God vs Big Brother: Is There a Difference?

[Iacchus32]

What can I say? It seems like that's what so many of the arguments in the God & Religion section "really" boil down to. The "god" of science versus the God of religion. Anyone catch my drift?

For example let's take the idea of free will. This is an inherent doctrine of the Christian Church, and yet science tends to relegate it as some useless appendage of the past, in that it's too unpredictable, too sloppy, and tends to interfere with all of its nice, tidy, neat little arguments ... Reality is to be "observed" (hence "no will") versus reality needs to be "experienced" (hence "a will") ...

And what's the deal with the educational system? It seems it's sole purpose is to put out "pre-programmed" little robots, to better serve "the machine" as a whole (what we now call society). It's all about doing what you're told, getting with the curriculum, and stuffing your brain full of useless information that you may or may not ever get to use. Does anybody ever ask the kids what they think? Or, what they want out of life? No wonder the kids are rebelling!

Whereas for those that manage to get through "the guantlet," and get good grades, no sooner than they graduate that Big Brother comes along snatches them up, and puts them to "good use" as scientists and engineers in the "Artificial Intelligence" arena, by which to further extend the outreach of "the machine."

As for those who aren't quite so lucky, and in their rebellion insist on exercising their "free will," well they get thrown into prison or get locked up in our mental institutions, by which they learn the meaning of "constraint." We'll have no aberrant behavior around here. Watch out ... Big Brother is watching!

So what's the difference between Big Brother telling us what to do and the God of religion telling us what to do? Anyone hear the sheep bleating? Baaaah ... Baaaah ...

 

[russ_watters]

You seem to be connecting the government with the pursuit of science and the persecution (or downplaying) of religion. No.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by russ_watters
You seem to be connecting the government with the pursuit of science and the persecution (or downplaying) of religion. No.

Where does science by the way, get so much of its funding, if not through the educational system and the government?

 

[megashawn]

You've got to be kidding. I'm a prime example of what your talking about, and I must say, you are quite wrong.

The ONLY problem with the education system is the fact that we are still trying to work out all the BS religous habits that have be enforced for so long. Although religion and government are supposed to be separate, they are not. If the government was so pro science anti-religion as you make them out to be, then we'd all have clones running around doing our work for us so that we could sit around and watch Court TV. If you think they are seperate, next time your in a court room, take a look at the lil black book you have to swear on.

And to answer your question, yes. If there is a Big Brother, and machine that you refer to, and the only way to live a decent life is to become part of this system, then absolutly. You see, the difference that you are over looking is the simple fact that God, is to date, nothing more then an imaginary creature. Big Brother on the other hand, would be a physical entity, be it a government, or elite group of rich people. You see, big brother exists, and while it may control a good part of life, it still can't drive fast enough to keep up with me down a curvy road, hence, I have all the free will I want.

You really cannot compare the two. Its like comparing Apples to Hot Pink Strawberries. There is no real reason hot pink strawberries can't exist, and certainly cannot rule out the possibility, but to date, none have been able to provide evidence to there existence. Any further speculation is rather pointless.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
For example let's take the idea of free will. This is an inherent doctrine of the Christian Church, and yet science tends to relegate it as some useless appendage of the past, in that it's too unpredictable, too sloppy, and tends to interfere with all of its nice, tidy, neat little arguments ... Reality is to be "observed" (hence "no will") versus reality needs to be "experienced" (hence "a will") ...

AFAIK, science has nothing against free will. Not sure where you are getting this perception.

And what's the deal with the educational system?

Education = good.
Educating millions of people = difficult.
The government is (hopefully) doing the best it can.
Feel free to try "home schooling". That's allowed too.
So is dropping out, but you'll regret it later.

It seems it's sole purpose is to put out "pre-programmed" little robots, to better serve "the machine" as a whole (what we now call society).

Well, it is funded by "society" isn't it?
But seriously, I can understand how students may get this perception, but having been on both sides (school, post-school, and even a speck of teaching myself), I really don't think this is the case.
"Society" is just a collection of individuals. All the teachers I have met wanted to have bright/creative/perceptive students, not robot slaves.

It's all about doing what you're told, getting with the curriculum,

Again, teaching large numbers of people is difficult. Some order is imposed in order to get something done. There are schools out there with less strict, proceed-at-your-own-pace regimens, if you are interested.

and stuffing your brain full of useless information that you may or may not ever get to use.

Useless? Consider the state of humanity before public education and compare it to today. Consider the state of a third world country where most people are without educations.

"Useless information" - - Studying the facts, even if you forget the details, gives you context and a sense of what is out there. You are learning how to learn and how to deal with the world effectively. You are broadening your horizons and paying tribute to those who passed before you and enriched your life (art, medicine, agriculture, technology, etc.). You are improving the odds that your children and grandchildren will live better lives.

ok, I'm babbling/ranting...

Does anybody ever ask the kids what they think? Or, what they want out of life?

Certainly!

Whereas for those that manage to get through "the guantlet," and get good grades, no sooner than they graduate that Big Brother comes along snatches them up, and puts them to "good use" as scientists and engineers in the "Artificial Intelligence" arena, by which to further extend the outreach of "the machine."

Yikes. I seem to recall voluntarily applying for a job at a company of my choosing...

As for those who aren't quite so lucky, and in their rebellion insist on exercising their "free will," well they get thrown into prison or get locked up in our mental institutions, by which they learn the meaning of "constraint." We'll have no aberrant behavior around here. Watch out ... Big Brother is watching!

Only if they break laws (which are established and enforced by majorities of individuals...at least in the US) or harm other people. No foul in being eccentric. Some people live quite well by that lifestyle.

So what's the difference between Big Brother telling us what to do and the God of religion telling us what to do? Anyone hear the sheep bleating? Baaaah ... Baaaah ...

Y'know, when I was in high school/college, I had a bit of an anarchist in me too. But one day I hope you will see that you are a lot freer than you think you are.

(man, this is one of my corniest posts!)

 

[FZ+]

For example let's take the idea of free will. This is an inherent doctrine of the Christian Church, and yet science tends to relegate it as some useless appendage of the past, in that it's too unpredictable, too sloppy, and tends to interfere with all of its nice, tidy, neat little arguments ... Reality is to be "observed" (hence "no will") versus reality needs to be "experienced" (hence "a will") ...

Hey, you don't need to associate my theorising that free will is an illusion with science as a whole. The method itself does not make any judgements.

And what's the deal with the educational system? It seems it's sole purpose is to put out "pre-programmed" little robots, to better serve "the machine" as a whole (what we now call society). It's all about doing what you're told, getting with the curriculum, and stuffing your brain full of useless information that you may or may not ever get to use. Does anybody ever ask the kids what they think? Or, what they want out of life? No wonder the kids are rebelling!

