Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does God Really Exist???
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 305 (87626)
02-19-2004 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Phat
02-19-2004 7:36 PM


Re: Is Lees Case for Christ a Nut case?
Phatboy wrote:

To an apologist, God is the source of wisdom. To a humanist, human thinking and reasoning is their bedrock
At least the Humanist is being honest about their source.
On what does the apologist base his claim of deriving wisdom from God?
1) Personal messages from God?
Here's an idea, I know you guys aren't meant to test God (because he will always let you down), but how about this for a test of the validity of messages from God: Why don't you and all of your Christian buddies ask (pray) God to pick you a number between 1 and 1,000,000. Tell God that you should be given the same number as your mates. Check your results. If you do this strictly, I'll wager you'll have the same success rate at matching numbers as my mates and I picking numbers out of our heads.
2)The Bible?
The Bible being God's word because the Bible says so.
I revel in indetifying the variances in doctrinal beliefs in people, even from the same church. There is of course and extraordinary variance between doctrinal beliefs of different Christian churches. You only have to read the Christian posters on this site.
You guys aren't getting very clear instructions from your sources, whether it be personal messages from God or attempts at interpreting your book.
Both apologist and humanist alike gain their wisdom from human thinking and reasoning. The latter has a better built in mechanism to avoid deriving "wisdom" from hopeful delusion.
Strobel's Case for Christ: rebuttal in detail
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CTVExcerptsIntro.htm
This book is only marginally more dreadful than Case for Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Phat, posted 02-19-2004 7:36 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Phat, posted 02-20-2004 12:19 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 305 (87650)
02-20-2004 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Phat
02-20-2004 12:19 AM


Phatboy wrote:

I only ask that you keep the possibility that I am right as an option in your mind and heart.
This I promise I will do. I don't think any of the atheists or agnostics on this site would bother contributing to a forum like this, or read as much as they do if they weren't still looking for answers and learning about the world in which they live. It is my experience that it is the Christians who no longer are intellectually open.
Are you open to the fact that you might also be wrong?

I would say that as an unbiased observer, reason does triumph over faith unless one has had a personal experience which bolsters their faith. If someone actually had a UFO encounter, it is real for them despite common sense
The human mind is very fallible. You only have to look at the plethora of nonsense (and in most cases demonstrably false nonsense) people beleive across the world: mostly based upon their own personal experiences and faith.
How does the Christian delusion work?
1. Usually start with an emotionally and physcologically vulnerable person.
2. Offer them something really grand: like love and eternal life.
3. Tell them this really old book says you will receive the "holy spririt" (feel a warm fuzzy sensation, see a light and maybe hear voices in your head)
4. Place them in a very vulnerable state: de-clothe them for a water baptism in front of an entire congregation. Pressure them to perform.
5. They will often have a form of nervous breakdown and may feel a warm fuzzy experience, see a light and maybe hear voices in thier head. This experience is similar to the enlightenment experiences of various faiiths around the world, be they Christian or other. They are temporal lobe experiences and can be replicated in the laboratory complete with images of your chosen deity by stimulating these parts of your brain.
6. If the church teaches speaking in toungues (glossolalia) the person will be told to repeat multi syllabyllic words to get them going. They will start babbling. This is another trait not unique to Christians: even Voddo proponents perform glossolalia. Myself and my friends practice it as a party trick and when we go incognito to Christian meetings, Christians cannot distinguish our glossolalia from theirs.
7. The person will then be quite surprised and impressed: follow this state up with concentrated indoctrination several times a week for as long as you can keep them converted.
8. Continue thought reinforcements techniques (the same as used by all totalitariansims including political)
9. The person then credits everything good in their life to God. Everything bad to Satan or because God moves in mysterious ways. This is despite the fact that their lives are statistically like everyone elses.
You have a very real world experience, based very much in the mind of the participant that builds up erroneous picture of a relationship with a being that exists no-where other than your head.
You have been deceived by your own mind and those people that took advantage of you who attempted to re-confirm their own phsycological experience by converting you.
The God lives in your head. That's why no one else has evidence of him, that's why Christians bend over backwards in defence of the comfortable delusion, that's why some Christian's lie.
I am open to the possibility that you might be right. But you wont demonstrate that by merely referring to a mistaken personal experience which is the product of a scenario like the above. try some objective evidence. In return most of the posters on this site will point our how it is false, how you have been lied to and how it was created to perpetuate the delusion.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Phat, posted 02-20-2004 12:19 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Phat, posted 02-20-2004 4:48 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 305 (88032)
02-22-2004 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Phat
02-22-2004 11:37 AM


