> 1> That is what I am asking for. Better defined, what I am really
>asking for:. Thought processes are electre-chemical in nature. I want
>proof that the change in thought is not due to the mind itself, but due
>to external divine influence.
B: Can god be defined as "electre-chemical"? Can god be defined as
"thought"? By "mind" do you mean *your self-determined thoughts*; or, does
mind include a group mind, a self-ordered system, a system which is operated
by taking in an external source (be that electricity, information,
"spark-of-life", or motivation--this last, is the mind operated by external
reward or punishment)? If god is defined as any of the above other than
self-determined thoughts--group, self-ordered, externally powered--then
"divine" is anything that is not self-will. Does *anything* occur within
mind as you define it which is divine (as I define it, that is not self-willed)?
> 2> NO, It can only be divine if influenced by god directly. Not
>through experience, experiment and observation.
B: If something is not interpreted through "experience, experiment, and
observation," then how will recognize it?
> 3> Religion is natural only in the sense that it is generated by
>fear, which is natural. Fear of the unknown is what created the rain
>gods, moon gods, ocean gods and sky gods. As man could explain more and
>more the need for gods disapeared, slowly at first, but continuuing
>until there was one god who was only responsible for things that can't
>be explained. Today it is fear of death, lack of purpose, control of
>others that drives the need for gods. As long as fear is the main factor
>in human thought processes, gods will plague us.
B: If "fear" creates religion...then is "Fear" your god (being natural,
observable through what--you say--it creates, that is, "rain gods, moon
gods...one god...gods"...or do we go back to "fear is electre-chemical"--at
which point, is "electre-chemical" your god (or is electre-chemical
"self-willed")?
>4> God is Love? Love is an electro/chemical process with specific
>neurotransmitters and actions on the brain, and I am DEFINATELY not
>interested in the love shown by religious people ( in this i mean love
>for humanity, not love for one another, as I can love, and respect love
>for me by a religious person) as the price is too high. Christians have
>shown their love by slaughtering by the millions all non-believers.
>Enslaving entire races, subjugating women, gays, heritcs etc... Even
>today i cannot get a job in Government, spend money or praise my country
>without acknowledging your god. The concept of "God is Love" is
>definately without statistical or historical precedence.
B: I don't care if god is love or if you can bugger him...the point was can
religion be scientifically tested using religious criteria?
>5> I would suggest that all phenomena are simply a lack of understanding
>on our part. Rain was a phenomena people sacraficed their children for,
>then we understood and that practice stopped. Religion is willing to
>sacrafice the hearts and minds of millions to garner power for itself.
>It is willing to legislate it's morals even it it results in oppression
>and death of others who do not believe.
B: So does "democracy"...what's your point?
>i am willing to guess that religion will never be able to bring a
>"miracle" under scientific scrutiny because the fear of discovering that
>there is a scientific answer is overwhelming. Religion is in a constant
>backbpeddle. I would love it to be otherwise, and would not mind living
>in the world you would like to exist. According to the bible and all
>other texts of this nature, lots is said about the miracles that
>happened before people knew why the grass was green or the sky was blue.
>Now the scriptures aren't written, and miracles are kept from the public
>eye. Does your god need to hide his work? Perhaps smoke and mitrrors
>don't work on us like they used to, and the aliens that faked everyone
>out 2000 years ago fled for their skins?
B: As soon as you explain a miracle using science it stops being a miracle.
Aren't you choosing "science" as a preferred system of interpreting what you
see? And if you chose "religion" instead--except for using different
words--would the phenomenon be any less miraculous? Is religion "flawed"
because it uses religious understandings to explain religious beliefs: Is
science flawed because it uses scientific understandings to explain
scientific beliefs: Are the phenomenon which are being explained any
different for the system used to explain it?
>Sodom
>I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT, AND IT TASTED BETTER
SO:
If I say the "god of electricity" revealed to me that filaments in a bulb
are capable of glowing...is this *revelation* any different from "science"
reveals to me that filaments in a bulb are capable of glowing--a "discovery"
(and by calling it a discovery instead of a revelation you are taking
responsibility for the phenomenon--that is you are saying that because your
mind is self-willed *YOU* created the glowing phenomenon...you take credit
for it's existence in the scientific)?
Try to leave out the prejudice when you respond (I could say science created
the atomic bomb so it can't be good...science is based on fear of not being
the one in control so it can't be natural).
Can the scientific method prove the scientific method?
Brett
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Lewis's Law of Travel:
The first piece of luggage out of the chute doesn't belong to
anyone, ever.