How can anyone say "God doesn't exist" ?

[maadmax 0]

Bolas

***Ha , religion is a man made power structure suitable for the weak of mind. I in no way participate or support it.

Irony score incalculable.

Maybe, or maybe all you know is the bondage of religion and can't conceive of the abundant life Christ has to offer.

I think most wars, religious or otherwise are initially about one group of people projecting their sins onto others and then executing judgment.

...

[Bolas 5]

So to clarify.

You choose to believe in something there's no evidence of, believe others that choose to believe in anything different that there's no evidence of are wrong, but also anyone who belongs to a group of people who believe in something there's no evidence of, even if it's the same something you believe in are weak minded.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[maadmax 0]

Bolas

So to clarify.

You choose to believe in something there's no evidence of, believe others that choose to believe in anything different that there's no evidence of are wrong, but also anyone who belongs to a group of people who believe in something there's no evidence of, even if it's the same something you believe in are weak minded.

Sorry , not even close. Don't know where to begin to respond, but I am doubtful that it is of any use anyway. If you are unaware that you have a spirit, then you will definitely be unaware of its needs. Evidence comes in many different forms.
...

[Backintothesky 0]

I think what he's trying to get at is - what makes you so sure your version of God is the right one?

You are an "atheist" for every other religion out there except your own. Why don't you believe in Hinduism or Islam or Judiasm or Buddism or Thor or any of the millions of Gods that have been believed in throughout history?

maadmax

***So to clarify.

You choose to believe in something there's no evidence of, believe others that choose to believe in anything different that there's no evidence of are wrong, but also anyone who belongs to a group of people who believe in something there's no evidence of, even if it's the same something you believe in are weak minded.

Sorry , not even close. Don't know where to begin to respond, but I am doubtful that it is of any use anyway. If you are unaware that you have a spirit, then you will definitely be unaware of its needs. Evidence comes in many different forms.
...

[Croc 0]

Bolas

So to clarify.

You choose to believe in something there's no evidence of

Personal experience is evidence. Does love exist? If it does, then it exists only in your personal experience of it. Others, apparently experiencing the same situations, may not experience it, or even believe that it exists.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[Bolas 5]

Croc

***So to clarify.

You choose to believe in something there's no evidence of

Personal experience is evidence. Does love exist? If it does, then it exists only in your personal experience of it.

No, yes, and no.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Personal experience is evidence.

Only for the person having that experience.

Quote

Does love exist? If it does, then it exists only in your personal experience of it. Others, apparently experiencing the same situations, may not experience it, or even believe that it exists.

Love is an interesting analogy. Although it is felt intensely, as is a sense of connection to God by some people, it is nevertheless a physical and biochemical phenomenon entirely resident in the brain. It's perhaps a bit disheartening to have love reduced to neurons and molecules, but that's the reality of it:
"Love is a complex neurobiological phenomenon, relying on trust, belief, pleasure and reward activities within the brain, i.e., limbic processes. These processes critically involve oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, and serotonergic signaling. Moreover, endorphin and endogenous morphinergic mechanisms, coupled to nitric oxide autoregulatory pathways, play a role. Naturally rewarding or pleasurable activities are necessary for survival and appetitive motivation, usually governing beneficial biological behaviors like eating, sex, and reproduction. Yet, a broad basis of common signaling and beneficial neurobiological features exists with connection to the love concept, thereby combining physiological aspects related to maternal, romantic or sexual love and attachment with other healthy activities or neurobiological states." (source)
Here is another discussion of the topic, packaged for a more general audience.

It is, in principle, entirely possible to determine objectively if someone is in love by examining their brain chemistry. It might even be possible to do this non-destructively by using NMR to map oxytocin distribution and levels in the brain, though I have not seen that published. In animal studies, researchers have been able to create or eliminate strong pair bonds by manipulating levels of oxytocin and vasopressin.

