Human Programming

Okay what your calling evidence isnt the description of the word evidence. You cant make up the definition of a word. Im using evidence as its real definition (wich I copy pasted)So you cant really disagree with what evidence means.Evidence : Evidence in its broadest sense, refers to anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Philosophically, evidence can include propositions which are presumed to be true used in support of other propositions that are presumed to be falsifiable. The term has specialized meanings when used with respect to specific fields, such as scientific research, criminal investigations, and legal discourse.Okay so to tell me something is evident for you means it can be demonstrated. A scientologue that tells me he believes in the book of scientology cannot do so if there is no evidence (for him) to believe so. Wich in fact there isn't, but his programming (conditioning) made him see evidence were there was none to see.Lack of evidence = death of religion (ps : do not quote that alone because out of context this is utterly wrong )Lack of evidence means you rely on faith alone. So how come all thoses religion have thrived for centuries ?Ignorance and programmingWe cannot test the validity of the assertions a religions would make if we are ignorant. Our fathers and grandfather (going up pretty far) were ignorant. They were the ones that believed faithfully in everything religion said. And they passed that beleif on to there childrens (thats how religion expand) And today we're questionning the validity of religious belief. If there is no evidence we're left with simple choicesThe people that were programmed (the most) come up with false evidence or distort reality to fit there views.The lack of evidence doesn't means that there isnt evidence.. that way of thinking doesn't resolve anything. I mean, we don't have evidence for god existance so he might exist, and based on this, I think the [insert any religious book] is right...There is no evidence for god's existance, and so god's doesnt existAll theses conclusions are wrong. Simply put accepting the posibility of a creator, or the fact that there might not be one.. thats the only logical position one could have with the evidence presented today.

My bolding.That sums up religion very nicely. Blindly following some programming and bringing conflict with reality. And the 'true nature' of the program is?Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Yes I meant to write it that way. Note the missing 's' in the later definition.When you are programmed to look for Answers to Question, you do not simply accept ANY answer except as a platform for future searching and examination. Answers are tentative and subject to change as different evidence, new understanding or conditions change. That even extends to something as central to Religion as ones understanding of GOD or the message the religion imparts.Answers change from being a destination, the end of the journey, to simply one stop along the way to even greater understanding. You learn from each answer and use that knowledge as a platform for future exploration, a greater understanding. What has been learned is included, but new understanding is not excluded.In the former programming style, looking for Answers to Questions, new knowledge, new understanding is excluded once the particular Answer is found.The former is limited and exclusionary because people programmed that way stop once they reach their ANSWER and exclude anything that might conflict with it.The later is unlimited and inclusive because answers simply lead to new questions and new evidence, understanding is included as it becomes available.I am not simply saying that programming can be good or bad but that certain types of programming can be better than others. It is not the message that I address but the method, the technique, the process.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nobody have the answer for everything but we have a pretty extensive knowledge as a whole. We know that humans can build cathedrals, but I don't personaly know hot to build one. We understand how earth orbit the sun and how the moon orbit the earth. We know ohowe to transform sound in an electrical pulse that can travel around the world.All theses are knoweldeg we've aquired as a species through science.And although you might not know the number of insects theres is, you know that we as human have an answer for that (or at least an approximation)But as for the existance of god we don't have an answer. Where do we come from ? Theses BASIC question have no answers, and theses arent easy to live with. We are ALL trying to find an answer to it but science and religion took different paths.Were science try and understand the world around us, religion claim to have a truth. We are but the though to have an answer to that (the mere though) is quite comforting don't you think

There does not have to be programming, logic, or reason, to believe.I have met many, many women who believe their unborn child is male (or female) based on absolutely no logic, reason, or programming.There is no emperical evidence that a women can use to determine the sex of her own child. Many women think they have evidence, and they can get so convinced by this 'evidence' that they are totally
unable to accept the reality of their child being born the opposite sex.We believe what we want to believe. The question is, is what we want programmed into us, or is it nature?ABE; You know, it really is a puzzle to me. The definition of 'faith' is; 'a belief without proof'. People who have faith are not lying about the definition. If they are, they are only fooling themselves, and that is when things get unhealthy. I just can't understand why people with no faith keep asking for a 'proof' or 'evidence' since being without proof is the requirement for 'faith' in itself.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Depends which one. I was generalizing, but to get more specific; I have a sister who was seriously entertaining the thought of switching religions. Turns out all her problems were more in not knowing what her religion actaully taught, then in not believing it.That is what I mean about the 'true nature' of the program. I am not determining which program is true. I am only saying that a person with internal conflict who desires identity within a religious group, may be relieved to have the conflict resolved through education without parting ways from the religious comfort zone. It is not always possible, and I suppose it is not really applicable if the subject is off-limits in your line of work.

When you adhere wholly to a religion, it is required that you think that the message is genuine. So if you are catholic, jewish or muslim, that very notion means that you determined for yourself wich religion is true.You don't need to be politically correct when attesting a belief If your catholic, believing that the bible is right is implied. And when you believe that the bible is right, it is implied that you also believe that the other religion are wrong.Now, im not taking into account any "special" interpretation you might have.ps : Message 79 was an answer to you previous post

Thank you for your permission but again I was not attesting a belief about which relgion is 'true'. I was talking about knowing what your religion REALLY says before you make up your mind.

