All right Ripple - you get one chance from me. I'll pick out a few points you've made and attempt to engage you in a meaningful conversation about them. I will forewarn you - if you ramble all over the place, change the topic, ignore my questions and come out with a bunch more stuff - you're on ignore. One shot.

Actually - I don't feel this is a futile or half-retarded argument at all - and clearly there has been no proof. So - what side of the fence do you sit on, Ripple? And for what reasons?

Has there always been religion? Evidence? Why do you always feel there will be religion? There are a number of people here that have no religion, and would like to assist others to free themselves from religion. Why are we doomed to fail? Your thoughts?

I'm going to dismiss all this rambling for now. I have raised two points in response to two statements you made. Lets begin there, and address those two exclusively.

-AH.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by sitting on all sides of the fence? Does this mean that you believe in truths in all religions, or that you are both spiritual and scientific? 

Well, I believe the question was specifically about the existence of God. So lets try again. Do you believe in God? Yes or no, and provide a short response as to why.

As to the other topics you raise, I'm not qualified to discuss Quantum Physics - I believe that it was Feynman who cautioned that anyone who says they understand Quantum Physics - doesn't. Other science topics - not my forte either. Lets stick to the original question, shall we?

Are you suggesting here that the world is no older than 4000 years old?

Well, I guess you're going to not directly answer my questions but pose some of your own. All right. One more direct question. You said:

'What would free ourselves from religion...A religion that has no Dogmatic stench of Satan tied to it.'

My question to you - Do you believe that Satan or something that looks and feels like the common Christian interpretation of Satan exists? Yes or no, and why.

That is the question isn't it. What is correct? Well as far as science goes, science never professes to be an absolute truth. It is merely the best knowledge we have of the world around us. So far it has been pretty accurate in helping us discern truths relating to this world and how it operates. My question to you is what God do you pray to? And why?

Is there some lab that is looking for the meaning of life? No, thats not the aim of science in general. Now philosophy, a branch of science can really help you in exploring the nature of that question in regards to meaning. But will it provide the answer you seek? Maybe. There has been some who have been lead to both theist and atheistic positions just by the study of philosophy.

This ofcourse depends on your position. If you presuppose a God then science is really just a manifestation of its work. If you do not, then science is merely the knowledge of the system that has been in place in which life has formed. Coincidence of?

This makes no sense, can you please clarify.

Could you explain why you love Jesus and yet not identify yourself as a Christian? Do you believe that he was part of a revelation that is equally valid among other prophets such as Mohammed? Is there a reason you love the God of the bible over other Gods?

Well we know the world is older than 2-5,000 years old. A variety of systems utilized to test this has shown to be very consistent. Do I know for certain, no I don't. But I believe that what we know is as close to truth as we have at this present time.

Maybe we can reach these topics later on, right not - its a bit of a ramble

This is a question about truth really. Can we know the truth? If you say no, then nothing you have said has been true at all. In fact, our exchange is meaningless because no matter how much we speak, learn and study we will never be any closer to truth, since it doesn't exist. I don't ascribe to this belief. I believe that we can determine certains truths about life and the world we operate in.

What do you mean by truly "know what is correct"?

So your belief exist to bring meaning to your life. Its driven by emotion in order to keep intact some existing worldview you have. Are you afraid that withou a belief in God you have nothing to live for?

Is it a God of your own conception? Is it the God of the bible? Whats the purpose of you praying to this God? What aim does it serve and how do you know this God desires praying?

It sounds like you need a dose of understanding of memes. I recommend The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore, although you can get a quick review of it on Wikipedia, and you can get a good foundation for it from The Selfish Gene by (again! ) Richard Dawkins.

For me, the study of memes (not yet a science, but a budding proto-science) has been very revealing, not just in studies of culture, but in every aspect of life. When you combine thorough understanding of both genetics and memetics, it opens up a whole new world of meaning for humanity. We ARE essentially cultural life-forms. We are the fusion of biology and imagination.

It seems to me, Ripple, that your posts on this forum have so far been mostly of the 'intuitive' variety. Thinking in terms of ideas and not caring so much what words you write down to express those ideas. You think in terms of metaphors and analogies. If you want to have a productive conversation here, you must respect that most people here do not think that way when they make a post here. They think in terms of arguments, concepts, socratic dialogue, logic, reason, and *primarily* evidence. Let's call this 'rational' in contrast with your more 'intuitive' style.