Ok, now to put my slant onto this. I am saying that what we call free will is a collection of our experiences and instincts, which manifest ourselves in our actions. Rather, we are all self programming robots. It makes no difference whether you get a degree or spend your life watching TV. Consciousness itself is about taking in programming from around you. If you do not programe, leave a blank or instinctual mind, you do not get a free mind. You get an useless mind. Hardware without software, so to speak.
To draw on the robot analogy, society is a network of individuals united by common programming. So yes, society does program us. Stay in one long enough, and you pick up it's customs, rules, ways things work. That is in a way programming. That is unavoidable, except by the most extreme isolation. And that would lead perhaps to anarchy. So education, giving people the experiences to make "willed" decisions and actions that the programming of ordinary life does not allow, is programming. What's wrong with that?

Whereas for those that manage to get through "the guantlet," and get good grades, no sooner than they graduate that Big Brother comes along snatches them up, and puts them to "good use" as scientists and engineers in the "Artificial Intelligence" arena, by which to further extend the outreach of "the machine."

We will meet in the room where there is no darkness...

Our education, or I guess programming system is designed not to influence their career decisions in that way. Big brother does not snatch them up. Rather, we let their mind, the accumulation of there experiences and inborn instincts decide. And the machine in this case has nothing to do with big brother. Rather, by my idea, we are all machines.

As for those who aren't quite so lucky, and in their rebellion insist on exercising their "free will," well they get thrown into prison or get locked up in our mental institutions, by which they learn the meaning of "constraint." We'll have no aberrant behavior around here. Watch out ... Big Brother is watching!

Society is something that forms logically. Any number of people together will begin to harmonise their thoughts and form a group. And that group encompasses more groups, and more experiences. Society is a sort of collective mind in that respect. The way we perceive dictates that you can only be in a society that you feel you belong to. Your experiences say so. A feeling of home?

So what's the difference between Big Brother telling us what to do and the God of religion telling us what to do? Anyone hear the sheep bleating? Baaaah ... Baaaah ...

No. Except that we are big brother. Society is a way where we self program. God is a way where we seek programming from outside, where it may well not exist, but instead simply end up just trying to justify programming we may already have. Science is a way where we can really seek out new knowledge. Make actual progress. Get new programming and experiences to live our lives differently. God is a static entity. Science is one that offers change.

Hey, everybody wants an upgrade...

 

[kyle_soule]

As for those who aren't quite so lucky, and in their rebellion insist on exercising their "free will," well they get thrown into prison or get locked up in our mental institutions, by which they learn the meaning of "constraint." We'll have no aberrant behavior around here. Watch out ... Big Brother is watching!

The real difference between the religious free will and the non religious free will is this, your free will has consequences, more so then mine. If I sin, there is no consequences for me, whereas there is for you, this really limits your free will, although not to the point of it not existing. As was said before, its a free will of doing one good or another. My free will is limited by the law, based on sentimentalism, which I do not agree with, but that's another story. So basically your free will is limited by your mind, breaking the law, and God's laws. Mine is limited by societies laws.

And what's the deal with the educational system?

The goal is to educate children so they can live, and someday support a family. It seems, aside from the religious person, that people like knowledge, and they need it to get a job. Sixteen years of education isn't fun, but if there was an easier alternative for the kids it would be implemented, but its just not practical for a 5 year old to learn Calculus. Another goal is to help the child learn his full potential...not to breed him. An example would be the diversity of career fields: one could willingly choose, for example, to be a factory worker, a farmer, a doctor, an athlete, a programmer, etc. all of which require at least some schooling for the comprehension purposes.

It seems it's sole purpose is to put out "pre-programmed" little robots, to better serve "the machine" as a whole (what we now call society).

If every child chose science as his career then this would merit attention, but not every one does, so this is a personal opinion, wrong as it may be.

It's all about doing what you're told, getting with the curriculum, and stuffing your brain full of useless information that you may or may not ever get to use.

Religion also falls under this category, only difference is the religious one doesn't stuff very hard.

Imagine your child going through life talking like a 5 year old, as would be a reasonable limit to grammatical understanding without education.

Does anybody ever ask the kids what they think?

Ask the child if he wants a cookie or peas, more often than not the child will choose the cookie, the child shows no understanding of the long-term consequences. They cannot always know what is best for them, as an adult knows that an education is best.

Also, the school asks very often what the students think, the principal and assistant principals offices are always open, willing to hear any suggestions.

Or, what they want out of life? No wonder the kids are rebelling!

I doubt anyone of them would say they want to grow up to be an unintelligent, unemployed, homeless person. And we aren't rebelling, we are expressing ourselves in different ways, which comes as a harsh [often unaccepted] change to adults

Anyone hear the sheep bleating? Baaaah ... Baaaah

I hear them They are right outside my window.

I found it very ironic you would choose sheep for your example...seeing as how the metaphor for the relationship between God and his followers is, "He is the shepherd and we are the sheep."

 

[Iacchus32]

Wow! This is way too much to digest at once. I didn't realize I was going to strike at the heart of everybody's education? Well, perhaps it's best I put on a pair of good sandals, get one or two of my best slings, and start scrounging for some suitable rocks? I'm sure I can find a few around here somewhere.

But let me start by asking a couple of questions. Are any of you from afluent homes? For I think most will agree that money can play a big factor in the "quality" of education one gets. Did any of you inherit your education from your parents? Indeed it can make a big difference on whether you're apt to experience the same "ill-effects" that others might experience, with all the drivel put out by the educational system nowadays ...

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But let me start by asking a couple of questions. Are any of you from afluent homes? For I think most will agree that money can play a big factor in the "quality" of education one gets. Did any of you inherit your education from your parents? Indeed it can make a big difference on whether you're apt to experience the same "ill-effects" that others might experience, with all the drivel put out by the educational system nowadays ... Well?

haha...you woke the sleeping dragon(s)

I didn't come from an affluent home; we weren't impecunious, though. Neither of my parents went to college, so I did not have the opportunity to inherit much, I also don't believe I did.

I believe you see so much "drivel" in our educational system because it does not teach religion, or more importantly, it does teach evolution/science.

Although, you may find this interesting, I home-schooled until I entered second grade, at which time I was put in a Christian school (not Catholic), I graduated grade school at this Christian school and entered a public high school. I was not influenced at all the first 3 years of my high school education by nonreligious people, although, my senior year I developed a love for the stars, which naturally led to sciences, physics, evolution...I then investigated the origins and logic of God and I truly found it to be impossible, undirecting, and inconsistent, I decided to try 100 days of atheism and about a week into I truly became an atheist. I have had all three kinds of education, and the public school has proved most promising and helpful in my life. A Christian education breeds children much more so than a public education.

