# Did Man make God?



## K-man

Interesting article in today's paper in light of another thread.



> It seems that the brain is built in such a way that allows us as human beings to have transcendent experiences extremely easily, furthering our belief in a greater power, Newberg says. This would explain why some type of religion exists in every culture, arguably making spirituality one of the defining characteristics of our species.





> Newberg is director of research at the Jefferson Myrna Brind Centre of Integrative Medicine, in Philadelphia, and co-author of, among other books, The Metaphysical Mind: Probing the Biology of Philosophical Thought. He is a leading neurotheologist, pioneering a new and highly controversial science that investigates whether  as many sceptics have long suspected  *God didnt create us, but we created God.
> *What god does to your brain: Controversial science of neurotheology aims to find out why people have faith



And another source.



> If you contemplate God long enough, something surprising happens in the brain. Neural functioning begins to change.
> How God Changes Your Brain (washingtonpost.com)


Fascinating!
:hmm:


----------



## seasoned

Yes, God does move in mysterious ways, so i've heard....  Just saying


----------



## jezr74

I've read in a few medical journals in the past from different neurologist about a part of the brain they normally refer to that lets us know the difference from reality and fantasy. When we lucid dream this lobe is highly active, and that's on point at which we have a hard time working out whats real and not. This is the common state that people get "probed by aliens".

It's also the most active lobe for people that believe ghosts, spirits and paranormal activities in general. When over active it can manipulate their power to be rational, and separate fact from fiction.

Meditation, drugs and injury are among things that can manipulate the levels at which the lobe runs at. Is interesting stuff.


----------



## Cirdan

Yes. A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

I think god is a poor man`s awnser, you have admitted you need to learn but then take the easy way out. We all know how popular that solution always is.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Yes.


----------



## ballen0351

Cirdan said:


> Yes. A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.
> 
> I think god is a poor man`s awnser, you have admitted you need to learn but then take the easy way out. We all know how popular that solution always is.


So if you believe in God your ignorant and lazy?


----------



## jezr74

Alot of western tradition and religion has pagan lineage, nature and sun worship etc. 

I think they are commonly worshiped in most cultures at some time in history, i don't think they would be too far a stretch in those times, they must have been marvels with natural disasters and eclipses.
Sent from my Windows Phone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cirdan

ballen0351 said:


> So if you believe in God your ignorant and lazy?



If we created gods and there are other better awnsers to existence, wouldn`t you agree?


----------



## ballen0351

Cirdan said:


> wouldn`t you agree?


No not even a little.


----------



## Cirdan

ballen0351 said:


> No not even a little.



Thanks for making the point.


----------



## crushing

I read Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon earlier this year and it was an interesting investigation into the roots of the development of religion and its evolution over the years.  It's worth a read for anyone interested in this subject.


----------



## ballen0351

Cirdan said:


> Thanks for making the point.


I made no point I just didnt feel you asinine comment deserved more of my time


----------



## Cirdan

crushing said:


> I read Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon earlier this year and it was an interesting investigation into the roots of the development of religion and its evolution over the years. It's worth a read for anyone interested in this subject.



Facinating, I might check it out. I see this book (according to the wikipedia link) also tries to predict the future of the phenomenon of religion. Having read it, could you share any theories or likely outcomes dealt with?


----------



## Cirdan

ballen0351 said:


> I made no point I just didnt feel you asinine comment deserved more of my time



Yet here you are.

I maintain that man-made gods are poor awnsers to existence and accepting such ammounts to ignorance and intellectual lazyness when better ways does exist.


----------



## jks9199

This is a personal request, not an official comment.  I want to make that clear, since there could be some confusion.

Something that really bothers me from some of the atheists and agnostics around here is the disdainful attitude they show towards people of faith.  If I were to imply that someone was stupid, lazy, uninformed or uneducated because they didn't believe in God, I'd rightly be laughed out of the room.  But it seems that it's perfectly OK for someone who doesn't believe to use belittling phrases or outright insults towards those who do believe.   There's plenty of room to discuss these issues without being asses about it -- on either side.

Personally -- I'm a believer.  I look at the universe around me, and cannot convince myself that it was random or unguided.  I've seen dead bodies; you cannot convince me that there's not something immaterial lost when a person dies.  I believe in a God who created a universe that works by rules we can discern and discover and learn and use -- probably so that, once set in motion, that God could focus even more of his attention on his Creations, rather than running it.  But if you don't agree with me, that's OK.  I find the idea of a purely mechanical universe to be cold ... but that doesn't mean someone else isn't happy with that.  I don't have to call them names or label them in some fashion, and I can discuss the issue calmly, though in the end, we'll have to agree to disagree.  But I rank that disagreement along the lines of whether you like BJJ or Karate or Kung Fu or Judo or Bando...  Lots of room for different answers.  

So... I've been impressed at how civil several recent discussions have managed to be.  Way too often, these things devolve quickly into personal attacks.  Like I said -- this is Jim, not an Asst. Admin speaking, but I hope we can all stay civil on these issues.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Cirdan said:


> If we created gods and there are other better awnsers to existence, wouldn`t you agree?


No.


----------



## Cirdan

Touch Of Death said:


> No.



That suprises me. If man created gods, and we accept the gods as truth, are we not merely accepting words of our fellow fallible man as perfect truth?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Cirdan said:


> That suprises me. If man created gods, and we accept the gods as truth, are we not merely accepting words of our fellow fallible man as perfect truth?


The point of our existence isn't the point. Family was the point, until very recently.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Touch Of Death said:


> The point of our existence isn't the point. Family was the point, until very recently.


And by recently, I mean we recently gave up on the whole God idea, and with that went the family.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Just because Santa Clause is fiction, does not mean children don't behave because of him. Think of all the things you don't believe about the concept of God as the glue that holds together everything you know.


----------



## Cirdan

Touch Of Death said:


> The point of our existence isn't the point. Family was the point, until very recently.



Family too does potentially much better without man-made gods.



Touch Of Death said:


> Just because Santa Clause is fiction, does not mean children don't behave because of him. Think of all the things you don't believe about the concept of God as the glue that holds together everything you know.



Nah, I behave because otherwise Thor will smite me with lightning.

Jokes aside perhaps imaginary superbeings and fear of their punishment did us a service in the iron age keeping tribal communities sort of unified.. but such delusions are overdue to be put away unless proven to be true. As rational beings we are fit to take responsibility for our own actions.


----------



## ballen0351

Cirdan said:


> Family too does potentially much better without man-made gods.


I agree with man made Gods however with the real God families prosper


----------



## ballen0351

Cirdan said:


> Family too does potentially much better without man-made gods.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, I behave because otherwise Thor will smite me with lightning.
> 
> Jokes aside perhaps imaginary superbeings and fear of their punishment did us a service in the iron age keeping tribal communities sort of unified.. but such delusions are overdue to be put away unless proven to be true. As rational beings we are fit to take responsibility for our own actions.


Are you able to have a grown up conversation about faith without resorting to put downs ans snide remarks?


----------



## Cirdan

ballen0351 said:


> I agree with man made Gods however with the real God families prosper



If such a being exist maybe, there seem to be a lot of the one true god or one true group of gods running around.

However there is no evidence for the existence of gods, nor does our understanding of the universe need or require one. 
Also there is a lot of historical evidence showing how religion evolves and certain gods are made up from aspects of earlier beliefs. For instance Thor and Zeus are related. Isis and Mother Mary too. It is truly facinating if you spend some time studying it.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Cirdan said:


> Family too does potentially much better without man-made gods.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, I behave because otherwise Thor will smite me with lightning.
> 
> Jokes aside perhaps imaginary superbeings and fear of their punishment did us a service in the iron age keeping tribal communities sort of unified.. but such delusions are overdue to be put away unless proven to be true. As rational beings we are fit to take responsibility for our own actions.


To bad you cannot provide any examples of a society that was successful without God. What proof do you have that is could be or would be better?


----------



## Cirdan

ballen0351 said:


> Are you able to have a grown up conversation about faith without resorting to put downs ans snide remarks?




I will not tiptoe around you if that is what you are asking.


----------



## Cirdan

Touch Of Death said:


> To bad you cannot provide any examples of a society that was successful without God. What proof do you have that is could be or would be better?



Look at history and there does not seem to matter what particular god(s) are worshiped so a supernatural influence does not seem likely.

As for succces with no god, my own country is not at all particularly devout (Norwegians ranked at the bottom for church attendance in europe in some survy) and we still do okay.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Cirdan said:


> Look at history and there does not seem to matter what particular god(s) are worshiped so a supernatural influence does not seem likely.
> 
> As for succces with no god, my own country is not at all particularly devout (Norwegians ranked at the bottom for church attendance in europe in some survy) and we still do okay.


Your country was founded by God fearing people and would not exist if it weren't for them. Your current political climate is anecdotal at best.   My Granddad came from Norway. I guess that makes me 3rd generation.


----------



## ballen0351

Cirdan said:


> If such a being exist maybe, there seem to be a lot of the one true god or one true group of gods running around.
> 
> However there is no evidence for the existence of gods, nor does our understanding of the universe need or require one.
> Also there is a lot of historical evidence showing how religion evolves and certain gods are made up from aspects of earlier beliefs. For instance Thor and Zeus are related. Isis and Mother Mary too. It is truly facinating if you spend some time studying it.


No evidence to prove there is no God either so.......There is however plenty of evidence to suggest the presence of God.


----------



## ballen0351

Cirdan said:


> I will not tiptoe around you if that is what you are asking.


You dont need to tip toe but you can knock off the snide rude remarks.  Im sure your capable of disagreeing with someone without calling them names


----------



## crushing

Cirdan said:


> Jokes aside perhaps imaginary superbeings and fear of their punishment did us a service in the iron age keeping tribal communities sort of unified.. but such delusions are overdue to be put away unless proven to be true. As rational beings we are fit to take responsibility for our own actions.



ToD may have a point.  Religious people argue that it is precisely this fear of punishment that keeps people (that lack empathy) from doing harm to others.  For them fear results in morality.  It may be convoluted sense of morality that has led to many many atrocities over time, but a sort of _morality_ nonetheless.  Are we, human beings, in general rational and ready for this level of responsibility that you suggest we take?


