Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?

[wheels5894]

The worst part is, though, the inability to see that 'love' is an emotion - a activity of the brain. Basically, Christianity works in exactly the same way - activity in the brain makes the 'believer' think they hear their god's voice even though that 'voice' is generated in their subconscious brain.
Earlier, Luk compared love and his religion and he is right - both are feeling generated in his brain and neither have anything objective about them. The 'facts' I would like to see are
Show that there is, really, and object reality that Luk calls god and that it is in fact YHVH and not any other god.
Manage that, Luk, and we will start to be believers!

Oh! you too!?
You believe that emotion exist and are real. Why not God? You have exactly the same proofs.
I really don't care if it's in the brain or outside the brain. I only care about the existence of God. You 2 are so stubborn

If you had read me post carefully, you will see I fully agree with you - that both love and god are the result of electrical and chemical activity in the brain. Both exist only in the brain. Neither  has objective existence outwith the brain of an individual.

Now, of course, someone who experiences the emotion of love will want to express it in a variety of ways with which we are all familiar - at least those of us with friends, partners of husbands and wives. These expressions of love - actually doing something to show the other person love are actions that stem from the emotion in the brain. Likewise, a Christian, with the same emotional feeling in their brain does things like pray, attend church, give money - but al these things are actions stemming from the brain of the individual.

Like love which is a description of some activity of the brain and has not object reality outwith the brain, god is exactly the same. God is part of the activity of the brain, affects the activities of the person concerned but has no objective reality outwith the brain of the believer.

So yes, Luk I quite agree with what you say but I doubt you will be happy at that.

[eh!]

Can an emotion walk on water, make the blind see, make cripples walk, cure cancer, heal amputees r create a universe....... ?

[Hatter23]

The worst part is, though, the inability to see that 'love' is an emotion - a activity of the brain. Basically, Christianity works in exactly the same way - activity in the brain makes the 'believer' think they hear their god's voice even though that 'voice' is generated in their subconscious brain.
Earlier, Luk compared love and his religion and he is right - both are feeling generated in his brain and neither have anything objective about them. The 'facts' I would like to see are
Show that there is, really, and object reality that Luk calls god and that it is in fact YHVH and not any other god.
Manage that, Luk, and we will start to be believers!

Oh! you too!?
You believe that emotion exist and are real. Why not God? You have exactly the same proofs.
I really don't care if it's in the brain or outside the brain. I only care about the existence of God. You 2 are so stubborn

Yes, we are stubborn. We actually care whether what we believe is actually real, not just a product of imagination. How very stubborn we are to dismiss your particular bronze age mythology because it does not correspond to reality, just like you do with every other mythology and fable on the planet, even if only when any conflicts with your favorite myth.

Stubbornness like this has only had results like vaccines, sepsis, germ theory, psychiatric care, medication, increased lifespans, and landing men on the moon.

We should be open to more ideas the the Catholic Church was at the height of its power in 1350AD and with all the benefits in quality of life it provided.

[Hatter23]

Can an emotion walk on water, make the blind see, make cripples walk, cure cancer, heal amputees r create a universe....... ?

exist prior to the evolution of a brain?

[Defiance]

Can an emotion walk on water, make the blind see, make cripples walk, cure cancer, heal amputees r create a universe....... ?

exist prior to the evolution of a brain?

Exist wihout a brain?

[Nam]

Can an emotion walk on water, make the blind see, make cripples walk, cure cancer, heal amputees r create a universe....... ?

exist prior to the evolution of a brain?

Exist wihout a brain?

Aren't jellyfish brainless?

-Nam

[nogodsforme]

^^^And they are immortal, IIRC. God must be a jellyfish.

[Lukvance]

If you had read me post carefully, you will see I fully agree with you - that both love and god are the result of electrical and chemical activity in the brain. Both exist only in the brain. Neither  has objective existence outwith the brain of an individual.

Now, of course, someone who experiences the emotion of love will want to express it in a variety of ways with which we are all familiar - at least those of us with friends, partners of husbands and wives. These expressions of love - actually doing something to show the other person love are actions that stem from the emotion in the brain. Likewise, a Christian, with the same emotional feeling in their brain does things like pray, attend church, give money - but al these things are actions stemming from the brain of the individual.

Like love which is a description of some activity of the brain and has not object reality outwith the brain, god is exactly the same. God is part of the activity of the brain, affects the activities of the person concerned but has no objective reality outwith the brain of the believer.

So yes, Luk I quite agree with what you say but I doubt you will be happy at that.

Of course I am! I don't imply more than that.
You know how they say that love will make you do things? Well you hear people say that God will make you do things? He doesn't really "make you" do something. But we give him an "independent thought" like we do it for love sometime. That's all.

[nogodsforme]

Yes, love can make people do things. The idea or concept of love can make people do things, too, even if there is no real love involved.

Like teens who are "in love" with rock stars they have never met. The teen will spend money and time on the rock star, and will talk about the person all the time. But there is no real love coming from that rock star to the teen. The teen imagines that star is singing to them and the songs all have secret meanings only known to the teen. God is probably a lot like that for believers. (I will not use the obvious related pun.) People spend money and time on their god and feel strong emotions towards the deity. No real feelings are coming back, but the believer can imagine that strong emotions like love are emanating from the god. [1]

But you also say that god is an independent force that acts in the world. Something or someone that has the ability to physically heal people with cancer in exchange for them forgiving someone. Something or someone who physically protects you from running into corners.  Something or someone who creates stuff that was not there before, like the earth.

That is more than an emotion produced by chemicals in the brain. Love does not go around by itself curing cancer, protecting people, granting free will to rapists or forming planets, as you say your god does.

You danced away from the question about how "love is where there are no living beings" like on the moon or at the core of the sun. I think that is because you keep trying to conflate love with god. You realize that you have trapped yourself, because if "god is like love", and if love is only around if there are living beings around, what does that say about god?

You do not want to admit the logical truth here: that if god, like love, is produced by chemicals in the brain, god therefore could not and does not exist independently from people. Where there are no people, there can be no gods. If you keep saying that god is like love, that is where you end up. You may want to drop the "god is like love" comparison......

1.

In fact, the believer is devoted to an image of god created in their own mind, made up of selected portions of the sacred text, projections of parental figures, hymns, religious themed movies, what others have told them about god, etc. Similarly, the teen is actually "in love" with carefully cultivated image of the rocker produced by the rock star's PR firm. In real life, the rocker does not behave the way they act on stage or on tv, and does not actually like the color turquoise, pistachio ice cream or watching Bugs Bunny cartoons.

[eh!]

God is like numbers, or umm harry potter then......dam this gets repetitive .

[jaimehlers]

The analogy about a person's love or adoration for a pop singer (who doesn't even know they exist as an individual, most likely) is very apt.  I can go one better; Vocaloids, voice synthesizer programs which have been built up into artificial pop idol singers.  People act the same way towards the Vocaloids as they do to human pop singers - they buy their merchandise, they listen to the songs, they have strong feelings towards them, and so on.  In a very real way, the existence of the Vocaloids impacts the real world, even though they are utterly dependent on people to give them expression.

So, let me ask the question - if God is love, and thus is dependent on a person's actions, what is the problem?  Why is it necessary for God to have an independent existence rather than a dependent one?

[wright]

The analogy about a person's love or adoration for a pop singer (who doesn't even know they exist as an individual, most likely) is very apt.  I can go one better; Vocaloids, voice synthesizer programs which have been built up into artificial pop idol singers.  People act the same way towards the Vocaloids as they do to human pop singers - they buy their merchandise, they listen to the songs, they have strong feelings towards them, and so on.  In a very real way, the existence of the Vocaloids impacts the real world, even though they are utterly dependent on people to give them expression.

Interesting, and a good point. Almost a restating of Voltaire's, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

[wheels5894]

So, broadly,  we all agree with Luk that love and god are to be found in the brains of people. If Luk is happy with this, then it poses the question of why he is a Catholic as the Catholic church teaches that there is an existent tri-une god separate from the brains of believers who 'existed before all worlds'[1].

So, Luk, are you happy with where we have agreed or so you want to go on to show that this god has a separate existence from the humans that believe in him?

1.	Nicene Creed

[eh!]

Luk is more than happy..... he loves you.

[Lukvance]

you also say that god is an independent force that acts in the world. Something or someone that has the ability to physically heal people with cancer in exchange for them forgiving someone. Something or someone who physically protects you from running into corners.  Something or someone who creates stuff that was not there before, like the earth.
[...]
 Where there are no people, there can be no gods. If you keep saying that god is like love, that is where you end up. You may want to drop the "god is like love" comparison......

For now I don't need to prove that God created the earth (even If I believe that he didn't exactly) or that he heals cancer or anything related to what you have said. All I have to prove here is that he exist. (like love, inside our brain if you want) and that the message he gave us is clear. ("follow me")
If you wish to understand how I can say everything else about God I would gladly talk with you in a debate form.
For now, I won't drop the comparison between sentiment and God...as long as you keep thinking that God does not exist.

[Lukvance]

So, let me ask the question - if God is love, and thus is dependent on a person's actions, what is the problem?  Why is it necessary for God to have an independent existence rather than a dependent one?

The problem is about who got the correct definition of God. Some people will blow themselves up because their god told them to.