 

[kyleb]

yep, much of our schools are breading sheeple.

NCATE is already the largest accreditor of teacher training programs. Its current standards have been adopted in some form by forty-three states. A publication titled Capturing the Vision: Reflections on NCATE’s Redesign Five Years After “share information and perspectives between the corporate NCATE system (representatives who serve on Board of Examiners, Unit Accreditation Board, and other NCATE roles) and faculty in the institutions that seek accreditation….” It says nothing about teaching as a means of producing student achievement.

Instead, Capturing the Vision asserts that teacher training programs must “first and foremost” be “dedicated” to “equity,” “diversity,” and “social justice”—egalitarian ideals widely approved within the teacher education community. It holds that teachers and administrators are morally obliged to promote social justice, i.e., obliged in the same sense that physicians are obliged to promote health and lawyers obliged to seek justice. In other words, NCATE’s current standards are founded on the notion that social and attitudinal outcomes, not academic achievement, should be teaching’s over-arching objectives. Furthermore, Capturing the Vision makes it clear that attitudes are critical in determining whether an institution will be accredited.

The social idealism expressed in Capturing the Vision is conspicuously represented in the current standards with which teacher-training programs are required to comply. They include a “global” and “multicultural” curriculum and they set numerical race and gender requirements for students and professors. Again, achievement is ignored. There is no requirement for teachers to be trained in ways that are known to be effective. Indeed, there is no mention of the issue.

http://www.aaeteachers.org/training.htm

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
You've got to be kidding. I'm a prime example of what your talking about, and I must say, you are quite wrong.

So, how did you come about your education? Were your parents well off? Or, were they helpful in that they were supportive in helping you further your education? Is so, could it be possible you might be overlooking a few things?

The ONLY problem with the education system is the fact that we are still trying to work out all the BS religous habits that have be enforced for so long. Although religion and government are supposed to be separate, they are not. If the government was so pro science anti-religion as you make them out to be, then we'd all have clones running around doing our work for us so that we could sit around and watch Court TV.

Actually I'm not sure I agree with putting religion into the schools, although I have heard stories to the opposite effect, that children don't suffer so much from a "lack of discipline." But, if that were to mean being "brainwashed" into being submissive, I suppose that could be a problem.

If you think they are seperate, next time your in a court room, take a look at the lil black book you have to swear on.

Just a mere formality. While I wonder how many lawyers would actually say they believed in God? I somehow suspect it would be "very few," you know, with playing the "Devil's Advocate" all day long ...

And to answer your question, yes. If there is a Big Brother, and machine that you refer to, and the only way to live a decent life is to become part of this system, then absolutly.

Or, perhaps it would be best to get out of Germany before the Nazi's know you're missing?

You see, the difference that you are over looking is the simple fact that God, is to date, nothing more then an imaginary creature.

Really? And how long have you been under this delusion? ...

Big Brother on the other hand, would be a physical entity, be it a government, or elite group of rich people. You see, big brother exists, and while it may control a good part of life, it still can't drive fast enough to keep up with me down a curvy road, hence, I have all the free will I want.

Yeah, but then there's the old "two-way."

You really cannot compare the two. Its like comparing Apples to Hot Pink Strawberries. There is no real reason hot pink strawberries can't exist, and certainly cannot rule out the possibility, but to date, none have been able to provide evidence to there existence. Any further speculation is rather pointless.

Actually I think it's all predicated upon belief, and when you get right down to it, you can believe just about anything you like. And what did you say you believed?

 

[greeneagle3000]

what if..

god is big brother.
that explains everything if you read the bible carefully.
big brother is the scientist. god keeps saying that he is the only one and he is a jelouse god. he also likes to watch us.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by greeneagle3000
god is big brother.
that explains everything if you read the bible carefully.
big brother is the scientist. god keeps saying that he is the only one and he is a jelouse god. he also likes to watch us.

Wow...that explains everything.[zz)]

This scientific God doesn't hold up very well against science Christian scientists dedicate their whole lives to proving real science wrong, this is the only science Christians, hence God, have.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Phobos
AFAIK, science has nothing against free will. Not sure where you are getting this perception.

Yes, but when everything is predicated strictly upon "the observation," and anything else which smacks of emotion, will or "subjectivity" is considered totally irrelevant, then I would say yes, science does have a problem with what we call "free will."

Education = good.
Educating millions of people = difficult.
The government is (hopefully) doing the best it can.
Feel free to try "home schooling". That's allowed too.
So is dropping out, but you'll regret it later.

I'm afraid the school system isn't much more than a highly priced baby sitter, at least for young people anyway. And what good is a diploma if all it is a piece of paper?

Well, it is funded by "society" isn't it?

Yes, through our tax dollars via the US government.

But seriously, I can understand how students may get this perception, but having been on both sides (school, post-school, and even a speck of teaching myself), I really don't think this is the case.
"Society" is just a collection of individuals. All the teachers I have met wanted to have bright/creative/perceptive students, not robot slaves.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions ...

Again, teaching large numbers of people is difficult. Some order is imposed in order to get something done. There are schools out there with less strict, proceed-at-your-own-pace regimens, if you are interested.

I'm not saying it isn't easy to teach large numbers of people. But what I'd like to know is why should we be forced into education in the first place? Who the hell has the right to tell me how to think or act anyway? I mean so long as I don't break the rules of "common sense," who cares?

Useless? Consider the state of humanity before public education and compare it to today. Consider the state of a third world country where most people are without educations.

A lot has changed with the school system even in the past 20-30 years, most of which hasn't been good.

"Useless information" - - Studying the facts, even if you forget the details, gives you context and a sense of what is out there. You are learning how to learn and how to deal with the world effectively. You are broadening your horizons and paying tribute to those who passed before you and enriched your life (art, medicine, agriculture, technology, etc.). You are improving the odds that your children and grandchildren will live better lives.

Learning by rote is not the best way to teach anything, unless your purpose is to create "conformity." And there you have your good little robots.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Hey, you don't need to associate my theorising that free will is an illusion with science as a whole. The method itself does not make any judgements.

This is more a general observation on my part.

Ok, now to put my slant onto this. I am saying that what we call free will is a collection of our experiences and instincts, which manifest ourselves in our actions. Rather, we are all self programming robots. It makes no difference whether you get a degree or spend your life watching TV. Consciousness itself is about taking in programming from around you. If you do not programe, leave a blank or instinctual mind, you do not get a free mind. You get an useless mind. Hardware without software, so to speak.

Would you say experience is the most important factor here? But where is the master program? Or, does the whole process occur at random?

