Do you believe in God and why

[sirineou]

9 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, for some similar answers you accuse others of trolling you, i understand that these are difficult times, yet i have to say i'm a bit disappointed.

Honestly, what kind of answer do you expect for such drivel ?

Have a sense of humor. 

It was a IMO funny way of saying that you used too many IFs. all of which are debatable. 

What kind of Answer did I expect? An LOL would had safficed. 

[teatime101]

25 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Some people don't want to admit that there is a higher entity that is in charge of their lives

'a higher entity' is just another made up term, like 'spirit' and 'god'. They are all meaningless. terms, or I should say, can mean whatever you want them to mean, which is the same thing.

 

The problem with debates about religion vs science is mostly in defining terms. In science, terms must be precisely defined. In religion, there is no way to define key terms, because there is no way to actualise the things being referred to. It's all based on imagination and belief. This semantic vagueness leaves plenty of wiggle room for believers to avoid giving coherent explanations for the things they believe in.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Have a sense of humor. 

It was a IMO funny way of saying that you used too many IFs. all of which are debatable. 

What kind of Answer did I expect? An LOL would had safficed. 

Ok , good man, here is it for you LOL ????

[Walker88]

Folks are welcome to believe whatever they want, from virgin births to great floods to eternal life. Folks can select from Moroni, Shiva, Buddha, Jesus, White Jesus (the Talibangical one white non-Roman guy in the Middle East around the Year 0), Mohd, Bokonon, Zeus, whatever. Knock yourselves silly.

 

Just don't get in the way of science. Science has real work to do.

[fredwiggy]

11 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

AH, freddy, don't rely on the argument of 'millions of others' believe what you believe. That wouldn't win a high school debate.

 

Millions of people think Kim Kardashian is a talent.

 

Millions of people---actually, probably billions---absolutely were certain the Earth was flat. (Disclaimer:  it's not)

 

Collective ignorance does not equal truth.

Yes, and like I said, neither you or I have proven there is or isn't a God. I choose not to gamble with my soul. I love God and want to be with him and others in heaven. Talking down to others shows you're actually below them. Like everything else you've stated here,you heard it from someone else. That's why you quote others, which in effect, is kinda like me and the other millions believing there's a God, right? You called it collective ignorance. You have no evidence the universe was created from nothing. I have common sense, believing it couldn't happen that way. Science can explain a lot of things, but it never disproved God. And it never proved the universe just "happened"  Evolution sounds logical, until you think awhile. How do you know the world isn't flat? You learned from someone else. We have had manned space flights, at least that's what we've been told.  Otherwise you would also think the same. Faith, in whatever you choose to believe, isn't just brainwashed into you from birth. People can choose to believe in things for many reasons, and all don't involve "proof"I love science, and what others have achieved, but they will never compare to what was here before we were "created"

Edited May 4, 2020 by fredwiggy

[Peter Denis]

51 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

What irritates me most about the superstitions we collectively call religion is that Westerners in particular seem incapable of separating the comforting myth from a firm belief in science. 

...

A firm belief in science has become the 'new religion' of our time.

But there are also other ways of looking at reality than through a purely materialistic pair of spectacles.  Attached below the introduction of a book by Thorwald Dethlefsen.

 

