Atheism and Faith

[Eclogite]

You asked what would be wrong with saying there is an afterlife without God. Nothing's wrong with saying it. But it's like asking, "Why can't we gather fruit without fruit trees?

This is a wholly flawed analogy. We do not know what an after life would consist of. As your discussion acknowledges we are unclear as to the character of consciousness, personality and mind. Consequently, we can only speculate on the nature or probability of such a thing as an after life.

This places it in much the same situation as a belief in God: it can only be accepted via faith.

That is the only significant connection that can be demonstrated to exist between the existence of a God and the existence of an after life. If you believe you have some other supporting data for such a contention, then I for one would be fascinated to be shown them.

[someguy]

Hello again Saitia,

 

Thanks again for your continued interest in the thread.

And a big "ditto" to you.

I agree of course that religion doesn't own morals; a person can certainly be moral without being religious.

Thank you

"Moral" consciousness is just a name applied to the awareness of values, which a sense of duty demands we abide by in our day-to-day personal conduct. But enlightened spiritual consciousness is not concerned so much with some specific intellectual belief ( there's a hell, or the fall of man, for instance) or with any one particular mode of living, as it is with discovering the truth of living— the good and right way of reacting to the ever-recurring situations of our existence. Because God is Truth, its manifestation in reality may encourage morals and ethics to climb much higher than a morality based simply on the sense of duty.

I am not sure I understand you here. You are saying that we have a deeper sense of duty but that duty is to god instead of your fellow man and therefore it is better somehow?

 

Ideas about God can come from anywhere, or anyone. "Incorrect sources" which you appear to rely on as evidence for impeachment of religion, cannot invalidate spiritual experience.

Again I must ask you point blank, where do you get your idea of God from, especially the infinite part? I do not rely on the incorrect sources as evidence for impeachment of religion. I do, however, intend to point out that it is, in fact, a book or several books that you get this idea of God's infinite nature from. Well either that or heresay. In any case, these are the same books you denouce things from? How do you do this? What system do you use to decide what is the "truth" and what is hogwash? I commend you for your denoucing of some of the crazier beliefs.

I have issue with anyone who claims to have the "truth" and I want to know how they got it. Which brings me to spiritual experience once again. How do you know you had one? How do you that it proves the existence of God? What, if you don't mind my asking, was your spiritual experince? I have had many experiences that many would label as spiritual, I do not. Everyone has creepy feelings and the hair standing on the back of their neck weirdnesses. The difference is that some people say it is religious and others say they shouldn't have eaten that burrito.

I understand that you do not allow for the reality of spirit outside of the intellect, but it doesn't change the reality of spirit, or spiritual experience, for those who have experienced it.

Quite the contrary, I wonder greatly about it. I allow for just about everything including the non-existence of some infinte being that created everything. I just don't think anyone really has this spiritual experience they claim to have had. I have heard many accounts of them but no one has ever said anything that is proof of god's existence. Like God came and spoke to me and proved he was god by making this [insert proof, someting only accomplishable by God]. If God is real why wouldn't he just come out and say here I am and this is my nature? Why is there any need for secrecy? I think most people who have had spiritual experience call it God when it could have other explanations, even spiritual ones.

 

Since you insist your idea of faith is suspension of judgment "no matter how many times I deny it," let's take a look at what that means if what you say is true. Everyone who chooses to exercise faith does so at the peril of— what, exactly?

You misunderstand me. I am saying it is perilous in that you can accept anything on faith. Do you not think that people are misguided under the premise of faith? You have alluded many times that they are. What should be held as true without verifcation varies from person to person and all is defined as faith. They all claim that it is the "truth" and accept it on faith.

Forgetting or ignoring what they hold to be scientifically true? and regarding what, exactly?— one of science's many theories about how the universe began? Science's theories about what consciousness is? Science's theories about what life is? Or maybe just being wrong?

There are suspending their only system that they use to judge the validity of anything. Such a system exists, that can not be denied. You use it every minute of every day and it is your senses that you trust to do it. Just try to live one day without it and you will most likely perish. Eat something poisonous, not hear that truck coming, not feel the flames engulfing your body, not smell the gas leak, and, your favorite, not see yourself stepping of that cliff. Is there any other system that can be used? Does anyone use it? Accepters on faith gamble with the whole of the meaning of life. They gamble with the "truth". They gamble with their moral system and their belief system. They have forever augmented what they can accept as the truth because they think they have already received it.

The beautiful thing about science is exactly what you said "theories about this or that". They are theories not "truth". They can be held as truth, but only with overwhelming evidence and even still could be changed or completely overturned in the face of more evidence.

Those who actually do suspend some important aspect of judgment are in no more philosophical peril than you are as an atheist, if you were to suspend belief in a number of scientific theories that haven't been proven.

Absolutely incorrect, my belief in some scientific theories is based on the theories applicability and the underlying proof that upholds it. I do not wholly beleive that it will never be overturned or that it is true beyond any doubt. This is what you fail to account for, I will not suspend belief and accept some theory as true. For then I truly would be in peril. I would no longer be able to see past that choice and would have to negate anything that came against it.

 

You say that science is "objective" because "everyone is privy to the experiments." You're missing the point entirely that a particular subjective scientist or several even, are interpreting their results the best way they know how, but it is perforce subjective regardless of their good intentions; that's the nature of the beast— self-consciousness— and that's why scientists—science— keeps having to correct its "objective" understanding; not just because new information becomes available.

The point is that, not just one or several, but all scientists observe the same subjective thing. It is entirely subjective to each, but is objective only because they all reach the same conclusions, as does anyone else who performs the experiment.

It is precisely that new information becomes available that it needs correcting or adjusting. It may be found through some subjective scientist's brilliant discovery but is only considered once it becomes objectively clear that he is right. Meaning that it becomes new information and is tested for its objectivity before anything is changed.

 

And that's all well and good. Some of these scientists you mention also know they have a soul, even though the only evidence they have for it is their own personal experience of it, which if pressed, I suspect would result in most saying something to the effect that they are more certain about its reality than the "certainty" their experiments provide with the material realm.

This is true, faith reaches many people. Most were brought up with it and it is forever engrained. One of my contentions for the keeping of faith of people is habit. I would say that such a scientist could make that claim but it is untrue. For if they truly believed that faith decisions were more real than experimental proof the wouldn't need to experiment on anything at all. They could just accept its validity outright and need no experimentation. Not a very good scientist.

