₦airaland Forum

Dewze:
The op says so.

And the op is true because?

Unbias:
That simply affirms my arguement- there is life after death. Physical death shuts down your entire body/system and not your soul/spirit.

Do they actually claim they saw allah? Pls share their ADE narations.

I believe you have a device to go look for the narratives.....and is subjective opinion all you need to conclude on an issue?...or are you only concerned with the ones that support your belief?

Dewze:
The op did not say God came from nothing. It said God has always existed, which means 'a state nothingness' has never existed. There has always been something and that something, who/what ever it is, is God.

Okay...And you know this how?

This is old news...the problem now is whether the higgs is really what has been detected as there is no shortage of quantum particles to account for the data...

Unbias:
I do know if you believe you have a soul. Your soul never dies. There are accounts of after life experience of people who died and rose up again. I believe there is life after death.

Really now?...so how do you reconcile the ADE of christians who saw "allah"?

Unbias:
If after death I discover God never existed, then I would have nothing to loose. That means I'm making a better bet on my belief than atheists.

If a God (Yaweh) exists as we believe, then don't expect any kind reward for not believing in him while you live.

How will you discover anything after death?....do dead people realise anything?

truthman2012:
Yes.

Haven't you seen mad people before? What do you think is controlling their will?

As far as anyone can tell they have mental problems due to unusual brain activity....

truthman2012:
I don't expect you to believe anything as an unbeliever (atheist).

So "demons" control people's will'?

plappville:
What about the Muslims that killed 17 people in revenge of Muhammad? Is this in the teaching of Islam? where does this madness came from?

If you follow world news you know am talking about the 7-10th of January cold blooded terror that took place in France. They killed people bacause Muhammad was caricatured. And killed 4 Jews and Police. Is this a teaching from the Koran? If no where comes this teaching? They were so proud to die for this. I read a Muslim here posted an article validating this action. WhaWhere comes this madness? I need an answer please.

Yes it is taught in the koran, specificly 4:89 and 9:5

I've read the entire bible too..

You can quote other believers all day long....it's the same faith you have that they did....so subjective opinions are all they have...
And to the second quote...lol..

Anas09:
The word pervassion, what does it mean pls? Does it apply only to sodomy? Pple, everything God created is to serve a purpose. The long part of the male organ is to be able to plundge deep into the female Ovary which lies deep inside the female. The female opening is to create access for the long thing to pass, so that Cain and Abel can walk the earth. What is the purpose of heading? Sex is for procreation. Heading is for what?

Pleasure

DieeDiee:
It was probably unintentional. Christians tend parrot what their pastor/brother/sister in the faith said. Often what they are parroting is faulty but they don't realise it because they are just looking for ways to confirm their beliefs no matter how absurd or faulty.

I initially thought he was mistaken but he tried to formulate things to account for it by changing what "naive" meant...

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

lastmessenger:
A Close observation shows that people want to hold on to what they want to hold on to.
To some God exist and they an give a thousand reasons and to some others there is no God.
But the mistake that some have made is the belief that what they know is better than what others know. This has made them see others as fools when in reality you can't say with certainty that you are not the real fool.
Don't ask me what I mean. You can ask me if God exist or not.

Did you realise that he lied in the op...
For a christian to bear false witness(violate his 9th commandment), just to make it seem like einstein believed in his idea of "god"

I'm focusing on creationism as practised by abrahamic religions.....my basis are;

-The Public Figures who make a profession of denial of doctrinal inconsistencies..

-The mandatory "statement of faith",an oat to pledge allegiance of being a creationist...

-The money directed at the cause of creationism to promote its ideals to unsuspecting victims... e.g gotquestion and gotanswers website,appear to be a christian website but are actually creationist apologetic sites..

-The mandated belief of ancient stories as fact by the figure heads e.g ken ham pushing his "worldwide flood beliefs"

-The formulation of apologetics to account for inconsistencies I.e change in the speed of light....
If you have any contributions or object to the op,you are free to respond...

