God is in your mind?

Howard the Duck · 03-10-2012, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

I think both people both from the science and religious communities would admit that there are things in this universe we don't have a understanding nor have knowledge of yet. The divide isn't that what we know in this (physical) universe, what we can plainly see and learn about - the divide is about the spiritual. The argument (debate or dialogue whatever you want to call) about God existence is square one and we (both atheist and theist) can't even get passed square one. I can agree 99.99...% of what science has to offer and even how the universe was created but that one little statement that what most won't say - God created the universe - forget about it, it's just an never ending argument. There is no real dialogue. If there was an intelligent religious person here to balance the argument why would he bother?

i would say i'm a reasonably intelligent religious person but it's mostly like a snake eating itself if i try to even out both sides - a snake that doesn't run out of its own body

blastingas10 · 03-10-2012, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

I think both people both from the science and religious communities would admit that there are things in this universe we don't have a understanding nor have knowledge of yet. The divide isn't that what we know in this (physical) universe, what we can plainly see and learn about - the divide is about the spiritual. The argument (debate or dialogue whatever you want to call) about God existence is square one and we (both atheist and theist) can't even get passed square one. I can agree 99.99...% of what science has to offer and even how the universe was created but that one little statement that what most won't say - God created the universe - forget about it, it's just an never ending argument. There is no real dialogue. If there was an intelligent religious person here to balance the argument why would he bother?

I'm very open to the impossibility of god, though, and there's just not enough evidence to prove to me that there isn't such a thing. Our understanding of the universe is always evolving, Im not sure if well ever understand everything; Chances are we probably won't. I'm mostly agnostic, I think it requires a leap of faith on both ends of the spectrum, whether you believe in god or not.

I agree that saying "god is in your mind" isn't a dismissal of validity of god. I think it's very probable that this is the case. And maybe when we die, there is a hallucination of an after-life. It doesn't make it any less real, to me.

Salami · 03-10-2012, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

It doesn't make it any less real, to me.

How then would you want to define reality?
Is touch, taste, hearing and seeing enough for an experience to be considered "real"?

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 03-06-2012, 05:51 PM

I don't think anybody claimed that. In fact, science is a way to look for such answers, it doesn't claim to have them all.

I am religious, by the way.

blastingas10 · 03-06-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conan

I don't think anybody claimed that. In fact, science is a way to look for such answers, it doesn't claim to have them all.

I am religious, by the way.

I'm not saying that anyone claimed it, just asking. It can seem that people have that mentality sometimes.

MoonlitSunshine · 03-06-2012, 06:36 PM

You opened your post with a line about "you know-it-alls". it's hardly surprising that there was a reaction. :P

blastingas10 · 03-06-2012, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonlitSunshine

You opened your post with a line about "you know-it-alls". it's hardly surprising that there was a reaction. :P

I didn't mean it in a derogatory manner, I apologize if anyone took it that way.

blankety blank · 03-10-2012, 07:11 AM

Tore wrote:

Quote:

If you want to ask me a question and want a good reply, imagine that I have no imagination whatsoever and so if you don't formulate your question well, I will not be able to imagine what it is you are asking.

Quote:

Perhaps you misunderstood? I meant that people should not be concerned about human evolution. I thought people were generally aware of the fascist ideals such thinking can lead to. If you are concerned with human evolution, that means you are concerned with who gets to add to humanity's collective gene pool. Do you really feel only certain people should be allowed to have children so that we can breed a race of übermensch?

Just quickly here. i am putting together a reply that will be concise, and, hopefully for someone, you might see it clearly. But, you must have an imagination, because, you imagined that i actually support selective breeding. No, i have no idea where you might have imagined that.

i am actually a firm believer in something greater than us. i denied myself completely, and, picked up my own cross, and carried it for the cause. So, i have no idea where you imagined that. sorry if you got that impression.

i am going to post a song for all of you atheists

. It's a good song from a dude from the U.K. named Frank Turner. I think he is still number one on my last.fm page. It's for you, and, enjoy it and clap along. You'll like it.

There's the anthem. No need to reply, i am going to pick your brain. i want to be clear and concise. it will take a bit. enjoy. übermensch?

SATCHMO · 03-07-2012, 01:03 AM

But Tore, Can't it be said that we are at a point in human history where because of the accelerated rate of technological innovation and how connected we are to each other and sources of knowledge that the process of adaptation is pushing the course of our evolution (in the non-biological sense) at a rate faster than natural selection (or biological evolution) can?

*Forgive me if that made almost no sense. I know what I'm trying to say, but just having a hard time articulating it.

Guybrush · 03-07-2012, 01:21 AM

I'm sorry, Satch. I didn't quite get your point. What do you mean by adaptation vs. natural selection?

Our environment is changing very fast because of technological achievement so that affects human evolution to some degree. Perhaps the invention of the computer has made it a tiny bit better to be smart and a little less important to be socially intelligent. Who knows? The driving force behind human evolution is still essentially who gets laid and who don't. Any preference doesn't have to be big. If there are two versions of a specific gene and having one version makes you 1% more likely to be chosen as a sexual partner, over the course of a million years, that 1% can make a huge difference in the human gene pool. Of course, sometime during that million years, environment could also change so that it favours the other version of the gene.

In the end, evolution generally operates on a large timescale and it's not something people should concern themselves with. To care about that sort of thing instead of just letting it unfold naturally leads to eugenics and thoughts of human breeding and so on.

03-06-2012, 06:36 PM	#6 (permalink)
MoonlitSunshine Dat's Der Bunny! Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ireland Posts: 1,097	You opened your post with a line about "you know-it-alls". it's hardly surprising that there was a reaction. :P __________________ "I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?" - Arthur Dent

03-07-2012, 01:21 AM	#10 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	I'm sorry, Satch. I didn't quite get your point. What do you mean by adaptation vs. natural selection? Our environment is changing very fast because of technological achievement so that affects human evolution to some degree. Perhaps the invention of the computer has made it a tiny bit better to be smart and a little less important to be socially intelligent. Who knows? The driving force behind human evolution is still essentially who gets laid and who don't. Any preference doesn't have to be big. If there are two versions of a specific gene and having one version makes you 1% more likely to be chosen as a sexual partner, over the course of a million years, that 1% can make a huge difference in the human gene pool. Of course, sometime during that million years, environment could also change so that it favours the other version of the gene. In the end, evolution generally operates on a large timescale and it's not something people should concern themselves with. To care about that sort of thing instead of just letting it unfold naturally leads to eugenics and thoughts of human breeding and so on. __________________ Something Completely Different

03-06-2012, 05:51 PM	#4 (permalink)
~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,538	I don't think anybody claimed that. In fact, science is a way to look for such answers, it doesn't claim to have them all. I am religious, by the way.

03-07-2012, 01:03 AM	#9 (permalink)
SATCHMO Al Dente Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 4,847	But Tore, Can't it be said that we are at a point in human history where because of the accelerated rate of technological innovation and how connected we are to each other and sources of knowledge that the process of adaptation is pushing the course of our evolution (in the non-biological sense) at a rate faster than natural selection (or biological evolution) can? *Forgive me if that made almost no sense. I know what I'm trying to say, but just having a hard time articulating it.