PebHmong Discussion Forum
Life & Living => Faith & Beliefs => Topic started by: Believe_N_Me on June 28, 2017, 10:46:23 PM
-
Thus, it is not evidence that the atheist needs in order to believe in God. It is his denial of God that makes him an atheist.
This is why Jesus is the Good News because even though they were born knowing God, they did not know that they were saved.
-
So you believe in innate knowledge?
I always thought you were more a blank slate.
Everybody is born knowing God. Now when I say "knowing", I am referring to knowing that they are created by something greater than themselves. It is very self-evident.
-
Thus, it is not evidence that the atheist needs in order to believe in God. It is his denial of God that makes him an atheist.
This is why Jesus is the Good News because even though they were born knowing God, they did not know that they were saved.
Is this suppose to be sarcastic? It's not the opinion, but the order of things that seem off.
1. Humans appear [estimated estimated time 400k-100k years ago depending on what you consider human]
2. The concept of deities & religion appear [estimated time unknown, but does not appear before humanity]
3. Infinite deities & religions appear [estimated time, since the concept of deities & religion to the present & future]
4. The Abrahamic religions appears [estimated time, about 3500-3000 years ago]
5. Christianity religion appears [estimated time, about 2500-2000]
Christianity is not older than it's forefather, the Abrahamic religions. Definitely not older than other countless deities & religions before it. Not older than the concept of deities & religion. No is Christianity older than humanity itself.
This is the confusion with your statement. I don't deny the importance & benefits of deities & religions for those who seek it.
But there is an order to the flow of time. 1 comes before 2, 0 comes before 1.
-
I am not referring to nomenclature. In fact, quite the opposite. Sometimes nomenclature can actually create confusion and cause people to fall away from knowing God.
-
I am not referring to nomenclature. In fact, quite the opposite. Sometimes nomenclature can actually create confusion and cause people to fall away from knowing God.
Yes, nonclemature can cause confusion in religions. But my point isn't that, it's "The Egg or the Chicken" theory.
Your opinion is deities before humanity, my opinion based on historical fact & evidence is humanity before the concept of deities.
An aetheist isn't in denial of a dieties. Denial means possibility. The mindset of an aetheist is that there is no possibility of deities.
Asking an aetheist to believe in the possibility of deities is the same as asking them to believe in a 10 headed rainbow colored dragon that breathes Skittles. Both are impossibilities in their mindset.
-
Collective unconsciousnes s or genetic memory are terms used in the field of psychology and behavioral genetics. The idea is a living animal is born with innate knowledge not obtain from sensory perception. Meaning, someone did not learn something due to touch, sight, taste, feeling, hearing, etc... The classical example are migratory birds being attuned to migration patterns without having been taught by their parents. These birds know home because their brains are pre-wired to know home. Perhaps, the idea presented here isn't far-fetched given every civilization to date have associations with some kind deities.
-
Collective unconsciousnes s or genetic memory are terms used in the field of psychology and behavioral genetics. The idea is a living animal is born with innate knowledge not obtain from sensory perception. Meaning, someone did not learn something due to touch, sight, taste, feeling, hearing, etc... The classical example are migratory birds being attuned to migration patterns without having been taught by their parents. These birds know home because their brains are pre-wired to know home. Perhaps, the idea presented here isn't far-fetched given every civilization to date have associations with some kind deities.
You're referring to instinct.
Instinct & innate knowledge are similar but not the same. IMO, innate knowledge is similar to omniscient. A human at conception being omniscient is highly improbable.
Extreme cases of wild children is the only example I can really think of that gives evidence that no innate knowledge was instilled at conception by a deity. Wild children survive due to instinct, trial & error, adaptation, even mimicing the animals around them. More a mindset of a wild animal than human. Lacking human language, mannerisms, civility, etc. Wild children gives evidence being born human doesn't mean you live as a human. They can be rehabilitated to be human, but that's due to human intervention.
If deities imparted something to us at creation, exactly what was it?
-
You're referring to instinct.
Instinct & innate knowledge are similar but not the same. IMO, innate knowledge is similar to omniscient. A human at conception being omniscient is highly improbable.
Extreme cases of wild children is the only example I can really think of that gives evidence that no innate knowledge was instilled at conception by a deity. Wild children survive due to instinct, trial & error, adaptation, even mimicing the animals around them. More a mindset of a wild animal than human. Lacking human language, mannerisms, civility, etc. Wild children gives evidence being born human doesn't mean you live as a human. They can be rehabilitated to be human, but that's due to human intervention.
If deities imparted something to us at creation, exactly what was it?