I pity the future of Nigerian christians....

benalvino2:
all the link you provide none can prove evolution... there is no evidence all your beliefs as senseless theories like big bang and now evolution. hahaha

like I said, you're a troll...

benalvino2:
finally with the link you just post I can now see you believe any lie scientist tell you just because they are trying to prove we are not created by God but by chance.... lmao.... you are trying too hard.

Anything that goes against your fairy tales are ofcourse to you a "lie" so I'm not surprised....
You couldn't think of anything else having admitted common descent....
I'm guessing these sources lie too...and I didn't know fossils lied too..
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casineria
http://arrow.latrobe.edu.au:8080/vital/access/manager/Repository/latrobe:19649
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edaphosauridae
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14772019.2011.631042
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseidae
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinocephalia
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12052-009-0117-4
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pristerognathus
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/predinosaurreptiles/p/pristerognathus.htm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynognathus
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1971.tb02189.x/abstract;jsessionid=4CD43ED5C7DE31A9CF6C32A26169B1E0.f02t01
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multituberculata
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-4983.00185/abstract
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiadapis
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7452/full/nature12200.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fajpa.1330890409
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proconsul_(primate)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2F0047-2484(87)90062-5
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330340205/abstract

benalvino2:
stop liking your or sharing your own post. I asked you are question since when distant family or relative become evolution?

Since the term "common descent"....try understanding a topic before confusing yourself...

" it said distant family of crock... which means it is like a Dog and
wolf relationship

In your plea to quickly dismiss the topic(like an ardent creationist) you admitted your own folly...
And since you know dogs and wolves are related then you admit to the distant relatives of these
http://listverse.com/2012/09/28/10-distant-human-ancestors-and-relatives/

Slyfox55555 Your post above is an incoherent pile of ignorance....
For one, you don't even know what solipsism is and why you can't make absolutes from scientific theories...

You are unaware of the fact that science being "realism" cannot even say a single thing about "solipsism"....realism and solipsism are two sides of a coin..

No knowledge is ever absolute otherwise theories would be complete....
On the grounds that you think spotting oneself is "proof" for reality then I am sad to say that you have no knowledge of science...

Observations and demonstrations aren't what science is about but using the axiom of uniformitarianism to predict data backwards and forwards in time...

And the fact that something can't be falsified doesn't make it true....for instance can you falsify unicorns?

Moreover the moon revolving round the earth is a statement based on the likelihood of events....that is, it is most likely the moon will evolve round the earth like it usually does....now if I pose a question that would it revolve for an infinite amount of time you are forced to say-no,so the idea that the moon revolves round the earth would be untrue at a certain amount of time...

And when you compare that to my example of an absolute like "all bachelors are unmarried"....that statement doesn't change because those words are definitional....

Lets forward into the future....and if this future contains humans that are born in artificial wombs would your claim about male and female being needed to produce a human still be correct...
And in your plea to appear learned you keep showing your ignorance...The fact that 0 in mathematics represents nothing doesn't mean it's not still a number....


Modern usage
There are different words used for the number or concept of zero
depending on the context. For the simple notion of lacking, the
words nothing and none are often used.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(number)

You keep tap dancing around admitting that "0" is a digit used for "nothing"
And I'd like to correct this your below comment..

Nothing is not quantifiable - if it was, we will not call it nothing.
Infiniti is not quantifiable, if it was, we will not call it infiniti. The
idea that "nothing" can be quantified or measured is an invention by
scientist that want to support certain theories they adhere to.

I'd like to correct the bolded, the fact that "nothing" is commonly used by lay people to cite a state of non-existence says little about "nothing" being quantified.....take for example "chaos/disorder"...

In common terms "chaos/disorder" is a state of confusion, but in academic terms in mathematics chaos is;

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but
the approximate present does not approximately
determine the future.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Are you going to argue that they are using "chaos" wrongly because it doesn't refer to the common use of the term?

