Where does God come from?

  • Thread starter heusdens
  • Start date
  • #1
heusdens
1,736
0
Where does "God" come from?

The qeustion as the where "God" comes from, is adressing the issue of how the concepts of Gods came into existence.
A "God" outside of our mindly concepts, "God as a reality" can not be assumed, our profound and well tested explorations of the material world, do no show any indication of the existence of such entities, neither any need to relend on the existence of Gods, to explain anything in the material world.

The concept of "God" was a human invention, which originated in the minds of primitive man, which was not equipped with the means for scientific and structured inquiry of the material world.

The current world, does not need a concept of "God". In effect, we should strive to radically eliminate all concepts of "God", as they serve no purpose, and only confuse our vision on the material world.

It does not serve the rights of us humans, to have a concept of "God", it only serves the rights of those, that want to eliminate the rights of millions and billions of people, that seek a better future, in which they have normal human rights.

We need to look upon the world, as it is, and can from that scientific outlook on the world, to a possible world, that contains fundamental human rights for every world citizin.
And not just those that have the economic and militrary power, to suppores other nations and populations.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Where does "God" come from?
"No man who ever lived knows any more about the hereafter ... than you and I; and all religion ... is simply evolved out of chicanery, fear, greed, imagination and poetry." -Edgar Allan Poe
The current world, does not need a concept of "God". In effect, we should strive to radically eliminate all concepts of "God", as they serve no purpose, and only confuse our vision on the material world.
But did you not start an entire thread devoted to ‘purpose’? Since there would seem to be no purpose other than that what we choose to believe, I say let the individual believe, or not believe, as they themselves see fit. To decide we know what is best for others, or what purpose something should be serving, is an equally real problem, imo, which often leads to forcing others to conform to the will of another. I want nothing to be forced down my throat. I agree to not harm you if you will agree to return the favor, other than that you may pretty much do as you like.
It does not serve the rights of us humans, to have a concept of "God", it only serves the rights of those, that want to eliminate the rights of millions and billions of people, that seek a better future, in which they have normal human rights.
What right of humans?
Was no one ever killed by the atheistic communists?
I think it is accurate to say that the ‘true believers’ are often a danger, but the true believers need not always believe in god;

The true fanatic is a theocrat, someone who sees himself as acting on behalf of some super-personal force: the Race, the Party, History, the Proletariat, the Poor, and so on. These absolve him from evil, hence he may safely do anything in their service.
-- Lloyd Billingsley

There is plenty of room in that quote to accommodate a wide range of lunacy…
 
  • #3
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by BoulderHead
But did you not start an entire thread devoted to ‘purpose’? Since there would seem to be no purpose other than that what we choose to believe, I say let the individual believe, or not believe, as they themselves see fit. To decide we know what is best for others, or what purpose something should be serving, is an equally real problem, imo, which often leads to forcing others to conform to the will of another. I want nothing to be forced down my throat. I agree to not harm you if you will agree to return the favor, other than that you may pretty much do as you like.

My thread on purpose, was a way to counterfact those who portray purpose in anything, as if it is "god given".

Something else is of course, is there development in the world?
From where we are now, and where we were, we have to admit, that there has been a lot of development.

Development is where we will be brought. Even though, we don't know where it will bring us, neither it says that there is a purpose behind it. But it does not contradict the fact that there is progressive development. And that's true for nature, for man, and for society.

What right of humans?
Was no one ever killed by the atheistic communists?
I think it is accurate to say that the ‘true believers’ are often a danger, but the true believers need not always believe in god;

I mean human rights, like decent health care, education, housing etc.
Many people in this world, don't have those rights.