The wild child has its own conundrum. Why? It can be said that all man were once this wild child and not knowing learned knowledge and intelligence. So how did man leap from being a wild child (assuming atheism) to changing to deism? To me that's a greater conundrum. I think to suggest man saw the celestial as gods makes it too easy because how did man understand there is celestial since he was a mere beast? Obviously man was imparted with many things. One, man was imparted with suffering. Suffering drives progress. Secondly, man was imparted with reason and faith. If we take any of the 3 cornerstone of humanity: suffering, reason, or faith, man would fall apart. Without reason, man would be beast. Without faith, man would have no hope in tomorrow. Without suffering, man would never grow to transcend beast.
Lastly, you can call genetic memory or collective unconsciousnes s instinct, but all that is still pre-wired in the gene. Today we know genetic data are in the TERABYTES for a single person and we only know about 3% of it is useful. It means we have yet to discover what the 97% is for. Much to learn we have as human being. We are still babies when we scale it against the age of the Universe. Hence, how can a baby even hope to make assertion about reality.
-
Good read. I wish PH had more posts like this.
-
So here's the other piece about migratory birds. A team of genetics isolated for a specific bird the biomarker responsible for the "instinct" of migratory pattern. One can argue that if we were to use CRISSPR and snipped the biomarker, the bird would simply die in the cold because it's genetic memory of home would be lost. As DJ said instincts...an d then the birds would lose the instinct to fly home for winter. Flying home for winter is instinct but more as we've found because the instincts are pre-programmed into a species as genetic information carried through the genes. It is the way in which the evolutionary process gifts memory necessary for survival.
I'll have to find the Nature Magazine article I read a couple years ago if people are interested in reading it.
-
Yes, nonclemature can cause confusion in religions. But my point isn't that, it's "The Egg or the Chicken" theory.
Your opinion is deities before humanity, my opinion based on historical fact & evidence is humanity before the concept of deities.
An aetheist isn't in denial of a dieties. Denial means possibility. The mindset of an aetheist is that there is no possibility of deities.
Asking an aetheist to believe in the possibility of deities is the same as asking them to believe in a 10 headed rainbow colored dragon that breathes Skittles. Both are impossibilities in their mindset.
The difference here is that your rainbow brite n skittles deity has zero references other than a 1 person hallucination. I can take the same drug, same dose n i still don't see it. With a universal god, those who describes thus god is all the same. All powerful, all knowing that allows atheist to have a disbelief in him her or it.
Im not here to say that the op statement is true but there is a perhaps in it. The agnostic way of seeing it was. Like gulls on an island. Every chicks know who their parents are. Perhaps its instinct or perhaps it is through smell. Whatever the case, those are being created must somehow know who their creators are/is.
-
The wild child has its own conundrum. Why? It can be said that all man were once this wild child and not knowing learned knowledge and intelligence. So how did man leap from being a wild child (assuming atheism) to changing to deism? To me that's a greater conundrum. I think to suggest man saw the celestial as gods makes it too easy because how did man understand there is celestial since he was a mere beast? Obviously man was imparted with many things. One, man was imparted with suffering. Suffering drives progress. Secondly, man was imparted with reason and faith. If we take any of the 3 cornerstone of humanity: suffering, reason, or faith, man would fall apart. Without reason, man would be beast. Without faith, man would have no hope in tomorrow. Without suffering, man would never grow to transcend beast.
Lastly, you can call genetic memory or collective unconsciousnes s instinct, but all that is still pre-wired in the gene. Today we know genetic data are in the TERABYTES for a single person and we only know about 3% of it is useful. It means we have yet to discover what the 97% is for. Much to learn we have as human being. We are still babies when we scale it against the age of the Universe. Hence, how can a baby even hope to make assertion about reality.
I used extreme cases of Wild Children as my example because it's the cleanest slate. No human intervention can prove or disprove that what they know is simply from experience or deity intervention. In such extreme cases there is no discernable traces of what we would call "humanity", no different from a wild animal. I agree suffering drives progress in Wild Children, as proven in wild animals as well. Reason can be subjective in Wild Children. Is it Reason gifted by deities or Reason due to the human brain, experiences, even wild animals have reasoning through instinct, experiences, adaptation. Faith is beyond an extreme Wild Child's comprehension, as faith is beyond any wild animal's comprehension. But they do possess Will, even wild animals possess some form of it.
I do believe in the genetic memory theory as well. But that's due to thousands of years of genetics not deity intervention.
-
The difference here is that your rainbow brite n skittles deity has zero references other than a 1 person hallucination. I can take the same drug, same dose n i still don't see it. With a universal god, those who describes thus god is all the same. All powerful, all knowing that allows atheist to have a disbelief in him her or it.
