Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  > god .... its all in your head say scientists      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 badge73
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 1
view profile
History
god .... its all in your head say scientists Page 1 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
In the most recent study, Johnstone studied 20 people with traumatic brain injuries affecting the right parietal lobe, the area of the brain situated a few inches above the right ear.

He surveyed participants on characteristics of spirituality, such as how close they felt to a higher power and if they felt their lives were part of a divine plan.

He found that the participants with more significant injury to their right parietal lobe showed an increased feeling of closeness to a higher power.

'Neuropsychology researchers consistently have shown that impairment on the right side of the brain decreases one’s focus on the self,' said Johnstone.

'Since our research shows that people with this impairment are more spiritual, this suggests spiritual experiences are associated with a decreased focus on the self.

'This is is consistent with many religious texts that suggest people should concentrate on the well-being of others rather than on themselves.'

Johnstone says the right side of the brain is associated with self-orientation, whereas the left side is associated with how individuals relate to others.

Although Johnstone studied people with brain injury, previous studies of Buddhist meditators and Franciscan nuns with normal brain function have shown that people can learn to minimize the functioning of the right side of their brains to increase their spiritual connections during meditation and prayer.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133032/There-God-spot-new-research-claims-instead-spirituality-exists-brain.html#ixzz1sfsZk5YE

should this be evidence of all the waffle about religion being false and man made?

has those with mental health issues affected those who are religious followers, after all if i went to the doctors and said i hear voices claiming to be god etc i would most likely be sedated and observed in a home of some sorts. could those who feature in many religions have suffered from mental illness?
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 2
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/21/2012 5:47:27 AM

In the most recent study, Johnstone studied 20 people with traumatic brain injuries affecting the right parietal lobe, the area of the brain situated a few inches above the right ear.

He surveyed participants on characteristics of spirituality, such as how close they felt to a higher power and if they felt their lives were part of a divine plan.


Good work Badge!
The next time I'm tempted to punch a bishop, (No innuendo intended),
I shall aim my blow, to just above the LEFT ear, to try and balance him up a bit.
(I wouldn't want to make his condition worse)


should this be evidence of all the waffle about religion being false and man made?

Of course it's man-made, there are about 4000 different religions, world-wide. Each with their own "creation myths", rules, regulations, eating, dressing, and genital mutilation requirements.
You'd think that an "omnipresent" god (as they all claim) would have given everyone the same instructions, wouldn't you..?

I always give the JW's my time, (If I can), when they knock on my door, and consequently, they see me as a challenge, and keep coming back, with ever more leaflets, bearing smiling tigers. (Yes, they seem to believe that THEY go to "heaven" too! -It must be pretty crowded up there too, what with all the dinosaurs, and sh1t..?)

I like to keep asking them awkward questions, my aim is to convert at least one JW., to atheism.
I'll keep at it.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 3
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/21/2012 8:59:11 AM


Scientist are just people and people have ideas and opinions

and scientists are people who take their ideas and test them to the nth degree, then other scientists try to rip their findings to shreds to disprove the ideas... and if the ideas are still standing at the end of that process, then they are more than slightly better than opinions.

Not only that Fred, but it's scientists who have allowed us to communicate with each other, on this forum. It's scientists who have unraveled DNA, utilised electricity, and other power sources, cured disease, massively improved life expectancy, reduced infant mortality, improved crop yields, discovered our past history, (contrary to biblical myths), in fact almost every (improved) aspect of our lives, is the work of scientists "ideas and opinions", and religious people are perfectly happy to accept them.
But when those same scientists prove that religions are simply the mistaken superstitious beliefs of early humans, who had just made the transition from 'hunter-gatherers', to herding and agriculture, (and all of the "luck" involved in that,- in the absence of any scientific knowledge on how best to do that) they say it's "just an opinion" and "they can't prove it".

Churches have spent millions, on scientific studies to try and prove the efficacy of prayer.
So far, all they've proved, is that if people knowthat they are being prayed for, they tend to get worse!

Most priests, mullahs, rabbis etc, aren't just deluded, they are psychologically damaged.
You only have to ask yourself what type of person wants to become a priest.>?
It's really very sad. It's an institutionalised illness.
Churches are all corrupt, as the recent child-abuse scandal showed.
They take money under false pretences.
It's a legalised scam, which preys (NPI) on the elderly, the sick, and the vulnerable.

They should be made to adhere to the same "Trading Standards" practices as any other business.
If you can't substantiate your claims, you shouldn't be allowed to continue to advertise them as "true".
Humbug.
 badge73
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 4
view profile
History
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/21/2012 9:20:10 AM

Scientist are just people and people have ideas and opinions .


generally scientist dont burn, murder or lock people away for life for proving a theory wrong ....

how many people even in our own royal family have used the line of im chosen by god etc plus the amount of women who have been sacrificed or presented as a demon etc (though can agree to some of that .... )

and to think most of the power is due to having no evidence whats so ever .... all they have done is take advantage of the weak etc.
 gemini_lady_uk
Joined: 7/16/2008
Msg: 5
view profile
History
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/21/2012 9:39:23 AM
I always did think 'god' was just in people's heads. A lot of people want something to believe in. For some it's a god of some sort, for other's it's science and for others they just need to believe in themselves.

I remember an article once that claimed we were all gods. We carry our own temples (coincidence that our forehead is also called our temple?). We have power over our destiny, we are creators and destroyers of life. We have the power to forgive or to punish.

I don't condemn people that want to believe in their own gods, each to their own. If joining in gatherings gives them the strength and support to get through life then that's fair enough. Just so long as they don't try to convert me into believing in something that there is no evidence of actally existing.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 6
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/21/2012 11:24:43 AM
That is a statement of fact,not just my opinion .Yes I have vast amount of proof that I was created by God and that God is there for me and if I live according to God's will I will dwell forever in paradise .

According to the muslims, you will be going to hell too Dwight.
Each religion claims an entirely different version of "truth".

