tar

Mooey, But what if you ARE powerful and had tuned into an actual energy that truely exists? Why let existing "methods" tell you it can not be so? "Something" made his chest feel warm. You were touching and any vibrations you were experiencing or projecting were scientifically "able" to resonate in the subject. Eye movements, and muscle movements, and pheremones, and suggestion, were all present and real. Artists have certain "power" over us. Able to touch us with the forms and motions and colors and notes they project. I am not convinced that science "wants" there to be things a person can know without being told. Or powers we have that can not be replicated in a machine, or described in a formula. Personally, I think the individual should be able to use themselves as a test subject, for their own experiments. For instance, one of the things Pinker says in his book "the stuff of thought", which sort of surprised me at first, and sounded initially unscientific, was that he often used himself, and his own judgement of whether a certain, grammatically correct, combination of words "sounded wrong" together. He found that way more often than not, detailed carefully thought out studies of large groups of people, would "find" the same things he thought sounded funny, sounded funny to others. Not that Pinker would give the leeway I am suggesting here, but that, along the same lines, any one of us, is actually in possession of the entire human organism, intact, functioning and existing in the real world, with all the actual connections to it, that actually do, scientifically exist. Intuitions, and feelings, and understandings that I have, should be something that any other human could well have access to as well. If I should "read between the lines" and have a guess about somebody's lifestyle or history, or ideas, based on the "evidence" of his/her words, compared against what I know I might have meant if I said the same words in the same context...I could be accused of "thinking I could read another person's mind". Which we all know science has found no evidence in favor of being actually possible. I might think somebody thinks I am an idiot, based on the mere fact that they act like they think I am an idiot. Why need I wait 'till they tell me they think I am an idiot, to confirm my reading of their thoughts. It is interesting to me, Mooey, that scientific method is so strict as to ask for actual proof and evidence and repeatability, of everything studied and torn away from the actual human complete context it is "used in" (things like prayer and mind reading, and that thing you did, and "the energy of a place" and such) as if human judgement of reality is somehow impaired by delusion and illusion and therefore untrustworthy, while at the same time, using as its most prized validation, none other than, PEER review. Regards, TAR2

Villian, In what way do you mean "true". Let's take the 10 commandments brought down from the mountain by Moses. Let's say we find the actual stone and study the carvings and determine what type of tool or force was used to make the etchings. And then we find such a tool buried in a cave in the mountains Moses treked in,that dated around the same time and it had signs of being held and used by a human hand. We could consider the story true, but some of the facts about it, like whose hand did the carving, might be a little different than the story told by Moses, or subsequently told by the writers of the bible. If such evidence came to light, would you be able to still claim God wrote the tablets...just "through" Moses' hand? Or would you re-evalute your understanding of the nature of God? Seems one of the main points of this thread, is that when evidence does arise, that a reasonable person would take as evidence "against" the Bible telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the evidence is ignored, in favor of the "belief" that God still exists in the exact manner described in the bible, and should any little hole in the argument that the book was actually "written" by God be found, it would bring the whole edifice down, so the hole is patched up with silly glue, and the edifice is retained in its full (broken and patched) glory. And the only thing left holding it together is faith. Regards, TAR2

from Wiki "Recapitulation Theory" Not unlikey that there would be parallels seen, either overt and caused, or merely just "something like", between the development of a single human's consciousness, understanding and motivations, and that of a family's, club's, political group's, religion's, or humanity in general. You after all, cannot have the emergent characteristics of the flock activity, without the birds. Maybe not studyable in a purely scientific cause and effect way, but to some degree, I think you have to give your personal characteristics, both good and bad to the greater organism...and take some of your personal characteristics from the greater organism. To Mooey's question of "What does it tell you" when you look for God in Reality and do not find such?" I would guess that maybe that only happens when you are taking its (God's) perspective. Regards, TAR2 "no snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche" but may feel somewhat proud of the beautiful snow scene rereading this story actually choked me up, (in the context of this discussion) used here without permission Perhaps my point is, if you look behind you, and see only one set of footprints, the only explanation is that you are carrying yourself.