To draw on the robot analogy, society is a network of individuals united by common programming. So yes, society does program us. Stay in one long enough, and you pick up it's customs, rules, ways things work. That is in a way programming. That is unavoidable, except by the most extreme isolation. And that would lead perhaps to anarchy. So education, giving people the experiences to make "willed" decisions and actions that the programming of ordinary life does not allow, is programming. What's wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with living within certain guidelines, but if by living by those guidelines is all that life entails, then I would suggest something is seriously wrong. That in fact we have become “robots.” And yet who sets the guidelines for the educational system? What makes them so infallible?

We will meet in the room where there is no darkness...

Missed that one? ...

Our education, or I guess programming system is designed not to influence their career decisions in that way. Big brother does not snatch them up. Rather, we let their mind, the accumulation of there experiences and inborn instincts decide. And the machine in this case has nothing to do with big brother. Rather, by my idea, we are all machines.

In other words we let what they've been pre-programmed to accept decide which, of course leads back to the origin of he who pulls societies strings, Big Brother, in which case he does snatch them up.

Society is something that forms logically. Any number of people together will begin to harmonise their thoughts and form a group. And that group encompasses more groups, and more experiences. Society is a sort of collective mind in that respect. The way we perceive dictates that you can only be in a society that you feel you belong to. Your experiences say so. A feeling of home?

Hey that’s nice. Do you believe in peer pressure too?

No. Except that we are big brother. Society is a way where we self program. God is a way where we seek programming from outside, where it may well not exist, but instead simply end up just trying to justify programming we may already have. Science is a way where we can really seek out new knowledge. Make actual progress. Get new programming and experiences to live our lives differently. God is a static entity. Science is one that offers change.

Yes we are Big Brother, because Big Brother has assimilated "one and all."

Hey, everybody wants an upgrade...

You mean the latest version of Big Brother? Yeah, I got to have it!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
The real difference between the religious free will and the non religious free will is this, your free will has consequences, more so then mine. If I sin, there is no consequences for me, whereas there is for you, this really limits your free will, although not to the point of it not existing. As was said before, its a free will of doing one good or another. My free will is limited by the law, based on sentimentalism, which I do not agree with, but that's another story. So basically your free will is limited by your mind, breaking the law, and God's laws. Mine is limited by societies laws.

My free will is based upon what I understand, by which I act accordingly. Nor am I by any means a "pre-programmed" Christian.

The goal is to educate children so they can live, and someday support a family. It seems, aside from the religious person, that people like knowledge, and they need it to get a job. Sixteen years of education isn't fun, but if there was an easier alternative for the kids it would be implemented, but its just not practical for a 5 year old to learn Calculus. Another goal is to help the child learn his full potential...not to breed him. An example would be the diversity of career fields: one could willingly choose, for example, to be a factory worker, a farmer, a doctor, an athlete, a programmer, etc. all of which require at least some schooling for the comprehension purposes.

I think ultimately it's up to the child to decide, and that we should give them all the tools necessary for making that decision.

If every child chose science as his career then this would merit attention, but not every one does, so this is a personal opinion, wrong as it may be.

Science isn't necessarily a wrong answer. Just so long as the child has a genuine interest it.

Religion also falls under this category, only difference is the religious one doesn't stuff very hard.

Imagine your child going through life talking like a 5 year old, as would be a reasonable limit to grammatical understanding without education.

Used to be people learned by reading the Bible, for that was the only book available.

Ask the child if he wants a cookie or peas, more often than not the child will choose the cookie, the child shows no understanding of the long-term consequences. They cannot always know what is best for them, as an adult knows that an education is best.

Yes but how often are they given a chance to really express themselves? Parents can be just as guilty as the school system in this respect.

Also, the school asks very often what the students think, the principal and assistant principals offices are always open, willing to hear any suggestions.

But who wants to go to the principal's office?

I doubt anyone of them would say they want to grow up to be an unintelligent, unemployed, homeless person. And we aren't rebelling, we are expressing ourselves in different ways, which comes as a harsh [often unaccepted] change to adults

While I doubt anyone of them would say they want to grow up to be a drug addict. No, they really are rebelling, against the whole mindlessness of being there in the first place.

I hear them They are right outside my window

I found it very ironic you would choose sheep for your example...seeing as how the metaphor for the relationship between God and his followers is, "He is the shepherd and we are the sheep."

It's called follow the leader ...

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
This is more a general observation on my part.

Would you say experience is the most important factor here? But where is the master program? Or, does the whole process occur at random?

Yes and no. There is of course inborn programming - our instincts, carried genetically. You can call that the master program, if you like. But rather, in my mind, there is no difference between experiences and programming. All of our experiences control us. It make us what we are. Form brings essence?
Think on this. If you lived completely different a life, would you even be the same person? I think not.

There's nothing wrong with living within certain guidelines, but if by living by those guidelines is all that life entails, then I would suggest something is seriously wrong. That in fact we have become “robots.” And yet who sets the guidelines for the educational system? What makes them so infallible?

That is not seriously wrong. Rather, by my idea, there is no alternative. We can only be robots, but slaves not to a "master" but to the world around us. Guidelines exist everywhere. Why do you disagree with me? I say a self-imposed program saying so, based on what you have experienced. The educational guidelines are certainly not infallible. But nothing is. Even if you keep people in a sealed room, there is still instincts to influence that. Perhaps what we see as educating "good manners" today will be seen as brainwashing by another generation? The only meterstick is that of the observer.

Missed that one? ...

Oh... quote from 1984.

In other words we let what they've been pre-programmed to accept decide which, of course leads back to the origin of he who pulls societies strings, Big Brother, in which case he does snatch them up.

Except there is no one origin. If you adopt a holistic view of society, then Big brother is the collective will, which manifesrts itself in government. But government itself is not big brother. Rather, there is nothing but strings all the way up. Nobody is the controller. We all self-program.

Hey that’s nice. Do you believe in peer pressure too?

Yes we are Big Brother, because Big Brother has assimilated "one and all."

You mean the latest version of Big Brother? Yeah, I got to have it!

Yes I do. So? We are big brother. Way things work. Peer pressure is an indicator of natural systems tending to harmonics. Big brother superstructures may automatically form.

 

[megashawn]

So, how did you come about your education? Were your parents well off? Or, were they helpful in that they were supportive in helping you further your education? Is so, could it be possible you might be overlooking a few things?

For one, I do not have a complete education. The only thing I have is a Comunications cert. I'm still in the process of comleting my education, but things take time when you our of limited resources. The things I've accomplished, are due in part to my efforts once I turned 16. I've had a little help, as in free rent, but then again nothing is free.

But on a side note, I do not need to go to school to learn something. While above I mentioned one certification, I've learned enough to have a dozen or more, in various fields. All one must do to learn something is take iniative and do it.