If you'd been born in India, you might be a Sikh, or a Hindu, or a Bhuddist.
If you'd been born in China, a Taoist.
There are about 4000 different religions, each claiming an exclusivity on "truth".
How can you be so sure that YOUR 'version' is more "correct" than all the others..?
What if you're wrong..?

The opening passage of the bible (Genesis) has been proved to be wrong (creation), isn't it likely that the rest is also wrong..?
Do you believe that a woman who has been raped, should be stoned to death, as it says in the bible..?
Do you believe that 'non-believers', or worshipers of "other gods" should be killed, as it says in the bible..?

You seem like a good guy Dwight (IMO), you would still be a good guy, without religion.
We all know what's 'right', and what's 'wrong', we really don't need the silly rituals, to 'prove' we're good.
Religion is a wonderful camouflage, for evil people, as all those priests proved.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 7
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/21/2012 1:10:04 PM

So to me it's not meant to be taken so literally that each "day" was 24 hours...to me it is the story of creation but was told in an ancient language that literally has lost a lot in the translation.

Why the judeo-christian creation myth..? Why not the Hindu, or Bhuddist one..?

There was nothing "lost in translation", they knew feck all about it.
Even if you take your "Day/generation" point, they were still completely wrong about the order.
The Earth didn't precede light.
The water didn't precede the land, or the "firmament" (stars)
It's bollux.

It's only in the last few years, that we've begun to understand it, with the advent of new technology.
before Galileo and Copernicus, it was accepted that the "firmament" revolved around the earth.

You have to remember that until 150 years ago, (Darwin), everyone thought all that sh1t was true.
200 years ago, we still had slaves.
50 years ago, we put single mothers in asylums, and still had apartheid colonies.
50 years ago, we still called a priest to "exorcise" people from "possession", whereas now, we treat that with medication.
We're still learning.

2000 years ago, they understood nothing.
Every fire, flood, drought, eruption, or disease, was thought to be the "wrath of god".
Some deluded christian nutters [Med. Term] still make those kinds of claims: that "the New Orleans Hurricane was god's wrath, for homosexuality", apparently...

Everyone is entitlled to believe in what they want to believe in.

Yes, they are, now, but that's contrary to what religions would like.
The "Blasphemy law" was only repealed recently here.(2008)
Before that, religions here, acted just like the Taliban, if you didn't believe, you could be imprisoned or even killed. (You still can, I believe, in Pakistan).
As to the rest of your post, particularly this:

As humans do we exist when we are asleep and are dreams the reality. So going back to the OP any scientist declaring that a greater being due to actions of the mind may as well believe that all his dreams are true as well.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about there. Do you..?
 *rem*
Joined: 11/5/2008
Msg: 8
view profile
History
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/21/2012 3:40:55 PM

There’s an interesting and easy visual test for anyone who’d like to discover if there’s any truth in that theory along with the various functions that each side of the brain is responsible for.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/right-brain-v-left-brain/story-e6frf7jo-1111114603615

Strangely enough, when I do that test with my logical head on, the dancer spins the opposite way as to what she did when I didn't have my logical thinking cap on.....most peculiar.

Anti clockwise when i just look. As i was thinking of writing this post.. clockwise. Which probably explains me quite well. The only thing i believe in the bible is God created man in his own image. Therefore I am (we are) equal to and no less than God.



What I don't understand is how any human thinks that their intellect/science can prove or disprove something that, if it does exist, would be waaaaaaay beyond mortal comprehension.

It would be like a single cell bacteria, trying to comprehend the LHC.... But multiplied by about a zillion!

Haha.. try to concentrate..
"Many theoretical physicists (e.g., Stephen Hawking, Edward Witten, Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind) believe that string theory is a step towards the correct fundamental description of nature. This is because string theory allows for the consistent combination of quantum field theory and general relativity, agrees with general insights in quantum gravity (such as the holographic principle and Black hole thermodynamics), and because it has passed many non-trivial checks of its internal consistency"
Moral of the story? Try using that one brain cell.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 9
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/22/2012 6:46:31 AM
What I don't understand is how any human thinks that their intellect/science can prove or disprove something that, if it does exist, would be waaaaaaay beyond mortal comprehension.

It would be like a single cell bacteria, trying to comprehend the LHC.... But multiplied by about a zillion!

And yet you seem prepared to accept the 'definitions' and declared existence of such a being, which had it's inception 2000 years ago, by much more primitive "mortals", with a far worse "comprehension" (Of anything) who would have you burned as a witch, for communicating via internet "magic"...?
Everything used to be "beyond mortal comprehension"..
We still don't know everything, and no doubt, in another 100 years, they will be laughing at our understanding and beliefs, but we're getting there, we know more than we did 50 years ago, or 100 years ago. We definitely know more than they did when they attributed everything to superstitious beliefs, like 'god', or 'gods', 2000 years ago, (or 5,000, or 8,000, depending on which 'definition' you're working from)
I also can't help noticing, that you only speak of such a hypothetical being in the singular, but many still believe in a multitude of different 'gods'.
I'm far more optimistic, (or perhaps conceited..?), I don't believe that there's anything that's "beyond human comprehension".
I think that's just religious dogma, designed to frighten people away from looking for rational explanations. "Some things we weren't meant to know". Says who..? The priests, who obviously don't want their drivel challenged, or scrutinised.

It might be interesting to know the proportion of the population of the world who do or don't believe in a higher being.
My bets would be on the majority believing in ''something'' existing.

A trillion billion flies eat sh1t too. Sometimes sheer numbers are no indication of 'correctness'.
But I think it would be more interesting, to plot how the above proportions have, or are changing, over time.
It takes time for new information to reach everyone.

I don't think I have been anywhere in the world where there are not temples , churches, shrines along the side of the road to symbolise their religion. Maybe the scientists might like to explain that.