The true fanatic is a theocrat, someone who sees himself as acting on behalf of some super-personal force: the Race, the Party, History, the Proletariat, the Poor, and so on. These absolve him from evil, hence he may safely do anything in their service.
-- Lloyd Billingsley

There is plenty of room in that quote to accommodate a wide range of lunacy…

There is wrondoing in the world. The human society, while on one hand it forms a global economic system, in which everyone is involved, is not treating each of it's members equally.
Complete nations and populations are forced to do what big countries and big capitalism want them to do.

There is no justification for letting this capitalist system develop this way, with growing problems for the many, and only a small profitting minority.

It just means, we need to embed development on other criteria, not that of economic growth and profit, but that of social economic development, creating equal chances for everybody, and take care of the environment problems. In order to help sustain ourselves in the best possile way.
 
  • #4
In this thread you are asking where god comes from. From there we seem to be moving into economics and political theory again, just as another thread in philosophy dealing with how science knows something did. Is there a pattern forming here?
I mean human rights, like decent health care, education, housing etc.
Many people in this world, don't have those rights.
Oh, ok then. Whether they be good or not, these things I simply consider as being benefits, not rights. I understand that many people would like to turn them into rights, however.

There is wrondoing in the world.
There will always be wrongdoing. I have serious doubts that imperfect man will ever rule imperfect man in a perfect society.
The human society, while on one hand it forms a global economic system, in which everyone is involved, is not treating each of it's members equally.
Complete nations and populations are forced to do what big countries and big capitalism want them to do.
What would be your solution?
There is no justification for letting this capitalist system develop this way, with growing problems for the many, and only a small profitting minority.
We really need to start a thread dealing only with economics…
It just means, we need to embed development on other criteria, not that of economic growth and profit, but that of social economic development, creating equal chances for everybody, and take care of the environment problems. In order to help sustain ourselves in the best possile way.
But how do you propose to do this, by becoming a leader who will “radically eliminate all concepts of "God", as they serve no purpose, and only confuse our vision on the material world.”?

I’m trying to get at your method, while being wary of;

"Behind the honeyed but patently absurd pleas for equality is a ruthless drive for placing 'the new elite' at the top of a new hierarchy of power."
- M. N. Rothbard
 
  • #5
heusdens - LogicalAtheist is pleased to see this statement:

"In effect, we should strive to radically eliminate all concepts of "God", as they serve no purpose, and only confuse our vision on the material world."

Indeed, there are those of us who do this. And with, so far, great success. The atheist population grows every year, while the population of a given religion falls every year.

You asked, "where does God come from". Here is my answer:

A given God comes only from a given mythology. From the pages of a written mythology, or perhaps it was spoken first, is the completely and total definition, origin, and purpose of a given mythological character, be it a God or not.

This indeed, is where a God should stay. As a myth alongside Zeus, Medusa, Anubis, etc...

However, the anti-humanitrian answer comes from the question "where is God going" or "where has God gone".

A given God has gone from those pages, into reality. Committing as you know, a SIGNATURE error.

Humanity, somewhat unknowingly, has a goal of returning God to those pages. And perhaps someday, there will be as few bibles, torahs, and korans, as their are books about Zeus, Medusa, and Anubis.

Atheists always remember: Each year the atheist population increases, and each year the religious population decreases.
 
  • #6
Fliption
1,081
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist

Atheists always remember: Each year the atheist population increases, and each year the religious population decreases.

It's interesting. I see the same comments written in other literature claiming the exact opposite. They don't claim that membership in religious churches is on the rise. But rather, that interest in spiritual matters is on the rise. I cannot say because I don't know. But intuitively, this statistic doesn't seem like it would be an easy one to be completely confident about either way.

Also, I've asked you this before and you didn't respond. Please define what you mean by atheist. I want to make sure we are on the same page.
 
  • #7
Originally posted by Fliption
It's interesting. I see the same comments written in other literature claiming the exact opposite. They don't claim that membership in religious churches is on the rise. But rather, that interest in spiritual matters is on the rise. I cannot say because I don't know. But intuitively, this statistic doesn't seem like it would be an easy one to be completely confident about either way.

Also, I've asked you this before and you didn't respond. Please define what you mean by atheist. I want to make sure we are on the same page.

Spirituality isn't religious. Thus the "exact opposite" isn't opposite but another form of potentially the same outcome.
 
  • #8
Fliption
1,081
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Spirituality isn't religious. Thus the "exact opposite" isn't opposite but another form of potentially the same outcome.

Are you suggesting that science has something in common with spirituality?

I see spirituality as an interest in things that science says nothing about. This may or may not lead to someone joining or starting a religion. But it seems that from the point of view of the original post, the idea would be to eliminate any sort of non- scientific, spiritual thinking that leads to God; not just religion.

I could be wrong in assuming that the author of this thread is referring to spiritual thinking as well as religions, but that's what you get when science keeps getting brought up as the alternative. Because science and spirituality have nothing to do with one another. And spirituality can involve the concept of god without being associated with a religion. And the point of this thread was to eliminate god.

And again...please define what you mean when you say atheist please.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Science has nothing to do with spirituality.

All spirituality is, is people misunderstanding their nervous system. Someone saying they're spiritual merely means they're having difficulty identifying with their emotions and the world around them.

Spirituality is the result of people who remove the mythology of religion from their life, but have yet to seek out realistic and truthfull answers to their experiences.

It's a perceptual error that's all. It's nothing. It's a word people use describe absolutely nothing.


Originally posted by Fliption
Are you suggesting that science has something in common with spirituality?

I see spirituality as an interest in things that science says nothing about. This may or may not lead to someone joining or starting a religion. But it seems that from the point of view of the original post, the idea would be to eliminate any sort of non- scientific, spiritual thinking that leads to God; not just religion.

I could be wrong in assuming that the author of this thread is referring to spiritual thinking as well as religions, but that's what you get when science keeps getting brought up as the alternative. Because science and spirituality have nothing to do with one another. And spirituality can involve the concept of god without being associated with a religion. And the point of this thread was to eliminate god.

And again...please define what you mean when you say atheist please.
 
  • #10
Fliption
1,081
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Science has nothing to do with spirituality.
It's a perceptual error that's all. It's nothing. It's a word people use describe absolutely nothing.

Well that's not the definition of spirituality as it is used in the literature I mentioned earlier. The same literature that quotes the statistic that interest in spirituality is on the rise. I guess that's all that matters to make my point about the statistics.

PLEASE DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY ATHEIST!
 
Last edited:
  • #11
megashawn
Science Advisor
443
0
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist

I do not know if any of the above definitions describe l.a. but they pretty much sum it up.

I would only add that an atheist is a person who realizes there is not enough evidence to prove whether or not a god exists. Since a lot of evidence out there says he more then likely does not, this person denies the existence on that reason. And since an all powerfull being that is described by christians and such cannot provide a clear cut view of his plans for humanity, or at the least prove to us he exists, there is no need in worrying over your flavor of religion in order to satisfy some being, whom which more then likely does not exist.

But how do you propose to do this, by becoming a leader who will “radically eliminate all concepts of "God", as they serve no purpose, and only confuse our vision on the material world.”?

Such a method would never work. People put a shield up when you start talking about there religion. Really, I think the only way we will eliminate religions is through progress and time. As was mentioned, there is a growing number of atheists yearly. I want go as far as to say the # increases as church members decrease. Honestly, I think most people who go to church may as well be atheist, since they admittingly only go for the social connection. I'd have to say the # of in the closet, church going atheists increases constantly.

But like you said Boulder, you do what you want, I'll do what I want, just don't do anything stupid and don't impose rules on me that have no basis in reality.

Another step is that people need to learn to depend on themselves. Even though they have been, and crediting there success to god, failures to the devil, they do not give themselves the gratitude they deserve. People use religion as a crutch, in order to manipulate reality to make it liveable by there standards. I think if we woke up tommorow and there was no more religion, suicide rates would sky rocket.