Im not here to say that the op statement is true but there is a perhaps in it. The agnostic way of seeing it was. Like gulls on an island. Every chicks know who their parents are. Perhaps its instinct or perhaps it is through smell. Whatever the case, those are being created must somehow know who their creators are/is.
I wasn't using the Skittles dragon as reference but as an example. That in the mindset of an aetheist, deities & the Skittles dragon are no different, may as well be one & the same. I simply used the Skittles dragon as an extreme. Something more simpler and relatable would be mythical Santa Claus [ancient being, with magical reindeers, with infinite amount of bag space with infinite amount of gifts, able to travel the world in one Earth's rotation while accomplishing his goal.]
As for animals knowing their creators, they're are many examples in the animal kingdom even in more complex animals. That depends on species, they really wouldn't know their creators. They're are several bird species that lay eggs in another species' nest. Reason being that the other species would be more capable of increasing their offspring's chances to adulthood.
Even in humans, adopted children are some of the best examples of not ever knowing that their current parents aren't biological. Another example is babies switched at birth of not knowing their creators.
-
I used extreme cases of Wild Children as my example because it's the cleanest slate. No human intervention can prove or disprove that what they know is simply from experience or deity intervention. In such extreme cases there is no discernable traces of what we would call "humanity", no different from a wild animal. I agree suffering drives progress in Wild Children, as proven in wild animals as well. Reason can be subjective in Wild Children. Is it Reason gifted by deities or Reason due to the human brain, experiences, even wild animals have reasoning through instinct, experiences, adaptation. Faith is beyond an extreme Wild Child's comprehension, as faith is beyond any wild animal's comprehension. But they do possess Will, even wild animals possess some form of it.
I do believe in the genetic memory theory as well. But that's due to thousands of years of genetics not deity intervention.
I think if you can believe in genetic memory, then you can believe DNA is the source code of life. I being taught programming know that no source code is written by chance -- 1 and 0 do not self organize, even genetic algorithm is written before it can self propagate.
-
I think if you can believe in genetic memory, then you can believe DNA is the source code of life. I being taught programming know that no source code is written by chance -- 1 and 0 do not self organize, even genetic algorithm is written before it can self propagate.
I'm not sure if I'm wording it correctly but I believe the genetic code behind DNA is the source code. I maybe wrong but DNA is essentially code or blueprint. Yet we still need a DNA sample to create instead of using the code & blueprint from DNA to create.
As for 1 & 0 I'm not sure. I accept it currently, but that's only through human perception and current technology standards. I have doubts it's a universal standard.
An example I can think of is time. On Earth, current standard time is 24hours=1 day. But this standard doesn't apply to the other planents in the solar system, each will have it's own standard. There is no universal standard of time that we understand as of yet. But regardless time still flows in the universe. We do have estimates of the universe's age, but it's still measured by human standards. As they say "It's relative."
-
I'm not sure if I'm wording it correctly but I believe the genetic code behind DNA is the source code. I maybe wrong but DNA is essentially code or blueprint. Yet we still need a DNA sample to create instead of using the code & blueprint from DNA to create.
As for 1 & 0 I'm not sure. I accept it currently, but that's only through human perception and current technology standards. I have doubts it's a universal standard.
An example I can think of is time. On Earth, current standard time is 24hours=1 day. But this standard doesn't apply to the other planents in the solar system, each will have it's own standard. There is no universal standard of time that we understand as of yet. But regardless time still flows in the universe. We do have estimates of the universe's age, but it's still measured by human standards. As they say "It's relative."
Time is relative and this is demonstrated with Quantum Mechanics that time does not flow in a linear fashion as we observe on earth. What QM is showing us is our notion of time is not natural. We define 12 months, 24 hours, 60 minutes and 60 seconds. There is no natural law that says this is time. Whereas DNA is discovered and not defined, and it is natural. What this means is the source code written of DNA was written by some nature. Who, what, etc... is this nature, we don't know. Einstein a student of Spinoza would say as a naturalist that the Universe is G0D and the Universe did it. Theologians and students of religion would say God did it. Here lies the leap of faith that all mortal men make...whether the Universe called G0D or the G0D called G0D, it's all a leap of faith simply because we lack the observable and repeatable data. Regardless of what it is, we all inherently seek this object of affection that we know not of...perhaps the OP is right that we know G0D before we are born, and perhaps my addition that it's in our collective unconsciousnes s or genetic memory is plausible. Perhaps this is why we seek to understand our beginnings in hopes of know what lies at the beginning -- something greater than us. Or, it could be a delusion. We will never know will we, because there is evidence for it and lack of evidence for it. The Greeks thought the gods were too playful to man...perhaps their viewpoint hold some water.
