The day I realized there is no god.

[youjustcomplain]

Ian Hanomansing said the words coronavirus and vaccine and doses every seven seconds ( I counted it) when
he wanted to put the fear of covid into people.

I'll take your word on the frequency that Ian used those words. However, it's your spin, not his, that he did it to put "fear of covid into people". If I talked about music and every seven seconds I mentioned either Music, notes or instruments, it wouldn't necessarily to be put the fear of Music into you. It's your choice to take something in a certain way. But I don't know what any of this has to do with realizing there is no god.

[segg s oppender]

It took me a while to come to the realization that there is no god out there.

For years growing up I had been fascinated by the military and war, initially supporting the American cause in Vietnam.

Then as more and more atrocities started coming in, committed by both sides, it got me thinking, if there really is a god then why does he permit these incredibly horrible acts to take place.
Following the Vietnam war, there were the killing fields in Cambodia.

Millions of innocents died just in those two actions alone.
And it never seems to stop. Even today.

No, there is no god, just the never ending killing of innocents and young men, all ordered by old men.

Maybe god likes killing?

[Thinktank]

Maybe god likes killing?

The day I realized there is a God


Albert Bourla - veterinarian - billionaire CEO of Pfizer, who went to Harvard

THANK YOU, OH GREAT ALBERT, YOU ARE WORTHY OF BEING PRAISED

When the monkeys in the government said "no plane travel for you" and they started saying things like "get vaxxed for the other guy" and "vaccinate your bubble" and "you're fired" for not getting the same vaccine that Israel said "four doses will never be enough" and big pharma started giving lottery tickets, ice cream cones, and free pizza to people to get the new experimental Wuhan bat-flu stab, and Rochelle Walensky grinned when she said the CDC employees were not forced to be vaxxed, while Canadian truckers were forced, and then Bonnie Henry started swallowing her saliva while talking about vaccinating children as young as five (for the good of the herd, of course)

is the day I realized there is no God.

..

[ferri]

[The Straken]

When the monkeys in the government said "no plane travel for you" and they started saying things like "get vaxxed for the other guy" and "vaccinate your bubble" and "you're fired" for not getting the same vaccine that Israel said "four doses will never be enough" and big pharma started giving lottery tickets, ice cream cones, and free pizza to people to get the new experimental Wuhan bat-flu stab, and Rochelle Walensky grinned when she said the CDC employees were not forced to be vaxxed, while Canadian truckers were forced, and then Bonnie Henry started swallowing her saliva while talking about vaccinating children as young as five (for the good of the herd, of course)

is the day I realized there is no God.

But the great all seeing all knowing god knew all that and has chosen to make you a nonbeliever for reasons none of us can see or fathom.

[ekir8]

What's the binary we're working with here? Creationism vs evolution I suppose?

Creationism claims, "In the beginning God....". It's a claim that can't be physically substantiated in that it can't be tested, observed or reproduced. This claim is based on faith. Faith is a choice, you choose faith you don't prove faith.

Evolution claims that the universe began with the Big Bang. All matter was packed into a singularity and suddenly expanded into what is known as the universe. This claim is backed by a general scientific consensus. Science is roundly understood to be predicated upon the scientific method which utilizes questions, hypothesis, testing and observation in order to form conclusions. By virtue of this method, we are to believe that our current powers of comprehension are far beyond what they have been throughout human history.

God can't be proven in material ways, but science can. In that case, regarding the Big Bang I'd like to know where the explosion came from, where did the matter and energy come from and where did the space come from that the energy could expand into? Where did the organization come from and where did the information come from that shaped that organization? The universe is much more than random molecules crashing around, it carries information that is exhibited in every aspect of nature. Just as a book is so much more than spilled ink on some paper, it carries information. DNA is more than just a mash of chemical strands, it's information. Where did this information come from?