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> ToD may have a point.  Religious people argue that it is precisely this fear of punishment that keeps people (that lack empathy) from doing harm to others.  For them fear results in morality.  It may be convoluted sense of morality that has led to many many atrocities over time, but a sort of _morality_ nonetheless.  Are we, human beings, in general rational and ready for this level of responsibility that you suggest we take?


If there is no God and no judgement day they why should anyone behave?  If you only live once then your just gone why not allow anything goes?  I make my living off people that are not ready for the responsibility.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> If there is no God and no judgement day they why should anyone behave?  If you only live once then your just gone why not allow anything goes?  I make my living off people that are not ready for the responsibility.


Is a Christian god the only possible source of morality?

Moral social behavior is a practical consideration. We are, at our core, herd animals.   Aberrant social behavior is bad for the herd.  So we have laws and we have religions.


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> If there is no God and no judgement day they why should anyone behave?  If you only live once then your just gone why not allow anything goes?  I make my living off people that are not ready for the responsibility.



That's the question I'm asking regarding those that lack empathy.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Steve said:


> Is a Christian god the only possible source of morality?
> 
> Moral social behavior is a practical consideration. We are, at our core, herd animals.   Aberrant social behavior is bad for the herd.  So we have laws and we have religions.


That is, in fact, why we became polytheistic as a people. Different locations had different rules. When cities came into existence, these people all met a decided that there God was obviously superior to the god of that guy over there, when out in the field or up in the mountains, you are dealing with one God. The answer to your question is no. It does not matter.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Is a Christian god the only possible source of morality?


No not at all.  However if there is no good or evil we are just globs that by chance turned into people and there is nothing else out there then why have morals?  Why not just do what you want in the end it doesnt matter anyway?


> Moral social behavior is a practical consideration. We are, at our core, herd animals.   Aberrant social behavior is bad for the herd.  So we have laws and we have religions.


And people still run wild.  If you REALLY believe in God you wont run wild if you play Christian or dont believe at all then your will.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> That's the question I'm asking regarding those that lack empathy.


Right I was agreeing with you and just expanding the question a little


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> That is, in fact, why we became poly theistic as a people. Different locations had different rules. When cities came into existence, these people all met a decided that there God was obviously superior to the god of that guy over there, when out in the field or up in the mountains, you are dealing with one God. The answer to your question is no. It does not matter.


I also think there is a difference between religion and God.  I believe there is a God people just call him different names and worship him differently.  The differences are religions which are man made.  God is and always was God.


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> I also think there is a difference between religion and God.  I believe there is a God people just call him different names and worship him differently.  The differences are religions which are man made.  God is and always was God.


I like what the Kurds did. They decided that Satan was their Guardian Angel, and worship him instead .LOL It isn't working to well for them at the present time. Nobody but nobody is helping them create a Kurdistsan. 
Sean


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> No not at all.  However if there is no good or evil we are just globs that by chance turned into people and there is nothing else out there then why have morals?  Why not just do what you want in the end it doesnt matter anyway?
> 
> And people still run wild.  If you REALLY believe in God you wont run wild if you play Christian or dont believe at all then your will.



You suggested in another thread that you were once agnostic (perhaps atheist?).   I'm not sure I can even begin to imagine all the terrible things you did before you got the fear of God in you.  This combined with all the high level police and detective work you've done around the country on various very important cases might make for quite an interesting memoir to read some day.


----------



## Touch Of Death

crushing said:


> You suggested in another thread that you were once agnostic (perhaps atheist?).   I'm not sure I can even begin to imagine all the terrible things you did before you got the fear of God in you.  This combined with all the high level police and detective work you've done around the country on various very important cases might make for quite an interesting memoir to read some day.


I doubt it is less about what he did, and more about what he has seen.
Sean


----------



## Buka

_*"Did man make God?"*_

If he did, I hope he did a better job than Microsoft did with Windows.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> You suggested in another thread that you were once agnostic (perhaps atheist?).   I'm not sure I can even begin to imagine all the terrible things you did before you got the fear of God in you.


Actually I was very immoral person.  No so much when I became a cop out of fear of loosing my job but prior to when I was in the Marine Corps I was the last man you would ever want near your daughter but if I was you wouldn't need to worry for long because I wouldnt be there for long.  Not to mention I was just a mean person to others.


> This combined with all the high level police and detective work you've done around the country on various very important cases might make for quite an interesting memoir to read some day.


I dont know about the around the country part or high level but Ive seen more evil more then most people.


----------



## ballen0351

Im also not saying people cant be civilized without religion but without it whats the motivation?  Just being a swell guy isnt enough for alot of people.


----------



## Steve

jks9199 said:


> This is a personal request, not an official comment.  I want to make that clear, since there could be some confusion.
> 
> Something that really bothers me from some of the atheists and agnostics around here is the disdainful attitude they show towards people of faith.  If I were to imply that someone was stupid, lazy, uninformed or uneducated because they didn't believe in God, I'd rightly be laughed out of the room.  But it seems that it's perfectly OK for someone who doesn't believe to use belittling phrases or outright insults towards those who do believe.   There's plenty of room to discuss these issues without being asses about it -- on either



I think that the disdain and condescension is going freely both ways.  Christians aren't being victimized here. The sanctimony of a select few Christians here is almost unbearable.

Christians don't hold any kind of moral monopoly, and the Christian god is not the only possible explanation for anything, whether it's the creation of the universe or anything else.  

By all means, believe what you want, but questions like, "if not god, then what? " are loaded with patronizing smugness ignoring literally every other religion or non-religion.  It sets an immediate negative tone.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Im also not saying people cant be civilized without religion but without it whats the motivation?  Just being a swell guy isnt enough for alot of people.



Maybe there's an inherent drive in most people, call it instinct, to be good.  Good meaning productive and constructive.  And that instinct is nurtured by their parents who strengthen these mores as they are raised, so that the kids can become healthy, happy, successful and productive adults who live fulfilling lives.  

We are, at our core, herd creatures.  Pack animals.  We are driven to be a part of groups.  It makes us happy.  We derive satisfaction from service.  And, as a group, we are compelled to protect our groups from other groups that threaten us and people who are destructive.

Add a higher intellect to the mix and a self awareness, and the social dance becomes a lot more complicated in practice.

We are a lot more complicated than other animals, but we remain biological creatures.  Some animals know intuitively how to herd other animals.  Some are driven to hunt.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> By all means, believe what you want, but questions like, "if not god, then what? " are loaded with patronizing smugness ignoring literally every other religion or non-religion.  It sets an immediate negative tone.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Its not ment to be negative.  Its a question.  If you dont believe in something bigger then us and we are nothing more then cells that work together, we have no spirit and no judgement day then what is the motivation to live a good life if it means nothing?  Obviously society itself isnt enough of a motivation or Id be out of a job.  If there is no God, is there good and evil?  These are valid question for the discussion.  Nowhere in this thread  have I seen a christian call a non believer lazy, ignorant, intellectual lazyness, delusional, irrational.  Cant say the same for the non-believers.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Maybe there's an inherent drive in most people, call it instinct, to be good.  Good meaning productive and constructive.  And that instinct is nurtured by their parents who strengthen these mores as they are raised, so that the kids can become healthy, happy, successful and productive adults who live fulfilling lives.


I disagree watch little kids play without adult intervention.  They hit, steal, bite, cry, kick, ect. Thats human instinct


> We are, at our core, herd creatures.  Pack animals.  We are driven to be a part of groups.  It makes us happy.  We derive satisfaction from service.  And, as a group, we are compelled to protect our groups from other groups that threaten us and people who are destructive.
> [
> Add a higher intellect to the mix and a self awareness, and the social dance becomes a lot more complicated in practice.
> 
> We are a lot more complicated than other animals, but we remain biological creatures.  Some animals know intuitively how to herd other animals.  Some are driven to hunt.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


We are alot more complicated and that goes to prove we are more then just matter=time=chance.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Its not ment to be negative.  Its a question.  If you dont believe in something bigger then us and we are nothing more then cells that work together, we have no spirit and no judgement day then what is the motivation to live a good life if it means nothing?  Obviously society itself isnt enough of a motivation or Id be out of a job.  If there is no God, is there good and evil?  These are valid question for the discussion.  Nowhere in this thread  have I seen a christian call a non believer lazy, ignorant, intellectual lazyness, delusional, irrational.  Cant say the same for the non-believers.


This doesn't follow.  It's possible that we do have spirit, judgment and motivation to live a good life without any god.   The implication here is that atheists are... What?  Fill in the blank.  What's the opposite of good?  Maybe you just have no idea how intentionally insulting you are.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Touch Of Death

Steve said:


> This doesn't follow.  It's possible that we do have spirit, judgment and motivation to live a good life without any god.   The implication here is that atheists are... What?  Fill in the blank.  What's the opposite of good?  Maybe you just have no idea how intentionally insulting you are.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


You speak as if atheist have all banded together and somehow have it together. After all. don't they get to believe what they want?


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> This doesn't follow.  It's possible that we do have spirit, judgment and motivation to live a good life without any god.


Whats a spirit then and whos judgement?  


> The implication here is that atheists are... What?  Fill in the blank.  What's the opposite of good?  Maybe you just have no idea how intentionally insulting you are.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Im not intentionally insulting anyone and I didnt make that statement.  I asked the question can you have good and evil with out God?  Good and evil are not biological terms if all we are according to some are just cells that formed and no more no less is there good and evil?  Of course atheists can be good neighbors to society I never said they cant.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I disagree watch little kids play without adult intervention.  They hit, steal, bite, cry, kick, ect. Thats human instinct
> 
> We are alot more complicated and that goes to prove we are more then just matter=time=chance.


Some do and some don't.   I've spent a lot of time around kids, and any kicking, biting, stealing and hitting is very rare. And you're neglecting the nurture part.  Kids need some training, because our instincts are tempered by a lot of other things, such as culture.    But overall, kids. Particularly very young kids under six, have an inherent desire to be good.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Touch Of Death

Spirit is your will to live. Science hasn't supplied us with a reason, just yet, but have faith.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Some do and some don't.   I've spent a lot of time around kids, and any kicking, biting, stealing and hitting is very rare. And you're neglecting the nurture part.  Kids need some training, because our instincts are tempered by a lot of other things, such as culture.    But overall, kids. Particularly very young kids under six, have an inherent desire to be good.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


We will have to disagree on that.  If a kid wants something another kid has they will take it or at least try to.  When  isay kid Im talking toddlers not 6 yr olds by then they have learned manners thats not instinct thats modified behavior


----------



## Steve

Touch Of Death said:


> You speak as if atheist have all banded together and somehow have it together. After all. don't they get to believe what they want?