-
In the matter of God, all the evidence is there. Agnostics and atheists don't need more evidence, they are in denial of the evidence.
Everybody is born knowing God. As plain as the nose on your face before you know to call it a nose.
The notion that God has the burden of proof is absurd. Your nose doesn't have to prove itself. :idiot2:
-
In the matter of God, all the evidence is there. Agnostics and atheists don't need more evidence, they are in denial of the evidence.
Everybody is born knowing God. As plain as the nose on your face before you know to call it a nose.
The notion that God has the burden of proof is absurd. Your nose doesn't have to prove itself. :idiot2:
If all evidence is there then we wouldn't need faith. Reason alone would be sufficient but such would contradicts the doctrine of sola fides -- faith alone.
-
BNM has the point... all the evidence were there under our nose. It doesn't mean we should sniff cocaine and start hallucinating God speaking the truth. Pardon my sarcastic joke there. ;D
-
i don't think people are born knowing god
take me for example
my folks were never in church
yeah we do shaman party
but that was like once in a while
my folks ain't that hardcore
its more like if we have money than we do shaman
what im trying to say is people don't born knowning god
they are taught
i certain don't know
because i was never taught
and many other in the world don't
(http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5220007.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/MAIN-Isis-training-camp-for-children.jpg)
-
The concept of god is really hard so hard that educated people have a hard time with it. I often wonder how the heck did a bunch of caveman and nomad come up with it. I don't think God is a concept a person of high intelligence can come up with. I think it takes someone that transcends intelligence into some other dimension of thought/knowledge to pull that rabbit out. If we are to think rationally about the concept of god, it only makes sense.
Btw, I'm not arguing for god, I'm discussing the ontological nature of the concept of god.
-
Possible. But what if what we know of God isn't the God that was originally thought of or created. Could very well be someone's imaginary friend, say a superman like character. And then through a bad game of telephone, it became the god we know of today. Language changes meanings and we see it happening all the time. Could very well be t hat it happened like that as well.
What you are suggesting is called apotheosis - the process to deify an individual or object to godhood. Buddha is a classic example of how even though the Buddha teaches there is no god, certain Buddhist sect have apotheosis the Buddha into the greatest of all god. We know apotheosis exists and have ample examples to verify. We even know deities can be created by man to control man. The idea is if we get 90% of the population to believe in god then they will be obedient and peace loving, while the 10% don't hold firm belief and can take advantage of the 90%. In economics, they call this a competitive advantage...LO L! The question I have raised\ isn't about motives or advantages. The question is the ontology of god. Hear me out because this is the complex part. We know the universe is BILLIONS of years old. We know the first archaeological evidence of god/deity dates over 500,000 years! I find it very, very hard cavemen can come up with the concept of god. These guys can't read, can't write, can't count, can't reason, etc... Frankly, in my opinion cavemen are a tad better than monkeys of today. If we find no evidence for monkeys to worship god, who taught man to worship god? Doesn't that make you think twice!?!? LOL!!!
Ask yourself this question too. What is more complex, counting to 10 or trying to understand a concept of god? If we are to look at the history of mathematics, counting 1,2,3 came before the notion of infinity (immeasurable, all powerful) which is a concept related to god.
-
If I find a quote from the Bible that relates to this topic I'm sure y'all be shaking y'all balls off and going berserk toward me. ;D ;D
-
If I find a quote from the Bible that relates to this topic I'm sure y'all be shaking y'all balls off and going berserk toward me. ;D ;D
Sharing is caring. ;D
-
I was gonna share the quote from the Bible, but I realize y'all probably can't figure out what it meant. ;D
-
If all evidence is there then we wouldn't need faith. Reason alone would be sufficient but such would contradicts the doctrine of sola fides -- faith alone.
Evidence alone doesn't necessarily lead to belief. But the two aren't mutually exclusive of each other either. This is why an atheist can look at the same evidence but it doesn't lead him to believe. There is no faith in the atheist.
In fact, I'm willing to say that evidence does the exact opposite for the atheist because of his lack of faith. The more evidence there is, the more rejection there is. No FAITH.
-
False! They know they WERE saved; however, they do not acknowledge it. There reason: I don't want God or a god. The point is, "Some men are scums of the earth and would like to tell lies to make them feel like a god of their own."
It's like going to I-hop and forcing the restaurant to make a McDonald burger. That's wrong...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptnv250tn5Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptnv250tn5Y)
Here's the example of atheism...
I'm not sure where you and I disagree. ???
The atheist rejects the evidence because it makes him feel in control. He is then his own god.