 

Apparently you see everything as "equal in its reality to anything else that is real." Despite the metaphorical nonsensicalness of saying we give "authority to our eyes" and the "eyes of others" and that we can verify our own reality by "looking into a mirror," let's assume for the moment you mean the personality of the one doing the looking thinks that's the scientific bar of proof; but just how does it prove you are real?

Please explain why it is non"sense"ical?

I am not saying that this is science but I am saying that this is what science is based in. How can you go through life saying that this does not prove you are real? If I see you and you see me then we are real. Why does this have any doubt? Often religion is reduced to this being an imaginary world and you and I don't exist, what point is there in this. If we don't exist and none of this is real then what is the point in discussing God or anything else. WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THIS IS REALITY. Otherwise there is no point to anything at all.

So with that said, it proves that it is real as opposed to that which is not. If I say there is somone standing right next to me and there is what does that mean? How does one verify that there is, in fact, someone standing next to me? By the only way we know how and that is by trusting our senses.

What "authority" is it you claim to give your eyes, and where does that authority come from? Hopefully you're starting to see the reality of your own faith-based assumptions. :naughty:

I see what you are trying to say but it isn't faith based really. I accept that what I see is real because I have no choice to do otherwise. Do you? It isn't faith in the I accept God sense. It is faith in the I have faith that my eyes are showing me what is true sense. Faith in yourself. This can be verified by someone confirming it. You can not verify God type faith.

 

I'm at a loss to even begin to understand the "science" that most certainly must lie underneath your belief that everything is "equally real," since you require concrete proof before you accept anything as fact or truth.

No you are not. Is there a pink unicorn staring at you right now? If so, go get someone else to see if it really there, if not go get someone else to prove there isn't. This is the process you use just like everyone else and it is the same one you suspended in accepting that God is infinite.

Do share that, won't you? For instance, is your love of your mother— you sent flowers on Mother's Day, I hope;) — equally and concretely as real as the current estimated speed of light from the most distant galaxy discovered?

No it is not. Bringing love into it is common religious absurdity. I can prove the accuracy of any experiment by repeating it. I can not prove the love for my mother to anyone else because it is subjective only to me. This does not say that love does not exist. There is definitely something there but everyone feels it so it is objective in that sense. So when someone says they love their mother you assume that they are not lying. But this is entirely unprovable and you could find out that they hate their mother with a passion. If you have faith that they love their mother you may well be mistaken.

If yes, how exactly is your love scientifically "provable"?

Oddly enough there are some chemical reactions associated with love and can be proven scientifically I am sure.

 

You say there is no proof of the soul, but every morally conscious mortal should know of the existence of his soul as a real and actual personal experience, if they look carefully an honestly at their impulses— and actions— to be moral.

Again the self is explicable as objective because everyone has one. The problem is this doesn't say anything about a soul. There is no proof of a soul. What you are talking about is the self and could simply be a construct of your mind. The self could easliy be everything that happens to the point directly behind your eyes. Being moral is a decision often made right at the moment. It is like any other decision, like whether to turn left or right. As you said earlier morality does not belong to religion. It certainly does not belong to the soul.

 

The "mirror-test of reality" you've proposed is somewhat different than the mirror test an anthropologist might use to show a being recognizes self, thereby demonstrating self-consciousness, but that doesn't prove "self" is anything but a physicality; it certainly doesn't prove the reality of consciousness is ultimately valid and therefore claims about the world that flow from that consciousness are real too.

But again what else is there to assume? If you assume that we are just something lying somewhere dreaming and it will all be over when we wake up, then it is all meaningless anyway. I don't think any person of faith would like it all to be meaningless.

 

But you obfuscate when you say "toast in grey channels flows west" is "equal" to "Energy is thing, mind is meaning, spirit is value." That kind of balonium is truly beneath you, isn't it? If you're truly looking for the meaning of life you'll have to stop playing clever games long enough to do some serious work. Otherwise you're simply wasting your time.

Actually I was hoping you would clairify what you are trying to say. You take two words and say there are the same thing. They obviously have different meanings. I would say that this should be truly beneath you.

 

You say that life, matter, and motion are "verifiable" as real. I say almost all human minds ASSUME the reality of these things. I say your life, like everyone else's, is wholly transient, that nature does not afford any ground for logical belief in human-personality. In fact, science is more or less clueless about personality. If you have verifiable proof from science that life is verifiably real, bring it. :rolleyes:

Again we all assume reality together. You and I are real or meaningless. You are welcome to chose meaninglessness if you want but that would essentially be stupid and would leave you with nothing at all. Even people of faith have to assume that what they see is real otherwise the could not function as a human.

It's interesting you think the majority of the world disagrees with me, "period." As if the majority must know the truth? In fact, the majority of the world's population believe more as I do; i.e., in the divine; only 16% of the world's population are considered non-religious, i.e., secular, nonreligious, agnostic, atheist.

I knew you would say this, and you know what I am about to say. You believe something entirely differnt than 99% of those other people. They believe something entirely different from 99% of the rest. If you are christian then more people share your belief than any one group. But if you are christian more people believe you are wrong than believe you are right. Furthermore those who are certain kinds of christain believe entirely different things than those who are other kinds of christian. Even further reasoning tells you, and this very true in your case, that people belonging to a certian church believe differently than other people in that same church even in the same house.

Only about 13% of Americans identify themselves as nonreligious. (Perhaps you live in Sweden, where 46% of them identify themselves as atheists, and a whopping 85% are nonbelievers.)

Maybe I should go to Sweden. I by no means believe that what I say is popular just fallible unlike everyone else. Of course they can't claim popularity overall either.

 

You asked if I could prove the "usefulness of religion in the opposite." (The opposite of it's usefulness as a source of "atrocity.") Apparently most sentient beings find some personal usefulness of religion in the opposite, considering statistics that show 84% are religious by choice. It's quite provable that were it not for the continuous nurturing of true morals (not the politicized morality of the religious right) by religionists, the world would be in far worse shape than it is.

Then prove it.

Religion has always been a conservator of morals and a stabilizer of society, despite all the hyperbole about the crusades, etc.

And at the same time more people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason.

 

But since you're concerned with the "atrocity" of religion, let's not overlook the "atrocity" secular culture provided the human race in the twentieth century. The second world war alone ended FIFTY MILLION LIVES.

And there was no religous fervor here at all. The didn't gas jews because of their religious belief. Wait isn't being jewish belonging to the religion Judism.

