Can one proof that god DOESN'T exist?

c.i. stop right there. You must have missed something, as I've NEVER said religion is successful! On the contrary, religion has no explanation whatsoever for where we would find this love/God, the child like part of us that is spontaneous.

I remember a college philosophy teacher, who was a former catholic priest, say "after 20 years of monastic discipline" I can now be spontaneous. Perhaps we have to earn spontaneity, like we had as a child? I think so. Just because someone is intelligent as hell doesn't mean they don't have to graduate from college in order to apply said intelligence.

Tex-Star

Definitions
Misunderstandings, by vague definitions of the English language

First, we have not defined "God."

We have failed to come to an understanding of the concept of "Love."

I won't even try to comment on JL's: "myths as collective falsehoods. I believe they are, but only in the sense that all human culture is a fabrication, artificial constructions, of an otherwise meaningless reality."
If this is the case, and all human culture is meaningless, why are we bothering to try and understand, something that has no worth?

Now we are hung up on "Myth"

Myth [Gk. mythos, word, speech, story, legend]

1. a traditional story of unknown authorship, ostensibly with a historical basis, but serving usually to explain some phenomenon of nature, the origin of man, or the customs institutions, religious rites, etc. of a people: myths usually involve the exploits of gods and heroes.
2. such stories collectively: mythology
3. any fictitious story.
4. any imaginary person or thing spoken of as existing.

Syn.- fable, fiction, legend, falsehood.

You story of amplification is thoughtful, but it fails to clear up the misunderstanding of our definition of "Myth." My definition of people raising their voices, when arguing, is that they are just yelling louder, at one another.

As for titles, you have contradicted yourself, "all titles can only be abstractions, mere performances, valid men are not serious actors in any story but, rather, joyful poets of a story that continues to originate what cannot be finished." Isn't poet, just another title? Isn't this just another example of some belief or story?

My understanding of Native American thought, has nothing to do with some omnipresent being (Great Spirit.) It is an understanding of being a part of everything. I have been taught to enter in to the realm of my surroundings and not be a stranger.

My feelings on Buddhism, is one of respect. If I were a joiner, I would probably be a Buddhist.

When you use an undefined term like "Myth," I can only relate to the accepted definition. Basic logic dictates that: true premise + true premise + true premise = fact.

This fundamental statement of Buddhism is hard to disprove as a myth or falsehood:

"Everything in the universe is causally linked. All things are composite things, that is, they are composed of several elements. Because all things are composite, they are all transitory, for the elements come together and then fall apart. It is this transience that causes human beings to sorrow and to suffer. We live in a body, which is a composite thing, but that body decays, sickens, and eventually dies, though we wish it to do otherwise. Since everything is transient, that means that there can be no eternal soul either in the self or in the universe. This, then, is the eternal truth of the world: everything is transitory, sorrowful, and soulless-the three-fold character of the world."

Siddhartha Gautama (6th Century BCE)

I think Tex-Star is onto something, but it is not inclusive enough. I think religion, like everything else in our lives, is used to manage affects (feelings) like love. But to look below the surface of one feeling (love) and our wish that we could somehow make it the only feeling we have, we must acknowledge that we have all sorts of feelings. And these feelings aren't chosen, nor are they controllable in the sense of whether we have them or not. We are our feelings, so it seems to me we're better off to be open to the discovery of what those feelings are than to resort to, what I think religion does, a method which supports the use of repression and denial of reality. Human nature is both love and aggression, or at least I have seen absolutely no evidence that convinces me otherwise, of one and not the other. Or one without the other.

I not only don't believe in a god, as defined by most religions (religion meaning organized religion which postulates a human like god, a man (or woman) I also think it is a system of affect management that does not work as well as others. I believe in science. I choose "science" rather than "nature" because science is the study of nature, it is a system of thought about what is and is not likely to be natural.

By belief, JLNobody, I mean I believe it's "veracity is not challenged because of it's justificatory function." I believe it is the best system I have found so far for affect management and explanation of reality. As c.i. points out, science does not require any worship, rather an openness and searching for incongruities. It is a method, just as religion is. But I think it works better for many reasons. The one that comes to mind first is that belief in science/nature does not require the use of defense mechanisms which limit gratification beyond the necessary. It encourages functional defense mechanisms, such as study, sublimation and allows more humor, which is, of course another highly functional defense mechanism. So rather than requiring a denial of aggression, which so often, if not always, results in righteous indignation which leads to destructive, aggressive violence, science requires an mind open to the study of nature, which fosters an acceptance of all things natural.

Let me see if I can say this another way. Science does not view feelings as in need of control, but rather as a subject of study. And with understanding (a product of open minded study) comes an ability to decide how to manage behavior so that we get more of what we want with less negative side effects.

(And before someone points out that no one can be totally open minded -- the unconscious and all that, -- I will agree with them, but I will point out that there are degrees of open mindedness. And it is to this that I refer here. Not only are there degrees, but there are some systems which make a relatively large amount of open mindedness more likely or less likely to occur.)