It is also possible to induce strong spiritual experiences using psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms. Some of the participants in the study described the psilocybin-induced hallucinations as the strongest spiritual experience of their lives, with a feeling of direct mind-to-mind connection with every entity and object in the universe. Does this mean that every deep spiritual experience people report means they have been using mushrooms or something like that? No. However, the fact that the experience can be induced simply by manipulating brain biochemistry means that the experience is not proof, or even good objective evidence, of the existence of God. If there is a non-magical explanation of the phenomenon, then it's not unreasonable if some people choose to believe that explanation, even if you personally prefer to interpret it as a real spiritual experience. On the other hand, the availability of a biochemical explanation does not prove that the experience cannot be due to a spiritual connection; it is conceivable that different stimuli could produce the same effect. Again we are left with whatever you personally choose to believe.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Personal experience is evidence.

Of personal experience.

Quote

Does love exist? If it does, then it exists only in your personal experience of it.

My personal experience of love proves that I experience the emotion called love. It doesn't prove that there exists an entity called Love.

Same with personal exerience of belief in god. It proves you believe, it doesn't prove god.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,623]

Croc

***So to clarify.

You choose to believe in something there's no evidence of

Personal experience is evidence.

So a Hindu experiencing personal experience of Para Brahman, Shiva and Vishnu is evidence of the existence of these gods?

Sounds rather like the Discworld interpretation of "god".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[maadmax 0]

Backintothesky

I think what he's trying to get at is - what makes you so sure your version of God is the right one?

You are an "atheist" for every other religion out there except your own. Why don't you believe in Hinduism or Islam or Judiasm or Buddism or Thor or any of the millions of Gods that have been believed in throughout history]

I believe everyone is responsible for their own relationship or rejection of God. In my case I strongly desired to do the right thing not knowing what it was. At first I resisted the Christian way of life but eventually I was overtaken and consumed by the love of God. In retrospect my concepts of good and evil would have doomed me to a wasted life. Spiritual reality is a personal experience, you hear and decide what you may.

...

[normiss 622]

I cannot reject something that isn't there.

[billvon 2,400]

>So a Hindu experiencing personal experience of Para Brahman, Shiva and Vishnu
>is evidence of the existence of these gods?

To them, yes.

[Arvoitus 1]

Your problem is that you start from the false assumption that your God is real and people can either accept him/her/it or reject him/her/it. Which then leads you to another false assumption that atheists acknowledge the existence of your God but simply reject to believe in him/her/it. To an atheist your God is about as real as Sauron from the Lord of the Rings.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[Calvin19 0]

100% agree.

To initiate and/or get dragged into participation in the argument of the actual existence of a self-reinforcing delusion is in itself a fallacy.

[Croc 0]

You have confused infatuation with love.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[Croc 0]

You have confused infatuation with love.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[Croc 0]

You have confused infatuation with love.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[Croc 0]

Your personal experience is that you exist. You have no other evidence of that unassailable fact.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[RonD1120 58]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Personal experience is evidence.

Only for the person having that experience.

Quote

Does love exist? If it does, then it exists only in your personal experience of it. Others, apparently experiencing the same situations, may not experience it, or even believe that it exists.

Love is an interesting analogy. Although it is felt intensely, as is a sense of connection to God by some people, it is nevertheless a physical and biochemical phenomenon entirely resident in the brain. It's perhaps a bit disheartening to have love reduced to neurons and molecules, but that's the reality of it:
"Love is a complex neurobiological phenomenon, relying on trust, belief, pleasure and reward activities within the brain, i.e., limbic processes. These processes critically involve oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, and serotonergic signaling. Moreover, endorphin and endogenous morphinergic mechanisms, coupled to nitric oxide autoregulatory pathways, play a role. Naturally rewarding or pleasurable activities are necessary for survival and appetitive motivation, usually governing beneficial biological behaviors like eating, sex, and reproduction. Yet, a broad basis of common signaling and beneficial neurobiological features exists with connection to the love concept, thereby combining physiological aspects related to maternal, romantic or sexual love and attachment with other healthy activities or neurobiological states." (source)
Here is another discussion of the topic, packaged for a more general audience.