Re: Does God Really Exist? Continued...

gilgamesh writes: Are you open to the fact that you might also be wrong?
Phtaboy responds: You know thats a tough one for me. I will say that I am open to that, but that it will have to come from the same inner voice that convinced me in the first place.
Well that is where the flaw lies in your logic, Phatboy. I proposed that your inner voice is merely a delusion to begin with, so therefor you cannot refer it for evidence of it's own validity. The human mind is very fallible.
All Creationists on this site resort to appeals to their own subjective perosonal "God" experiences when they eventually get cornered on arguments based on material evidence. Why then don't they submit their own personal experiences to tests to verify if those experiences are evidence of a God, or merely a delusion?
I suggested one simple test you and your Christian friends could conduct in a previous post 143 above. I'm sure we could think of many others.
(Why doesn't someone start a new thread: What tests could be devised to determine whether God experiences are real or delusional?)
I also referred to the fact that Canadian researches have experimented with temporal lobe stimulation and have been able to induce religious experiments. (I call the device a "Holy Spirit in a Helmet").
See:
Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs, Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D. Praeger Publishers, NY, NY, 1987
Book review and summary:
Book Review - Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs, Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D.- Reviewed by John A. Speyrer (Book review and summary)
The personal experience of God is little more than evidence of the phenomenom of brain structure, and chemistry and evolutionary development.
Phatboy says:

To me, God is the source of wisdom and meaning by definition. To others, Human reasoning and logic are the source. In that world, a personal creator need not apply. Ye shall be as gods...
Well as I pointed out in a previous post, what you claim to be God's wisdom and meaning is merely your chosen religious book and the voices in your head (and the voices of your chruch elders). It is still human reason and logic, just slightly more delusional (and temporal lobe sourced).
Mike the Whiz writes:

I agree that some if not many people who think they have had an experience with God are delusional. Yet, I have heard many Testimonies of persons that show no signs of being either mentally ill/killers. There are Testimonies of people who have themselves went to see a doctor thinking that they were delusional only to find that they pass as being completely rational.
The is a reason why many people who convert to relgions and have religious experiences are often those going through significant emotional, and personal life crisis. (See Michael A. Persinger above). Nevertheless such experiences have nothing to do with intellect and perfectly normal people can have temporal lobe experiences if they have a predisposition or if they expose themselves to triggers. Evangelistic churches culture such triggers perfectly through the their rituals.
I've often said that enlightenment transcends intellect.
But isn't it interesting how many people with seriously problematic pasts make up Christian congregations. It amuses me how Christians think their conversion is such an achievement, when all the church has doen is taken advantage of their psychologically vulnerable state.
Converting one of the emotionally stable atheist posters on this board would be an achievment! I'd sit up and listen to that.
Or converting me: someone who is completely aware of the conversion process and the fallibility of the human psyche: and someone who has undergone 28 Christian conversion processes for fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Phat, posted 02-22-2004 11:37 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Phat, posted 02-23-2004 9:04 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 305 (88190)
02-23-2004 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by mike the wiz
02-23-2004 2:09 PM