OUR CENTURY's thinking is shaped by a world view which is called “scientific”. The adjective “scientific” has become a criterion by which we try to measure the correctness of a statement, a theory or a thought. All of us think in scientific categories even in areas which are not connected with science proper. We become, to a large extent, “believers in science”, without realizing that this term is self-contradictory.
Science seeks to penetrate by means of the intellect and to bring order into the manifold world of appearances by finding laws. To this end the scientist is continually advancing theories which attempt to define reality as precisely as possible.
Every theory, at the time of its formulation, is in itself a reflection of the level of consciousness of its authors. Through continued investigation, this level of consciousness also evolves and soon finds the earlier theory too restrictive; a new, more comprehensive theory becomes necessary. And so it goes on. This results in the inevitable law that mankind's consciousness in its continual expansion, sooner or later, outgrows every theory and must make room for new realizations. Today's truth is tomorrow's error.
One glance at the history of science confirms this statement. The history of science is the history of human errors. There is no reason to be ashamed about this, because everybody knows that one learns from one's mistakes. But the absurd thing is that each generation is absolutely  certain that errors were committed only in the past. Every age, therefore, believes itself to have  found the absolute and final truth and will not be shaken in this conviction. In this respect,  science commands a strength of faith that surpasses that of every religious sect:
The attitude towards those who, through fresh perceptions, challenge the “generally accepted truth” of the day, shows also surprising similarity with religious fanaticism. In fact, it is one of man's cardinal weaknesses to be fixed in his ideas and to defend his own viewpoint with all his might to the end of his days. When science takes a stand in this way it is of course going against its own (suspiciously) loud emphasis on objectivity.
Science originally set out to explore the visible external world. And it is in matter that the visible world is encountered. Accordingly science adapted its working methods to the requirements of matter. There is nothing wrong with that so long as the exploration is confined to matter alone. The results obtained are, at best, valid within matter. At this point, however, we come up against two fundamental errors, which permit us to voice doubts about science's claim to be the sole guardian of truth.
1 The working methods of science were designed for the exploration of matter, but today these methods are unconsciously extended to areas which do not necessarily related to matter.
2 The resulting situation leads to the assumption that one can only deal with matter. Only matter can be measured. There is nothing beyond matter.
This vicious circle can be broken only by recognizing the limitations of one's methods or else by meeting the non-material domain with adequate, non-scientific thinking. The time seems ripe for such a step, since everywhere voices are heard who do not wish to accept science's claim to be the sole representative of what is real.

~ Thorwald Dethlefsen - The Challenge of Fate

[Skeptic7]

8 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

Some believe that the universe was created in an explosion of sorts, that matter was created out of nothing. That in itself is impossible. I, like others who believe, know that there was a creator. There are many questions I would like to have answers for, from why children get cancer to why there are gnats around my head now,bothering the <deleted> out of me. To think we are still paying because Adam bit an apple that he wasn't supposed to seems ridiculous. A vengeful God perhaps, because even though he gave us free will and we sometimes pay for it, why do the innocents that believe in him suffer? This is a test ,of faith. If you know the Bible, you know about Job. God took everything away from him ,yet he still believed, so he was rewarded in the end. If we believe, we are promised a better life, forever with him and others, where pain and suffering is non existent, maybe where we can eat whatever we want and not worry, maybe we will have all of our animals that have died with us. Maybe I can fish for big bass and have huge deer in my yard. Life is supposed to be short, so we can have faith in what's coming after. If we choose to not believe in him, we will be sent to a place where there are no friends, no love and only sorrow. This is one reason I also believe. I want to see my family and friends that have passed before me, hoping they also believed. If you look at the fact that everything that is alive needs air,food and water to live. That the earth is exactly where it should be in relation to the sun, that the moon regulates tides so is necessary, the intricacies of the brain and how it works, to the detail of a fly's wing,the good tastes of food, that there are thousands of species of different animals,plants and insects. That shows that there was a creator, and this just didn't "happen". I want to meet Jesus, and talk with him. Yes, it seems there will be a waiting line, but maybe in heaven there isn't time like we know it now. If it's forever, we can all wait. I can finally learn to play my guitars,and I know there will be music. This is temporary,and we need to live the best we can, without hurting others intentionally. The worst thing one can do, the unpardonable sin, is turning your back on God, thinking he isn't necessary or there waiting for us.

Wow...nearly hit nearly all the logical fallacies and in only 1 post! Argument from ignorance, posteriori arugument, special pleading, wishful thinking among others. 

 

[Walker88]

53 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Since you're conveniently ignoring my previous questions, here is something for you.

 

Just because you don't understand that there is more to life than what you can see and touch, doesn't mean others are incapable too. 

Your ignorance in this field is second only to your arrogance in presenting "your reality" as the only reality.

[presenting "your reality" as the only reality.]

 

Is your real name Rudy Giuliani? ("truth isn't truth")

 

Or is it Kellyanne Conway? ("Alternative Facts")

 

Again, I quote Christopher Hitchens:

 

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

 

All the combined religions that ever existed have a sum total of zero evidence. Wishful thinking, illogic, and 'faith' is all they've got.

 

 

[Walker88]

15 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

A firm belief in science has become the 'new religion' of our time.

But there are also other ways of looking at reality than through a purely materialistic pair of spectacles.  Attached below the introduction of a book by Thorwald Dethlefsen.