Evolutionists believe that matter is either eternal or it can create itself. Those are the two choices they're presented with, both run counter to the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Nevertheless, evolutionists will have you believe that the matter that makes up existence was either always here or created itself, it then somehow became alive and the first living thing not only learned how to reproduce but reproduce into things other than itself. This is all without taking in to account the rapid rate of change that would have to occur to go from bacteria to monkey to human being which doesn't match with the accepted timelines of evolutionary existence when contrasted to what we know through observable methods of evolutionary rates of change.

Creationists claim, "in the beginning God....". A claim based on the choice of religious faith. That is well understood.

Evolutionists claim that existence is akin to a tornado moving through a junkyard and creating a Ferrari by random chance and they form that claim using brains that they don't believe were intentionally created for the purpose of critical thought. If brains weren't created for the purpose of thought, can we really trust any notion or concept that arises from them? Wouldn't doing so be an act of faith? How many willing acts of faith do evolutionists employ in order to derive their conclusions?

Who's correct? I don't claim to know. But while the creationists are honest in that their central tenet of dogmatic faith is what drives their belief of existence, evolutionists are not so honest in admitting that their belief of existence also comes from a choice of accepting dogmatic faith.

As for those who discount the existence of God because bad things happen, that sounds like Disney movie tier reasoning to me. Light and dark exist in tandem, they are not independent of one another, you literally cannot have one without the other one. The positive/negative binary is present everywhere, the micro and the macro. As good exists, so too does evil and we're all free to adhere to either one, always have been.

[captkirkcanada]

was the day i was born

[Ka-El]

was the day i was born

Reminds me of the story where a young child was waiting at home when his parents came home with a newborn.
Hastily he approached the crib where his new sibling lay and said "Quick, tell me about God before you forget"

[Ka-El]

As for those who discount the existence of God because bad things happen, that sounds like Disney movie tier reasoning to me.

It also assumes that we could somehow have some understanding of what the nature of God is and It’s purpose when, in fact, God is truly unknowable. Additionally, those who discount the existence of God because It’s existence or presence has not yet been proven by science should know science has not given up on the effort.

Is the soul truly immortal? Science may hold the answer

The question of whether the human soul is immortal or not is one of the oldest questions of all time. From the earliest times philosophy, science and religion have tried in one way or another to give the right answer without ever arriving at an absolute truth, leaving it open to many interpretations depending on one's beliefs.

But first let's try to understand what is meant by soul. The word soul comes from the Latin anima, which is related to the Greek ànemos, meaning 'breath' or 'wind'. In many spiritual and religious traditions, the soul is the 'essence', 'spirit' or 'I' of personality.

In more recent times, however, the soul is understood to be that part of the thinking self, like the mind or consciousness, one of the greatest mysteries of the various branches of science. A few years ago, however, a new theory was developed in collaboration with a great physicist of our time, which should shed light on this matter.

The theory for researching consciousness and thus the soul is called 'Orch-OR' (ORCHestrated Objective Reduction) and was developed in the 1990s by the physicists Roger Penrose (pictured) and Stuart Hameroff. It is based on the idea that consciousness arises within the neurons and not through interactions between them.

Before delving into this intriguing theory that could reveal more about our soul, it's worth remembering that Roger Penrose is a distinguished mathematician, physicist, and cosmologist who received the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Penrose received one of the highest honors in science for his work on black holes. Among his contributions is the discovery that the formation of black holes is a consequence of Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Roger Penrose also worked for a long time at Cambridge with another great physicist who left us a few years ago, Stephen Hawking, with whom he developed some theories about black holes and the gravitational singularity.

Another author of the theory to tell us what the soul is and whether it is immortal is Stuart Hameroff, a Stutin anesthesiologist and lecturer at the University of Arizona in the United States.

It should be noted at this point that the 'Orch-OR' is currently only a theory but is believed to be testable and projects are underway to test and validate it.

Underlying the 'Orch-OR' theory developed by Penrose and Hameroff is the idea that the brain may not be controlled by algorithms, such that its physical properties are determined not by traditional mathematical formalisms but by the intriguing (and sometimes bizarre) principles of Quantum mechanics can be described.

The two authors of the theory have combined their knowledge: on the one hand we have Hameroff, who wants to study the biological component of consciousness. According to Hameroff, the main structure of consciousness is the microtubule cells in the brain. On the other hand we have the physicist Penrose who brings the quantum approach.

According to the 'Orch-OR' theory, consciousness is a wave vibrating in the universe of subatomic particles (quantum physics is particle physics) and the microtubules act as true quantum computers, converting these vibrations into usable information.

A quantum computer works differently than a normal computer. A quantum computer processes information in the form of bits, zero or one, while a quantum computer processes qbits, which can be zero and one at the same time, creating quantum superposition, a paradox difficult for our classical mechanical minds to comprehend.

This superimposition of states could be the measurement or the observation, in this case of consciousness. Here's an example to better understand what we're talking about: according to some theoretical physicists, when a person decides to eat an apple or a pear, at the moment of the decision (e.g. for the apple), the decision to eat the apple separates the pear and it continues to exist separately in another world. (Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation).

According to the 'Orch-OR' theory, on the other hand, the choice not made, that is, the pear, separates, but it is an unstable situation, so it collapses after a while. Two conclusions follow from this: According to proponents of Everett's many-worlds interpretation, there are many other worlds, but only one has consciousness (the world in which we are conscious), and that is a full one random fact. On the other hand, according to Penrose and Hameroff, we are the only reality, since alternative realities collapse because they are unstable.

This quantum thinking is then transferred to the brain, where consciousness has previously been thought of as a series of connections between neurons that function like a normal computer, but according to Hameoff, "It's an insult to the neuron itself when you think of the brain cell - the neuron - viewed as a switch that turns off or on".

Again, the US doctor says: "Imagine that a single cell like the paramecium swims, finds food and a mate, mates and can learn. If a simple paramecium can be so intelligent, then how can a neuron can be so stupid? Is it just a matter of turning it on or off? I think these scientists don't take into account what's going on inside the neuron."

But at this point the question is legitimate: How can the soul, i.e. consciousness, be immortal in this context? Here is the 'Orch-OR' theory answer.

According to this theory, in a pre-death state, microtubules lose their quantum state but retain the information they contain. According to Dr. Hameroff "the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information in the microtubules is not destroyed, it cannot be destroyed, it just disperses and dissolves into the universe. "

Of course, this is just one of many interesting theories that try to explain what consciousness is and whether it can really store information from a lifetime, but one must not forget that this has not yet been proven by science.

I posted this in another thread but it seems to be more relevant here. I would agree that this discussion is a non-argument in the sense that the idea of God cannot be proven or disproved by either logic or science; something that Stephen Hawking recognized even as an atheist. Modern day philosophy concentrates on the argument of what is and what is not possible within the parameters of current scientific knowledge and people who think the idea of God existing can be dismissed because of science are mistaken.

When I was an economics student at SFU in the early eighties, in addition to electives in philosophy and science I also took a course in “Altered States of Consciousness”. During that course we reviewed an experiment that was conducted at MIT where a “supercomputer” (bear in mind this was forty years ago; long before the internet was around for public access and we used libraries) was programmed to generate millions of random binary (0 & 1) numbers at incredible speed. The purpose of the experiment was to test the statistical probability that two choices being randomly generated would consistently result in a 50/50 split as long as enough numbers were generated – and of course this turned out to be true.

What was really interesting though is that when they put a subject in a room next to the computer and told the subject what the computer was doing and to “think about it” the results started to skew. There was no prediction or causal effect claimed or noted, just that the results no longer came out at 50/50. The question that did come out of this (good science always creates more questions) was could consciousness exist outside of the body, and the even more fantastic question - if consciousness could exist outside of the body, could it exist without the body?

Our brain is composed of billions of neurons where each neuron connects to many other neurons in the brain. Whenever we perform cognitive activities, such as thinking, reasoning, perceiving, or decision-making, the corresponding group of neurons are lit up inside the brain; that is, electrical signals pass back and forth between them. When these neuron cells are active, they pass electric pulses back and forth and send messages to each other. The network of cells synchronizes their firing, and this becomes a repeating cycle known as the “brainwave”.

The point is this electrical activity within the brain is quite strong and can be scientifically measured by an instrument called EEG (electroencephalogram). In this technique, electrodes are placed on top of the scalp where they detect the electrical pulses with the help of EEG. These electrical pulses are further visually analyzed on a display monitor.

Beta brainwaves are predominant during the normal waking consciousness. When people are in the beginning phase of meditation, they transition from beta to alpha. As a result, they start experiencing more calm as the mind becomes quieter. Alpha brainwaves calm the overall nervous system and lower the heart rate. In the alpha state, the mind is clear of unwanted thoughts and the functioning of the senses (inputs) is minimized (experienced when we start practicing mindfulness).

Theta brainwaves are associated with deep meditation, and expert meditators are said to have experienced this state, which gives deep relaxation and dream-like imageries associated with daydreaming, enhanced learning, and creativity.

Delta brainwaves are the most mysterious of all brainwaves. During the delta cycle, we are in the deepest part of our sleep, so much so, that we don’t even experience any dream in this state. It’s hard to remain conscious in this state. Consciousness does not disappear in this state. It’s just that there is nothing to be aware of because our brain changes activities in the regions that correspond to sensory inputs.

Zen masters and monks are said to emit delta waves during deep meditative states. In this state, there is no awareness of what is happening, but the body goes through a period of healing and regeneration. Some experienced meditators are able to achieve this state of deep rest within a short time (within an hour or two), as compared to what regular people experience after a deep sleep of eight hours.

Another interesting observation has been that people who practice meditation alone and with groups have noted they can achieve the meditative state more quickly and more deeply when they are with a group as opposed to sitting alone (and this observation has also been confirmed by EEG) again raising some very interesting questions: can consciousness exist outside of the body, and is shared consciousness possible?

Readers might possibly also know that different light waves, radio waves, etc. can exist at the same place at the same time; and depending on whether the waves are a trough or a crest, the amplitudes of the waves either cancel each other out or amplify one other. What they might possibly not know is that while traditional physics states two physical objects cannot exist in the same place and time, quantum mechanics and astrophysics demonstrate the existence of multiple universes and an infinite number of realities all existing in the same place and time, but at different frequencies.

For each possible outcome to an action, our world splits into an exact replica of itself, a process known as decohesion. For instance, an objects wave function can be said to be of both particulate or of wave nature. Therefore, when a physicist measures the nature of this particle, the object can either be measured as a wave or a particle. To incorporate both of these possible outcomes, the universe splits into two. In one universe the physicist measures the object in wave form, while in the other universe; the object is measured in particulate form.

The point of all this (if anyone is still with me here) is that the more we discover through scientific exploration and investigation, the more questions we come up with to further explain our discoveries. For example, it is not at all far-fetched to consider the possibility of an infinite underlying (or over-encompassing) energy or force that is holding this all together. At this stage we really have no understanding and little appreciation of the nature or purpose of this energy or force (if it even has purpose), but there is evidence some people have successfully and consciously tapped into something outside of themselves through meditation (possibly prayer as well) and quantum mechanics has given us a whole new question of what infinite really means while we still struggle to come to grips with its existing description.

I’ve never described nor stated my own spiritual beliefs here and wouldn’t even start to do so with people still trying to dismiss the idea of the God concept with deflections to comparisons with mythical wood creatures. I am not religious; I do not pray to old men with long white beards and I completely understand that all of humankinds religious texts are ancient historical stories that were written by men. For me, God is simply a label to describe something that is currently far beyond any understanding of logic or science.


https://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/ ... 80116.html

https://mindfulnessquest.com/how-medita ... ain-waves/

[captkirkcanada]

was the day i was born

Reminds me of the story where a young child was waiting at home when his parents came home with a newborn.
Hastily he approached the crib where his new sibling lay and said "Quick, tell me about God before you forget"

I think for me , god or not i still have to live my life as best i can , and i have rely on my own ability sustain myself .
Also i like to help others on my own , i like to boost other people , i have attended midnight mass , went to pentacostal kids bible study program as young kids , never based my friendship with others based on them being non religeous and if after all that im still going to hell then im fine with it .

[Ka-El]

... if after all that im still going to hell then im fine with it .

I really don't think that's something any of us have to worry about.

[averagejoe]

ANCIENT CHINESE RECORD ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS!

[youjustcomplain]

It also assumes that we could somehow have some understanding of what the nature of God is and It’s purpose when, in fact, God is truly unknowable. Additionally, those who discount the existence of God because It’s existence or presence has not yet been proven by science should know science has not given up on the effort.

If god exists, he/she/it will have gone to great ends to ensure that no human has ever found any evidence to support that existence.
As such, the only things we can be left with are belief or non belief. Taking a more bold position on the subject requires faith. Faith to either claim god exists or to claim there is no god.

The question of whether the human soul is immortal or not is one of the oldest questions of all time. From the earliest times philosophy, science and religion have tried in one way or another to give the right answer without ever arriving at an absolute truth, leaving it open to many interpretations depending on one's beliefs.

There is no way to currently know the answer to that question. But just because a question exists , doesn't mean there is any reason to believe the question is worth thinking about.
I have never heard of any reason to even suggest that humans have a "soul" or what that is, let alone whether it's immortal. As I think about anything I've ever observed, I've never yet seen anything immortal. What would compel me, or anyone else, to believe that the soul follows special rules?
For me, the most likely answer is that people have a fear of death and find creative ways to imagine that they've found a way to dodge it.
They like the idea that their child's soul continues on after death, or that their mother is in a better place or that they'll see their husband again someday.

Without evidence that any of it is true, I must dismiss all of it. Doesn't mean I have any level of belief that it's all false. I just choose to not form beliefs about things that can't be reproduced, tested, experience or even show any evidence for.

[The Straken]

Creationism claims, "In the beginning God....". It's a claim that can't be physically substantiated in that it can't be tested, observed or reproduced. This claim is based on faith. Faith is a choice, you choose faith you

If brains weren't created for the purpose of thought,

They may not have been created but they certainly could have evolved for the purpose of thought. if brains were created for the purpose of thought it would be fair that there was reasoning behind that creation and then all our thought is controlled.

[Ka-El]

It also assumes that we could somehow have some understanding of what the nature of God is and It’s purpose when, in fact, God is truly unknowable. Additionally, those who discount the existence of God because It’s existence or presence has not yet been proven by science should know science has not given up on the effort.

If god exists, he/she/it will have gone to great ends to ensure that no human has ever found any evidence to support that existence.

That preposition assumes knowledge of motive. My preposition is that not being able to or have any understanding of God’s true nature or purpose, neither can we understand or presume to know God’s motive. The closest we have come to any understanding of what God might be by scientific method is mere hypothesis of what could be possible of It’s nature given new knowledge being discovered in the field of quantum physics.

The question of whether the human soul is immortal or not is one of the oldest questions of all time. From the earliest times philosophy, science and religion have tried in one way or another to give the right answer without ever arriving at an absolute truth, leaving it open to many interpretations depending on one's beliefs.

There is no way to currently know the answer to that question. But just because a question exists, doesn't mean there is any reason to believe the question is worth thinking about.

That is your choice. However, many others, including many brilliant anthropologists, mathematicians, physicists, philosophers, researchers, spiritualists, and scientists are very intrigued by the question. Personally, I find the mathematical (quantum physics) and scientific exploration of these ideas quite fascinating, but that’s just me.

Without evidence that any of it is true, I must dismiss all of it.

Again, your choice ...

– but just imagine where we wouldn’t be if all the great explorers and thinkers of our time thought that way.