Oh well
 
  • #12
megashawn - your link really isn't needed. There definition isn't proper, as is no dictionary really, I believe an encyc definition is much better.

Because atheism is so large, there has since become various motives behind atheism.

However, and because of this, there remains a very simple concise defining value for atheism.

However, since some of the things you said after the link make me smile, you're on my good side!

BREED ATHEISTS, BREED!


Originally posted by megashawn
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist

I do not know if any of the above definitions describe l.a. but they pretty much sum it up.

I would only add that an atheist is a person who realizes there is not enough evidence to prove whether or not a god exists. Since a lot of evidence out there says he more then likely does not, this person denies the existence on that reason. And since an all powerfull being that is described by christians and such cannot provide a clear cut view of his plans for humanity, or at the least prove to us he exists, there is no need in worrying over your flavor of religion in order to satisfy some being, whom which more then likely does not exist.



Such a method would never work. People put a shield up when you start talking about there religion. Really, I think the only way we will eliminate religions is through progress and time. As was mentioned, there is a growing number of atheists yearly. I want go as far as to say the # increases as church members decrease. Honestly, I think most people who go to church may as well be atheist, since they admittingly only go for the social connection. I'd have to say the # of in the closet, church going atheists increases constantly.

But like you said Boulder, you do what you want, I'll do what I want, just don't do anything stupid and don't impose rules on me that have no basis in reality.

Another step is that people need to learn to depend on themselves. Even though they have been, and crediting there success to god, failures to the devil, they do not give themselves the gratitude they deserve. People use religion as a crutch, in order to manipulate reality to make it liveable by there standards. I think if we woke up tommorow and there was no more religion, suicide rates would sky rocket.

Oh well
 
  • #13
Fliption
1,081
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
megashawn - your link really isn't needed. There definition isn't proper, as is no dictionary really, I believe an encyc definition is much better.

Because atheism is so large, there has since become various motives behind atheism.

However, and because of this, there remains a very simple concise defining value for atheism.

However, since some of the things you said after the link make me smile, you're on my good side!

BREED ATHEISTS, BREED!

Still no definition?
 
  • #14
Psyber freek
20
0
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
BREED ATHEISTS, BREED!

More atheists may not necessarily be beneficial to you. More atheists means more confusion since there is no absolute true according to them. The only way to keep a huge number of atheists in agreement is to set up a communist government that will decide what's right and what's wrong.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Psyber freek
More atheists may not necessarily be beneficial to you. More atheists means more confusion since there is no absolute true according to them. The only way to keep a huge number of atheists in agreement is to set up a communist government that will decide what's right and what's wrong.

Nah, yer just jealous you're going out of style.
 
  • #16
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Mindly Concepts?

Originally posted by heusdens
The qeustion as the where "God" comes from, is adressing the issue of how the concepts of Gods came into existence.

A "God" outside of our mindly concepts, "God as a reality" can not be assumed, our profound and well tested explorations of the material world, do no show any indication of the existence of such entities, neither any need to relend on the existence of Gods, to explain anything in the material world.
Outside of whose "mindly concept?" Are you saying the material world exists outside of what the mind perceives? And yet how do we interface with "that reality" if not through the "contructs" of our minds? Perhaps we should be speaking about those things (concepts) which exist within the mind instead? Also, did it ever occur to you that reality is determined very much -- "in the human sense" -- by what we believe? For if we indeed acted upon what we believed, couldn't it conceivably change the "whole appearance" of the way the world looks? In which case "reality" might very well lend itself to a "different concept?"


The concept of "God" was a human invention, which originated in the minds of primitive man, which was not equipped with the means for scientific and structured inquiry of the material world.
And what makes you the renowned authority on this anyway?


