comment was based on SCJ's remarks, that logic can't be used to reach God. If men are the ones that rely on logic, why are they given special status in the church?

You could assign attributes in his absence, in other words, imagine what he would/could be, all I was saying. I didn't catch SCJ's comments, but I would guess I disagree with whatever he said. I don't consider the status of a man in a church to be special, they probably want someone with strength to lead, even if it includes weakness that a woman does not have, physical strength, in a literal sense.

No bones to pick here, the bible is not for everyone and I could care less what you think of it. This is the God thread, not the Christian thread.

 

[Kingland093]

Then why no women popes?

I think it's because since Jesus was male and so were the apostles and since the priests and bishops are the apostles' successors then only men can become priests/preachers and bishops (not sure if that's true for every single Christian denomination though)

 

[Exorcet]

Fist off, sorry I got your name wrong a few times now

It was close enough for me to know who it was. Good thing that no one has a similar name.

I don't believe the bible is full of sexism, but I won't skirt or ignore anything you wish to quote. No women popes; most likely because of a few versus in Corinthians.

That to me is sexism, especially if those verses are actually being followed or are influential at all.

http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Bbl/Sexism/Sexism.html

(there are a couple against men in there too)

You could assign attributes in his absence, in other words, imagine what he would/could be, all I was saying. I didn't catch SCJ's comments, but I would guess I disagree with whatever he said.

I wouldn't consider that very valuable. You could come up with infinite answers and they would all mean nothing. I'd much rather examine divine claims and then infer the nature of God (which could include non existence) from them.

I don't consider the status of a man in a church to be special, they probably want someone with strength to lead, even if it includes weakness that a woman does not have, physical strength, in a literal sense.

Then why are all men equally good enough to be priests? I wouldn't expect priests to be above average in physical strength. Why would physical strength be so desirable for this position anyway?

No bones to pick here, the bible is not for everyone and I could care less what you think of it. This is the God thread, not the Christian thread.

If you question God, you question Christianity automatically (and many other religions). Naturally, people will defend their religions and not others. So if most believers in this thread are christian, the discussion will revolve around Christianity. I'm equally ready to shoot down nonsensical beliefs from all religions and accept evidence from all religions, but this thread is not so diverse in contributors.

Case in point, SCJ. He'll proclaim that Jesus is the one true God, and it only makes sense that atheists provide evidence shooting down that idea rather discussing the validity of Vishnu or Thor, or some vague god.

I think it's because since Jesus was male and so were the apostles and since the priests and bishops are the apostles' successors then only men can become priests/preachers and bishops (not sure if that's true for every single Christian denomination though)

I don't follow. Why couldn't the apostles select female successors?

 

[Joel]

Yeah, the current women in the church topic was a big thing that made the whole Catholic stuff turn sour for me. I always had an issue with women not being allowed to be priests.


<Insert priests touching little boys joke here>

 

[ScouserInExile]

Then why no women popes?

Because we are a world of patriarchal societies (with a few, minor exceptions) and religion has been a historical way of maintaining this status quo.

In fact, if you look at religion in general objectively, it's always served two purposes: to explain the unexplained (why does the sun rise every day? God did it) and to give people a set of guidelines for living a good life (of you aren't excellent to each other, bad stuff will happen ). However, over the years, self-serving men have had a bit of a fiddle in order to gain more wealth, status and influence - as men are prone to doing. And religion has become a tool to control and subjugate the general population. It has gone from something that should be good for society to something evil and twisted, that should have no place in a modern civilised world.

This is why I have lost my "live and let live" approach to people being religious. Religion is actively holding mankind back. Where men of science striving to advance their fields by continuously questioning what is known, men of religion are slavishly sticking to their ancient texts and saying "do not question what god has told us".

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I can destroy your legs and you'd lose no "spirit". I can destroy your arms and you'd lose no "spirit". I can destroy all of your organs (and replace them with mechanical equivalents) and you'd lose no "spirit". I can destroy all of your body except your brain and you'd lose no "spirit". But if I destroy your brain, your "spirit" is gone.

Do you disagree?

Yes.
You can be brain dead, but on artificial heart/lung machine.
Your spirit is still there.

There is no part of your body that contains anything that makes you who you are except your brain. You don't become someone else if your heart is removed and replaced with another person's heart - or an artificial one. You do become someone else if the biochemical balance of your brain is altered.

