God in the Brain ?

Holds abstracts of articles on meditation, telepathy, out-of-body experience, telekinesis, qi-gong, etc. that have been published in scientific journals. The full papers can be accessed via your own national library or university.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
trumpet_is_cool
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:59 pm
Location: Germany

God in the Brain ?

Post: # 5787Post trumpet_is_cool »

Is Belief a Psychological Condition?
A collection of great articles on the subject.

http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/index.html

What are your thought`s when you read this "scientific researches" ?
Is this just brainwashing ?
User avatar
shezmear
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:48 pm

Post: # 5791Post shezmear »

Some scientists let the facts determine their doctrine and some scientists let their doctrine determine the facts.

For example scientists have a doctrine that says the universe happened by chance and then spend a whole lot of time proving that the universe is just some random chaotic event with out meaning.

Just the same as those that believe that our awareness is the result of electric charges in side of the grey matter in our heads, and that we are actually related to monkeys.

If they really knew why would they run such experiments?

To prove or learn what?

What I have found is that if you listen to these people, you become incurably stupid and helpless and really very out of touch with your self, it’s like they run experiments and when they reach an out come, it’s just clutter.

For example the space programs…a complete waste of time and energy fueled by the intellect of these guys who have all these beliefs and supporting data to say that light speed is impossible so we end up sitting on a couple of megatons of TNT and hope that we are lucky enough to make it into the atmosphere let alone out of space with out getting vaporized, nice work boy’s!!!, lets build another one…

One fails to see with the god spot is that they do not acknowledge the mind, the brain is not the mind, the brain is like the CPU chip of computer, the mind is the program (a Mass of electrons held in a electromagnetic field), to say there is god spot in the brain, may be true, but this does not explain the mind, the self.

If you read all the information, were does it lead you? To conclude what?

Imagine the owner of a "car" is trying to prove “he is conscious because of his car”….surely you would call him insane…even crazy!!!!

This is like when scientists say we are "aware" because of our brain and body,and with out this brain and body we simply would not be, another common one is the creator is really just some desire within the human being to feel that his life has a purpose, but really it`s just his imagination, there is no creator.
By their deeds shall you know them.
J.C
Lena
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:12 am
Location: CT

Post: # 5796Post Lena »

shezmear, I agree. I didn't even bother reading the article, because from my experience mainsteam science rarely leads to better understanding, on the contrary, it tends to confuse people and contribute to false ideas and theories. You can tell just be looking at the website, which is promoting Athiesm... enough said.
Frozn
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Post: # 5798Post Frozn »

Shezmear wrote:One fails to see with the god spot is that they do not acknowledge the mind, the brain is not the mind, the brain is like the CPU chip of computer, the mind is the program (a Mass of electrons held in a electromagnetic field), to say there is god spot in the brain, may be true, but this does not explain the mind, the self.
Fascinating that you would say that! :o
I have made the computer analogy about it as well, mine is as follows:

The brain is the CPU, Your body is the rest of the hardware... The mind is the person at the keyboard, without which there is no reason to have a computer in the first place.

It makes it easier to explain my way of thinking to the unfortunate majority who have been convinced by the establishment that there is no possibility aside from the contemporary view of randomness. These people would argue that everything that makes you alive aware and unique is just going feed worms someday. What I'm trying to say is that I agree on all counts. And like Lena, I have no interest in re-reading ignorance from the so-called intelligent community.
Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. - Gospel of Thomas
User avatar
shezmear
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:48 pm

Post: # 5801Post shezmear »

Yes, I agree, strange times in do we live, someone once said to me that we all live in tribes, big and small tribes, the USA,China, Australia,Europe they are all just big tribes and with the tribe comes belief structures.

The problem if one within the tribe and the tribe is not “growing” then ultimately one will not grow or rather be held back by the tribe, the only way one can continue to grow with out being hampered by the tribe is to step out of the tribe and continue on one’s own.

What tends to happen then is if you step back into the tribe and talk to the people in the tribe and try to get them to think, all you get is there “tribe mind set”.