Here's my hypothesis for you to consider. If you can take your intuitive ideas and *translate* them into well-formed rational arguments, then both you and we will benefit from that kind of interaction. We'll benefit by hearing (really hearing) some of your creatively intuitive ideas, and you will benefit by learning a very useful way to communicate ideas with others in a more-rational way, with fewer misunderstandings and a very clear and sharp perception of reality.

I'm currently exploring the world between the rational and the intuitive, much as you appear to be. But I come from the more-rational side, and I'm exploring the more-intuitive side. This post, in fact, is my attempt to explain the more-rational position of most members of this board in the vocabulary of your more-intuitive worldview. Likewise, you are probably exploring the more-rational side by coming to this board. I'm telling you right now that it is worth your time to try on the more-rational worldview, as it will open a lot of doorways in your mind (it absolutely has for me). The key to this discussion will be evidence.

Evidence accords, faith discords. Evidence brings about agreement; the more evidence is brought to light, the stronger the agreement will be. Faith brings about disagreement; the more faith is depended upon, the greater the disagreement will be.

When people relied on faith, the sun was created by Yahweh, by Allah, was a chariot driven by Apollo, was a god itself, etc. etc. Now that we examine the sun based on evidence, we know that it is really a giant ball of hydrogen, helium and other elements in a fusion reaction, just like all the other stars in the sky, only we happen to orbit it. More faith = more disagreement. More evidence = more agreement. That is why we rely so heavily on evidence and why we so strongly reject faith (belief with no evidence).

So, we as people who favour rational arguments ask you to base all of your positive claims on evidence. If you cannot bring forth evidence to support your claims, then please don't claim to 'know' that your claims are true, and just admit they are speculation based on intuitive grounds. There is nothing wrong with speculation as long as it is clearly marked as such, and not presented as fact. If you can hold to that standard of evidence, then we can hold a productive conversation.

The fact that anyone has doubts about this, given our state of knowledge of the universe, is one of the reasons we think this argument is important. Religious delusions negatively affect our perceptions of sexuality, to name just one area where humanity could see improvement if it was more-rational.

Looking to God (the unknown) to give you knowledge is fruitless. We acquire knowledge through our studies, which we ourselves pursue. God (the unknown) only reveals knowledge when you seek it through the hard work of investigation. What we learn, God has  nothing to do with it. What we learn, we learn through our own efforts. Keep learning!

Natural, I read every word you type, and I smile. You know why I smile, and that is of joy of the human race. If you can see where I am coming from you would realize that yes, I am a misanthrope. I hate you all. But if you also knew where I was coming from, you would realize that if I had all the money in the world, I would be the most giving philanthropist of modern day.

So of all we have "learned" and all we "know" what you know and I know, am I really a philanthropist for giving money to people? Is the Carnegian style of philanthropy..is that what we really need in this world?

Naturally, Natural, I respect you, and I talk and ramble the way I do because I weed out the idiots. I weed out the irrational, and unintuitive people. I know who to talk to, who to share my thoughts with. If you know Taoism, then you would get what I'm saying without me having to say that. If I recorded a video, and put it on YouTube, would I really be showing you my character? Or have you and others on this board simply only read a fraction of what I think, and simply put a label on me. Call me the herd, if thats what you want. But we are all the herd.

I'm not religious. I'm not even that spiritual. I'm very scientific and VERY rational. I'm very evidence based. All I'm trying to get across is, WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE ABOUT ANYTHING IN THIS WORLD. Did you come up with the Big Bang yourself? Why do you take that so seriously? Because a scientist wrote in a book saying how the universal temperature is declining towards absolute zero? Well look, if someone can come up with that and use "evidence" then by my evidence I could tell you exactly how this universe is going to end. Am I right, or is anyone right? Noone is right. Noone knows everything. Noone will come close to knowing everything. Yet everything in this world works PERFECTLY.

Human behavior for example. I'm glad you brought that subject up. Never heard of the memian thing, but believe me, it gives me a hard on already.

