God on the Brain

[V-G]

Zby,

The reason why normal society would choose to save children first over elderly is not because they look cute, believe me. This is not a matter of looking good and never was, you are silly if you think that way. You save the young and women because they can procreate! Think about it for a second.

[V-G]

Zby, I would also like to comment on your statement that you don't know anything 100%. First of all, let me say that I agree with you completely, none of us know anything 100% but a select group claims they do and this is exactly what I oppose to. The problem with people who so avidly promote the Bible is that they claim they "KNOW" but they don't. If you read our discussions with StormAU you will see that he claims he knows 100%.

I can accept the idea that there may have been a creator of our planet and even us. I can accept the idea that there may be afterlife and things we can't see or touch out there. All of the above are OK by me, I certainly do not claim to know everything, not even a small portion of everything. But the idea of all religious is just absurd! I've shown you over a dozen exceptionally powerful arguments that prove beyond any reasonable doubt the fact that Christianity is flawed in too many ways to be the "God's way", if you will.

It is not up to me to change your mind, I could never do that, it is up to you to think and accept things you know and decline things that you know are not true. The best I can do is show you my side of the story and let you decide. There was a time when you believed in Santa, wasn't there? The gifts under the Christmas tree and the pleasantries of the holidays... and then you learned the truth, what did you do? You accepted it. Same here, the Jesus story, the Bible is nothing but a fake, accept that.

[Zbyszek]

V-G, we both came off-topic – never mind. I would hate an idea that some of my neurons command me to believe in God while some others block me from any belief. It would not be nice. The scientists formulated many ideas in the past which had to be denounced later. Let us see and think freely using our brain to the fullest.
Volodya while assessing my point of view as silly you once again became attached to a kind of not-so-old dogma which can be described as: let us enhance chances for new life instead of preserving old one. In this particular case it seems you are pro-life but maybe, when it comes to abortion issue, your point of view would be maybe much different. Then, a lot of people would find plenty of exceptions, special cases and excuses. My comprehension of God’s will is that He makes no preliminary assumption which life is more precious.
There was a trend in the XIXth century for trying to prove that Jesus was pure fantasy and there was no such man in history. A lot of professors engaged in this and then, after some time they shamefully tried to buy their own research reports in order on burn them in stove.
Until we are well-fed and confident as to human power in the world, it will not be easy to convince people that God is important. Only when self-sure scientists make some critical mistake, they will realize that playing God is too difficult for them.
I may be mistaken in my belief but if so many educated people are believers, it must influence my thinking of course. Now, it is not so easy to totally reject this concept by mocking it.
The best we can do is avoid placing easy labels and show the similar type of understanding the others as we display for left-handed people. It has been scientifically proved that, in some condition, people can see images the others can not see.

[V-G]

Zby,

I see you argument about trying to stay away from labelling people and you may ask why be such a hypocrite? So here it is, if I were to tell you that I believed in Santa, with all my heart, with all my brain and that there are billions of other humans who did the same, some will become great minds of the world later, would you think less of me? I am sure you answer will depend on my age, so as a test run let's say I am 5 years old, what would be your reaction?
Now, say I wasn't 5 but 25 instead or 35, 45 - you pick. Would you tell me politely "we are all entitled to our opinion"? Would you still say that we should not label me as delusional? Of course not, you would do what every normal human being would, you would tell me the truth - Santa does not exist. You would prove to me that I was delusional by telling me about so many things that are simply impossible to do and as a result I would be convinced that there was no Santa!

I do the same here, Zby, if you believe in god I say you are delusional, because you harbour a belief that is false. There is no god, please read my thread on Atheism VS Christianity debate - you will find all the answers there.

Good luck, I hope you open your mind to the truth and accept it.

Regards,
V

[Zbyszek]

Volodya, I think that religious practices are meaningful even if they appear as delusional to some of us. Therefore, it is not good to denounce them and mock them because they can have a very positive influence on our life, enriching it and giving a boost for charity or other good deeds. Basing on my own experience I dare say that religious practices may have both positive and negative implications but it also seems to me that societies would invent religion even it they did not meet it in the beginning. Hence, I am skeptical about rooting religion out because it would create fuzzy emptiness which would be a good prey for false prophets infiltrating people by modern mass media. Marxism was a kind of religion as well and I have been observing for years how people were prone to worship it and how deep a consequence it had for their whole life. I do remember how Marxist ideologues convinced people that Marxism is the only modern philosophy of modern times. I would like to stress well rooted, useful practical dimension of Christianity (charity, education for the poor, health care) which is almost non-existent in other major religions of the world.
So, my final conclusion is following: even if I am a believer just of special properties of my brain, it is not advisable to convince me that I am wrong because together with losing my faith, I could have lost my eagerness to help other people in the name of my God.

Humbly
Z.

[V-G]

Zby,

You just highlighted my main problem with "your" kind of charity. If the only reason you give to charity is to please god, I feel sorry for you and your charity. Why do I feel sorry for you? Easy, imagine that god does exist for just a minute. You give to charity to just please him to go to heaven, how is that different from a regular and old fashioned bribe?

Yes it is advisable to tell you the truth because you should enjoy life instead of being a slave of some mythical creature. You SHOULD volunteer and help out charitable organizations because it will make you happier. The most lasting feeling of happiness comes from volunteer work (not from winning a lotto).

Please, think about it. You sound reasonable and very intelligent, it should be fairly obvious to you why I try so hard to present the truth to you.

Regards,
V

[Zbyszek]

Truth...
What is it? Do we have one truth as clear as a crystal? I do not know. I would rather be inclined to apply fuzzy logic method [all the rage in recent scientific research] in searching for it.
I read a book recently. A gigantic, marvellous novel. The Hungarian author Sandor Marai is an old name in literature of the world but he has been rediscovered lately. I had a fortunate opportunity to become acquainted with his masterpiece “The Embers”(1941). The book is a psychological analysis of strong male relationship, a true yet sometimes rough friendship. Nothing like homosexual relation. One friend is easy going, easily absorbing knowledge and successful in his military career. The other one, a relative of Chopin, is sensitive to music, “different” and weird. Something terrible happened between the two and nothing will be the same from that day on. The woman, Krisztina was obviously the reason for a thunderstorm. However, she died in the meantime and she will not say anything. One of friends abruptly leaves the town and their motherland (Austro-Hungarian Empire) and spends more than forty years in the tropics. They met again after 41 years and 43 days as old men of 75…
The successful one speaks almost all the time. It seems in the beginning he is right, he is convincing when exposing the only possible truth and yet in the end we are almost sure there is no exclusive, absolute truth. Less fortunate friend does not explain his sudden departure but we can guess. The more so, he hardly explains anything in general but we are bound to guess quite a lot.
Why do I revoke this brilliant novel? Because it proves that there is no one undoubtable version of anything. We can only approach the truth and it is difficult to say how close we actually are. The ambiguous end of the novel is the essence of the author’s view on life in my opinion.
Read Sandor Marai’s novels. He proved by his personal experience [suicide in 1989 in San Diego] that a man will never be sure, that he is condemned to never ending search.

[Sorry, I can’t express my views to the fullest because of my English limitations and I could approach the truth closer in Polish; I wish I knew Hungarian].

V-G, I never said that I will practice charity or other honorable deeds FOR God. I am doing it IN THE NAME of God. It is an obligation, a duty and not a trade. I could not call myself a Christian if I did not do it. Treating it as a bribe is total misunderstanding because we never know how much accumulated good is necessary to get a passport so we should try to continue with our sympathetic approach all the time and sometimes one good thought right before death will be enough…