How so?  And an atheist can also be a good person.  And there can be a belief in evil and good outside of a god... Certainly outside of the Christian god.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Touch Of Death

Steve said:


> How so?  And an atheist can also be a good person.  And there can be a belief in evil and good outside of a god... Certainly outside of the Christian god.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


But there is nothing to hold people to what ever cause you might take up. That is not to say you can't convince them. You just won't have them by the foundation of their soul.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> We will have to disagree on that.  If a kid wants something another kid has they will take it or at least try to.



Yeah,  we do have to teach kids to share.  And we also have to teach them to respect boundaries.  But does that mean they have to be taught to be good?   I think there's an instinct to be a part of the pack.  And all kids have empathy and compassion. Although some less than others.  All kids crave structure and thrive when they understand their boundaries.  And of course, we are all individuals, born with a particular blueprint influenced by our accumulated experiences, including how we were raised and by whom.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> How so?  And an atheist can also be a good person.  And there can be a belief in evil and good outside of a god... Certainly outside of the Christian god.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Whats Good and whats evil if you dont believe in anything other then the biological working of the body.  If there is nothing spiritual out there we are just cells working together?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Whats Good and whats evil if you dont believe in anything other then the biological working of the body.  If there is nothing spiritual out there we are just cells working together?



I didn't say that I only believe in the biological workings of the body.  I simply don't believe in a god.

My definition of good and evil are likely very similar to your own.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Yeah,  we do have to teach kids to share.  And we also have to teach them to respect boundaries.  But does that mean they have to be taught to be good?   I think there's an instinct to be a part of the pack.  And all kids have empathy and compassion. Although some less than others.  All kids crave structure and thrive when they understand their boundaries.  And of course, we are all individuals, born with a particular blueprint influenced by our accumulated experiences, including how we were raised and by whom.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


I agree but thats not instinct thats learned and modified behavior.  Our instinct is not so good.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I agree but thats not instinct thats learned and modified behavior.  Our instinct is not so good.



Our instincts are to crave structure.  We intuitively understand that we have to learn how to get along.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I didn't say that I only believe in the biological workings of the body.  I simply don't believe in a god.
> 
> My definition of good and evil are likely very similar to your own.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


So if there is no God where do Good and Evil come from?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So if there is no God where do Good and Evil come from?


don't know.  Maybe it's our instincts honed over tens of thousands of years, codified in different ways by different societies and sub cultures.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Our instincts are to crave structure.  We intuitively understand that we have to learn how to get along.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


right we have to learn to behave


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> don't know.  Maybe it's our instincts honed over tens of thousands of years, codified in different ways by different societies and sub cultures.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Or its divine intervention


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> right we have to learn to behave



Yes.  We do.  And are biologically predisposed to want to learn how.   Don't you agree?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Or its divine intervention



If that's what you believe, more power to you.  Can we agree that there are other possible explanations?  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> So if there is no God where do Good and Evil come from?


The concept of sin does not need to be religious. If the society sets the mark you can still miss it.


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> So if there is no God where do Good and Evil come from?


The concept of "good" and "evil" is totally subjective. Muslims believe in the same God as Christians. There are many practices in the Muslim religeon such as stoning and beheadings that I would classify as evil. The worship of images is considered evil by Islam. I think think that good and evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> The concept of sin does not need to be religious. If the society sets the mark you can still miss it.



Society sets laws.  Not sins.   It's legal to cheat on your wife but it's a sin.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> If that's what you believe, more power to you.  Can we agree that there are other possible explanations?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I've never said there wasnt.


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> The concept of "good" and "evil" is totally subjective. Muslims believe in the same God as Christians. There are many practices in the Muslim religeon such as stoning and beheadings that I would classify as evil. The worship of images is considered evil by Islam. I think think that good and evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
> :asian:


Religion is different then God.  Religion is man made.


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> Society sets laws.  Not sins.   It's legal to cheat on your wife but it's a sin.


But it is a sin to break the law. You do understand the term I presume.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I've never said there wasnt.


So then, you agree?


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> But it is a sin to break the law. You do understand the term I presume.



Not really.  It's against the law to text and drive there is no sin religiously speaking


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> Not really.  It's against the law to text and drive there is no sin religiously speaking


Placing the lives of others at stake is not a sin? What the hell not?


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> Placing the lives of others at stake is not a sin? What the hell not?



Little extreme don't you think


----------



## donald1

Touch Of Death said:


> Placing the lives of others at stake is not a sin? What the hell not?



That does sound reasonable,  it's not right to risk other people's lives 
A text isn't worth ending someone's life killing is a sin.  But if someone got lucky and didn't hurt anyone is it still a sin?  I know it's against the law either way but not all laws are sins,  not all sins are apart of the law. 
You make a point,  I'm no not surety if it is or isn't but either way it shouldn't be done


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> So then, you agree?



Agree with what?  I believe there is a God.  I agree some don't and that's their right


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> Little extreme don't you think


If you understand the risks, and still do it. You are sinning. I can't see the extreme.
Sean


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> If you understand the risks, and still do it. You are sinning. I can't see the extreme.
> Sean



Ok premarital sex?  Not a crime but a sin


----------



## ballen0351

Or its illegal for me to take my son fishing without a license. Not a sin but a crime


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> Or its illegal for me to take my son fishing without a license. Not a sin but a crime


You might be on to something with this one, but in general laws are based off of sin.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Agree with what?  I believe there is a God.  I agree some don't and that's their right


Do you agree that a Christian god is not the only reasonable explanation for morality, creation or good/evil?  You gave a kind of non answer.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Steve said:


> Do you agree that a Christian god is not the only reasonable explanation for morality, creation or good/evil?  You gave a kind of non answer.


He said no. I remember.


----------



## donald1

Now that I think of it when the question asks man made god if it means man made god physically or if it means man made god through belief in god and faith 

i'm not sure if man made god the first thing I would think is how?  And if man made god does that mean he is man too?  Or when did man made god... 

Whether man did or didn't make god its possible if God truly can do the impossible and this is something


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Do you agree that a Christian god is not the only reasonable explanation for morality, creation or good/evil?  You gave a kind of non answer.



No I don't agree.  I believe it's the only reasonable answer but there are other possibilities or beliefs I just don't find them reasonable.  Chance+time+matter while possible it's not very reasonable to me however anything is possible I guess


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> You might be on to something with this one, but in general laws are based off of sin.



There are 1000s of laws not nearly as many sins.  Now the main ones are similar but society until modern times was based heavily on religion


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> Religion is different then God.  Religion is man made.


Cool! So now we can get rid of all the trimmings because all the texts and religious books are man made. 

That brings us back to God herself. Now I'm not sure how her message is going to get through to the billions of people who are not Christian if it's not through religion which we have just demonstrated is not always the true story.
 :hmm:


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> Ok premarital sex?  Not a crime but a sin


??? Really?


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> ??? Really?



???Really???? What?


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> Cool! So now we can get rid of all the trimmings because all the texts and religious books are man made.
> 
> That brings us back to God herself. Now I'm not sure how her message is going to get through to the billions of people who are not Christian if it's not through religion which we have just demonstrated is not always the true story.
> :hmm:



The books written by  the people that were there are true.


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> ???Really???? What?


Sorry but marriage is a legality. Just who is saying that premarital sex is a sin?



ballen0351 said:


> The books written by  the people that were there are true.


And we have whose word for that? The people who are within a particular religion? By that definition the Koran would be more likely to be accurate than the Bible because it was written more recently. Scientology even better because even I was around when Mr Hubbard made that one up.


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> Just who is saying that premarital sex is a sin?


God


> And we have whose word for that? The people who are within a particular religion? By that definition the Koran would be more likely to be accurate than the Bible because it was written more recently. Scientology even better because even I was around when Mr Hubbard made that one up.


We have the Authors word for it. Peter says he saw what he saw. Paul the same ect, ect,ect  Do you have evidence to the contrary to say they lied?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> No I don't agree.  I believe it's the only reasonable answer but there are other possibilities or beliefs I just don't find them reasonable.  Chance+time+matter while possible it's not very reasonable to me however anything is possible I guess


You can acknowledge that something is reasonable without saying you believe it.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> The books written by  the people that were there are true.


Have you ever really read genesis?  Pretty obviously written by at least the or four different people over a lot of time.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Have you ever really read genesis?  Pretty obviously written by at least the or four different people over a lot of time.



Ive read it all.  As I said I believe the eyewitness accounts written by the people that say they were there.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> You can acknowledge that something is reasonable without saying you believe it.



True but to me time+matter+chance its reasonable.  Its the Chance part mostly I have issue with


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> God
> 
> We have the Authors word for it. Peter says he saw what he saw. Paul the same ect, ect,ect  Do you have evidence to the contrary to say they lied?


Pretty hard to argue with God. If she was around I could ask her directly but nobody I know has actually been granted an audience.

As to books and the truth. I don't have an issue with Peter claiming what he saw was real. You have no evidence to say his account is true and I have no evidence to say it's not, and at no time did I read any posts suggesting anyone lied. I got howled down years ago for suggesting that perception is reality. I stick by my original position. For Peter what he saw or what he thought he saw is his reality. If it is also your reality, great. Go for it. Just because others disagree with your reality doesn't make them wrong.

But really, you have hijacked the thread. It was nothing about the existance of God or otherwise. It is about the involvement of the brain and changes in the brain where religion is involved.



> &#8220;It seems that the brain is built in such a way that allows us as human beings to have transcendent experiences extremely easily, furthering our belief in a greater power,&#8221; Newberg says. This would explain why some type of religion exists in every culture, arguably making spirituality one of the defining characteristics of our species.
> 
> 
> Depending on your religious views, such discoveries are either deeply fascinating or profoundly disturbing. Throughout history, spirituality has been viewed as something outside science, just as the soul is separate from the body; both ineffable essences, transcending the materialist universe.