Test your personal God
Well Mike (or Phatboy) are you guys prepared to put your personal God to the test?
You'll have to ignore the part of the Bible that tells you not to do so (that's been placed there to cover up the fact that he will never pass any test... for the obvious reason).
As been pointed out above:
1) Logically many billions of people are wrong and deluded about their personal God
2) People continue to believe in Personal Gods because we have a compulsions to and we have these really impressive temporal lobe experiences
3) Churches teach thought control techniques so that: all good in one's life is accredited to the personal God, all bad is rationalised away (God moves in mysterious ways, God is tesing your faith, or Satan is testing your faith). By this logic there can never be a scenario whereby the personal God is found wanting. (We know that people with personal God's lead statistically identical lives to those who do not believe)
4) You are taught not to test your God
Well let's ignore number 4.
We could think of many test for your personal God, that don't require your jumping off a cliff to see what happens!
Any suggestions from anyone?
Here's a simple test. I'll e-mail Dan Carroll a number between 1000 and 1 million. Ask your personal God what it is and let me know what he says.
That should be pretty simple for your omnipotent personal Christian God.
[This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 02-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by mike the wiz, posted 02-23-2004 2:09 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-23-2004 5:18 PM Gilgamesh has not replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 305 (88269)
02-23-2004 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Phat
02-23-2004 9:04 PM


Re: Does God Really Exist? Continued...
I anticipated someone would throw verse back at me.
Maybe this tenet against putting God to the test was cleverly included because the religion would fall to nothing if it's followers actually realised that the support that God gives them (other than the psychological support gained from any belief system that averts the fear of death) is not very tangible. Like I said, the Christian church has devised a very clever way whereby God is not allowed to be tested, and God can never be found wanting because he is responsible for the good things and never for the bad. There is rarely a scenario is most people's lives where this rationale is found wanting.
Aint the Bible grand for making a religion! Those guys really knew their stuff in the Middle Ages (but then again Ron L Hubburd made a sizeable religion in just one lifetime: and it is plainly silly!)
So you have no-way of determining whether the voice in your head is delusional and you are not allowed to try. This is one of the may reasons (besides the fact that the little voice in your head can be easily scientifically rationalised) that such personal experiences are never valid objective evidence of God.
Most New Agist nutters avoid putting their beliefs and "skills" to the test for much the same reason. (James Randi will give anyone a million dollars if you can demonstrate a supernatural ability).
I thought you were also going to throw at me the bit about how even if people witness the miracles of God, they will still deny them (Pharoah). Did you want to chat about that also?

You say that you faked conversions for fun? It was fun to you not only because of the naivette of the believers but because you were already convinced that your intellect was above any possible God. You believe in human wisdom as the source of enlightenment. I do not. Simple and plain.
I never faked conversions for fun. I have demonstrated Glossolalia for fun.
I have submitted myself to conversions to genuinely investigate the claims of religious groups. Despite the fact that I come across blunt and aggressive on this forum (compared to the more disciplined and mature non-Christian posters), I never partake in these conversions in a confrontational manner, and respect the feelings of those who believe. I am less concerned about stepping on toes here and I do vent a little of my bewilderment.
My conversion experiences taught me much. I now understand the conetxt, the pressure the procedures etc used by those churches to invoke what appears to be a temporal lobe experience. I have also studied the thought control techniques that are applied to reinforce that experience in the context of the given church.
If there is some sort of God, I'd imagine that he'd be above my intellect. I have concluded however that the entire Christian experience is very real world and the source, process and experience is derived solely from our own intellect and its foibles.
Like you, I'd rather this not be the case: I'd rather a warm and squishy relationship with an incorporal being, but Christian evidence, which always comes down to the personal experience when you guys back into a corner, is quite simply not enough. Especially when just about every material claim you guys make is demonstrably false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Phat, posted 02-23-2004 9:04 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Phat, posted 02-23-2004 11:18 PM Gilgamesh has not replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 305 (88681)
02-25-2004 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Phat
02-24-2004 7:34 PM


Re: Do we even want God to exist?
Phatboy wrote:

This brings up an interesting question. On the average, do people want God to exist by nature, Not want God to exist, or are neutral. I maintain, using scripture as my source, that the natural mind does NOT want God to exist, since it trumps our freedom of choice.
Thanks for the rather pointless Biblical quote.
Once again the scripture is successful and adequate for providng the simple logic necessary to establish a religion, but fails under closer analysis.
I can rebut your claim that the natural mind does not want God to exist, ironically, with one of the classic Christian arguments for the existence of God: the vast majority of people in the world believe in a God, therefore he must exist. Statistically it's about 90% of all the people in the world that have "natural minds" strongly desiring a God to exist, so your statement is clearly wrong.
Homepage - adherents
I further rebut this statment as evidence of particular God, because there is phenomenal disagreement about that God (or Gods), even within the one religion. The 90% evidences a pre-disposition of mortal and self conscious humans to believe in a God, but does not evidence at all the existence of any particular God. That comes down to the individual arguments and evidences of each religion (almost all of which are mutuallly exclusive).
You'll then claim that because Christianity is a minority across the world, that all those non-Christians are denying the one true God as per your particular Biblical interpretation. People statistically believe in a particular faith because of where they are born. If you were born in the Middle East, chances are you'd be a Muslim and be now arguing it's validity and be claiming that the majority of the world reject your religion.
Freedom of choice?
1) There have been enough arguments on this board about the Bible concept of free will, that have established that dodgey Bible logic rules out anything but the mere illusion of free will (because of an Omnipotent God who knows the future).
2) My free will (as I perceive it) is still constrained without the belief in a Christian God. It is constrained by laws and my own morality. I don't reject the Christian idea of a God on that basis. Indeed if that God exists, and eternal life was actually on offer there would be logically no price too high to pay in this life, in order to obtain it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Phat, posted 02-24-2004 7:34 PM Phat has not replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 305 (88682)
02-25-2004 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Phat
02-24-2004 7:34 PM


Re: Do we even want God to exist?
Arrrrgh! Double post. Sorry!
[This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 02-25-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Phat, posted 02-24-2004 7:34 PM Phat has not replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 305 (88686)
02-25-2004 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-25-2004 4:00 PM


NDE's
I studied near death experiences in some depth many years ago. I hoped that they would provide some evidence in favour of an afterlife.
They have been convincingly rationalised as the last impulses of an oxygen deprived brain. Sensory perception fades in the order demontstrated on brain scans (with hearing the last thing to go). The tunnel effect with a white light is merely the shutting down of the vision processing part of the brain (bit like those old television sets that fade to a small white dot!). Spiritual imagery, if any, is purely subjective and contextual: eg: Muslims see Allah, Christians see God.
And of course, some people have absolutely no experiences at all.
No-one has brought back any unknown knowledge from the "other side".
NDE's do change some people's lives as would an experience that emphasises ones own mortality.
I remember the words of one of Australia's most successful business men, Kerry Packer, who has had mulitple heart attacks:
"I've been to the otherside, and I can tell you, there's fucking nothing there".
Stephen if you are going to bring up your prayer experiments that have been dealt with in other threads, then why don't you conduct one of your own?
Try praying for the number!
(read above to find out what I am talking about).
[This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 02-25-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-25-2004 4:00 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Phat, posted 02-26-2004 5:57 AM Gilgamesh has replied
 Message 231 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-26-2004 3:02 PM Gilgamesh has not replied
 Message 232 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-26-2004 3:31 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 305 (88896)
02-26-2004 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Phat
02-26-2004 5:57 AM


Re: NDE's and Cultural Enlightenment
Phatboy writes:

Yes, religion is often a product of ones environment although there are exceptions, especially in Christianity.
Gods divine impartation is no respecter of persons or cultures.
Given that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and that Christianity's growth is stagnant, I'd suggest that this indicates that the Allah is the only God providing significant "divine impartation" at the moment.
Homepage - adherents

gilgamesh writes:
And of course, some people have absolutely no experiences at all.
Phatboy writes:
Ignorance CAN be bliss!
I meant that some people have absolutely no near death experiences. Like Kerry Packer. I don't see what ignorance has to do with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Phat, posted 02-26-2004 5:57 AM Phat has not replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 305 (88923)
02-26-2004 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Phat
02-26-2004 10:45 AM


Re: Do we even want God to exist?
Phatboy wrote:

Yes, you have a point. This is a deep concept. People do want proof of immortality and divine love.
Well, they certainly do want to think that they have immortality, and perhaps some sort of divine gaurdian angel, but they sure as hell are very undemanding when it comes to proof of the same.
For some, mere hope is sufficient. For others they need the full temporal lobe conversion experience offered by some evangelical churches.
Phatboy writes:

