Is there a GOD?

[2020hindsight]

a few quick comments (scattered thoughts)
1. heard a great radio program a few nights back on ABC or perhaps it was BBC, hence my difficuilty in finding it to quote accurately) - anyway, three kiwi atheists/ agnostics ( they had their own definitions of their respective stances) . They were really well read, and had researched the mattr far far more than most christians / believers. Incidentally they were totally tolerant of everyon'e right to believe what they wished.
2. I think they even introduced terms like "dis-interest-ism" which pretty much covers where my kids fit in all this . These three were anything but disinterested, and put forward atheist as a definite religion.
3. They went on to point out that this does NOT mean that you don't believe in "anything" . (I'll see if I can find it).
4. One pointed out that the "leap of faith" required has nothing to do with rationality, - forget the exact words, but something like it had more in common with self-hypnosis.

5.But changing the subject a bit - and this one I feel strongly about. Whether or not there is a God, he is at least a constructive influence, and helpful i ntimes of distress, or needing courage, or singlemindedness ( more difficult to brainwash etc), but THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE DEVIL.
6. Sometimes people argue that you need relativity on the question of a god (and good), then there must be an anti-god (or an anti-good), otherwise how do we know what is good. I find that a very dangerous place to go.
7. Movies like "the Exercist" are just plain disturbing, and unnecessary. impresionable kids are left afraid of the dark, or any pairs of dimly glowing lights, because there's a chance it's the Devil. etc. I mean the movie starts with two dogs fighting in some desert scene - as if everything is this violent nasty fight between God and an almost tangible Devil.
8. Impressionable civilisations/ countries, (and here I agree with the post back there that poorer countries sometimes get this God thing a little too literal), often have a high percentage of people needing exorcists for instance. Haiti, voodoo, unhealthy susperstitious nonsense. And the church has told these impressionable people all about this potential for "heads spinning" until their heads spin as it were.
9. Even in the Philippines for goodness sake.
10. Even I read on Wikipedia, as she was almost on her deathbed, Mother Theresa was subjected to an exorcism. To be fair, my guess is that there are degress of exorcism, and this could have been nothing more that a prayer for her getting better - I'd like to think so, because I respect her (as I I'm entitled to even judge her - her work with the poor of india, sheesh) (but I have MAJOR trouble with respecting anyone who believes in exorcisms) . I find this Devil stuff wierd and totally unhelpful to everyone's mental health.

Deteriorating health and death http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa
Mother Teresa suffered a heart attack in Rome during 1983, while visiting Pope John Paul II. After a second attack in 1989, she received a pacemaker. In 1991, after a battle with pneumonia while in Mexico, she suffered further heart problems. She offered to resign her position as head of the Missionaries of Charity. However, the nuns of the order, in a secret ballot, voted for her to stay. Mother Teresa agreed to continue her work as head of the order.

In April 1996, Mother Teresa fell and broke her collar bone. In August of that year she suffered from malaria and failure of the left heart ventricle. She underwent heart surgery, but it was clear that her health was declining. On March 13, 1997, she stepped down from the head of Missionaries of Charity and died on September 5, 1997, nine days after her 87th birthday.

The Archbishop of Calcutta, Henry Sebastian D'Souza, said he ordered a priest to perform an exorcism on Mother Teresa with her permission when she was first hospitalized with cardiac problems because he thought she may be under attack by the devil.[38]

At the time of her death, Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity had over 4,000 sisters, an associated brotherhood of 300 members, and over 100,000 lay volunteers, operating 610 missions in 123 countries. These included hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis, soup kitchens, children's and family counseling programs, orphanages, and schools.

11. Just a trivial anecdote. when we were young, you had to go our into the dark to go to a toilet down the back yard. - my sister , then about 4 or 5, and religious at the time was frightened to go there, always claiming "there might be a ghost!" . And my brother teased her to the point where she was quite paranoid. My mother had had enough. So my mother thought she'd sort it out with a firm statement "oh don't be so stupid and superstitious, there are no such things as ghosts!!"

to which my sister replied " Yeah? well what about the Holy Ghost !"
(kid 1, parent nil, lol)

 

[wayneL]

I see mention of spirit.
Mentioned in every religion.