----------



## ballen0351

I didn't hijack anything.  It has everything to do with the existence of God.  Your position was we made him up in out minds and he's not real.  Mine is not


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I didn't hijack anything.  It has everything to do with the existence of God.  Your position was we made him up in out minds and he's not real.  Mine is not


But it's possible. Right?  You have faith.  But it's possible that it's a biological imperative to believe in a higher power.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> But it's possible. Right?  You have faith.  But it's possible that it's a biological imperative to believe in a higher power.



Not really in my opinion if it where biological more people would do it.  Religious belief seems to have taken a quick and sudden decline in the last 50 to 75 years.  According to older people I've talked to.  If it were biological I don't think it would have dropped that fast.  Also if it were biological why would people change their beliefs?  For example I was not a believer my whole life until about 5 years ago or so.  I also know a former pastor that gave up his beliefs.  So i wouldn't think biological needs would change so rapidly and back and forth.  Is it possible I suppose so but I feel it's very unlikely


----------



## oftheherd1

Cirdan said:


> If we created gods and there are other better awnsers to existence, wouldn`t you agree?



I think there are groups who have indeed created gods.  But I don't believe anyone created the God I believe in.  Rather, I believe he created the universe.  That is a matter of faith for me.  So I would agree there are better answers to existence, that being the God I believe in.

You may not believe as I do.  That is your business.  No one should try and compel you to believe what you don't want to believe.  Nor should anyone put you down for you beliefs.  They are yours to deal with as you wish.  I think you are wrong in your belief, and don't mind discussing that with you, and hearing what you do believe.  But I will always try to present my belief and my God in a loving and caring way.  I will not try to insult or belittle you.

I would appreciate the the same from you.

All that said, I am curious, what do you think are better answers to existence?


----------



## oftheherd1

Cirdan said:


> That suprises me. If man created gods, and we accept the gods as truth, are we not merely accepting words of our fellow fallible man as perfect truth?



The problem as I see it is that you are accepting as fact, the premiss that man created gods.  In fact that may be.  But those of us who are Christian, accept only one God.  We believe we are accepting His word and that His word is perfect truth.  Apparently you do not believe that.  So be it, but how is our belief less valid than yours?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Not really in my opinion if it where biological more people would do it.  Religious belief seems to have taken a quick and sudden decline in the last 50 to 75 years.  According to older people I've talked to.  If it were biological I don't think it would have dropped that fast.  Also if it were biological why would people change their beliefs?  For example I was not a believer my whole life until about 5 years ago or so.  I also know a former pastor that gave up his beliefs.  So i wouldn't think biological needs would change so rapidly and back and forth.  Is it possible I suppose so but I feel it's very unlikely


Most people are good.  Regardless of faith, most people are good people.  If I have faith in anything, it is that.  Even heathens


----------



## oftheherd1

I got into this thread after it had many responses.  I started off answering each post, but thought maybe it would be better to comment on all I want in one post.  It's going to be daunting, for readers as well as me.  But here goes.





Cirdan said:


> If such a being exist maybe, there seem to be a lot of the one true god or one true group of gods running around.However there is no evidence for the existence of gods, nor does our understanding of the universe need or require one. Also there is a lot of historical evidence showing how religion evolves and certain gods are made up from aspects of earlier beliefs. For instance Thor and Zeus are related. Isis and Mother Mary too. It is truly facinating if you spend some time studying it.


No evidence for the existence of gods?  My believe in God is based on faith, and that is my proof.  I do have the Bible for proof as well.  If those things don't work for you I find that sad.  Apparently you don't.





Steve said:


> Is a Christian god the only possible source of morality?Moral social behavior is a practical consideration. We are, at our core, herd animals.   Aberrant social behavior is bad for the herd.  So we have laws and we have religions.


I guess it requires a definition of morality.  If it is an following the precepts of a religion, then I would say my God is the source of morality.  If you want to define it as anything else, then other possibilities are open.





Touch Of Death said:


> I like what the Kurds did. They decided that Satan was their Guardian Angel, and worship him instead .LOL It isn't working to well for them at the present time. Nobody but nobody is helping them create a Kurdistsan. Sean


First I had heard of that.  A quick perusal of the inet makes it appear it is a small group of people who believe that way.  But thanks for the education.





Steve said:


> I think that the disdain and condescension is going freely both ways.  Christians aren't being victimized here. The sanctimony of a select few Christians here is almost unbearable.Christians don't hold any kind of moral monopoly, and the Christian god is not the only possible explanation for anything, whether it's the creation of the universe or anything else.  By all means, believe what you want, but questions like, "if not god, then what? " are loaded with patronizing smugness ignoring literally every other religion or non-religion.  It sets an immediate negative tone.  Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


By definition, the Christian God, in whom I believe, is the only possible explanation for everything.  It says so in the Bible.  But I know that not all people believe in the God I believe in.





ballen0351 said:


> Its not ment to be negative.  Its a question.  If you dont believe in something bigger then us and we are nothing more then cells that work together, we have no spirit and no judgement day then what is the motivation to live a good life if it means nothing?  Obviously society itself isnt enough of a motivation or Id be out of a job.  If there is no God, is there good and evil?  These are valid question for the discussion.  Nowhere in this thread  have I seen a christian call a non believer lazy, ignorant, intellectual lazyness, delusional, irrational.  Cant say the same for the non-believers.


Interestingly, I would say that we who are saved should be more concerned about being what God wants us to be, than worrying about judgement.  Prior to being saved and becoming a Christian, judgement won't seem so important.  But I take your point that fear of judgement and an eternal existence in hell, once believed in, should be a great incentive to want to be saved and serve God.





Steve said:


> Yeah,  we do have to teach kids to share.  And we also have to teach them to respect boundaries.  But does that mean they have to be taught to be good?   I think there's an instinct to be a part of the pack.  And all kids have empathy and compassion. Although some less than others.  All kids crave structure and thrive when they understand their boundaries.  And of course, we are all individuals, born with a particular blueprint influenced by our accumulated experiences, including how we were raised and by whom.  Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Christians believe we have inherited Adam's sin nature.  





Steve said:


> Yes.  We do.  And are biologically predisposed to want to learn how.   Don't you agree?Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


See the above comment of Adam's sin nature.  Christian belief is that sin entered through Adam's giving in to the temptation of Satan.





Steve said:


> If that's what you believe, more power to you.  Can we agree that there are other possible explanations?  Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Since Christians believe in God who commands us not to follow false gods, we cannot agree to any other possible explanations.That doesn't mean we don't know other people hold different beliefs.  We just don't accept them having any validity contrary to our beliefs.





K-man said:


> The concept of "good" and "evil" is totally subjective. Muslims believe in the same God as Christians. There are many practices in the Muslim religeon such as stoning and beheadings that I would classify as evil. The worship of images is considered evil by Islam. I think think that good and evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.:asian:


That is an interesting assertion, that Christians and Muslims believe in the same God.  We have the same lineage from God, true.  But we believe that Muslims have erred in their belief, especially since they deny the deity and Son of God status of Jesus.  Our belief in Jesus being the messiah, and God, is why we are called Christian.  Since the Muslim belief denies Jesus as the Son of God, one could make an argument that we don't believe in the same God.  Even if one simply thinks they are in error, it would be a significant one.I understand they will think the same of a Christian, or any other belief.





Steve said:


> Do you agree that a Christian god is not the only reasonable explanation for morality, creation or good/evil?  You gave a kind of non answer.


No, a Christian cannot.





K-man said:


> Cool! So now we can get rid of all the trimmings because all the texts and religious books are man made. That brings us back to God herself. Now I'm not sure how her message is going to get through to the billions of people who are not Christian if it's not through religion which we have just demonstrated is not always the true story. :hmm:


Well, Christians believe the Bible is God breathed.  That is, God controlled what the different authors wrote, so the writings were what he wanted us to know.  So if your saying they are man made implies men wrote the Bible but not under the divine control of God, Christians cannot accept that.As to God being female, why throw that into the face of Christian belief.  You surely know how insulting that is to Christians.  Do you enjoy being insulting?  Or do you really believe God is female?  Of course, that would mean you then have to admit to the existence of God.  If you are admitting that, then we can discuss whether or not God is male or female.





K-man said:


> Sorry but marriage is a legality. Just who is saying that premarital sex is a sin?And we have whose word for that? The people who are within a particular religion? By that definition the Koran would be more likely to be accurate than the Bible because it was written more recently. Scientology even better because even I was around when Mr Hubbard made that one up.


As I am sure you know, Christians believe God says sex outside of marriage is sin, as pointed out in the Bible.  What does age of writings have to do with their inerrancy?





Steve said:


> But it's possible. Right?  You have faith.  But it's possible that it's a biological imperative to believe in a higher power.


Apparently not.  You and many others on MT don't seem to.  But if you do, would you like to be introduced to God?  I would be happy to show you what and why I believe.


----------



## RTKDCMB

jks9199 said:


> Something that really bothers me from some of the atheists and agnostics around here is the disdainful attitude they show towards people of faith.  If I were to imply that someone was stupid, lazy, uninformed or uneducated because they didn't believe in God, I'd rightly be laughed out of the room.  But it seems that it's perfectly OK for someone who doesn't believe to use belittling phrases or outright insults towards those who do believe.   There's plenty of room to discuss these issues without being asses about it -- on either side.



You make some valid points however it goes the other way as well, mainly from proponents of YEC. Some people of faith call atheists and agnostics evil and attack their character  because they don't believe as they do


----------



## jezr74

Got behind on this one, so making a statement to cover some comments from my point of view.

As an aethiest, I have no need for a god or religion to give my life meaning. I live and strive because my time here is short and do what I can with it within my bounds, and culture and society. My purpose in life changes constantly over time, when I was younger it was about family and having fun, as I got older I added responsibility, commitment and still family. Older still, it was about growing my own family. and so on and so on... it changes, it shrinks and grows, has it's ups and downs. Some people have religion and gods in theirs, just different ideals at different stages. 

I have ethics and morals, grown from experience, trials and tribulations through my years, my wife does, my kids do, my family does... with that I know what is and is not acceptable (good and evil, right and wrong). I also pass this on to my kids and influence them, I'm also constantly being influenced by people around me... constantly having these things updated and changed.