The current world, does not need a concept of "God". In effect, we should strive to radically eliminate all concepts of "God", as they serve no purpose, and only confuse our vision on the material world.
What is purpose? ... And what is order? ... And where do these two terms come from? If in fact the laws of God were based on order, rather than the "human need" for contrivance" (which, is the only possible alternative for the origins of purpose and order), then why can't we base our lives upon "God's order?" ... Or, would this imply a sense of God "making demands?" Hmm ... Perhaps so with some of your more "primitive societies," where survival was of the utmost, and you didn't go around messing with the "laws of order." In which case I could demand -- i.e., out of a "sense of order" -- that you not be foolish!


It does not serve the rights of us humans, to have a concept of "God", it only serves the rights of those, that want to eliminate the rights of millions and billions of people, that seek a better future, in which they have normal human rights.
Whether it's God, Communism or whatever "concept" it may be, it tends primarily to serve the "elitists" who are in control. Therefore, if you wish to address the tyranny of the human condition, then I would recommend you start here.


We need to look upon the world, as it is, and can from that scientific outlook on the world, to a possible world, that contains fundamental human rights for every world citizin.
"Novus Ordo Seclorum" ... Yeah, I think you better watch out for that one! ...


And not just those that have the economic and militrary power, to suppores other nations and populations.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." So what the heck is so wrong with this? Is this not what made America so great? ... And all founded upon the "concept of God," and the freedom to worship "that God" as one deemed fit.
 
  • #17
I think, US is the last nation which still keeps gods in anthem and on currency, and bible in court rooms.
 
  • #18
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Alexander
I think, US is the last nation which still keeps gods in anthem and on currency, and bible in court rooms.
And yet the U.S. is still the most powerful nation in the world. Is this not an "observable fact?" ... And could it be there might be a correlation here?
 
  • #19
Adam
42
1
New Scientist magazine, number 2287, 21st of April 2001. An article starting at page 25 has an interesting look at how evidence supports the idea that religious experience is basically a type of hallucination and affects some types of brains more than others, ro some not at all. There is quite a lot of research going on here, people trying to nail down precisely why people still believe religions. And yes, it's merely a matter of brain-mechanics. At the end of the article they list these for further reading:

"Why God Won't Go Away" by Andrew Newberg, Eugene d'Aqili, and Vince Rause. Ballantine Books, 2001.

"The Neural Substrates Of Religious Experience", by Jeffrey Saver and John Rabin, printed in The Journal Of Neuropsychiatry, volume 9, page 498 (1997).

"Experimental Induction Of The 'Sensed Presence' In Normal Subjects And An Exceptional Subject", by C. M. Cook and Michael Persinger, Perceptual And Motor Skills, volume 85, page 683 (1997).
 
  • #20
Originally posted by Alexander
I think, US is the last nation which still keeps gods in anthem and on currency, and bible in court rooms.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the U.S. is still the most powerful nation in the world. Is this not an "observable fact?" ... And could it be there might be a correlation here?

Comments by me

Oh man, boy is such a small statement so full of problems!

1. most powerful nation? an observable fact?
2. Come on now, you broke a rule so fundamental it doesn't even appear in my signature. Actually it's like a reverse subjectivist fallacy. You turned an opinion INTO a fact.
3. Of course it isn't an observable fact, I surely hope you wished to retract the statement soon after posting it!
4. A correlation? Ha...
5. You know, when something good happens after a president is in office, his administration immediately tie him to it, thus making the public think of him as the positive doer. When in fact, the major delay in actions in the government would show that the previous president caused these affects.
6. You've just taken a "positive" statement, and tried to tie it to something else, to heighten the acceptance of it.
7. Won't work, people here won't be drawn in.
8. I in no way mean this as an insult, but I want you to know you're going on block just so you don't get mad I don't respond. Again no offense, just so you don't think I am particularly ignoring you...

:smile: [?] :smile:
 
  • #21
Adam -I believe it was you who also cited an article earlier today on something else that was claimed to be brain-related? Can't remember.

Anyhow, on the earlier one I recall my experience being a bit different. Certainly the "religious experience" certain ones anyway, do have some special identifiers in the brain. People still believe in religion for a variety of reasons so says I. However, perhaps this brain mechanism may more so explain why some people have such a SERIOUS attachment to it, you know/

Family tradition, surroundings, etc..., may make them more likely to enter into it, but ultimately the level at which it takes over there world would be in that area, so says I.

It is similar is it not, to a heroin or cocaine addict?

Their environmental situation during early development greatly determins there chance of beginning this event. However, some do it rarely, and perhaps not long.

While some (those with the addicitve gene) begin to do it at all costs, it takes their life, it BECOMES their life.

If that sounds anti-religion, and sounds like it's a serious psychiatric problem in many, then I expressed myself properly.
 
  • #22
Adam
42
1
*shrug*

I have no proof that there are no gods. But seriously, if some dude popped down from the sky on a bolt of lightning and said "Hi, I'm God", I'd be more likely to think it some hallucination, trick of advanced technology which we ourselves will develop some day, or some other such thing. Aliens with neat toys.

One might say "Well, if they are more powerful than you, that makes them gods". But then a baby holding a shotgun to your face is God. It's a stupid way to play with words.

Gods (as mystical hoobajoos that created the universe or some such) are a silly idea, unlikely in the extreme as far as I'm converned.
 
  • #23
Cool derived quote from Adam's comments:

"God is a baby holding a gun to your face."

Copyright LogicalAtheist, 2003

Don't touch it, it's mine, MUHAHAHAH!
 
  • #24
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Originally posted by Alexander
I think, US is the last nation which still keeps gods in anthem and on currency, and bible in court rooms.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the U.S. is still the most powerful nation in the world. Is this not an "observable fact?" ... And could it be there might be a correlation here?

Comments by me

Oh man, boy is such a small statement so full of problems!

1. most powerful nation? an observable fact?
Then what do you say we take a vote on it? And yes. Something so fundamental as freedom of religion.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the U.S. is still the most powerful nation in the world. Is this not an "observable fact?" ... And could it be there might be a correlation here?

I don't agree that US is most powerfull country. Also, since when power became a synonim of religion?

By the same token I can say that USSR was most ateistic society and at the same time most powerfull country at the end of WWII - could it be a correlation here?

Reason why US is way behind civilized countries in belif in superstitions is just poor natural education (US natural sciences education is by US own estimate on 15-25 place among other nations, behind eastern and western Europe and behind some asian countries).

I can tell that this is true by my own experience: what they teach in US universities first 2 years people in Europe study in high schools. Many students (in US) say that they don't have chances to go to grad school because it is very hard to compete with chinese, indians, and east europeans, who firmly occupied US grad school market. As a consequence, many high-tech jobs are lost to immigrants from better educated nations.
 
  • #26
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what do you say we take a vote on it? And yes. Something so fundamental as freedom of religion.

Vote? Since when truth is opinion of majority? Since flat Earth?
 
  • #27
Iaccus, do you know that 87% of Florida high school would-be-grads failed recently very basic exam and can't graduate?

For example, according to CNN, they could not figure out the weight of a 5' side cube with the content density 5 lb/cubic foot?

Hey, this is 8-th grade problem, not 12 grade!
 
  • #28
heusdens
1,736
0


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Outside of whose "mindly concept?" Are you saying the material world exists outside of what the mind perceives? And yet how do we interface with "that reality" if not through the "contructs" of our minds? Perhaps we should be speaking about those things (concepts) which exist within the mind instead? Also, did it ever occur to you that reality is determined very much -- "in the human sense" -- by what we believe? For if we indeed acted upon what we believed, couldn't it conceivably change the "whole appearance" of the way the world looks? In which case "reality" might very well lend itself to a "different concept?"