Yet there has never EVER been proof that spirit of anything actually exists.
Spirit is again a manifestation of man to explain purpose of existance.

The thought that we actually die with no further life in ANY form other than those years we had in human form is impossible for most to handle.
That we came about as a quirk of nature and leave just the same rather than a part of a devine plan.

I've not been able to find a shred of evidence other than "Faith" that indicates any different.

A quick google found this fwiw;

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/scientificproof/cfpf-scientific-proof.pdf

 

[$20shoes]

2020 loved your comments...especially about the schnapps!!

I reread my initial comments, and should have tried to articulate it better. However, I hope people see where I'm coming from.

I like the arguments presented by WayneL also - I was not familiar with this concept of "meme" and will look into it further.

Actually, the posts here have been amazingly creative and tolerant. A big clap for all of us!!

And also our concept of spirit/GOD changes with time. So, it is somewhat relative to the limited framework of our current belief system. For example, there was a time in Christianity, where the central belief, and supported by mystics, was of a more universal God, and we were a manifestation of God trying to love God within the context of free will.
I don't think at this time the concept of a punishing GOD or hell played a major part in christianity.

 

[constable]

A quick google found this fwiw;

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/scientificproof/cfpf-scientific-proof.pdf

That's somewhat eyeopening! printed it off in fact..

 

[tech/a]

Thanks Wayne.

Your obviously a closet Skeptic!

Ive sent the articles off to The Physist for his "learned scientific view".

 

[2020hindsight]

BBC on skepticism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/

and one to avoid ( albeit partially rooted in catholicism)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/

heaps more there http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/sea...ge&q=atheist&scope=all&Search.x=45&Search.y=5

example
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml
click the link and you can listen to this interview with Pete Dawkins

Richard Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science in Oxford, and as such he takes a high profile role in the exposition and elucidation of scientific ideas in our culture. He's eminently well placed to do so, being himself one of science's most innovative thinkers.

His first book, The Selfish Gene, made a huge impact back in 1976, with its message of the central role of genes in evolution. There followed a stream of more books, all with highly poetic titles - The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving The Rainbow, and most recently A Devil's Chaplain, each offering further development and commentary upon Darwin's concept of Natural Selection. There is one book whose title is not poetic - The Extended Phenotype - which Dawkins himself believes marks his biggest claim to scientific innovation.


Richard Dawkins
Not surprisingly, the many honours he's received include both a fellowship of the Royal Society, and a fellowship of the Royal Society of Literature. Not many people have both.

Richard Dawkins, you came from a family...that lived in Malawi, or what is now Malawi. Your father was in colonial administration, and when you came back to England, he became a farmer. This suggests a secure, middle class conventional background.
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up I think, yes.

And it felt comfortable?
Very comfortable. I was sent off to boarding school, which some people don't find comfortable. I was happy with it, and I had an idyllic time in the school holidays.

And was it there that you decided you wanted to be a scientist?
My decision to be a scientist was a bit of a drift really, more or less by default, etc etc
[both transcript and sound recording]

 

[Bullion]

Sorry but thats just stupid! and it sounds like many religious people I have met over the years, trying to twist words to create more confusion in order to win an argument about this very question
Please spare us of this type of rot!

Cheers

I'm not competing to win any arguments, nor did I say that's what I felt. It's just another option. The problem is that people don't question things enough. Or, people like yourself, ignore everything because it sounds stupid to you.

 

[constable]

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/books/crookes/researches/investigation.htm
One of Crookes experiments from the Quarterly journal of science 1871 - researches in the phenomena of modern spiritualism

 

[2020hindsight]

On a side note, did anyone ever think that the whole "creation" story with Adam and Eve might not be so literal and that it just represents something else?