So, in summary, I believe science is a superior method of influencing our world and of getting what we want from it. So by belief, I guess I've come around to saying, I mean a belief in the superior function of science over religion. It is the function I believe in. And I see no value added to this by calling the function "God". Enough for now. Must let go of this and send it out with the request that others please respond.

But why "god/love?" If we are unable to define god, what has that got anything to do with the concept of love? c.i.

Psyche and Cupid
Because CI, to understand both, you must enter the realms of the human psyche. One must begin to understand human emotions, and a need in mankind to comprehend his existence in this thing we call "Life."

Re: Definitions

With one of these definitions, a triangle is a myth and hence trigonometry is a myth, Fourier analysis is a myth and quatum mechanics is a myth. Mathematical science is a myth.

ferrous, That's circular thinking. If there is no way to prove a god, but you connect god to love, it still equals "no proof." Emotions can be understood to a certain degree, but trying to understand the emotion of one individual is very complex. Multiply that by the billions, and we have a logistics problem. It is impossible to know what people think. Emotion is inextricably tied to our thinking patterns, and it would be impossible to equate "love" with its many variations to conclude what it is. Is my love for my dog the same love I have for anything else? More so, or less so? How strong is that love? It's almost similar to trying to prove there's a god. c.i.

Axiom: God is Love.
Fact: Existence of Love is obvious (one feels it).
__________________________________________(therefore)
Existence of God is obvious.

I think Tex-Star is onto something, but it is not inclusive enough. I think religion, like everything else in our lives, is used to manage affects (feelings) like love. But to look below the surface of one feeling (love) and our wish that we could somehow make it the only feeling we have, we must acknowledge that we have all sorts of feelings. And these feelings aren't chosen, nor are they controllable in the sense of whether we have them or not. We are our feelings, so it seems to me we're better off to be open to the discovery of what those feelings are than to resort to, what I think religion does, a method which supports the use of repression and denial of reality. Human nature is both love and aggression, or at least I have seen absolutely no evidence that convinces me otherwise, of one and not the other. Or one without the other.

I not only don't believe in a god, as defined by most religions (religion meaning organized religion which postulates a human like god, a man (or woman) I also think it is a system of affect management that does not work as well as others. I believe in science. I choose "science" rather than "nature" because science is the study of nature, it is a system of thought about what is and is not likely to be natural.

By belief, JLNobody, I mean I believe it's "veracity is not challenged because of it's justificatory function." I believe it is the best system I have found so far for affect management and explanation of reality. As c.i. points out, science does not require any worship, rather an openness and searching for incongruities. It is a method, just as religion is. But I think it works better for many reasons. The one that comes to mind first is that belief in science/nature does not require the use of defense mechanisms which limit gratification beyond the necessary. It encourages functional defense mechanisms, such as study, sublimation and allows more humor, which is, of course another highly functional defense mechanism. So rather than requiring a denial of aggression, which so often, if not always, results in righteous indignation which leads to destructive, aggressive violence, science requires an mind open to the study of nature, which fosters an acceptance of all things natural.

Let me see if I can say this another way. Science does not view feelings as in need of control, but rather as a subject of study. And with understanding (a product of open minded study) comes an ability to decide how to manage behavior so that we get more of what we want with less negative side effects.

(And before someone points out that no one can be totally open minded -- the unconscious and all that, -- I will agree with them, but I will point out that there are degrees of open mindedness. And it is to this that I refer here. Not only are there degrees, but there are some systems which make a relatively large amount of open mindedness more likely or less likely to occur.)

So, in summary, I believe science is a superior method of influencing our world and of getting what we want from it. So by belief, I guess I've come around to saying, I mean a belief in the superior function of science over religion. It is the function I believe in. And I see no value added to this by calling the function "God". Enough for now. Must let go of this and send it out with the request that others please respond.

As it has turned out, science is a form of myth (based on logic), and your religion is "science", am I right by saying this?

I also believe there's great truth in the saying that there's very little difference between love and hate. At what juncture does love become hate? c.i.

When the casuality figures start coming in!

Sorry Satt
That qoute was right out of Websters Third International Dictionary unabridged.

Also, I fail to see your logical conclusion of triangles... Please explain.

If religion is defined as any system of thought. Then yes, we can say it's my religion. I do believe in the scientific method. Are you thinking of another definition of religion, satt?

Buddha keeps silence about this point, as, he says, the knowledge about the universe is irrelevant to the effort for the enlightenment.
And this attitude of Buddha proves that Buddhism is not a system of myth.

satt, I disagree with your axiom. What now?

Enlightenment is acceptance at its highest order. Sigh, I can only wish attainment at the lowest level - then I would consider my life a success!

Re: Sorry Satt

I am not critisizing your quote.


No one can see a triangle in its pure form, it exists in one's mind.
There is no such thing as the number "two" in the real world, it's in humans mind.

One must be reasonable in one's demands on life. For myself, all that I ask
is: (1) accurate information; (2) coherent knowledge; (3) deep understanding;
(4) infinite loving wisdom; (5) no more kidney stones, please.

6) My one and only till the end of time!