All of the crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, etc., together accounted for maybe 2—3 million— and even that number is hotly debated.

Are you kidding me? Even the current war has many religious undertones. All wars have religious undertones.

I get your point, religionists kill, and are willing to get killed for their beliefs. But the truth is they don't hold a candle to what secularists are willing to do— and have done— when it comes to killing.

Absolutely not true. The religious fervor underlying most wars is the main thing used to dehumanize the population so that we can freely kill them.

 

Btw, the 20th century was the first in history in which explicitly atheist political movements came to power. (Communism.)

What the hell are you talking about? The majority of soviet union people were christian and still are. The majority of chinese are buddhist.

How did these atheists conduct themselves? By murdering as many as 100 million people in less than 100 years. (http://www.gulag.hu/jacoby.htm)

They weren't athiests any more than you are.

And let's not overlook the fact many were killed for simply believing in God.

The point is how many people were killed for believing in God the wrong way. Nobody kills for believing in god the same.

 

You asked what would be wrong with saying there is an afterlife without God. Nothing's wrong with saying it. But it's like asking, "Why can't we gather fruit without fruit trees?

This again is an assumption you make. In point of fact we can gather fruit without trees. Many fruits grow on bushes. Take that to your Japanese blood grass. The point is simply that spirituality can be explained without God easily take buddhism for example, one of the main sects of buddhism has no God yet the have many spiritual beliefs. God is not necessary for many beliefs if you just think about it.

 

Well jeez this looks too long again already. Who'd a thought we had so much to talk about?:shrug:

I'm afraid my time to jabber is going to be fairly limited for the next several weeks, and I'm really wanting to get involved in a few other threads— my bad— so let's wind this down to burning questions only okay?

Can do.

Burning questions.

Where did you get your beliefs about God? (Specifics)

What was your personal religious experience?

How do you define what is real? In an everyday sense?

If you remove God from you belief and only God what is left?

 

 

 

Cheers,

Some Guy

[ughaibu]

The idea that eternal life is awarded to those who devote this life to trying to gain eternal life is laughable. Imagine you get to the pearly gates, the concierge takes a gander at your resume and says, "we gave you this most precious gift of life, only three score and ten irreplaceable years, and what did you do? Spent it preparing for some highly improbable eternal life that you read about in a book that anyone can see from the first chapters is nonsense. What a waste! And now do you seriously think we're going to waste an etenal life on you too? You must be nuts!", click of fingers, puff of smoke. Naturally they'll give eternal life to those who live life like a burning fuse, fragile and combustible. Passion, change and immediacy, those are the qualities needed to appreciate eternal life.

I reckon this whole ridiculous nonsense of trying to achieve eternal life is one of those temptations proffered by Old Nick.

[Buffy]

The idea that eternal life is awarded to those who devote this life to trying to gain eternal life is laughable.

But it sure would be nice if it was, wouldn't it? If you're good and moral you get rewarded. I would hope that's true! Hmmm. I wonder if that desire has anything to do with the development of religious beliefs? :)

 

Follow the faith,

Buffy

[Southtown]

But it sure would be nice if it was, wouldn't it? If you're good and moral you get rewarded. I would hope that's true! Hmmm. I wonder if that desire has anything to do with the development of religious beliefs? :eek:

 

Follow the faith,

Buffy

One way to find out.

 

=P

[Saitia]

Hey Guy,

 

 

Originally Posted by someguy

Burning questions.

Where did you get your beliefs about God? (Specifics)

People, books, and life experience.

(There are a number of books I'll mention privately if you're interested; some moderators here are extremely sensitive about anything they decide is "preaching" or "proselytizing" and I've been "warned"; publishing the titles of religious books would probably qualify as "proselytizing" in their opinion.) My "story"— which elaborates my journey from pre-God awareness to God-awareness— or atheism to sonship with God, is too long to type out, but it involves *many dozens* of important little pieces of the puzzle of intellectual growth which forms the foundation for discovery and realization of spiritual awareness.

 

 

 

What was your personal religious experience?

I no longer share them with non-believers; to begin with, putting them into satisfactory language is impossible; nonbelievers react pretty much as you already have, saying it was probably gas, or some other, more derisive form of ridicule. You've already stated you "don't think anyone really has this spiritual experience they claim to have had"; that bias alone virtually guarantees you won't learn anything from a description of my experiences, which I've acknowledged aren't capable of convincing you about God, anyway. What's the point then?

 

In reality, it is your own personal experience in and with Spirit that is most conclusive; I recommend you re-visit and contemplate your own past experiences you once thought might be spiritual experiences, from the perspective that they were actually real attempts of Spirit to touch you. The reason faith is usually required to facilitate spiritual experience in the first place is because Spirit simply cannot abrogate your freewill decisions; if you've decided God and Spirit don't exist, it will NEVER— EVER— force it's presence on you. If you spend little or no time in sincere investigation as to the reality of spirit you will never have an adequate intellectual foundation with which to comprehend spiritual experience for what it is.

 

 

 

How do you define what is real? In an everyday sense?

I trust my senses, my mind, my soul, and my Spirit, of course. You realize we were talking philosophically; philosophically we ALL assume life, matter, and motion are real and can therefore be trusted to make additional conclusions about reality. But that willing assumption doesn't PROVE they are real; we must assume it is.

 

 

 

 

If you remove God from you belief and only God what is left?

Absolutely NOTHING. God is the first Source and Center of all things and beings. Chronologically speaking, I would simply revert to pre-God-awareness. Life was essentially cosmologically meaningless; transient life is meaningless life for the vast majority of human beings if there is no God or continuing existence.

A few other selected comments from your last post:

 

 

Bringing love into it is common religious absurdity.

No; it is thee essential path to finding God; God IS Love. God is most easily approached through love.

 

If God is real why wouldn't he just come out and say here I am and this is my nature? Why is there any need for secrecy?

God isn't hiding. It's truly astonishing to me how many human beings look at nature and utterly look right past its transcendant beauty! From the microcosm to the macrocosm, nature is astounding when seen with the eye of the spirit, and easily the most immediate avenue to spiritual experience I know.

 

God has mobilized divine wisdom in a never-ending effort to reveal himself to all beings in his universe. There is an infinite grandeur and generosity in the majesty of his love, which causes him to yearn for the association of every created being who can comprehend, love, or approach him. Therefore, it's the limitations inherent in us— inseparable from our finite personality and material existence— that determine the time and place and circumstances in which we each may achieve the goal of the journey of mortal ascension, and eventually stand in the presence of the Father at the center of all things.

