Prove the existence of god - Page 2

That's probably because the same chemicals in the brain are to blame, when people become emersed in a religion, whatever one it is they fall in love and just like falling in love with a person those chemicals that are released in the brain producing the euphoria and ecstasy and high of being in love become the addictive driving force behind their every action.

When you are truly in love with a person you will do anything for them when a person is in love with God or the ideals of a religious faith why should their reaction or motivations be any different?

There is a difference here, between following a religion because your family follow it and you have been brought up to go to Church or a temple every week and are obliged to tow the line and a person who has found a religious belief later on in life and has really become emersed in it mind, body and soul.

This actually sounds rediculous. Substance abuse and religion are very different things. A lot of people turn to religion in their time of need but I would say that's just being desperate. There willing to try anything to make the pain stop.

In actual fact this is scientific fact so it is not ridiculous. Addiction can be as well as the compulsive use of psychoactive drugs, compulsive behaviours and is an example of motivations abnormally taking over a person's life. The neurological bases of addiction is when conventional motivational activities in the brain and their particular neural systems such as feeding and sex are hyjacked. It is the mesolimbic dopaminergic pathway or 'the incentive pathway' that underlies the appetitive phase of motivation usually associated with things such as sex and food.
Have you heard of people talking about the pleasure centres of the brain? Well pleasure is linked to homeostasis and when people derive some sort of pleasure or satisfaction (including spiritual which is an emotional response just the same as passion) then this leads to a craving for more of the same hence addiction. When you are infatuated with someone (the love of your life) it is the very same thing.

Ya what she said.

Plus there are just tons of practical and conceptual similarities as well.

Such as one you mentioned. Desperation.

Both are often turned to in acts of desperation or pain, and when addicted, both will be desperately sought in times of general stress or cravings.

Don't confuse societies reactive posistions on either subject with characteristic distinctions or likenesses between them.

One has crackhouse, the other the house of god, both places of congregation with the same practical purposes served.

One has a book called the bible, the other has a bong called bubble boy, both tools meant to offer a direct path to their own version of enlightenment.

Paranoia is a commonly shared trait, one sees the end of the world around every corner and the devil behind every bad or questionable deed, the other thinks everyone is out to get them.

They are both mind altering substances meant to affect one's very perception of reality.

Given that fact, I am left with a perfect segue into some similarities that take some drastic and meaningful turns due to societies responses to them.

Both have pushers, pushers that are very keen at preying on impressionable young minds or those vulnerable and desperate ones of any age.

One is abhored for its pursuasion on the naive and innocent, the other is embraced, pushed harder, including threats.

One of the sickest things I have ever heard in relation to religion is that entire societies let alone communities, families, or parents, use threats of eternal suffering to manipulate the minds of anyone, especially children.

One of the absurd and offensive acts of religions that I don't suffer from drug pushers is droves of idiots pushing their shit door to door challenging your beliefs, belittling the religions of others, and threatening eternal damnation, all before lunch.

Have you ever noticed how upset religious people can get when you challenge their beliefs?

Drug addicts act the same way when you ask them to face that they are addicted and acting abnormally as result of their addiction.

And both can struggle to answer the simple question of why they cannot be happy healthy people without their serving their addiction.

Don't get me wrong Ironwood I completely agree with you, especially when it comes to preachers and door to door pushers of religion. And yes I completely see the scientific, neurological evidence for religion being addictive and therefore completely taking over peoples lives and colouring their ability to reason in other areas of their lives (just like any addiction).

However, and this is a big however, I do not take away from religious people the reality and intensity of their experience. Just because we can find areas in the brain responsible for certain experiences, doesn't change the fact that they are having the experience. Just because we can explain how taste, and touch and the motor responses of the body work doesnt make religious experience any different from these physical experiences. It is all part of the package that is humanity.

Whose to say that God didn't design our brains for the very purpose of being able to have a spiritual experience or relationship as well as being able to taste or touch? Whose to say that our brains are not hard wired with recievers so that under the right circumstances we can recieve messages from God just like we recieve messages through our other senses via electrical impuses? And whose to say that our very DNA does not have within it a code, programmed from the beginning of time or the universe or creation or however you want to see it, that tells the physical how to develop, evolve and even what to learn?? Too much for you? Oh well, welcome to my weird and wonderful thought processes!