Ok but if I ask you wich religion is actually true, the answer you would be giving me is your religion no ?So it doesnt invalidate what I meant. The religion that you think is true is in most case (not all the time of course) the religion in wich you grew.Now all the different interpretation and all the changes that went on historicaly in religion are all caused by the globalisation of knowledge.Knowledge kills faith in most cases. True hard cold knowledge goes against every faith. We can interpret knowledge around us to try and make it fit in our way of thinking (conditionment?) but the truth is thoses religious book contains enormous amount of assertion that are ludicrous, wrong, far fetched etc. Some are true if we take into consideration the time wich in that book was written. Some are accurate even today.But im not debating if we should believe based on facts or not, im just asking simply, does the extreme conditionment can kill our ability to reason logically ?I think so.There is different of level of conditionning (programming) but nevertheless. I think we should all take a step back and ask why are we even believing in it. Is it because it is true ?Is the bible is the word of god ?
Is the Qu'ran the word of god ?
Surely both can't beAsking thoses simple question can already make yourself realise a lot of things.A Muslim telling me that the Bible isn't the word of god automatically make me ask why ? probably i'd get an answer looking like : Because the Qu'ran said so.It is wrong. It defies logic. I'm not talking to a kid here, we're talking about grown man. How can someone answer that ? What kind of conditioning/programming did he get to give me this utterly wrong answer ?I know that lots of people come to question there faith as they grow up, knowledge has a tendency to destroy the views of religious doctrine.But what I don't really grasp is the mechanism that each individual create to get by. Once your conditionned (extremly) NOTHING someone can say will ever make you change your mind. And that is extremly dangerous in society today.Different level of conditionning spawns different level of responseMild conditioning = Mild response mechanism (OEC)
Extrem conditioning = extrem response mechanism (Terrorism)Edited by Kader, : No reason given.

Ok, then I guess I will accept the fact that I have been extremely conditioned to love God. Nothing you say will make me change my mind. I have no clue why that makes me dangerous in your mind, or a whole group of me any more dangerous.Maybe you are simply asking what makes religious people stay religious even when 'education' is challenging us, and whether or not our parents have 'tricked' us into this dangerious and stupid act so much so that we can't see the 'truth'. If so, the answer is NO.

No, not at all.Every religion is just a Map. They can be more or less accurate, but not one of them is actually true. All must be constantly tested against the Territory. I would contend that you would be wrong. Why can't both be the word of GOD?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You skipped some steps
To love god you first have to believe in God, to believe in God you first have to get the knowledge of the existance of God. You got yours from the bible (I presume) or from your parents first who at there turn got it from the bible (presuming again).So all the love you bear God was first and foremost brought to you by the bible. A book that you have to find genuinly true to even get to "believing" in God or loving him. It is easy to believe when we are kids. But when we grow believing doesnt come that easily.So now that you've grown, and learn some things that were not in accordance with the bible (that wich made you discover God). That in fact contains some seriously wrong assertion, didn't you question your faith ?If you were a geologist, i think your faith would be shakin even more then if you were a simple programmer, or architect. I know that, but I want to know where do you stop using logic, where do you start dismissing everything I say. When does your conditionment trigger you to either ignore me or fall back on the scripture. I never meant to say you were dangerous.Please not that in all my posts I never intend to either insult, or disrespect you. If I did so, I apologise.What makes people dangerous isn't the love they have for God or Allah or Jesus. It is the illusion of having the absolute truth. That is dangerous, because when you KNOW your right, you also know everyone else that doesnt adhere to your religion is wrong. And a lot of religious book know exactly what to do with thoses people.. and it can degenerate into violence very quickly.All the discussion I had with believer tends to turn in circle
When trying to use science against science (ie : creationism) falls short, they quickly fall back on scripture to basicly say, thats the way it is.Conditionned people stop altoghether using logic to try and make there points, simply because it is impossible.It's not possible to logically explain the existance of God, hence, the belief in God.so if its not logically possible, there has to be a conditionment for us to believe (or keep believing).Edited by Kader, : No reason given.

Well simply because they disagree on key points.They virtually cannot both be inspired by god if one says jesus is he's son and the other that jesus is a prohpet.These difference can only be overlooked with a "special" interpretation.
And that kind of interpretation would require you to actually read every scripture of every religions.

Most likely it would be. Most likely as well. Some are, some are not. Well, if a faith is that weak to begin with, it is bound to fall with the slightest breeze. There is a reason why they say knowledge is the root of all evil, and the Bible says things like this very often, so I am not suprised to see it happen. It all depends on what you are conditioned to do. If you are conditioned to act logically, you probably will. If you are conditioned to use reason, you probably will. Nobody believes something because its true. That is called 'knowing'. I'll leave this one alone for now. You do know that the Qu'ran contains many parts of the Bible? Looks like that is a good an answer as any. We simply do not know if it is, or ever was. I hear you, but seriously, you need to be able to prove your 'grown man' IS wrong before you ask about his mental wiring. See, all this is where you've lost me. What is an individual creating in order to get by?And how does extreme conditioning add up to terrorism?

Every religion is just a Map, not the Territory. Maps will be more or less accurate, yet still helpful. It is very likely that both Islam and Christianity are wrong in many of the details, none of us alive are likely to find out for sure. But there are areas on the Maps that can be checked against Territory, and when those parts of the two Faiths are examined we find a pretty high level of correspondence between what is on the Map and the Territory.And why not read scripture from other religions? I know that when I was in school, a Christian Religious School, I was encouraged to study Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, the writings of Confucius and Mencius and the Greek Philosophers and German Philosophers and Norse Mythology. Why shouldn't other maps be examined?There is no special interpretation needed, only honesty. We need to understand that when it comes to Theistic discourse or beliefs, they are simply that, beliefs. They could well be wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion