i think a definite knowledge of whether there is an afterlife or not (referring to heaven & hell) would have more effect, especially on someone who outright rejected the notion priorly - unfortunately, i don't have time to explain how i reach this conclusion, but hopefully such an explanation won't be necessary - either way, while it doesn't affect our ability to choose, it affects our motiviations in choosing.

other than that minute caveat i agree with your post.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

There are several flaws with this entire line of (potentially useless) thought, since it starts on a premise of nothingness.

Here, look:

"Basically I take God to mean any sort of supernatural force that, by definition, transcends the natural order of the universe. It (God) needn't be omnipotent or omnipresent, but it must necessarily be more powerful than (in the sense that it is capable of trascending) the discernable laws that govern existence (i.e. the laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics etc.)."

The encapsulation of "God" is impossible; many in our world encapsulate him as a man with a white beard to make it easier for children (and the less intelligent majority) to understand. None-the-less, it is an IDEA, an abstract idea as you say, so your boundaries on the definition seem irrelevent.

You're saying that God is whatever transcends the "natural order of the universe". Hello?

Natural -> an abstract idea
Order -> an abstract idea
The universe -> an abstract idea

"it must necessarily be more powerful than (in the sense that it is capable of trascending) the discernable laws that govern existence (i.e. the laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics etc.)."

Here we go again. You're ready to talk about the IDEA as massive as God, yet you're citing more abstractions.

power -> an abstract idea
laws -> an abstract idea
existence-> an abstract idea

And what's worse, now you're describing subjective abstractions.

There are no laws in the universe, whatever the universe may be.

I think a better definition of God, besides the mail delivery company, would be...

All that constitutes this amazing *whatever* that is us and the things around us.

Not so abstract anymore. Now we can start looking for answers.

Furthermore, this means that we CAN feel and ARE diving into the idea of God all the time.

It's effect on us?

Some of us are twisted, confused, depressed, angry, hateful.

Some of us are kind, gentle, caring, optimistic.

Some of us are alive, dead, moving, sleeping, mating, loving, killing, touching.

The point?

God is diversity. It pervades everything in this existence, from the largest galaxies, to our own physiology from politics to cellular mechanism; not only that, but this diversity and constant circle of change from that diversity, towards what we do not know (this itself being an idea of God), is even present in behavioral traits of ourselves and inanimate objects. Example: evolution.

Of course, it's a trick question (or trick idea?) since you're trying to seperate a part of God (us), which is a fine reaction and understandable... but this is why you will have trouble finding any answers that you seek. You have basically begun the question by quantifying the idea of God, and removing or raising yourself above it by having the opinion of effects central to you. Why not central to God itself?

However, if you want to look at the systems of overlapping causality in the greater whole (whatever that is... we have no idea, and label it God), then you can definitely discuss cause and effect of subsystems.

For example, mankind and global warming, two immediate and recent situations that have had innumberable effects on the structure of certain parts of existence, no matter how small, and though I don't necessarily see it as good or bad, it is definitely a change in the motion of God. That is to say, it is what it is, and it's ridiculous and awesome because of it.

That's just my whole two cents on how your interventionalism is just another useless -ism, made to create an eternal paradox, because it is describing nothing at all but a lack of understanding of the original idea. Which in itself is the result of the idea, and the fact that we live in a world as a species in the point on the timeline where we are particularly vulnerable to all this change occuring. Since we don't yet know enough about this weird contraption called consciousness, and our place in the greater universal whole, we placate ourselves with religions and political systems that feed and generate useless fear and ignorant populations.

I'm not saying this is you at all; all I'm saying is that it pervades human life, and for this reason, we for some reason feel the need to give the existing ideas credence (such as god having a white beard, or being interventionalist or not), when we should probably be thinking about the bigger picture in new or more encompassing ways.

Cheers and good post.

Last edited by DJ Shibby on Aug-06-2006 at 12:58

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I think a better definition of God, besides the mail delivery company, would be... All that constitutes this amazing *whatever* that is us and the things around us.

..and here we have yet another case in which knowing whether god exists makes little-to-no difference, fueling Renegade's fire.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

It matters to insurance companies wether God exists or not.

If it is ever proved that God does not exist it would mean insurance companies would have to remove from thier policies one of thier get out clauses.

'the insurer will not pay out in cases where it is said to be 'an act of God' that caused damage / injury / death etc'

or words to that effect

___________________
My Mixcloud Profile My Twitch Channel

Depends on your defenition of God. Some believe that God is an entity that is equivalent to the summation of all things in the universe, past, present, and future. Others believe that God is an entity which exists outside of, and separate from the universe. One perspective is more condusive to human growth, development, and progression. One is less so.

___________________
Awesome House Music Blog: http://thegoodmorningpost.wordpress.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i think a definite knowledge of whether there is an afterlife or not (referring to heaven & hell) would have more effect, especially on someone who outright rejected the notion priorly - unfortunately, i don't have time to explain how i reach this conclusion, but hopefully such an explanation won't be necessary - either way, while it doesn't affect our ability to choose, it affects our motiviations in choosing.

Presuming that we were to know what the criteria were for entering heaven or hell are then you are quite correct, but I still want to stress (as you have already pointed out) that it would remain our choice to obey these criteria or not. Just as we can risk legal retribution by breaking human law, so to we can we risk punishment in the afterlife by breaking divine law. I mean if one of the criteria for entering heaven was acquiescence to all of God's demands, would you necessarily be inclined to follow his demands? Most of us, for instance, would probably be distinctly morally averse to sacrificing our first born son to satisfy God's whim, yet - according to the Abrahamic tradition (and therefore the theology of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) - this is precisely what God expects of us. The fact, however, that we can reach this moral conclusion (that murdering our children is wrong) in spite of God, should tell us that human morality is developed independently of divine morality (presuming that it exists in the first place) and that we are still left on our own to decide for ourselves which moral code we are inclined to abide by.

This "punitive" conception of morality - which goes equally for human law as it does for divine law - is a hypothetical (that is to say, conditional) moral imperitive, not a categorical (that is to say, absolute) moral imperitive. With or without God - and with or without his conception of "justice" - we must still necessarily decide for ourselves what is or is not moral.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby "Basically I take God to mean any sort of supernatural force that, by definition, transcends the natural order of the universe. It (God) needn't be omnipotent or omnipresent, but it must necessarily be more powerful than (in the sense that it is capable of trascending) the discernable laws that govern existence (i.e. the laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics etc.)." The encapsulation of "God" is impossible; many in our world encapsulate him as a man with a white beard to make it easier for children (and the less intelligent majority) to understand. None-the-less, it is an IDEA, an abstract idea as you say, so your boundaries on the definition seem irrelevent.

Like I said, my definition of God is flexible and the "boundaries" I've used in defining God are open to interpretation. Nonetheless, I think that the four categories I used in that post should sufficiently cover any unnecessarily abstract definition of God that you can offer me here.

Now you say that God is an "idea" - what does that mean exactly? Does this God "exist" - does he have what may be called "being" - or does he not? Does he influence the universe exogenously or not? If the answer to both of these questions is negative - and God is just the abstract contrivence you've offered here - how does it make the slightest bit of difference to us whether he exists or not? If God is a non-existent, ineffectual "idea", why should we concern ourselves with the question of its existence?

quote:

You're saying that God is whatever transcends the "natural order of the universe". Hello? Natural -> an abstract idea Order -> an abstract idea The universe -> an abstract idea

For the natural universe you could substitute the phrase "the totality of noumenal existence" or "the totality of existence in-itself" or any one of a number of philosophical phrases, but I don't consider the concept of the totality of existence (which is what I mean by "the universe") to be an abstract idea at all. If you want to deny the concept of existence - or dismiss it as an "abstract idea" - then best of luck with that, but I'd like to see how you can successfully incorporate that maxim into a philosophy and end up with anything but fatalistic stoicism. Really, this is the problem with these sorts of obfuscatory theological apologetics - if you adopt them as a universal epistemological maxim, then you end up with a philosophy far more extreme and undesirable than the atheism you're trying to refute. Still, if you're happy believing that the universe is nothing but an "abstract idea" then I'm not about to try to dissuade you from it.

quote:

"it must necessarily be more powerful than (in the sense that it is capable of trascending) the discernable laws that govern existence (i.e. the laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics etc.)." Here we go again. You're ready to talk about the IDEA as massive as God, yet you're citing more abstractions. power -> an abstract idea laws -> an abstract idea existence-> an abstract idea And what's worse, now you're describing subjective abstractions.

No I'm not. Objects demonstrably follow predictable patterns of behaviour that are observable and universally repeatable. If these "laws" are an abstract idea with absolutely no basis in the universe we find ourselves in, then we would struggle to walk around without hurting oursleves, let alone send a rocket to the moon. Of course, since you dismiss "existence" as a mere abstract idea then I'm sure this reasoning will be lost on you, but perhaps you could make like Berkley and kick a really big rock to test my theory out? Based on what I understand of the "laws" of mass and gravity, the rock will remain largely stationary, and all the force generated by the motion of your kick will be transferred into your foot. When you experience the pain of having all the bones in your toes shatter at once, perhaps then you can get back to me and try arguing that "existence" and the "laws" that govern the interaction of matter are nothing more than "abstract ideas"?

quote:

I think a better definition of God, besides the mail delivery company, would be... All that constitutes this amazing *whatever* that is us and the things around us. Not so abstract anymore. Now we can start looking for answers. Furthermore, this means that we CAN feel and ARE diving into the idea of God all the time.

So God is merely existence? Why not just minimise pluralities and say that existence is existence, or - even better - that existence just is? Besides, if God has no properties other than that of existence, why should such a God matter to us? Why go to the trouble of demonstrating this pantheistic conception of God when a successful proof will leave us right back where we started (that is to say, with only existence itself)?

I admire the mental calisthenics some people go through to try and demonstrate the existence of a God, but my whole point in writing this post is whether the contrived apologetics are really worth it. Even if you were able to demonstrate that this sort of God exists, what possible difference will it make to us?

quote:

It's effect on us? Some of us are twisted, confused, depressed, angry, hateful. Some of us are kind, gentle, caring, optimistic. Some of us are alive, dead, moving, sleeping, mating, loving, killing, touching. The point? God is diversity. It pervades everything in this existence, from the largest galaxies, to our own physiology from politics to cellular mechanism; not only that, but this diversity and constant circle of change from that diversity, towards what we do not know (this itself being an idea of God), is even present in behavioral traits of ourselves and inanimate objects. Example: evolution.

Again, none of this necessitates a God. The argument of "oh yeah, that natural phenomenon? That's God, you know" is a senseless argument, firstly because it doesn't lend itself to either proof or disproof (the first sign of a bad theory), secondly it postulates an infinitely complex plurality that is not necessary to explain such phenomenon and thirdly - and most importantly - even with a successful demonstration of the existence of such a God nothing will be changed. Why can't you just appreciate the universe as it is without trying to unnecessarily cram a contrived conception of God into your world-view? Isn't the universe amazing enough as it is?

quote:

Of course, it's a trick question (or trick idea?) since you're trying to seperate a part of God (us), which is a fine reaction and understandable... but this is why you will have trouble finding any answers that you seek. You have basically begun the question by quantifying the idea of God, and removing or raising yourself above it by having the opinion of effects central to you.

If I'm going to examine the nature of God, then I must necessarily quantify him in some way (which, incedentally, is exactly what you are doing here as well). If God exists and we want to have any hope of proving this, then he should lend himself to quantification. If he doesn't lend himself to quantification, then he will remain forever incaccessible to us and you're wasting your time here. Yet again, if we take your argument as a universal maxim, then the only tenable position is that of strong agnosticism, which certainly doesn't seem to be the sort of perspective you're advocating here.

So let's both play by the same rules here, shall we? God is either apprehensible in some way or he isn't. If he is in some way apprehensible, then demonstrate this to me. If he isn't - or it can't be demonstrated - then you are wasting your time and mine along with it. Don't tell me that I can't quantify the existence of God a paragraph after telling me that "God is x".

quote:

That's just my whole two cents on how your interventionalism is just another useless -ism, made to create an eternal paradox, because it is describing nothing at all but a lack of understanding of the original idea.

It only seems paradoxical because the theory of God is inherently paradoxical (and therefore logically untenable) to begin with. For me, it seems like a perfectly valid dichotemy: does your God have some influence over the universe (I'll let you choose your own definition of "influence" here) or does he not? There are no intermediate answers here. By either definition I still don't believe it matters whether God exists or not, but the reason I tried to divide conceptions of God along interventionalist lines is because I know what theists are like when it comes to defining God: the goalposts shift as soon as the original definition is threatened. I don't believe that there is any conception of God that cannot be accomodated into one of the four definitions given in my first post, which is why I went to the trouble of making such distinctions. If you believe that your God cannot be placed into one of those four catgories, then I would like to hear why.

quote:

Which in itself is the result of the idea, and the fact that we live in a world as a species in the point on the timeline where we are particularly vulnerable to all this change occuring. Since we don't yet know enough about this weird contraption called consciousness, and our place in the greater universal whole, we placate ourselves with religions and political systems that feed and generate useless fear and ignorant populations. I'm not saying this is you at all; all I'm saying is that it pervades human life, and for this reason, we for some reason feel the need to give the existing ideas credence (such as god having a white beard, or being interventionalist or not), when we should probably be thinking about the bigger picture in new or more encompassing ways.

I agree that we should be looking at the bigger picture, and for me part of this of detatching ourselves from the need to believe that the demonstrable existence of a God will change our lives in any way. Instead of going to churches and praying, we should be out there making a difference ourselves. Instead of pretending that there is something "greater" than the universe, we should be appreciating the universe for what it is. God, regardless of how you want to define him, is of no consequence to humans and the sooner we realise that the better off we will be.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Well I didnt read your whole post, but based on the first paragraph I will say this.

How would God's existance change our lives.

Well, many people have already adapted their lives and dedicated/dedicate their lives living the Rule of God, supposing that they are the 10 commandments. People will live accordingly to what God asks from us, or try to live under he's rules as close as posible, hoping some day to be able to live with him. Life itself its based or guided through some way or the other by the principle of God or the guidances that he has hinted ( for the believer ) and the non-believer still apply's into he's life some of it ( society itself its built upon it) unless you want to dispute instinct.

Let there be no god, no rules to follow, I think that the perspective of life and rules of it would be different.. this question just brings many other questions.. if there is no god what its good? what its evil? if there was no evil.. would our lifes change ? .. those two questions are parallel, and I do think that our lifes would definetly change.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Well I didnt read your whole post, but based on the first paragraph I will say this. How would God's existance change our lives. Well, many people have already adapted their lives and dedicated/dedicate their lives living the Rule of God, supposing that they are the 10 commandments. People will live accordingly to what God asks from us, or try to live under he's rules as close as posible, hoping some day to be able to live with him. Life itself its based or guided through some way or the other by the principle of God or the guidances that he has hinted ( for the believer ) and the non-believer still apply's into he's life some of it ( society itself its built upon it) unless you want to dispute instinct.

well, many people have already adapted their lives and dedicated their lives living the rule of man. human-life itself is based on the principles of man, or the guidance hinted by those principles, society itself is built upon them.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Let there be no god, no rules to follow, I think that the perspective of life and rules of it would be different.. this question just brings many other questions.. if there is no god what its good? what its evil? if there was no evil.. would our lifes change ? .. those two questions are parallel, and I do think that our lifes would definetly change.