To amplify what I am saying further, when you look at our civilization, we have measured progress according to “material invention”, but really most people are no more evolved then natives that run about the jungle, in that they are driven by there basic instinct, fear, desire, greed, fame, revenge, hunger.

If you took away all the things that are given to them, such cars, houses, Tv`s, radio,cloths which they make none of, “and don’t know how”, they would just revert to prehistoric activity’s.

I often play a little game when I walk through Melbourne, I revert my mind back a couple of hundred years, and look as if I were living in that time, , and you know, things have not really changed, you still have the rich, you still have the poor, the haves and the have not’s, the rich get off on showing there wealth through what they own and of course are driving a nice car and wearing lots of gold, but a couple of hundred years ago they would be still doing the same thing except they would be riding a nice horse and showing there wealth, still feeling important and better then everyone else.

Another example the bikey gangs instead of riding around on defening motorbikes would ride about on horses with guns and lots of notches on there belts, looking tough.

The “moral fiber” is still the same; (spirituality) it’s like they have not stopped the game just moved the chess peaces around the board.

In mans attempt to make his life easier he has falling prey to his own ego, he has mistaken his inventions for real progress.

Tom coined an example to me; and I have given it much thought,

What happens when you give a laptop computer to a native tribe?
They turn it into religious paraphernalia.
They break off all the keys and hang it around there neck,
Take our the mother board and worship it.
They break off the screen and worship that as well.

His example was related to his trip to Egypt, when he saw first hand what they had done to the great pyramid.

Spiritual evolution is a funny thing, that few people really understand and when you understand it; you can begin to really see through the things of this world.
By their deeds shall you know them.
J.C
User avatar
ShahKorR
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:49 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post: # 5802Post ShahKorR »

Nicely Said......
When goodness grows weak,
When evil increases,
I make myself a body.
In every age I come back
To deliver the holy,
To destroy the sin of the sinner,
To establish righteousness.

~ Bhagavad Gita
User avatar
gog
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:33 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post: # 5811Post gog »

Hmmmmm yes indeed!!

NICELY SAID!!!

........
User avatar
Alisima
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post: # 5818Post Alisima »

Lena wrote:shezmear, I agree. I didn't even bother reading the article, because from my experience mainsteam science rarely leads to better understanding, on the contrary, it tends to confuse people and contribute to false ideas and theories. You can tell just be looking at the website, which is promoting Athiesm... enough said.
What is wrong with Atheism?? All these scientists are doing what you are doing: exploring. Albeit often starting on wrong assumption. Nevertheless, the intention for discovery, for exploration, is the same as any 'seeker' of truth.

And to scare you a bit more: often scientist's aren't far from the truth. Sadly, they only make the first step and have a hard time making the second one. In other words: they only discover half of the truth, which, ofcourse, isn't truth at all. But, it is, like I said, the first step. (Read something from Schroedinger (quantum mechanics), you'll be suprised.)

You say "mainstream science rarely leads to better understanding, on the contrary, it tends to confuse people and contribute to false ideas and theories." This is the first step. The next step is to understand these false idea's, and the step beyond that is to undo these false idea's. But science is doing that. Science is correcting itself. It may easily take a couple of decades (old people have to die, new have to be born.) But it is already under way.

Like you there are many people who realise, or have realised, that mainstream science is somehow incorrect, or incomplete. In the Enlightenment (A movement in the 18th century that advocated the use of reason in the reappraisal of accepted ideas and social institutions), and with the start of modernity, science stood up front, diminishing Art and Religion. Science was there to say that there is no soul, that all comes from matter and goes to matter. Often with the conclusion: it doesn't matter. It slowly ate up Art and Religion saying that both where hallucinations at best, albeit art somewhat less. There were many people then, now and in between, who have realised that science was, for a big part, a disaster. Science denied anything other that 'it's' (objects), thus otherwordly things were quickly dismissed. Now there is a big group who realises this fact and tries to integrate Science, Religion and Art (Ken Wilber, for instance.)