I'm no great thinker, no great holder of knowledge. What I do know is that human beings are very very limited in knowledge. What I also know is that at the same time we are in a time and place and mindset where human beings are very very knowledgable. So what good deeds have come out of that knowledge? What good deeds WILL come out of that knowledge? Is there such thing as good deeds? If there is good deeds aren't there such thing as bad deeds. If there are no good deeds and they are rather then just deeds, then aren't we all just a much immoral SAVAGES who relentlessly rape and pillage Mother Earth for egotisitcal and material gaining.

So who is really the key point in human existence? God? Sure, he's been a big part. But if you are atheist, then there is no God. Therefore technically, God had no part in fucking this world up. Am I true in that statement? Is that rational thinking? I want to know. Because I do seek professional help. Every week I talk to a psychologist. Does she think I'm crazy? A little bit. But not that crazy.

You know what was crazy? Jesus Christ. God in flesh? All that shit? And you really think I am crazy?

I think a lot about a lot of things. Quantum Physics, religion, whatever.

Want to know what I think a LOT more about? Human behavior. Human Existence. What is the meaning of human existence? This? So I can go down the street and pick up a dime sack from my Negro friend who wears Fila and Phatfarm? Did God do that? Did God create a culture and society where Phatfarm is okay and moral? What is moral in the eyes of not only God but of man. Are we moral creatures?

What is our inherent desires? Control? Love? Desire? God? Ungod? Science? What drives you as much as God drives me? Why does God drive me? Do I need God to drive me? Do people need God to drive their lives. Why has God been running the world then? Why has everything for the past 4000 years been labeled as "Acts of God" when you people are the same fucking people saying he doesn't exist. So who flooded the earth? Who built the Tower of Babel? Who wrote the Bible? Did God really do all that? Or did a man write those things. Did a man think those things. Does a man think all these things. Does God(if he exists) think about these things?

If(and  only if) God exists, surely he must look on us earthly beings and say, Wow, what a bunch of (insert politically incorrect statement here)

What is the politically incorrect statement? Retards? I like to think more along the lines of corrupt Genius. Very corrupt. And take a long hard look at humanity and what do you find? You find corruption and God. Why... WHY, must you all, must everyone create this DIRECT correlation between the corruption of MAN and GOD.

(I hate the fucking bible. I read it. I hate it. It's useless. It's moral stories, but people take it too seriously. If God was as rational as any of us, God would hate the bible too.)

Wonderful post! 

Melchisidic, I repsect you for trying. But please, don't troll my post and my thoughts. You have obviously shown little in regards to what I ask, what I seek. So stay out of my way. Please. You tryed, you started to respect my views, and thought, maybe this guy isn't that bad. But then you proved to yourself and many others, that no, you really aren't worth the time to post,
Wonderful Post!
We all know it was a wonderful post. Why? Because he poked, and prodded, and DIDN'T attack my view of the world.

Fuck off, please.

 It being wonderful had nothing to do with you. 

Think of truth like an arrow. We look at the arrow and we ask, "How true is this arrow?" A true arrow is one which strikes the place that you aim it at reliably. If your aim is good and steady, and the arrow is true, you will strike the target. If the arrow is untrue, you will probably miss the target, regardless of how well you aim.

The only way to Know how true an arrow is is to Test the arrow by using it. You aim at a spot, fire the arrow, and if it strikes close to the target, you gain confidence in the arrow. If you wildly miss the target, you lose confidence in the arrow.

Claims about reality are like arrows. You test the claim by making a prediction (aiming). For instance, I claim that objects fall according to the theory of gravity. The theory of gravity makes predictions about how fast objects will fall, in what direction they'll fall, etc. I can make a prediction, such as 'if I drop this ball from a height of 4.9 metres, it will strike the ground in 1 second'. That's me aiming the arrow, making a prediction. Then I fire the arrow, run an experiment or make an observation. If the ball hits the ground in 1 second, then we gain confidence in the arrow/claim that objects fall according to the theory of gravity. If something else happens, then we lose confidence in the arrow/claim.

 So, claims are like arrows. We learn about the truth of claims by testing them against reality, with observation and evidence.

So, do we know what is 'truly correct'? If you are asking whether we Know ultimate reality, then no. No one does. But we DO know SOMETHING. We know that the claims of science are true like arrows are true, and we know that the claims of religion, when tested against reality are FAR less true than the claims of science.