there are plenty of rules to follow regardless of a god.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Presuming that we were to know what the criteria were for entering heaven or hell are then you are quite correct, but I still want to stress (as you have already pointed out) that it would remain our choice to obey these criteria or not. Just as we can risk legal retribution by breaking human law, so to we can we risk punishment in the afterlife by breaking divine law. I mean if one of the criteria for entering heaven was acquiescence to all of God's demands, would you necessarily be inclined to follow his demands? Most of us, for instance, would probably be distinctly morally averse to sacrificing our first born son to satisfy God's whim, yet - according to the Abrahamic tradition (and therefore the theology of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) - this is precisely what God expects of us. The fact, however, that we can reach this moral conclusion (that murdering our children is wrong) in spite of God, should tell us that human morality is developed independently of divine morality (presuming that it exists in the first place) and that we are still left on our own to decide for ourselves which moral code we are inclined to abide by. This "punitive" conception of morality - which goes equally for human law as it does for divine law - is a hypothetical (that is to say, conditional) moral imperitive, not a categorical (that is to say, absolute) moral imperitive. With or without God - and with or without his conception of "justice" - we must still necessarily decide for ourselves what is or is not moral. Like I said, my definition of God is flexible and the "boundaries" I've used in defining God are open to interpretation. Nonetheless, I think that the four categories I used in that post should sufficiently cover any unnecessarily abstract definition of God that you can offer me here. Now you say that God is an "idea" - what does that mean exactly? Does this God "exist" - does he have what may be called "being" - or does he not? Does he influence the universe exogenously or not? If the answer to both of these questions is negative - and God is just the abstract contrivence you've offered here - how does it make the slightest bit of difference to us whether he exists or not? If God is a non-existent, ineffectual "idea", why should we concern ourselves with the question of its existence? For the natural universe you could substitute the phrase "the totality of noumenal existence" or "the totality of existence in-itself" or any one of a number of philosophical phrases, but I don't consider the concept of the totality of existence (which is what I mean by "the universe") to be an abstract idea at all. If you want to deny the concept of existence - or dismiss it as an "abstract idea" - then best of luck with that, but I'd like to see how you can successfully incorporate that maxim into a philosophy and end up with anything but fatalistic stoicism. Really, this is the problem with these sorts of obfuscatory theological apologetics - if you adopt them as a universal epistemological maxim, then you end up with a philosophy far more extreme and undesirable than the atheism you're trying to refute. Still, if you're happy believing that the universe is nothing but an "abstract idea" then I'm not about to try to dissuade you from it. No I'm not. Objects demonstrably follow predictable patterns of behaviour that are observable and universally repeatable. If these "laws" are an abstract idea with absolutely no basis in the universe we find ourselves in, then we would struggle to walk around without hurting oursleves, let alone send a rocket to the moon. Of course, since you dismiss "existence" as a mere abstract idea then I'm sure this reasoning will be lost on you, but perhaps you could make like Berkley and kick a really big rock to test my theory out? Based on what I understand of the "laws" of mass and gravity, the rock will remain largely stationary, and all the force generated by the motion of your kick will be transferred into your foot. When you experience the pain of having all the bones in your toes shatter at once, perhaps then you can get back to me and try arguing that "existence" and the "laws" that govern the interaction of matter are nothing more than "abstract ideas"? So God is merely existence? Why not just minimise pluralities and say that existence is existence, or - even better - that existence just is? Besides, if God has no properties other than that of existence, why should such a God matter to us? Why go to the trouble of demonstrating this pantheistic conception of God when a successful proof will leave us right back where we started (that is to say, with only existence itself)? I admire the mental calisthenics some people go through to try and demonstrate the existence of a God, but my whole point in writing this post is whether the contrived apologetics are really worth it. Even if you were able to demonstrate that this sort of God exists, what possible difference will it make to us? Again, none of this necessitates a God. The argument of "oh yeah, that natural phenomenon? That's God, you know" is a senseless argument, firstly because it doesn't lend itself to either proof or disproof (the first sign of a bad theory), secondly it postulates an infinitely complex plurality that is not necessary to explain such phenomenon and thirdly - and most importantly - even with a successful demonstration of the existence of such a God nothing will be changed. Why can't you just appreciate the universe as it is without trying to unnecessarily cram a contrived conception of God into your world-view? Isn't the universe amazing enough as it is? If I'm going to examine the nature of God, then I must necessarily quantify him in some way (which, incedentally, is exactly what you are doing here as well). If God exists and we want to have any hope of proving this, then he should lend himself to quantification. If he doesn't lend himself to quantification, then he will remain forever incaccessible to us and you're wasting your time here. Yet again, if we take your argument as a universal maxim, then the only tenable position is that of strong agnosticism, which certainly doesn't seem to be the sort of perspective you're advocating here. So let's both play by the same rules here, shall we? God is either apprehensible in some way or he isn't. If he is in some way apprehensible, then demonstrate this to me. If he isn't - or it can't be demonstrated - then you are wasting your time and mine along with it. Don't tell me that I can't quantify the existence of God a paragraph after telling me that "God is x". It only seems paradoxical because the theory of God is inherently paradoxical (and therefore logically untenable) to begin with. For me, it seems like a perfectly valid dichotemy: does your God have some influence over the universe (I'll let you choose your own definition of "influence" here) or does he not? There are no intermediate answers here. By either definition I still don't believe it matters whether God exists or not, but the reason I tried to divide conceptions of God along interventionalist lines is because I know what theists are like when it comes to defining God: the goalposts shift as soon as the original definition is threatened. I don't believe that there is any conception of God that cannot be accomodated into one of the four definitions given in my first post, which is why I went to the trouble of making such distinctions. If you believe that your God cannot be placed into one of those four catgories, then I would like to hear why. I agree that we should be looking at the bigger picture, and for me part of this of detatching ourselves from the need to believe that the demonstrable existence of a God will change our lives in any way. Instead of going to churches and praying, we should be out there making a difference ourselves. Instead of pretending that there is something "greater" than the universe, we should be appreciating the universe for what it is. God, regardless of how you want to define him, is of no consequence to humans and the sooner we realise that the better off we will be.