Everybody, I would also like to introduce another angle on this "brokeness" concept, that I was waiting for someone else to introduce, and surprisingly, no one has. There seems to be an equating of wisdom, with knowing the difference between good and evil, and this, as well, associated with the "fall of man". The serpent in the Garden and the tree of knowledge and Adam "seeing his own nakedness" and such. The myth or idea is not foriegn to religions and traditions around the world. This "separateness" from God, that consciousness seems to demand. The constant theme of nature being somehow "other than" man. Something that Man can fight or join forces with, depending on his or her thoughts and actions. "Broken" thusly can mean something we are already that we need to fix. Or something we have done to ourselves or others, that we should not have. I know Inow does not hold much value in 100 and 200 year old thoughts that have been so studied and improved upon and refined or debunked enough as to not be currently useful, but I think it appropriate, at least in a figurative way, to bring up the Id, ego and superego again in this context. Our "natural" self, the one that has urge to sex and pleasure, is somewhat at odds with the rules and authority that guide our conscience. These rules are something that seem to have "outside" sources (parents, laws, codes, religions, bosses or kings). But we can listen to our conscience, when there is no one else around, to know or care what we think or do. We can "do the right thing", even when the whole world (or a large portion of it) is apparently against us. Where we summon this strength from, is an interesting question. Delusion and "brokeness"? Or from a real and evident source? Regards, TAR2

Inow, Though the descriptions of evidence by Mooey and others are plain and clear, and I understand and agree with them...there remains the fact, that billions of humans believe in God. Not just have "the concept of God", but equate directly that which is obviously "other than" man, to something real and awesome and powerful and intelligent. I would at this point say that the argument that random quarks cannot accidently "know" anything is patently false. Because here I sit typing and you reading. Proof, absolutely evident, that there is intelligence in the world. And thus it is evident that the entire universe is not devoid of consciousness. This being the case, it is no lie, for someone to claim empirical evidence of a creator, because we were created, or created ourselves, and there is no way we could have come from any place else, but reality. And since I personally do not know how to metabolize, or bloom, or shine, or orbit, or release photons, I would say the evidence is clear, that the universe, as a whole, knows how to do these things, on its own, without any requirement for a good logical argument, or a preplanned execution of a well written formula. The evidence, of this "other" intelligence, that trumps human intelligence, 1000 fold, a billion fold, a zillion fold, is clear. Scientists are being a bit illogical, to claim that people who believe in God are doing so, without any evidence. Ascribing particular impossible characteristics to said intelligence, or claiming special ownership of the same...well that's another story, and perhaps a bit broken. As Moontanman listed. Regards, TAR2

Thank you Mooey for the translations. Not unlikely the Bible can be used, by an individual, or a group, to reflect upon the universe, together...and arrive upon a mutual understanding, of a mutual thing...that makes sense. Hard though, to do this, without also coming up with an understanding that would be mutually holdable by everybody else. Here, seems to be the rub. Question Poster, 22? I didn't mean anything by it. It was my guess at the number of votes Inow would allow me on the thread topic. I was alluding to the fact that I probably have used up my allotment. Regards, TAR2

Question poster, I believe in the Bible, as a work of Man. I believe in the universe, as the only reality Moses could have been talking about. Was he "right" about things, figuratively speaking, probably. Does God have a certain number and kind of people already picked out to join him in heaven? Absolutely not. Makes no kind of sense, no way, no how, and if it was true I am out of luck because I am not a Jew, don't think Jesus had the only key, and fall securely in Mohammed's nonbeliever camp. Outside of that, I was raised on the moral stories from the bible, and in that way, believe in it. And figure God and I are OK with each other. No matter what. He is everything, and I am a glimpse of it. Regards, TAR2

22? (Darn)

Wait...You DONT believe that Jesus is the son of God. You quoted the Hebrew words for earth/Earth. You are still waiting for the Messiah. My mistake. Perhaps this "Chosen people" stuff, and this believer/non believer stuff is the most broken part of religions. Like certain of us are "special" in God's eyes. As if we all do not belong to reality, equally. Another, "broken" vote. (how many votes do I get, Inow? I think I am currently about 16 nays and half a dozen ayes.)