Too much? Not at all.

This does nothing to abate my point.

All of these experiences do not require blind faith in religious dogma.

quote:

---

I do not take away from religious people the reality and intensity of their experience

---

Nor do I, just as I do not deny a drug users experience. This is beside the point.

This point being that these are both imperfect pathways to these experiences.

So much so I believe they actually hinder the experience due to their dependance upon these addictive and mentally degrading methods.

There is a point when the training wheels should come off, because they will only end up getting in the way and dragging you down when you are ready to progress beyond their capacity.

What do you mean by "imperfect pathways to these experiences"? What experiences are you referring to?

The experiences I was referring to were the actual spiritual ecstasy or the drug induced high (two very different experiences by the way I'm not saying they are the same experience), not the culturally defined religious social practice that is used to dress the experiences up into social acceptance. You can't experience a spiritual ecstasy except through a spiritual medium, that is what defines the experience as spiritual. So what are you referring to in your post?

Are you saying that your "training wheels"have come off and you have experienced some sort of enlightened , heightened state of awareness that is purer than any spiritual or drug induced experience that has ever been known to man? What capacity can these people in your opinion reach that is beyond their own experiences?

You are the one saying they are mentally degraded, not the millions of humans on the planet that in your opinion are somehow mere innocent, ignorant, savages still living in some misguided child-like fantasy. Religious people aren't any less a human being than you. They are scientists and lawyers and judges and royalty and teachers and poets and humanitarianists and just well ordinary people.

I'm just trying to understand what in your opinion makes these people so different from you and what it is about their experiences that you feel aren't real enough to be counted alongside other non spiritual experiences?

quote:

---

What do you mean by "imperfect pathways to these experiences"? What experiences are you referring to?

---

In this I primarily meant experiences of actual enhancement, advancement, enlightenment.

The experience of gaining something meaningful and useful from a such a state of mind, regardless of how the state is induced.

What I meant by imperfect pathways is that I feel such states of "enlightenment", if you will, are hindered when obtained through vehicles such as religion or drugs.

These are just tools.

The imperfection comes in that many of those who use them become addicted to and obsessed with the tools rather than the "spiritual" benefits they are using them to obtain.

And because these tools are often destructive or manipulated for ulterior motives.

quote:

---

You can't experience a spiritual ecstasy except through a spiritual medium, that is what defines the experience as spiritual

---

Not at all. The definition of spiritual comes from it pertaining to the spirit.

Spirit is not a definitive term by any means.

But in the context we are using it, I feel it is safe to say that we don't experience anything without it. Mind body and soul are always present to some greater or lesser degree.

Spiritual ecstasy can be obtained anywhere at any point in time with no use of any outside medium, unless you are hindered and dependant upon some tool.

Indeed there are more condusive environments, but again, this is relative to your own ability to engage in a "spiritual" state of mind.

quote:

---

What capacity can these people in your opinion reach that is beyond their own experiences?

---

Those who are addicted to the tools, can overcome those dependancies.

Those who are limited to "spirituality" through such tools can overcome those limitations.

Including superceding societal mentalities and all their pros and cons.

quote:

---

You are the one saying they are mentally degraded, not the millions of humans on the planet that in your opinion are somehow mere innocent, ignorant, savages still living in some misguided child-like fantasy.

---

If you are referring to millions of people who believe as fact "child-like fantasy" stories, then you bet I am.

I don't claim to have such numbers nor do I give the majority of even religious practicing individuals such little credit, but you may if you like.

quote:

---

I'm just trying to understand what in your opinion makes these people so different from you

---

Depending on who you are talking about, the people that differ from me are those who make claims of belief in things they actually do not know, rather than in the possibility.

quote:

---

what it is about their experiences that you feel aren't real enough to be counted alongside other non spiritual experiences?

---

I don't believe there is a non spiritual experience.

But I do believe that there are experiences that are hindered by deceit, delusion, and self destructiveness.