And so we see that you have actually no short nor far distance of any sightedness.

You are a myopia.

Closed, and canned, like beans sitting on a shelf in the supermarket for 2 and a half years.

Your original post had tinges of ego-induced points made to satisfy the idea of the non-existence of a potentially existent or non-existent god.

You have shown that you've got your idea in your head.

So live with it. What do I give a shit either way? I don't.



And for the record.

I'm annoyed that I understood all of your small-minded outlines of ideas, yet you seemed to grasp none of mine. I guess it isn't your fault. I can't expect everyone to be intelligent and actually be open-minded enough to fathom ideologies beyond their own. But it's frustrating to me that someone would dish it out but be completely unable to take even a fucking moment to let other points (not even counterpoints) sink in for even the purpose of discussion.

I guess it's the eternal problem. Yeah. It's you.

Cheers.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby And so we see that you have actually no short nor far distance of any sightedness. You are a myopia. Closed, and canned, like beans sitting on a shelf in the supermarket for 2 and a half years.

If I am closed-minded for being an atheist, then you are closed-minded for being a theist. The only difference between us then, it seems, is that I am at least capable of justifying my beliefs. You, apparently, are not.

quote:

Your original post had tinges of ego-induced points made to satisfy the idea of the non-existence of a potentially existent or non-existent god. You have shown that you've got your idea in your head.

Of course I have the idea in my head - if I didn't, how could I write about it?

And if I come across as "egotistical", it's only because I know I'm right. Don't take it personally.

quote:

So live with it. What do I give a shit either way? I don't.

So why are you posting here and getting angry with me? Seems like the actions of someone who most definitely gives a shit, actually.

quote:

And for the record. I'm annoyed that I understood all of your small-minded outlines of ideas, yet you seemed to grasp none of mine. I guess it isn't your fault. I can't expect everyone to be intelligent and actually be open-minded enough to fathom ideologies beyond their own. But it's frustrating to me that someone would dish it out but be completely unable to take even a fucking moment to let other points (not even counterpoints) sink in for even the purpose of discussion.

Haha, turn it up. I actually went to a great deal of effort to allow your ideas to "sink in", hence my thorough point-by-point rebuttal of your post. The fact that you have not directly addressed even a single idea that I have raised in either of my posts tells me that, rather, it is you who is making no attempt to understand my ideas.

I tried to have a civil discussion with you. I tried to calmly and rationally demonstrate to you where I believed your ideas were lacking. However, it appears that your idea of "debate" is posting your own tangenital ideas and getting pissy at anyone who happens to disagree with you. Maybe you're new to this, but that's not how things work here. If you don't like seeing your ideas challenged, maybe this forum will be more to your liking.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

If you're in school try registering for a Psychology of Religion course. Should answer the initial question.

A lot of the threads outside of the regonals are filled with heated discussion and debate. I'm too burnt out to really take part. I can recommend some good books that attempt to answer the enigma of why human beings and human societies all across the globe and throughout time have believed in/felt the presence of 'a higher power' so to speak.

___________________
Awesome House Music Blog: http://thegoodmorningpost.wordpress.com/