Bullion, did you see Chasers handing out apples to the pollies etc (dressed as a serpent ) - is it all allegorical? maybe, but imo hard to see it as anything that will affect me Personally I love apples for a starters.

 

[tech/a]

Kris ("The Physist's reply") to Wayne's papers.
Which I sent over by email this morning.

Hi Dad,

I'll just comment on the `paper' as I read it...

The part of the title `SURVIVAL AFTER DEATH' makes me laugh; an oxymoron if ever I've seen one. Not really advancing the cause of circumventing skepticism...

Firstly, whoever wrote this has taken the typical paranormal stance and is defensive right off the bat. Also, typical of most crackpots, they are developing conspiracy theories from the beginning (suppression of free thought by the media etc.). Why must they need the media anyway. If it's a real phenomenon, then what does television and radio have to do with it? Strange...

What's up with the quote taken from: Michael Scott BSc. Graduate in Astrophysics, Edinburgh University. I mean, the guy graduated only with a BSc.
There are so many of these guys that there has to be at least one willing to spout baseless flawed `logic' like this. I HATE it when people don't give correct, albeit surprising, theories like quantum the respect they deserve. i.e.
they don't go to the effort to actually learn them.

Oh dear... I can see where this is going: `This is the reason why we are forced to work with a human medium in order to prove survival after death. No machine invented so far is as sophisticated as the human mind and brain.' Sure, the latter comment is true, but come on... I'm pretty sure the `medium' would be a willing participant. It's remarkable how even the presence of a skeptic can alter the results of these tests

OK... Now I'm laughing! This guy's a loon. Once again he proves how little he knows about physics (the logical study of fundamental reality). I can't believe I'm reading this: `Lodge said the people from the "next world" who are appearing at the experiments must possess bodies that are made of the same invisible matter as our radio and television signals. He called it an etheric substance.' OK... What he's referring to is the `Aether'. It was concocted during early work on electromagnetism as an explanation of HOW electromagnetic waves (like your radio and TV signals) propagate through apparently empty space.
However, essentially every physicist nowadays agrees that the Aether is an absurd concept (there are extremely good reasons for this). These arguments were settled over a century ago! But even if it DID exist, how the hell does one jump to the conclusion that `ethereal' being are made of the same stuff? The lack of logic abounds.

Also, as soon as he talk of the neutrino he somehow jumps to an explanation of ghosts walking through walls. Neutrinos are the most weakly interacting particles known to man; that is why they can pass through so much matter without interaction. They're also almost massless (hence travel VERY close to the speed of light). So how then can the humble neutrino manage to collude with its friends to create a slow moving visible spectre? Uuuugh...

OH DEAR LORD!!! Now I'm just getting mad!: `If only our contemporary physicists had shared Einstein's scepticism (sic) then we would not have wasted so much time and money trying to match up Niels Bohr's quantum mechanics with relativity.' WTF!?! OK, to begin with, Neils Bohr was certainly a big player in the construction of quantum theory, but he was only a part of it. Indeed, Einstein himself is often considered as one of the grandfathers of quantum theory, thanks to his work on the photoelectric effect (which incidentally won him the Nobel prize in physics, not relativity). EVEN SO, quantum theory and SPECIAL relativity HAVE been reconciled; they form what is known as `relativistic quantum mechanics' . This theory then leads on to the infinitely successful quantum electrodynamics (QED) which this moron actually references as a good point later on. And that's only the beginning. It's only GENERAL relativity that has so far proven irreconcilable with the quantum. This is the pursuit of a `quantum theory of gravity'. And it's no big secret, either!

I'm stopping the commentary now. This is an insult to work of thousands of good scientists. There really is no logic to the thinking and it's all borne from the usual conspiracy theorist perspective of crackpot fringe `thinkers'. Another dead give-away is the pick-and-choose technique they're employing, mostly from quotes of famous and respected scientists.