Or maybe lets take a look at physics, where "chaos/disorder" is
In thermodynamics, entropy is commonly associated with the
amount of order, disorder, or chaos in a thermodynamic system .
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder)

Doesn't it strike you as odd as to why something understood intuitively as "confusion"can be quantified?(I.e "chaos/disorder"is measured in joules/K)

In fact "total internal disorder" is synonymous to the term "equilibrium"....by your logic since the common term is "confusion" they're using it wrong right? Have you seen why I called you a dimwit?

The synonymous use of "total internal disorder" to "equilibrium" causes confusion for people like you... (since the regular term isn't what it's expressed to be)

" In the context of entropy, "perfect internal disorder" is
synonymous with "equilibrium", but since that definition is so far
different from the usual definition implied in normal speech, the use
of the term in science has caused a great deal of confusion and
misunderstanding."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder)

Anyhoo I'll leave you to your ignorance...

PastorAIO:
Bring it on!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMb00lz-IfE

I may not be able to continue on our above discussion because of technical difficulties...would continue probably later.
And the video below is called "This is not random" by Veritasium

PastorAIO:
Not unless I had the urge to protect my society. There is nothing to consider in human behaviour outside of our fundamental urges. 'Society' does not decide to ostracise certain people unless driven by urges to do so. Even Society can be seen as a product of a confluence of human urges. It is also possible for the majority of members of a society to experience urges against the society. That is what causes revolutions and anarchy. It's all part of the natural processes of history.

I'm not referring to a society as in a civilized populace but a group of similar individuals who band together because they are social creatures..
In short, I'm referring to a basal application of the term...

The tendency to value our kind is just another basic urge.

Exactly and it somewhat makes us evict any individual that poses a danger to us...

Of course we can have conflicting urges and this is what causes a) internal conflicts, and b) social and global conflicts.

Let's keep it concise here...I agree,but this topic has taken a course on its own already..

I can't figure out where you're going with this. Some people are drawn to their environment. Other people are more drawn to their inner world. Most people are somewhere inbetween. If you can't detach from the environment you'd be unable to day dream, you'd be unable to think abstractly, you'd be unable to form scientific theories, you'd be like an animal that can not step out of itself and consider it's life from an abstract perspective. In other words, you'd be sub-human. I don't think Religion is the cause of this. I think just being human is the reason for this.

I didn't claim religion is a cause of anything....I said,don't you agree that human curiosity that fuels religion,drives people into a state of dissociation?

PastorAIO:
Are you saying that your god is incapbale of making prognosis? Even humans can boast that if they have knowledge of all the factors they can predict every subsequent event.

An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

—Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities

There's a great educational video I can point you to on YouTube that gives a case that all probabilistic events may in fact be known....I'd like to see what you'd make of it..

PastorAIO:
Nope they're not. and furthermore the relative intensity of the various urges differ from person to person and that is what makes us individuals. Some people the urge to eat is stronger than the sex urge. Other people the sex urge is stronger. Their behaviours and personalities will thereby be different.

Exactly....I would also like to add that studies done have linked the expression of urges to hormonal,genetic,environmental factors and many more...

We don't 'try' anything. we are at the mercy of our urges, we don't choose them. they even define us. If you don't have the urge to cater for anyone's well being then your behaviour will reflect that and you might even be sociopathic.

I'm not saying we aren't at the mercy of our urges....I'm just saying we(as in most of us) try to better keep them in check in a society....say if you noticed someone was expressing sociopathic behaviour,wouldn't that prompt you to distance yourself from that person and alert others that can subdue the person?
My point of the analogy is to express how social creatures like ourselves value our kind over others...
The group evicts any member deemed dangerous to its existence..

I don't think the murderous fellow gives a flying poo about endangering your wellbeing.

And that is why we evict such people from the society...

I don't understand what you're saying here. Urges always involve 'reality' or rather the world of experience. I don't know of any urge to dissociate from reality. Maybe the urge to dissociate from Social responsibility. People can become loners or even hermits.

At first glance of the example below,there's no mechanism that urges one to do this...but put religion in the picture fueled by human curiosity and you have a match....or don't you agree that religion(most atleast) being fuelled by urges of curiosity leads one to dissociation in any sense...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociation_(psychology)

"the term dissociation describes a wide array of
experiences from mild detachment from immediate surroundings to
more severe detachment from physical and emotional experience.
The major characteristic of all dissociative phenomena involves a
detachment from reality, rather than a loss of reality as in psychosis."