The only good is knowledge, and the only evil is ignorance.
~Socrates

Maybe it would be better if you knew a little bit about history, then, perhaps it wouldn't need to be "explained" to you..?
Religious belief has been institutionalised in many societies, under penalty of death for non-believers.
You could start with the invention of the "Church of England", and see what they did to catholics, and 'heretics'.
Look at how 'christianity' has been spread throughout Africa, and all of this country's former 'colonies'.
Or look at any other modern day 'theocracy'.
Religions have been established, and perpetuated, by violence, almost everywhere.
According to the bible, it's what "god" wanted:
Deuteronomy:

20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
20:15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

They are still doing all that "smiting" sh1t, in Israel, because THEY believe that "god gave them the land".
It's a shame he forgot to give them the Deeds too, it would have saved an awful lot of deaths.

But of course, religious people will always claim that a belief in "god" is only a benign, harmless, and beneficial thing.
So how come they've been killing each other, over the "holy land", for over 2000 years..?

People are entitled to believe in whatever "woo-woo" makes them happy.
But I'm also entitled to say, with absolute certainty, that it's all primitive BS.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 10
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/22/2012 8:46:42 AM

Maybe you missed it amongst your fanatical ravings, but I am not remotely religious and I don't believe in God - I've only mentioned it a few times, in pretty much every thread of this nature. You might have also missed the bit, when I said that I don't really pay attention to various holy texts because they were written by man - I will admit, once again, that I do like the idea of there being a cosmic architect.

Your ad hominem attack implies I've personally 'touched a nerve', or that you've somehow taken my interest in this topic, personally. I'm pretty sure you'd beat me on both word-counts, or post counts, on a great many topics, so "fanatical ravings" seems slightly hypocritical.
You say "I do like the idea of there being a cosmic architect." Again singular, seeming to show that you have a monotheistic bias, probably subconsciously gleaned from your environment. Do you also like the idea of a "devil"..? As all of the 'teachings' show them to be two sides of the same coin. If not, why not..?

You remind me of my fellow students in Philosophy who just refused to accept the possibility that everything we know is possibly just an idea and none of existence is "real". Their minds couldn't comprehend that such a thing could even be possible and therefore they ruled it out as nonsense.
Things existed before I was born, (I have actual proof!) and they (things) will continue to exist after I've died, though my own subjective 'reality' (my mind) will no longer 'exist'. Perhaps it's you, who can't comprehend that..?

There are some things my mind cannot comprehend - the paranormal, the power of astrology, how some people just can't accept that people don't like them, etc -

There's no such thing as "paranormal".
"Astrology" has no "power".
Some people are just 'stupid'.
What's so difficult to "comprehend"...?

and I rail against the notions, but... and this is a big but (and I cannot lie)... I accept the possibility, that just because I don't/can't believe it to be true, doesn't mean that I am right.

That's a very healthy viewpoint. We can only 'work' with the information we've gathered so far.
On another forum, I used to have the 'tag-line': "One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing ~Socrates."
We're still learning, and gaining new insights. But that doesn't mean we should ignore all of the evidence so far. Or perpetuate old beliefs.
Science has disproved many previously held beliefs. Religion is just one of them.

The self-righteous and blinkered members of both camps (believers vs non-believers) refuse to believe that they might be wrong... and I find that a bit sad.

I find it "a bit sad" that women have been killed, after they've been raped, or that homosexuals have been killed, that children have been killed, and mutilated, for religious beliefs. I find it "a bit sad" that religious people in the west, "reincarnated" (NPI) the "Tribe of Israel", 2000 years later, and bulldozed entire villages, and murdered their populations. For a belief.
It's not a question of "refusing to believe I'm wrong", I can 'un-pick' the bible, a line at a time, and PROVE it to be wrong, not just in my opinion. (Take the Deuteronomy section quoted above, for example)
I find the self-righteousness of agnostics, smugly declaring that 'fence-sitting' to be the only "correct" view, to be a bit sad, as well as displaying both a lack courage, and commitment.

So to repeat my point, I don't think that humans can truly comprehend the idea of a being that can do ANYTHING.

I'm fully capable of comprehending the concept, and that it's a primitive fiction.

I also believe that Science cannot accept something to be true, when it has proven it to be impossible.

I know, what a bummer..

We are limited by out current capabilities. If there becomes a time when we can do anything and understand everything... well, we won't need to question the existence of God, because we will be "gods"

If you've ever flown anywhere, at 35,000 ft, at over 400mph., by the standards of the people who invented all known 'gods', you already are one.

You see religion as the problem. Whereas I think the problem lies with SOME people.

Yes, I do. A massive problem, world-wide.
You are an apologist for religion, probably because you don't want to offend the vast majority of people who still believe, who actually do no harm.
The "SOME people" you refer to, get their ideas from the religious texts, like the one above, open your eyes.
The only thing that's "not negotiable", is "The word of god". It can't BE edited.
Read the bible, or the Koran, or the Tora, they all advocate violence, because all three "worship" the "Old Testament", and believe it to be the "Word of God", as dictated to "Abraham", "Moses", and the rest.
You're basically saying that "its sad" that I'm not prepared to consider that "the truth".
I think that's ridiculous.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 11
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/22/2012 11:14:26 AM
I wasn't referring to the word count. I meant the same kind of outbursts that I'd expect to see from some hardcore god-botherers.

And yet in your first post, you said
At its most basic form, I have no issues with religion.
If someone has faith in God and that brings them peace and comfort, then go for it and fvck the naysayers."

Which particular "outburst" of mine, were you referring to, when you described my post as "your fanatical ravings"..?


it's the people at the extremes on either side that bug me... Their absolute sureness that they are right and people who believe differently have to be idiots, or blinkered or naive.

And yet YOU described people who disagreed with YOU, as "self-righteous and blinkeredand "a bit sad".. Hmmm..


You are thinking in terms of some god who created us and expects us to live a certain way and do what he wants us to.

Nope, pay attention, I don't believe in "god/gods". I don't even "like the idea".
I don't think "he" created us, nor do I think "he" has any expectations, because "he " doesn't exist".