Also, while it's true that there are issues with the peer-review process, illogical ranting is certainly no substitute.

Reading on, the arguments just get more and more turgid and confused, jumping from fundamental physics to the supernatural to love and hatred to god knows what else.

Thanks for the email, nontheless I really enjoy discussing these kinds of things with people. It really makes you exercise your own rationale. Look forward to more questions discussions, etc.

Kris




> Getting into Dawkins book.
> He is definitely passionate.
>
> Here is some "Scientific Proof" of the Existance of something after
> death.
>
> Interested in your learned comments.
>
> DAD.
> The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
>
> cfpf-scientific-proof.pdf
>
>
> Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent
> sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your
> e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
>


@-----------------------------@
| |
| Kris |
| |
| Photonics Ph.D. Student |
|School of Chemistry & Physics|
| University of Adelaide |
| Adelaide SA 5005 |
| Australia |
| Tel: +61 (0)8 8303 5357 |
@-----------------------------@

 

[The Mint Man]

QUESTION
Anyone who is 100% sure there is a God care to explain how they are this way?---Other than Faith.

Well come on people answer the damn question! typical

 

[retroaugogo]

5.But changing the subject a bit - and this one I feel strongly about. Whether or not there is a God, he is at least a constructive influence, and helpful i ntimes of distress, or needing courage, or singlemindedness ( more difficult to brainwash etc), but THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE DEVIL.
6. Sometimes people argue that you need relativity on the question of a god (and good), then there must be an anti-god (or an anti-good), otherwise how do we know what is good. I find that a very dangerous place to go.
7. Movies like "the Exercist" are just plain disturbing, and unnecessary. impresionable kids are left afraid of the dark, or any pairs of dimly glowing lights, because there's a chance it's the Devil. etc. I mean the movie starts with two dogs fighting in some desert scene - as if everything is this violent nasty fight between God and an almost tangible Devil.
I find this Devil stuff wierd and totally unhelpful to everyone's mental health.

I bow to CS Lewis on this one.

I wonder you should ask me whether it is essential to keep the patient in ignorance of your own existence. That question, at least for the present phase of the struggle, has been answered for us by the High Command. Our policy, for the moment, is to conceal ourselves. Of course this has not always been so. We are really faced with a cruel dilemma. When the humans disbelieve in our existence we lose all the pleasing results of direct terrorism, and we make no magicians. On the other hand, when they believe in us, we cannot make them materialists and sceptics.

At least, not yet. I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect. a belief in us (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the enemy. The “Life Force,” the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis may here prove useful. If once we can produce our perfect work—the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls “Forces” while denying the existence of “spirits”—then the end of the war will be in sight. But in the meantime we must obey our orders. I do not think you will have much difficulty in keeping the patient in the dark. The fact that “devils” are predominantly comic figures in the modern imagination will help you. If any faint suspicion of your existence begins to arise in his mind, suggest to him a picture of something in red tights, and persuade him that since he cannot believe in that (it is an old textbook method of confusing them) he therefore cannot believe in you.

The Screwtape Letters -CS Lewis

 

[retroaugogo]

Well come on people answer the damn question! typical

As I said a few posts back experience.

How do you know your wife/husband/mother/father loves you?
Because they told you and showed you.

 

[tech/a]

Well come on people answer the damn question! typical

I think really the only answer here is one of "faith"
Due to lack of evidence to the existance of spirit faith is all that is left.
For most contemplating our existance to be as meaningless
as a single 70-80 yr period of consciousness in the endless
spiral of time,dilutes any reason for our existance down to
simply continuation of our species,just as it is with the evolution of ANY species.

As the most intelligent of known species we find this impossible to deal with and have done so for centuries---in spite of overwhelming evidence that this is the ONLY true evidence available.

 

[tech/a]

As I said a few posts back experience.

How do you know your wife/husband/mother/father loves you?
Because they told you and showed you.