I figured someone would pull the "what do you believe" card on me, since I've been leaking a little bit of sillyness. But see, the difference here is that I know what I believe is silly, while you are in denial. Not the place for me to get into what I believe. Maybe I'll get something together in the future.

And you reference to getting out of Germany before the Nazi's is rather silly. Big Brother, as I understand it is essentially the government. I do not feel I owe much to the government, as it's not done much to help me. Honestly, the government has only made my path more difficult. But hey, that's life. My only point is that "Big Brother" is a true and existing entity. The christian god as I said, is only an imaginary creature. Not one person can show otherwise. There is no reason an all powerfull being couldn't provide concrete evidence to his existence. He created us, and does not know how to convince us.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Except there is no one origin. If you adopt a holistic view of society, then Big brother is the collective will, which manifesrts itself in government. But government itself is not big brother. Rather, there is nothing but strings all the way up. Nobody is the controller. We all self-program.

You present some very good arguments FZ+ and I appreciate that. But it's all a bunch of "collective nonsense."

The only way a society can truly function, without some form of tyrrany taking over (although it seems we become the masters of our own downfall anyway), is by means of a "parity check" which, can only be accomplished through the individual, and all the rights (and freedoms) associated with it. I just don't see your brand of "Socialism" providing that.

 

[FZ+]

It's not a brand of socialism. Rather, it's the way I speculate all societies neccessarily work. Rather, there is no alternative.

The only way a society can truly function, without some form of tyrrany taking over (although it seems we become the masters of our own downfall anyway), is by means of a "parity check" which, would can only be accomplished through the individual, and all the rights (and freedoms) associated with it. I just don't see your brand of "Socialism" providing that.

Tyranny or not, all governments are manifestations of the collective will of the people. They are what the people in general want. The parity check is built in, because the society is a dynamic body that is the network of individuals. Rather, the concepts of rights themselves, and the value we put to our particular set, in based on instinctual and environmental experience. Even a tyranny can only exist if the people are happy with it existing. If the power base exists. Society provides these freedoms because we want them. And we make up society. Do you see?

BTW, I'll point out this is just an idea I am developing. A bit of follow assumption "no free will except from random experiences" to logical consequence.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Where does science by the way, get so much of its funding, if not through the educational system and the government?

A lot of funding, yes. But funding isn't control. And the research done in universities is pure research. Research done in industry is directed toward a goal. Take your computer for example. The money and effort Intel (or AMD or Motorolla) put into that processor is VAST.

Ok, now to put my slant onto this. I am saying that what we call free will is a collection of our experiences and instincts, which manifest ourselves in our actions. Rather, we are all self programming robots.

Interesting, FZ+. Your definition is different than how most people see it. Whether pre-programmed or not, they are still YOUR decisions, whereas fate is decided by someone else (generally god). I would certainly agree that our decisions are a product of how our brains are wired - but to me that's still freewill.

Yes, but when everything is predicated strictly upon "the observation," and anything else which smacks of emotion, will or "subjectivity" is considered totally irrelevant, then I would say yes, science does have a problem with what we call "free will."

Iaccus, if something is "irrelevant" to science, that means science has no opinion of it. There ARE freewill implications to science though. LaPlace believed science is deterministic - everything can be figured out with the right equations and enough computing power. That would mean there is no such thing as freewill. But LaPlace was around before quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics says you can't know everything that is going on now, so therefore it is impossible to predict everything. So modern science *IS* compatible with the concept of freewill.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
For one, I do not have a complete education. The only thing I have is a Comunications cert. I'm still in the process of comleting my education, but things take time when you our of limited resources. The things I've accomplished, are due in part to my efforts once I turned 16. I've had a little help, as in free rent, but then again nothing is free.

But on a side note, I do not need to go to school to learn something. While above I mentioned one certification, I've learned enough to have a dozen or more, in various fields. All one must do to learn something is take iniative and do it.

What do you think is missing in the school system? Could it be that it doesn't teach values to go along with the curriculum? Granted this isn't the role the educational system is "supposed" to take, but values are equally important if not more so. In fact if one had to choose, I think a sense of values would be even greater. But, if kids don't get a sense of values from home (quite often the parents don't have the time), where do they get them, if not in classroom and out on the playground? And yet school may not be the best place to teach values either, in which case maybe kids shouldn't be required to spend so much time there?

Aside from the fact that we need some structure in our lives, and a rudimentary form of education, I don't think we should be forced into learning anything unless there's a genuine interest involved. This in and of itself is probably one of the greatest values we could learn. Whereas if we have a basic education and a good sense of values, we would be far less likely to do something we'd regret for the rest of our lives.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by russ_watters
A lot of funding, yes. But funding isn't control. And the research done in universities is pure research. Research done in industry is directed toward a goal. Take your computer for example. The money and effort Intel (or AMD or Motorolla) put into that processor is VAST.

The problem is that society has become so dependent on science and technology that it's become a belief system in and of itself. And, where people used to look to God for answers, now they look to science. Where else are they going to look? Science is the by-product of man, man is the by-product of God. If man worships science (reveres, holds in highest esteem, etc.), well ... that would be idolatrous.

I'm not saying people can't look to either for answers but, to the degree that they look exclusively to science, which by nature does not preach morality (nor am I saying it should), then to that degree they're looking for the easy way out. Enter the "next tyrant" ...

Iaccus, if something is "irrelevant" to science, that means science has no opinion of it. There ARE freewill implications to science though. LaPlace believed science is deterministic - everything can be figured out with the right equations and enough computing power. That would mean there is no such thing as freewill. But LaPlace was around before quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics says you can't know everything that is going on now, so therefore it is impossible to predict everything. So modern science *IS* compatible with the concept of freewill.

If you don't use it, by virtue of the fact that you "ignore it," you lose it. This is esepecially true when it comes to free will. Free will is the other side of the equation to logic, and together by promoting the two (which, science doesn't seem to have the time or inclination to do), you get a sense of balance. Otherwise you're setting up the likelihood of something dark and sinister taking over ... Big Brother anyone?

 

[russ_watters]

Iacchus, you seem to be saying that you can't have morality without religion. That is simply not correct (but its a long discussion). Hobbes for example, discussed "laws of nature."

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Iacchus, you seem to be saying that you can't have morality without religion. That is simply not correct (but its a long discussion). Hobbes for example, discussed "laws of nature."

Well we all have to have a point of reference. And I think that so long as we remain consistent with that, then that's really all that's necessary. Of course if a murderer was to remain consistent with being a murderer, then we might have a problem? ... So I guess at some point somebody has to create a genuine set of standards.