Our curiosity afterall is an innate urge to understand the things around us...

slyfox5555:
davien



I was not defining science; Cha!

Whether you truly did isn't even the issue, it's your lack of understanding...

I made a mistake and used a wrong reference, I never denied it. Get over it Bros

Well I'm not exactly impressed by your knowledge nor feel as though I'm having an educated argument..

I forgot I was speaking with an atheist. So the reality we are in now can't be known if it's real or not abi? Take a gun, put a bullet in the chamber, point it to your head and press the trigger. If you are still in this reality, come back and tell me what you observed.

This is a fallacious view...the fact that people die tells us nothing about the reality we experience.
For all you know,you could be the only thing that exists and I may just be a computer program...can that be falsified?

Bros, the examples I gave you are not theories - they are absolutes. The moon revolves around the earth is not a theory.

theories aren't absolutes...we even have evidence that indicates the moon wasn't always there to begin with....so does it count as true when we can deduce it not always been there? so can your statement be true taking time into account? or can you only speak of the time you deduced the moon being there

Humans have two hands, two legs and a brain is not a theory.

Can you prove they aren't a simulation?

You can twist it however you want but there are absolutes in science - I have given you several examples but you insist on playing stupi.d. I find it hard to engage you moving forward

lol actually with or without science absolutes are only terms we know to be true because they are defined...for example
"All bachelors are unmarried" is an absolute because the terms are defined,I don't have to go and look for all bachelors to know they are unmarried...but in your example above I'd I find a human that doesn't have two hands, two legs, and a brain wouldn't that fly in the face of claiming it as absolute?

No one is denying that. However, to say there are no absolutes in science is to be dis-honest and this is exactly what you are doing.

And again you misunderstand simple concepts, absolutes of reality based on scientific theories are not known to always be true....this goes against uniformitarianism(a fundamental axiom if science)
" Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and
processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in
the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

Do you know what a truth statement is? I will give you an elementary example. You are a biological product between a male and female human being. Now, that statement is either scientifically 100% true or it isn't. If you can falsify it; then you can say it isn't. That is an example of the law of bio-genesis and in science there are very few exceptions to laws. So, this is one area where I can say I am 100% certain.

Really?could you negate the possibility of me being a computer program?
And are you certain that humans will forever be and was always a product of a male and female without the core assumption of uniformitarianism?

I was careful to mentioned the type of theology I was referring to. I spoke precisely of the Christian faith. You ignored that and navigated to Hinduism.

I cited Hinduism...

Irrelevant - honest people admit when they make mistakes. Something you should learn from

Admittance to mistakes is not a problem for me....it's just so amusing that you think science can prove what we experience is reality when it can't...I've been using solipsism all the while watch you try to combat the incomprehensible...

All this to prove whether you have a brain as a human-being is real or not? Bros, it's either humans have a brain or they don't. If we have brains (which all humans do) - we can confirm with 100% certainty that we do. If we don't we can also confirm that. Again, if the statement that humans have a brain is incorrect; you should be able to use scientific methods to falsify it. All you have done is talk crap.

All humans have brains right? Try to wiki anencephaly
" Anencephaly is the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull,
and scalp that occurs during embryonic development."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly
Now knowing not all humans are born with a brain and some only a brain stem would that statement be absolutely true?

Nope - zero is not nothing in math and it isn't defined as such. Zero is a value and the only real integer that can be positive or negative. In math, "nothing" is usually represented as null.

"In mathematics, the word null (from German null , "zero", which is
from Latin nullus, "none" [1] means of or related to having zero
members in a set or a value of zero . Sometimes the symbol ∅ is
used to distinguish "null" from 0."
And that symbol is used to to express elements with 0 defintive data..

I don't know where you did your math - you should try and re-visit it. The concept of nothing is not arbitrarily defined in math. And one of the reasons I love math is that it's specific and not arbitrary like the other sciences where they have to guess in certain situations. For example, 0 is a value in math. -10,000 is a value and they are not "nothing". The concept of "nothing" in math is captured as NULL. In latin, it means none. It is also commonly referred to as the NULL set where the set it defined by either elements you can assign values or no elements at all.

look above and below

Common notations for the empty set include "{}", "∅", and " ". The
latter two symbols were introduced by the Bourbaki group
(specifically André Weil ) in 1939, inspired by the letter Ø in the
Norwegian and Danish alphabets (and not related in any way to the
Greek letter Φ ).Other notations for the empty set include "Λ" and
"0".
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set

it seems you don't love math enough to know what it is
I bet you even believe that numbers can be used to determine the likelihood of specific post events and give you the "likely answer", care to test me on that?

You and I differ on what "nothing" means and we can debate it until the rocks grow legs and walk.

True on "nothing"don't know about rocks growing legs and walking

Another stupid statement . The definition of nothing is not arbitrary Bros whether it's made by Kruass, Einstein or whosoever. In science we have standards oh.

And those standards(which you are unaware of) prompt "nothing"to be quantified..

All you have done is measured light - that is what we do in science; we measure things, test things, experiment with things. We can't measure darkness so it doesn't exist!

It's true darkness doesn't exist,but because it can't be measured isn't the reason why it doesn't exist...would you say because we can't measure a single photon therefore photons don't exist?
note: photons make up light...

Cha - so you want to keep using the multi-verse old news mantra over and over again even after I made it clear that I made an error. If you were patient enough you would have read that I was referring to Cosmic microwave background as it related to inflation you so consistently talked about. Please read what I was referring to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/bridaineparnell/2014/06/24/higgs-boson-seems-to-prove-that-the-universe-doesnt-exist/

I did,again what's your point?

Theology is a science is subjective? Are you high? You are the same person that arbitrarily decides to believe what "nothing" is when it comes to the cosmos as when it compares to general science and you are here telling me I am subjective! Bros - go look in the mirror.

You can go back and reread the comment I addressed...
You said

theology is the queen of the sciences.

When we think of "science," we usually think of the study of the natural world and that which can be quantitatively measured—subjects such as biology and physics. Historically, though, of the “natural” sciences, only geometry and astronomy were part of the standard university curriculum. So what was a science? Augustine defined it as anything to do with knowledge of the temporal world. Thomas Aquinas considered theology a science because it encounters special and general revelation.

The tradition of Wissenschaft provides a bridge to our modern understanding of science. Wissenschaft was the ideology of learning in German universities during the 1800s. Within this system, a science is “a legitimate area of study oriented to a particular object, and possessing appropriate methods of investigation.” This is similar to the concept of “science” in the Medieval era, yet has endured into the 21st century. According to this definition, theology is a science with an object of study (God and His actions on earth) and a means for study (the Bible and general revelation).

So how is theology greater than science? (note: you claimed it was)...and has theology proven "god" exists or presuppose it does?

benalvino2:
the wiki link you gave me did not say crocodile under any kind of change... it says "Sarcosuchus (/ˌsɑrkɵˈsuːkəs/; meaning "flesh crocodile", is an extinct genus of crocodyliform and distant relative of the crocodile that lived 112 million years ago" it says they were [size=18pt]extinct[/size] not [size=18pt]evolved[/size]

it said distant family of crock... which means it is like a Dog and wolf relationship ... a lion and a pussycat relationship... and they are Extinct just like the dodo bird... the dodo bed and eagle are distant family too... you couldn't answer the question... you should have just said you don't know instead of to try and fool people.

wow! you really are a troll... so what does the first statement in the wiki mean biologically speaking " is an
extinct genus of crocodyliform and distant relative of the crocodile
that lived 112 million years ago. "
And if you accept dogs and wolves are from the same distant family...is that not by definition evolution by shared common ancestor?
You sir are a troll,and a dishonest one at that,it was even a folly to have entertained your question...if you're going to be willfully ignorant then so be it......knowledge scares the willfully ignorant.

wordcat:
You're too much my guy

U always know how to beat them in their own games.
I will neva regret knowing u.