You want to blame a concept and religious texts written by people and I just want to blame people (seeing as they're the ones who can make a choice whereas the other things have no sentience)

You seem very confused.
Yes, people wrote the bible (at a time when they knew no better) and other people choose to implement those "rules" today.
So why say; "At its most basic form, I have no issues with religion."..? When it's the "rules" of those very religions, which tell people to kill their wives, or children or believers in other faiths..?

That's like saying: "It's not Osama Bin Laden's ('non-sentient') instructions to kill, it's the people who do the killing, who are to blame". The reality is that they are both to blame.

The bible/tora/koran are full of race-hate, and incitement to commit violent crime.
You seem to be saying that I'm somehow "fanatical" for having objections to that.
You say that YOU "have no issues with religion." so you are an "apologist".


As I said, I wouldn't blame religion for the actions of some people, in the same way that I wouldn't blame all those other things I mentioned for the actions of some people. I think people should take responsibility for their own actions... Whereas it would seem you want to pass it on to an abstract concept.

The existence, (or not,) of "god" is an "abstract concept". (because it doesn't exist!)
The instructions and beliefs of each religion, are very clear, tangible, and real.
Killing your wife if she disobeys you, or hanging homosexuals, or other deemed "sinners", are not "abstract concepts". "Sin" is an abstract concept... Are you sure you studied philosophy..?

So as I couldn't give a fvck about some holy book, why would I think it's sad what you think of what's inside it? So basically... you were wrong.

You said: "The self-righteous and blinkered members of both camps (believers vs non-believers) refuse to believe that they might be wrong... and I find that a bit sad."

So, Why is it "sad", for me to believe that killing your wife, your children, homosexuals, or "non-believers", as instructed in the bible, to be "wrong"..?
Is there really a possibility that I am "wrong", in thinking that's "wrong"..?
Why is it "sad" that I am critical of the bible, and the "rules" of all three "Abrahamic faiths", who believe that what they do, is the "will of god".

Your criticism of my objections to the barbaric beliefs of superstitious neolithic farmers, being perpetuated into the future, all done from the guise of some 'superior' agnostic position, is nothing short of apathy. Particularly when combined with your statement, that you "have no issues with religion".

I'm no "activist", but I raise my objections, when given the opportunity. As in this debate. They are not "Fanatical ravings".
If you don't like it, read another thread.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 12
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/23/2012 9:51:16 AM
....According to mathamatics there is an infinite number of universes,

Citation to support that please.
The universe is 13.7 billion years old.

It means a monkey can indeed write the sonnets of Shakespeare, its calculated it would take longer then our universe has existed and is the same odds as winning the lottery for 29,000 yrs in a row.

I don't think you've fully understood that particular "thought experiment", nor statistical probability in general. .
We have neither an infinite number of monkeys typing, nor an infinite amount of time. But even if we did, the chances of success are still effectively zero, and can easily be calculated.

Even if the observable universe were filled with monkeys the size of atoms typing from now until the heat death of the universe, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be a great many orders of magnitude less than one in 10(to the power of)183,800. As Kittel and Kroemer put it, "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event...", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers." This is from their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Numbers are infinte,therefore so is time, thus everything is possible.
This is proven by mathamatics, its not some theory, thus the probability of intelligence creating the universe as opposed it it simply existing out of random chaos is highly possible.

(my emphasis)
Define "highly possible".
It's not at all "highly possible". Any more than any other primitive creation myth is "highly possible".
eg That the earth is carried on the back of a giant turtle, standing on the back of an elephant etc.
Their origins are anthropologically interesting, none the less.
Read more creation myths here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths


There are more universes out there then grains of sands that exist on Earth.

It means conventional scientific theories may exit on our 3D planet but outside it all bets are off, anything is possible.

It's really more of a "4D" Planet (at least!)
The laws of physics, apply universally.
There may be "other dimensions", "string theory" etc, and things we don't yet understand, eg. "Dark Matter", "Dark Energy", and "Dark Flow". etc.
But none of those will ever turn out to be an "intelligent, sentient being", which gives a flying sh1t about what any one particular species, on any one particular planet, in any one particular Galaxy, does.

We evolved our 'morality', by consensus, it wasn't "dictated" by some 'deity'.
It changes, over time, and completely, under different circumstances. (Survival is an instinct, not an agreed 'rule')
I taught my children "the golden rule", because it makes sense, and it was around for eons before christianity claimed it.
Because largely, we've agreed to co-operate, and strive for harmonious co-existence, we've realised that it's in our best interests, to minimises conflict.

In his book, "The God Delusion", Dawkins speculates about the seemingly inherent 'nature' of people to 'want' gods, from an anthropological point of view. How these myths have endured, over time, and how they seem to have been a 'running theme', throughout our existence, to date.

Personally, I think it's all about knowledge.
I can't imagine "un-learning" all that I know now.
If I could imagine myself to be "living wild", trying to "make sense" of everything I saw, would be very difficult. Life is already scary and difficult to understand, even with 'all mod cons'.
Primitive people attributed the seemingly random nature of personally catastrophic events, to deities.
Life, Death, disease, and disasters were thus given 'meanings'.
Humans like "meanings", particularly where life and death are concerned.

It's really egotistical (IMO) to suppose yourself to have some "importance". On a cosmological scale, even individuals like Caeser, Hitler, or Ghengis Khan, are insignificant.

My life has the same "value" as that of any insect.
That doesn't trouble me at all, nor stop me from enjoying it, and living it to the full.
I find life (mostly) very enjoyable, and accept it for what it is. I find it fascinating, and intriguing, Art, Science,History, I'm interested in our pasts, and how we arrived at the point we're at.
I can fully understand how the various "god/gods" myths arose, in context.
But, I have no "need" for deities. I know how we got here.
There really are no "Gods".

