quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

ORIGINAL: Esinn
I am trying to understand what god is so we can speak intelligently about it in other threads.


Actually, I don't think you are based on the responses you've given some respondents.  While they've stated their beliefs, you've taken stabs at people/been condescending to those who don't go in the direction you desire.  That really doesn't make for open dialogue, it just makes people think that you're a jerk/that you have an axe to grind/etc. 
Davan
(Who firmly believes that one can be godless and discuss god with polite people who believe in god without being rude)

It is established by science that supernatural belief is controlled by a module in the brain.  Any euphoric or spiritual feelings arising from discussion or personal prayer are internal mechanisms at work - not external.  I showed this through detailed explanation, documented peer reviewed journals and by providing links which discuss existing medical technology used in the studies.  I discussed the modern understanding of Psychology and belief dating back to Freud.

I also discussed  the 3 laws of logic which we humans call upon as frequently as we breathe.

If I am mistaken or you feel some info I presented is intentionally deceptive let's discuss it.  If you think presenting facts which logically challenge & criticize belief makes me a jerk,  keep in mind although I understand the material the data collected is not my own.

Thus far only one person whom I have not addressed yet seemed to put any thought into their reply.

If you think me calling someone who is obviously incorrect incorrect or unable to defend their position in a logical fashion makes me a jerk again the problem is yours. 

Sometimes it is fun to make a point stick.  Has not master or yourself chosen specific words to do so?  If my choice or arrangement of words have truly hurt someone accept this be my apology - if my message has I offer nothing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

Neuroscience has found specific areas of the brain which activate when discussing religious belief.  This region is responsible for the euphoric or 'godly' feelings we experience when we think about or share belief, the cause is internal not external. We active specific areas of our brain to create conceptual art(art only existing in our mind) to give it life on paper.  We also access specific areas of our brain when we discuss our belief in the unknowable(gods) to give them "life".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
As a child we relied on imaginary friends.

 You did? That is fascinating. Please elaborate on your experience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
You mentioned the word 'faith'.  I do not understand this term either. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

LOL.. i said it was interesting.. i didnt say i believed it! i also notice you dont mention the other... no matter.

Belief and faith cannot be changed based merely upon a discussion/debate. Psychologists cannot agree on the topic.. Courts hate ruling on it... Scientists cant prove or disprove it... even Religious leaders cant agree... and you want to debate?

lol

(This is really only a 2 minute read.  It is an insightful, articulate and a meaningful beat down of the words above.  It seems daunting because of the links & spacing - check it 'yo!)

Complete and total BS, PrincessTT.  I do not think it is your fault though.  The modern understanding of belief is not something commonly discussed outside the scientific community.

Neuroscience has found specific areas of the brain which activate when discussing religious belief.  This region is responsible for the euphoric or 'godly' feelings we experience when we think about or share belief, the cause is internal not external..  We active specific areas of our brain to create conceptual art(art only existing in our mind) to give it life on paper.  We also access specific areas of our brain when we discuss our belief in the unknowable(gods) to give them "life".

http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=000104711

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2589-paranormal-beliefs-linked-to-brain-chemistry.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jun/30/psychology.neuroscience
("Belief has been a most powerful component of human nature that has somewhat been neglected," says Peter Halligan, a psychologist at Cardiff University. "But it has been capitalised on by marketing agents, politics and religion for the best part of two millennia.. . . That is changing")

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515212112.htm

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a714013137 - this is not relevant to the discussion but relevant regardless.

http://www.amazon.com/Neuropsychological-Bases-Beliefs-Michael-Persinger/dp/0275926486#reader

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface~content=a713690607~fulltext=713240930

This is from Time:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1694723,00.html

As far as psychology. . .