 

OUR CENTURY's thinking is shaped by a world view which is called “scientific”. The adjective “scientific” has become a criterion by which we try to measure the correctness of a statement, a theory or a thought. All of us think in scientific categories even in areas which are not connected with science proper. We become, to a large extent, “believers in science”, without realizing that this term is self-contradictory.
Science seeks to penetrate by means of the intellect and to bring order into the manifold world of appearances by finding laws. To this end the scientist is continually advancing theories which attempt to define reality as precisely as possible.
Every theory, at the time of its formulation, is in itself a reflection of the level of consciousness of its authors. Through continued investigation, this level of consciousness also evolves and soon finds the earlier theory too restrictive; a new, more comprehensive theory becomes necessary. And so it goes on. This results in the inevitable law that mankind's consciousness in its continual expansion, sooner or later, outgrows every theory and must make room for new realizations. Today's truth is tomorrow's error.
One glance at the history of science confirms this statement. The history of science is the history of human errors. There is no reason to be ashamed about this, because everybody knows that one learns from one's mistakes. But the absurd thing is that each generation is absolutely  certain that errors were committed only in the past. Every age, therefore, believes itself to have  found the absolute and final truth and will not be shaken in this conviction. In this respect,  science commands a strength of faith that surpasses that of every religious sect:
The attitude towards those who, through fresh perceptions, challenge the “generally accepted truth” of the day, shows also surprising similarity with religious fanaticism. In fact, it is one of man's cardinal weaknesses to be fixed in his ideas and to defend his own viewpoint with all his might to the end of his days. When science takes a stand in this way it is of course going against its own (suspiciously) loud emphasis on objectivity.
Science originally set out to explore the visible external world. And it is in matter that the visible world is encountered. Accordingly science adapted its working methods to the requirements of matter. There is nothing wrong with that so long as the exploration is confined to matter alone. The results obtained are, at best, valid within matter. At this point, however, we come up against two fundamental errors, which permit us to voice doubts about science's claim to be the sole guardian of truth.
1 The working methods of science were designed for the exploration of matter, but today these methods are unconsciously extended to areas which do not necessarily related to matter.
2 The resulting situation leads to the assumption that one can only deal with matter. Only matter can be measured. There is nothing beyond matter.
This vicious circle can be broken only by recognizing the limitations of one's methods or else by meeting the non-material domain with adequate, non-scientific thinking. The time seems ripe for such a step, since everywhere voices are heard who do not wish to accept science's claim to be the sole representative of what is real.

~ Thorwald Dethlefsen - The Challenge of Fate

Dimestore 'philosophy'.

[fredwiggy]

Do you believe in God and why is the op. Arguing gets nowhere,as no one can prove anything either way. That's why we  as individuals choose faith. Believers believe in God. Others use science to explain everything. Who is right? I understand why others believe. Science can't explain everything,so there must be other reasons why some choose to think there is no God. What are the real reasons for this? Seeing a relative die too young from a stupid disease? Being abused at an early age from a parent that used God as an excuse to make you listen and learn? Listening to others who you respect because they may have been right about something you agreed with? Bad experience growing up being "religious"? Some have made a strong argument to disprove that there is a God. Why? Fear of being controlled? A lot have voted for Trump, who I believe is one of the worst presidents we've ever had. Some think he's the best. How in the hell they see this is beyond my imagination, yet they believe in him dearly.  It's called faith. Some have faith in God,in their hearts they know he is waiting for them as they are believers. Some choose to believe he doesn't exist. but we will all meet him someday. (the believers belief) Are you ready?

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, teatime101 said:

'a higher entity' is just another made up term, like 'spirit' and 'god'. They are all meaningless. terms, or I should say, can mean whatever you want them to mean, which is the same thing.

 

The problem with debates about religion vs science is mostly in defining terms. In science, terms must be precisely defined. In religion, there is no way to define key terms, because there is no way to actualise the things being referred to. It's all based on imagination and belief. This semantic vagueness leaves plenty of wiggle room for believers to avoid giving coherent explanations for the things they believe in.

And their in lays the crux of the problem. 

The question of this thread is "Do you believe in God and why "

and 509 pages later we have not even settled on and agreement of what god is. 

 

The Buddha had a good answer when asked the above question , as depicted in Gore Vidal's book "Creation" in a conversation between the Buddha and Darius ambassador to India.   

"My dear child , let as say you have been fighting in a battle.You have been struck by a poisoned arrow.You are in pain.You re feaverish, you fear death. I an a skilled surgeon,  You come to me. What will you ask me to do? 

"Take the arrow ou right a way. Right a way."

Would you not want to know who fired the Arrow? 

"I would be curious of course"

But would you want to know  before I took the arrow out, whether or not the archer was tall or short, a warrior or a slave?

"No But-"

Then that is all that the eightfold way can offer you.A freedom from the arrows pain, and an antidote to the poison that is the world.

 

 

Unpacking the above conversation could provide some answers to some. 

[CharlieH]

Off topic posts removed, this topic has nothing to do with Trump !

[Walker88]

32 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Yes, and like I said, neither you or I have proven there is or isn't a God. I choose not to gamble with my soul. I love God and want to be with him and others in heaven. Talking down to others shows you're actually below them. Like everything else you've stated here,you heard it from someone else. That's why you quote others, which in effect, is kinda like me and the other millions believing there's a God, right? You called it collective ignorance. You have no evidence the universe was created from nothing. I have common sense, believing it couldn't happen that way. Science can explain a lot of things, but it never disproved God. And it never proved the universe just "happened"  Evolution sounds logical, until you think awhile. How do you know the world isn't flat? You learned from someone else. We have had manned space flights, at least that's what we've been told.  Otherwise you would also think the same. Faith, in whatever you choose to believe, isn't just brainwashed into you from birth. People can choose to believe in things for many reasons, and all don't involve "proof"I love science, and what others have achieved, but they will never compare to what was here before we were "created"

My cousin Joey claims he created the Universe last week, and programmed all of us with memories of existence before last week. I cannot prove he's lying, so I guess I better not gamble my 'soul' and believe him.

 

As for your attempt to plagiarize Pascal's Wager, let me remind you that you have the added problem of not just believing or not believing, but deciding what god to follow. What if you choose a Christian god and you die and come face to face with Allah? No 72 virgins for you!  What if you choose Moroni but find out after passing it's Zeus? Those Greek gods were pretty vindictive. Look what they did to Prometheus.

 

Given there's been about 500 different gods proposed and followed since Oldavai Gorge, the odds of you 'gambling' on the right one is .2%.

 

Better you go to a racetrack and pick horse #6 in the 5th race.

[Walker88]

34 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Wow...nearly hit nearly all the logical fallacies and in only 1 post! Argument from ignorance, posteriori arugument, special pleading, wishful thinking among others. 

 

I don't know, I'm not a god, but if I were a god, I would hope I'd be a little more secure in my perfection that it wouldn't matter a lick to me if some obscure little collection of cells on one minor planet in a minor galaxy looked up to me and praised me. I would hope I'd be beyond that sort of thing.

[fredwiggy]

Just now, Walker88 said:

My cousin Joey claims he created the Universe last week, and programmed all of us with memories of existence before last week. I cannot prove he's lying, so I guess I better not gamble my 'soul' and believe him.

 

As for your attempt to plagiarize Pascal's Wager, let me remind you that you have the added problem of not just believing or not believing, but deciding what god to follow. What if you choose a Christian god and you die and come face to face with Allah? No 72 virgins for you!  What if you choose Moroni but find out after passing it's Zeus? Those Greek gods were pretty vindictive. Look what they did to Prometheus.

 

Given there's been about 500 different gods proposed and followed since Oldavai Gorge, the odds of you 'gambling' on the right one is .2%.

 

Better you go to a racetrack and pick horse #6 in the 5th race.

I don't have a problem .I follow the only God we have. You have the problem of trying to explain yourself to him when you die.

[CharlieH]

This has been posted in various places in this topic, but for the benefit of those joining it late.........

 

Discuss, debate the subject, not the poster and do not mock others beliefs.

 

Any attempt at Trolling others here for amusement will be met with a harsh response.

[giddyup]

1 minute ago, fredwiggy said:

I don't have a problem .I follow the only God we have. You have the problem of trying to explain yourself to him when you die.

Are you sure it's a him?

[fredwiggy]

I only go by Adam was the first man, and woman was created from his rib (so to speak). In the Bible it says that the man is the head of the family, that his wife is to follow his lead. I look at women as equals, but I'm still the head of the household. That is my reasoning, although he is God,and maybe there isn't a gender involved.

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

A firm belief in science has become the 'new religion' of our time.

But there are also other ways of looking at reality than through a purely materialistic pair of spectacles.  Attached below the introduction of a book by Thorwald Dethlefsen.

 

OUR CENTURY's thinking is shaped by a world view which is called “scientific”. The adjective “scientific” has become a criterion by which we try to measure the correctness of a statement, a theory or a thought. All of us think in scientific categories even in areas which are not connected with science proper. We become, to a large extent, “believers in science”, without realizing that this term is self-contradictory.
Science seeks to penetrate by means of the intellect and to bring order into the manifold world of appearances by finding laws. To this end the scientist is continually advancing theories which attempt to define reality as precisely as possible.
Every theory, at the time of its formulation, is in itself a reflection of the level of consciousness of its authors. Through continued investigation, this level of consciousness also evolves and soon finds the earlier theory too restrictive; a new, more comprehensive theory becomes necessary. And so it goes on. This results in the inevitable law that mankind's consciousness in its continual expansion, sooner or later, outgrows every theory and must make room for new realizations. Today's truth is tomorrow's error.
One glance at the history of science confirms this statement. The history of science is the history of human errors. There is no reason to be ashamed about this, because everybody knows that one learns from one's mistakes. But the absurd thing is that each generation is absolutely  certain that errors were committed only in the past. Every age, therefore, believes itself to have  found the absolute and final truth and will not be shaken in this conviction. In this respect,  science commands a strength of faith that surpasses that of every religious sect:
The attitude towards those who, through fresh perceptions, challenge the “generally accepted truth” of the day, shows also surprising similarity with religious fanaticism. In fact, it is one of man's cardinal weaknesses to be fixed in his ideas and to defend his own viewpoint with all his might to the end of his days. When science takes a stand in this way it is of course going against its own (suspiciously) loud emphasis on objectivity.
Science originally set out to explore the visible external world. And it is in matter that the visible world is encountered. Accordingly science adapted its working methods to the requirements of matter. There is nothing wrong with that so long as the exploration is confined to matter alone. The results obtained are, at best, valid within matter. At this point, however, we come up against two fundamental errors, which permit us to voice doubts about science's claim to be the sole guardian of truth.
1 The working methods of science were designed for the exploration of matter, but today these methods are unconsciously extended to areas which do not necessarily related to matter.
2 The resulting situation leads to the assumption that one can only deal with matter. Only matter can be measured. There is nothing beyond matter.
This vicious circle can be broken only by recognizing the limitations of one's methods or else by meeting the non-material domain with adequate, non-scientific thinking. The time seems ripe for such a step, since everywhere voices are heard who do not wish to accept science's claim to be the sole representative of what is real.

~ Thorwald Dethlefsen - The Challenge of Fate

And another triple hallelujah! ????????????

I've been saying the same thing for a year now, couldn't be bothered to start again. Thanks.

[teatime101]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

Through continued investigation, this level of consciousness also evolves and soon finds the earlier theory too restrictive;

OK, I will rephrase this ... ???? 

 

The writer makes some big, bold statements without explaining what or how this can be so...

 

1 hour ago, Walker88 said:

Dimestore 'philosophy'.

That works, too.

...

Science isn't defined by what it observes, eg. 'matter'. It examines whatever can be observed and seeks to give the most rigorous explanations possible.

 

Science appears to some to be 'materialistic' (aka empirical), but that's only because what is 'material' can be observed by everyone, not just the nutters and assorted believers in whatever.

Edited May 4, 2020 by teatime101

[teatime101]

On 12/22/2019 at 7:02 PM, sirineou said:

wish we did not make these small comments at the end of an argument such as "Try and get a grip  " and " Try to keep up and understand. " which adds an additional element . and distracts from the argument, putting one on a defencive posture.

Agree with this ^^^. If you can't answer the question, or debate the topic, why post at all? 

Edited May 4, 2020 by teatime101

[Sunmaster]

15 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

This is fanciful drivel dressed upon as wisdom...

 

That works, too.

This is simply a way to explain evolution, which can be your own evolution from a child to adolescent to adult, but also the evolution of society as a whole, not to speak of the evolution of other forms of living creatures.