I wouldn't mind people believing in their various versions of "gods" at all, if it were harmless, and benign, (as they claim.)
But a cursory look at "Israel", and the "Holy Land", and it's history, or any modern 'theocracy', demonstrates otherwise.

Religions, Like "Race", "Tribe", and "Nationality" are just another one of those "social constructs", which seems to serve no purpose, other than to divide. ( And to elevate some individuals above their meritocratic status, but based on some forms of self-declared extreme 'piety', which in reality, is nothing more than a form of 'OCD')
The history of all three Abrahamic Faiths are littered with wars and violence, and that continues today.

Religions are inflexible, and uncompromising, by their nature.
They can't negotiate on the "word of god", whichever word, and whichever "god" that is..
They can't be edited, or changed.
Such invented divisions, and unwillingness to compromise, are the basis of wars. And I hate wars.
I believe there is no "Us" and "Them", at all.
Only Us.
"Idealistic"..? "Unachievable"..? ~Maybe..
But without ideals, we wouldn't even know which direction to be headed in.
The sooner we get rid of our beliefs in our different religions, and "gods", the better off we'll all be.
 badge73
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 13
view profile
History
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/24/2012 7:26:57 AM
Just to clarify OP ... was this a discussion on brain function or a religion-bashing thread? I may have posted the wrong link, that's all.


its about both, i mean its generally accepted that different areas of the brain control different feelings and urges, hence why science takes a look at those with addictions and who have done very bad things to understand the impact the brain has ....

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/science-addiction/drugs-brain

this is quite commonly accepted, and so why not look into what affect religion has on people, after all in quite a few people religion is addictive same as drug abuse, as well as those craving power, quite a few have replaced one addiction for another being religion to fund the cravings inside.

the same could be said about those giving speeches via the pulpit, i mean some people are more influenced the others which again most likely to do with how a persons brain is wired up or those that are prepared to follow and believe whats said to them ....

edit vvvv a bit more credible then a bloke who does not exist but has followers who wear dresses and demands money ....
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 14
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/24/2012 11:12:01 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1N5pCAgUzU&feature=related

I refer you to this BBC programme about it, where everything is made clear by physicists and mathamaticans. As opposed to the university of wiki (rollseyes).

^^Presumably THAT was your attempt at providing a citation to support your assertion that

....According to mathamatics there is an infinite number of universes,

Who do you suppose writes for wiki..? Dustmen..?
I watched it, thanks, it was interesting.

I hope the Mod's will give us some latitude on this slightly 'off-topic', but relevant divergence.
(Just don't start calling me names! )

6:40 "A Google, (One, followed by 100 zeroes) is "more atoms than in the entire observable universe."
(therefore, the universe is finite!)
9:00 "Graham's Number", it's big, and ends in a 7

20:42 "Infinity is a place you go to work, to DO mathematics, it's not a real place, you can't actually go there, except in your imagination"

22:35 Professor Zeilberger: "I always found something repulsive about it (Infinity) Infinite mathematics, to me, is meaningless, because it's like abstract nonsense. In my opinion, infinity is only a fiction of the human mind"

24:40 Professor Zeilberger: "In mathematics, there is no place for either infinity or God"

25:50 In 1600, philosopher Giodaro Bruno (sp?) claimed not only that the universe was infinite, but there would be many other earths, orbiting stars just like our own sun.
(We've learned an awful lot since then!)

31:58 Is space infinitely big? Or simply unimaginably big?
They then go on to disprove the Monkey Shakespeare hypothesis (Which the "Universtity of Wiki" also did, quite adequately!)as: " Less than 1 in , 1, and then 9 million zeros. An unbelievably unlikely thing to occur"..

45:07 The exact number of sub-atomic particles in the universe is a FINITE number. (10 [to the power of] 118)
And "Multiply that, by the diameter of the observable universe" (AGAIN a FINITE value(10 [to the power of] 26 meters) "IF, (and it's a big IF!) the universe is truly infinite, then these replicas have to exist. "

-But it isn't, it's not infinite, as the above quotes adequately show, it's just expanding.

47:40 "I prefer a finite universe, because it's the only universe that makes intuitive sense to me."

47:50 "many physicists believe space could be curved, or folded-back on itself."// You don't need infinity to produce a universe that has no edge"

48:17 "We're probably never going to know whether our universe is infinite, or actually finite in size// the best we can say right now, is the universe is extraordinarily large".

53:20 "Inflation theory" (10 [to the power of]-32 seconds)
This is basically an explanation which accounts for the uniformity in the CBR (Cosmic Background Radiation) present in the observable universe, some 400 million years after the 'Big bang'. It all expanded, much bigger, and much faster, than had previously been thought.
A mathematician then extrapolates that "inflation theory" opens up the POSSIBILITY of infinitely "multiple universes".
But possibilities are not the same as probabilities or realities.

So your statement SHOULD have read:

....According to SOME mathematicians, there could be an infinite number of universes,
The 'devil really IS in the detail'.

It's really simple: We really still don't know everything.
We know that the universe is expanding, at faster than we can measure. (literally, it seems that at the edges, that expansion may actually be accelerating!).

But it's currently thought to be approximately 90 Billion Light Years across. Not "infinite".
We only think of it as "infinite", because it's continually expanding, so it effectively IS, (to us, but it's all 'relative'. ) but we don't know if that will always be the case, other calculations show a "heat death", and inevitable entropy.

What is it 'expanding into.? Nothing. No Space, no matter, no anti-matter, no 'super-symmetry', no time.
We know how it got started, from the 'Big Bang', some 13.7 Billion years ago, before that , there was no time, (Well, there are theories that it all repeats!) as we understand it.

String theory postulates that there may be a "multiverse", but currently we only accept one UNIverse.
The clue is in the word.

And there lies one of the many problems, we still don't fully understand time, and matter, gravity and the recently discovered 'dark matter' (Though Einstein's Theories have so far proved correct. )

Time itself is neither infinite nor uniform, and it had a beginning. [Similarly, I don't think that the speed of light is a constant. (although everyone else does!) ] We'll see....