Thankyou Ironwood for going through my post with such a fine toothcomb and answering all the points. I think I pretty much agree with most of what you have said. i certainly agree that religion and drugs are both tools to a person's individual personal pathway to enlightenment and I also agree that such spiritual ecstasies can be reached almost anywhere at anytime.
I'm not sure I agree that religion is always a hinderance, again you are looking at religious people as exploited in some way. Yes I do see where you are coming from, and yes many, many people are exploited by other people through the guise of religion, money is a big one, especially through tithes and church memberships and tv evangelists. However even Jesus himself was supposed to find such practices abhorrent and went in and trashed a temple market place up because of this very exploitation you are talking about. But if you can look beyond the religions at the messages of love and spiritual guidance, if you are a responsible, intelligent truth seeking adult, you may just find something useful to your own personal spiritual development not just in Christianity but in all religions, because I believe that all religions hold a grain of truth and are all carrying pretty much the same messages.

I love researching ancient myths and legends and tribal stories because it is amazing the parallels to be found. Cave paintings and shamanistic stories are the best.

A great book involved in this search for spiritual enlightenment that I read last year and couldn't put down is entitled "Supernatural - meetings with the ancient teachers of mankind" by Graham Hancock. It's a good read, terrible ending with no proper conclusions but a good read never the less.

I understand exactly what you are saying. And hopefully soon you will too.

Sorry, I'm just in a good mood.

quote:

---

But if you can look beyond the religions at the messages

---

Dude, did you read my mind, or just my posts finally, that is totally what I've been telling you, heh.

Don't you see, it is really YOU who need to look beyond the religions, I already have, but looking beyond the religions shows you that it is the messages that are important, and that they are fully independant of the religions, remember, the religion was just a tool.

What I've been saying is that not only are the messages of religions independant of the religions, the spiritual benefits are too, morals as well (which are basically the "message of religion" anyway).

That there is a difference between practicing religion and practicing the message.

That there is a difference between organized religion and personal religion.

A difference between belief in a creator other than yourself and claims of belief in definitions and stories of this creator and its intentions as written, told, and sold by man and his institutions.

There is a difference between using the tool and depending on the tool. Use and depend on the tool too much and then someone else can use the tool to use you.

I'm saying that there is a difference between saying you believe in the message of Jesus and saying you believe that Jesus was a factual person, an incarnation of god born of immaculate conception, performed miracles, died, got resurrected etc.

One of them is being honest with yourself, one being something else entirely.

And this is one of the corrosive hinderances of religion.

You can't reach greater points of enlightenment if you think you already have the answers.

Sorceress, while your post was well reasoned, there is one part that intrigues me;

quote:

---

But if you can look beyond the religions at the messages of love and spiritual guidance, if you are a responsible, intelligent truth seeking adult, you may just find something useful to your own personal spiritual development not just in Christianity but in all religions, because I believe that all religions hold a grain of truth and are all carrying pretty much the same messages.

---

Since you say that all religions carry essentially the same messages, why play favorites? Why not believe in them all?
Delving deeper for a moment, I'd like to focus on the last sentence of that quote.

quote:

---

I believe that all religions hold a grain of truth and are all carrying pretty much the same messages.

---

I'll ignore the wealth of evidence that suggests that religion is a mutilated (think the children's game "Telephone" account of ancient history, and just deal with spiritual text.
Anyone who has read the bible knows that it's full of contradictions. An easy example is that in one section it says that a disobedient child should be seized by his parents, brought out into the town square, and stoned to death by the townsfolk, while one of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt not murder". Which do you follow? The bible tells us to do both. I haven't the time to dig up all of the plethora of contradictions held within the bible, but if you look, I've no doubt you'll find more. With this in mind, the first question that comes to mind is: what messages are contained in the bible?
The definition of a message is:
"a communication containing some information, news, advice, request, or the like, sent by messenger, radio, telephone, or other means." [Dictionary.com]
A self contradicting statement is devoid of information, and is therefore, by definition, not a message. You say that religion provides guidance, but does this actually come from religion? Perhaps you're giving religion too much credit. The threat of divine backlash shouldn't be the only reason to do the "right" thing. And if the fear of eternal damnation is your only reason for doing the "right" thing, then you're not doing right by yourself, and that is the greatest sin of all.

I am so pissed off right now because I just spent ages writing a response that I was really happy with and when I went to post it I had been logged off and I lost it all and I'm not sure I can be quite so elequent or remember what I said now.