You as an individual, go through certain stages of learning during your childhood, where moments of crisis take you from one level to the next. The higher level transcends and includes the previous one, and so you continue to grow into an adult. Unfortunately, many stop growing once they reach the materialistic view....but such is life.

Or take snakes or shrimps for example. Once they outgrow their old skin, they shed it off and form a new skin. The shedding is the moment of crisis and struggle. 

Or take society...old ways that were common and accepted for generations, suddenly go through a crisis point and then radically change into something that only a short time previously was unthinkable. See women's voting rights, see slavery, see apartheid in SA or racial discrimination in US universities... just to name a few more recent ones.

The same goes for scientific inquiries and theories. New discoveries lead to new and better methods of gathering data, which in turn may change an old paradigm. Science, I dearly hope so, is far from being settled and is in constant evolution, just like the people behind it.

Edited May 4, 2020 by Sunmaster

[teatime101]

36 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

One glance at the history of science confirms this statement. The history of science is the history of human errors. There is no reason to be ashamed about this, because everybody knows that one learns from one's mistakes. But the absurd thing is that each generation is absolutely  certain that errors were committed only in the past. Every age, therefore, believes itself to have  found the absolute and final truth and will not be shaken in this conviction. In this respect,  science commands a strength of faith that surpasses that of every religious sect:

Ok, this is absolute drivel. Sorry, it just has to be called out. 

 

[Sunmaster]

9 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

Ok, this is absolute drivel. Sorry, it just has to be called out. 

 

First of all check your quotes. I didn't write this (but I agree with it).

Second, care to explain why you think so? You must have a better explanation it seems. Too easy to just "call it out" without a follow up, don't you think?

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Sunmaster

[teatime101]

11 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

First of all check your quotes.

Yeah, fair enough.

 

11 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You must have a better explanation it seems

He's the one making the wild claims. If you can provide some context where HE supports these claims with evidence, I will try to address those.

 

19 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

Every age, therefore, believes itself to have  found the absolute and final truth and will not be shaken in this conviction. In this respect,  science commands a strength of faith that surpasses that of every religious sect:

This is nonsense - and offensive to every scientist alive today, that's if they're not laughing...

Edited May 4, 2020 by teatime101

[Sunmaster]

17 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

Yeah, fair enough.

 

He's the one making the wild claims. If you can provide some context where HE supports these claims with evidence, I can address those.

 

This is nonsense - and offensive to every scientist alive today, that's if they're not laughing...

So, you're just calling it nonsense while refusing to support your position. Aha....ok....

Edited May 4, 2020 by Sunmaster

[teatime101]

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorwald_Dethlefsen

 

He's a fruitcake. 

 

Dethlefsen learned astrology from Wolfgang Döbereiner and soon took the view that it could be used to carry out psychological diagnoses .

In the early 1970s, as a psychology student , Dethlefsen conducted hypnosis experiments to demonstrate the memories of supposed past lives among his friends and acquaintances. ^[1] After his psychology degree, he developed the reincarnation therapy , which to this day in various forms from other therapists will be applied, including by Ruediger Dahlke , but which broke up in 1989 by Dethlefsen.

 

5 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

So, you're just calling it nonsense while refuting to support your position.

Correct.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by teatime101

[CharlieH]

Flame post and response removed.

[Sunmaster]

25 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorwald_Dethlefsen

 

He's a fruitcake. 

 

Dethlefsen learned astrology from Wolfgang Döbereiner and soon took the view that it could be used to carry out psychological diagnoses .

In the early 1970s, as a psychology student , Dethlefsen conducted hypnosis experiments to demonstrate the memories of supposed past lives among his friends and acquaintances. ^[1] After his psychology degree, he developed the reincarnation therapy , which to this day in various forms from other therapists will be applied, including by Ruediger Dahlke , but which broke up in 1989 by Dethlefsen.

 

Correct.

 

 

This is just a cheap ad hominem attack and doesn't address the argument at all.
Please try again.

Edited May 4, 2020 by Sunmaster

[teatime101]

23 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Please try again.

Somebody posted a slab of text written by an astrologer who believes in reincarnation therapy, who then proceeds to make unsubstantiated and controversial claims about the discipline of science. 

 

I think you need to justify why his writing is being quoted at all. How does it support or challenge the OP's question about belief in god?

 

Or do you just generally agree with his attack on the whole area of science?

Edited May 4, 2020 by teatime101