Some claims in religion are not easily tested against reality. Some of them REQUIRE subjective interpretation and experience which cannot be independently verified. These claims are currently unfalsifiable, and therefore rejected by scientific-minded folks. But those claims in religion which ARE testable, usually fail the reality check.

Question: How do you know that that god isn't in your own mind? Are you maybe talking to yourself when you pray? How have you tested the claim/arrow that God exists outside of our minds?

If God really is just in your mind, then wouldn't it be better to know that? Shouldn't you investigate that possibility? If you don't like it, try to prove it wrong (that's how scientists tackle theories they don't like). Find some evidence that shows that God is not just in our minds.

Or, maybe you could try on that hypothesis for a while. Maybe god really is all just in our minds. God is a belief that influences people. It is a belief that can be explained to others and cause them to believe it too. But God is not a supernatural thing with all knowledge and all power. Its knowledge and power is strictly limited to what humans know and can do. If God is in your mind, then should you trust everything it 'tells' you? Are you 100% right all the time, or do you sometimes make mistakes in judgment? No, nobody is always right. So why should we expect God to be always right? God has this delusion that he's all powerful after all. That's a pretty scary delusion. God is like a megalomaniac. But that's the god of the bible. There are other gods. Some people say god is love, etc. Maybe some of those gods are good gods to follow.

But then, there are lots of people who don't follow any god. Maybe god is not necessary for human happiness. Shouldn't you explore that possibility too?

Some ideas to think about.

Why do you need a god to give you hope and desire? Can't you think of your own hopes and desires? Here's a great hope/desire to live for: The hope that one day the human race will find long-lasting peace and prosperity for everyone on earth, and will ascend one day to explore the REST of this enormous universe that we have only BEGUN to understand.

Don't you care? Don't you care if perhaps you are contributing to the contagious mental delusions of the world that threaten our survival? I would care if I were. I would want to know that I'm not, that my beliefs are as undeluded as possible.

Are my desires leading to the betterment of the world, or are they getting in the way of that? I would want to know.

That is why I remain firmly grounded in the more-rational side of the debate, and I'm only exploring the more-intuitive side. I find intuition very useful, but when trying to learn about REALITY, it is no match for the more-rational approach. 

Actually, that's a good question to ask, but perhaps for different reasons than you intended. I think that no, Jesus and Bhudda did not really think too carefully at the long-term implications of their ideas. Probably they simply did not have the means to ask and answer such questions. But today, we are beginning to be able to answer such questions (again, see memetics), and as we plough forward, we should use this understanding to help us avoid the problems caused by allowing speculation to be taught as fact.

If what you want is a religion free from tainted dogma, then the best way to achieve that is to apply the rational methods to understanding religion and how it becomes tainted in the first place. Studying the origins of Christianity is an *excellent* way to gain insight on this subject. I'm sure the origins of other religions would reveal similar information. 

The fool is the one who believes his own deceptions and is happy to believe them.

Science is the way to eliminate self-deception.

Instead of saying 'maybe, just maybe I can help the world', use the philosophy of wonderism to get over that hump. Yes you CAN help the world by understanding the problems you find in it and using that understanding to change it for the better. The way to understanding, the best technique we have right now, is science and rational thinking.

Yes, science can still learn a lot about intuition and non-rational thinking, but science is currently at the point where this knowledge is coming very very soon, and we can use what we know NOW to gain USEFUL knowledge for the future. In other words, if you learn enough science, you will see what is wrong with the world with enough clarity that you will start to see how we can change it and solve its problems.

Inuitive thinking will only get you so far. The problem is that it does not question itself. When intuition doesn't question itself, you end up with a lot of false beliefs held on faith. Inuition needs to take a back seat to evidence. When the evidence points in the opposite direction, intuition needs to shut up and follow the evidence.

Question your intuitions, don't trust them 100%. Don't trust rationality 100% either, but then it does not promise 100% certainty. When you want to make a claim, if it is an intuitive claim, then find evidence to back it up. If you can't find evidence, label it as a speculative claim. If Bush had used this procedure years ago, there would be no mess in Iraq that we have today. That's enough evidence I need to see that rationality is better than intuition when it comes to important decisions about the world. 