Religious, aethiest, agnostic, .. they all learn the same way. And *all *capable of great and small acts of evil and good.

But sin is a religious creation, so I'm not bound by it or my family. And for me, I don't have an emptiness that people of faith describe, it's just not in my life at the moment.

The reason I see god as man made is because I took the time to look at the science and evidence, and went further to understand it. I also took the time to look at religion and faith to examine it's evidence as well and understand it via their scriptures. This is where it landed me, others have a different story.


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> I didn't hijack anything.  It has everything to do with the existence of God.  Your position was we made him up in out minds and he's not real.  Mine is not


You have not discussed the OP at all. The existence of God or otherwise has nothing to do with this thread. If you want to argue the existence of God start another thread. I have not stated my position in this or any other thread so for you to say my position is that God only exists in the mind is not what I have said at all. You have your beliefs and I have mine. What I believe is nothing to do with this thread. As for your position that God is real ... I don't have a problem with that. So now can we get back to discussing what I posted rather than your faith?
:asian:


----------



## Cirdan

Touch Of Death said:


> Your country was founded by God fearing people and would not exist if it weren't for them. Your current political climate is anecdotal at best.  My Granddad came from Norway. I guess that makes me 3rd generation.



Actually my country was first united in the viking age under king Harald Hårfagre who defeated all the other jarls and small-kings. The reason he did it was to impress Gyda, the woman he wanted, so he could finally have some of her nookie. 

In short, Norway was founded by horny vikings and would not exist if it weren`t for them  Skål!


----------



## Cirdan

oftheherd1 said:


> I think there are groups who have indeed created gods. But I don't believe anyone created the God I believe in. Rather, I believe he created the universe. That is a matter of faith for me. So I would agree there are better answers to existence, that being the God I believe in.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> All that said, I am curious, what do you think are better answers to existence?



The better way of course is to study the world with an open mind, use critical thinking and discard old flawed models when your increasing understanding allows you to improve. 
The universe is wonderous, to me putting imaginary gods in charge of this marvel belittles rather than improves.


----------



## K-man

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, Christians believe the Bible is God breathed.  That is, God controlled what the different authors wrote, so the writings were what he wanted us to know.  So if your saying they are man made implies men wrote the Bible but not under the divine control of God, Christians cannot accept that.



That's the first time I've heard that position stated so I would suggest that millions of Christians would accept that men wrote the Bible. The fact that it has been translated and retranslated adds to the confusion. Then you have the differences in Bibles between the different denominations. 



oftheherd1 said:


> As to God being female, why throw that into the face of Christian belief.  You surely know how insulting that is to Christians.  Do you enjoy being insulting?  Or do you really believe God is female?  Of course, that would mean you then have to admit to the existence of God.  If you are admitting that, then we can discuss whether or not God is male or female.



 As to the gender of God. That is not an insult at all. Many of my feminist friends always refer to God as female. Have you any evidence to the contrary? My Christian friends are sick of condescending male attitudes within the church regarding the ordination of women. I happen to believe in their cause. 



oftheherd1 said:


> As I am sure you know, Christians believe God says sex outside of marriage is sin, as pointed out in the Bible.  What does age of writings have to do with their inerrancy?



I'm not sure you are correct here. The Bible says adultery is a sin but I'm to be convinced that it is categorical when it comes to sex between unmarried persons. The word 'should' is not the same as 'must'. 

Like Ballen you have jumped in with both feet without understanding the OP. You have no idea of my background but I will tell you that I grew up in a Christian home, attended a Christian school and spent three years in a Theological college in earlier times. You don't have to explain Christianity to me. 

In none of my posts have I suggested there was no God so fine, I'm up for a discussion as to the gender of God, just not in this thread which has nothing to do with the existence of God. What I would like to discuss is the scientific research which, by the way, is not saying there is no God. 
:asian:


----------



## jezr74

K-man said:


> What I would like to discuss is the scientific research which, by the way, is not saying there is no God.



I'm not sure it can be proven one way or the other as there is no test that could be done to prove or disprove the existence of god(s). If I was to say that there is clear evidence through common ancestry (which there is) of evolution, we get the 'God of the Gaps' happening.

If we actually found empirical evidence, nothing can stop a faith from claiming it was placed there by "God". This happens today, especially with 10,000 year creationists.


----------



## K-man

To get back on track ...



> Regardless of whether God&#8202;&#8202;a force superior to man&#8202;&#8202;created him, or man imagined a superior force after he just happened, we are still faced with the inescapable presence of God in our lives, if not as a tangible reality, then at least as an idea.
> 
> 
> My question is this (and try and think it over with an open mind): Why did man create God? Why did he imagine Him? What was the need for it? Why did he feel compelled to find a meaning in the world around him that there was no physical need for?
> https://medium.com/religion-and-god/did-man-create-god-7358459307a2


----------



## jezr74

K-man said:


> To get back on track ...



This is where I kinda agree with Ballen on the separation of God and religion. I bring this up so that my response is not confused between them.

I've always seen religion as a control mechanism. Very effective use of fear and sin to control and justify actions of the church that is immoral or evil, also capable of good as well but maybe not so much in the dark ages. This is mad made, and susceptible to the short comings of man as is anyone.

God, I see this the essence of a faith and\or explanation of unknown. Some believers are striving to be in their gods image, weather it's righteous, virtuous, etc.. in the past maybe warped by the institution and has since muddied the waters (ie. greed, power etc)

But I think the essence of a god has not changed. But humans have bent it to their own means. Having said that, a tribe in the middle of a desert will worship the sun as a god as they may know no better and it was part of stories and legend. We have this in what the Aboriginals call the dream time. Fantastic stories of great beings that shaped the world and skies. They created the stories to pass on to generations to come, over time they believe these are gods and are then taught that way when passed on to the next generation. This is how I see gods as man made. Made to tell the story when no other feasible answer is there, as new information and answers come to pass, they embrace and change. That's likely why not all the gods of the past exist today but only in legend.

Some survived the times, or were kept due to people that still used it for earthly reasons..


----------



## K-man

jezr74 said:


> I'm not sure it can be proven one way or the other as there is no test that could be done to prove or disprove the existence of god(s). If I was to say that there is clear evidence through common ancestry (which there is) of evolution, we get the 'God of the Gaps' happening.
> 
> If we actually found empirical evidence, nothing can stop a faith from claiming it was placed there by "God". This happens today, especially with 10,000 year creationists.


Mmm! I think you missed the point. This is not about the existence of God or gods. What happened was the scientists have been analysing the brains of people experiencing different religious experiences. Even more controversially, others designed a so called 'God helmet'.



> If religion is merely a product of the mind, then perhaps its effects can be simulated artificially &#8211; with potentially powerful results. In the Nineties, Canadian cognitive neuro-scientist Michael Persinger invented a &#8220;God helmet,&#8221; which, he claimed, simulated religious experiences by directing complex magnetic fields to the parts of the brain that include the parietal lobe.
> 
> 
> Evangelical Christians demonstrated outside the lab where Persinger tested the helmet, outraged at his suggestion that God could be replicated via a machine. But more than 80 per cent of those who wore the helmet reported sensing a presence in the room that many took to be their deity. They also became deeply emotional and, after the experiment, were filled with a sense of loss.
> What god does to your brain: Controversial science of neurotheology aims to find out why people have faith


So, this is not proving or disproving the existence of God. It is just another piece of evidence in the mystery of life. Fundamental Christians accept Creation as described in the Bible. This flies in the face of all scientific evidence. Most Christians are happy to accept that the story in Genesis is just a story and move on in their faith. This scientific research is no different. If Christians feel threatened by this type of research I think they should be asking why they feel threatened. As I have done for many years, I am happy to look at any scientific findings that help us make sense of life and adjust my understanding accordingly. To do otherwise is to live in the distant past with ignorance and superstition. Before this is taken out of context, perhaps I should add that throughout history people have explained the world around them in terms people of the time could understand. Hopefully our understanding of the World has increased greatly since Biblical times.
:asian:


----------



## jezr74

K-man said:


> Mmm! I think you missed the point. This is not about the existence of God or gods. What happened was the scientists have been analysing the brains of people experiencing different religious experiences. Even more controversially, others designed a so called 'God helmet'.
> :asian:



I'll re-read it. I may have interpreted it differently and took me a different direction.


----------



## K-man

jezr74 said:


> This is where I kinda agree with Ballen on the separation of God and religion. I bring this up so that my response is not confused between them.


I would agree, but it is a little hard to accept that three religions (Jewish, Christian and Muslim) who all claim the same God can have such vastly different positions. Despite protestation in a previous post this is the same God but viewed from three totally separate positions.



jezr74 said:


> I've always seen religion as a control mechanism. Very effective use of fear and sin to control and justify actions of the church that is immoral or evil, also capable of good as well but maybe not so much in the dark ages. This is mad made, and susceptible to the short comings of man as is anyone.


Very True, particularly in England where the church was all powerful centuries ago.



jezr74 said:


> God, I see this the essence of a faith and\or explanation of unknown. Some believers are striving to be in their gods image, weather it's righteous, virtuous, etc.. in the past maybe warped by the institution and has since muddied the waters (ie. greed, power etc)


But how does this relate to the scientific article? Is the feeling produced by the brain a factor in this belief?



jezr74 said:


> But I think the essence of a god has not changed. But humans have bent it to their own means. Having said that, a tribe in the middle of a desert will worship the sun as a god as they may know no better and it was part of stories and legend. We have this in what the Aboriginals call the dream time. Fantastic stories of great beings that shaped the world and skies. They created the stories to pass on to generations to come, over time they believe these are gods and are then taught that way when passed on to the next generation. This is how I see gods as man made. Made to tell the story when no other feasible answer is there, as new information and answers come to pass, they embrace and change. That's likely why not all the gods of the past exist today but only in legend.
> 
> Some survived the times, or were kept due to people that still used it for earthly reasons..


I love the dreamtime stories. I've seen the great serpent at Uluru. I have no problem with Aboriginal beliefs in creation. Their links to the landscape go back 40,000 years, way beyond Biblical times.
:asian:


----------



## jezr74

K-man said:


> But how does this relate to the scientific article? Is the feeling produced by the brain a factor in this belief?