But 150 years ago, we didn't understand electricity, (We still don't, fully) gravity, (ditto) electro-magnetism, magnetism, the 'weak nuclear force' etc., at all. We couldn't 'see' it, we couldn't measure it.
But we're getting there.

In the past, any questions which couldn't be answered, anything which wasn't known about, or which had no explanation, was attributed to "God/Gods".

It's perfectly fine to say there are things we just don't know.
We know how matter formed, we know how long ago.
We know how we evolved, and it's all completely contrary to religious myths.

If there were any "god" or "gods", it would be self-evident.

We wouldn't need any priests, churches, or holy books, to advise us of it's/their existence.
And the 4000 different religions, would all be one and the same, all with the same rules, and creation myths.
Religions, and their associated gods and myths are a sham.
Perhaps a well-meaning one, (by some anyway), but none the less, pure fiction.

"Praying to god" for assistance, has been shown to be futile at best, at worst, sick people get sicker.

Religions claim endless "miracles", when someone who's sick, inexplicably gets well.

But they don't claim anything, when people who are perfectly well, inexplicably get sick, or die.
This number greatly exceeds the above, by orders of magnitude.

There are also no explanations given for the millions who die from starvation, disease, fires, floods etc. (Other than a few extreme nutters, who claim that was "god's wrath" for "allowing homosexuality")

Your notion of "god" comes from a monotheistic tradition, and 'christian' background.

The answers lie in physics and cosmology, not in gods or religions, or the "paranormal"
Prof. Brian Cox on the LHC and (at the end) Creation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtz40kex6hU

Here endeth the first lesson..
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 15
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/26/2012 11:09:31 AM

........No brainiac,

Perhaps, but only by comparison. You might well have that same opinion, of a cauliflower. It's all 'relative'.
If you're gonna start with the insults, the thread will get 'nuked'. I told you that. Don't do it

if you keeping adding one to a number you get a bigger number thus numbers are infinite. A google is a massive number but there are ones much larger like Grahams number. You obviously dont get the point,

I get that point, you don't get the point that the universe is finite,
otherwise, you wouldn't be able to say:

the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies at least one Planck volume.

My bold.

I will try to expain again, we are made of combinations of atoms and molecules, the fact numbers are infinite means probabilty in a universe of infinate time and space will be repeated,

The fact that numbers are infinite, doesn't "mean" anything. Numbers are on paper, an abstract concept.
There is a difference between applied mathematics, and theoretical, or "pure" Maths.
I can draw a picture of a cow jumping over the moon, on paper, but that doesn't make it a "fact".
Albert Einstein (1879–1955) stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality" (Wiki)

thus by this fact other planets like Earth will exist in our infinite universe or other parallel universes (I also refer you to Anthropic principle).

The universe is not "infinite", so it's not a "fact". It's about 90 billion light years across, (10[to the power of] 26 meters) according to that program.
The Anthropic Principle is really more of a philosophical hypothesis, regarding the statistical probability or likelihood of a "Goldilocks zone", capable of supporting life, developing.
It has nothing to do with "god"/"Gods".

You obviously know nothing about mathamatics, infinity is represented by a caduceus its a major part of mathamatics.

I know enough to know how the word is spelled correctly.
I trained as an electronics engineer. So I have needed a better understanding of applied mathematics, by necessity, for my work, than perhaps would be necessary for, say...... a gardener.
But I'm no expert.

To rule out intelligent design over the universe being simply a creation of random chaos is ignorance,


Ah.. "Intelligent Design". There it is...
It's perfectly easy to "rule it out".
Evolution is a fact, not a theory. although Darwin was a very perceptive man, and his speculations have been born out, and vindicated by generations of archaeology, palaeontology and the more recent genetic analysis of DNA., made possible by advances in technology.
I prefer science, to "sky-daddies".

The evidence is all around us. Nothing was "designed".
Things constantly change and evolve, and adapt to changing environments.
Catastrophic events, like meteor strikes, are capable of wiping out almost all life, and then it begins evolving again. (Assuming the constituents still exist, to support life).

If things require "intelligent design", then who "designed" the designer"...??
Is there also an "infinite" hierarchy of "gods"..?
I want to speak to the top man!

You're perfectly entitled to believe in whatever forms of 'woo-woo' floats your boat.
But don't confuse fiction with facts, or expect the sane, rational, and skeptical amongst us, to agree....
 Pete2205
Joined: 3/18/2011
Msg: 16
view profile
History
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/26/2012 12:30:31 PM
As we evolve we discover more about the world and universe we live in ...We only have to look at the advances in the last 20 years. We can digress this topic in infinite directions and carry on talking about when and how the universe began but science also evolves daily and as more becomes known so previous ideas and theories go in the bin...This will go on forever...

We all have our own ideology and set of social values that at times we defend and shout about when challenged. There are many core beliefs though that most people share...We dont think its right to murder , commit sex acts on children or steal. The fact that some people do does not dismiss the fact that we on the whole believe its wrong so we remove those people from society either forever or until we believe they can be returned to society having rehabilitated and accepted that what crimes they committed are not acceptable to the majority of people.

The structure and fabric of law in most countries is based on religious values - Hence why we are asked to swear on the Bible. The fact that some countries choose to adhere more rigidly to a system of law based on religious values IE Sharia law does not make them less or more democratic than other systems of justice it simply means that a particular group shares core values they protect through a system of law based on their particular religion.

The fact that some scientists have now decided that God is just "All in our heads" will not change what people believe and to deride another person because they choose to believe in a God to me is as bad as being a racist or homophobic. The truth is that almost all of us have at a time of crisis have almost called out and prayed, hoping that if there is a God, then he/she/it will make everything in our life better again.

If we are all honest we all would like to believe that when we die there IS something after death. It does not matter if that something is a different level of consciousness or a spiritual existence - We just dont want that to be "It". Most of us love the concept and idea of seeing family and friends who have died again, it helps and brings us comfort if we can believe that can retrieve comfort blankets torn away when our parents and relatives are no longer here.

