A confused psychology major

Matariki said:
I know, I knew you weren't using it as evidence for or against but its one that I see crop up on a frequent basis amongst new atheists in particular. So I felt some pointers needed to be addressed. I can say the God helmet disproves the 'God of the gaps' (I can't explain it, therefore God did it) idea (which is considered to be a theological fallacy).
Philosophy Is a good place to start which will help you understand the arguments for and against the existence of God. I suggest watching some professional debates on youtube. Dr. William Lane Craig and Professor John Lennox are worth keeping an eye out for.
Click to expand...

I'd rather watch Dr. William Lane Craig and Professor Shelly Kagan from Yale university debate... My questions first started from philosophy. . . If you go into my threads, you will see that most of my beginning threads were all about philosophy... Dr Michael Persinger has been doing these experiments for roughly 15-20 years, since the early 90's...

Please never call me a New Atheist, I am more of an agnostic atheist... Plus I really fucking hate Richard Dawkins- He argues against Religious fundamentalists when he is no different... He is an anti-religious fundamentalist...
 
Last edited:
Spiritual Leo said:
I'd rather watch Dr. William Lane Craig and Professor Shelly Kagan from Yale university debate... My questions first started from philosophy. . . If you go into my threads, you will see that most of my beginning threads were all about philosophy... Dr Michael Persinger has been doing these experiments for roughly 15-20 years, since the early 90's...

Please never call me a New Atheist, I am more of an agnostic atheist... Plus I really fucking hate Richard Dawkins- He argues against Religious fundamentalists when he is no different... He is an anti-religious findamentalist...
Click to expand...

LOL! I figured that you weren't a New Atheist. I tend to find their arguments narrow in perspective.
Yes, I know about Dr. Micheal Persinger, though I don't believe his experiments conflict with the existence of a monotheistic God, they are fascinating none the less. However from what I have seen, many have perceived it to be a valid argument against the existence of God, very much like evolution has been. Who's to say that God himself isn't capable of naturally stimulating mind, in the same fashion that God isn't capable of guiding the process of evolution? In a way these discoveries show me how God did or does it, if anything or as Johannes Kepler wrote 'Thinking Gods thoughts after him'.
 
Matariki said:
LOL! I figured that you weren't a New Atheist. I tend to find their arguments narrow in perspective.
Yes, I know about Dr. Micheal Persinger, though I don't believe his experiments conflict with the existence of a monotheistic God, they are fascinating none the less. However from what I have seen, many have perceived it to be a valid argument against the existence of God, very much like evolution has been. Who's to say that God himself isn't capable of naturally stimulating mind, in the same fashion that God isn't capable of guiding the process of evolution? In a way these discoveries show me how God did or does it, if anything or as Johannes Kepler wrote 'Thinking Gods thoughts after him'.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, Thank God! I am sorry about jumping to that conclusion, but I think that new atheism has discraced the name. It is nothing more than anti-religious fundamentalism, in my view.

No one is to say that god cannot stimulate the mind, but there really is no empirical evidence to believe in god. There will never be anyway to truly understand what happens after death... If there is a form of afterlife, I would understand it as the buddah... The conciousness transcends, in other words, our energy goes back to where it came from...

I am unsure, but I am searching for God without much luck. I may never find the answers that I want because human knowledge is limited, but I will continue to search till the end.
 
Spiritual Leo said:
Hahaha, Thank God! I am sorry about jumping to that conclusion, but I think that new atheism has discraced the name. It is nothing more than anti-religious fundamentalism, in my view.

No one is to say that god cannot stimulate the mind, but there really is no empirical evidence to believe in god. There will never be anyway to truly understand what happens after death... If there is a form of afterlife, I would understand it as the buddah... The conciousness transcends, in other words, our energy goes back to where it came from...

I am unsure, but I am searching for God without much luck. I may never find the answers that I want because human knowledge is limited, but I will continue to search till the end.
Click to expand...

There is good evidence for God and many arguments that support the possibility of such an entity. However you need to ask yourself; What is your purpose for seeking God?