Guess it depends what parts you think is science.. I have to say that the article seems a bit iffy after reading it again. No indication of where the research was done or how, let alone the numbers change.



> When people speak in tongues, theyre gone, theyre in a completely altered state. But most of the time theyre normal people like us


A premise is here that speaking in tongues is done in an altered state? No evidence provided that this is the case.



> as many sceptics have long suspected  God didnt create us, but we created God.


Skeptics? Should be atheists. Skepticism and atheism are two completely different things.

But I have read credible articles on parts of the brain related to differentiating fiction from reality.


----------



## Cirdan

oftheherd1 said:


> The problem as I see it is that you are accepting as fact, the premiss that man created gods. In fact that may be. But those of us who are Christian, accept only one God. We believe we are accepting His word and that His word is perfect truth. Apparently you do not believe that. So be it, but how is our belief less valid than yours?



I believe water boils at 100°C because it does.

Whith all respect what validates your belief? Why are you ready to accept something as perfect truth? Why is there a need for this?


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> Or its illegal for me to take my son fishing without a license. Not a sin but a crime



Given that the fishing license fees are used to provide optimum sustained fish and wildlife resources, is it not stealing when you choose not to 'render unto Caesar?'


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> Given that the fishing license fees are used to provide optimum sustained fish and wildlife resources, is it not stealing when you choose not to 'render unto Caesar?'



Naa license fees here go into the general fund to make up budget deficit.   But Kman only wants us to talk about what he says is ok to talk about so. I'm out good day


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> Naa license fees here go into the general fund to make up budget deficit.   But Kman only wants us to talk about what he says is ok to talk about so. I'm out good day


So, I start a thread about a scientific study into how the brain reacts in certain circumstances, you want to talk about something different. Rather than dummy spit, why not start your own thread? Then you can discuss whatever you like.  

I'm not sure why you are so defensive ...



> Some theologians, however, welcome the research, seeing it as proof that God equipped our bodies with the ability to believe.



Everyone is entitled to their opinion ...



> &#8220;I get attacked by everyone,&#8221; says Patrick McNamara, associate professor of neurology at Boston University and author of The Neuroscience of Religious Experience. &#8220;Atheists hate me because I&#8217;m saying religion has some basis in the brain and fundamentalist Christians hate me because I&#8217;m saying religion is nothing but brain impulses.&#8221;



Perhaps you missed this ...



> Our research team at the University of Pennsylvania has consistently demonstrated that God is part of our consciousness and that the more you think about God, the more you will alter the neural circuitry in specific parts of your brain. That is why I say, with the utmost confidence, that God can change your brain. And it doesn't matter if you're a Christian or a Jew, a Muslim or a Hindu, or an agnostic or an atheist. In Why God Won't Go Away, I demonstrated that the human brain is uniquely constructed to perceive and generate spiritual realities. Yet it has no way to ascertain the accuracy of such perceptions. Instead, our brain uses logic, reason, intuition, imagination, and emotion to integrate God and the universe into a complex system of personal values, behaviors, and beliefs.
> How God Changes Your Brain (washingtonpost.com)


----------



## EddieCyrax

ballen0351 said:


> Ive read it all. As I said I believe the eyewitness accounts written by the people that say they were there.



I have read where at one point people believed and witnessed that the world was flat....  The facts they observed at the time could not be disputed and were generally believed by most... 

I am not sure I would place all my bets on individuals that lacked significant information that we have today.  The Human existance continues to evolve.

I am very spiritual, but very anti-religion.   

Religion in my experience is primarily driven by human agendas.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Cirdan said:


> I believe water boils at 100°C because it does.



That depends on the air pressure it is under.


----------



## Touch Of Death

oftheherd1 said:


> I got into this thread after it had many responses.  I started off answering each post, but thought maybe it would be better to comment on all I want in one post.  It's going to be daunting, for readers as well as me.  But here goes.No evidence for the existence of gods?  My believe in God is based on faith, and that is my proof.  I do have the Bible for proof as well.  If those things don't work for you I find that sad.  Apparently you don't.I guess it requires a definition of morality.  If it is an following the precepts of a religion, then I would say my God is the source of morality.  If you want to define it as anything else, then other possibilities are open.First I had heard of that.  A quick perusal of the inet makes it appear it is a small group of people who believe that way.  But thanks for the education.By definition, the Christian God, in whom I believe, is the only possible explanation for everything.  It says so in the Bible.  But I know that not all people believe in the God I believe in.Interestingly, I would say that we who are saved should be more concerned about being what God wants us to be, than worrying about judgement.  Prior to being saved and becoming a Christian, judgement won't seem so important.  But I take your point that fear of judgement and an eternal existence in hell, once believed in, should be a great incentive to want to be saved and serve God.Christians believe we have inherited Adam's sin nature.  See the above comment of Adam's sin nature.  Christian belief is that sin entered through Adam's giving in to the temptation of Satan.Since Christians believe in God who commands us not to follow false gods, we cannot agree to any other possible explanations.That doesn't mean we don't know other people hold different beliefs.  We just don't accept them having any validity contrary to our beliefs.That is an interesting assertion, that Christians and Muslims believe in the same God.  We have the same lineage from God, true.  But we believe that Muslims have erred in their belief, especially since they deny the deity and Son of God status of Jesus.  Our belief in Jesus being the messiah, and God, is why we are called Christian.  Since the Muslim belief denies Jesus as the Son of God, one could make an argument that we don't believe in the same God.  Even if one simply thinks they are in error, it would be a significant one.I understand they will think the same of a Christian, or any other belief.No, a Christian cannot.Well, Christians believe the Bible is God breathed.  That is, God controlled what the different authors wrote, so the writings were what he wanted us to know.  So if your saying they are man made implies men wrote the Bible but not under the divine control of God, Christians cannot accept that.As to God being female, why throw that into the face of Christian belief.  You surely know how insulting that is to Christians.  Do you enjoy being insulting?  Or do you really believe God is female?  Of course, that would mean you then have to admit to the existence of God.  If you are admitting that, then we can discuss whether or not God is male or female.As I am sure you know, Christians believe God says sex outside of marriage is sin, as pointed out in the Bible.  What does age of writings have to do with their inerrancy?Apparently not.  You and many others on MT don't seem to.  But if you do, would you like to be introduced to God?  I would be happy to show you what and why I believe.


They used to rule the roost, and were mentioned as the followers of Mordock from the Bible.


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> So, I start a thread about a scientific study into how the brain reacts in certain circumstances, you want to talk about something different. Rather than dummy spit, why not start your own thread? Then you can discuss whatever you like.
> 
> I'm not sure why you are so defensive ...
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to their opinion ...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you missed this ...



Not being defensive I'm respecting your wishes


----------



## Touch Of Death

Cirdan said:


> Actually my country was first united in the viking age under king Harald Hårfagre who defeated all the other jarls and small-kings. The reason he did it was to impress Gyda, the woman he wanted, so he could finally have some of her nookie.
> 
> In short, Norway was founded by horny vikings and would not exist if it weren`t for them  Skål!


Oh? So were they atheists or did they believe?


----------



## oftheherd1

K-man said:


> You have not discussed the OP at all. The existence of God or otherwise has nothing to do with this thread. If you want to argue the existence of God start another thread. I have not stated my position in this or any other thread so for you to say my position is that God only exists in the mind is not what I have said at all. You have your beliefs and I have mine. What I believe is nothing to do with this thread. As for your position that God is real ... I don't have a problem with that. So now can we get back to discussing what I posted rather than your faith?
> :asian:



I'm sorry, I missed that as well.  I thought from the articles, and more from the title of the thread, you were inviting the type of posts you don't seem to want; Did Man Make God?  If not, then God must have made man.  That seems to be a big enough portion of the posts here; either God exists, or not.  



Cirdan said:


> *The better way of course is to study the world with an open mind, use critical thinking and discard old flawed models when your increasing understanding allows you to improve. *
> The universe is wonderous, to me putting imaginary gods in charge of this marvel belittles rather than improves.



But whether or not you intended it, you seem to imply that the only result of such activity is to believe as you do.  I don't agree.

I do agree that attempting to put imaginary gods in charge of the universe is not correct.  I also believe the God I believe in is not imaginary.  You may agree or not, as is your privilege.



K-man said:


> That's the first time I've heard that position stated so I would suggest that millions of Christians would accept that men wrote the Bible. The fact that it has been translated and retranslated adds to the confusion. Then you have the differences in Bibles between the different denominations.



Well, that's the disconnect.  I didn't say men didn't write the Bible, I said they did so under the inspiration and direction of God.  He has to be in control of what is written if it is going to be His word, which I accept that it is.



K-man said:


> As to the gender of God. That is not an insult at all. Many of my feminist friends always refer to God as female. Have you any evidence to the contrary? My Christian friends are sick of condescending male attitudes within the church regarding the ordination of women. I happen to believe in their cause.



Since they accept God as real, just wish to change His gender, they should be accepting of what the Bible says.  The Bible says God is our Father.  Jesus, clearly a male, says He and the Father are one.

There is no reason for condescending male attitudes.  Perhaps your Christian friends should seek out a church where that is not the case.



K-man said:


> I'm not sure you are correct here. The Bible says adultery is a sin but I'm to be convinced that it is categorical when it comes to sex between unmarried persons. The word 'should' is not the same as 'must'.



(Marriam-Webster online dictionary - Fornication - consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other)


1 Corinthians 6:18-20


18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.


1 Corinthians 7:2


2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.



K-man said:


> Like Ballen you have jumped in with both feet without understanding the OP. You have no idea of my background but I will tell you that I grew up in a Christian home, attended a Christian school and spent three years in a Theological college in earlier times. You don't have to explain Christianity to me.



Were you not really a believer during any of that time, that is did you never accept that Jesus shed His blood for your sins, and never accepted Jesus into your heart?



K-man said:


> In none of my posts have I suggested there was no God so fine, I'm up for a discussion as to the gender of God, just not in this thread which has nothing to do with the existence of God. What I would like to discuss is the scientific research which, by the way, is not saying there is no God.
> :asian:



Well, sorry, you already commented on it so I did answer it.



Cirdan said:


> I believe water boils at 100°C because it does.
> 
> Whith all respect what validates your belief? Why are you ready to accept something as perfect truth? Why is there a need for this?