It is, in principle, entirely possible to determine objectively if someone is in love by examining their brain chemistry. It might even be possible to do this non-destructively by using NMR to map oxytocin distribution and levels in the brain, though I have not seen that published. In animal studies, researchers have been able to create or eliminate strong pair bonds by manipulating levels of oxytocin and vasopressin.

It is also possible to induce strong spiritual experiences using psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms. Some of the participants in the study described the psilocybin-induced hallucinations as the strongest spiritual experience of their lives, with a feeling of direct mind-to-mind connection with every entity and object in the universe. Does this mean that every deep spiritual experience people report means they have been using mushrooms or something like that? No. However, the fact that the experience can be induced simply by manipulating brain biochemistry means that the experience is not proof, or even good objective evidence, of the existence of God. If there is a non-magical explanation of the phenomenon, then it's not unreasonable if some people choose to believe that explanation, even if you personally prefer to interpret it as a real spiritual experience. On the other hand, the availability of a biochemical explanation does not prove that the experience cannot be due to a spiritual connection; it is conceivable that different stimuli could produce the same effect. Again we are left with whatever you personally choose to believe.

Don

I see you have been greatly intrigued by the concept of love. Now examine the different Greek definitions of the emotion; agápe, éros, philía, and storge'.

I have experienced a really good thing without the use of psychedelics. I would like to share that experience with you. It starts with the acceptance of Jesus Christ of Nazareth as your Lord and Savior. It is a spiritual experience. Are you interested?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 58]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Personal experience is evidence.

Only for the person having that experience.

Quote

Does love exist? If it does, then it exists only in your personal experience of it. Others, apparently experiencing the same situations, may not experience it, or even believe that it exists.

Love is an interesting analogy. Although it is felt intensely, as is a sense of connection to God by some people, it is nevertheless a physical and biochemical phenomenon entirely resident in the brain. It's perhaps a bit disheartening to have love reduced to neurons and molecules, but that's the reality of it:
"Love is a complex neurobiological phenomenon, relying on trust, belief, pleasure and reward activities within the brain, i.e., limbic processes. These processes critically involve oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, and serotonergic signaling. Moreover, endorphin and endogenous morphinergic mechanisms, coupled to nitric oxide autoregulatory pathways, play a role. Naturally rewarding or pleasurable activities are necessary for survival and appetitive motivation, usually governing beneficial biological behaviors like eating, sex, and reproduction. Yet, a broad basis of common signaling and beneficial neurobiological features exists with connection to the love concept, thereby combining physiological aspects related to maternal, romantic or sexual love and attachment with other healthy activities or neurobiological states." (source)
Here is another discussion of the topic, packaged for a more general audience.

It is, in principle, entirely possible to determine objectively if someone is in love by examining their brain chemistry. It might even be possible to do this non-destructively by using NMR to map oxytocin distribution and levels in the brain, though I have not seen that published. In animal studies, researchers have been able to create or eliminate strong pair bonds by manipulating levels of oxytocin and vasopressin.

It is also possible to induce strong spiritual experiences using psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms. Some of the participants in the study described the psilocybin-induced hallucinations as the strongest spiritual experience of their lives, with a feeling of direct mind-to-mind connection with every entity and object in the universe. Does this mean that every deep spiritual experience people report means they have been using mushrooms or something like that? No. However, the fact that the experience can be induced simply by manipulating brain biochemistry means that the experience is not proof, or even good objective evidence, of the existence of God. If there is a non-magical explanation of the phenomenon, then it's not unreasonable if some people choose to believe that explanation, even if you personally prefer to interpret it as a real spiritual experience. On the other hand, the availability of a biochemical explanation does not prove that the experience cannot be due to a spiritual connection; it is conceivable that different stimuli could produce the same effect. Again we are left with whatever you personally choose to believe.

Don

BTW, your analysis and description makes a good argument for intelligent design, IMO.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kallend 1,623]

RonD1120

***

Quote

Personal experience is evidence.

Only for the person having that experience.

Quote

Does love exist? If it does, then it exists only in your personal experience of it. Others, apparently experiencing the same situations, may not experience it, or even believe that it exists.