Your brain is all that makes you... you.

Your brain is just a processor.
The soul software is you.

Unfortunately your two paragraphs here contradict.

Knowledge - and let's remind ourselves that the word "science" is Latin for "knowledge" and means nothing different - has many subdivisions but it's always knowledge. It's always science. The scientific method - that is "the method by which knowledge is obtained" - covers all knowledge.

The concept that a certain kind of knowledge has to be acquired differently is conceit - often seen in practitioners of the paranormal.

Now I guess it's my turn;

Wow..........just...........Wow.

So all religious practitioners, are paranormal seekers.
Do you really believe that?

That's strictly your judgement or belief, based again entirely on carnal reasoning.

If it covers all knowledge, science is way overdue for a breakout, into the truly all category.

I can tell you though, it will never happen and I'll tell you why:

It's personal.
Thats why it is reserved unto a completely seperate categorical, dimension.
It's God's personal business, between him, his son and the individual.
Science is not part of the negotiation, and never will be.

That's why I still do not view it as a religion, but rather a relationship is what it truly is.

You can change what you know by acquiring better information.

I can certainly agree with that.

We all know certain things that are wrong - this is the original basis of the TV show "QI" which asks really obvious questions that everyone knows the answer to but, it turns out, that everyone knows the wrong answer to. By acquiring better information, what we knew is erased and replaced with what we know.

Wow.

Just...

Wow.

You still can't unknow someone you know.

 

[Famine]

Yes.
You can be brain dead, but on artificial heart/lung machine.
Your spirit is still there.

Your brain is just a processor.
The soul software is you.

Yet it's nowhere else but the brain - as you agree.

Now I guess it's my turn;

Wow..........just...........Wow.

So all religious practitioners, are paranormal seekers.
Do you really believe that?

Let's just revisit the point where I don't believe anything on the way to the point where you've read something, rewritten it to your own ends and disagreed with it.

From "so" onwards it's your words, not mine.

Practitioners of the paranormal - ghost "hunters", psychics, ouija board nutters/"witches"/Wiccans, the usual list of charlatans - often insist that what they do cannot be explained scientifically ("using knowledge") and that attempts to do so often queer their ability to do it. They insist a different kind of knowledge - faith - is required. It is a conceit bordering on arrogance that what they do is knowledge beyond human knowledge and that science ("knowledge") cannot assess it critically and dispassionately.

You're using the same arguments they do - though no doubt you'd dismiss their claims just as readily as atheists do. That doesn't mean all religious people use this argument, as you've supposed. Just that you are.

That's strictly your judgement or belief, based again entirely on carnal reasoning.

If it covers all knowledge, science is way overdue for a breakout, into the truly all category.

I can tell you though, it will never happen and I'll tell you why:

It's personal.
Thats why it is reserved unto a completely seperate categorical, dimension.
It's God's personal business, between him, his son and the individual.
Science is not part of the negotiation, and never will be.

That's why I still do not view it as a religion, but rather a relationship is what it truly is.

See the bolded word? That word is "knowledge". That's the meaning of the word. What you just said was that knowledge forms no part of the God/believer relationship.

Welcome to what we've been saying since the start of this thread.

You still can't unknow someone you know.

It turns out that you can.

For 40 years, a white haired mentalist was a famous, good-hearted British TV celebrity. He ran marathons for charity - very many of them - was knighted for his services to charity and died last October as a celebrated figure, albeit a little eccentric.

For the last month, he's been an evil, predatory paedophile with over 300 potential cases of sexual abuse on children and vulnerable adults.

Seems that no-one really knew Sir Jimmy Savile OBE at all. What they knew about him has been replaced with better (to mean "more accurate") information - they've all unknown Jimmy Savile the strange but nice chap...

 

[gamerdog6482]

I just want to throw something in here:

So all religious practitioners, are paranormal seekers.
Do you really believe that?

Yes.

 

[orimarc]

You still can't unknow someone you know.

Two words: Alzheimer's disease. It's not what Famine is talking about (that would be "uncovering the monster behind the man" or something like that), it's a more literal version of "unknowing".

I remember speaking to an acquittance who's mother had it, and he told me:

You know how it feels when your mother enters your house, and asks "who are you?" because she has forgotten?

That's a real thing. Yes, you can "unknow" someone, even if it's your own son.