DrDNA, Back in 465 you cherry picked some verses of the Koran to show that Mohammed knew and respected the Jews and Christians. And forwarded that these words were not broken. However I read him also decry the Jews for being money lenders, and charging interest, and describe this as an example of how the Jews had fallen from the way, as properly described to him by the ArchAngel of Allah. This is not the way to be if you are a believer in Allah and his messenger. And Mohammed also learned from the ArchAngel (alone in the cave, mind you) that the Christians had also misunderstood Allah because Allah had no associates (family, like sons for instance) and Christ was only a Prophet like himself. (Notice in your quote he says "Son of Mary", not son of God). He was not a big fan of the "vigin birth" either. Much of the first part of the Koran is a "retelling" of the Bible, as edited by the Archangel, to show both the power and wisdom of God, and usurp a bit of that power, for the use of the lowly "messenger". It is really quite transparent if you read it with a critical eye. Who do you think understood God better? Mohammed, or Moses, or Jesus? If you believe in God, and God's final messages were to Mohammed in the cave, why would you not believe that Jesus was merely a prophet and not the son of God? Only ask this to point out that you have some discernment between what you know God means, and what others, even other Prophets, think he means. And to Inow's point, you have no evidence to back up your take. You are taking it, on faith alone, no evidence required. And this is a sure way to recognize something, as "made up". Possibly, no probably very "reasonable" sounding, and you can make the story fit reality if you cherry pick what you want to see. But you ignore anything that might falsify your belief. If you are blind to the truth, then you are merely attempting to rationalize your own personal vision of God. It is not a vision of God I can share with you. I am afraid this might make people that believe in God (as the Bible, New Testament, Koran depict him), broken a bit. Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, What if God has already performed all possible tasks? In that case, he would not be able to set himself a task he can't perform, but it does not mean he has not already accomplished it. It would mean he already did it. Regards, TAR2 (I knew what I meant when I wrote the above, but it has so many nots in it, you can take it wrong. Take it the way it makes sense to invalidate the paradox as a paradox. That is the way I meant it.)

Inow, I see your point. Belief in God(s) is not functionally the same as belief in each other. We have evidence of each other. I withdraw my objections. Regards, TAR2

Questionposter, My disagreement with Inow, is not a real disagreement. I have come to the same conclusions he has, on many things. My disagreements are on a subtle level, either a little above, or a little below the actual conversation. I overall think that Inow has it right. And I agree with his arguments. But somehow, for me, it is not good enough to find my own logic sound. I like to look for the reasons upon which my opponents base their logic. This is often stupid and dangerous because I have to undermine my own logic on some level, to find that little glimmer of evidence that might validate my opponent's claims. Probably not my job, to attempt to rationalize someone elses position. "Let others fend for themselves" should probably be my rule. If they can not back up their claims, then certainly there is no reason for me to try and back them up, for them. But we are after the truth. And the truth is not likely to change, based on individual claims of what it is. Perhaps Immortal's current take is the answer to the thread question, that I am looking for. Regards, TAR2

Inow, I am thinking that mass delusion is very evident. Knowing the causes is what does not nescessarily change the facts. And if knowing the causes is used to change the facts...well that borders on elitism and oppression. That one person would know, better than the rest of humanity, what is good for them. Maybe it is still a parent child relationship and the same chemicals are involved, and trying to rescue others from their delusions is delusional in itself. But I am shifting the goal posts, and I apologize. My point is merely that you can know why people root for teams, and objectively view the stadium as a bunch of people just rooting for their side, with neither side being objectively any different from the other...and still hope your team wins. Regards, TAR2 Are people that believe in the Olympic Spirit, delusional? Or was it a rather good idea to bind the warring cities of Greece together, to a "greater ideal"?