What system do you use to decide what is the "truth" and what is hogwash?

 

An open mind. Keen judgment. Wisdom. The Spirit of Truth.

Truth can be lived; it can be experienced. The "Spirit of Truth"

which Paul mentions is essential to truth insight.

Jesus told the apostles that when he returned from where he came, he

would send his spirit— the Spirit of Truth— to indwell all beings. This

spirit influence is felt— feelingly experienced— in exact proportion to

the individual's comprehension of it's purpose in validating truth, beauty,

and goodness. Since truth can be lived, it is a living reality that can grow,

evolve, and expand.

 

 

 

 

And there was no religous fervor here at all. The didn't gas jews because of their religious belief. Wait isn't being jewish belonging to the religion Judism.

No, and No. Jews were gassed because Nazis were racist bigots who hated Jews because they were Jews. IN A WORD: Anti-semitism. Hate is never fueled by true religion.

Being Jewish doesn't automatically make you a member of Judiasm; it's a freewill choice just like any other religious affiliation, and there are just as many unaffiliated Jews proportionately as there are in any other race.

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? Even the current war has many religious undertones. All wars have religious undertones.

 

Since when does an "undertone" takes precedence over primary cause? The Iraq war is primarily a geo-political oil war; yes, it can be seen as a religious war between Christianity and Islam by fearful fundamentalists, but Bush is no more a follower of Jesus and his teachings than Hitler was, or neither of them would have started a war. CheneyBush, Rumsfeld, et al, use religion socially like most all politicians do. That doesn't equate to religion being responsible for the people they kill by prosecuting a preemptive war of aggression.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely not true. The religious fervor underlying most wars is the main thing used to dehumanize the population so that we can freely kill them.

 

Religion certainly is used that way by some practitioners during wartime in most nations, but that is NOT THE CAUSE. Secular causes are universally recognized for nearly all 20th century wars and conflicts, most certainly WWI and II, and Korea and Vietnam; check any reputable historical account.

 

 

What the hell are you talking about? The majority of soviet union people were christian and still are.

You're misinformed.

"The state was separated from church by the Decree of Council of People's Comissars on January 23, 1918. Two-thirds of the Soviet population, however, had no religious beliefs. About half the people, including members of the CPSU and high-level government officials, professed atheism. For the majority of Soviet citizens, therefore, religion seemed irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...ligious_groups

 

 

 

The majority of chinese are buddhist.

 

The People's Republic of China remains an officially atheist state according to the most recent CIA Factbook. In 2004 only 8% called themselves Buddhist.

 

Cheers,

—Saitia

[someguy]

Hey Sait,

 

People, books, and life experience.

(There are a number of books I'll mention privately if you're interested

I am interested. I am sure they wouldn't mind if you said the names of some books, that is hardly preaching. I am very interested again in where you got the idea of God being infinite.

My "story"— which elaborates my journey from pre-God awareness to God-awareness— or atheism to sonship with God, is too long to type out, but it involves *many dozens* of important little pieces of the puzzle of intellectual growth which forms the foundation for discovery and realization of spiritual awareness.

Maybe you could tell me about it. I do believe there is a possibility of God, I just think it is more likely there isn't one. If it could be proven to me then I would be first in line to sign up.

I am also interested in why you think christianity is the right path as oppossed to say Hinduism or Islam?

 

I no longer share them with non-believers; to begin with, putting them into satisfactory language is impossible; nonbelievers react pretty much as you already have, saying it was probably gas, or some other, more derisive form of ridicule.

I apologize if you take offense, it was a joke. I am saying how do you know it is God and not an alien or some other human with greatly advanced technology? I'm not trying to sound silly here. I am being sincere. It actually is hard to come up with an example that doesn't sound condescending or rude because we are talking about an object of your worship. I would be intersted to hear your experience and will not ridicule it. I may say it isn't enough for me but I will not make fun of you for it.

You've already stated you "don't think anyone really has this spiritual experience they claim to have had"; that bias alone virtually guarantees you won't learn anything from a description of my experiences, which I've acknowledged aren't capable of convincing you about God, anyway. What's the point then?

I state that because I have not had anyone give me anything close to a viable explanation and have not had one myself. The point would be to show me I am wrong.

 

In reality, it is your own personal experience in and with Spirit that is most conclusive; I recommend you re-visit and contemplate your own past experiences you once thought might be spiritual experiences, from the perspective that they were actually real attempts of Spirit to touch you.

I say that this is part of the problem, you look back at a personal experience that is not understood and you understand it as the spirit trying to touch you. This is why people of faith beleive in God? They wait for an unexplained feeling and automatically attribute it to the spirit trying to touch you. Isn't that putting the cart before the horse. I could evaluate any strange feeling or activity as the thing I have assigned it to be ahead of time. If I said that the house is haunted and go in all the strange noises will be ghosts. Anything that happens that can't be easily explained will be attributed to "the fact" that the house is haunted. Does this prove that the house is haunted? No, it proves that I assigned all the strange things a cause ahead of time.

 

The reason faith is usually required to facilitate spiritual experience in the first place is because Spirit simply cannot abrogate your freewill decisions; if you've decided God and Spirit don't exist, it will NEVER— EVER— force it's presence on you.

This is like saying unless you accept ghosts exist you will never see one. There is something inherently wrong with this, you cannot say that it can't happen to somone who doesn't accept it already. This is like saying that if you wait long enough you will see the number three and when you do you will know it was god that set it before you. How will you know? Beacause you were told ahead of time god would show you a three.

If you spend little or no time in sincere investigation as to the reality of spirit you will never have an adequate intellectual foundation with which to comprehend spiritual experience for what it is.

This is an excellent quote you should read it again. It says if you don't sincerely investigate the spirit and it's reality you will never understand it.

If this is what you mean the I would say you don't understand it either. If you did you could easily prove to anyone the reality of god. If you seriously investigated it instead of just taking it "on faith" then you may have some ground to say I am not seriously investigating it. I will not accept validity of anything that is not proven, therefore, I will say it is seriously investigated when it is proven.

 

I trust my senses, my mind, my soul, and my Spirit, of course. You realize we were talking philosophically; philosophically we ALL assume life, matter, and motion are real and can therefore be trusted to make additional conclusions about reality. But that willing assumption doesn't PROVE they are real; we must assume it is.