My belief is validated by my faith.  Do you not believe there is any perfect truth?  Such as water boiling at 100 degrees C at sea level?  Why is there a need for what?  Sorry, it isn't clear to me what you mean by 'this.'


----------



## K-man

oftheherd1 said:


> I'm sorry, I missed that as well.  I thought from the articles, and more from the title of the thread, you were inviting the type of posts you don't seem to want; Did Man Make God?  If not, then God must have made man.  That seems to be a big enough portion of the posts here; either God exists, or not.


You are jumping to conclusions. Even if man did not make God there is no evidence that God made man either. So in this case we are examining a scientific phenomena where the electrical impulses of the brains of people of different faiths were tested.



oftheherd1 said:


> (Marriam-Webster online dictionary - Fornication - consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other)
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6:18-20
> 
> 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 7:2
> 
> 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.



Here you are miles from the truth and herein lies the problem of literal interpretation of the Bible. Fornication didn't enter the English language until the 14th century. In the Greek and Hebrew the origins have totally different meaning according to context, so it would seem that somewhere in the process man got God's word confused in the translation.


> Trying to pinpoint this word without examining the passage in question is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Fornication in either the Hebrew or Greek can have and denote a wide range of definitions. It can mean literal fornication, adultery, harlotry, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or any other sexual restriction that Yahweh has placed for mankind to observe.
> QNA definition of Fornication





oftheherd1 said:


> Were you not really a believer during any of that time, that is did you never accept that Jesus shed His blood for your sins, and never accepted Jesus into your heart?


My personal faith is just that, personal. I will not suggest other people's faith is wrong whether they be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or any other. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want. 

But in answer to your question, I has deeply involved at one time. I had to address reality. Either the Bible is the word of God and right in all its detail or it is a book filled with stories and examples to help us lead a better life. I struggled to find ways of accepting the Bible's literal truth but in the end, in light of science, it is just not possible. Therefore, to me, it is a collection of stories that you can accept by faith or not. Either way there is a moral to the story. But your reference to fornication is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems accepting contemporary language to translate ancient texts. It is just not the original meaning, hence my earlier comment regarding sex outside of marriage.

None of my statements or posts should be read in the way of supporting or debunking the existence of God or the tenets of any religion. 
:asian:


----------



## jezr74

I am of the thinking now that this is bunk, the more I read about it and go over a few times and re-read. I couldn't find any evidence of the research or peer review, if anyone does find any please share.

Also it's pretty vague in areas, is it trying to draw a conclusion that we all have a link to god so to speak that we have to unlock? Smells like new age kinda thinking..


----------



## Touch Of Death

Cirdan said:


> Yet here you are.
> 
> I maintain that man-made gods are poor awnsers to existence and accepting such ammounts to ignorance and intellectual lazyness when better ways does exist.


Untested ways, you mean.


----------



## K-man

jezr74 said:


> I am of the thinking now that this is bunk, the more I read about it and go over a few times and re-read. I couldn't find any evidence of the research or peer review, if anyone does find any please share.
> 
> Also it's pretty vague in areas, is it trying to draw a conclusion that we all have a link to god so to speak that we have to unlock? Smells like new age kinda thinking..


That was just a newspaper article.



> Andrew Newberg, M.D. is an American neuroscientist who is the Director of Research at the Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, an Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies and an Associate Professor of Radiology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
> 
> 
> He has been a prominent researcher in the field of nuclear medical brain imaging. In particular, his research has focused on the development of neurotransmitter tracers for the evaluation of religiosity as well as neurological and psychiatric disorders including clinical depression, head injury, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease.
> 
> In the early 1990s, he began to research the intersection between the brain and religious and spiritual experiences. In this work, also sometimes referred to as &#8220;neurotheology&#8221;, Newberg described the possible neurophysiological mechanisms associated with religious and spiritual experiences. His initial research included the use of functional brain imaging to study Buddhist meditators and Franciscan nuns in prayer. This work was eventually published in three books, The Mystical Mind, Why God Won&#8217;t Go Away, and Why We Believe What We Believe.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Newberg's research has been featured in Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, and the New Scientist. He has been a guest speaker at the Forum at Grace Cathedral and appeared in the films What the Bleep Do We Know!? and Religulous. He has continued to study religious and spiritual phenomena including topics related to forgiveness, meditation, prayer, spiritual development, morality, and belief. This work has been incorporated more recently into a new Center for Spirituality and the Mind at the University of Pennsylvania.
> 
> ...
> 
> Newberg&#8217;s research has been criticized from two main perspectives. From the religious perspective, concerns have been raised that the study of practices such as meditation does not necessarily extrapolate to the broader array of religious and spiritual phenomena. However, Newberg tends to agree with this concern and has argued that future studies are needed to elucidate the more complex elements of religious and spiritual phenomena. Newberg has maintained that science and brain imaging studies are only tools to evaluate the brain during such experiences but do not necessarily negate such experiences. Newberg has argued that the integration of science and religion is critical for a better understanding of how human beings think and behave in a global context.
> 
> Andrew B. Newberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Neuroscience of Religious Experience » The McNamara Lab » BUMC

About Dr. McNamara » The McNamara Lab » BUMC

I don't have a problem with their credentials.
:asian:


----------



## Cirdan

oftheherd1 said:


> My belief is validated by my faith. Do you not believe there is any perfect truth? Such as water boiling at 100 degrees C at sea level? Why is there a need for what? Sorry, it isn't clear to me what you mean by 'this.'



Any law or model we make, call it truth if you will, are just simplifications of the universe so I can`t say I accept any perfect truth unless, you count the entirety of the universe as one.

I don`t see how faith can validate anything since faith by definition does not need need valid proof.... looks like the beginning of a circular argument to me.

I am asking why there is a need for gods and the perfect truths. The question of why we invent god-models for reality is central to the matter discussed in this thread. When there is no evidence for gods, gods becomes irrelevant, only the god-model in our mind remains. Is the model valuable in itself?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Cirdan said:


> Any law or model we make, call it truth if you will, are just simplifications of the universe so I can`t say I accept any perfect truth unless, you count the entirety of the universe as one.
> 
> I don`t see how faith can validate anything since faith by definition does not need need valid proof.... looks like the beginning of a circular argument to me.
> 
> I am asking why there is a need for gods and the perfect truths. The question of why we invent god-models for reality is central to the matter discussed in this thread. When there is no evidence for gods, gods becomes irrelevant, only the god-model in our mind remains. Is the model valuable in itself?


Yes. I am telling you that you are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, here. Ideals are a good thing. I promise.


----------



## Touch Of Death

I read a book, not too long ago, where they did away with religion and replaced it with math. Its called "Anathema". Another must read by Neal Stephenson.


----------



## oftheherd1

K-man said:


> You are jumping to conclusions. Even if man did not make God there is no evidence that God made man either. So in this case we are examining a scientific phenomena where the electrical impulses of the brains of people of different faiths were tested.



That is kind of differing from your thread title and 1st post.  At least for me, I took it to be an either or, and the debate to be one or the other must be true.  Well, I am not sure what kind of evidence you are looking for.  For me, first of all, is the KJV Bible.  Even the 2nd article you link to, the people who did the study aren't drawing any conclusions about the reality of God.



K-man said:


> Here you are miles from the truth and herein lies the problem of literal interpretation of the Bible. Fornication didn't enter the English language until the 14th century. In the Greek and Hebrew the origins have totally different meaning according to context, so it would seem that somewhere in the process man got God's word confused in the translation.



Well, Wycliffe wrote it as "But for fornication each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own husband" and as am sure you know, he was a Catholic priest who translated the Latin Vulgate into English, pretty much word for word.  That was written in 1384.  But the Latin Vulgate, from about the 4th century, also contained the latin word "fornicationem." That latin word seems to normally be usually translated as fornication, although whoredom and prostitution are also secondary translations.  But Paul gets specific when he says because of fornication (or whoredom or prostitution) men and women should be married.  In other words, he is talking about unmarried people who are in danger of the sin of fornication (whoredom or prostitution).  

You can take what you want to from that, but I think is shows Paul was talking about sex between men and women who were not married.



K-man said:


> My personal faith is just that, personal. I will not suggest other people's faith is wrong whether they be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or any other. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want.



Fair enough, if you don't want to say what or why your faith is.



K-man said:


> But in answer to your question, I has deeply involved at one time. I had to address reality. Either the Bible is the word of God and right in all its detail or it is a book filled with stories and examples to help us lead a better life. I struggled to find ways of accepting the Bible's literal truth but in the end, in light of science, it is just not possible. Therefore, to me, it is a collection of stories that you can accept by faith or not. Either way there is a moral to the story. But your reference to fornication is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems accepting contemporary language to translate ancient texts. It is just not the original meaning, hence my earlier comment regarding sex outside of marriage.
> 
> None of my statements or posts should be read in the way of supporting or debunking the existence of God or the tenets of any religion.
> :asian:



To each his own, but do you remember 1 Timothy 6:20?  "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"?

The Bible also calls itself the word of God, and says in different places that no words are to be taken from it.    It also says that God's words are pure, and words to live by, and establish doctrine by.

Again, you may take from that what you will, but it strengthens my faith.  I wish it did yours.  Science is an important methodology, but apparently much of it isn't where it is supposed to be, since we keep changing it.  The Bible on the other hand, was finished some 2000 years ago, and hasn't needed changes since then, despite some people trying to change it in the last hundred plus years to put forth their own agenda.


----------



## oftheherd1

Cirdan said:


> Any law or model we make, call it truth if you will, are just simplifications of the universe so I can`t say I accept any perfect truth unless, you count the entirety of the universe as one.
> 
> I don`t see how faith can validate anything since faith by definition does not need need valid proof.... looks like the beginning of a circular argument to me.
> 
> I am asking why there is a need for gods and the perfect truths. The question of why we invent god-models for reality is central to the matter discussed in this thread. When there is no evidence for gods, gods becomes irrelevant, only the god-model in our mind remains. Is the model valuable in itself?



How much science is based on faith?  There was a time when science accepted that the earth was flat.  As time progressed, science no longer accepted that the earth was flat, nor that the earth was the center of the universe.  Time marched on and Newton and Einstein proposed models for gravity, with good mathematics to prove their models.  Now both are under attack.  But it their time, all these models were based on faith.  It must have been faith, since as later times have proven, the 'science' didn't really support the ideas after all.  I know that is a little left-handed, but there is a point.  How is science any better than, or even different than, faith.  You believe your science; believe and faith aren't that far separated.