What if I turn into a christian theist tomorrow?

anthoniosp:
Oga..the person am debating with believes that he is a creation of nature..of which he asks me..if I say God created the universe then who created God and I answer him "if you say nature created you, then who created the universe"......he said "biology and some things about energy and electrons and some other long long scientific stuff"...so I ask him "what created the socalled "energy"...

1st law of thermodynamics states,energy cannot be created or destroyed...

all4naija:
Many are just fanatics, even when you try to explain the reality of life to them they would want to prove they know better and have interacted with the supernatural God. That is the reason why I think they are miserable people.

Well I was once among that lot and its a pompous and emotionally rooted feeling....it felt humbling then but to review it now....I was pretty deluded,I even told an atheist that "god could regrow limbs"...

PastorAIO:
Thank you very much for this. Hence I made this statement earlier.



We don't 'know', we just believe with varying degrees of certainty. Or as Plato put it, all we have is the LIKELY STORY. and of course as our experiences change so does what we consider likely.



Hence my first response to your question on this thread.




Not 'varying degrees of accuracy'. I believe you mean to say varying degrees of certainty. Certainty however is also a psychological phenomenon. The certainty of most armchair scientists who feel very clever after reading a couple of popular science books is quite different from the certainty of a real scientists who has proposed very plausible theories before only to find them disproved under peer review. The sense of certainty that newbies have is often more intense than that of seasoned veterans. With experience, even if you've looked at a theory from every perspective and feel it is error proof there is always a sense of caution that you've missed something.



Let me address what I think you're getting at like this. After consciousness the next most fundamental experiences that we have are Urges. We are aware that we are subject to a whole range of urges and they drive our behaviour. We act in order to gratify these urges. The ontological status of the objects are secondary to the urges. So what if the world is an illusion? What is important is that we enjoy the illusion. What is important is that our urges are gratified. If I'm dreaming that I'm hungry and I get presented with a huge feast which I thoroughly enjoy then that enjoy is what matters, not whether or not the feast actually happened. If a buddhist says that the world is Maya (illusion) and we have to escape from the illusion, I say Why? I'm having a great time! I'm more concerned with how I can enjoy the illusion better. I want to live a rich full life, not escape from it because someone says it's an illusion. It's like watching a movie, you know the drama is not really happening but you still get involved, you immerse yourself in it and thoroughly enjoy it.

With this way of thinking objective reality only matters to the extent that it can impact our primary urges. I'm interested in studying society because I get a lot of gratification from my interactions with society, and if I get those interactions wrong I can suffer a lot of pain, maybe become a social outcast thereby frustrating my basic urge for social contact. etc

Food is objective reality. Hunger is an urge. I'm interested in Food.

What if I have an urge that is met by Divinity? That would explain my interest in it. Evangelicals have this saying that I hate very much. it goes something like: We have a God-shaped hole in our souls and only God can fill it.
I can't stand that saying but I guess it apt for this conversation right now.





I have certain urges that are met by the practice of religion.

But Wait! I said religion not God and that because I am not sure that what I mean by God is the same as what you or even other Theists call God. In fact I'm quite sure that what I call God is not the same with the 'god' of many of these fellows.

I agree with most but not all you have to say,and yes i did mean to "varying degrees of certainty"(thank you for correcting my mistake)...

Not all urges are equal...we try to go with urges that do not impede on anyone's wellbeing....and society as a whole...
Having urges met by killing people for instance is dangerous for you and my wellbeing...

And we also tend to psychologically re-evaluate urges that prompt people to disassociation themselves from reality by locking them up in asylums,provided evidence negates or goes contrary to it....
So they are stuck in this contorted belief that they refuse to let go or address the contradiction....a delusion is the term that best applies to this.

And is there a reliable pathway with which you can separate your "god" from the alleged rest you claim?

LordReed:
A funny question, similar to can one have definitive proof that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer and still choose to smoke tobacco.

Are you a theist?