Everytime except when you accept something on faith. Such as your ideas about god. How do you know you have a spirit or soul? Did your senses tell you? Your mind certainly did not reason it without first accepting that it was true.

It does not prove that these things (matter & motion) are real, no. But if you assume they are not then you are a fool. You must assume they are. If they turn out not to be real then everything is useless including all of your beliefs in spirit and soul and god. So it is a pointless thing to say that they are not real. I don't know that it can ever be proven that they are but it is all we have to go on, isn't it?

 

Absolutely NOTHING. God is the first Source and Center of all things and beings. Chronologically speaking, I would simply revert to pre-God-awareness.

That is silly. Even if You accept everything about god but the infinte part, you could easily say god died a long time ago and everything would remain the same. You would not revert to pre-god-awareness, you would simply accept that there was no god currently but that he did exist at one time. Or you would simply say that it was something else that made the world and spiritual world the way it is, maybe cosmic coincidence. The only reason you say there would be nothing is that you accept "on faith" that god is "the first source and center of all things". If you remove your faith in this one statement you could easily see that god is not necessary for belief in any spiritual world or even heaven. The only thing necessary for that would be a soul.

Life was essentially cosmologically meaningless; transient life is meaningless life for the vast majority of human beings if there is no God or continuing existence.

Life was essentially cosmologically meaningless; transient life is meaningless life for the vast majority of human beings if there is no continuing existence.

Your sentence makes complete sense without God. The continuing existence is all anyone cares about, you even said so yourself. Of course this isn't true either because life isn't meaningless just because you don't move on to another life after it is over.

 

No; it is thee essential path to finding God; God IS Love. God is most easily approached through love.

This comment was because you said "prove I love my mother". Love is a feeling and is objective somewhat. It is something that cannot be proven unless you can open up their head and take samples and compare it to others who are in love and match it.

Of course the idea that they are in love is in question isn't it?

If God is Love, is God just a feeling? Not a real being?

 

God isn't hiding. It's truly astonishing to me how many human beings look at nature and utterly look right past its transcendant beauty!

The beauty of nature does not show god it shows nature and its beauty. god is not present in nature, if he were you could point him out to me.

From the microcosm to the macrocosm, nature is astounding when seen with the eye of the spirit, and easily the most immediate avenue to spiritual experience I know.

From the microcosm to the macrocosm, nature is astounding, and easily the most immediate avenue to experience. I know.

Now that makes sense. You don't need the eye of the spirit to see nature as astounding you just need eyes.

 

God has mobilized divine wisdom in a never-ending effort to reveal himself to all beings in his universe.

Then it would only be a small effort to show up in the sky and say "here I am". Then we wouldn't have to discuss his existence anymore and we could all go to heaven because no one would doubt. But that wouldn't be a loving god would it? NO, the loving god would rather burn everyone for enternity or in the least they wouldn't get to live forever like those lucky beleivers.

There is an infinite grandeur and generosity in the majesty of his love, which causes him to yearn for the association of every created being who can comprehend, love, or approach him. Therefore, it's the limitations inherent in us— inseparable from our finite personality and material existence— that determine the time and place and circumstances in which we each may achieve the goal of the journey of mortal ascension, and eventually stand in the presence of the Father at the center of all things.

NO a geneorsity would be to just say "here I am".

 

 

An open mind. Keen judgment. Wisdom. The Spirit of Truth.

Truth can be lived; it can be experienced. The "Spirit of Truth"

All except the open mind part right. Open mind would be open to the possibilty that this is all crap.

 

 

No, and No. Jews were gassed because Nazis were racist bigots who hated Jews because they were Jews. IN A WORD: Anti-semitism. Hate is never fueled by true religion.

 

Being Jewish doesn't automatically make you a member of Judiasm; it's a freewill choice just like any other religious affiliation, and there are just as many unaffiliated Jews proportionately as there are in any other race.

Jews are not a race they are a religion. If you are jewish you are a Jew. You see if you take the ish of it makes the word Jew. That is like saying that being a christian doesn't make you a member of the christian religion. People from Isreal may or may not be Jews, but they are Isreali. Jews are not a race, when you fill out a job app do you see Jew on there. Being black is a race there are no proportionally nonblack black people or Hispanic or American Eskimo.

The Nazis killed Jews because they beleived in God differently than the christians did, period.

Hate is never feuled by true religion. There it is again you saying that what someone else accepts on faith is wrong. How come it is ok for you to say it but not me?

 

Since when does an "undertone" takes precedence over primary cause? The Iraq war is primarily a geo-political oil war;

Why does the war have the support of people who are not profiting from oil? Oh that would be the undertone. If it weren't for the religious conotation we would not be there.

yes, it can be seen as a religious war between Christianity and Islam by fearful fundamentalists, but Bush is no more a follower of Jesus and his teachings than Hitler was, or neither of them would have started a war. CheneyBush, Rumsfeld, et al, use religion socially like most all politicians do.

Yet Bush says he is a christian. He believes he is doing the right thing for christianity as it says in the Bible, kill em. His faith tells him it is the right thing to do, how can you question that?

That doesn't equate to religion being responsible for the people they kill by prosecuting a preemptive war of aggression.

No it just makes it the reason we allow it to happen, all of us lovey people.

 

 

Religion certainly is used that way by some practitioners during wartime in most nations, but that is NOT THE CAUSE.

It is certainly part of the cause, otherwise we would not allow it.

Secular causes are universally recognized for nearly all 20th century wars and conflicts, most certainly WWI and II, and Korea and Vietnam; check any reputable historical account.

Just what is a secular cause to you?

 

You're misinformed.

As are you.

"The state was separated from church by the Decree of Council of People's Comissars on January 23, 1918.

Does that mean that everyone in America is not religious?

Two-thirds of the Soviet population, however, had no religious beliefs. About half the people, including members of the CPSU and high-level government officials, professed atheism. For the majority of Soviet citizens, therefore, religion seemed irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...ligious_groups

 

 

 

 

 

The People's Republic of China remains an officially atheist state according to the most recent CIA Factbook. In 2004 only 8% called themselves Buddhist.

Gee, I guess that means that virtually every study in the world about religion is completely wrong. That would put Atheism on the chart, man. 2/3 of the USSR and China thats like 1.5 billion people. Damn, I guess christianity isn't the biggest religion after all.

You need to check your data.