Surely this isnt presented as an answer to the question?

 

[Rafa]

Well come on people answer the damn question! typical

you do realise, everyone is entitled to their own opinion...

and moreover, everyone is entitled to keep their own opinion regardless of logic or reason... and no one should be forced to provide justification one way or another.

for all the talk about religious people preaching, from what i can see, its you athiests who seem to be doing the most preaching!

i for one, am not going to write my personal experiences which have resulted in my faith being supremely strenthed simply becuase i cannot, on this forum,
a) provide verifiable proof of the accuracy of my statements
b) leave myself open to cheap shots from the many sceptics on this forum.
c) regardless of the above alter the opinion of a single person either way on this forum.

If you don't have an open mind, and are not willing to be open to other possibilities, simply WHAT IS THE POINT of an answering either way, besides providing you and the other sceptics a chance to belittle other peoples beliefs all so that you can boost your own ego and think, jezz, i am so smart, i won that debate!

but did you really?
i guess you won't find that out till your dead!

 

[constable]

I think really the only answer here is one of "faith"
Due to lack of evidence to the existance of spirit faith is all that is left.
For most contemplating our existance to be as meaningless
as a single 70-80 yr period of consciousness in the endless
spiral of time,dilutes any reason for our existance down to
simply continuation of our species,just as it is with the evolution of ANY species.

As the most intelligent of known species we find this impossible to deal with and have done so for centuries---in spite of overwhelming evidence that this is the ONLY true evidence available.

Tech forget religon and gods they just conveniently fill the gaps to what science is yet to uncover. But could there be several levels of existance without putting any religious spin on it?

 

[retroaugogo]

Surely this isnt presented as an answer to the question?

Oh I see.You must have theory.

Something presented in the form of a balance sheet maybe.

 

[tech/a]

you do realise, everyone is entitled to their own opinion...

Rafa I dont think anyone is denying you or anyone that opportunity.

and moreover, everyone is entitled to keep their own opinion regardless of logic or reason... and no one should be forced to provide justification one way or another.

No one is forcing anyone to do this. But it would be great if we had a few views from those who 100% know there is a God.
Frankly I personally would very much welcome a continued existance of consciousness in ANY form.

for all the talk about religious people preaching, from what i can see, its you athiests who seem to be doing the most preaching!

This is a label which un fortunately when veiws are presented people wish to pigeon hole others in. I havent voted in the poll.

i for one, am not going to write my personal experiences which have resulted in my faith being supremely strenthed simply becuase i cannot, on this forum,
a) provide verifiable proof of the accuracy of my statements
b) leave myself open to cheap shots from the many sceptics on this forum.
c) regardless of the above alter the opinion of a single person either way on this forum.

Your choice. My wife supposedly "sees " people I cant prove it but she has come up with some amazing stuff---dont know how. Ive seen my fair share of death as well and spoken with quite a few who have had NDE's,and while amazing in their own right not compelling in fact.

If you don't have an open mind, and are not willing to be open to other possibilities, simply WHAT IS THE POINT of an answering either way,

Where does an open mind and ignorance cross the line.When is evidence enough or to little?

besides providing you and the other sceptics a chance to belittle other peoples beliefs all so that you can boost your own ego and think, jezz, i am so smart, i won that debate!

Ive not seen anything here to suggest peoples beliefs are being be littled.
It is known that less educated cultures thrive on faith--they have little else.

i guess you won't find that out till your dead!

True just as those who sailed over the edge of the earth proved the arguements of the "Learned scientists of the time".
I hope in this case those same learned Scientists arent right!!

 

[tech/a]

Tech forget religon and gods they just conveniently fill the gaps to what science is yet to uncover. But could there be several levels of existance without putting any religious spin on it?

YES.

Youd be as suprised as I was with what science actually HAS proven.

For starters they have proven 12 dimensions I have a video on it from a few years ago. Yes these are the same 12 dimensions mentioned in some religous texts.