Although science indeed has taken a wrong turn, it is prepared, once it fully realised this, to take a step back, to analyse what has gone wrong, and to correct itself.

You say "I didn't even bother reading the article", which I can understand. But, aren't you making the same mistake science has made in the Enlightenment, that is: dismissed all but your own idea's??

I say read the article, analyse it, and propose a new direction, if only for yourself.
Don't read my signature.
Lena
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:12 am
Location: CT

Post: # 5821Post Lena »

I know that science is based on facts with the intention of learning, so, like you said, they have the first step, but are lacking in the conclusions of their data. for example, what's wrong with atheism? it's the belief that God doesn't exist. I KNOW that God DOES exists.

I used to be an atheist, because as a little kid I was very interested in the world and talked with my parents a lot about religion and philosophy. my dad answered all my spiritual questions with scientific explanations, and he told me there is no higher power who designed anything. you know how young children believe anything their parents tell them. :roll: but as I got older I asked more questions which lead me to metaphysics then to TP and TFOC. Tom Chalko has made me think that science can be used to explain God instead of disproving God. but Tom isn't a "mainstream" scientist.

I feel that for me to read an article supporting athiesm would be like a first grader trying to teach me how to spell. a waste of time. but then again, I tend to waste my time on much worse things so maybe someday I'll read it out of curiosity... not right now, though.
User avatar
Alisima
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post: # 5832Post Alisima »

Lena wrote:I know that science is based on facts with the intention of learning, so, like you said, they have the first step, but are lacking in the conclusions of their data. for example, what's wrong with atheism? it's the belief that God doesn't exist. I KNOW that God DOES exists.
If you define God as an animating-life-force (that is: God is the mechanism by which life lives) then you can say that God indeed exists. Simply because there must be a life-force, because there is a life-force. Trees are growing, Sun is shining. If that is your definition of a God, then indeed God exists. But if your definition of God is something else, then it depends on how you define him whether he exists or not. For instance, it is possible to see God as a personification of that same life-force. Now he no longer is a process but is a person. A being. And then if you transfer the possibilities you have as a being unto God, since you define him as a being too, God suddenly is able to judge, make plans, etc. Then God can have ideals, etc. This is a different God than the first God I mentioned.

Talking about God is playing a game. A language-game. You don't know God so how can you define him? The problem with talking about God is that the talker has defined God and the listener has, but both in different ways. So if person A sees God as a life-force. Simply as evolution. And person B sees God as a sentient being, who can judge. These 2 people can have an endless discussion about what God can and can't do. But it is all just a silly game.

Because people themselves live a certain way they transfer the same values by which they themselves live unto God. That is: if you try to define God then your definition is spoiled with things of yourself. In fact, it is impossible to talk about God and not talk about yourself. God becomes all that you want him to be, although it happens unconsciously.

So when you say God exists I might assume you mean my God, my defintion of God, exists. But that is not what you mean. When you say God exists you mean the God that you mean, not mine. But both God's, your definion of God and mine, are wrong. We think God is what we think God is. We never take the true definition of God, that what God thinks God is. No, we make our own definitions. See the difference. You define God by what you think God is. While God actually is what God thinks what God is. See the barrier?? You are the barrier.

An atheist is simply uncertain of what God is (or is uncertain what he believes God to be to exist). So uncertain that he say's God doesn't exist. If the atheist would adapt the believe that God is synonymous with evolution (and not a sentient being), he might start believing in God. In fact, if he would adapt the believe that God is a certain tone on a keyboard, he believes in God. He has, however, placed a completely different meaning unto the word God. All ideas you have about God are false, only the ideas God has about himself are true.

In order words, whether you believe in God has nothing to do with God, but simply with how you define God. So when you say I know God exists, it doesn't have any meaning, not to me. You can just as well say I don't believe in God. But what you actually mean, I don't believe in my God. In your God you don't believe.

You can never have a definition of God that is not your definition of God. When you define God you have spoiled him.