Cheers,

Some Guy

[someguy]

But it sure would be nice if it was, wouldn't it? If you're good and moral you get rewarded. I would hope that's true! Hmmm. I wonder if that desire has anything to do with the development of religious beliefs? :shrug:

 

Follow the faith,

Buffy

It would be great and I am sure that it has something to do with the reasons why people make up religions. Excellent point Buffy.

[Southtown]

Someguy is some talker.

[someguy]

Possibly as a closing statement in this matter as the thread has appeared to die, I wish to say the following:

 

Many people have preconceived notions about who or what God is. Many people have preconceived notions about if god exists. Those people have taken those notions on faith, meaning simply they accept them as valid without proving it to themselves.

As Saitia has shown us, he believes many are wrong about their beliefs just as the athiests say. Only he picks and chooses which ones he believes are correct and which are the "lowest common denominator" and should be cast aside.

This is what every religion claims to have the right to do and then they place the all-encompassing title of "TRUTH" on it.

I, as an athiest, say that no one group or person has the right to this claim without objective proof. This is why faith is flawed, you are accepting what others have deemed to be the "truth" as such. You have made an exception to your rules of logic for the promises of a possibly incorrect and in many cases flat out wrong philosophy of life.

Why would one do this? It seems the overwhelming answer is a personal experience that one cannot obtain without first accepting the very thing that is in doubt in the first place. A personal experience that is defined as proof of your beliefs, however different they may be from others, before you even have that experience. If you are looking for a defining experience then you will have one and you are to use this to confirm your "Faith". A question everyone should ask themselves is why does this confirm an entire set of beliefs or the ability to pick and choose which is right and wrong? Has any one experience the power to do this? Does your experince prove everything you hold in your faith?

I say there is a system that makes far more sense and is better suited to select a philosophy of life and that is a system which is objective. A system that does not require you to accept something through suspension of judgement. It is the same one you use everyday to check the validity of information. It is the very one that faith asks you to ignore for just this one time so you can accept someone else's philosophy of life.

 

 

Make your own way, do not accept somone else's lies as your "truth".

Someguy

[Saitia]

Just someguy,

 

Many people have preconceived notions about who or what God is. Many people have preconceived notions about if god exists. Those people have taken those notions on faith, meaning simply they accept them as valid without proving it to themselves.

 

How "many people" have actually told you their belief in God is based on a "preconceived notion about who or what God is"? Isn't your believing that "someone else's lie," as you say below, and not your personal experience? Some other atheist who cannot understand— or refuses to believe— religionists know who or what God is through personal experience with him— not preconceived notions. But the idea itself is silly. Learning about something before having actual experience with it is called education; it doesn't pre-define— or invalidate— the actual experience when it comes, anymore than sex education pre-determines what an orgasm feels like.

 

As Saitia has shown us, he believes many are wrong about their beliefs just as the athiests say. Only he picks and chooses which ones he believes are correct and which are the "lowest common denominator" and should be cast aside.

 

The "lowest common denominator" was a term referring to your referencing of the most arcane religious notions as representative of all religion; it amounted to a strawman argument. (Pointing out that an atheist government murdered 100 million people does not make all atheists murderers.) Those unwilling to separate wheat from chaff will soon find that too much intellectual fiber in their truth leads to constipation; (i.e., full of ****.) correction may be slow and painful, but you'll feel better in the end, and your truth will be free and clear.:naughty:

 

This is what every religion claims to have the right to do and then they place the all-encompassing title of "TRUTH" on it. I, as an athiest, say that no one group or person has the right to this claim without objective proof.

 

All human beings have the innate right— the obligation— to determine what the "TRUTH" is. Objective proof in the material realm of scientific endeavor comes from observations of the material world; objective proof in the spiritual realm comes from actual experience with the highest objective reality, God, through the purely subjective experience of knowing him and realizing sonship with him. The convictions of such an experience are unassailable; the logic of religious living is incontrovertible, and the certainty of such knowledge is superhuman.

 

 

 

This is why faith is flawed, you are accepting what others have deemed to be the "truth" as such.

 

That's what you keep insisting; but your insistence can't make it so. But again, it's much ado about nothing. You can magnify the difficulties in finding truth, but just like science, it has to be a relative, evolutionary, and self-correcting process, and it matters not a wit where the truth comes from. Truth grows experientially, but you never arrive at absolute truth; that doesn't invalidate the realtive value of truth you are, at any given stage of life.

 

 

You have made an exception to your rules of logic for the promises of a possibly incorrect and in many cases flat out wrong philosophy of life.

 

Intelligent men should learn to use the consistent logic of adulthood, a logic which tolerates the concept of truth alongside the observation of fact. But a philosophy of life which we can characterize as so-called-objective scientific materialism— consisting of the numerous unproven theoretical suppositions of science— has gone completely bankrupt when it insists, in the face of every recurring universe phenomenon, in refunding its current objections by referring what is admittedly higher, back into that which is admittedly lower; finally taking origin in primordial slime which was utterly devoid of all life. That's hardly a correct or superior "philosophy of life."

 

Why would one do this? It seems the overwhelming answer is a personal experience that one cannot obtain without first accepting the very thing that is in doubt in the first place. A personal experience that is defined as proof of your beliefs, however different they may be from others, before you even have that experience.

 

Such a prosaic rendering of our conversation certainly serves your "preconceived notions," but it's still utterly fictitious. It's quite understandable that an atheist's comprehension of faith must be from the outside looking in, and you per force must cling to it with the tenacity you do, but that one fact alone invalidates your entire assessment of it. The only viable solution of course, is to actually experience it for yourself; claiming to be "very interested" in understanding it while continually insisting it's something else simply wont get it done.

 

If you are looking for a defining experience then you will have one and you are to use this to confirm your "Faith".

Jesus said "Knock, and it shall be opened to you." But the experience validates itself; not the other way around; no matter how many times you insist otherwise. ;)

 

A question everyone should ask themselves is why does this confirm an entire set of beliefs or the ability to pick and choose which is right and wrong? Has any one experience the power to do this? Does your experince prove everything you hold in your faith?

 

Yep, all should ask that question; and also accept the answer when it comes. Genuine religious experience IS the power you speak of, and countless people have experienced it, and will continue to experience it, until it does indeed "prove" everything held in faith— even if it takes a few milion years.;)

 

 

 

I say there is a system that makes far more sense and is better suited to select a philosophy of life and that is a system which is objective. A system that does not require you to accept something through suspension of judgement. It is the same one you use everyday to check the validity of information. It is the very one that faith asks you to ignore for just this one time so you can accept someone else's philosophy of life.