Even Freud was outspoken about the dangers of religion: 

"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires." --Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis,1933.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-58119451.html - about articles on false belief.  I have not personally looked at these. (You can search for the hundreds of peer reviewed articles on your own.  I would suggest you keep this study focused within the last 10 years)

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=K2xS27xyT0vG1rGBSywQhN60LR3Wp55ngzhK7hn4THHQBgyr3N14!-1042068674!299803806?docId=77025160 - this is a hum-dinger!

As I mentioned earlier in this thread their is an entire field dedicated to dealing with incorrect, illogical, irrational or damaging personal core beliefs - Cognitive Behavior Therapy.  A premise and 'law' of psychology as demonstrated by this field is beliefs lead to action and are the cause of emotion - years past we did not have the science to back it up now we do.

Psychology also has a book known as the diagnostic statistic manual(Commonly called the bible of mental illness)  it is dedicated to examining, understanding and treating mentally ill people.  Many of these illnesses or unstable emotions are directly linked to beliefs.

Logic leaves no room for flawed or broken beliefs either.  Any belief no matter how strong the personal commitment to it, if it violates the three laws of logic it is meaningless.

As for as courts disliking to rule on it.  I have not heard that one.  Possibly you can provide us with material where judges acknowledge the fact they hate to rule on it.

Anthropologists have some to say about the evolution of belief as well.

Evolutionary biology will also have it's say.

I get it is not fully understood. However, it is no longer a mysterious, taboo or an off limit's topic.  There is not a shred of evidence to suggest we will not completely comprehend how and why some people's brains desire, create, cling to or need belief.  As a child we relied on imaginary friends. 

As adults gods/supernatural things become these ultimate protectors.

We as humans rely on logic every waking moment of our life.  Oddly enough we do not apply this logic to our beliefs, this is where some trouble comes in.  When beliefs are looked at logically they typically fall apart or can be recognized as harmful and 'delt' with.  However, beliefs are core to our personal nature, controlling our actions and emotions as demonstrated by CBT.  Psychologically speaking it is a trying and painful process to challenge our beliefs especially when it is one deeply rooted by family or culture

It has been a taboo for thousands of years to question, wish to examine, or constructively criticize the beliefs of ourselves or others.  The trump card, "this is my belief not yours and I believe what I want - nay nay boo boo" has always been played; it is for this reason science has not been presented the opportunity to examine.  The danger of false belief it's impact on personal emotions, action and psychological states along with the area of the brain responsible for this are now known.

Because of this modern day understanding which we did not have 100 years ago , beliefs are up for extremely critical examination.

You mentioned the word 'faith'.  I do not understand this term either.  I was involved in a good discussion with another CM member but the thread became too cluttered, I will try again.

quote:

Belief and faith cannot be changed based merely upon a discussion/debate.

Firstly I do not desire to change anyone's beliefs.  There are 15 million non theists living in this country - we need no more converts.  However, I will make every attempt to discuss logically why I might be wrong - the truth does not hinge on conversion..

I was tempted to say the only method we have for transfer of knowledge is discussion.  However, that is false.  Discussion(interaction) with other humans does take the lions share though.  As this is the case it is logical to extrapolate discussion is the top 5 methods deployed.  The question is are people willing to logically examine their belief. 
90% of the non-theist I have met in this country were a theists.  Statistically speaking this is very likely and it was through discussion and strength they changed.  Unlike their counterparts they frequently have pictures or old religious dogma stuffed away in a drawer as memories.  I have pictures of many years of my life where I was actively forced to pursue beliefs I was too young to comprehend.

I bet the vast majority of objections nit-pick the final paragraph and ignore the rest - this is how the mechanism of belief protects itself.  I did present a lot of information but it was out of necessity.  I will be less verbose in my next responses but would like to if possible discuss the material as a whole.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

It is established by science that supernatural belief is controlled by a module in the brain.  Any euphoric or spiritual feelings arising from discussion or personal prayer are internal mechanisms at work - not external.  I showed this through detailed explanation, documented peer reviewed journals and by providing links which discuss existing medical technology used in the studies.  I discussed the modern understanding of Psychology and belief dating back to Freud.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

Based on recent conversations it is my understanding some people define god as subjective supernatural intelligent thing which transcends space-time and is directly responsible for creation of the known universe.