A person asked Buddha "does God exists?". Buddha gave him a good look and said "no". Next day another person asked Buddha "does God exists?". Buddha followed the same approach as the day before and said "yes". The day after that another person asked the same question to Buddha "does God exists?". Buddha again gave him a good look and dismissed the question saying it was of no purpose.

Buddha's brother, who was with him the last half of his life, ask buddha, "why did you respond in 3 different ways?? Tell me, does he exist, or not??"

Having read all of this post you can probably guess why buddha indeed gave 3 different responses. Because he got 3 different questions. The first person was a theist, thus buddha said, no God definitly doesn't exists. The second person was an atheist, thus buddha said, God definitly exists. And the last person was so close to the truth, that the existance of God was totaly irrelevant, and in fact holding him back. (This story is paraphrased from Osho, and for the entire story, and for more details, you should read his book titled "the book of secrets".)

The idea is that your definition of God, and your believe or disbelieve in him, tells you more about yourself than anything about God. In fact, it tells nothing about God, but only things about yourself. That is why Buddha, in the story, gave 3 different responses, all 3 of them needed pushes but in different directions.

So, having concluded that your definition of God, and your believe or disbelieve in him, is simply your idea about God, and tells you what direction you should now make. I ask you, and for this simple question I wasted hundreds of words: how do you define God? And, do you believe in your definition?
Don't read my signature.
Frozn
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Post: # 5834Post Frozn »

Alisima wrote: Talking about God is playing a game. A language-game. You don't know God so how can you define him? The problem with talking about God is that the talker has defined God and the listener has, but both in different ways. So if person A sees God as a life-force. Simply as evolution. And person B sees God as a sentient being, who can judge. These 2 people can have an endless discussion about what God can and can't do. But it is all just a silly game.
I understand what you mean here. I don't think anyone claims to fully know god, or be able to define him fully, except for perhaps the ignorant. I think that aiming to understand how god works, or thinks (if applicable), is a worthy cause. In fact one of the great thinkers of the 20th century agreed as well:
bomohwkl, from the topic: [url=http://www.goldenplanetforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=16&start=75]Good Quotes (Not Necessarily from the Book)[/url] wrote: "I'm not much with people, and I'm not a family man. I want my peace. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomena in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts the rest are details." -Albert Einstein
I feel that people can discuss god from different viewpoints on the matter as long as the people discussing it arent arrogant in their assertion of who is god being the only possible answer. People ARE capable of open-mindedness, although I admit, it's not common. If these conditions are met I believe it would be a useful exchange rather than a "silly game". For example, my perspective on god, although far from perfect is quite different than yours, but I read your version as an interesting new perspective to consider, perhaps bringing me closer to the distant truth that all of us on Earth are far from. An endless discussion on the matter occurs when 2 people with fixed opinions dont budge and dont make any progress, and in such cases I agree, its useless to pursue them.

As far as atheism goes, I agree with Lena that reading a page promoting atheism would be like a 1st grader teaching me how to read. I used to be an atheist as well, and like Lena I learned more since that time. That is never to say I know much compared to REAL knowledge, but it is a start.
Alisima wrote: You can never have a definition of God that is not your definition of God. When you define God you have spoiled him.
Again this is true, but only if you assert to yourself the idea that you have defined him. Don't seek to define god, seek to understand god, and remember that your understanding will always be limited compared to god's understanding of god. To not do that would be like a cult leader or prophet claiming to be a master, while it is accepted that no one on earth can call themselves that because of our limited understanding. The only difference would be inward, rather than outward, claiming to yourself you know fully or understand something that you do not, and probably CAN not. You can however know and understand some things about god, just by observing nature, or how life itself works. There are hints everywhere. It is being whispered in our ears softly, yet few can hear it.
Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. - Gospel of Thomas
User avatar
Alisima
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post: # 5839Post Alisima »