[Lukvance]

So, broadly,  we all agree with Luk that love and god are to be found in the brains of people. If Luk is happy with this, then it poses the question of why he is a Catholic as the Catholic church teaches that there is an existent tri-une god separate from the brains of believers who 'existed before all worlds'[1].
So, Luk, are you happy with where we have agreed or so you want to go on to show that this god has a separate existence from the humans that believe in him?

1.	Nicene Creed

I am happy with the fact that the existence of God has been finally accepted and from that we can move onto other subjects like trinity or eternity of God. To address these concepts we need to agree that God exist.
So, for now. Let's say that he exist (like love, inside our brain if you want)

[Nam]

So, let me ask the question - if God is love, and thus is dependent on a person's actions, what is the problem?  Why is it necessary for God to have an independent existence rather than a dependent one?

The problem is about who got the correct definition of God. Some people will blow themselves up because their god told them to.

Like yours.

-Nam

[wheels5894]

So, broadly,  we all agree with Luk that love and god are to be found in the brains of people. If Luk is happy with this, then it poses the question of why he is a Catholic as the Catholic church teaches that there is an existent tri-une god separate from the brains of believers who 'existed before all worlds'[1].
So, Luk, are you happy with where we have agreed or so you want to go on to show that this god has a separate existence from the humans that believe in him?

1.	Nicene Creed

I am happy with the fact that the existence of God has been finally accepted and from that we can move onto other subjects like trinity or eternity of God. To address these concepts we need to agree that God exist.
So, for now. Let's say that he exist (like love, inside our brain if you want)

Hold on a bit - we have only conceded that god exists in the brains of believers in the same way as do dragons in the minds of Skyrim players. You have only got to the stage of people having the idea in their heads because others have talked about it.

Remember, this thread is about why 'all the cloak and dagger stuff' and the best explanation for it is that there is no separately existent god.

[Lukvance]

Hold on a bit - we have only conceded that god exists in the brains of believers in the same way as do dragons in the minds of Skyrim players. You have only got to the stage of people having the idea in their heads because others have talked about it.

Remember, this thread is about why 'all the cloak and dagger stuff' and the best explanation for it is that there is no separately existent god.

Dragons in the minds of Skyrim players usually don't have the same effect on your life that God or love has. So no, it's not the same. Do you still disagree? If so, why?

Saying why 'all the cloak and dagger stuff'? Is already acknowledging the existence of God as an independent being. If not, then the question does not make any sense.

[eh!]

Luk does your god have any existence. outside of the mind of the believer. you seeto dodge this, what evidence do you have. and no people can ask the nature of something without implying the something exists.


eg i can ask the nature of a being that only inhales sulphur, does not implysaid being exists..... but in your world thinking it makes it exist.

[Lukvance]

Luk does your god have any existence. outside of the mind of the believer. you seeto dodge this, what evidence do you have. and no people can ask the nature of something without implying the something exists.
eg i can ask the nature of a being that only inhales sulphur, does not implysaid being exists..... but in your world thinking it makes it exist.

When you ask why a being that only inhales sulphur doesn't talk to you or hides itself. Doesn't that imply that the being exist?
If it doesn't then the answer is simple : "the being does not exist so of course it cannot talk/he cannot hide neither! He can't do anything!" My God have an existence outside of the mind of the believer. But this is something to discuss on another thread. That's why it look like I'm dodging the subject here.

[eh!]

Err no hypothetic questions exist. i could ask what the US would be like if JFK did not get killed.


Another example of your avoidance is provided in your last post requesting a different thread..... you are not honest.


so what existence do you have for a god we both agree exists in the minds of the believer that you claim also exists ...where and how.

[Lukvance]

Err no hypothetic questions exist. i could ask what the US would be like if JFK did not get killed.
Another example of your avoidance is provided in your last post requesting a different thread..... you are not honest.
so what existence do you have for a god we both agree exists in the minds of the believer that you claim also exists ...where and how.

Hypothetical question about non existent being doings exist?? Like what? In your example JFK and USA exist.
I'm sorry if you think I am dishonest. What makes you think such a thing?
I don't understand your last question.

[Disciple of Sagan]

Saying why 'all the cloak and dagger stuff'? Is already acknowledging the existence of God as an independent being. If not, then the question does not make any sense.

Hey, Luk. Wheels is offline at the moment, so I thought I would attempt to clarify this comment of yours.

You need to remember that you created/named the thread, so it is yourself... and only yourself that is "already the existence of God as an independent being". The rest of us (atheists) are arguing, rather strongly I might add, is that if this "God" you describe is indeed an "independent being" that can operate and influence the universe around it outside of your brain, then It does so in a manner that is not verifiable by any known methods.