Jeremiah 29:13 - You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
 
Peace said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/nov/14/20041114-111404-8087r/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faith-boosting-genes

I tend to think that religiously inclined people are "born that way", they don't choose to be that way.
Click to expand...

Really? Last time I checked people are born into this world as Agnostics. Wow, goes to show not only do we have the 'god of the gaps' but we also have the 'genes of the gaps'.
If anything from the Christian perspective, the possibility of a God gene would prove that God himself had a part in our evolution as a species.
 
Matariki said:
Really? Last time I checked people are born into this world as Agnostics. Wow, goes to show not only do we have the 'god of the gaps' but we also have the 'genes of the gaps'.
If anything from the Christian perspective, the possibility of a God gene would prove that God himself had a part in our evolution as a species.
Click to expand...

I think people are born into this world with biological predispositions that may or may not help them survive to reproduce.
 
Matariki said:
Tell that to the animal kingdom. Belief in God is not required for the reproduction and survival of a species.
Click to expand...

Indeed. However, optimistic humans beings generally are more likely to be successful in surviving and reproducing than pessimistic human beings are, and mystical beliefs generally produce optimism.

Just look at where human beings turn when times get tough. The pessimists turn to suicide and the optimists turn to spirituality.
 
Matariki said:
There is good evidence for God and many arguments that support the possibility of such an entity. However you need to ask yourself; What is your purpose for seeking God?

Jeremiah 29:13 - You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
Click to expand...

Well. . . I am a firm believer in evolution and evolution explains how we came into existence without a god, in my view. And if we did all descend from one common ancestor, then there was no Adam and Eve. With no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin, so there is no good reason to believe that because of Adam and Eve evil consumed the world. Also if there was no original sin, then there was no reason for god to have flooded the world because sin simply had no real existence. There are moral and immoral actions, but no sin.

Perfectly important, if there was no original sin, then what is the purpose of having a saviour??

Also, if god is omnipotent and omniscient, then would he have the ability to change his mind? And if he had the power to change his mind, then how could he be all-knowing?

If there is a god, then I am trying to understand him... But there is really no good reason for me to believe...

Epicuris said it best:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.
 
Peace said:
I think people are born into this world with biological predispositions that may or may not help them survive to reproduce.
Click to expand...
Right. Genes funtion as networks -- you really only need once consequence of the network to be highly adaptive for the entire network to get passed on. Most of the stuff in our genes are spandrels.
 
Spiritual Leo said:
Well. . . I am a firm believer in evolution and evolution explains how we came into existence without a god, in my view. And if we did all descend from one common ancestor, then there was no Adam and Eve. With no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin, so there is no good reason to believe that because of Adam and Eve evil consumed the world. Also if there was no original sin, then there was no reason for god to have flooded the world because sin simply had no real existence. There are moral and immoral actions, but no sin.

Perfectly important, if there was no original sin, then what is the purpose of having a saviour??

Also, if god is omnipotent and omniscient, then would he have the ability to change his mind? And if he had the power to change his mind, then how could he be all-knowing?

If there is a god, then I am trying to understand him... But there is really no good reason for me to believe...

Epicuris said it best:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.
Click to expand...

Good questions, I think I remember once Dr. William Lane Craig doing a lecture on this. I'll see what I can find and post it for you to mull over.
I don't like pretending I know something, I prefer to have certainty before posting responses especially to questions like this.
 
Matariki said:
Good questions, I think I remember once Dr. William Lane Craig doing a lecture on this. I'll see what I can find and post it for you to mull over.
I don't like pretending I know something, I prefer to have certainty before posting responses especially to questions like this.
Click to expand...

Your correct, the debate took place during the 1990's somewhere, so I summarized a view that I enjoyed.

Just as you like to be certain of what you say, I do too, but how can we be sure at all when it comes to a topic like this? I am much more of an agnostic- atheist meaning that I am still in question of afterlife even though I don't believe in dogmatic religions. If there is a form of afterlife, then I would assume it would be different.