 

You still don't exhibit the slightest understanding of what it means to "take" something on faith. Your explanation, if indeed it is yours, that it means to accept something as valid "without proving it to themselves," is what an atheist conceives faith to be; I can't imagine anyone less qualified than an avowed atheist to explain to anyone what real faith is.:D

 

 

Make your own way, do not accept somone else's lies as your "truth".

 

Amen to that. And don't be afraid to accept someone else's truth if it rings true for you; if it's truth, you can personally live it; if it's not, you'll eventually find out it's not, and can move more certainly to what is true.

 

I really do have to give up this thread, guy, so I'll make this my final statement so to speak; do have the relatively last word.:)

I'll recommend one book to you. "Letters of the Scattered Brotherhood." Somewhat dated language, but perhaps one of the best avenues to personal experience of the Indwelling Spirit you'll find in print anyware, imho. It's out of print but easily found at Amazon.

 

Despite your unwillingness to suspend your belief in your preconceived notions of what religious faith is and attempt to pound my unorthodox definitions into them anyway, I've thoroughly enjoyed our conversation. I'll be in lurk mode most of the time this summer, but if you promise to be a little more provocative once in awhile instead of your usual somnolent self, I may show up to taunt you a bit, and of course, I'll bring my lunch. :evil: :hihi:

 

Be well,

—Saitia

[someguy]

Hello again Saitia,

 

I thought you had left for good. I will take the last word you have granted but, of course feel free to respond.

 

 

How "many people" have actually told you their belief in God is based on a "preconceived notion about who or what God is"?

Many, including yourself. If you are taking your "truth" from any book or person and not verifying it you are taking somone else's ideas of what "truth" is.

Isn't your believing that "someone else's lie," as you say below, and not your personal experience?

Not at all. All religion has a sacred text associated with it and is the "truth" laid out for you to accept. Many people pick and choose what to believe and follow but it is all suppossed to be truth. You personally have taken some beliefs laid out in the most important book to your beliefs, the Bible, and denied that "truth". I simply deny that any of it is "truth". The one thing you keep failing to understand is that I do not claim to have "truth", in fact, I claim repeatedly that no one has it.

Some other atheist who cannot understand— or refuses to believe— religionists know who or what God is through personal experience with him— not preconceived notions.

Here you say personal experience with him please read my comments below about experience.

But the idea itself is silly. Learning about something before having actual experience with it is called education; it doesn't pre-define— or invalidate— the actual experience when it comes, anymore than sex education pre-determines what an orgasm feels like.

Not learning about but accepting it as truth. These are totally different things. This sex education is a perfect example. An orgasm could be considered spiritual. If one was told that you were feeling the presence of God when you felt an orgasm before you ever had one, you might well use that as your religious experience. However, if somone educated you as to what an orgasm really was and could prove how and why an orgasm takes place then when you experienced it you would actually know what was going on and attribute it to the correct reasoning. In any case, if you had no prior knowledge of an orgasm you would not attribute it to anything. This means that if you had no prior knowledge of God you would not attribute the experience to God.

 

The "lowest common denominator" was a term referring to your referencing of the most arcane religious notions as representative of all religion; it amounted to a strawman argument.

Actually my pointing out certain things is beside the point but also useful. I brought up these things and you said they were simply misguided but you take your beliefs from the same source. The very source that these misguided people use for their belief, and can show it to you, you deny, yet in the same breath you tell of the "truth" the document contains.

The point is simply that you pick and choose what is the "truth" and what is not and then you deny that right to everyone else, like the athiests.

I have said time and time again no one has the "truth".

(Pointing out that an atheist government murdered 100 million people does not make all atheists murderers.) Those unwilling to separate wheat from chaff will soon find that too much intellectual fiber in their truth leads to constipation; (i.e., full of ****.) correction may be slow and painful, but you'll feel better in the end, and your truth will be free and clear.:)

Firstly, the stupid arguement about which governemnt is which and who caused more deaths, yada yada is dumb. The point is simply that faith, for some, is dangerous and we have agreed on this.

Secondly, this is more of the arrogence of you who has the "truth". You should be prepared for the day when you find out you are wrong. It will happen to you and me and everyone else and it may very well be the "truth" you think you have that is wrong.

 

All human beings have the innate right— the obligation— to determine what the "TRUTH" is.

Very well said, it should not be handed to them and accepted outright.

Objective proof in the material realm of scientific endeavor comes from observations of the material world;

Yes your're starting to understand.

objective proof in the spiritual realm comes from actual experience with the highest objective reality, God, through the purely subjective experience of knowing him and realizing sonship with him.

Nope you lost it. There is no objective proof in the spiritual realm and you know it. Everyone's religious experiences are different. If there were objectivity you could show anyone with ease.

The convictions of such an experience are unassailable; the logic of religious living is incontrovertible, and the certainty of such knowledge is superhuman.

Here is the big experience talk again. You need to define your superhuman convictions if you expect to be able to speak about these things intelligently.

ANYTHING short of god coming down to you

PROVING that he is god

and TELLING you straight forward what to believe and what not to believe

CONFIRMS NOTHING.

You had an experince that was eerie, perhaps unexplanable by science. So what, That doesn't give anyone the right to claim "truth".

However, If your experience was the one I spoke of then I have alot of questions.

 

This is why faith is flawed, you are accepting what others have deemed to be the "truth" as such.

That's what you keep insisting; but your insistence can't make it so.

It is not my insistence but yours. If you disagree with this then offer a counter definition that says you don't have to accept without validating. Hell anyone give an example of faith that is contrary to this statement.

But again, it's much ado about nothing. You can magnify the difficulties in finding truth, but just like science, it has to be a relative, evolutionary, and self-correcting process, and it matters not a wit where the truth comes from.

Science is not relative it is objective. I would agree that it must be evolutionary but you can not because you do not allow for change of certain ideas, such as the infinitude of god.

Truth grows experientially, but you never arrive at absolute truth;

But wait you already claim to have absolute truth. Are you starting to understand?

that doesn't invalidate the realtive value of truth you are, at any given stage of life.

What does that even mean?

 

Intelligent men should learn to use the consistent logic of adulthood, a logic which tolerates the concept of truth alongside the observation of fact.

Yes adults understand that truth and fact are synonyms and they are one in the same. Hell even your spellcheck knows that. Truth is simply what is not false. If your philosophy of life you get from a book is false then you do not have truth.

