John Cuthber

"Please go through the below logically explained content patiently before coming to any conclusions." No, I won't "The creation is done by the BRAMHA (PARABRAMHA). The creation is the MAYA and the ATMAs bound together. The creation was planned completely before it was started." If you are going to use obscure terms you need to explain them. It's your job as a writer to make things clear. "Many things are not explainable by the conventional scientific logic " You need to cite examples of that. " scientific logic which does not accept many truths like miracles, omens," If you have actual evidence of such things please say what it is (Please note old books, hearsay and arguments by authority are not evidence). "conventional scientific logic ... tries to answer every question with not a very open view." Science is perfectly open to evidence. Please provide some for us to consider. In the mean time, please refrain from insulting something which you don't seem to understand. "Yet, there are only partially convincing scientific models with still many puzzles unsolved. " We are working on it. " At most, a conventional researcher on an electron can say that an electron is made up of quarks or strings or go to a bit more detail. Why exactly does a string behave as it does and what is it made from? " It's true that the explanations are not perfect. However the theological explanation "Goddidit" is even worse. It leaves you having to explain the existence of God. You will have to do much much better than this if you expect me (and many like me) to read your post, never mind believe it.

The problem is that, in the first case, you forgot to use a superconducting magnet. Using an electromagnet to produce a magnetic field is absurdly inefficient. Maintaining a magnetic field doesn't, in principle, require any power. If you choose to expend power doing so then that's your choice.

It might help, but really you need to re-distil the stuff.

You haven't yet ruled out "because it wasn't ripe yet" as an answer and, before you go speculating about ethylene antagonists, you really need to rule out the obvious answer. If you hear hoof-beats it's more sensible to expect to see horses than unicorns.

OK, science4ever introduced it as a question "Can one decied to believe in something one know is not true?" But it was Iggy who said that everyone could and sought to defend that point of view - including the bit about deliberate choice because that's the bit I questioned. And eventually he said that he didn't think it matters. then,he changed his mind. "Like I just said, I don't care if it is deliberate or not. " in post 1464 yet in post 1468: "I'm trying to say that people can, and do, *decide* (free will and all) to believe that which they know is not true. " There really is a difference. It's a decision, or it isn't. and if it's deliberate, I'd like to know how. How could someone exercise their free will and believe that I'm a butterfly?

This http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/pa-faith-healing-dad-loses-bid-end-murder-19894604 is the sort of broken that arises from belief in God and this " We don't need to constantly face every aspect of reality, and if we did we'd probably go mad ("broken"). " in my opinion " is a false generalization." because believing that the sky fairy will make it better isn't going to improve things nearly as well as actually doing something about it. It reminds me of this http://weknowmemes.com/2013/05/ricky-gervais-only-sent-money/

Iggy, If you don't think the act of choosing is important, then you shouldn't have introduced it. "deciding to believe in something one knows is not true" isn't a sign of mental illness. It is a sign of humanity. " That bit about deciding is 1) what you said and 2) most of what we have been arguing about. I have cited it many times. If you didn't mean it, why did you keep defending it?

It seems that the OP accepts that this thread is redundant. Perhaps it should be merged with the existing one about this subject. Also, Crispy, Nobody said anything about evidence for God. My point was that you hadn't produced any evidence for the assertion that people who believe in God are not broken. Asserting that you believe that you are sane isn't reliable evidence that you are.

So, no actual evidence, just a redundant thread.

"Well, it may be uncommon, but that doesn't make it any less normal." Sure about that? nor·mal [nawr-muhl] Show IPA adjective 1.conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. But it's beside the point. In any event, it seems that many people don't face circumstances where they need to do so. I have had the good fortune not to do so, though Iggy said I was doing. And yet it's asserted to be a sign of humanity even though most of humanity doesn't seem to be called on to do it and there's considerable doubt that all of us could anyway. And, since he also said "Do you need a few billion affidavits?" I think it's fair to assume he considers it (at least almost) universal.

"And the anecdotal statement that 'there are no atheists in foxholes' was probably based on some kernel of truth." http://militaryatheists.org/atheists-in-foxholes/ "I seem to remember a previous thread talking about the number of theists in prison. I'm curious how many 'found god' after they went to prison." I'm curious about how many of them are lying. "Well I can only speculate, but let's look at someone who finds himself in a dire predicament such as being on death row, dealing with the death of a child, in abject poverty, or maybe with some god awful disability or disease..." OK, perhaps, but of course, most people don't find themselves in such a predicament so it's hard to use that to support the idea that it's a normal part of the human condition. In particular, Iggy said "Believing things when one knows otherwise is a sign of humanity. You are doing it right now." and "deciding to believe in something one knows is not true" isn't a sign of mental illness. It is a sign of humanity. " And, anyway, I'm pretty sure I'd be with the atheists in the foxhole, though there's an interesting counterpoint to that. All the people in foxholes are atheists- otherwise they would be trusting their God to make sure the bullets missed them.

OK, how would I go about "choosing" to believe in a God who I know doesn't exist?

I don't think that people who fool themselves are doing it deliberately. I don't think you can choose to believe something which you know to be false and, for what it's worth, nobody has been able to tell me how they would do so. in particular, nobody could tell me how that would choose to believe I am a butterfly. Until you can tell me that you can't say that self deception is a deliberate act. Doing it unconsciously is as common as muck, but that's not the point. The issue is one of choice.

It's fundamental to the point of the thread. If you are right then religious belief is not broken- just part of normal human behaviour. The problem is that you stated it but were unable (at least so far) to show that it was true. Are you saying we should move on because you realise you were wrong?