Someone in this post mentioned that energy could not be destroyed, it just changes form. . . Now our nevous system is a biochemical and bioelectrical structure, so it is full of energy and maybe our consciouness is a form of energy that could live in- I am unsure, however, when it comes to transcedent realities
 
GracieRuth said:
Oh goody! Great questions! You realize you will spend your entire life looking for the answers and probably will never have them. Enjoy the ride. :D

That said, I'd love to hear a discussion about the portion of our brain that is devoted to thinking about G-d and spiritual stuff. I think that on an evolutionary level, one of two things must be happening: either we are evolving a new sense which is still in the muggy stages, or there is some OTHER less obvious benefit we get from having evolved this manner of thinking.
Click to expand...

@GracieRuth

Did you ever think that on the evolutionary level, we may have developed these spiritual realities to release the anxiety of death? Death, when viewed as eternal nothingness is pretty upsetting, but eternal love in a reality which transcends the empirical world is beautiful and optimistic---Did our ancestors develop these emotions as a way to survive?

Human beings use these ideas of transcendent realities to bring meaning and purpose to life. Who is to say that we didn't develop these emotions as we evolved more?

Why wouldn't we want to make the anxiety of death become a non-event?

As the brain grew larger, so did our thoughts, ideas, and perceptions of realities.
 
I suppose I have the same instinct to avoid death as everyone else, but its not a big issue to me. I've lived a very rich and meaningful life, and if I were to die tonight in my sleep I have no regrets. Quite honestly I think the fact that life has an end is part of what makes it meaningful. Every time I try to imagine some kind of eternal heaven, it ends up being more of a hell for the basic reason that ANYTHING that goes on forever eventually becomes boring. I'm probably one of the most religious people you'll ever meet, but if I had to wager, I'd say that this world here and now is the best one imaginable, and its up to us to make it more of a heaven or hell.

I suspect that religion had its roots in our awe of nature, eventually looking for what is behind nature. I was very impressed with the June issue of National Geographic which explored the origins of religion, and how it is religion which gave birth to civilization, meaning agriculture, cities, art, literature, etc.

Leo, I think that I approach religion quite differently than most people, largely because I have been influenced from quite an early age by JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, and the Inklings in general. I consider the LOTR to be my "Other Bible." I don't see myth as "wrong" simply because it is not historical. Our deepest truths and values are communicated via myth. May I suggest you revisit Adam and Eve from a, well, mythopoeic point of view? You might be surprised the value you find. When you can read Tolkien's "On Fairy Stories" and understand it, then Grasshopper you will have learned.

 
Last edited:
GracieRuth said:
I suppose I have the same instinct to avoid death as everyone else, but its not a big issue to me. I've lived a very rich and meaningful life, and if I were to die tonight in my sleep I have no regrets. Quite honestly I think the fact that life has an end is part of what makes it meaningful. Every time I try to imagine some kind of eternal heaven, it ends up being more of a hell for the basic reason that ANYTHING that goes on forever eventually becomes boring. I'm probably one of the most religious people you'll ever meet, but if I had to wager, I'd say that this world here and now is the best one imaginable, and its up to us to make it more of a heaven or hell.

I suspect that religion had its roots in our awe of nature, eventually looking for what is behind nature. I was very impressed with the June issue of National Geographic which explored the origins of religion, and how it is religion which gave birth to civilization, meaning agriculture, cities, art, literature, etc.

Leo, I think that I approach religion quite differently than most people, largely because I have been influenced from quite an early age by JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, and the Inklings in general. I consider the LOTR to be my "Other Bible." I don't see myth as "wrong" simply because it is not historical. Our deepest truths and values are communicated via myth. May I suggest you revisit Adam and Eve from a, well, mythopoeic point of view? You might be surprised the value you find. When you can read Tolkien's "On Fairy Stories" and understand it, then Grasshopper you will have learned.
Click to expand...

Oh GracieRuth, your always kind when your disagreeing with me, but I have to let you know that I agree with you that a lot of human values and truths are communicated via myth and I never said that they weren't. However, I follow no religion, but I have found most of my insight from metaphysics. Earlier I stated that, " human beings use these ideas of transcendent realities to bring meaning and purpose to life."

There I even introduced my quote for you lol

Take care
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top