Inow, My differenciation comes from my attempt to "fold in" the thoughts of objective really "I" as a generic human had, prehistory, 4000 years ago in Southeast Asia, 2000-3000 years ago around the Mediteranean, and 800 years ago around Mecca, with the thoughts my contemporaries and I are having today. If there are chemical reasons for extending your "feeling of self" to include your children and pack, these reasons might also be involved in binding oneself to a nation or a religion. As an Atheist, I many years ago had come to the conclusion that the big bearded gentleman in the clouds, was an image that was no longer viable. But the "ties" to him were still apparent in society. So I more or less threw out the Anthropomorphic God as a possibility, but retained the "ties" as an absolute fact. We DO associate with a greater consciousness. One that existed before we were born, and will exist after we die. And we CARE about this enity as if it was ourselves. Who cares if chemicals are doing the job. We already know that. We are made of atoms and molecules in a certain arrangement. I differenciate between invisible Rabbits and God, because God is a delusion we have agreed upon, that we have built, and it need not have an actual body, or measurable presence to a piece of scientific equipment, inorder to activate the "kinship" chemicals. If Mohammed saw the God of Moses (within the chemical brain) and described his images to bind together warring "idol worshipping" tribes in his area, into a cohesive whole that reaches around the globe, and includes literally billions of fellow humans, there must be something real happening there, a little more powerful than the Image of an Easter Bunny. And as neither a parent or a child would doubt the love of the other, based on the fact that "it is just chemicals talking", neither should you or I doubt the reality of the "feelings for humanity" that we may hold. Countless Gods may be lying in the graveyards, but new ones spring up, and old ones are given facelifts. We are still human, still have the same chemicals in our brains, and still exist of and in the same reality. It may be just as "objective" and rational, to consider our glass half full and construe our history of religion as a constantly improving relationship with each other and the greater reality, as it is to imagine we know what a full glass would be, automatically, and figure anybody holding a half glass is defective. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, But there is "ways we all have" of drawing ourselves "back to reality", by aligning our personal experiences and knowledge with "something" or somebody, outside of ourselves. If the people who you turn to, for this confirmation are delusional, you are likely to aquire a bit of the delusion yourself. Then you have to look for a way to turn to something that can not be delusional, to give you basis to identify the delusional parts and the "real" parts, in an "objective" way. Science is a good thing to turn to. It uses as its basis of comparasion, the actual objective reality that exists, stripped of as many delusional characteristics as is humanly possible. It exists, regardless of our knowledge of it, or our attidude toward it, or the false characteristics, we may assign to it. We can always turn to it to find the actual truth, and what must be "not delusion". So what is it that a person on a mountaintop or in a cave, or high on mushrooms, or in a Zen zone, is turning to, for confirmation of what is "not delusion"? And if they should find something there, and report it to others, and the others soak it up like honey and experience it themselves, and add it to that portion of their understanding that is in the "objective reality" bucket, it is difficult to say that the whole of it is bunk, and that the some of it may not be OK to consider "not delusional". But once their description becomes more real to them, than the actual thing described, it loses any value, to anybody else looking for confirmation of objective reality. So "belief in God" the Abrahamic one in particular, has a lot of human, delusional baggage attached to it. Figurative things taken as having to be literal facts about objective reality. Disbelief in this God, as I have, is aimed at only the delusional attributes assigned to objective reality by the religion. I retain the right to believe in objective reality itself, without the permission of the priests and messengers. And to discount the judgements made by the priests on the behalf of objective reality, as indeed only the judgements of the priests. I will let objective reality tell me the truth. But I will have to accept some people's word on it, as long as it fits with my understanding. "In conclusion" I would say that people that believe in God are not broken, but people that believe in delusional gods, are not much help, and can be quite a hindrance if they insist I cooperate with their delusion when I know it to be false. Regards, TAR2