----------



## crushing

oftheherd1 said:


> How much science is based on faith?  There was a time when science accepted that the earth was flat.  As time progressed, science no longer accepted that the earth was flat, nor that the earth was the center of the universe.  Time marched on and Newton and Einstein proposed models for gravity, with good mathematics to prove their models.  Now both are under attack.  But it their time, all these models were based on faith.  It must have been faith, since as later times have proven, the 'science' didn't really support the ideas after all.  I know that is a little left-handed, but there is a point.  How is science any better than, or even different than, faith.  You believe your science; believe and faith aren't that far separated.



You make a great argument for science, which may change based on experimentation and observation.  The unchanging Bible maintains the Earth is flat.


----------



## oftheherd1

crushing said:


> You make a great argument for science, which may change based on experimentation and observation.  The unchanging Bible maintains the Earth is flat.



Somehow you make me think that is smoke screen.  Science is so sure about things, swears up and down they are true and many times even provides strong mathematics to prove what they say.  So people believe; the scientists have said so and have proof the common man often can't understand, but they said so.  

But then it changes.  So how much of current science can I really believe, give a past history of constant upgrading and change?  What I accept as the real Bible, the King James Bible, as translated from the Textus Receptus, has yet to change.  Nor has the Textus Receptus.  But as in all these discussions, those are my views, and I believe them.  You may choose to do otherwise.

As to the Bible saying the earth is flat, can you reference that Bible verse please?


----------



## crushing

oftheherd1 said:


> Somehow you make me think that is smoke screen.  Science is so sure about things, swears up and down they are true and many times even provides strong mathematics to prove what they say.  So people believe; the scientists have said so and have proof the common man often can't understand, but they said so.
> 
> But then it changes.  So how much of current science can I really believe, give a past history of constant upgrading and change?  What I accept as the real Bible, the King James Bible, as translated from the Textus Receptus, has yet to change.  Nor has the Textus Receptus.  But as in all these discussions, those are my views, and I believe them.  You may choose to do otherwise.



Science is a process.  It doesn't make claims.  Scientists may make claims based on the process.  Claims can be debunked and replaced by better claims.  It's a continuous process of understanding and knowledge.



oftheherd1 said:


> As to the Bible saying the earth is flat, can you reference that Bible verse please?



Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8, Luke 4:5, and Isaiah 11:12, and to a degree Isaiah 40:22, and Revelation 7:1


----------



## K-man

oftheherd1 said:


> That is kind of differing from your thread title and 1st post.  At least for me, I took it to be an either or, and the debate to be one or the other must be true.  Well, I am not sure what kind of evidence you are looking for.  For me, first of all, is the KJV Bible.  Even the 2nd article you link to, the people who did the study aren't drawing any conclusions about the reality of God.



No either/or. I found the article in the newspaper and thought it might be interesting in light of some of the other threads. I didn't want to derail them so I started a new thread. Just no one was interested in the OP. It went straight to the actual existence of God and the veracity or otherwise of the Bible.



oftheherd1 said:


> Well, Wycliffe wrote it as "But for fornication each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own husband" and as am sure you know, he was a Catholic priest who translated the Latin Vulgate into English, pretty much word for word.  That was written in 1384.  But the Latin Vulgate, from about the 4th century, also contained the latin word "fornicationem." That latin word seems to normally be usually translated as fornication, although whoredom and prostitution are also secondary translations.  But Paul gets specific when he says because of fornication (or whoredom or prostitution) men and women should be married.  In other words, he is talking about unmarried people who are in danger of the sin of fornication (whoredom or prostitution).
> 
> You can take what you want to from that, but I think is shows Paul was talking about sex between men and women who were not married.



Well firstly the original texts had to be translated into Latin which is why you need to go back to the Greek and Hebrew if you really want the original meaning. As you say, fornication in the Latin referred to brothels and that makes far more sense to the context because brothels were the places to pick up STDs even though they weren't well understood.



oftheherd1 said:


> To each his own, but do you remember 1 Timothy 6:20?  "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"?
> 
> The Bible also calls itself the word of God, and says in different places that no words are to be taken from it.    It also says that God's words are pure, and words to live by, and establish doctrine by.


The Bible is written in the science of the day. People believed the Sun moved around the Earth. Science changed but the Bible stayed behind. The Sun doesn't move around the Earth and The Earth is not flat. The teaching of the Bible is not plausible if you look always to the literal meaning.



oftheherd1 said:


> Again, you may take from that what you will, but it strengthens my faith.  I wish it did yours.  Science is an important methodology, but apparently much of it isn't where it is supposed to be, since we keep changing it.  The Bible on the other hand, was finished some 2000 years ago, and hasn't needed changes since then, despite some people trying to change it in the last hundred plus years to put forth their own agenda.


Of course we keep changing science. Science changes as our understanding changes. The Bible is an ancient tome and should be revered as such.
:asian:


----------



## RTKDCMB

oftheherd1 said:


> How much science is based on faith?  There was a time when science accepted that the earth was flat.  As time progressed, science no longer accepted that the earth was flat, nor that the earth was the center of the universe.  Time marched on and Newton and Einstein proposed models for gravity, with good mathematics to prove their models.  Now both are under attack.  But it their time, all these models were based on faith.  It must have been faith, since as later times have proven, the 'science' didn't really support the ideas after all.  I know that is a little left-handed, but there is a point.  How is science any better than, or even different than, faith.  You believe your science; believe and faith aren't that far separated.



OK a quick lesson on Science; First of all science is not based on faith, if anything it is based on skepticism. Proof and theory have different meanings in everyday language than they do in science. In everyday language proof means that something is absolutely true, in science it does not have any real meaning, proof is for mathematicians and makers of alcohol. In everyday language theory means an idea, a concept or a guess, in science theory means a well substantiated explanation of facts and observations that can be tested and used to make predictions about future observations. 

Both Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity are still just as valid today as they were when they were first proposed, they just apply to different situations. Newton's Universal law of Gravitation is adequate for most practical situations whilst Einstein's applies to strong gravitational effects just like Newtonian mechanics applies better to the macroscopic and quantum mechanics applies better to the microscopic when they describe the same thing. Just like light can be be described as either a particle (momentum) and a wave (wavelength).

Contrary to popular belief the notion of a spherical earth has been around since at least the 6th century BCE when Pythagoras proposed it, which was baked up by Aristotle in the 6th century BCE. In the 3rd century BCE a guy named Eratosthenes not only proved the world was round but calculated it's circumference to within an error of 2% and this was long before science came about.


Science does not deal in proof, it deals in facts that are supported by evidence and draws conclusions based upon that evidence. When new evidence is found it either enforces the theory or contradicts it and, either way, science is advanced. Scientists freely admit they they don't know everything and are constantly searching for the truth and not just accepting it on faith. Any scientist falsifying and lying about their research won't have credibility for long and can basically kiss their careers goodbye, science at its very core is honest.

Religion and science are two entirely different and separate things. Science is based on evidence religion is based on faith. Scientific theories advance when new evidence is discovered, religion however had an explanation of how the universe began written hundreds or thousands of years ago and that explanation has not changed since, despite human beings having a much greater understanding of the universe today as they did back then.


----------



## Cirdan

oftheherd1 said:


> How much science is based on faith? There was a time when science accepted that the earth was flat. As time progressed, science no longer accepted that the earth was flat, nor that the earth was the center of the universe. Time marched on and Newton and Einstein proposed models for gravity, with good mathematics to prove their models. Now both are under attack. But it their time, all these models were based on faith. It must have been faith, since as later times have proven, the 'science' didn't really support the ideas after all. I know that is a little left-handed, but there is a point. How is science any better than, or even different than, faith. You believe your science; believe and faith aren't that far separated.



Religion and gods had the best explanation for things for a long time, probably why we invented them (or sather _because _we invented them). Now sience and faith are fundamentally different, not alike at all. Sience is about testing theories and discarding them for better solutions as we grow in our understanding. Faith is about not testing. What you describe as faith in models is not faith as all because said models are being tested every step of the way, they are not accepted as eternal truth just because.


----------



## RTKDCMB

oftheherd1 said:


> As to the Bible saying the earth is flat, can you reference that Bible verse please?



There's a passage somewhere, I don't know where, that mentions the circle of the Earth.


----------



## Cirdan

Touch Of Death said:


> Yes. I am telling you that you are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, here. Ideals are a good thing. I promise.



But can`t we have ideals without the supernaturally controlling force?


----------



## Cirdan

RTKDCMB said:


> There's a passage somewhere, I don't know where, that mentions the circle of the Earth.



Maybe this

Isaiah 40:22: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

Some places in the bible says that you can see all the world from above, atop a mountain and so on, says angels are standing at the four corners, but i don`t think it directly says the eart is flat.

Luke 4:5: "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time."
Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world"


----------



## RTKDCMB

Cirdan said:


> Maybe this
> 
> Isaiah 40:22: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."



That was the one.


----------



## Cirdan

Touch Of Death said:


> Oh? So were they atheists or did they believe?



The vikings were of course practicing norse paganism, including human sacrifice.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Cirdan said:


> The vikings were of course practicing norse paganism, including human sacrifice.


So that is your answer? It was a yes or no question. You would be hard pressed to find a people that didn't practice human sacrifice. The answer is then, "yes" they believed


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

ballen0351 said:


> No evidence to prove there is no God either so.......There is however plenty of evidence to suggest the presence of God.



Really? Please provide the evidence you are referring to, I must have missed it.


----------



## MartialMellow

Touch Of Death said:


> I read a book, not too long ago, where they did away with religion and replaced it with math. Its called "Anathema". Another must read by Neal Stephenson.


I have not read any Neal Stephenson yet.  What do you like about the author?


----------



## Touch Of Death

MartialMellow said:


> I have not read any Neal Stephenson yet.  What do you like about the author?


First of all he is a religious philosopher, and can really help you put things into perspective. Secondly he is a damn good writer, and, thirdl, I find it hard to read anyone else's stuff, for weeks after reading his books because these lesser books have no depth.


----------