The idea of being reincarnated and having the chance to live again, correcting behaviour and becoming a better person 2nd,3rd,4th time round appeals to many of us and again gives us the comfort and protection we seek as we approach our final years.

The fact that religion has caused the deaths of countless hundreds and thousands is a different issue - Almost every religion has been persecuted at one time or another in history. If I wake up tomorrow and decide that the apple tree in my garden is actually a reincarnated God who will make me a better person then it is my choice whether to kneel before it and pray to it 15 times a day or dress it in silks and flowers on specific days of the year.

To me I really dont give a fig what so called scientists believe as regards religion or God. I would rather they focused on discovering more about the world and universe...If they want to poke around with our brains then perhaps they could look more at ways of preventing or slowing down the process of senility and dementia.
 ControlledFolly
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 17
view profile
History
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/26/2012 1:06:26 PM
Is God in our head? well if the universal creationary force existed outside of it then all those meaning of life questions could be easily answered. This is a very personal concept and we all have our own ideas on who this works for us.

Religion on the other hand is an entirely different kettle of fish. The faults of religions have been done to death already (War, Genocide, conspiracies, theft etc) so i wont dwell on them here, but i do have a fresh way of looking at them.

ENSLAVED BY FEAR.

Now back in the pagan days, towards the end of the dark ages the early christians emerged and frankly spent more time avoiding getting sacrificed by the Druids than actually being very effective at spreading their message. They will come back into play later, but for now lets turn to the feudal system of Europe post dark ages.

The Ruling classes have always been aware that Revolution is bad news for them and invariably leads to them loosing their heads. The people Are mostly docile due to things like superstition, social engineering (i know best!) and luckily for the elite are blissfully unaware that the elite are scared of them. To ensure this reign of fear continues, the landowners would use the SERF ( not smurf) ,model, assign the tennents a parcel of land tax a percentage of the produce and let the communities sort themselves out via the barter system.

This worked very well for them until certain tradeskills became desirable and in short supply - stonemasons for example to build those lovely castles that can keep those nasty normans and vikings out. The stonemasons realised their value was more than they were getting (supply and demand) and formed a cooperative (the freemasons lol).

The Elite realised that they were getting out manouvered and couldnt tolerate this so they needed to invent a new system of control by fear. In The deepest reaches of France Ireland, scotland and Spain a new religion was forming, based on events in the Mediterranean.
"What is its message?" they cried.
"If you dont do as your priest/god representative tells you, your soul shall burn in purgatory for all eternity"

Now for the highly superstitious little people this was a terrifying prospect and the perfect crowd control tool, which was successfully utilised for a 1000 (ish) years.

Circa 1970 ish it became apparent that those damn hippies were not going to church anymore, the mods and rockers were too busy fighting eachother on bank holidays to take communion and what the f*ck does the age of aquarius really mean? All you have to do today is walk into any church on a sunday and be lucky to see 4 pensioners and a dog licking his balls to know that their fears came true..... no more control! lets devise a new fear mechanism!

i Give you the thatcherite great housing rip off, lets chain them in debt for the rest of thier lives, the fear of loosing something that is never really theirs will keep the buggers quiet!

This is how i see it all playing out anyway. Say hi to the new religion --- money------

On a controversial note, didnt Jesus come out of the temple and kicked over the tables of all the money lenders outside calling them an abomination? If there was a second comming and this happened today the bugger will get my support, thats for sure :)
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 18
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/26/2012 3:42:32 PM

and even more incredible than the idea that scientists are just normal people with abnormal interests is the fact that most of them actually believe in God..

Not true at all, quite the opposite.

Science has shown atheists have a higher intelligence than people with a strong religious faith. The difference is 5.8 points according to findings in developmental psychology.

More members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average.

Only 7 percent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.
Whilst only 3.3 percent believed in God, in the UK’s Royal Society.

Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQ’s tend not to believe in God."
Source(s):
Aarhus University
Ulster University
Gallup
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 19
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/27/2012 4:50:24 AM
I think you need to be much more precise and actually link us to these supposed studies and their results...should those assertions of yours actually exist.

Sorry, I forgot to post a link, it was late.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090525225324AAud5zi

.I do hope you won't disappoint by telling us that they are a small gathering of like minded individuals who came across each other on a dating site forum called plentyoffish who all agree that various Wikipedia sources are the ultimate in citation heaven for those who have never read a science book since high school but regardless believe that science has completely refuted the existence of God.........

Wiki is "citation heaven", simply because there is no prospect of copyright infringement for this site to have to consider.
Contrary to popular beliefs, they have an error rate in their information comparable to the "Encyclopaedia Britannica", but updated and corrected, far more frequently. It's a fairly reliable source, for the purpose of 'debates' here.

Science didn't "set out" to disprove the existence of "god". That was a complete accident.
When Darwin conceived his ideas of Natural Selection, and Evolution, he actually "sat on it" for almost 20 years, because both he and his wife were deeply religious people (As were the majority, back then), and he knew these ideas were "blasphemous", and he didn't want to upset anyone. The church, of course, reacted predictably.

But here's some more 'evidence' regarding intelligence and likelihood of a belief in "god" :

Scientific American, September 1999

"Scientists and Religion in America"

"Whereas 90% of the general population has a distinct belief in a personal god and a life after death, only 40% of scientists on the B.S. level favor this belief in religion and merely 10 % of those who are considered 'eminent' scientists believe in a personal god or in an afterlife."



Nature, 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

"Leading Scientists Still Reject God"

A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.


Skeptic, vol.6 #2 1998

"Do You Believe in God?"

In multiple studies, there is a negative correlation between theism and morality. By Franzblau's 1934 study, there's a negative correlation between religiousity and honesty. Ross 1950 shows atheists and agnostics are more likely to express their willingness to help the poor than the deeply religious. 1969 Hirschi and Stark found no correlation in lawbreaking by churchgoing children and non-churchgoing children.