Natural, do you really look at a person like me. Knowing that I might, just might know more about science then you do(not claiming a god damn thing) and add in the fact that I've already claimed myself to be a servant of knowledge and enemy of religion, I've already claimed myself to believe FULLY in the scientific proccess.

But do you as well maybe, just maybe assume that I am trying to attribute the scientific process to much more then just science? Can I attribute the scientific process to the unfolding of events which is this Brave New World? Is human intellect and design scientific or not scientific at all. I ask these questions so I can take this big fucking experiment which is human existense, and WANT to make sure that I know all I can before I even begin to put the the Earth into a hypothesis. If this world was a scientific experiment, take what you know. Everything you KNOW. The Big Bang, gravity, Strong Gravitational Force, Weak Gravitational Force, electromagnetism, alpha, omega particles, hydrogen atoms, the sun, theory of relativity. Essentially think of SCIENCE as we know it.

Take that and then realize I'm not trying to falsify or claim anything about this universe. To try would be to attempt to personify God(impossible to do)

What I am doing is just thinking, maybe, what if, Science is all part of a ... Cosmic Push? A cycle of life? Hindu's and Buddhists believe in a cycle of life. Argue that for a minute if you wish.

Ever heard St. Stephen by the Grateful Dead? Speeding arrow, sharp and narrow, what a lot of fleeting matters you have spurned. We areall  William Tell, we have all started a revolution. Human life is a revolutionary evolutionary movement of ideas, ALWAYS. So WHY, in all of the history of man, all of the sudden, disregard the idea of God? Because it blinds me? ME? Am I truly blinded by much of anything? Can you answer that for me? Can you answer me on how I can fully believe in what a lot of Quantum Physics(very smart people study quantum physics) has to say, and still believe in God. What does Quantum physics really prove or disprove about God? Anything? Everything? Nothing at all?

No, that's clearly insufficient. We need a direction to apply the resources (like money) to. Clearly, putting the money into bigger bombs hasn't got us where we want to go. But that's what happens when people are left to wander through existence without an eye toward the future. We need more than just money, we need a strong, rational vision of the future that is compelling and worth fighting (or at least influencing) for. 

Careful with the insults. You basically just insulted most people on this board who didn't get you. But again, was it all their fault they misunderstood you, or is some of that your responsibility too? Again, discourse is a two way thing. You need to be aware not just of what you say but how you say it.

Eventually you'll have to stop weeding them out, because most people suffer from both. And we can't achieve what we want to achieve in our ivory towers. We need the support of most people. Eventually, we'll need to explain everything to them and get them on our level. Besides, even you and I suffer from irrationality and unintuitiveness. We are not perfect. That's something important to understand.

Again, go back to the arrow theory of truth. It's all about predictions and reliability. That's how we can know things about the world.

Nope.

Because it was determined by the scientific method, which is a reliable 'arrow'.

No one is 100% right, but some people are more right than others. Their arrows are more true; their claims make the best predictions and the predictions are verified most often.

But we do know something.

But we will continually get better and better knowledge.

Perfectly? Is that a metaphor or a literal claim? What is perfect? Something real or is it an abstract idea? I'm not actually interested in the answer, I'm more pointing out the dangers of you making bold claims without identifying whether they are speculative or not.

lol, it's better than Viagra, man.

False dichotomy. Good/bad is not a question of 'there is absolute good and bad' vs. 'there is no such thing as good and bad, and we are all savages'. There are many alternatives. This is a perfect example of where intuitive thinking trips up and rational thinking is needed to see the problem. Remember wonderism? When there is a problem, do not avoid it, do not ignore it, do not destroy it. Instead, take a step back and investigate it.

Problem: The question of morality

Avoidance: There is no such thing as morality

Ignorance: Let's all just get along

Destruction: My morality is better than yours

Investigation: Could morality have a natural origin?

So, wonderism here is expressed in the concept that morality is not an either/or thing, but perhaps there's a natural explanation for it. And there is. We DON'T need a god to explain it, we DON'T need to accept the naive alternative that it does not exist at all. And we DON'T need to kill anybody to answer the question. And yet, morality STILL exists. That's the wonder of it. The universe is SO cool that such a thing is possible. F'ing amazing, if you ask me.