Prior to these recent conversations my understanding of  god is it is a universal objective thing.  I have always understood the god concept to be something which would define god as an 'absolute' thing.  Whatever god is - god is god.  One definition is correct while all others are logically incorrect.  I have also always understood that subjective beliefs and opinions about god can not change it, god is an absolute.

We know according to the three laws of logic which are non-conceptual laws, they exist without a human mind, for something to exist it must have an identity which is not a logical contradiction.

Definition is a mandatory prerequisite for existence - a logical postulate.  Meaning for something which human current knowledge is aware of to exist we must be able to give "X" an articulate non-ambigious definition.  If this can not be done or the definition violates the laws of logic the concept is meaningless, & simply ceases to exist or is proven to be a concept existing only within the individual mind - having no external influence.

quote:


1. The law of identity: p is p at the same time and in the same respect. Thus: George W. Bush is George W. Bush, and George W. Bush is the son of George Bush.
2. The law of non-contradiction: a conjunctive proposition (one that uses "and", as in "p and q") cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Thus the proposition "p and not-p" cannot be true. For example, the proposition "It is raining and it is not raining" is a contradiction, and must be false. Note: technically, the above example stated fully should read "It is raining and it is not raining at this location and at this time." This additional phrase encompasses the crucial factors of "at the same time" and "in the same respect," but in natural language it isn't common to state them explicitly. When evaluating a person's statements, it is sometimes helpful to consider whether or not they are indeed assuming the truth of such factors.
3. The law of the excluded middle: in any proposition "p," the related disjunctive claim (one that uses "or", as in "p or not-p") must be true. A more informal and common way of stating this is to simply say that either a proposition is true or its negation must be true - thus, either p is true or not-p must be true.

Logical musings aside...  I am still interested define this thing you call god.

quote:


First, I didn't realize you were presenting the "laws of logic".  You were claiming to seek the definition of God, to which I still say that definition will vary from individual to individual.  If you don't have the tolerance to accept that, then its likely you will always feel you are right and everyone else is wrong and as a result, will always be waiting for people to catch up with you.  As long as you realize you will have a long wait, then we're both happy.   It's one thing to believe or ask what belief is by the way of "God".  It's a whole other thing to dispute anyone's answer to that, though.

I answered in a way that proved me neither right or wrong because as I said, there really IS no right or wrong when it comes to religious or political beliefs.  They are beliefs.  Beliefs held by each and every individual for either same or different reasons.  I can understand that and accept it.

Can you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

Quoting myself:  Your selective utilization of psychology, referencing an important figure who dates back less than a decade fails to take into account the roots of psychology that are in philosophy and of which religion/theology is a part. 

Correcting myself:  I meant to say a century where I said a decade. 
Davan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00
I'm not sure what your thing is E, but you can count me out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cpK69

~fr~

I have attempted to solve the riddle “what is God?” After considering what might possibly effect all things in a manner that gives them all purpose, can be in all of the places it is claimed to be, and constitutes a position of Alpha and Omega; I came up with only one thing, Life.

I can only speculate on its properties, a type of energy, perhaps, but I am inclined to believe what we are able to experience of it, at this time, is only a small sample of its full potential, and of that which we are capable of experiencing.

Kim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin


God, the god, and for that matter the goddess

quote:

ORIGINAL: ElectraGlide

God is a person and a tradition passed down from a old book and artifacts. For the followers and worshipers, I hope the book is correct. There may not be a true defintion. When I went to night school, our teacher said he would give us a A+ for the rest of the year if we could give him a sole defintion of a Human Being. No matter what defintion we gave, it covered a animal or insect also. The point was, there was no true defintion.