Of course I claim that the material world exists independend and outside of our minds! What do you think? We live in an illusion? A big 3D virtual reality?

The mind gets an inprint of the material world, that is true. And with the mind, we try to find out what laws rule the outside reality.

What "new concept" of reality do you have then?
Putting the world upside down?
A "big matrix" or "virtual reality thing" ?

What is purpose? ... And what is order? ... And where do these two terms come from? If in fact the laws of God were based on order, rather than the "human need" for contrivance" (which, is the only possible alternative for the origins of purpose and order), then why can't we base our lives upon "God's order?" ... Or, would this imply a sense of God "making demands?" Hmm ... Perhaps so with some of your more "primitive societies," where survival was of the utmost, and you didn't go around messing with the "laws of order." In which case I could demand -- i.e., out of a "sense of order" -- that you not be foolish!

Don't understand any of the above, sorry!

Leave out 'God', and talk sensibly about the material world, then we might be able to understand things.

Whether it's God, Communism or whatever "concept" it may be, it tends primarily to serve the "elitists" who are in control. Therefore, if you wish to address the tyranny of the human condition, then I would recommend you start here.

"Novus Ordo Seclorum" ... Yeah, I think you better watch out for that one! ...

We already live in a "New world order", one dominated by the US, and which undermines the positions and rights of many nations and people.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." So what the heck is so wrong with this? Is this not what made America so great? ... And all founded upon the "concept of God," and the freedom to worship "that God" as one deemed fit.

Go ask some arab people for that!

A state should not be based on any concept of any god, but leave that to the privacy rights of people (in the privacy of one's own home, one can believe whatever one wants, but this should not be brought into any public institution).
 
  • #29
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Alexander
I don't agree that US is most powerfull country. Also, since when power became a synonim of religion?
Would anyone else have dared to take on the Taliban and Iraq single-handedly, and bring them to their knees in just a short period of time? I don't think so! ... And, while I'm not saying I'm in total agreement with our reasons for going to war, I don't think any other nation could have accomplished this.

And yet what it pretty much boiled down to was our word (of God) against their word (of God).


By the same token I can say that USSR was most ateistic society and at the same time most powerfull country at the end of WWII - could it be a correlation here?
And yet the Soviet Union was not known for being an open society, and the Soviet Union no longer exists ... due mainly to the hindrance of the United States -- and, "Reaganomics."


Reason why US is way behind civilized countries in belif in superstitions is just poor natural education (US natural sciences education is by US own estimate on 15-25 place among other nations, behind eastern and western Europe and behind some asian countries).
I'm not saying there isn't anything wrong with this country, to say the least! And yet even in its decline, Rome was still the most powerful country in the world.


I can tell that this is true by my own experience: what they teach in US universities first 2 years people in Europe study in high schools. Many students (in US) say that they don't have chances to go to grad school because it is very hard to compete with chinese, indians, and east europeans, who firmly occupied US grad school market. As a consequence, many high-tech jobs are lost to immigrants from better educated nations.
So it would seem we live in the Age of Science and yet, how will we ever address the problems of Mother Earth, if not at the "grass roots" level? Science by itself I believe, is not the answer ...
 
  • #30
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by heusdens
Of course I claim that the material world exists independend and outside of our minds! What do you think? We live in an illusion? A big 3D virtual reality?
And yet without a mind, what would we perceive? It suggests to me that reality and perception are pretty much dependent upon each other.


The mind gets an inprint of the material world, that is true. And with the mind, we try to find out what laws rule the outside reality.
But we also change the way the world works by implementing those things which exist in our minds. And in so doing we create a "new reality" which leaves a "new imprint" on our minds. So in this sense it does seem to suggest reality is the "by-product" of the mind. Which then opens up the possibliy of an even Greater Mind (of God's) which sets everything in motion. Remember, how could we "experience" reality (let alone change it) if not for the fact that we were conscious?