 I don't want to go too deeply into it, as it would side-track the conversation, but if you want to know the natural explanation of morality, it comes from the evolution of biology and culture. Biology evolving the emotional hooks that are needed to influence people, and culture evolving specific rules of conduct to be communicated between the people. Again, I refer you to memetics.

Depends on your definition of god in this context. If god is the bible god, a literal being named Yahweh, then no, he had nothing to do with it. If god is the *concept* of the bible god, a metaphorical character called Yahweh, then yes, such a 'thing' did play a large part in fucking the world up, especially things like religious wars an persecution, but also in holding back science and other human endeavours.

If god is the universe excluding humanity, then no, it was primarily human action that fucked the world up. If god is the memeplex of the Bible or some other 'holy' book, then surely such ideas have caused problems in the world. If god is the creative 'force' that drives evolution, then yeah, the results of evolution (us) are what fucked the world up, so god is responsible.

See, this is why intuitive thinking can only get you so far. It is too imprecise to lead to Knowledge; at best it can lead to educated guessing and 'hunches' and speculations, but not demonstrable knowledge. It lends too easily to the fallacy of equivocation. The language of rational discourse is much more precise and less prone to errors of this sort.

You know what's even crazier? The son of a bitch may not have even existed in history. There's a very good case to be made that Jesus is a mythical character like Hercules or Achilles. They essentially wrote him into history and then killed anyone who doubted him.

Me too. My mind never fucking stops. Sometimes it's pathological, like when I write long posts in online forums when I should be working.

Yes we are moral creatures. As for the god stuff, be careful with the metaphors and equivocations. Which god? What EXACTLY are you asking about? Instead of using the word g-o-d, try rephrasing the question using naturalistic vocabulary. Then maybe you will get a meaningful answer from some of us. Did a supernatural god create our culture and society? I severely doubt it. So, what natural 'god' could be responsible for our culture and society? Perhaps evolution? Evolution DOES give a natural explaination for the existence of culture and society. Memetics (cultural evolution) DOES give a natural explanation for the character of that culture (Phatfarm, Fila, etc.)

As for the nature of existence. Have you ever asked yourself, What if everything really IS natural? Maybe that feeling of incredulity you get ("No! It just COULDN'T be natural. I just can't imagine it.&quot is actually a perverted sense of true wonder. Instead maybe you should be thinking "Wow! I cannot understand how it works, but it DOES, and there's no need for a supernatural guy to help it along. The universe just IS that cool."

So, is getting high (metaphor for living a life with no purpose) all there is to reality? That would be a very naive view of it. Just because there is no *supernatural* meaning/purpose to reality doesn't automatically mean there is *no* meaning/purpose to reality. Just like the universe is cool enough to generate life from non-life, it is also cool enough that it can generate meaning from no meaning. In fact, that is what humans do and what humans are. We are the universe creating its own meaning for itself. Now isn't THAT fucking cool? That's what I'm talking about man, the universe is more wonderful than you can possibly imagine (to twist a bit from Dawkins and a bit from Lucas).

There is no need for a supernatural god. In fact, the universe would be boring if there was one. The really cool part of the universe is that it works WITHOUT a god pulling the strings.

Here's another speculation to mess with your head . How many neurons does it take to be conscious? I mean conscious of your own behaviour and your own perspective in the world? Does a fly with 100,000 neurons have a consciousness? How about an even more primitive animal with only a few hundred neurons? Well, we do know that humans are conscious, so *somewhere* between 1 and a few hundred billion neurons lies the possibility (not guarantee) of attaining consciousness.

But how do neurons attain consciousness? We don't know exactly, but we do know that it is by cooperating with each other through interaction. And we do know that they interact with electrical pulses and chemicals called neurotransmitters. Essentially, neurons talk to each other, and somehow this gives rise to a consciousness that is greater than any single neuron alone, and in fact greater than 100 billion neurons separately (one human is smarter than a million flies).

What else communicates in a cooperative manner? Humans of course. 100 humans working together can achieve greater accomplishments than a single person working alone or even than 100 people working separately. There are exceptions, of course; one Van Gogh is worth more than 100 amateur painters (but no one person could have coordinated the moon landing, for instance). The point is the potential.