 

[kyleb]

i hear that argument quite a bit and it is a funny one sense basing morality on a religion is just a organized form of moral relativism. it may be tempting to wish that you could squeeze morality into some finite little "genuine set of standards", but that just setting yourself up for trap because life has a habit of changeling and no of us get to see it all.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kyleb
i hear that argument quite a bit and it is a funny one sense basing morality on a religion is just a organized form of moral relativism. it may be tempting to wish that you could squeeze morality into some finite little "genuine set of standards", but that just setting yourself up for trap because life has a habit of c[/color]ha[/color]ng[/color]el[/color]in[/color]g[/color] and no of us get to see it all.

It's like I said, we all have to have a point of reference. While as far as I'm concerned, the ten commandments, together with the "golden rule," can stand up on their own accord, without being propped up by the Bible. Meaning, if this is all I glean from the Bible, and tossed the rest out, I would still have a means by which to conduct myself, "morally."

 

[kyleb]

oh sure, i agree whole heatedly; but those are more generalized guidelines than some all encompassing set of standards. one example of how ineffective such things can be is the debate of the concept "thou shalt not steal" in relation to software piracy.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kyleb
oh sure, i agree whole heatedly; but those are more generalized guidelines than some all encompassing set of standards. one example of how ineffective such things can be is the debate of the concept "thou shalt not steal" in relation to software piracy.

No matter what you do it seems like there's always some exception to the rule, but still it's good to have a basic set of guidelines. As for the exceptions, this is where wisdom is applied.

 

[kyleb]

exactly, but unfortunately Big Brother has been doing his best to suck that out of society.

 

[megashawn]

What do you think is missing in the school system? Could it be that it doesn't teach values to go along with the curriculum? Granted this isn't the role the educational system is "supposed" to take, but values are equally important if not more so. In fact if one had to choose, I think a sense of values would be even greater. But, if kids don't get a sense of values from home (quite often the parents don't have the time), where do they get them, if not in classroom and out on the playground? And yet school may not be the best place to teach values either, in which case maybe kids shouldn't be required to spend so much time there?

There is a lot missing from the school system. The particular school I went to was overrun with racist idiots, whom after slamming the hippies and other minorities, go to church, learn there values, and continue there racist ways. I'm not sure where your from, I was born and raised in the bible belt. When I first started school, religion was still in the classroom. We were forced to pray, and it was quite wrong.

My main point, is a person can use the bible to justify any behavior. How many people do you think have been murdered by someone else in the name of god? Alot. The christian religion is not the way to infuse values, and definately not through the school system. On PF 2, I listed many examples of the bible supporting slavery, to which most the chirstian members ignored. These statements from the bible were used to perpetuate slavery, and then racism. Now, groups such as the southern babtist use the Bible as a crutch for persecuting gay and lesbians.

Essentially, the bible tells us that some people are better then others. This is simply not true.

And, you don't see us studying any other religions to the extent some would have the Bible taught. Why you ask? Simple, there is no reason to study mythology so extensivly, unless you plan to be a theoligian or something.

School is basically designed to give one the ability to teach himself. I personally feel that values one posseses is up to the individual to develop as he/she grows and learns. Even in the case of an abusive parent, one can learn values from being beaten as a child. Although the beaten individual might be scared for life, perhaps it shows him how NOT to raise a child. You learn from everything in life, school is just a collection of that knowledge, where we try to share it and expose the ability that everyone has to learn for themselves.

 

[Iacchus32]

megashawn:

Perhaps the following couple of posts might give you a better idea of where I'm coming from with this God and religion stuff. Do you know what's funny, when most people look at me they don't view me as the God and religion type. This is because what I've come to understand, I've come to understand "rationally," and I can view it just as impartially as any other thing that I've come to understand. This I think is the key to understanding just about anything, don't you?


From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1436" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by Kerrie
Just wondering if you all believe if the bible should be interpreted as symbolic or literal...

It all depends on whether you want to go to heaven or hell. If you take the whole thing literally, then you don't glean any of the meaning (message) which lies beneath. Or else what's the point? Of course you could use it to pin "your ideals" on someone else but, that would be hypocritical.

"Many will come in my name, to lead many astray ..."

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1307&perpage=15&pagenumber=19" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What? The acknowledgment of truth is inborn? And hence the acknowledgment of God as well? You will "never" be able to prove the existence of God, to yourself or anyone else, unless you can get past this.

"Blessed art thou Peter, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven ..."

How do you know 1 + 1 = 2? Wouldn't the obvious answer be because you can see that it's so? Does flesh and blood have to reveal it to you? (i.e., through the external senses). No.

This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom is inborn. Knowlegde deals with dead "external facts."

If in fact God exists, then this cancels out everything which has been said so far.

Now why do I somehow sense this is the furthest thing from everyone's mind, to "prove the existence of God?" Could it be that we're all entrenched in our own views, and haven't the slightest inclination to go beyond what we've "formally" (i.e., formal = form = external) been taught?

What's the difference between the "established view" and an economic cash cow? Not much I suppose? There's a nice profit to be made for those who buy into it (or at least maintain a comfortable living), so long as "nobody" changes the way that it's "set up." Hmm... Now why would we want to do that?

 

[megashawn]

Well, the whole god thing is quite simple. Assuming the bible is correct, then god loves me. Surely since God loves me, he would not want me to burn in hell. He surely would know that his bible has been corrupted, simply by how many "versions" there are, and therefore not a reliable source of info. Since he is all powerfull, there is no reason that God could not prove to every single person on this Earth that he is the true path. If the christian god does exist, and he cannot take the time to show us he exist even though there is mounds of evidence that suggest otherwise, I would rather burn in hell. All my friends and loved ones will be there anyhow.

Atleast your not the type to snap "Oh, your going to hell if you do not repent." I enjoy this, wish I had more time.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
Well, the whole god thing is quite simple. Assuming the bible is correct, then god loves me. Surely since God loves me, he would not want me to burn in hell. He surely would know that his bible has been corrupted, simply by how many "versions" there are, and therefore not a reliable source of info. Since he is all powerfull, there is no reason that God could not prove to every single person on this Earth that he is the true path. If the christian god does exist, and he cannot take the time to show us he exist even though there is mounds of evidence that suggest otherwise, I would rather burn in hell. All my friends and loved ones will be there anyhow.

The only problem with this, is that if God were a "good scientist," He would also believe in cause and effect, in which case He would have to allow things to "run their course." Whereby things become established and spread out (like the Church) and, to the degree that "new things" (experiences) are encountered, then it evolves. And, to the degree that it evolves, then a diversity is established, by which an eco-system is created and maintained. So it seems you have to have a little bit of everything, both good and bad, in order to provide the "possibility" of free choice.