So, that's it? A point blank refusal to discuss the points I raised. I'm inclined to consider that an admission that I'm right. At best it's "proof by loud assertion". Also it's not as if atheism has much to do with morality- any more than theism does- so your logic seems faulty too.

Will you stop writing hogwash like this please? "So you agree that morality is nothing more than applied neurochemistry to social situations. Good to know! You don't think it exists, either. You simply don't see that yet." Neurochemistry does exist. Its application to social situations does exist. And, if that's how you choose to consider morality then morality exists. As for "Now, can you explain how you got from "morality can be shown to be an outcome of intelligent social interaction between animals" to "To suggest that morals are something that can exist without social creatures manifesting it shows an absolutely abysmal grasp on philosophy. " I see nothing mutually exclusive about these statements." I think you might need to review reading 101 and logic 101 You said that I suggested morals exist without people I actually said morals can not exist without people (to play the games) You say there's no contradiction there. Well the obvious problem is that only one of them is true. "Humans decided (mos..." Why? How , if slavery was right (as you have repeatedly asserted), did they decide that it was wrong? When did reality change? Was it with the first person to say "slavery is wrong"? At that point, he was a weirdo; a minority of one. In the viewpoint of society he was wrong to say what he did. Why did any people accept what he said? Did a whole bunch of people experience some mass awakening to the fact that slavery was wrong all at the same time?

Let's just clarify something here " Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. " OK, I guess that's true, but unicorns are not invalidated by the known laws of physics. It doesn't make them real. And this bit "No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter." is still plainly wrong. Stop repeating it- it shows you up as a liar. There are refutations- notably those cited in the wiki article quoted in post # 8 of this thread. I have slightly more credibility than Tipler's work if I assert that I have the biggest willy of all humans on the planet. Let's see you find a refutation of that-. "within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter."

This is post 769 and you need to time travel more carefully.

Only one of these quotes can be true, and I know which one my money is on. Choose (A) "No refutation of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter." or (B) "Researcher Anders Sandberg pointed out that he believes the Omega Point Theory has many flaws, including missing proofs.[17] Tipler's Omega Point theories have received criticism by physicists and skeptics.[18][19][20]George Ellis, writing in the journal Nature, described Tipler's book on the Omega Point as "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline",[3] and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating what he thought to be flaws in Tipler's thesis.[21] Physicist Sean M. Carroll thought Tipler's early work was constructive but that now he has become a "crackpot".[22] In a review of Tippler's The Physics of Christianity, Lawrence Krauss described the book as the most "extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments put into print by an intelligent professional scientist".[23]" For those who can't make up their minds, you might want to check out the references . For example, per Martin Gardner's review of Tipler's book here http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_strange_case_of_frank_jennings_tipler "Chapter seven reveals for the first time the dark secret of the Virgin Birth. It was a rare case of parthenogenesis! This is the technical term for births that lack male fertilization of a female egg. The phenomenon is fairly common among certain vertebrates such as snakes, lizards, and turkeys; Tipler sees no reason why it can’t occur in humans, and he suspects it actually does occur. He is convinced this happened with Mary. Moreover, he thinks Mary’s parthenogenesis could be confirmed by careful analysis of Jesus’s blood on the Shroud of Turin!" Now, what sort of peer review does it take to point out that the Shroud isn't old enough to be Jesus' shroud (ignoring the question of His existence for the moment)? There may not be a "peer reviewed" critique of Tippler's work. But why the hell would you need peer review of obvious bollocks like that?

If you can show that, then you can use the prize money from the Randi foundation to test your theory.

Isn't the answer to "Why do scientist ponder over Strong Nuclear Forces?" because the people who wonder about things like the strong nuclear force are called scientists.

Can I argue about time travel? More seriously, can I argue that someone who claims that he responded to something before it happened is "broken" anyway? If you need to use that sort of tomfoolery to make a point, then the point isn't valid. Yet he clearly thinks his invalid point is true. Is that broken? And I'd still like him to answer the point I made earlier about his assertion that humans can, by an act of will, choose to believe something which they know to be false. How do you do that Iggy?

Damn! it looks like I will still be stuck with the churchgoers after I die.

Way to miss the point there! OK, without apples, apple trees wouldn't exist so apple trees are not real. "Does a star have morals?" No, but then nobody said it did so it's not clear why you introduced it. Stars don't have religion so, according to your "logic" religion doesn't exist. So, re "To suggest that morals are something that can exist without social creatures manifesting it shows an absolutely abysmal grasp on philosophy. " The fact that I never said that they could suggests that you have "an absolutely abysmal grasp on" what you are talking about. I actually explained where the science of morality comes from- repeated prisoners' dilemma problems and such. That fairly clearly implies the existence of players who would, also clearly, be social animals. Now, can you explain how you got from "morality can be shown to be an outcome of intelligent social interaction between animals" to "To suggest that morals are something that can exist without social creatures manifesting it shows an absolutely abysmal grasp on philosophy. " Did you just forget to think or what? And, once again, we have a display of the increased cognitive load carried by someone who is trying to maintain the "double think" of religion and science. To do so you have said that slavery was a good thing (you might want to ask a slave about that) That right and wrong depend on when you asked the question (if slavery was "right" 2000 years ago, how did it become wrong? What changed and how?) And you have also turned what I said completely on its head while bizarrely introducing the morality of stars. That's quite a lot of cognitive effort there.

So, gravity, which wouldn't exist without mass, isn't real. The thing is that morals do exist- not just in humans. And I'm amused by "f you think this in any way proves morals are separate, ontic entities, you're insane. " said the person who worships his invisible friend. Whether it's "ontic" or not depends on the exact definition you chose for that word, so introducing it doesn't help a lot. Nobody, for example, has said you can go to the market and buy a bucket of morals.