But a philosophy of life which we can characterize as so-called-objective scientific materialism— consisting of the numerous unproven theoretical suppositions of science— has gone completely bankrupt when it insists, in the face of every recurring universe phenomenon, in refunding its current objections by referring what is admittedly higher, back into that which is admittedly lower; finally taking origin in primordial slime which was utterly devoid of all life. That's hardly a correct or superior "philosophy of life."

I don't know how many times this must be said, Science does not claim to have the truth. In fact, It has fallibilty built right in, something religion needs badly. There is no "philosophy of life" from science not that you couldn't build one from the premises. Science has no text defining the one true path. Science admits that no one has the "truth" even itself.

 

 

Such a prosaic rendering of our conversation certainly serves your "preconceived notions," but it's still utterly fictitious.

This is our conversation word for word. You said I could never understand unless I had "faith" already. I have no preconceived notions I accept nothing on faith.

It's quite understandable that an atheist's comprehension of faith must be from the outside looking in, and you per force must cling to it with the tenacity you do, but that one fact alone invalidates your entire assessment of it.

See you just said it again. I am saying that everyone must be on the outside looking in and decide validity before jumping in and believing. This is the way we make all of our other decisions. The opposite of faith.

The only viable solution of course, is to actually experience it for yourself; claiming to be "very interested" in understanding it while continually insisting it's something else simply wont get it done.

But as you said I can not experience without first believing.

 

 

Jesus said "Knock, and it shall be opened to you."

I'm knockin but you keep tellin me I can't get in without first accepting it's validity.

But the experience validates itself; not the other way around; no matter how many times you insist otherwise. ;)

Nothing validates itself. You need objectivity to validate something and experience can do that only when it is experinced by all. If you have an experience it does not validate any lump of knowledge it validates only what was experienced. If you have an eerie situation and, I don't know a rock jumps up and runs off, it vaidates only that a rock jumped up and ran off for you. Of course you could have been delusional or on drugs. You would have to have that same rock jump up and run off in front of every person in every instance that was the same for it to be validated. Otherwise it is not valid and should not be accepted as such. But most certainly it does not validate another lump of information.

A question everyone should ask themselves is why does this confirm an entire set of beliefs or the ability to pick and choose which is right and wrong? Has any one experience the power to do this? Does your experince prove everything you hold in your faith?

Yep, all should ask that question; and also accept the answer when it comes. Genuine religious experience IS the power you speak of, and countless people have experienced it, and will continue to experience it, until it does indeed "prove" everything held in faith— even if it takes a few milion years.:)

Accept the answer when it comes in the form of a burning bush or when god himself comes down..... see above. It would only take one second to prove to all and yet it is not proven. Why?

 

You still don't exhibit the slightest understanding of what it means to "take" something on faith. Your explanation, if indeed it is yours, that it means to accept something as valid "without proving it to themselves," is what an atheist conceives faith to be; I can't imagine anyone less qualified than an avowed atheist to explain to anyone what real faith is.:shade:

Then please expalin how it is not accepting something as the truth without question.

 

Amen to that. And don't be afraid to accept someone else's truth if it rings true for you; if it's truth, you can personally live it; if it's not, you'll eventually find out it's not, and can move more certainly to what is true.

Wrong. No one has the "truth" do not accept some one else's lies as "truth".

 

I'll recommend one book to you. "Letters of the Scattered Brotherhood." Somewhat dated language, but perhaps one of the best avenues to personal experience of the Indwelling Spirit you'll find in print anyware, imho. It's out of print but easily found at Amazon.

Will do, I will get it and read it and you please read "The End of Faith". It is in print and can be bought at pretty much any non-religious book store. It is written by a buddhist but still somewhat decent reading and addresses many of the things we have been talking about. I am sure there are some more intelligent readings perhaps Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russell but sadly it is only on my to read list and I have not read it yet. I will read it and post some comments here when done.

 

Despite your unwillingness to suspend your belief in your preconceived notions of what religious faith is and attempt to pound my unorthodox definitions into them anyway, I've thoroughly enjoyed our conversation.

I have enjoyed our conversation as well and one last time for the record I do not have preconceived notions. I check validity before I accept. I come with a clean slate and if you can prove you have the truth I will gladly accept it.

Be well,

Just Some Guy

[Boerseun]

Slightly long-winded, but a good reply, nonetheless.

 

Can't give you any rep points without spreading the love some, so consider yourself repped, SomeGuy.

[Southtown]

Yeah, why? Because I don't accept purported supernatural claims as fact without proof? That's the bottom line about religion isn't it, accepting the claim of a supernatural entity without proof? That someone wants to offer the Urantia book or the bible as evidence to support such claims is really providing no evidence at all. Evidence can be tested, these items cannot.

Yeah I dug backwards a ways for this. But what do we mean by proof exactly? Can it be subjective? Or must it be communicable?

[Turtle]

This just in:

 

Believers will say their religion reflects divine will: that's the way God (or something) planned it.

 

But a less theological explanation finds support from an experiment conducted at a British college psychology department: Maybe that common element of modern religions was the product of Darwinian evolution.

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/living/religion/15254298.htm?source=rss&channel=macon_religion

halleluja!:doh:

[Boerseun]

This just in:

 

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/living/religion/15254298.htm?source=rss&channel=macon_religion

halleluja!:hyper:

Don't let the head-slappin' smiley put you off, folks - this is actually an incredibly interesting article! Give it a read - I'm watchin' you!

 

Good article, Turtle!

[HydrogenBond]

I try to keep the option of God open, since it can be neither proved or disproved. To accept something without proof or disproof is not very rational but enters the realm of subjectivity where anything is possible or not possible even without proof or disproof.

 

The way I look at it, the concept of God has been around for thousands of years in almost all cultures, past and present. If we set aside the validity of God, such a beleif appears to have an almost instinctive connection to humans or else it would have gone the way of horse and buggy. It may be a projection of higher human potential with God (memory focus) a proven way to touch these higher states of mind, i.e, conditioned command line to these higher areas of the neural programming.

 

For example, if looks in the bible, when they talk about people having demons, they may talking about being psychotic. The output result should look very similar. To cure one of psychosis or demons, without drugs, in one treatment, would require tweaks very close to the center of the brain's operating system. Yet biblical results are displayed as possible, by simply invoking the name of God (operating system command lines). Why throw out brain tools that have been demonstrated over the ages to be state of the art.