 

[megashawn]

What does that have to do with anything you have in quotations. I made no mention of god being a scientist at all. In fact, I made my quoted assumption based on things the bible tells us about god, like, he loves everyone, is all powerfull. Do you say these things are not true?

 

[FZ+]

The only problem with this, is that if God were a "good scientist," He would also believe in cause and effect, in which case He would have to allow things to "run their course." Whereby things become established and spread out (like the Church) and, to the degree that "new things" (experiences) are encountered, then it evolves. And, to the degree that it evolves, then a diversity is established, by which an eco-system is created and maintained. So it seems you have to have a little bit of everything, both good and bad, in order to provide the "possibility" of free choice.

Hmm... no. Let's say god exists. If he exists, he would have created science itself. He would have defined cause and effect, and have no reason to obey it. It would not be a matter of belief at all, but knowledge of his creation. And God cannot be a scientist, as by definition, he knows everything already. Rather, existing outside time, there are no new things for him, but what he allows to create by his will.
Have to is not a valid statement. Unless for some reason he constrains himself to produce evil, and made the laws of cause and effect etc while intentionally denying himself the knowledge of what will happen, this argument does not apply. There is no reason to respect the law of cause and effect, when that law has not even been created. So, god is willfully ignorant.

Now, if he is willfully ignorant, why does he wish to observe the outcome at all? In which case we get the conclusion he wishes for people to burn in hell.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
What does that have to do with anything you have in quotations. I made no mention of god being a scientist at all. In fact, I made my quoted assumption based on things the bible tells us about god, like, he loves everyone, is all powerfull. Do you say these things are not true?

It's a logical conclusion (or assumption), that in order for God and Science to exist at the same time, God has to be scientifically predisposed, or else how do you explain the theory of evolution? The only reason why I put it into quotes was to emphasize this point.

So why can't God be both rational (objective, like a scientist) and caring (subjective) at the same time? Otherwise it would be like trying to explain reality without using both sides of your brain, in which case it wouldn't exist (as normal). Much in the way a schism exists between science and religion today: where science assumes the "rational side," and attempts to exclude religion, the "emotional side," and vice versa.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+

Hmm... no. Let's say god exists. If he exists, he would have created science itself. He would have defined cause and effect, and have no reason to obey it. It would not be a matter of belief at all, but knowledge of his creation. And God cannot be a scientist, as by definition, he knows everything already. Rather, existing outside time, there are no new things for him, but what he allows to create by his will.

I think it's more important to "experience" the creation of God, and if that means experiencing Him through science, then more power to you ... This makes more sense rather than argue over an arbitrary label that's used mainly to describe the experience.

Have to is not a valid statement. Unless for some reason he constrains himself to produce evil, and made the laws of cause and effect etc while intentionally denying himself the knowledge of what will happen, this argument does not apply. There is no reason to respect the law of cause and effect, when that law has not even been created. So, god is willfully ignorant.

When you understand something well enough then "have to's" and "must's" do become part of the equation. Just as if you say, 1 + 1 "must" equal 2. There's no other way around it. (That would be an absolute definition there by the way.) If in fact God were neutral, like we were speaking about in the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1524&perpage=15&pagenumber=2", then yes, that does allow for things to happen as a result of cause and effect.

Whereas in His infinite amount of wisdom, it's very possible that He could have set things up in a way to achieve a certain result, thus allowing for the possibility of "redemption," no matter what circumstances you're from. Isn't it possible for science to set up experiments in the same way, in order to achieve certain results?

Now, if he is willfully ignorant, why does he wish to observe the outcome at all? In which case we get the conclusion he wishes for people to burn in hell.

Do I think God is willfully ignorant? No. Do I think God cares? Yes. If He doesn't, then why should we?

 

[megashawn]

Do I think God cares? Yes. If He doesn't, then why should we?

If he does care, then why will he allow a person who cannot justify believing a person died and was brought back to life days later without a single shred of true, physical proof, to suffer eternally?

When it is something as simple as revealing the proof.

If god does truly care, then there is not a heaven or hell, merely afterlife. For any decent person would never inflict life long suffering upon another decent being. If god is not atleast this good, I'll have no part.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
If god does truly care, then there is not a heaven or hell, merely afterlife. For any decent person would never inflict life long suffering upon another decent being. If god is not atleast this good, I'll have no part.

The thing of it is is that you have to separate people according to what they believe, otherwise there would be nothing but constant antagonism in the afterlife, in which case it's necessary for hell to exist if only for this reason. Whereas everyone comes into what's called their "ruling love" (that which they love most), which is what guides them and detemines their state of existence in the afterlife.

While it's for this reason that both heaven and hell are very diversified (more than you can imagine), in order to accommodate the myriad of distinctions to be made here. So in this respect everybody finds their own bliss, even for those who are in hell who, as I understand (although rather sado-masochistic in nature), wouldn't have it any other way. This is the only way you can make "everybody" happy.


From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1072" ...

"Man after death is his own love or his own will.

This has been proved to me by manifold experience. The entire heaven is divided into societies according to differences of good of love; and every spirit who is taken up into heaven and becomes an angel is taken to the society where his love is; and when he arives there he is, as it were, at home, and in the house where he was born; this the angel perceives, and is affiliated with those there that are like himself. When he goes away to another place he feels constantly a kind of resistance, and a longing to return to his like, thus to his ruling love. Thus are affiliations brought about in heaven; and in a like manner in hell, where all are affiliated in accordance with loves that are the opposite of heavenly loves." ~ http://www.swedenborg.com/" , Heaven and Hell

This is a very good book by the way, and it's highly recommended.

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by FZ+
So is free will then possible without evil?

No. It may appear that way in a "heavenly sense." But there still exists a "dynamicism" between heaven and hell. It would be more like two polarities of a battery, by which an "equilibrium" is established in the middle, so long as the polarities don't touch and get "shorted out," otherwise that would be the end of everything.

Or, to the extent that "the load" (i.e., "natural world") draws too much current from the battery, and lowers the overall voltage, then to that extent the differences (distance) between heaven and hell become less perceptible.

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by FZ+
So it is possible to be evil in heaven?

Do you know anything about transistor theory. It is possible to get a transistor to oscillate at either polarity of the battery (or power source). And yet, it depends on this difference "in potential" in order for it to operate. Therefore it could operate within the parameters of the "apparent good" (positve range) or, within the parameters of the "apparent bad" (negative range).

Therefore evil has to exist in either sense in order to allow for the transistor to oscillate: i.e., the oscillation pertaining to "our lives."

As far as outright evil being permitted in heaven, typically no, although it is allowed at times for the evil to be taken up into heaven, in order to demonstrate the nature of their evil, so that they no longer desire to go to heaven (and create disturbances). Also at times spirits do "slip up," and are let down into their "own hells" so to speak, until they learn from what they did wrong.