So, if somewhere in the neighbourhood of billions of neurons can create a single unified consciousness in the form of a human person, is it possible that somewhere in the neighbourhood of billions of human people can create a single unified meta-consciousness? What form would it be in? Like neurons, it would probably be an interconnected network. What exists today as the largest interconnected network of human minds? Why, the internet of course. How big is the internet? The size of the world. So, is it possible that the internet is the nascent brain of the world? Perhaps it's not conscious yet, but maybe one day it will be. Perhaps the crisis we are going through in the world is the mind of the world becoming conscious of itself. Gaia is waking up. Let's hope she's not too pissed. 

Since you're in speculation-mode, then maybe God is the unconscious meta-awareness of humanity (like Gaia above). In that sense, God itself does not say "Wow, what a bunch of ___", because God is not yet conscious of itself (it doesn't know and understand that it is the meta-awareness of humanity). But parts of god (communities, like this one) do express the notion that "Wow, people are a bunch of ____". Maybe this 'god' experiences things like a dream, and we (as a group) are one of the characters in the dream, so when we say "Theists are irrational", that's 'god' actually dreaming a character in his dream saying "Theists are irrational". Maybe we need to tell the larger god-awareness, "Hey, you are dreaming! Wake up, dude! We have important problems to solve, while you are snoring and farting in bed."

Maybe god is in a lucid dream right now, and we just need to wake him up and show him the real damage his dream has cost us. Maybe we are god's subconscious yelling, "Hey douchebag! Stop daydreaming with your finger on the button, you're going to cause a nuclear war!"

Are you reading my neurotransmitters? 

If we are god's neurons, then man's corruption IS god's corruption. Jesus preaches that we need to seek forgiveness from him. "HEY BUDDY! You need to seek forgiveness from US! The religion you started is WAY fucked up, and you need to take responsibility for the mess it created."

The saviour who needs to be saved. The messiah who needs to be led. The 'god' who is imperfect, who really IS just in our minds, and who depends on our belief in him for his survival.

 Jesus wants us to conform to his morality? I say Jesus should conform to OUR morality. The secular world has made much progress in 2000 years beyond religious notions of morality. Jesus needs to stop preaching and start listening. STFU Jesus, it's our turn. We are smarter than you and we can prove it. You are hereby dethroned, deposed, usurped.

We got some new laws that religion needs to obey if religion expects us to respect it. 

Exactly. The way to educate god on the topic of rationality is to educate his followers. That's what this website is for.

Eventually, we'll need to rewrite his book, too. I think the study of the natural origins of religion, combined with a functioning theory of memetics, will help us to achieve this long-term goal. 

Just so you natural, who I believe can actually believe this to be so from such a person as meself, but half of things you say are nothing but reaffirment for strong beliefs I already hold over the history of mankind.

If you are sooooooo into this memian shit from what I guess I think I know about it, then you, you right now is still personifying Jesus Christ. I mean think. For one second. IF YOU as a human being doesn't even know if Christ exists; why would he want to help YOU in particular. Why would he want to help any "Christian" in particular. Because I tell you what is a major society ill today is the fact that you are still a  Christian. You have the same mindset as a Christian in that you won't shake this pre-conceived notion of who Jesus Christ really might have been. If we are all scientificially bound here, then why not consider the possiblity.

Jesus Christ died for the sins of man, and resurrected. Why oh why, does by Buddhist faith hold that to be a very REASONABLE AND RATIONABLE THING in the EYE and NEURONS of very many people.

Then begin to tell me that neurons and electrons in particular are not very..very weird. And I should end that topic on a note that I WENT INSANE thinking about just that. So if you want to exlore science, go for it. I don't mind sharing a thing, a thought or two, of just what might have been. I mean hell, it might have been Noah's Fucking Ark but you would never know till at least you died. So hey, what the fuck?

So take a combination of the fact that Jesus himself might full well have been a Buddha(talk to a Buddhist monk about that, I wouldn't have a fucking clue) and then ask them if they believe in resurrection and life after death. Think of those two words, analyze it, then explain THAT with science. Then go ahead and tell me a rational word or two saying that the whole system of faith (Buddha and Jesus are probably best friends right now) is completely debunked and has been debunked by the scientific method.