Inow, I remember a night, when I was around 13-15 years old, where I "reasoned" to God. That is, I looked very closely and deeply at everything I knew, everything I had been taught, everything I felt, everything that was evident, and everything that made "sense'. I could not be all that there was, because there was my sister and mother and father, and there were other families and so so many other people, and they could not be all there was because they were all on Earth and Earth was not the only planet, and the solar system not the only solar system, and the Galaxy not the only Galaxy. Perhaps even the universe was not the only universe, but just one universe in a greater Cosmos. And I thought "the other way", my body composed of cells and they of atoms, so small I couldn't see them even with a microscope. There could be a tiny person whose whole universe was contained in a small particle in my room. To that tiny person I would be immense beyond his imagination. And I myself, for all I knew, could be in a universe that itself was a particle in an immense boy's room. All a bit too much to handle, too big, too small, too numerous, too fast, too old, but so real. There must be some one, who could concieve of the whole thing at once, and I was just a peice of that God who knew everything, from beginning to end, from the tiniest to the biggest. So I talked with this God and understood him, and understood me, as a part of him, that was not supposed to know everything. I was supposed to see things from just the perspective I had, as a boy, on Earth. And here I sit, in much the same situation as I was in then, a half century ago, but now I consider myself an Atheist, and I notice the made up, untruths that many attribute to the Gods of their religions, but I do not see any broken logic on the part of my 13 year old self, that night. So I cannot agree that people who believe in God are broken. I don't think I was broken then. And I don't think I am broken now. Regards, TAR2

Off topic? How exactly do you discuss a concept without expressing your ideas about it, and your arguments for and against the arguments others raise?

Zapatos, Interesting as well, is the fact that the Piraha also have no concept of numbers greater than 3. Just concepts of many and such. I have run into them several times where they are mentioned in linguistic studies, in the context of discussions of "Universal Grammar". That is, what concepts are we born with, that can be found universally in all humans, in one form or another, and what concepts are "synthesized". Kant had a lot to say on the matter (even though "Universal Grammar" was not specifically the topic he was discussing.) I don't know why the Mod split this off of Inow's thread. Nature-nurture is almost central to the broken-not broken consideration. You can not believe in imaginary Gods. But then you have to "see them on the beach". Regards, TAR2

DrDNA, I voiced my "collective consciousness" delusion for a number of important reasons, in reference to this thread. Number one, I theorize that much of our "progress" as a race has to do with our strong desire to be "right" in the eyes of a "higher" authority. Call it your dad, or your mom, or your boss, or your mate, or your work buddies, or your president, or your priest, or your teacher, or the leaders of your political party, or science club, or in your case, God, it still may very well have some of the same roots in terms of how we are put together. How else would a "society" progress, and work together, if each individual did not hold some sort of "idea" of the group as a single entity? Sure it is delusional to think I know what is in the mind of other people, or thousands of other people, or a million, or a billion. And chances are, I am WAY off base in the mindset I attribute to others...but, in some ways, it is absolutely true. There is an "identity" thing, that is not limited to your own personal model of the world, but includes the models of the world that are reported to you, by people you trust. Your wife comes home and says the Motel on Rt. 23 near the breakfast place got torn down, you immediately adjust your model of the world accordingly. As a result, there are many real things that exist in both your model of the world and your wife's, concurrently, and giving some credit of consciousness to other people, it is not complete delusion to include yourself in a collective, that has amassed the findings of everybody into a collectively held model of the world. We do tend to share stuff with those around us. Rules, laws, common experience of the weather, the economy, news stories from around the world...especially with the internet, and Wiki, and the science forum, and facebook and twitter, added to the historically "one sided" media, that had just tellers and listeners. My admonishment of your particular delusion, of "still" maintaining a 2000 year old model of collective consciouness, and my admission to holding an albeit delusional, but at least updated version of the same human/world/universe condition, was meant to both prove that God exists, and that we still believe in it. Both in our private delusions, and in our collective embrace of it. Be it an Atheist or a born again Christian that is doing the embracing. Just to notice, that when looked at, with my particular skew, scientists are actually MORE likely to "please" God by just listening to his words, than religous people are likely to please him by putting 2000 year old words in his mouth. Regards, TAR2 Question poster, Can we, for the discussion, specify that we are talking about not killing other people, when we are talking about knowing it is wrong to kill? (if one is not broken) Just worried that otherwise, we may all have to sin continually just to eat. It is hard to eat something without killing it. Or at least making it suffer some. (Reminds of the three legged pig joke. After describing the amazing traits of the pig (like the time the pig dragged the unconscious owner from a burning building and such), and asked by the listener for the story of how the pig lost its leg, the owner replies "a pig like that, you don't eat all at one time.") Regards, TAR2