bomohwkl, from the topic: [url=http://www.goldenplanetforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=16&start=75]Good Quotes (Not Necessarily from the Book)[/url] wrote: "I'm not much with people, and I'm not a family man. I want my peace. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomena in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts the rest are details." -Albert Einstein
Yes, perhapse. But even interesting is to know what Einstein's thoughts were not long before he died. I have heard:
Someone asked Albert Einstein just two or three days before he died: What would you like to be if there is another opportunity given by God to you to come to the earth, what would you like to become? He said, new time rather than becoming a scientist, I would prefer to become a plumber. I would like to live a simple and ordinary life. I would like to live absolutely unknown to the outer world. I would like to live anonymously, nobody knowing about me, so that nobody disturbs me.
I am not saying that the world would be a better place when Einstein instead of being a scientist were a plummer. No. What I am pointing at is that Einstein felt that he has missed something in his life. And he did, otherwise one would not say such things.
Frozn wrote:For example, my perspective on god, although far from perfect is quite different than yours, but I read your version as an interesting new perspective to consider, perhaps bringing me closer to the distant truth that all of us on Earth are far from.
You haved missed what I was trying to say. You say that you have a different perspective on God than me. I don't have a perspective on God at all, so any perspective on God would be different than mine. It like saying that your car is way different than mine, while I don't even own a car.

Although one can argue that in my last post I was certainly describing God, especially since I have used the word God 72 times. But this can be compared like asking people to be silent. A paradoxial thing to say the least. You make noise and the meaning of that noise is to stop making noise.
Don't read my signature.
Frozn
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Post: # 5840Post Frozn »

Everythings always a paradox with you! :P :D :P :lol:

What I'm saying is a agree, less my input. This is the kind of discussion that makes you think...
Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. - Gospel of Thomas
Lena
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:12 am
Location: CT

Post: # 5841Post Lena »

Alisima wrote:But both God's, your definion of God and mine, are wrong. We think God is what we think God is. We never take the true definition of God, that what God thinks God is.
hypathetically speaking, what if my idea of God is the same as what God thinks God is? I know in reality I have a limited understanding of God, but isn't it possible at some point in eveloution to have the same definition as God of God?
Alisima wrote:So, having concluded that your definition of God, and your believe or disbelieve in him, is simply your idea about God, and tells you what direction you should now make. I ask you, and for this simple question I wasted hundreds of words: how do you define God? And, do you believe in your definition?
I usually can recognize other people's definitions of God, and so sometimes I use the same word (God) for different concepts. it depends on who I'm talking to. since you asked, I'll be more specific.

Thiaooubian aliens sometimes are refered to as God, especially in the Bible, like with the whole story about Jesus being the "son" of "God". I know the Thiaooubians did actually make Jesus, so, the names are different but in essence it means the same thing.

Higher Self. your inner wisdom and the higher power that guides you. the Higher Self is often called "God". for example, people sometimes say "God saved me from dying in that car crash" or "I recieved a message from God"... in these cases, "God" is probably the higher self.

the designer or creator of the universe. in TP the thiaooubians call it The Spirit, in TOFC Tom Chalko calls it Great Intellect. this is the thing that made the Big Bang and planned the worlds. Usually on this forum if I say "God" this is what I'm talking about.
so I believe in thiaooubians, higher selves, and intelligent design.

I was talking to my friend and he said he doesn't believe in God so I asked why. He said, "If God really existed, a father wouldn't beat his wife and children". I said something along the lines of, "the father chose to beat his wife and children, it wasn't God's choice. God can't stop you from doing what you want to do." I just thought it was interesting. He was raised Catholic, btw
User avatar
Alisima
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post: # 5847Post Alisima »

Lena wrote:
Alisima wrote:But both God's, your definion of God and mine, are wrong. We think God is what we think God is. We never take the true definition of God, that what God thinks God is.
hypathetically speaking, what if my idea of God is the same as what God thinks God is? I know in reality I have a limited understanding of God, but isn't it possible at some point in eveloution to have the same definition as God of God?
There now seem to be 2 gods. The God that you think God is, i.e. your mental image of God, and the God as he actually is. But beware with this, the latter God is your mental image also.
Don't read my signature.
Post Reply