What wheels (please correct me if I am misrepresenting you), myself and every other member that is debating you on this topic has been doing is playing "Devil's Advocate" (operating under the assumption that said "God" is an "independent being" in order to move the conversation along. The fact remains that you have not proven this point by any stretch of the imagination.

Dragons in the minds of Skyrim players usually don't have the same effect on your life that God or love has. So no, it's not the same. Do you still disagree? If so, why?

But they may, which is the argument I belive he was making. But let me offer a different example, and one that had actually happened to me when I was around 7 or 8 years of age.

Have you ever read the book "Gulliver's Travels"? I had watched an animated version of the story on tv when I was young.

I had became fascinated with the "Lilliputians" (a race of tiny people) to the point of dreaming about them. The very next morning, I remember going downstairs and crawling in to a floor-level cabinet in our living room where my parents kept all of my and my sister's children's books.

In one corner there was a small crack or cavity perhaps and inch tall and a 1/4 inch wide, and I had become convinced that on the other side of the hole was the Land of Lilliput, and that if I could only be able to bring my eyes close enough that I would be able to see it.

Long story short, for about a two week period I would attempt to peer in to the crack to see the Lilliputians before finally being told by my mother (who must had been becoming concerned over my obsession) that Gulliver's Travels and the Lilliputians were just a story, and not real.

So, here we have an example where the Lilliputians had "existed" as a "concept" in my brain. This "concept" had actually caused me to alter my daily life (to what extent or for how long being irrelevant). I think we would both agree that this "concept", however, had no capacity to operate independently outside of my brain or to influence the universe around it.

The same goes for your God. That is our counter argument. The burden of proof now lies with you to show that your personal concept of "God" has the capacity to operate independently outside of your brain and influence the universe around it.

[eh!]

JFK did exist as a real thing now he exists as skeletal remains and not capable of direct personal participation in politics. USA exists but a USA. that had been governed by JFK subsequent to the date if his death does not. so its possible to discuss a hypothetical  think you know that hence i call you dishonest imo for pretending you don't.

My last question is unambiguous what evidence do you have for the existence of god outside of belief emotion thought.  And also without using indirect evidence.

[median]

Oh there is!
It's just that you demonstrated the existence of something material (the bus) Try to demonstrate the existence of something immaterial (like Love or hate) and you'll face the same problem I face when I talk about God.You will desperately and pathetically try to divert attention saying it's my problem, not yours When the problem I face are YOUR standards that are too high.
Let's see how you answer the following question (if you are able) :
"What facts would you bring up to prove that you are capable of love?"
Let me remind you what you can't do : Not hearsay(testimonials); Not circular reasoning; Not appeals to ignorance; Not appeals to the masses; Not appeals to authority; Not appeals to antiquity; Not appeals to emotion; Not appeals to your own credulity(gut instinct); Not circular reasoning; Not a "you too" argument, and,of course, constant special pleading.

Your statement above is exactly the problem. As with all of your other religious beliefs you merely ASSUME that love is "immaterial". What does that term even mean? How can you demonstrate this claim? Once again, your arguments are fallacious because you are attempting to shift the burden of proof. You first need to demonstrate your claims that there are "immaterial things", and it is precisely that which you have been avoiding doing the entire time (namely with this alleged "God" and now with "immaterial", "soul", "spirit", love, and other assertions).

[median]

Hold on a bit - we have only conceded that god exists in the brains of believers in the same way as do dragons in the minds of Skyrim players. You have only got to the stage of people having the idea in their heads because others have talked about it.

Remember, this thread is about why 'all the cloak and dagger stuff' and the best explanation for it is that there is no separately existent god.

Dragons in the minds of Skyrim players usually don't have the same effect on your life that God or love has. So no, it's not the same. Do you still disagree? If so, why?

Saying why 'all the cloak and dagger stuff'? Is already acknowledging the existence of God as an independent being. If not, then the question does not make any sense.

Wrong. It makes plenty of sense - just like if we said "Why is the magic Santa Claus never found going down the chimney?" This is yet another point that you (for some strange reason) continually choose to ignore. Just because people can hold mental images in their brains it does not, in any way, mean that such conceptions are independently existent in corporeal reality. And again, you know damn well that this is what we are talking about when we are asking for demonstrable evidence of your alleged "God". Pure mental conceptions themselves (and/or "feelings") are reactions of physical substrates. If you are attempting to go beyond the evidence and assert something more is happening there (i.e. - the "immaterial") then 1) you are violating Occam's Razor, because we don't need such assumptions to explain what's going on and 2) you would need actual demonstrable evidence of such "immaterial" claims.

[eh!]

Luks has a weak argument. it is certainly true that all normal humans have experienced a range of emotions, that's why we can empaphise with a stranger from another culture. OTOH it is certainly not true that the stranger will get yaweh without direct training to implant the concept of yaweh in their head.