What "new concept" of reality do you have then?
Putting the world upside down?
A "big matrix" or "virtual reality thing" ?
No, I think Madison Avenue has probably already got the patent on that one! :wink:


Don't understand any of the above, sorry!
If all we have is the mind of man, brought about by evolution or whatever you wish to call it, then all we have is the "contrivance" of the mind of man. Meaning there would be no reality to perceive outside of our own (i.e., through our own contrivance).


Leave out 'God', and talk sensibly about the material world, then we might be able to understand things.
Better yet, why don't we learn how to talk sensibly about God? Of course I realize I'm asking a bit much ...


We already live in a "New world order", one dominated by the US, and which undermines the positions and rights of many nations and people.
This may very well be the case, in which case I'm not in agreement with it.


Go ask some arab people for that!
They are free to come to this country and worship their own God if they wish ... But they are not free to terrorize other peoples in the name of that God. The same holds true to any country, even the United States.


A state should not be based on any concept of any god, but leave that to the privacy rights of people (in the privacy of one's own home, one can believe whatever one wants, but this should not be brought into any public institution).
And yet were it not for the fact that you insist on deriding and invalidating religion as whole? ... Which seems to suggest you have a distinct problem with people who practice religion.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
(US natural sciences education is by US own estimate on 15-25 place among other nations, behind eastern and western Europe and behind some asian countries).

I've heard this particular statistic critiqued by the fact that it's easier for less intelligent people to get an education in USA than other countries, so the sampling is somewhat biased.
 
  • #32
Therein lies the problem, I'd say!

I understand one wanting everyone to be able to get an education, it's the democratic thing. But, I think then the idea of what an "education" is, should be looked at.

Many other countries move with much faster speed. I know at the high school I went to, the highest math was geoemetry, and there was no physics. just bio and chem but very basic.

This is one of the many reasons I'm so interested in JAPAN. I am attracted to many things about japan, but one is how accelerated their education system is.

This is also why I will be homeschooling my children for a while, perhaps all the way to high school. Then they'll go to a private school that's accelerated.
 
  • #33
Fliption
1,081
1
It's interesting to see all the ways that envy manifests itself.

And to claim that Russia is somehow worthy of some title is just hilarious and obvious bias.

I also thinks it's interesting that some here are arguing that an education is only for the elite of intelligence. These people who are against the US tendency to allow more people access to an education are the same people that gripe about capitalism widening the gap between classes of people. Lol. Can the US do anything right? LOL. Laughable.

I won't pretend to explain why the US is so far ahead of everyone else in so many areas (this cannot be denied with any credibility). I certainly won't be so bold to say it is because of religion. But if the education systems of other countries produces people like what is exhibited here, then it is easy to see why there is such a gap. Sure, memorizing facts and mathematical formulas will do wonders for your grades. But being human and leading a successful life/society is so much more than that. The careless use of statiscal data to make such bold statements in these anti-god/USA threads is growing old.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Hurkyl
I've heard this particular statistic critiqued by the fact that it's easier for less intelligent people to get an education in USA than other countries, so the sampling is somewhat biased.

No, it is statistics from tests. How come americans don't even know the quality of their own education: http://mwhodges.home.att.net/new_96_report.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Fliption
1,081
1
Originally posted by Alexander
No, it is statistics from tests. How come americans don't even know the quality of their own education: http://mwhodges.home.att.net/new_96_report.htm [Broken]

What he's saying Alexander is that the statistic is mis-leading. The source he is referencing claims that a greater percentage of people are accessing an education in the US. In order for a statistical comparison to be valid, you have to compare Apples to Apples in the sample selection. Pick up the old book "How to Lie with Statistics". That book documents many of the tactics that are used here. Learn what not to do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Suggested for: Where does God come from?

Replies
10
Views
411
Replies
3
Views
297
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
190
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
37
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
528
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
353
Replies
10
Views
774
Replies
63
Views
1K
Top