---------------======natural----Maybe this 'god' experiences things like a dream, and we (as a group) are one of the characters in the dream, so when we say "Theists are irrational", that's 'god' actually dreaming a character in his dream saying "Theists are irrational". Maybe we need to tell the larger god-awareness, "Hey, you are dreaming! Wake up, dude! We have important problems to solve, while you are snoring and farting in bed."


Ahh and maybe then, "GOD" is so crazy and irrational yet so rational might let such things come true. Why not? It was your idea. He can flood the earth...right?

Not likely to win many friends that way. Try not taking it too seriously. 

1) We can personally change the world through our actions. We can see how the world is, imagine how we want it to be, come up with a plan to achieve that goal, and follow the plan to achieve it.

2) We can change the world through other people, by influencing them. We can plant ideas, true or false, in their minds to modify their behaviours. Of course, this requires their acceptance, but it is a widely used method of changing the world. It's what makes us human, in fact.

3) We can change the world by constructing contagious ideas, which not only modify the behaviour of those affected, but cause the affected person to pass on the idea to even more people, who spread it to more people, etc. This is where religion, politics and science play roles. This is what we need to master in order to eliminate the stranglehold of contagious mental delusions (CMDs; such as Christianity, Islam, nationalism, etc.).

By the way, I lose respect for you when you allow your frustration with others to cause you to berate them. Just so you know. 

Danger Will Robinson! Unclear metaphor. I'm trying to interpret what you're saying but I don't know if I got it exactly. That's the problem with intuitive argumentation. What I say next may be talking right past you, not connecting.

If my interpretation of your metaphor is on target, then I think what you are saying is essentially, "Is there a direction to the universe?" If that's where you're going, then my answer is this:

It is commonly taught that evolution does not have a direction. Things just evolve and the ones that survive contribute to the next generation.

But, that is WITHIN a domain of evolution. Consider that there may be many domains of evolution. Two examples, genetic biological evolution and memetic cultural evolution. Biological evolution *supports* cultural evolution. In a sense, in fact actually, biological evolution *discovered* cultural evolution.

So, what is this process of 'discovery'? If we solve that, we'll go a long way toward unifying science. Call it the Theory of Discovery, intentionally analogous to the Theory of Evolution. Actually, the Theory of Discovery is more like the Hypothesis of Discovery, since it is just my speculation, unsupported by controlled observation.

The theory/hypothesis is this: The domains or levels of evolution are IN FACT connected by another process of discovery, which occurs naturally just as evolution does. Stellar evolution drives elemental evolution, elemental evolution (fueled by radiation) drives chemical evolution, chemical drives genetic, genetic drives cellular, cellular drives multicellular, multicellular drives neural, neural drives memetic.

What the hypothesis does is give *direction* to evolution.

In other words, evolution, within its own domain, is directionless, but discovery provides an inherent direction IN the universe. That direction is toward greater stability, and toward greater intelligence.

But that's all I can say right now. Must go.

You're losing me here. I don't follow what you mean by Jesus Christ here. Do you mean a literal person who lived 2000 years ago? Do you mean the collective unconscious thing I was talking about?

I am not a personification of Jesus Christ in the same way that I'm not a personification of my father, nor of Luke Skywalker. At best you could say that some of Jesus' character rubbed off on me, just as it rubs off on most North Americans. The people who are personifications of Jesus are the ones who have religious experiences of Jesus in their 'hearts' telling them to do stuff. People who pray to Jesus and get 'answers'.

The only 'Jesus' I think existed is the concept of Jesus written in the bible. Not a man, not a supernatural entity, just some ideas in a book. 

Do you mean literally or figuratively?

Most people think they are 'rational', when really it's a case of them simply being 'good at making up rationalizations'. Being rational is hard work and takes practice, not to mention a lot of self-examination.

Literally insane?

Back to arrow-truth again. I know with great certainty, but not 100% certainty, that there was no global flood survived by one family headed by a guy named Noah.

Just because we can't know things with 100% certainty is no reason to waste time considering crazy metaphorical stories as fact. 

You lost me on this one. Bring it down to reality for a second so I can get a grasp on your metaphors. Remember, I only just started exploring intuition recently, so you'll have to go slow.

No. I guess you missed the part where I stated that this kind of 'god' is limited strictly to what humans can and can't know and what they can and can't do. Such a god could not have literally flooded the planet.