I'm not sure what view people have of me on this site because I don't think it is the right one, probably because I say I am a Christian but many Christians (ok most) would not recognise me as such.
Ironwood I have always maintained that all religions hold a grain of truth, and that it is that truth that I seek and so I do study all religions and scientific literature and my own personal beliefs are in fact a mish mash of everything.
The bible is 99.9% rubbish, written by men for men and needs to be read as an historical document written in a socioeconomic context set in the middle east and holds very little relevance or inspirational value to modern women. The old testament I read only to gleen what little spiritual inspiration can be found through ancient man's dreams and aspirations I like a lot of the psalms and enjoy reading some of the stories but in the main it is violent (barbaric actually) and dangerous.
The new testament although also written by men for men is what interests me because it shows the teachings of Jesus, and that is where my heart is; not all the letters and gospels of so called Christian men who seem to be hypocrites and mostly miss the point entirely. And in actual fact Jesus hated most of the laws and teachings of the old testament and said so constantly. He wanted women and children and people of all backgrounds to be included in his mission, but somehow it never happened like that because man is selfish and power hungry and driven by worldly motivations (because after all we're only human!)
So St.Jimmy I actually try not to play favourites as it were. I do follow a little of all religions (I do hate that word). I try to live a good life as a wife and mother and business woman, I read vorateously (I don't think that is spelt right), I meditate every day, I play with my children, I take long walks in the beauty that is this world of wonder and I am in the main very happy.

Anyway I know I am a spiritual enigma to most people. I am going on holiday tomorrow so I might miss the responses to this post. I am happy to continue this debate in the future and if anybody wants to leave me private messages I can pick up on when I come back I'd love that.
Thanks guys for this topic, I could go on forever. See you all soon, love and light
Sorceress

quote:

---

Anyway I know I am a spiritual enigma to most people.

---

Well, you aren't to me, any more, you just confuse people when you call yourself christian.

I find it interesting that nobody has taken the trouble to challenge Ironwood's assertion that he has 'proved' the existence of God. Perhaps a combination of hide-bound philistinism and gratuitous verbosity has contrived to put people off reading his posts. Or maybe some find his sophistries rather comforting: because, to be sure, although he does not express himself in avowedly religious language, he has simply appropriated for himself a new set of terms; the old fallacies, which have long since ceased to charm, are simply relocated in a more favourable climate, where their health, their élan, their power to intoxicate, are duly restored. But once the initial effervescence has cleared, we will see that it was nothing but blank air.

It should not go without notice that Ironwood claims to have been able, not only to supply a definition of God, but to prove his existence too. But I am cognisant of no proof, only a definition. Apparently, then, Ironwood acquiesces in the scholastic tradition of saying that once we understand what we mean by God, we will also, in the self-same instance, perceive the necessity of His existence. It seems to follow that an atheist must be committed to denying that the word God means anything at all, except perhaps in a purely linguistic sense.

Ironwood seems to think that his definition of God is relatively uncontroversial. In fact, it is not even tenable. He says that God is the unknown. My objection to this is two-fold: firstly, you have offered no reasons for assuming that the 'unknown' is unitary (and this is no doubt a product of a monotheistic imagination); secondly, if God escapes definition, how are you able to define Him in the first place? The statement "God exists" may, of course, be true; but if you are right in saying this, then you are right by accident.

Offhand, this might seem a questionable notion. After all, if a statement has truth-conditions then it is, in Ayer's phrase, "literally meaningful". But if I can adduce no evidence for either its truth or falsity, in what sense are we entitled to say
that the principle of bivalence applies at all? (This problem rears it head for logical constructivists as well).

The vicious circle we have here can easily be dodged by weakening some of the strictures lain by the Positivists. Mach and co would construe the statement "God exists" as meaningless, since it is neither of empirical or logical import. But I think this distinction, when pushed too far, makes an inquiry unnecessarily restrictive. It is a traducement to say that logical truths are mere tautologies which simply enumerate
terms without saying anything: for they can tell us about possiblilites. As a
possibility, God does not seem to logically precluded. And so it is no contradiction to say, at one and the same time, that "God exists" is meaningful and unverifiable.