It is our own independant thinking that we do not want to give up, for we are afraid of being controlled.
And justifiably so! The only way to avoid cultism and the mind controlling techniqies of almost all churches is to retain some independent critical thought. Note how Christianity (with the Bible as an authority) squashes independent thought, encourages complete submission to the teachings of church elders and defines knowledge as "evil" right from the first book.
Like, I've said before, the Bible is great for making a religion. It certainly does not evidence the truth of that religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Phat, posted 02-26-2004 10:45 AM Phat has not replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 305 (89442)
02-29-2004 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-26-2004 3:31 PM


Re: NDE's
Sorry Stephen,
I have not had a chance to respond to your NDE links, and even now I've only looked at one. NDE's are close to off topic, but I suppose they are relevant to whether God exists (or the existence of a soul that a God might be interested in).
The link I studied, was Melvin Morse MD. After perusing his site, I conclude the following:
- Melvin is merely a doctor, not a scientist
- Melvin has dealt with the tradgedy of the death of illness and death in children for many years. His site is probably his way of helping parents cope and his own personal way of dealing with the tradgedy of his field of medicine
- Melvin is a quack
Firstly, his lengthy essay, which you link to, contains a body of anedoctal stories in support of supernatural experiences in NDE's. Probably the most informative part in his essay, is where he refers to mainstream scientifc and medical opinion of NDE's (which I outlined in a previous post):

I believe that most physicians and scientists interpret NDEs as secondary falsifications, distortions of man's perception of his environment while the brain is malfunctioning. As Negovsky54 speculates, "auditory perception may be preserved when areas of the cerebral cortex serving vision have ceased functioning and after motor activity has ceased." Without any mystical explanations we can understand why the dying and then revived person can tell us he or she heard the voices of physicians. The fact that resuscitated people in different countries can recall similar images seen by them during dying or resuscitation does not prove life after death. It can be explained by the dynamics of the disintegration of cerebral function caused by different resistances to anoxia of the various areas of the central nervous system.
Blackmore102 has developed a computer model of the images the brain receives from the retina at the point of death. The macula may cause a persistence of light images as the brain dies. As the brain dies, she speculates that an increase in cortical acceptability could destabilize the uniform visual image we perceive and result in the perception of concentric rings, lines, and tunnel.
The psychiatric literature is in general agreement that the experience is triggered by death anxiety, psychologic stress, and the fear of death.

The most articulate proponent of this concept is UCLA psychiatrist, Ron Siegel, one of the foremost experts on hallucinations. He points out that all of the elements of the NDE, tunnels, lights, religious figures, childhood memories, heavenly music, and the like are commonly seen in a wide variety of hallucinatory experiences. He sees the NDE as the dissociative hallucinatory activity of the brain and the common elements simply being common reactions of the central nervous system to stress coupled with cultural expectations and influences. His superb article should be read by anyone interested in this area and is difficult to adequately summarize.38
Footnote:
Sigel RK. The psychology of life after death. Am Psychol 1980;35:911-31.
How do I conclude Dr Morse is a quack? Well, meet Dr Morse:
melvinmorse.com | DNS PTR Record
On that page you'll see some gems, like:

When we die, we become fully conscious, aware of our surroundings, and experience spiritual insights we do not often have at other times in our lives.

When we die? NDEs are, by definition, not actually death. No one has ever come back from complete brain death. Morse's conclusion cannot simply not be made from the study of NDEs.
Dr Morse is making a manual:

A How-to Manual to Understand
Our Right Temporal Lobe:
I am developing a practical manual to teach people how to use the area of our brain linked to near death experiences. We evolved our brains about 200,000 years ago, and it came without an owners manual. We have many residual or unused talents such as remote viewing, telepathy, healing touch, and weak telekinetic abilities which are linked to this same brain area. Anyone can learn to use this latent area of our brain and have spiritual and near death experiences.

This is nutcase stuff. He is either a new age nutter, or just trying to make a buck. Of course if he truly believed that people had the above powers he could demonstrate them to James Randi and score a million dollars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-26-2004 3:31 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-01-2004 12:22 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024