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by FZ+
So the citizens of Heaven are not free.
A + B = C

They are free to "oscillate" in accordance with "their beliefs."

Whereas they either have the predisposition towards heaven or they don't. If they do, then they receive all they ever wanted in a heavenly sense, and if they don't, then they receive all they ever wanted in a hellish sense. If that doesn't sound like freedom, then I don't know what does? Of course it's all predicated upon their life in the world, which as I understand, can't be changed once you pass on.

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by FZ+
But you also said that free will is impossible when you are just oscillating between good and good. Which gives immediately the idea that free will does not exist in heaven, at least in terms of the free will we have today.

No, it's not an oscillation between good and good. It's an oscillation between a higher potential of good and a lower potential of good. In which case the internal junctions of the transistor still experience this same oscillation between good and evil (positive and negative), just at a higher level than the transistor which has its polarities reversed.

So tell me, if God desires free will so much for us on Earth that he created evil to allow for it, why does he deny this free will from those in heaven, whom he presumeably found most desirable? Why must heaven be filled with sycophants?

No, we're either elevated in consciousness or we're lowered in consciousness, to the level where we tend to "oscillate" the best. A sycophant would be equivalent to a transistor which is always in a "state of on," and doesn't oscillate, and would be of no use to further the "dynamics of God."

While I understand the angels of heaven alternate between periods of standing within the presence of God (a little over simplified), and falling back on their "own proprium" (self-will or love), at which point they long to return to standing within His presence.

 

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1897&perpage=15&pagenumber=4" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by heusdens
Does Donald Duck exist?

if one asks a biologist wether a duck that can talk exists, he will certainly not affirm that. So a talking duck does not exist?

I think it is meaningfull to say, that Donald Duck exists in the category of the mind, and not as a material entity.

To leave out this distinction, and call everything "existence" is not a workable concept.

So why are we given the ability to reason by abstraction? If not for the sake of reasoning out that which is most abstract of all? Of course that would imply a sense of purpose now wouldn't it? And perhaps a Creator who stands behind it? ...

Originally posted by heusdens
An abstract entity which is a product of our abstract reasoning, and exist only in our minds, for sure...

Does this mean I'm delusional, because I use the same abstract process as everyone else to "validate" my own experiences?

With whom do you think the burden of proof lies anyway? Is it up to you to get me to accept what you're saying without question? If so, then how could I ever acknowledge the truth of anything? While the same holds true for you or anyone else. You see, this is the only possibly way you can accept the idea of God, because when you get right down to it, it's the only possible way you can accept anything, Period.

Perhaps this is why it's necessary for determinism to step into the picture, to coerce us into believing we don't have a free will, so we won't open up our minds "freely" and accept the fact that God exists. In other words it's just a means by which to enforce the status quo.

You're not by any chance a Communist are you?

"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free ..."

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1911&perpage=15&pagenumber=4" ...

Originally posted by heusdens

Originally posted by pelastration
The question "God ... to define is to destroy" has two "human" aspects: a social impact (if we can give a final definition or image or formula of God ... will it destroy religious institutions - like churches, sekts, ..), and the personal impact (how will individuals react on that"knowledge").

Actually the latter one, to replace the religious beliefs in deities, the only attempt made succesfull, is to have people scientifically educated.

To overcome all forms of superstition, religion, ignorance and stubbornness, we must therefore provide well founded scientific education for the masses.

And we better take care here, that the science education budgets are increasing to fulfill that goal, instead of decreasing (as they have in many industrial nations; for instance the science/education budget in the Netherlands between 1980 and 2002 were alsmost cut in half!)

This is nothing more than deterministic brainwashing ... Isn't this what freedom of religion is all about, to allow us to make up our own minds?

 

[FZ+]

While it's for this reason that both heaven and hell are very diversified (more than you can imagine), in order to accommodate the myriad of distinctions to be made here. So in this respect everybody finds their own bliss, even for those who are in hell who, as I understand (although rather sado-masochistic in nature), wouldn't have it any other way. This is the only way you can make "everybody" happy.

What about those people (like me) who find happiness in other people, from whom they enjoy the diversity of the experience and desires? A division of mankind will never make everybody happy. It would make us all lonely and miserable. Change is an element of human happiness.

 

[BoulderHead]

...So in this respect everybody finds their own bliss, even for those who are in hell who, as I understand (although rather sado-masochistic in nature), wouldn't have it any other way. This is the only way you can make "everybody" happy.

"Now, if anything at all can be known to be wrong, it seems to me to be unshakably certain that it would be wrong to make any sentient being suffer eternally for any offence whatever."
Antony Flew, "The Presumption of Atheism", God, Freedom, and Immortality

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
What about those people (like me) who find happiness in other people, from whom they enjoy the diversity of the experience and desires? A division of mankind will never make everybody happy. It would make us all lonely and miserable. Change is an element of human happiness.

Really, it isn't anything more than coming into the sense of feeling where you belong. And if in fact you desire change and the diversity of experience, then you will no doubt find yourself in a position where you can experience this sense of "unbound learning."

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
"Now, if anything at all can be known to be wrong, it seems to me to be unshakably certain that it would be wrong to make any sentient being suffer eternally for any offence whatever."
Antony Flew, "The Presumption of Atheism", God, Freedom, and Immortality

As I understand it, we all hold the keys to our own confinement, even in hell.

 

[FZ+]

What if I desire other people, but other people do not desire me?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
As I understand it, we all hold the keys to our own confinement, even in hell.

I have seen many ways to negate the obvious injustice involved in eternal damnation. I think it best that we treat our rationalizations with suspicion.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
What if I desire other people, but other people do not desire me?

I think the most important thing is to learn to love yourself. And then what you do attract, is that which is most compatible with yourself. And even if you don't find somebody "compatible" in this life (as a mate?), so long as you are happy with yourself, chances are you will find that somebody in the next life.

If on the other hand you are lonely and miserable (which isn't to say things can't get better), then you will most likely find others like yourself to console you in your "self pity" -- i.e., and feel sorry for each other.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I have seen many ways to negate the obvious injustice involved in eternal damnation. I think it best that we treat our rationalizations with suspicion.

And yet all I'm saying is people are in hell because they prefer to be there out of choice. If they aren't accepted in heaven it's only because they have unresolved issues which they "won't resolve." Why else do we send people to prison, if not for the same reason?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet all I'm saying is people are in hell because they prefer to be there out of choice. If they aren't accepted in heaven it's only because they have unresolved issues which they "won't resolve."

Yes, which is your particular way of rationalizing the injustice involved in this matter...

...Why else do we send people to prison, if not for the same reason?

Yes, but not everyone is a 'lifer' in our system.