doG, No, you are right. It is good to throw out the defective stuff. But its also good to hold on to the good stuff, even if it is based on nothing more than mutual agreement. I say this, because I do not believe I can be any more or any less than human, and I gladly identify with Inow, and you, and Moontanman, and Phi For All, and Question Poster and all the others on this thread that "believe" in the reliable nature of the universe, and the "trust" we have in each other to be the best witnesses to turn to to determine the "truth" about it. Just like to stay consistent, as Inow might demand, and call a human a human. And where I see a "limitation" that I have as a human, I assume that "human" thing might well limit others in a similar manner. I therefore, when I see someone expressing a thought that I recognize as "supernatural" in nature, I doubt that it is "really" possible for the person to know this thing, and figure they must be talking from that "god" perspective that we all believe we can take. Regards, TAR2 DrDNA, You are getting a bit "know-it-all"ish. Based on your own private understanding, of a book written by men, and edited by the "council of Trent". You are not allowed to claim the "God" perspective and expect it to mean anything to anybody here, that has already moved onto a "higher" level of collective consciousness than that. Everybody here, already knows these stories you talk about, and are more interested in learning more about the "real" creator, than a two thousand year old document can offer. At least that is my take. Regards, TAR2 and the Bible is pretty boring reading for a non-believer. I tried to read it, after I read the Koran twice, following Sept.11th, when I was trying to understand how such evil had come from a "religion of peace", but it was too boring, I couldn't read it through. The first half of the Koran is at least interesting. I think Mohammed dictated that part. He was a good writer. And a persuasive thinker. The second half is mostly repitition and strikes me as a different style. I think the scribes wrote most of that themselves. Or Mohammed was suffering from writer's block.

DrDNA, I don't have the reach to answer that, for sure. Just stuff I made up for myself. I would imagine that whatever situation is required to cause a universe, was what existed before the Big Bang. My guess is that it was the last moments of the prior universe. One we can never experience because it no longer exists, and we could only possibly know of it, by any signiture or messages it may have left to this universe. In anycase, its WAY too long ago, and WAY to Huge to have much bearing on me at the present here and now. This is the one that matters most to me. What the universe is doing here. What the universe is doing now. Regards, TAR2

Questionposter, I suppose that might be a very good discription of God for me at least. "That which we make up about the nature of the Cosmos, before we actually have the facts, or if we can't reach the facts, and have to imagine them having to exist anyway, THAT which we imagine in that case." Regards, TAR2

doG, Seems like a really bad idea to start in on hand me down beliefs, like they are defective. If enough people believe in the same ideal you might just not consider it a belief, but consider it a real thing. Take scientific method, only codified several hundred years ago. Yet its a belief so strong in you that you will measure people by the exent to which they also believe in it, and by how close to perfectly a fellow adherent follows it. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, Funny you should use this line of argument. I had used this line of argument, on another thread, don't remember which, back in Oct. 2011. He had disbelieved in God and asked God to show him a sign and a meteor flashed across the small patch of sky he was looking at, he thought "yeah, really, do that again" and another shooting star passed in the same patch. He was convinced. I was not, and explained to him coincidence, and suggested he ask God to do something really odd, tell us about the request and then if it happened in the exact odd manner he asked, we might start going along with the idea. I was thinking about that exchange I had with the poster , as I was working in my driveway several days later. Laughing at his foolishness...'till I realized I was removing 14" of snow from my New Jersey driveway in October, with green and changing leaves still on the trees. I laughed, looked up at the sky and said "huh, funny Guy, funny". We had a really unnaturally mild winter with just a couple of wintery patches. I am expecting the funny Guy will bookend the deal, and deliver a snow storm any day now that the leaves are out again. Regards, TAR2