This same Skeptic published the results of another study that compared professions and likelihood of believing in God. The general public was just over 90% likely to believe in God. Scientists in general were just under 40% likely. Mathematicians were just over 40% likely, biologists just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in God.



STUDIES OF STUDENTS

1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward… atheism."

3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability… There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…"

5. Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together."

6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."

7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

8. Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

9. Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

10. Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin.

11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

12. James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly anti-
religious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly anti-religious (1108), and religious (1022).

17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

Admittedly, the studies are mostly in the USA., but probably more relevant, because that's an even more religious country, than Britain.
Hope that helped.?

Now perhaps YOU'D like to do similar, and provide some evidence to support your ridiculous, fantasy-laden claim, that:
and even more incredible than the idea that scientists are just normal people with abnormal interests is the fact that most of them actually believe in God..

But I know you'll be unable to do that.......
 try1more
Joined: 12/16/2007
Msg: 20
view profile
History
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/28/2012 10:15:02 PM
religious, atheist two sides of the same coin.
nutters the both of em!
whether it does exist or not i don't see what there is to argue about!
you could have a priest and an atheist in the wilderness die of dehydration in spite of having spades and knowing there is water just a few feet down, simply because they would be too busy fighting over the shape a well should be, one saying it should be square the other round.

both sides claiming their belief demonstrates their level of intelligence.
i think their right, but it's long since it was a source of amusement.
good cure for insomnia though :-)
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 21
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/29/2012 1:50:50 PM

religious, atheist two sides of the same coin.
nutters the both of em!

Bollux. (With all due respect!)
Show me a country where atheists are killing people for their beliefs...?
(And I don't mean in the past, like Russia did!)

whether it does exist or not i don't see what there is to argue about!

Maybe you should take a look at what's happening in Afghanistan, Israel, Bharain, Syria, Lybia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or even Northern Ireland, and then tell me that atheists and religious people are all the same.

you could have a priest and an atheist in the wilderness die of dehydration in spite of having spades and knowing there is water just a few feet down, simply because they would be too busy fighting over the shape a well should be, one saying it should be square the other round.

All deeply philosophical, but completely removed from reality.
It's only religious belief which compels people to die for their beliefs, as in the case of the ban on contraceptives, for "catholics" in high AID's areas of Africa.
The pope would rather people died, than use condoms to prevent the spread of the disease.
Jehova's witnesses ban blood transfusions, etc.
And a muslim would rather starve, than eat pork, the same with Hindus and beef.
"kosher", Halal", they all have strict requirements.
In your scenario, the religious person probably couldn't drink the water, because it hadn't been "blessed" in the right way.
Also, religion, and a belief in "god" encourages "martyrdom", it's part of their 'culture'.
There simply is no comparable belief for atheists.
Which is why your statement is "BOLLUX"
 *rem*
Joined: 11/5/2008
Msg: 22
view profile
History
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/29/2012 3:53:22 PM

As some people have said, surely science should be focusing on discovering new things and exploring new realms, rather than trying to disprove something which cannot be disproved or mock people who have faith in god/religion

They are. As you mentioned the LHC, the big fear (apart from blowing half the world up) was black holes and what could come here through them. Atomic bombs did the same thing back in the 40's, so theres plenty of doscovering going into new realms. In my opinion the big problem is the old white man sitting on a cloud image. Times have changed.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 23
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/29/2012 4:15:28 PM

Agreed.

And yet here you both are,
you and light star,
posting on the same thread, claiming that you are the only one who is "right".?
Just what is it exactly which separates you, from the "nutters"..?
Are atheists hanging homosexuals, anywhere..?
Are atheists shooting abortion doctors..?
Bombing buildings, performing circumcision on young girls, and baby boys...?
Do atheists demand the "right" to pray, or dress in a certain way..?
Do atheists burn other religions books...? bibles..? korans..?
Do atheists steal countries, and exile the inhabitants, because "god gave them the land"..?
Do atheists knock on doors, or send "missionaries" overseas, to "convert" people..?

If the answer to any of those is "no", then please explain how we are "nutters"...?




Audax, you have excelled yourself!

So Jo Van, the likes of Nicholas Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Max Planck,.........etc, etc, etc are also stupid because they believed in God and you are far more intelligent ?

Is a truly ridiculous question.
As Robinson has pointed out, they were all in the past. Darwin himself was religious.
Nothing to do with "intelligence", just information, we know so much more now, than they did, then.

I have never claimed any intelligence, I merely pointed out that most scientists are atheists.
And that belief in "sky-daddies" correlates with lower intelligence, and atheism, with higher.
Which IS true.
 *rem*
Joined: 11/5/2008
Msg: 24
view profile
History
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/29/2012 4:34:19 PM

I find it a bit strange, that any scientists would try so hard to debunk something, that CANNOT be disproved.

I think they know plenty. We (egyptians etc) seemed to be doing ok up to a few thousand years ago then... nothing.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 25
god .... its all in your head say scientists
Posted: 4/29/2012 4:41:47 PM
Was that to me Jo? If so where on this thread have I claimed I am the only one who is right?

If both the atheists, and the religious are "nutters",
then clearly, you seem to think that only people like your very correct selves, who are neither, are not.
Is that too difficult for you to understand..?

HOW does objecting to all the religious wars, Afghanistan Iraq, Iran, Israel, etc etc. make me a "nutter"...?
How does pointing out that there are 4,000 different religions, and hundreds of different versions of "god", who all strangely claim they are the only "true" religion make me a nutter..?

Would I be more "sane" if I simply ignored all of that..?

I think you should re-think.
Religions are killing us.
Atheists aren't.



Edit:
VVV

I am no more into organised religion than you are however I respect that those who believe in it have a right to be heard without being branded stupid.

And yet you thought it ok to "brand" both atheists, and the religious, as "nutters"...?

Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  > god .... its all in your head say scientists