Love is an interesting analogy. Although it is felt intensely, as is a sense of connection to God by some people, it is nevertheless a physical and biochemical phenomenon entirely resident in the brain. It's perhaps a bit disheartening to have love reduced to neurons and molecules, but that's the reality of it:
"Love is a complex neurobiological phenomenon, relying on trust, belief, pleasure and reward activities within the brain, i.e., limbic processes. These processes critically involve oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, and serotonergic signaling. Moreover, endorphin and endogenous morphinergic mechanisms, coupled to nitric oxide autoregulatory pathways, play a role. Naturally rewarding or pleasurable activities are necessary for survival and appetitive motivation, usually governing beneficial biological behaviors like eating, sex, and reproduction. Yet, a broad basis of common signaling and beneficial neurobiological features exists with connection to the love concept, thereby combining physiological aspects related to maternal, romantic or sexual love and attachment with other healthy activities or neurobiological states." (source)
Here is another discussion of the topic, packaged for a more general audience.

It is, in principle, entirely possible to determine objectively if someone is in love by examining their brain chemistry. It might even be possible to do this non-destructively by using NMR to map oxytocin distribution and levels in the brain, though I have not seen that published. In animal studies, researchers have been able to create or eliminate strong pair bonds by manipulating levels of oxytocin and vasopressin.

It is also possible to induce strong spiritual experiences using psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms. Some of the participants in the study described the psilocybin-induced hallucinations as the strongest spiritual experience of their lives, with a feeling of direct mind-to-mind connection with every entity and object in the universe. Does this mean that every deep spiritual experience people report means they have been using mushrooms or something like that? No. However, the fact that the experience can be induced simply by manipulating brain biochemistry means that the experience is not proof, or even good objective evidence, of the existence of God. If there is a non-magical explanation of the phenomenon, then it's not unreasonable if some people choose to believe that explanation, even if you personally prefer to interpret it as a real spiritual experience. On the other hand, the availability of a biochemical explanation does not prove that the experience cannot be due to a spiritual connection; it is conceivable that different stimuli could produce the same effect. Again we are left with whatever you personally choose to believe.

Don

BTW, your analysis and description makes a good argument for intelligent design, IMO.

But not in the opinion of scientists, who know better.

(If we'd been designed intelligently we wouldn't have hips, spines and knees more appropriate to quadrupeds, we wouldn't have appendices, and we wouldn't have recurrent laryngeal nerves appropriate to gilled fish.)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Croc

You have confused infatuation with love.

According to the person who evidently prefers magic to science.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

BTW, your analysis and description makes a good argument for intelligent design, IMO.

If there was a designer with any intelligence, I'm pretty sure they would not have chosen to cobble together a bunch of neurological pathways that also includes a large role for vasopressin in the male, given that vasopressin also controls behaviors such as territoriality and aggression. The overlap between love and territoriality has caused a tremendous amount of grief for women over the millennia.

On the other hand, such an overlap is entirely what would be expected of evolution. There is a strong selective advantage in mate guarding, as that helps ensure the paternity of the females offspring. In humans there is an additional advantage to linking mate guarding to factors that foster long-term mate bonding, as long term male participation greatly increases the odds that the offspring will survive to reach reproductive age, ensuring propagation of genes into future generations.

In the end, biology always comes down to optimizing transmission of genetic information from generation to generation. An intelligent designer would not be so limited, so we should expect to see things that are designed to function well without regard to how they affect transmission of genes. No examples of such biological processes have ever been discovered. There is no objective reason to prefer the "intelligent designer" model over biological evolution.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jakee 1,254]

Croc

You have confused infatuation with love.

A) How could you possibly know whether or not I've been in love? Are you that arrogant?

B) No I haven't. Your rote response does not apply to my post, demonstrating that you either haven't bothered to read it, or didn't understand it. Thanks for playing.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Croc 0]

Love is not an emotion except in its crudest sense. Love would be that thing, for example, that keeps a man alive and strong in spirit after enduring seven years of being a POW in North Vietnam. In this case it might be the love of his family.

There is no biological component for that.

You have confused love with infatuation.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy