# [MEGA] God v.2



## MynameisnotDeja

Now I'm wondering what amazing and spectacular fairy-unicorn-mermaid-dragon checking technology has been developed and tested recently. I must start watching the news!!! :D


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

LivingInTheMoment said:


> ......and most certainly you have proven to us over and over again, that YOU are certainly a bad idea in the P&S!



Keep the provocative comments to a minimum, plznthx. I hear your frustration, but don't fan the flames.


----------



## lostNfound

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Now I'm wondering what amazing and spectacular fairy-unicorn-mermaid-dragon checking technology has been developed and tested recently. I must start watching the news!!! :D



then yer doin it wrong, its not in the news its in the holly woods
fairies were debunked in this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119095/ 

but then again i like science fiction/fantasy


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

I'm a fairy.  *flies away*


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Apologies


----------



## Ryka

opy said:


> Ryka, I can tell you there are some things I experienced that I or nobody else can explain, but even after all this I am still hesitant to believe in god. I think there is a great power within us that science has not discovered yet, we are just far more complex than science can explain. Again one of my many hypothesis.



Opy I wasn't directing my thought at you sorry for the confusion...OP is orginal poster...I'm new here too and having a slow time translating the new terms 

Like MNIND what does QTF stand for.

opy I actually agree with your hypothesis, It's one of the ones I think about quite often...I believe in "energy" being a part of it as well.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Quoted for truth. Could also mean, QUITE FUCKING TRUE! :D


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> lol@ science & tech remark.
> 
> hey, let's measure radiation levels with a spatula! wow, no result. therefore radiation must not exist.



Except that all it would take is a video or any number of instruments to measure an object.  They must be invisible to cameras huh?  And resistent to thermal devices?  The only thing they can be measured by are a handful of people who are keen on making such claims.  Reminds me of the story of the dragon in the garage.


----------



## Enlitx

And the fairy thing is akin to alchemy.  It was purported to be true, and no one can prove 100% it wasn't, but there is very very unlikely that it was true.


----------



## opy

Ryka said:


> Opy I wasn't directing my thought at you sorry for the confusion...OP is orginal poster...I'm new here too and having a slow time translating the new terms
> 
> Like MNIND what does QTF stand for.
> 
> opy I actually agree with your hypothesis, It's one of the ones I think about quite often...I believe in "energy" being a part of it as well.



No problem I am kind of new here myself,


----------



## opy

Enlitx said:


> Except that all it would take is a video or any number of instruments to measure an object.  They must be invisible to cameras huh?  And resistent to thermal devices?  The only thing they can be measured by are a handful of people who are keen on making such claims.  Reminds me of the story of the dragon in the garage.



You couldn't have made that argument 300 years ago when there was no cameras or thermal devices. And what if a dragon is a cold blooded animal,  I guess it won't show on your thermal device, one might say it is resistant to it.


Entlix


> And the fairy thing is akin to alchemy. It was purported to be true, and no one can prove 100% it wasn't, but there is very very unlikely that it was true.



One of the beliefs of ancient alchemy was that you can turn different substances into gold, it was kind of a "magical"  and "fairy" stuff at that time. Not so nowadays, you can synthesize gold easily with a help of nuclear  physics.   

All I am saying is that there is a whole lot more things to discover for a human kind in a not so distant future.... give it another 500 years more or less


----------



## Enlitx

opy said:


> You couldn't have made that argument 300 years ago when there was no cameras or thermal devices. And what if a dragon is a cold blooded animal,  I guess it won't show on your thermal device, one might say it is resistant to it.



The point was that since absolutely nothing in this world can verify its existence, it probably is just someone's imagination.  At least that is how these kinds of claims have worked so far in our history.  




opy said:


> One of the beliefs of ancient alchemy was that you can turn different substances into gold, it was kind of a "magical"  and "fairy" stuff at that time. Not so nowadays, you can synthesize gold easily with a help of nuclear  physics.
> 
> All I am saying is that there is a whole lot more things to discover for a human kind in a not so distant future.... give it another 500 years more or less




Synthesize gold easily?  No.  I am not aware of any nuclear reactions that wind up with gold.  If there are, it would be such a tiny amount that it would not resemble anything close to alchemy.

My point being that with what we know about living organisms right now, the idea of a fairy or dragon just doesen't jive.  Our current understanding of biology and history suggests that they were just stories, like so many things at that time.


----------



## L2R

Enlitx said:


> Except that all it would take is a video or any number of instruments to measure an object.  They must be invisible to cameras huh?  And resistent to thermal devices?  The only thing they can be measured by are a handful of people who are keen on making such claims.  Reminds me of the story of the dragon in the garage.



If it were only so easy.

How can one film a premonition or a dream? The great majority of these kinds of things are like this. I'm confident that "Inexplicable" healing has been looked at very thoroughly, and if you look you'd find some unanswerable questions. If you are referring to telekinesis, i don't know how this is done and whether it can work as easily as winking an eye or twiddling a nose (i strongly doubt it). 

The only incident of such a kind i have witnessed was not an intentional one. My brother many years ago had severe temper problems and on one particular bad turn, he was walking (just walking) past my door, and a picture frame flew from my desk onto the floor as he passed. No, the picture was nowhere near the door and he wasn't causing any shaking in the solid brick home. 

Anyway, even if one could do this intentionally, have you considered that incredulous attention may adversely effect the ability to do such things? I'm sure you'll dismiss this as a "convenient cop out" excuse, but when you consider the possible mechanisms at play, which are (roughly speaking) physical manifestations on thoughts, the presence of a skeptic (and their thoughts) may easily counteract the manifestations themselves. 

Considering your approach to this subject throughout this thread, i highly doubt that should you ever witness blatant obvious evidence of such an occurrence, you would refuse to believe it anyway, rationalising that it is as a result of something completely "logical".

And i thought you said that you would drop the subject.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Stuff has moved on it's own around me before as well, a couple times during a moment of extreme emotion, but more often when I was doing some intense energy work. I can't say if I'm doing it or if some other sort of entity did it, but it's always freaky!

Things used to move on their own a lot in the house I lived with my ex. It was unpleasant.


----------



## lostNfound

Strange as it may sound, I rather enjoy this kind of experience whenever it has happened around me.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Yeah, its interesting. I don't mind it when it happens now because I'm pretty sure it's me doing it somehow. But there have been times before....

edit- haha I just remembered a funny one. Once me and my ex were in the kitchen making dinner and he opened the freezer. A light bulb just randomly came flying out of the freezer, flew across the room and crashed on the floor, busting everywhere. We both just sort of stood there, stunned, and looked at each other like, "Wait.. what?"

How the light bulb flew on its own wasn't as weird as the question of why a lightbulb was in the freezer in the first place. lol


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

When the "well" within the human being dries due to lack of awareness of its existance and hence use, *the person becomes barren and spititually dead. 
*
If we have covered over and cease to draw up into our consciousness what is contained in our inner depths, we become rational robots. "God" reality, is a metaphor and "Jesus" was trying to teach how to look within. Now I am not religious in a sense of man made religion, but this is how I translate it, and so did Jung and others, the bible for the most part is a metaphoric language of this kind.

Today, even more so needed in our society, for a way through life that will lead to a conscious awareness and of such intentions, in contrast to the merging of our individual identity with a collective organization, like the Church or some malignant state of a perhaps political formation, which finds that the outer shells of the personalities of many people conceal a hollowness, an emtiness long to be filled, and of a present agony that many experience. Churches unfortunately are concentrating exclusively on extraverted attitudes and ignoring the needs of the inner person. It is bereft of a living of an *inward directed religion,* where people in their desperation, turn to means of escaping fron their inner isolation, perhaps to drugs, alcohol, addictions, as a compulsive expression of an absence/sickness within! The less structure we have within ourselves the more we will desperately seek to find it ouside of ouselves!

There is a more personal and creative side of Christianity because of the discovery of the unconscious, of the reality of the inner world, which we are ordinarily unaware, but which greatly affects our conscious life, and which is *the most important religious fact today*. The realization that *conscious life is grounded upon our inner secret life which reveals its knowledge of the unconscious.* The reality of the inner world and *that conscious life is immersed in a sea of spititual reality.
*
There is *a realm of non physical reality that is experienced in nonsensory ways *. Reality is not exclusively in terms of what is known *through the senses*, or where human nature is defined in terms of *will or behavior*. *We experience both outer physical reality and inner spiritual reality*, and thinking of this as if mythology is very outdated way of thinking that is irrelevant in a scientific and enlightened era, and as if not anything ovjectively real.

This is *a materialistic view of human beings*, which *has been chanllenged by the discovery of the unconscious*. This inner reality is archetypal in nature and *it has a structure common to all human beings*. The unconscious is not only the basement of our minds into which we place the discarded material of our own lives, it is also the ocean out of which our conscious lives have sprung.
*
The extovert's center of interest and sense of personal identiy are found in the world outside of themselves.
The introvert's ultimately value what is taking place within and find that their chief interests and sense of identity lie in their inner world. Most people have one are more developed in the expense of the other.*

*****Without some dvelopment within, the life of the extravert, may be shallow.*

I was talking with an 96 year old scientist who was in a wheel chair for the last twenty years. He told me, of his inventions, of his articles and books he has written, and how refreshing it was to be able to talk to someone who understood, since where he is at the moment he has a lot of people with dementia around him, and unfortunately he has some form as well. 
He told me with anger, how his mother forced him all his childhood to go to church every weekend, and how he came to hate it. It made no sense to him as a scientist. No rationality behind it he said. No inner reality he insisted when I inquired if at least he could see it as a tool to go within. Non existant he argued....though with a smile. 

When I asked him *where he derives his inventions* and his writings, he looked at me perplexed. He had no answer! I asked him if his fantasy had any play in it, and if his inner life he insisted does not exist, layed a hand in it. 

He stood there looking at me. He came to reflect for a while, and though he tried to deny it over and over there was none, *he came to agree, that what I was saying had reasoning in it albeit he had to go into depth for this,* and yes, he agreed, there is an inner reality, where he draws from his fantasy especially more so at the moment write about the green creatures from out of space-though his inventions also had come from this. 

He came to agree after my persistence to think, could the weekend persistence of being guided to religion, have perhaps *given him the tool, with which to go within,* where he exercised the use of his creativity and fantasy? 

He had to think again and again, to come to say, I think that what you say, may after all have a validity. I had not being able to see any value at all of the religious irrational thinking before. So perhaps, I should stop being so angry at my mother for that.

Could some more of the scientists have also being missing the point of an inner life?

But religion is also passing these subliminal messages to the unconscious, and provide more then simply belonging to a group. Something which is as large as is life, connects us with that all human need of belonging and oneness-and a place to surrender!


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> If it were only so easy.
> 
> How can one film a premonition or a dream? The great majority of these kinds of things are like this. I'm confident that "Inexplicable" healing has been looked at very thoroughly, and if you look you'd find some unanswerable questions. If you are referring to telekinesis, i don't know how this is done and whether it can work as easily as winking an eye or twiddling a nose (i strongly doubt it).



I wasn't talking about premonitions or dreams.  You are confident that inexplicable healing has been explained thoroughly?  What are your credentials?  Because from where I am sitting, there is so much unknown about the cell that inexplicable healing can not possibly be explained thoroughly.  New proteins and their functions are being annotated all the time.  I am guessing you don't know how telekinesis is performed because no one knows, it doesen't happen.



Impacto Profundo said:


> The only incident of such a kind i have witnessed was not an intentional one. My brother many years ago had severe temper problems and on one particular bad turn, he was walking (just walking) past my door, and a picture frame flew from my desk onto the floor as he passed. No, the picture was nowhere near the door and he wasn't causing any shaking in the solid brick home.



Just like people swore they saw bigfoot, people swore they saw aliens over area 51, and people will swear things like this happen.  anecdotal evidence is the worst kind.  If it is happening as often as people on this board suggest, it should be pretty easy to confirm it somehow.  I'm afraid we are going to have to chalk it up to wishful thinking.



Impacto Profundo said:


> Anyway, even if one could do this intentionally, have you considered that incredulous attention may adversely effect the ability to do such things? I'm sure you'll dismiss this as a "convenient cop out" excuse, but when you consider the possible mechanisms at play, which are (roughly speaking) physical manifestations on thoughts, the presence of a skeptic (and their thoughts) may easily counteract the manifestations themselves.



I haven't considered this because the mechanism for telekinesis doesen't exist..  How could you possibly say that something might counteract it if you don't have a clue how it works in the first place?  That is like me saying that my happy energy is going to counterat the sad force in Tokyo today, a completely meaningless and arbitrary statement.



Impacto Profundo said:


> Considering your approach to this subject throughout this thread, i highly doubt that should you ever witness blatant obvious evidence of such an occurrence, you would refuse to believe it anyway, rationalising that it is as a result of something completely "logical".



Yes, educated people tend to find better explanations than superstition.



Impacto Profundo said:


> And i thought you said that you would drop the subject.



I did drop the past discussion.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> Just like people swore they saw bigfoot, people swore they saw aliens over area 51, and people will swear things like this happen. anecdotal evidence is the worst kind.



Why? Because it doesn't happen to you?

Sure there are liars out there, and people who make things up for attention, and there are also people who can be easily convinced they saw something when they really didn't, just to run with the crowd or for a variety of other reasons. 

And then there are the people who swear they saw something because they actually saw something. 



> I'm afraid we are going to have to chalk it up to wishful thinking.



*You *feel free to do that. "We" don't have to do anything.



> Yes, educated people tend to find better explanations than superstition.



It's these smug, passive aggressive comments from you that make me have a problem with you.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Why? Because it doesn't happen to you?



No, because it is a lot more likely that a person is crazy or experienced a random event rather than aoutlandish claims being true.  For example, a person once fell from a plain and lived because there was a current of air that negated his weight at the last second.  Now this person could say that falling with a cross of jesus invoked the powers of god to save him, but what happens when the next poor guy ges smashed to bits?   One subjective story hardly counts for anything. I understand why you so desperately cling to the idea that a personal story is good evidence, but it just doesen't make it so.



MynameisnotDeja said:


> Sure there are liars out there, and people who make things up for attention, and there are also people who can be easily convinced they saw something when they really didn't, just to run with the crowd or for a variety of other reasons.



And how are we supposed to know you don't fall under any of these categories.  Again, back to the anecdotal evidence thing...



MynameisnotDeja said:


> And then there are the people who swear they saw something because they actually saw something.



They might believe they actually saw something, but that doesen't mean they did.  




MynameisnotDeja said:


> *You *feel free to do that. "We" don't have to do anything.



Ok.



MynameisnotDeja said:


> It's these smug, passive aggressive comments from you that make me have a problem with you.



You haven't exactly been the picture of politeness.  it is funny watching your snide little remarks, all of you guys jumping on my back together (with all of the sarcastic comments), but then crying foul when you feelings are insulted in the least.  Please.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> I was talking with an 96 year old scientist who was in a wheel chair for the last twenty years. He told me, of his inventions, of his articles and books he has written, and how refreshing it was to be able to talk to someone who understood, since where he is at the moment he has a lot of people with dementia around him, and unfortunately he has some form as well.
> He told me with anger, how his mother forced him all his childhood to go to church every weekend, and how he came to hate it. It made no sense to him as a scientist. No rationality behind it he said. No inner reality he insisted when I inquired if at least he could see it as a tool to go within. Non existant he argued....though with a smile. When I asked him where he derives his inventions and his writings, he looked at me perplexed. He had no answer! I asked him if his fantacy had any play in it, and if his inner life he insisted does not exist, layed a hand in it. He stood there looking at me. He came to reflect for a while, and though he tried to deny it over and over there was none, he came to agree, that what I was saying had reasoning in it, and yes, he agreed, there is an inner reality, where he draws from his fantacy to at the moment write about the green creatures from out of space.
> He came to agree after my persistence to think, could the weekend persistence of being guided to religion, have perhaps given him the tool, with which to go within, where he exercised his phantasy? He had to think again and again, to come to say, I think that what you say, may after all have a validity. I had not being able to see any value at all of the religious irrational thinking before. So perhaps, I should stop being so angry at my mother for that.



Great little story, thanks.


----------



## lostNfound

The discussion between you two has ended here. It's no longer a discussionas I see.

Agree to disagree and move on maybe%)


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Great little story, thanks.



Lol, you must really hold a low bar for literature.  That story consisted of person A - rationalist , person B - "But where does imagination come from", person A - "You are right, I am going to change 96 years of thinking because you asked a question that was probably asked 1000 times in my life"

No witty punchline or sudden turn in story.

I mean, cmon.


----------



## lostNfound

Seriously, where do you get off?

Must you have the last word ever time!

The threads been derailed enough. Back on topic please.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

lostNfound said:


> The discussion between you two has ended here. It's no longer a discussionas I see.
> 
> Agree to disagree and move on maybe%)



If you're referring to me and Enlitx, no worries, I can't go around in circles with him anymore. I don't like that sort of negativity. He'll be ignored from my end from now on. I spent massive amounts of my energy trying to get him to see what I mean and if he doesn't want to, that's his deal. I want people to respect each others views but if they simply refuse to, then I have nothing else to say.

I'm thankful for this discussion though, in the end. It gave me some good ideas for my writing. So thanks Enlitx, for that..

And yes, back on topic. :D


----------



## Enlitx

lostNfound said:


> Seriously, where do you get off?
> 
> Must you have the last word ever time!
> 
> The threads been derailed enough. Back on topic please.



So you blame me when both of us have been doing the exact same thing?

Furthermore, you tell me what to do since you have issued the proclamation that I must cease my discussion.

Where do you get off?


----------



## lostNfound

There was no blame initially, I directed a comment at you both.
You chose to find a new reason to retaliate with a personal attack disagreeing why someone would appreciate another person sharing a story.
The discussion, ceased when both of you had nowhere further to go, you were only headbutting each other in the end.

I get off here actually.
Bye.


edit - if you have further issues nopt related to the topic you wish to discuss furher please use the pm function, thanks.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

On topic, a very good read which I feel describes my views on spirituality almost perfectly is the book "Eat Pray Love", I'm almost finished with it now and it's amazing. (cant remember if I mentioned it in here yet or not)


----------



## lostNfound

I have also read that, if you enjoy that you may like The Monk who sold his Fearrari.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Reading this book has been pretty amazing. This woman is a lot like me. The way she experienced awakening kundalini and described it very much like I would.. That alone made me connect to the book so much. Plus she's funny and sees things in such a similar way. I swear, reading this book I have to laugh hard and yell out "YEs! Oh my god yes!" every few pages when she points out some remarkable truth in just the way I would.

Thanks for the suggestion, I will check that out. Always looking for new stuff to read.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Actually I err MDAO-because when I posted a response to Enlitx's comment about some of the ideas in here being bad-responing to him that perhaps the idea of HIM being in P&S is bad, I was told to try not to fan the flame! I hope you can see MDAO that it did not need fanning the flame enlarges when you don't put it off early!!!!!

Every time Enlitx comes in a thread, prediction is right, he is in there just for the sake of ruining the thread. He has nothing else to project and get his anger in more useful posititve ways, so he comes in the P&S to post his smack comments.
If you do not believe in something don't try to attack it for the ones who believe out of personal experience, with the only stupid tool of"prove it with [[ science". We have repeated again and again that science is not the tool for this area, but over and over, his need for attention and desperation for involvement whichever way it comes, pulls him in here.

Please stop responding to his rediculous comments-cut out any response, he has proven he will not stop, his negativity is relentless!

Enlitx-*Get off your high horse cowboy!!*

Be more useful and go give some advise in the drug forums. Since you have said you have given drugs up, then good, go give some advise to the ones who need it. Your involvement is not wanted here!

*Having said all that, I apologize in advance to the mods.

*
==============================================================================================


******Quote:Enlitx:* (In response to my comments but the answer directed to someone else who gave a positive response![/B)

[[[ Lol, you must really hold a low bar for literature. That story consisted of person A - rationalist , person B - "But where does imagination come from", person A - "You are right, I am going to change 96 years of thinking because you asked a question that was probably asked 1000 times in my life"
No witty punchline or sudden turn in story.]]]   <<No, JUST your usual misconception of things, that don't agree with your misleading thinking!!  I did not place all the conversation that took place which validated what i am saying!!!!!!!!!!>>

I mean, cmon.]]]

>>>It was in response to his inventions that the conversation took place with him, and how he used his imagination to make his inventions+his writings of both scientific and science fiction.<<<

Now you are undermining and undervaluing a 96 year old scientist.]]] I must remember to tell him of your comments next time I see him, I am absolutely certain he will find you amusing-at the very least!!

=================================================================================================

Lost Nfound^^ As you say yourself, please don't come into a decent thread just to attack someone whom you don't like, ignore them.

I don't think enlitx is all bad, just has very different points of view to what may be the majority, if their posts seem to come across aggressively try to ignore it and if you find nothing the person posts worthy of valuable discussion do not respond, however, you may find something worthy to respond to once you get beyond what you don't like. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*****^^^^^ Lost&Found=It was the paragraph above to which I reacted towards, which he was in referance to me, but my Internet usage locked me out and had not time to add it!

He was offensive in an underhanded way when he commented this: That story consisted of person A - rationalist , person B - "But where does imagination come from"

He is well known for putting people down when they don't fit into his equation of "Science does not =phylosophical discussion".
He also does it so, in a cunning and underhanded way as well!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*


----------



## lostNfound

^^ As you say yourself, please don't come into a decent thread just to attack someone whom you don't like, ignore them.

I don't think enlitx is all bad, just has very different points of view to what may be the majority, if their posts seem to come across aggressively try to ignore it and if you find nothing the person posts worthy of valuable discussion do not respond, however, you may find something worthy to respond to once you get beyond what you don't like.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

I agree, there is no reason to respond like that Livinginthemoment. All this has gone on long enough, we have tried for 12+pages in multiple threads to reason with this person. If he just doesn't get it, he just doesn't get it. There's nothing we can do.

Do you know how to use the ignore feature? You can put him on ignore if you want.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

lostNfound said:


> ^^ As you say yourself, please don't come into a decent thread just to attack someone whom you don't like, ignore them.
> 
> I don't think enlitx is all bad, just has very different points of view to what may be the majority, if their posts seem to come across aggressively try to ignore it and if you find nothing the person posts worthy of valuable discussion do not respond, however, you may find something worthy to respond to once you get beyond what you don't like.


^^ It was the last paragraph I reacted towards, but my Internet usage locked me out and had not time to add it!
He was *offensive in an underhanded way* when he commented this: That story consisted of person A - rationalist ,(THE OLD SCIENTIST) *person B - "But where does imagination come from"* *(ME)*

*He is well known for putting people down when they don't fit into his equation of "Science does not =philosophy/discussion", because only this way he appears to look good by demeaning others and trying to get the upper hand. 
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*I will not put him on ignore, when he tries to put me down indirectly or not, with his scummy behavior! He attacks,  he gets attacked. 
......and no I don't think he is always bad-surely he is good when he is asleep! 

Others read his comments, which are attempts to discredit someone!!! 

Are you suggesting to lay down and let him walk all over our self esteem and run us down, and attempts to discredit us? 

I also studied and work in scientific environment-it does not affect my philosophical aspects like him-he appears unbalanced to me!

I don't go off like that, unless someone attacks me-underhandedly or not and this one does it as a job!! 
Especially when people don't know him and his pathetic attitude, and reading his degrading remarks and insinuations-or unable to see through these, and take what he says as IF true of the person he attempts to discredit!!!!* *
It has been going on continuously-endlessly!!
WHEN is enough-enough? One starts to become sensitized after a while, even if they are not to start with!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks*


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> He attacks, he gets attacked.



Hm... that's not a very productive attitude, IMO, but to each their own. I just don't see the point of arguing with him anymore. It's clearly not going anywhere.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Hm... that's not a very productive attitude, IMO, but to each their own. I just don't see the point of arguing with him anymore. It's clearly not going anywhere.


^^Hey, that is imposed upon people who have to continuously deal with such moronic behavior which has no end! Someone owes to stop him,        even if  that means to do just that! Attack him back!!

You have done that yourself many times over-you obviously refrained just recently, because you were advised to do so! This person is relentless! Ignoring him does not do it, he becomes more arrogant and is worse! He won't go away either!


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Stop him? We can't stop him. All we can do is ignore him until he goes away.


----------



## L2R

Enlitx said:


> I wasn't talking about premonitions or dreams.  You are confident that inexplicable healing has been explained thoroughly?  What are your credentials?


I said "looked at thoroughly". 



> I am guessing you don't know how telekinesis is performed because no one knows, it doesen't happen.



Why are you getting so hot and bothered over something you are merely guessing about? Witnessed phenomena trump each and every of your wild guesses. Wild absurd guesses which is what your entire argument is made up of. You assume you know of our experiences and you've demonstrated your complete ignorance on the topic throughout this thread. 



> Just like people swore they saw bigfoot, people swore they saw aliens over area 51, and people will swear things like this happen.  anecdotal evidence is the worst kind.  If it is happening as often as people on this board suggest, it should be pretty easy to confirm it somehow.  I'm afraid we are going to have to chalk it up to wishful thinking.



I was there. It happened before my waking eyes.  




> I haven't considered this because the mechanism for telekinesis doesen't exist..  How could you possibly say that something might counteract it if you don't have a clue how it works in the first place?  That is like me saying that my happy energy is going to counterat the sad force in Tokyo today, a completely meaningless and arbitrary statement.



Hardly. It's just greek to you since you have no idea what you are talking about. 



> Yes, educated people tend to find better explanations than superstition.



nice. how old are you?



> I did drop the past discussion.



This is the same discussion. 



Enlitx said:


> No, because it is a lot more likely that a person is crazy or experienced a random event rather than aoutlandish claims being true.



Quite the contrary, all of your dismissals are outlandish since you have not even pursued any investigative process prior to leaping to your conclusions. 



> One subjective story hardly counts for anything. I understand why you so desperately cling to the idea that a personal story is good evidence, but it just doesen't make it so.



No one here is trying to prove anything to you. How dumb do you have to be to still be to think this?




> They might believe they actually saw something, but that doesen't mean they did.



Of course they might not have seen anything. They also might have.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> No one here is trying to prove anything to you. How dumb do you have to be to still be to think this?



That's the difference with people like us. We trust ourselves enough to not need to prove anything to ourselves or others. Our experiences are the proof. A personal story might not be good evidence for someone who's never had such an experience, but that's their problem. It's all I need.


----------



## L2R

^well i, personally, need more than just my own experiences. i get the "more" i need when i talk to others and find how common these things can be. It may not make complete sense in ways, but it makes far more sense than to discount it entirely.


----------



## lostNfound

^Makes perfect sense


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Impacto Profundo said:


> ^well i, personally, need more than just my own experiences. i get the "more" i need when i talk to others and find how common these things can be. It may not make complete sense in ways, but it makes far more sense than to discount it entirely.



What I mean is, I include the experiences of others in the realm of "my experience."


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Pretty limiting to stay with your own experiences, and if others' experiences are different they are also accountable from a different view and when sharing them one learns and expands on the knowledge they aquired from their own experience of the same aspect. Tried and true and expanding awareness on the issue on hand!


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

^hey, we posted on at the same second, you beat me by a millisecond!


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

lol, yeah I use very broad language because thats the way I see thing. I consider any bit of information that comes my way a part of my experience in life.


----------



## L2R

^fair enough. Just be careful as to how you are being heard/understood.


----------



## straycatphizzle

I believe in entities of all sorts.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

I have decided to stop posting here anyway. I explain myself over and over as clearly as I possibly know how.. and it still gets nowhere and people don't understand any more than they ever did. It seems like the people who get it already get it and the people who aren't open to it wont be open to it until they are ready. It makes me question what the point of attempting to communicate to people is at all. It's incredibly draining. 

So yeah, it's been fun but I wont be back around here much anymore...


----------



## yougene

^I'm surprised this thread has lasted as long as it did.

I think P&S can turn into a toxic environment quickly.  It's where all the culture wars happen and people feel like they are trying to reach some sort of goal out of the discussion.
I like those sorts of discussions from time to time.  People are quick to point out my blind spots and biases and I appreciate that from them.  Even if they are "fighting" me.  But I usually bow out if I feel like they are going to be draining.

Discussion in here doesn't have to be making a point.  It's worthwhile to just share and listen.  A more feminine orientation.  Most threads in here turn into making points and competition


----------



## L2R

^wanna fight about it?  


yeah i agree. i can't count how many times i was put off by P&S (or formerly T&A) enough to avoid the place for a while. Hatemongerers and people who talk with their eyes closed really grate my nerve.


----------



## ILOVETORELAX

i am a belliver of god, i go to the salvation army, but that dont make me a good guy.


----------



## opy

Enlitx 
"Synthesize gold easily? No. I am not aware of any nuclear reactions that wind up with gold. If there are, it would be such a tiny amount that it would not resemble anything close to alchemy."
do you even read what you are writing?


----------



## Psychonautical

Yes, i believe in a deity 
but i believe we are all part of that deity.

The "evil" is the material world you see before you.
We are all born into this material world out of the psychedelic "silk"
we are cut from.


----------



## FrostyMcFailure

theres no need to be a doosch bag guys.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

yougene said:


> ^I'm surprised this thread has lasted as long as it did.
> 
> I think P&S can turn into a toxic environment quickly.  It's where all the culture wars happen and people feel like they are trying to reach some sort of goal out of the discussion.
> I like those sorts of discussions from time to time.  People are quick to point out my blind spots and biases and I appreciate that from them.  Even if they are "fighting" me.  But I usually bow out if I feel like they are going to be draining.
> 
> Discussion in here doesn't have to be making a point.  It's worthwhile to just share and listen.  A more feminine orientation.  Most threads in here turn into making points and competition



I relate completely, yougene. I don't come here to get adversarial, I mostly come to get different perspectives on things.


----------



## yougene

Impacto Profundo said:


> ^wanna fight about it?



Bring it!


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> I said "looked at thoroughly".



Again, how do you know they have been looked at thoroughly?  New scientific discoveries are being made every day.  I would counter that these paranormal claims have been looked at extensively, and have been found wanting every time.



Impacto Profundo said:


> Why are you getting so hot and bothered over something you are merely guessing about? Witnessed phenomena trump each and every of your wild guesses. Wild absurd guesses which is what your entire argument is made up of. You assume you know of our experiences and you've demonstrated your complete ignorance on the topic throughout this thread.



Hot and bothered?  No, I don't really see how you got that from my statement that there is no mechanistic explanation for telekinesis.  I am not making wild and absurd guesses when I state that anecdotal evidence is the worst kind of evidence, and that when it comes to the claims in this thread there are much more likely explanations than the ones you guys are throwing around.



Impacto Profundo said:


> I was there. It happened before my waking eyes.



That was the whole point of my statement.  People say all kinds of demonstrably false stuff happened right before there eyes.  The brain often plays tricks on you.  



Impacto Profundo said:


> Hardly. It's just greek to you since you have no idea what you are talking about.



Just because I believe there are better explanations than mystical ones doesen't mean I don't know what I am talking about.  I don't have to be schizophrenic to understand that schizophrenia is a disorder and not a connection to a higher plain of existence.  Again, how could you possibly say what might affect something if you don't have a mechanism to explain how it works.  You still haven't answered the question.



Impacto Profundo said:


> nice. how old are you?



My age has nothing to do with it.  Statistics have shown that as education increases, belief in paranormal or supernatural explanations decreases.  As society advanced in science, there was less supernatual explanation for natural events and more scientific ones.  For example, rainbows being a product of light interactions instead of being placed there by god.  



Impacto Profundo said:


> This is the same discussion.



Well, I did not respond to the posts previous to the point of me saying I would drop it.  I am simply responding to posts that are directed towards me.



Impacto Profundo said:


> Quite the contrary, all of your dismissals are outlandish since you have not even pursued any investigative process prior to leaping to your conclusions.



No, I have, I just don't come up with the same conclusion as you.



Impacto Profundo said:


> No one here is trying to prove anything to you. How dumb do you have to be to still be to think this?



People have said over and over again that their experiences are real (in the objective sense), I am just challenging that assertion.  




Impacto Profundo said:


> Of course they might not have seen anything. They also might have.




I am asking for good reasons why they might have actually seen some of the things they claimed, not just the assertion that they did.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> That's the difference with people like us. We trust ourselves enough to not need to prove anything to ourselves or others. Our experiences are the proof. A personal story might not be good evidence for someone who's never had such an experience, but that's their problem. It's all I need.



People who trust their personal experiences are the reason we have so many competing religions and claims of absolute knowledge, many of which are mutually exclusive.  That is why there needs to be a better way to determine truth other than anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Jamshyd

yougene said:


> ^I'm surprised this thread has lasted as long as it did.
> 
> I think P&S can turn into a toxic environment quickly.  It's where all the culture wars happen and people feel like they are trying to reach some sort of goal out of the discussion.
> I like those sorts of discussions from time to time.  People are quick to point out my blind spots and biases and I appreciate that from them.  Even if they are "fighting" me.  But I usually bow out if I feel like they are going to be draining.
> 
> Discussion in here doesn't have to be making a point.  It's worthwhile to just share and listen.  A more feminine orientation.  Most threads in here turn into making points and competition



I personally have no interest in debating anything unless mutual-understanding is the goal. If the goal is to prove that one side is right and the other is wrong, I step away.

Hence my not even clicking on this thread until this moment . 

I have no interest in discussing the word 'god' with people I don't know enough to trust that their intentions are love-driven.

Now, you do have a point about discussions of this nature turning toxic, and this shall be noted (administratively, that is).


----------



## Enlitx

I am not one to sit here and complain about how I am being treated, I can take it.  Anyways, I believe that ideas should be open to attack to further sound theories as opposed to bad ones.

I do have a problem with being warned by a mod when calling the belief in peter pan idiotic when I am being called moronic, dumb, etc... by many posters, including moderators of other forums.  I think there needs to be a level playing field here.


----------



## beamers

Welcome to bluelight and you'd better get used to this kind of treatment.


----------



## beamers

Just to jump in here, a common argument I hear on this forum for the existence of god is to appeal to the apparent existence of mystical, abstract concepts like: love, imagination, consciousness, memory and emotion......and at first glance it's a great argument right?
To you I would point out this, we are only at the beginning of our enlightenment and we may very well soon derive the mechanistic and physical processes that bring rise to these phenomena.

Drugs bring us closer to answers in regards to these things.......
Just think:

ecstasy and oxytocin induce love states
general anesthetics short circuit and negate consciousness, LSD heightens consciousness
"smart" drugs improve memory and electroshock therapy disrupts memories
LSD heightens imagination - some of the world's greatest artists had their imagination driven by drugs (Dali).
antidepressants and mood stabilisers can control emotions

You see all of these supposed mystical concepts react to physical chemicals in a predictable manner. Does it not follow then that these concepts are themselves rooted somewhere in the physical sciences? We just need to look harder and the answers will become clear. Religion's answers to these questions stop intellectual debate and progression of the sciences. When in reality truth is stranger than the fictional reality religion provides.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

(( Religion's answers to these questions *stop intellectual debate and progression of the sciences.* When in reality truth is stranger than the fictional reality *religion provides*. ))

*>>Please for a science debate go to another thread-do not mock religion-for many it has deep value and meaning, it has its own reality outside of science! You are trying to fit a sqare peg in a round hole!* 

When studying science they get you to cure any religious beliefs, and hence become unbalanced.
Religion in not say....man made religion, but inner spiritualism, which comes from the right side of your brain. Unbalanced as in using only the left side as required in science.


----------



## Enlitx

LivingInTheMoment said:


> When studying science they get you to cure any religious beliefs, and hence become unbalanced.



It is not unbalanced to hold no religous beliefs.  In fact, I would say it is a much more balanced and rational approach to this world.


----------



## Enlitx

beamers said:


> Welcome to bluelight and you'd better get used to this kind of treatment.



I don't mind that kind of treatment, I am not overly sensitive to what strangers have to say about me or my ideas.  I am quite confident in what I believe, thus I don't become personally offended when my ideas are attacked.

I just can't stand the hypocrisy of everyone whining about their beliefs being disrespected only to turn around and do worse to me.  Especially since I received a warning and constant lectures from MyDoorsAreOpen, yet he has remained silent when people who agree with his viewpoints do the same thing.  I just think it shows a lack of integrity on the mods part.


----------



## Enlitx

beamers said:


> Just to jump in here, a common argument I hear on this forum for the existence of god is to appeal to the apparent existence of mystical, abstract concepts like: love, imagination, consciousness, memory and emotion......and at first glance it's a great argument right?
> To you I would point out this, we are only at the beginning of our enlightenment and we may very well soon derive the mechanistic and physical processes that bring rise to these phenomena.
> 
> Drugs bring us closer to answers in regards to these things.......
> Just think:
> 
> ecstasy and oxytocin induce love states
> general anesthetics short circuit and negate consciousness, LSD heightens consciousness
> "smart" drugs improve memory and electroshock therapy disrupts memories
> LSD heightens imagination - some of the world's greatest artists had their imagination driven by drugs (Dali).
> antidepressants and mood stabilisers can control emotions
> 
> You see all of these supposed mystical concepts react to physical chemicals in a predictable manner. Does it not follow then that these concepts are themselves rooted somewhere in the physical sciences? We just need to look harder and the answers will become clear. Religion's answers to these questions stop intellectual debate and progression of the sciences. When in reality truth is stranger than the fictional reality religion provides.



Yep, as the saying goes, religion lives in the margins of science.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Done worse to you, ONLY because you do it to others first, and you are relentless at it!

You just said it>*STRANGERS*<unfortunately that is your problem here, you can attack strangers' and their ideas since you do and you will consider them *STRANGERS-*not people you come to interact and hence get to know and respect no matter what! Why come to *berade strangers*, if you have friends, go converse with them?
I have come to respect the people in this forum, and since i have being interacting with them, I have come to also feel certain of them as friends and respect them and do not view them as strangers as you claim us to be.

You enjoy being argumentative and adversarial-so you find pleasure in coming here to do this, but I also believe since you deny your right and philosophical side, you are an extremely lonely individual and come here to rub some sensitivity from others, and in the attempt-try to kill it in the others. One only appreciates ideas coming from the feminine side of the brain-if they can relate to it-which is of their sensitivity-if they have it and draw upon it. 

Hmmm, every time you come to reintroduce your criticisms of other's ideas, some one you rely upon for support comes first for you to feel supported. beamers???

Read on top of the page>it is called:*Phylosophy and Spirituality*>I take it you have none to relate!


----------



## Enlitx

LivingInTheMoment said:


> Done worse to you, ONLY because you do it to others first, and you are relentless at it!



Personally, I don't care what you call me or say about my ideas.  Like I have said, I am quite confident in them.  I just think whatever standard is being employed by the mods should apply to everyone, not just me.  I really don't want to spend much more time talking about it though, I was just trying to point something out to the mods to improve the consistency of this board.



LivingInTheMoment said:


> You just said it>STRANGERS<unfortunately that is your problem here, you can attack strangers' and their ideas since you do and you will consider them STRANGERS-not people you come to interact and hence get to know and respect no matter what! Why come to berade strangers, if you have friends, go converse with them?



Respect is earned, not given indiscriminantly.  I come to this board to discuss ideas, you can come to make friends if you want, it is a free country.



LivingInTheMoment said:


> You enjoy being argumentative and adversarial-so you find pleasure in coming here to do this, but I also believe since you deny your right and philosophical side, you are an extremely lonely individual and come here to rub some sensitivity from others, and in the attempt-try to kill it in the others. One only appreciates ideas coming from the feminine side of the brain-if they can relate to it-which is of their sensitivity-if they have it and draw upon it.



I guess you can assume whatever you want about me.  



LivingInTheMoment said:


> Hmmm, every time you come to reintroduce your criticisms of other's ideas, some one you rely upon for support comes first for you to feel supported. beamers???



Lol, come on now, I don't garner near the support that you do %).

It seems like you are taking this all way too personally.  It is almost as if I stole a friend from you during lunch break or something.  Some people will agree with me, some with you.  Just talk about the ideas and stop worrying about all of the other stuff.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

>I don't care what you call me or say about my ideas.I am quite confident in them.

*>>So are we, and at least our ideas relate to the thread-so where is this gona go? It has turned into a tit for tat! You come to disprove our sense of spiritual attunement!
Are you trying to change us, since you are not giving up in letting us be with our philosophical and spiritual fullfillment?
*
>whatever standard is being employed by the mods should apply to everyone, not just me. 

*>>Perhaps the way you come here attacking as if nothing else besides science exists and the way you keep going about it, is the reason, and since this is a spirituality forum how do your ideas FIT in it? There is nothing gracious or noble about your way you go about it! Nor balance, since you don't believe in anything besides science, though the subject may not relate to science. There is emptiness when you can't relate to other forms of existence. You don't fit in it if you don't accept it, and this you prove over and over. 

*
>Respect is earned, not given indiscriminantly.*<<<Look in the mirror-Now you start talking! I Agree!*

>I come to this board to discuss ideas, you can come to make friends<*<<<Well, I and all the others here have friends in their life around them. However, friends are made everywhere where we come to interact-though in a different form. *
It seems you have no other stimulation in your life! *It is of no surprise*, you are not here to be a friend or friendly nor make friends of a different kind-for you won't with such attitude-it is abrasive!

*>I guess you can assume whatever you want about me.<<<No I don't assume, you give out  the reasons for the conclusions on a continuous basis!*


----------



## ThaiDie4

You know *Enlitx*, I agree with a lot of the things you are saying, seeing as how I am not religious either. But I think there is an important thing that we have to remember (and I don't mean this specifically toward you, but to all atheists\whatever in general):

Religion and spirituality is very important to some people. Even though to me the idea of Jesus, for example, is very unbelievable, I know that to others he is very real. My grandmother is an avid Christian and although it's hard for me to identify with that, she truely 100% believes in all that stuff and its evident in every action she takes. People live their lives by the God(s)\deities\etc. that they follow- and to attempt to de-bunk someones entire lifestyle can be very upsetting to them. Even though I know that Deja and LivingInTheMoment and others on here stand confident in their beliefs, I'm sure it is still unpleasent to have a person challenging what they believe on a personal level. Yes, I understand that we are not all here just to agree with everyone, but I think adopting the open-minded viewpoint regardling religions works best for threads of this sort. Like *Jamshyd* said, the whole "I'm right, you're wrong" viewpoint turns these discussions into something toxic (no matter which side you are coming from).

On the other hand, I think light debates and discussions can be fun and insightful. And I agree that there has to be a two-way street about respect. I'm not saying anything about a specific individual(s) because it's not really my business and I don't want to start an argument with anyone, but I feel like some comments to Entilx have been a bit bully-ish considering he is basically standing alone on his side. On the other hand, based on my above comments I know that people can get very pissed off when they feel that someone doesn't respect their beliefs.

I don't know, I don't post much in here anymore because it's hard as an athiest to express your viewpoint and not look like an asshole. I think religion and spirtuality is very interesting from a psychological viewpoint (what makes some people religious and not others? how do different people interpret different "supernatural" events? etc.) so I like to come in here and lurk. But I just thought I'd make a post regarding this because I don't like to see fighting!


----------



## karruters

i believe in a semiconscious divine that controls the universe. it's in all of us. it's nature. we are divine manifest.

i'm a little late in the argument, but i have to say... disrespect christian beliefs! the christian gave us a broken society.


----------



## beamers

> Perhaps the way you come here attacking as if nothing else besides science exists



Well prove him wrong, if it exists then it is scientific by definition, e.g. if revelations came true in all its blood and gore then christianity would cease to be a religion and it would become the science of christianity, because it was actually true. However this remains to be seen.



> Especially since I received a warning and constant lectures from MyDoorsAreOpen, yet he has remained silent when people who agree with his viewpoints do the same thing. I just think it shows a lack of integrity on the mods part.



You should go over to SLR then and check out the mysandry that is ingrained in the forum that prides itself on fairness and equality.

On the topic of "fighting", if you can't explain your beliefs etc... then you have no place expressing them in a public forum, expect to defend your beliefs. I can and do.



> i believe in a semiconscious divine that controls the universe. it's in all of us. it's nature. we are divine manifest.



That's quite a vacuous statement. You might as well just say, god is everywhere and no where at the same time.


----------



## karruters

yeah that. i guess. mostly without the nowhere. god is existence itself.

pantheism. i'm a pantheist.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

QUOTE:Beamers>>((( Well prove him wrong, *if it exists then it is scientific by definition, e.g. if revelations came true in all its blood and gore then christianity would cease to be a religion and it would become the science of christianity, because it was actually true. However this remains to be seen.))) 

^^
(LOL ) Smart ass!

>It can not be proven! That occurs in science, everything else is felt or experienced!


================================================================================================

>>>(( Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent.
It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction.
(Albert Einstein)))

=============================================================================================

>>>>I am not on organized religion, I believe in the concept of  inner spirituality/Consciousness. So when someone mentions the word religion, even myself, I instantly think of consciousness/spirituality of this inner realm.

There is science on this, and it is the bridge of science and spirituality.

David Bohm's "Implicate Order", of an underlying unity behind all the various seemingly separate things we see. His views fit in with long time western esoteric views on holism, which also bridge the gap between western and eastern philosophy, mysticism and science.
The underlying unity of everything as an ordered whole.

((Explicate order: The phenomena in the universe that can be seen and measured.
Holism: The view that things can be best understood in their context - ultimately as part of the whole universe.)) 

Bohm proposed that our four dimensional space-time continuum model of the universe was only part of the story, and that these dimensions constitute what he called the `explicate order'. This explicate order is constantly unfolding, based on the information contained in a reality of higher dimensions, which he called the `implicate order'. 
Sounds like mysticism? This is frontier physics

Quantum Physics

The wholeness of Bohm's work 

cybernetics

Heisenberg uncertainty principle

Supersymmetry suggests more dimensions than we are aware

etc., etc., etc.,*


----------



## L2R

enlitx said:
			
		

> I just can't stand the hypocrisy of everyone whining about their beliefs being disrespected only to turn around and do worse to me. Especially since I received a warning and constant lectures from MyDoorsAreOpen, yet he has remained silent when people who agree with his viewpoints do the same thing. I just think it shows a lack of integrity on the mods part.



Cry me a river. No one else here is treating you with anywhere near as much disrespect as you constantly have shown others. If you don't like how the majority here discuss things, then you know where the door is. 

Your crusade is as pathetic as that idiot Richard Dawkins'. Sure he's brilliant in his field and i have enjoyed his books on evolution, but as soon as he overstepped his bounds and started talking about religion, he has really displayed his complete lack of understanding on the matter. 

Stick to what you know. Neither of you have any idea on the matter being discussed in this thread. The schizophrenic analogy you spurt doesn't fly as that is a very different situation. 



beamers said:


> Well prove him wrong, if it exists then it is scientific by definition



This statement is absurd or your definitions are wrong/incomplete. 



> On the topic of "fighting", if you can't explain your beliefs etc... then you have no place expressing them in a public forum, expect to defend your beliefs. I can and do.



Not all things are explainable. 




> You might as well just say, god is everywhere and no where at the same time.



Indeed. This statement can make more sense than you can realise right now with those blinkers on.


----------



## Winding Vines

How interesting this debate continues, as it used to be who was better; Jesus or Zeus. or Horus vs. Jupiter?

A full evolution of debate, to be or not to be?

It is difficult for many to understand this "blind faith" in something that has hurt many, destroy lots, and abused power.  Also finding it difficult to differentiate against those that say they are doing the good work but doing the bad work too and the real truth of the infinite oneness of everything.

Many are hypocrites, amazing ones.  Like the good ol' christian girl sitting at bible study with your beautiful gold cross around her neck complaining about nonchristians and their heathenism---going to a big old party that night getting wasted and taking off her shirt.

Really, faith, god, oneness, spirit, infinity-- it doesn't really matter what you call it, or whether it has even a name.  Realizing there is something, even just amazing energy, is divine in its practical nature of keeping the natural order in place is faith.

We have faith in so many systems, which are not readily tangible.  Yet we do not question that they exists, or function on forever.  

There is always doubt, misunderstanding, and abuse of any system or institution.  However, what matters is what is inside of you that upholds your ideal and philosophy.  There is a greatness in all of us, inspired by some essence that we are all tied into.  Even our genetics --so complex, so many life systems are beyond even our comprehension... It is easy to see there is _something_ so profound and amazing that we will only understand in another time.


----------



## justsomeguy

no.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Impacto Profundo said:


> Cry me a river. No one else here is treating you with anywhere near as much disrespect as you constantly have shown others. If you don't like how the majority here discuss things, then you know where the door is.
> 
> Your crusade is as pathetic as that idiot Richard Dawkins'. Sure he's brilliant in his field and i have enjoyed his books on evolution, but as soon as he overstepped his bounds and started talking about religion, he has really displayed his complete lack of understanding on the matter.
> 
> Stick to what you know. Neither of you have any idea on the matter being discussed in this thread. The schizophrenic analogy you spurt doesn't fly as that is a very different situation.
> 
> 
> 
> This statement is absurd or your definitions are wrong/incomplete.
> 
> 
> 
> Not all things are explainable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. This statement can make more sense than you can realise right now with those blinkers on.


^^^Hey perfectly said *again*! I missed that last one all together it flew away from my attention-INDEED! I could not have said it any better!!


----------



## Winding Vines

justsomeguy said:


> no.



O c'mon pookie give us a smile!


god's watchin'.

lol


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Very good post, Thai Dye. Your kind of atheist is quite welcome here.

Enlitx, I'm willing to request that the warning be removed, if you're willing to follow our rules, and respect beliefs (and the holders of those beliefs) other than your own. Deal?



			
				beamers said:
			
		

> That's quite a vacuous statement. You might as well just say, god is everywhere and no where at the same time.



Indeed I do say this  To me, that's the paradox of the One -- it both 'is' and 'is not' at the same time.

Folks, the lesson I hope we all learn from this thread is this: Each of Bluelight's social forums is a village. They're not the mean streets of a big bad city, where only the [mentally? verbally?] toughest survive. Like a village or other small community, there is a preexisting dynamic, cultivated over long periods of time to the tastes and needs of preexisting contributors. No matter what their rationale is or how well-intentioned it is, no one should expect to waltz in here and upset this dynamic and upset people's applecarts, and hope to receive a positive and welcoming response. It just doesn't work that way.


----------



## ThaiDie4

Thank you MDAO  I'm glad to know I'm welcome! These disscussions are very interesting.

I think many athiests (I am NOT refering to Entilx or anyone else on here!) hold the assumption that religious folks don't have a proper grasp on logic or science. I've found here that there are many spirtiual individuals who are FAR more intelligent and educated than myself, and I don't think that belief in a deity makes a person crazy or stupid.

You know, if I had an expierence with something seemingly supernatural, I don't know what I'd think. Yeah, in a lot of cases I believe people misinterpret what they hear\see\ or otherwise sense... and I agree with Entlix that other options should be explored before immediately concluding that a mystic force is the cause. But at the same time, who am I to say that it didn't really happen? I don't know.

I don't know if this is a fair comparison, but I think a lot of expierences are interpreted differently depending on how open you are to them. For example, my friends and I encounted a licensed hypontist one night at a random party (weird, huh?) Anyways, people were asking to be hypnotized left and right, and two of my girls swore up and down that he could really do it. Well, I was skeptical (because I am always a skeptic) so I asked him to do it to me. He asked me to close my eyes and began doing his thing.. I felt nothing. After 10 minutes of him trying to get me to "go under" or whatever, I just had to walk away. I'm not saying I don't believe that hyponsis is possible, but I wonder if the reason it worked on others but not me was because I wasn't open to it?? Perhaps its the same reason I've never had any kind of religious inclination?


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> Cry me a river. No one else here is treating you with anywhere near as much disrespect as you constantly have shown others. If you don't like how the majority here discuss things, then you know where the door is.



I wasn't the one who was crying in the first place, all you guys were.  But I have already made my point on this issue.



Impacto Profundo said:


> Your crusade is as pathetic as that idiot Richard Dawkins'. Sure he's brilliant in his field and i have enjoyed his books on evolution, but as soon as he overstepped his bounds and started talking about religion, he has really displayed his complete lack of understanding on the matter.



Just because someone doesen't attribute very unprobable explanations to very common events doesen't mean that they don't understand.  The schizophrenic example does apply, and pretty much what you have clung to is the idea that just because I don't believe in supernatural explanations means that I don't understand.  Again, more educated people tend to not use supernatural explanations, but I do understand how you could use these ideas as an easy way to explain something if you don't really look into it.  



Impacto Profundo said:


> Stick to what you know. Neither of you have any idea on the matter being discussed in this thread. The schizophrenic analogy you spurt doesn't fly as that is a very different situation.



I know how the brain works, hence I know just as much about this as you do.  

All you have done is say "Well hey, this is what I believe, not matter how much it flies in the face of rational explanations, but since you haven't experienced or don't believe in it, you just don't know man".  So before the advent of modern medicine, if a schizophrenic was describing his visions, he could use the exact same cop out you are using.  It is a really bad way of trying to evaluate what is actually happening in this world.

You still haven't answered my question about how you could possibly know how something is going to affect telekinesis if you have no clue about the mechanism in the first place.


----------



## Enlitx

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Very good post, Thai Dye. Your kind of atheist is quite welcome here.
> 
> Enlitx, I'm willing to request that the warning be removed, if you're willing to follow our rules, and respect beliefs (and the holders of those beliefs) other than your own. Deal?



You mean the rules that all these other people have been breaking, yet you haven't said a word to them?  You can remove the warning if you want, but you need to display some integrity in how you apply the "rules" to everyone.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ I try my best to step in whenever I see someone getting flamed for their point of view. If you'd like to quote me the offending posts, I'd be happy to have a chat with the posters involved.


----------



## Jamshyd

Enlitix, I have skimmed over this thread and I have not seen anyone flaming you. They were simply disagreeing with you with the same tone you used to provoke them.

As you've seen, I am neutral in this thread, and therefore I hope you trust that my judgement is impartial.

Please try not to be too sensitive. Like IP said, you have a Dawkins problem. You aspire to step on toes that don't really need to be stepped on. 

Just try to be respectful and don't pretend you are more than what you are - just another pathetic human like me and he and everyone else.


----------



## Enlitx

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> ^ I try my best to step in whenever I see someone getting flamed for their point of view. If you'd like to quote me the offending posts, I'd be happy to have a chat with the posters involved.



Well, here are a few I got just from five seconds of scanning.



LivingInTheMoment said:


> with the only stupid tool of"prove it with
> his need for attention and desperation
> his scummy behavior
> you are an extremely lonely individual





ImpactoProfundo said:


> How dumb do you have to be to still be to think this
> Your crusade is as pathetic as that idiot Richard Dawkins'





opy said:


> do you even read what you are writing?



Another poster noticed enough to say:


FrostyMcFailure said:


> theres no need to be a doosch bag guys.



It is pretty odd that you were able to read my stuff enough to jump all over me but completely ignored everyone else.


----------



## Enlitx

Jamshyd said:


> Enlitix, I have skimmed over this thread and I have not seen anyone flaming you. They were simply disagreeing with you with the same tone you used to provoke them.
> 
> As you've seen, I am neutral in this thread, and therefore I hope you trust that my judgement is impartial.
> 
> Please try not to be too sensitive. Like IP said, you have a Dawkins problem. You aspire to step on toes that don't really need to be stepped on.
> 
> Just try to be respectful and don't pretend you are more than what you are - just another pathetic human like me and he and everyone else.



If you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking.  I just posted some examples.  

And dude, I am not sensitive.  I really don't care what people are saying to me, as I have already stated more than once.  That was never the issue.  I was just upset that I was warned and lectured from MyDoorsAreOpen while everyone else got a free pass.  If it was up to me, people should be able to say whatever they want.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Enlitx said:


> Well, here are a few I got just from five seconds of scanning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another poster noticed enough to say:
> 
> 
> It is pretty odd that you were able to read my stuff enough to jump all over me but completely ignored everyone else.


QUOTED>

Originally Posted by LivingInTheMoment  View Post
with the only stupid tool of"prove it with
his need for attention and desperation
his scummy behavior
you are an extremely lonely individual

Please, if you are going to take parts of from old posts, to prove what you are trying to prove, then have the decency to add your comments to which the answers appied to, and all your attacks and downputs. Place the mumber of the posts where these are so we can find them easily, and the number of the page.
Thanks


----------



## Enlitx

I wasn't pissed about what you said, for the 50th time.  I was trying to get the mods off my back.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Enlitx, thank you. I agree, some of those comments you quoted were out of line. I'll be in touch with the appropriate parties.

LivingintheMoment, read my private message to you.


----------



## L2R

Enlitx said:


> Just because someone doesen't attribute very unprobable explanations to very common events doesen't mean that they don't understand.  The schizophrenic example does apply, and pretty much what you have clung to is the idea that just because I don't believe in supernatural explanations means that I don't understand.  Again, more educated people tend to not use supernatural explanations, but I do understand how you could use these ideas as an easy way to explain something if you don't really look into it.



You don't have to believe what we are talking about to have an understanding of it. You have demonstrated you lack of understanding with comments like this:



> I know how the brain works, hence I know just as much about this as you do.



There is more to one than the brain. I know you disagree with this, and that is fine. 




> All you have done is say "Well hey, this is what I believe, not matter how much it flies in the face of rational explanations, but since you haven't experienced or don't believe in it, you just don't know man".  So before the advent of modern medicine, if a schizophrenic was describing his visions, he could use the exact same cop out you are using.  It is a really bad way of trying to evaluate what is actually happening in this world.



You do not even understand my simple objections. this assessment is incorrect. You have demonstrated (as above) that you are incapable of understanding this topic. It is not because you don't believe it. That would be stupid of me to say. 




> You still haven't answered my question about how you could possibly know how something is going to affect telekinesis if you have no clue about the mechanism in the first place.



and you have yet to prove the existence of radiation using only a spatula. it's funny the points you've repeatedly chosen to ignore to further your own agenda. 

besides, i never said that i KNOW anything about the mechanisms of telekinesis. I was up front about this. i speculated as to one possible mechanism using logic. to repeat: being as how we are talking about mental influence on the physical world, then it would make sense that the presence of incredulous thoughts may counter the ability.


----------



## BRAINDEAD1

I believe in god because we all got here somehow and he is real


----------



## beamers

LivingInTheMoment said:


> Read on top of the page>it is called:*Phylosophy and Spirituality*>I take it you have none to relate!



Actually it says "ph*i*losophy and spirituality".......you do know that some of the most widely read works of philosophical writing were done by atheists right?

We have:

Engels
Hume
Lenin
Marx
Nietzsche
Rand
Russell
Kant

We belong here just like everybody else. Attack the ideas by all means....feel free.


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> You don't have to believe what we are talking about to have an understanding of it. You have demonstrated you lack of understanding with comments like this:
> 
> There is more to one than the brain. I know you disagree with this, and that is fine.



What I meant by that is that since all you have are subjective experiences with no mechanistic explanation or understanding, my own understanding of how the brain works and finds patterns would be on equal footing with your subjective experience.  Some people would even say that subjective experiences are less of an understanding than an objective understanding of a process, but I was just giving the benefit of the doubt.  




Impacto Profundo said:


> You do not even understand my simple objections. this assessment is incorrect. You have demonstrated (as above) that you are incapable of understanding this topic. It is not because you don't believe it. That would be stupid of me to say.



How is the assessment incorrect?  How is it different than a schizophrenic?




Impacto Profundo said:


> and you have yet to prove the existence of radiation using only a spatula. it's funny the points you've repeatedly chosen to ignore to further your own agenda.
> 
> besides, i never said that i KNOW anything about the mechanisms of telekinesis. I was up front about this. i speculated as to one possible mechanism using logic. to repeat: being as how we are talking about mental influence on the physical world, then it would make sense that the presence of incredulous thoughts may counter the ability.



I never claimed anything about measuring radiation with a spatula.  You claimed that something will affect telekinesis.  Your last part right there is a good example of why I have such a problem with all of these ideas.  That is such a broad and arbitrary statement, it is just too easy and requires too little work to come to that conclusion.  It is almost like saying "Well, that is a voice activated code, so just talking should open it".  It is based on nothing, not derived from any mechanism, and could be made up by anyone after 0.5 seconds of thinking.  It literally means nothing since it is so damn vague.


----------



## Enlitx

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Enlitx, thank you. I agree, some of those comments you quoted were out of line. I'll be in touch with the appropriate parties.
> 
> LivingintheMoment, read my private message to you.



Thank you.


----------



## L2R

Enlitx said:


> How is the assessment incorrect?  How is it different than a schizophrenic?



I was referring to your assessment of my reasons you don't understand. 




> I never claimed anything about measuring radiation with a spatula.



By claiming that if any of these phenomena were real then they would be quantifiable with both logic and scientific instruments is equivalent to trying to measure radiation with a spatula. This is the point i've been making over and over. 



> You claimed that something will affect telekinesis.  Your last part right there is a good example of why I have such a problem with all of these ideas.  That is such a broad and arbitrary statement, it is just too easy and requires too little work to come to that conclusion.  It is almost like saying "Well, that is a voice activated code, so just talking should open it".  It is based on nothing, not derived from any mechanism, and could be made up by anyone after 0.5 seconds of thinking.  It literally means nothing since it is so damn vague.



No, actually the assertion i've made is quite specific. Despite the lack of a physical mechanism, the very definition of telekinesis is still "the influence of the mind on a physical object".  Can we get an agreement there?

If not, then please correct me. 

If so, then it's actually quite logical to suggest that the presence of another mind nearby, one exerting a skeptical "thought pattern" (for the lack of a better phrase), may counteract the ability. 

Picture two men standing near a wheel. One claims that with their arms they can turn the wheel clockwise. The other claims that they cannot and asks for proof, but when the first man attempts to turn the wheel, the second man applies an equal amount of force in the counterclockwise direction. 

This is the same thing. A skeptic's refusal to believe "until they see it" (and possibly not even then) may inadvertently apply this opposite force, ironically using the ability that they refuse to consider. 

Let me be clear: this is not fact. This is merely something i consider a possibility.


----------



## AlphaMethylPhenyl

Flat out no. Wanna know why? Two words: Occams Razor (look it up)


----------



## rachamim

I was born into a very religious Jewish home (Breslov Hassidic as it is caled in English). Until I was 11 I had never even met anyone but very religious Jews but it was not until age 16 in the army that I was truly exposed to other ways of looking at life.

The army (IDF) was very hard on religion in those days (1983) and so within a few months I was living a completely secular life.

It was then that I began to question everything. At 17 I was wounded 2 times. Beginning with the first wounding I used the time off from combat to study religions. Being treated in Jerusalem allowed me some unique opportunities.

As I went through Catholic, Eastern Orthadoxy, and eventually Islam I would find myself being atracted to this and that aspect of each faith. These attractions drove me to research in depth and upon heading north back into Lebanon I took materiel to read, and continued my searching.

Eventualy, when I turned 20 I began my secular education and in studying science for the first time I discovered myself even doubting the existence of G-D. I even considered myself an atheist for a good year. 

I saw the thing you imagine one sees in war, and could not wrap my mind around it. Atheism seemed to make so much sense at that point but then I began moving the other way.

Man comes from monkey, from yada, yad and yada but when we get to that first burst in Space, where did IT come from? No scientist can even offer an idea on that. That does not "prove" the existence of G-D but it is some damn strong circumstantial evidence.

They tell us space is boundless, timeless...what they mean though, is that they acknowledge that the question makes their intellect entirely worthless. All their reliance on empirical thought, on "proof" goes up in smoke. They argue that there just cannot be any Theistic truth!

I have been reading Christopher Hitchens' "Atheist Reader" as of late and I get a huge kick out of his "scathing" essays that show Theism to be the foolish outlook it certainly is.

Dawkins tells us in his most recent book that he is the "foremost" proponent of Atheism and yet their arguments could be shattered by any 10 year Jewish boy traditionally raised!

I am utterly thankful for my life's journey and I truly believe ALL people should truly seek, but seek by delving incredibly deep. In this way they will have no choice but to see G-D in all HIS brillance. The problem of course is that almost all will only dig at the surface and imagine they know something when they still have not learned a thing.


----------



## Max Power

BRAINDEAD1 said:


> I believe in god because we all got here somehow and he is real



Well, that about sums it up. Seems like a PhD-worthy dissertation to me.

Time to pack it up and go home, guys. 

Mystery solved.


----------



## beamers

TED talk on why people believe strange things


----------



## tank90

NO i dont


----------



## HypGnosis

Enlitx said:


> there is no mechanistic explanation for telekinesis. .



There are actually many scientific proposals of a mechanism for telekinesis.

For its framework the current ones use quantum entanglement.

http://www.parapsych.org/papers/44.pdf

Also an interesting book by Dean Radin "Entangled Minds"

Just google for Dean's credentials incase you think he's some sort of "pretend" scientist.


----------



## HypGnosis

beamers said:


> Actually it says "ph*i*losophy and spirituality".......you do know that some of the most widely read works of philosophical writing were done by atheists right?
> 
> We have:
> 
> Engels
> Hume
> Lenin
> Marx
> Nietzsche
> Rand
> Russell
> Kant
> 
> We belong here just like everybody else. Attack the ideas by all means....feel free.




Um, Kant, Nietzsche and Russell have never called themselves atheists, and if you'd read their work you would see they are anything but (not so much Russell mind, he always considered himself agnostic).


----------



## crooked_letter

I am my own god. And I don't mean to say that I worship myself, though it's good to have such self esteem. I mean that since I believe (and KNOW in my flesh and bones) that EVERYTHING is part of the same whole, I know that I have control over everything.

It's simply a matter of forcing my "rational" brain to let go of my "self" so that I can bend "reality" to my will. I've already done it in several ways, as odd as it may sound, but I no longer eat or sleep, except for show so my friends and family don't freak out. And even when I put on the show, I sometimes do it wrong, like I'll forget to cook food that clearly needs to be cooked.

I'm not sure that really fit into what you were looking for as an answer in this thread, but I'm pretty sure it gave you something to mentally masticate. So be your own god.

I love you all.

crooked_letter.


----------



## crooked_letter

Oh, and to all those who identify with atheism; you happen to be on the exact opposite end of the spectrum as the devout religious--you believe profusely in something that can neither be proven nor disproved. Try the open minded approach; anything is possible.

I love you all.

crooked_letter.


----------



## L2R

zomg, we got a breathairian in our midst! :D how long can you go without food?


----------



## crooked_letter

I pretty much eat once a week out of habit, but if I'm around people and they know I'm not eating, they get freaked out so I eat more often, like once a day, or once every other day. And I sleep occasionally because I'm just bored at night and again, its habit. It's really convenient.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

crooked letter, as a student doctor, that level of asceticism gives me the heebie-jeebies, I won't lie. Are you SURE a spiritual path that almost certainly will shorten your life considerably is the right one for you?


----------



## L2R

which technique do you use?


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ I'm a big fan of the old meditation myself.


----------



## crooked_letter

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> crooked letter, as a student doctor, that level of asceticism gives me the heebie-jeebies, I won't lie. Are you SURE a spiritual path that almost certainly will shorten your life considerably is the right one for you?



I certainly appreciate the concern that you, as well as everyone else, has been showing, and in keeping my family and friends from freaking out, I am making sure I eat and sleep like a "normal" person would, just a little less often. Thanks for watchin out for me 

I love you all.

crooked_letter.


----------



## crooked_letter

Impacto Profundo said:


> which technique do you use?



I wish I could say I had a  technique but it really boils down to one instant moment a few days ago that just completely changed my life. I'm going to write about it more in depth, probably in my blog, hopefully soon, but it's very difficult for me to explain it in words so I often just ramble with no real direction. So once I figure out HOW to explain it, in more detail than "I have a life changing experience," I'll certainly post it to my blog and perhaps a relative forum thread. Keep an eye open for it, if you're interested.

I love you all.

crooked_letter.


----------



## crooked_letter

Enlitx said:


> If you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking.  I just posted some examples.
> 
> And dude, I am not sensitive.  I really don't care what people are saying to me, as I have already stated more than once.  That was never the issue.  I was just upset that I was warned and lectured from MyDoorsAreOpen while everyone else got a free pass.  If it was up to me, people should be able to say whatever they want.



Enlitx, I'm ALL for freedom of speech, but the few who abuse the privilege--those who make others feel uncomfortable and inadequate in this place where we should feel at home--ruin it for everyone else. I'm not saying anyone in particular, just commenting on the last line of what you had said. I'm glad though that you got the mods off your back because it certainly was unfair.

I love you all.

crooked_letter.


----------



## EA-1475

Well, I do believe there are probably things that exist which are beyond human comprehension.

After all, we only have five sense.  Take one of those away and think of all things we could never possibly have any knowledge of.  Try explaining color to a blind guy.


----------



## user38579

Jamshyd said:


> I personally have no interest in debating anything unless mutual-understanding is the goal. If the goal is to prove that one side is right and the other is wrong, I step away.



This is a correct attitude. Discussions where the intention of one side is merely to force their opinions on the other is known as Jalpa. In a true discussion free of Jalpa each side is surely after the truth, whatever it may be.

Having said that I will jump in here and say that the problem with these "god" discussions is that "Consciousness" is seen as an adjective, or a quality of matter. All philosophy systems either take this stance or "Consciousness" and "Matter" are given equal billing as it were.

Whereas to understand the topic better, it should at least be considered that "Consciousness" as we usually term it, can be looked at from an entirely different perspective where "Consciousness" is the substantive and "Matter" is the subordinate. 

God, if you like to use the term, is none other than "Consciousness"  which is in fact all that there is. Everything, Time, Space, Matter, Mind, Body, is but a form of Consciousness, or God, if you will. Remember this is not "Consciousness" as we usually know it, as an adjective.


----------



## slimvictor

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> crooked letter, as a student doctor, that level of asceticism gives me the heebie-jeebies, I won't lie. Are you SURE a spiritual path that almost certainly will shorten your life considerably is the right one for you?



First of all, none of us is really SURE about the path we choose to take.
We all try our best, but there are no certainties out there.
Those of us who seek truth above all else would risk a shorter life if it means attaining the truth. 
However- 
Will such a path reduce C.L.'s lifespan?  Doubtful.  Actually, limited caloric intake is closely associated with LENGTHENED lifespan in mice.  This makes perfect sense, too - as Vonnegut says, our bodies are basically a bunch of tubes that get worn out from use.  Reducing eating reduces the stress on the tubes.


----------



## slimvictor

Enlitx said:


> I know how the brain works...



Amazing!  Even the greatest neuroscientists in the world only understand a small fraction of what is really happening in the brain, and here on Bluelight we have someone who actually knows how the brain works!!! 8)


----------



## crooked_letter

EA-1475 said:


> Well, I do believe there are probably things that exist which are beyond human comprehension.
> 
> After all, we only have five sense.  Take one of those away and think of all things we could never possibly have any knowledge of.  Try explaining color to a blind guy.



My friends and I have already experienced some of these "extra" senses. A friend of mine, RJ, confided in me that he sees something like an aura around all people, even when he's not under the influence of anything. He described it as a static-y haze around people, in either blue or red, but when he was on shrooms, he saw us as purple, which he didn't realize is the combination of blue and red, until I told him. Anyway, we've just all got to accept that absolutely ANYTHING is possible, not just what we're taught is possible.

I love you all.

crooked_letter.


----------



## L2R

so, how long have you been on this reduction of food/sleep routine?


----------



## slimvictor

crooked_letter said:


> Anyway, we've just all got to accept that absolutely ANYTHING is possible, not just what we're taught is possible.



This is it, I would say.

Or maybe "anything that we are open to is possible".
When we just can't accept certain possibilities, we are blind to them. 
It's as if such a situation couldn't exist, for us, and we scramble to make sense of something outside our (largely self-imposed) limits. 
We assign some story to "explain" the phenomenon in a way that doesn't challenge our dearly-held beliefs.
We will struggle to maintain our fears, our insecurities. 
We will struggle to maintain our worldview.

If a thief walking down the road meets the Buddha, 
all s/he can see are the Buddha's pockets.

The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to comprehend. 

The limits of our vision are the limits of our reality.

( quotes at the end there borrowed from famous smart people)


----------



## IGNVS

the workings of things, of synchronicity, what you might call karma, love, the way information flows, and how energy and perspective, enlightenment, etc... some is known and understood through wisdom granted by being a hand in it all, and much more is unknown, knowing that it cannot be known. 
this force, what is known and the greater unknown that finds a way to put a smile on your face, this i call GOD. it is in everything, it is the form and function of the sum of all things physically and metaphorically as one functioning the way it does. this force has an almost "you" characteristic to it, you can communicate with it by letting it into yourself, then its just like a conversation with yourself with this spirit of god there too. its pretty cool tapping into it all.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ Very nicely put, IGNVS.


----------



## thebuzzardking

I mostly certainly do, and for you that don't that's ok cause god believes in you


----------



## fizzle

*"We like your Christ but not your Christians"*

This is an article I found in my school paper. I thought the author brought up some interesting points and I'd kind of like to get the opinions of people here, plus I think its an interesting topic to discuss.



> I’m a short, brace-faced, four-eyed Italian bitch. If you’ve been reading my columns for the past year you’ve probably noticed I call myself a lot of things. I’ll call myself nearly anything; except Christian.
> 
> I know what you’re thinking: “Great. Another member of the liberal media here to spew anti-religion on us.” I beg, though, stick with me, because here’s the kicker: I’m pretty close to Christian, just not quite.
> 
> I went to a Catholic church intermittently as a child and was in the Christian club at my high school. I’m dating a Christian guy and even go to church with him every once in a while.
> 
> My reason for avoiding the label is not that I lost Christianity. Christianity lost me. And, for once, I’m not alone in my logic.
> 
> The 2009 American Religious Identification Survey showed that the number of non-believers more than doubled between 1990 and 2008 and the number of adult non-believers has increased from eight percent to 15 percent.
> 
> Apparently organized religion has lost all these people as well.
> 
> However, I’m not sure that shunning religion entirely would be beneficial for society.
> 
> I think, essentially, Christians have the right idea. That’s kind of like saying that the only kid who actually made his way to the starting line on the track automatically takes first place, but still, it’s something.
> 
> Those basic Christian ten rules of “don’t steal, cheat, commit adultery, etc” and other more generalized “don’t be a dick” guidelines are a pretty good start for how people should live their lives.
> 
> The problem that I have — and I think a lot of other people agree — is that the term “Christian” and the terms “conservative” and “Republican” have become inexorably intertwined. Whether this co-mingling is valid is another argument for another day.
> 
> One of the main problems I have with Christianity or, more accurately, the modern interpretation and culture of Christianity is that it allows no room for progress or development. To be Christian you must believe that the word of God is infallible.
> 
> However, if you look at the thing most Christians hit you over the head with, it’s this little short story called the Bible, which has two big chapters: The Old Testament and the new one — both written by men.
> 
> If we know one thing about humans it’s that we’re definitely fallible. I mean, I know I’m making a mistake writing this column because for the next 24 hours I’ll be bombarded with emails and comments about my lack of knowledge and general ignorance.
> 
> My question is, if God knows he’s not fallible and that men are, why would he take his infallible word to an inadequate translator? If God is capable of creating the universe, he could create a list of perfect rules that are untouched by human hands.
> 
> And yet, he didn’t. So the Bible must be flawed in some way. This seems like a logical conclusion, and yet Christians will continue to adamantly argue.
> 
> Most Christians think the Old Testament is kind of crazy — it’s the one where they tell you it’s good to stone people and what not. Christians say, “oh yeah, well, that one got a little out of hand; but the new one is better and more reasonable.”
> 
> If the first one was perfect, why do you need a new one?
> 
> Once you corner a Christian with this line of logical reasoning, they leap to faith. Or I guess more accurately make a leap of faith, but either way they’re stretching.
> 
> Christians argue they don’t need logic because they have faith. These are the same Christians who go to church and tithe because it makes them look charitable. These are the same Christians who carry a Bible and quote passages such as “love thy neighbor,” only to turn around and beat gay people over the head with judgments. But it’s OK for them to judge people because they have faith it’s what God wants.
> 
> This kind of hypocrisy is what I hate about modern-Christian culture, and it is the reason I will never call myself a Christian.
> 
> I think Gandhi had it right when he said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
> 
> If Christians could ever get back to the basic, moral principles on which their religion was founded and stop the silly war over the interpretation of the Bible — which I consider to be a collection of metaphorical stories with nice moral lessons — I would join them in a heartbeat.
> 
> From my readings I have deduced that the basic idea at the core of Christianity is that, as humans, we need to do right by each other and find a higher purpose for our existence. If Christians could take this core value and build a movement that is more about love an acceptance and less about arguing and judging, I’d be right there with them.
> 
> For now, I guess I’ll have to remain a marginalized citizen and a subscriber to my own interpretation of a historical document.
> 
> -Jen S


Since its my college newspaper, I'm not going to give an exact source for personal privacy reasons, but it is not my work, just an article I found interesting. A lot of my family is pretty hardcore Christian and follows the bible closely, but my parents raised me to ask questions and not take the bible literally, so I tend to agree with what a lot of this says. I'm a little tempted to show it to my more hardcore family, but wont because I'm sure it wont change anyones beliefs.


----------



## |>R()|)!G/-\|_

> These are the same Christians who go to church and tithe because it makes them look charitable. These are the same Christians who carry a Bible and quote passages such as “love thy neighbor,” only to turn around and beat gay people over the head with judgments. But it’s OK for them to judge people because they have faith it’s what God wants.
> 
> This kind of hypocrisy is what I hate about modern-Christian culture, and it is the reason I will never call myself a Christian.



These are a handful of many examples of Christianity straying far from the original principles and church that Jesus enlisted Peter and his disciples to build.  In fact, many of the examples of hypocrisy included above are similar to the Pharisees' behavior which Jesus taught his followers to avoid.  In fact, many fundamentalists & Neo-Cons are the modern day Pharisees.  



> My question is, if God knows he’s not fallible and that men are, why would he take his infallible word to an inadequate translator? If God is capable of creating the universe, he could create a list of perfect rules that are untouched by human hands.



He originally took his word to Moses b/c God understood he would do a good job of preserving them.  Knowing Moses wasn't a great speaker, he enlisted Aaron to teach the rules.  Moses + Aaron = adequate translators.  The problem was with the exiled Isrealites' lack of faith.  They didn't listen/follow God's laws.  

Keep in mind that this is long after he originally created a perfect world, the laws of which changed when Adam & Eve disobeyed in the Garden of Eden.  Although God is powerful, so is Satan.  They wage battle back and forth.  Although Christians believe that God will be victorious in His overall war against Evil, that doesn't mean that Satan doesn't win some battles (like in the Garden of Eden).



> So the Bible must be flawed in some way.



Of course it is.  It's been edited and re-edited.  Kings and Popes who have wanted to be king have edited it to fit their own agendas.  I guess in BL terms we could say the Bible has been "stepped on" more than a couple times since its initial assembly .



> Most Christians think the Old Testament is kind of crazy — it’s the one where they tell you it’s good to stone people and what not. Christians say, “oh yeah, well, that one got a little out of hand; but the new one is better and more reasonable.”
> If the first one was perfect, why do you need a new one?



The Old Testament is crazy.  It outlined behaior for a crazy time for people that didn't have a clear idea of how to live well, let alone in accordance with God's will.  Keep in mind, the beginning of the Old Testament (Pentatauch) was directed toward Isrealites who had been prosperous, enslaved, released, exiled, and marooned in the desert.  If I'm not mistaken, there eventually grew to be >500,000 in the desert with Moses.  They needed some hardcore rules to keep them alive and in line.

My $.02.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

I agree with this article's writer: the label 'Christian' has been hijacked by the American Right to a large extent. I really don't think Jesus would agree with many evangelical Americans' worldview much at all, to tell you the truth.

As qwe has pointed out numerous times, the picture we get of Jesus from all available sources is one of a renegade, who advocated throwing off the chains of blind deference to tradition and authority. A true Christian very much thinks for him/herself, and will always choose to act with compassion, rather than just act on precedent.

I was fortunate enough to be raised with a form of Christianity that's far truer to the roots of this faith, and emphasizes being good to other people, rather than salvation-grubbing and falling into line. It still, and probably always will, chafe me to hear people tar this and all forms of Christianity with the same ugly brush, thanks to the abuse of Jesus' teachings by small-minded fascists. Trust me, I share the same disdain for mindless obedience and insularity.

Unfortunately, no matter how wisely or eloquently any wisdom figure speaks, someone is bound to twist their words to justify truly foolish ends. This is just like saying that you can write the most powerful story in the world, and there's bound to be people who just don't get it, whom the message is utterly lost on. Following someone wise from days gone by is no guarantee you'll reach the intended destination -- all true paths to spiritual transformation are treacherous ones, and many lose their way on them.


----------



## elbroski

Ya, I agree with all, the label Christian certainly has connotations today having nothing to do with the alleged prophet of old.  I was raised in a very stringent Evangelical, right-wing Christian household, so I have first hand experience of how perverting the original principal of love=salvation (which is what I believe the core of Jesus' teaching really was) into some moral flagellation designed to inspire guilt and fear has become the norm in today's Christian community.  However, I don't limit my words to people of the Christian faith only.  I feel the same has happened (more or less) to all monotheistic religions in the western world.  I guess that's a conversation for another thread, but great post girl very informative.


----------



## fizzle

Thanks for everyones input  I dont really have anything personally to add at the moment, maybe later, but I enjoy reading everyones comments and different perspectives, keep them coming! :D


----------



## mr_p

> i have no trouble geeting along with god. Its his fan clubs, that annoy me!



..... (~o~)


----------



## swilow

I dunno even know about this christ chap anymore.... I tend to like his sayings, but I find no deeper profundity in what jesus said as compared to the likes of Gandhi. Its common sense, by and large.

I deeply question the facts of his execution and its implications on freewill. It erases it. As I believe in free will, I don't believe that christ was a god or was executed for such a reason.


----------



## B9

Chistians tend to taste rank ( anecdotal) Christ however is so tasty they still hanker after a bite today. Strikes me as a thinly veiled cult covertly promoting cannabilism - however I digress...




> I deeply question the facts of his execution and its implications on freewill. It erases it. As I believe in free will, I don't believe that christ was a god or was executed for such a reason.




As usual swilow you tempt me ask you a question - *if* everything is god/is made of god how & why would jesus be somehow different to Thou & I ?

& implications on freewill who ? why ? how ? - I don't understand what you mean.


----------



## prometheus72

The only true christian died on the cross, everything created after that was either misinterpreted or manipulated to the Church's advantage.


----------



## straycatphizzle

No human can follow the bible as a whole because it contradicts itself constanty. So apparently I'm supposed to love my neighbor, but stone him to death if he works on the sabbath.The idea that jesus was non-violent is wrong, he rampaged through marketplace flipping over tables and such like a madman.Not to mention the fact that he was a habitual user of psilocybin mushrooms as were his followers. Anyone will believe they're messiah if they take enough psilocybin. Try reading the new testament as a trip report and it will make tons more sense. Evidence? The great canterbury psalter


----------



## swilow

^You do realise that that picture is only a small portion of a 12th century painting? 

If christinaity is smehow connected to psychedelics, I'm quitting them as drugs; for fear I'll start an endless worl war too 



B9 said:


> As usual swilow you tempt me ask you a question - *if* everything is god/is made of god how & why would jesus be somehow different to Thou & I ?
> 
> & implications on freewill who ? why ? how ? - I don't understand what you mean.



Well, I am unsure how to answer yer first part; but I'll have a crack at the second...

Jesus was "sent" down by "god" to attone for our sins. He had to die to do this. The people who killed him (tha actual individuals who nailed his limbs) HAD to do this, so our 'sins could be forgiven'. As these elements imply a lack of choice, and indeed, much of his execution was 'prophesied' I feel that those involved did not have free-will in the matter; god "made them" do this so Jesus' death could be worth something to humankind. But, as I said, I believe we have free will.....

My theory- Jesus was a super karma beast; from a pantheon of similar, highly evolved "gods". A meeting was held, and the physical force of "karma" was discussed somewhere up in the ether; it was determined that humanity was never going to be free from karmic-bonds; hence one of these super karma dudes offerred his eternal existence so that humans had the chance to begin again. By some law of meta-physics his eternal death would revoke all karmic troubles, and eradicate them- he could do so, as his nature and life was on a scale much vaster then every human at that time; hence, he died (forever), in agony and torment, and with a puff of smoke, dissolved all humans karma; in a sense, perhaps this opened the gates to paradise, or cessation of the endless cycle of rebirth.

However- I don't believe in that either.   :D I think jesus was/is a myth or just a human who died for politcal reasons. As could be argued, the world is no better and maybe worse for his existence.....

BOM. All this above, does not stop my worship of the dark gods


----------



## straycatphizzle

^ many people since jesus' crucifiction have endured pain far greater than any crucifiction. There was no intense suffering that made our so called sinning alright. If a crucifiction will do that, a man being burned alive should make us all gods.


----------



## stonerfromohio

straycatphizzle said:


> Jesus was just as wise,compassionate, and loving as any other psychedelic guru. He showed people the wonders of psychedelics. Evidence is shown in the canterbury psalter but im sure with your extensive knowledge on the subject you've heard of this theory.I deny him being a messiah, I deny him having supernatural powers, but i do not deny the fact that he was an extremely loving and wise man that helped a ton of people. But his true teachings were lost many centuries ago. Too many interpretations,translations,and rewrites were put into the mdoern bible and now its the opposite of what christ would've wanted. Evidence of Christian mycological shamanism



You made this statement in the last thread ill adress it here the first thing I want to adress is supernatural powers.

Supernatural powers are called Siddhis which are defiend as:

Siddhi (Sanskrit:सिद्धिः; siddhiḥ) is a Sanskrit word that literally means "perfection", "accomplishment", "attainment", or "success".[1] It is also used as a term for spiritual power (or psychic ability). The term is used in that sense in Hinduism and Tantric Buddhism. These spiritual powers supposedly vary from relatively simple forms of clairvoyance to being able to levitate, to be present at various different places simultaneously, to become as small as an atom, to materialize objects, to have access to memories from past lives, and more. The mastery of specific Siddhis is taught to be attained through the right kind of Samyama.

A list of Siddhis:

Parkaya Pravesha: Parkaya Pravesh means one’s soul entering into the body of some other person. Through this knowledge even a dead body can be brought to life. 

Haadi Vidya: This Vidya or knowledge has been mentioned in several ancient texts. On acquiring this Vidya, a person feels neither hunger nor thirst, and can remain without eating food or drinking water for several days at a stretch. 

Kaadi Vidya: Just as one does not feel hungry or thirsty in Haadi Vidya, similarly in Kaadi Vidya a person is not affected by change of seasons, i.e. by summer, winter, rain, etc. After accomplishing this Vidya, a person shall not feel cold even if he sits in the snow-laden mountains, and shall not feel hot even if he sits in the fire. 

Vayu Gaman Siddhi: Through this Siddhi a person can become capable of flying in the skies and traveling from one place to another in just a few seconds. 

Madalasa Vidya: On accomplishing this Vidya, a person becomes capable of increasing or decreasing the size of his body according to his wish. Lord Hanuman had miniaturized his body through this Vidya while entering the city of Lanka. 

Kanakdhara Siddhi: One can acquire immense and unlimited wealth through this Siddhi. 

Prakya Sadhana: Through this Sadhana a Yogi can direct his disciple to take birth from the womb of a woman who is childless or cannot bear children. 

Surya Vigyan: This solar science is one of the most significant sciences of ancient India this science has been known only to the Indian Yogis; using it, one substance can be transformed into another through the medium of sun rays. 

Ten Secondary Siddhis
In the Srimad Bhagavatam Lord Krishna describes the Ten Secondary Siddhis as:

anūrmi-mattvam: Being undisturbed by hunger, thirst, and other bodily disturbances 
dūra-śravaṇa: Hearing things far away 
dūra-darśanam: Seeing things far away 
manaḥ-javah: Moving the body wherever thought goes (teleportation) 
kāma-rūpam: Assuming any form desired 
para-kāya praveśanam: Entering the bodies of others 
sva-chanda mṛtyuh: Dying when one desires 
devānām saha krīḍā anudarśanam: Witnessing and participating in the pastimes of the Apsaras 
yathā sańkalpa saḿsiddhiḥ: Perfect accomplishment of one's determination 
ājñā apratihatā gatiḥ: Orders or Commands being unimpeded 

Five Siddhis of Yoga and Meditation
In the Srimad Bhagavatam the Five Siddhis of Yoga and Meditation are described as:

tri-kāla-jñatvam: Knowing the past, present and future; 
advandvam: Tolerance of heat, cold and other dualities; 
para citta ādi abhijñatā: Knowing the minds of others and so on; 
agni arka ambu viṣa ādīnām pratiṣṭambhaḥ: Checking the influence of fire, sun, water, poison, and so on; 
aparājayah: Remaining unconquered by others; 

"For a sage who has conquered his senses, breathing and mind, who is self-controlled and always absorbed in meditation on Me, what siddhi could possibly be difficult to achieve?"

Second I want to discuss you claiming that Jesus showed humanity the wonders of psychedelics, first what makes you believe this?  Second why is this not talked about in any scriptures included in the bible nor in The Gospel of Thomas or The Gospel of Mary Magdalene?

Also his teachings were not lost they are still widley circulating all over the world.  Too many interpertations?  The level of realization a person is operating on would change the truths they pull from scriptures.  A fundamentalist at times merely gets hellfire and brimstone.  A main-stream Christian gets that Jesus was loving, kind and compassionate but believes Jesus as the only person to have realized cosmic consciousness.  Someone on Paramahansa Yogananda's level interperts the Bibles esoteric meaning and shows the correlation of the words of Jesus and many other traditions and illustrates how Christ honestly was a Yogi.  

What you were correct on however is that Jesus has helped many people and that he was wise, loving and compassionate.

Sorry for hi-jacking the thread but I wanted to respond to straycatphizzle's post and the thread was locked where he made these statements.


----------



## stonerfromohio

swilow said:


> Well, I am unsure how to answer yer first part; but I'll have a crack at the second...
> 
> Jesus was "sent" down by "god" to attone for our sins. He had to die to do this. The people who killed him (tha actual individuals who nailed his limbs) HAD to do this, so our 'sins could be forgiven'. As these elements imply a lack of choice, and indeed, much of his execution was 'prophesied' I feel that those involved did not have free-will in the matter; god "made them" do this so Jesus' death could be worth something to humankind. But, as I said, I believe we have free will.....
> 
> My theory- Jesus was a super karma beast; from a pantheon of similar, highly evolved "gods". A meeting was held, and the physical force of "karma" was discussed somewhere up in the ether; it was determined that humanity was never going to be free from karmic-bonds; hence one of these super karma dudes offerred his eternal existence so that humans had the chance to begin again. By some law of meta-physics his eternal death would revoke all karmic troubles, and eradicate them- he could do so, as his nature and life was on a scale much vaster then every human at that time; hence, he died (forever), in agony and torment, and with a puff of smoke, dissolved all humans karma; in a sense, perhaps this opened the gates to paradise, or cessation of the endless cycle of rebirth.
> 
> However- I don't believe in that either.   :D I think jesus was/is a myth or just a human who died for politcal reasons. As could be argued, the world is no better and maybe worse for his existence.....
> 
> BOM. All this above, does not stop my worship of the dark gods



Found this which pretty much sums up my viewpoint:

I believe Jesus Christ, if he existed, had an experience of cosmic consciousness similar to what was experienced by Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, and many other people throughout history. Jesus apparently tried to communicate this experience to his followers as best he could, limited by the language and cultural concepts of his time and place. 

It is possible that each of us is a function of what the whole cosmos is doing at a point called here and now. In effect, each of us IS the whole universe looking at itself through our eyes. The universe is conscious and self-aware, a.k.a. God, and this awareness and consciousness is within each of us. In other words, what happened to Jesus was NOT a unique experience that only happened to one man in all history and prehistory, but something that EACH of us can experience directly when we tune in to the consciousness that is the base of our existence. 

I read the exact same Bible as the Christians do, yet I see Jesus teaching us the same message taught by Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. Consider the following verses along with the interpretation I offer as an alternative to the mainstream Christian interpretation. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Chapter 10, verses 30-36 (KJV)
10:30 I and [my] Father are one.
10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 

The King James Version of the Bible has “the” in italics before “Son of God” in verse 36. This is not for emphasis as some may think, but shows words interpolated by the translators. In this case, they were mistaken. The original Greek does NOT have an article before “Son of God,” which in Greek is equivalent to having an indefinite article. In the original Greek of this scripture, Jesus did NOT say he is the Son of God; he said I am a Son of God. He also quoted Psalm 82 that says “Ye are gods.” 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Chapter 14, verse 12 (KJV)
14:12 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. HE WILL DO EVEN GREATER THINGS THAN THESE, because I am going to the Father. 

Jesus says the ordinary humans he left behind (who, according to traditional Christian mythology, are NOT divine as he is) will do greater things than Jesus did. I put those words in all-caps to emphasize them. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Chapter 17, verses 21-22 (KJV)
17:21 THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; THAT THEY MAY BE ONE, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE: 

Again I put some words in all-caps to emphasize them. It seems pretty clear to me that Jesus says we can be one with the Father just as he was. In other words, what happened to him is NOT something unique that could ONLY happen to him, but it can happen to each of us. Jesus even PRAYS that we can experience it too! 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now many Christians will protest that Jesus says quite plainly: 

“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6, KJV) 

I agree, but perhaps not the way that Christians would like me to agree. It is my opinion that this “I am,” this “me” that Jesus speaks of is the big Self of divine consciousness (not the little self of the ego) that is within EACH OF US and was consciously realized by Jesus. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a plausible explanation of what happened: Jesus tried to explain his experience of cosmic consciousness as best he could, using the language and concepts available to him from the culture of his time and place. Awed by his miracles, the disciples of Jesus missed the point of what he was trying to share with them. They distorted the meaning of his message and worshipped the messenger instead. Christianity does not teach the religion OF Jesus, which was the realization of divine Sonship, but the religion ABOUT Jesus, a castrated version of the Gospel that puts Jesus on a pedestal and says that only He, and nobody else, is divine. 

For further study, I recommend anything by the late author, philosopher and “spiritual entertainer” Alan Watts, but especially pertaining to this subject Myth and Religion 3: Jesus, His Religion that I paraphrase portions of on this page. Alan Watts does a great job of explaining eastern philosophies to western audiences, and he is also good at explaining what mainstream Christianity teaches, even if he doesn't necessarily agree with it. In at least one of his audio files, Alan Watts makes the point that if Jesus had been born in India he would NOT have been crucified. When Jesus told others that he and the Father were one, they would have said “Congratulations. You finally figured it out.”


----------



## qwe

> If christinaity is smehow connected to psychedelics, I'm quitting them as drugs; for fear I'll start an endless worl war too


without psychedelics, we would not have christianity and the face of religion would be quite different


----------



## swilow

^Proof please?


----------



## swilow

straycatphizzle said:


> ^ many people since jesus' crucifiction have endured pain far greater than any crucifiction. There was no intense suffering that made our so called sinning alright. If a crucifiction will do that, a man being burned alive should make us all gods.



Like I said, it was a hypothesis of sorts. Basically, if you imagine a bunch of gods- greater in all ways then us- sitting around somewhere, thinking 'we gotta save these humans from endless life' and one of them suggests that- on a cosmic scale- his death will erase the present karmic debt that humans owed. Thus, he inhabits and earthly form, and instead of opening the gates if heaven as is alleged, he dies- forever- and the accumulated karma for humanity is erased.

That said, I don't believe in christs godliness, karma, or anything I wrote. :D Just musings as to why jesus could somehow have "washed away our sins" by dying.


----------



## B9

swilow said:


> ^You do realise that that picture is only a small portion of a 12th century painting?
> 
> If christinaity is smehow connected to psychedelics, I'm quitting them as drugs; for fear I'll start an endless worl war too
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am unsure how to answer yer first part; but I'll have a crack at the second...
> 
> Jesus was "sent" down by "god" to attone for our sins. He had to die to do this. The people who killed him (tha actual individuals who nailed his limbs) HAD to do this, so our 'sins could be forgiven'. As these elements imply a lack of choice, and indeed, much of his execution was 'prophesied' I feel that those involved did not have free-will in the matter; god "made them" do this so Jesus' death could be worth something to humankind. But, as I said, I believe we have free will.....
> 
> My theory- Jesus was a super karma beast; from a pantheon of similar, highly evolved "gods". A meeting was held, and the physical force of "karma" was discussed somewhere up in the ether; it was determined that humanity was never going to be free from karmic-bonds; hence one of these super karma dudes offerred his eternal existence so that humans had the chance to begin again. By some law of meta-physics his eternal death would revoke all karmic troubles, and eradicate them- he could do so, as his nature and life was on a scale much vaster then every human at that time; hence, he died (forever), in agony and torment, and with a puff of smoke, dissolved all humans karma; in a sense, perhaps this opened the gates to paradise, or cessation of the endless cycle of rebirth.
> 
> However- I don't believe in that either.   :D I think jesus was/is a myth or just a human who died for politcal reasons. As could be argued, the world is no better and maybe worse for his existence.....
> 
> BOM. All this above, does not stop my worship of the dark gods




Ok swilow thank you - you make a logical argument. However what if it was simply obvious that acting in a certain way ( especially since it was prophesied) would bring the attention of the authorities to jesus thus creasting a spectacle of Roman injustice. Could this not be an act of freewill ?


I trust you & the dark gods are feeling fine & groovy btw


----------



## itsWill

swilow said:


> ^*Proof* please?



Dont say that word in a topic about religion


----------



## Alonely

I absolutely agree. I love God, it's His fan club I can't stand.

The Bible is indeed questionable because it was written by man, which is why I consider myself Christian but no longer Catholic.


----------



## WhiteLinesNcoffee

God Isn't Christian he hopped on the buddism bandwagon some time ago.

No but really, God>religion 

religion is the attempt to build a man made structure around god. God does not need a house nor bureaucracy.


----------



## New

*Can men of the Sciences also be men of God?*

Here's my reasoning:

My understanding of God is reality as we know it as well as a beyond that can't be proven or disproven, so the latter does not exist for the purpose of this conversation. To better understand God, one would have to better understand reality. To better understand reality, one would have to understand scientific concepts and methods. Therefore, when science proves something I understood wrong, my understanding of God was wrong and has to be corrected. Does this make sense?


----------



## MrM

Samael said:


> Therefore, when science proves something I understood wrong, my understanding of God was wrong and has to be corrected. Does this make sense?



It makes perfect sense to me (hypothesising, for the moment, that god really does exist...).

However, i would suspect that whilst you can be a man of god and also a man of Science, you can't be someone who takes the christian bible as the literal word of god (earth is only a few thousand years old and dinosaurs died out because they didn't get on the ark etc) and also be a man of science.


----------



## New

I'm a Jewish Mystic, maybe I have an upper hand.

But no, taken as a history lesson, the core writings can't reconcile with science if taken literally. You're right.


----------



## xexon

I started my own journey from a scientific point of view.

Big Einstein fan. 

Like him, I was looking for what ties everything together. The highest form of energy.

It wasn't until I made the jump from physics to metaphysics that I understood.

You can't involve yourself in metaphysics if you don't have a very extended range of perception. I was born that way, so the journey for me was very rewarding and continues to pay benefits to this day.

To know what God is has no dependency on thinking. The power of discrimination is the only real important element of that.

It is the ability to FEEL that reveals "God".

Beyond the 5 senses. Beyond the mind which processes that input.

If you do it correctly, all of creation becomes your body.



x


----------



## New

Being a man of God is being a part of what God created, not running away from it. Enlightenment is in a beaker just as much a yogic trance.


----------



## yougene

MrM said:


> However, i would suspect that whilst you can be a man of god and also a man of Science, you can't be someone who takes the christian bible as the literal word of god (earth is only a few thousand years old and dinosaurs died out because they didn't get on the ark etc) and also be a man of science.



I think it depends on what is meant by man of science.

Intelligence and beliefs are two different lines of development.  Someone can have a firm grasp of science, and still operate from an ethnocentric identity and mythological belief system.  Michael J. Behe is a perfect example of such a creature.  He works for the creationist "Discovery Institute", yet is a respectable scholar on molecular biology.  He can bring up logically coherent holes in the "modern synthesis" left and right.   But then leaps to the conclusion that God must have done it.



Schrodinger and Einstein were both mystics and great scientists.  I think certain orientations to Spirit or God can go hand in hand with science.  An apprehension of the universe's continuity and unity can be appreciated in both domains of inquiry.


----------



## MrM

yougene said:


> I think it depends on what is meant by man of science.



I agree. I would argue that in the example you give above Michael J. Behe is for the most part a man of god using science to advance his religion, not a man of science.



yougene said:


> Schrodinger and Einstein were both mystics and great scientists.



Einstein a mystic? That's the first i heard of it. I know he used to get pissed off when people misquoted him on god but as far as i can remember he was agnostic.



			
				Einstein said:
			
		

> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."



Sounds more like a scientist than a mystic to me.


----------



## xexon

Samael said:


> Being a man of God is being a part of what God created, not running away from it. Enlightenment is in a beaker just as much a yogic trance.



But the reality is, there is no beaker.

There is unmanifest "God", and there is manifest God, "Creation"

The only way I can describe what I see is to use symbolism

"God" is like a luminous ocean of consciousness rather than a being on a throne somewhere.

"Creation" are like the bubbles within this ocean. They exist for a time and are reabsorbed back into the ocean they came from.

Even that is a poor description.

My view of things in life is much like wearing a pair of bi-focals. I see everything here that others see, but at the same time, with a slight shift of my perception, I see the ocean which surrounds our little bubble here. I not only see it, I feel it as if it were me. 

Because it is.

And upon my physical death, I'll give up my individuality and return to it.

Just as you all will.



x


----------



## yougene

MrM said:


> I agree. I would argue that in the example you give above Michael J. Behe is for the most part a man of god using science to advance his religion, not a man of science.


On what basis?



> Einstein a mystic? That's the first i heard of it. I know he used to get pissed off when people misquoted him on god but as far as i can remember he was agnostic.
> 
> Sounds more like a scientist than a mystic to me.


You're pigeonholing mysticism and mythological beliefs.

Here Einstein is talking about a personal god.  A 2nd person relationship with a mythological being.  Mysticism is a 1st person identification with everything, or 3rd person awe in the universe.

Being agnostic is completely irrelevant to ones status as a mystic.


----------



## MrM

xexon said:


> But the reality is, there is no beaker.



There is, you can buy them online if you don't believe me.

Even if there is some fantastic universe of energy outside of reality as we know it, i don't see how that makes reality as we know it any less real. Beakers still exist, and they still hold fluids just as well.



> My view of things in life is much like wearing a pair of bi-focals.



If it really is like wearing bi-focals and you can see both at once, why do you choose that one of the two visions of reality should not be real and the other real? Why are beakers less real than the bubbles of creation that you see in the sea of consciousness that is god?


----------



## MrM

yougene said:


> On what basis?



On the basis that instead of following the logical scientific method (that when you encounter a problem you investigate) he is using the holes in scientific understanding (which you tell me he is quite good at finding as a trained molecular biologist) to manufactor a 'god of the gaps'. 




yougene said:


> You're pigeonholing mysticism and mythological beliefs.



Possibly my definition of mysticism is too narrow. I do know that most scientists i've spoken to would not describe themselves as mystics, whilst at the same time most scientists i've spoken to would claim to be in awe of the universe (if you understand even a little bit of it, how can you not be?).

If the definition of a mystic is someone who is in awe of the universe, then i'm a mystic. I don't think of myself as a mystic, but as i said, maybe my definition of the word is too narrow.


----------



## yougene

MrM said:


> On the basis that instead of following the logical scientific method (that when you encounter a problem you investigate) he is using the holes in scientific understanding (which you tell me he is quite good at finding as a trained molecular biologist) to manufactor a 'god of the gaps'.


In a sense he might be going against the spirit of science.  But he's not pointing out missing gaps of knowledge.  He points out fundamental misunderstandings of how we think of evolution on the large scale, and what actually happens on the molecular scale.  His intentions might be inauthentic but his criticisms are more then just an attack on a lack of evolutionary data.  I'm digressing from the thread.





> Possibly my definition of mysticism is too narrow. I do know that most scientists i've spoken to would not describe themselves as mystics, whilst at the same time most scientists i've spoken to would claim to be in awe of the universe (if you understand even a little bit of it, how can you not be?).
> 
> If the definition of a mystic is someone who is in awe of the universe, then i'm a mystic. I don't think of myself as a mystic, but as i said, maybe my definition of the word is too narrow.


Maybe you're not a mystic, but you have experienced a mystical state.


----------



## New

xexon said:


> But the reality is, there is no beaker.
> 
> There is unmanifest "God", and there is manifest God, "Creation"
> 
> The only way I can describe what I see is to use symbolism
> 
> "God" is like a luminous ocean of consciousness rather than a being on a throne somewhere.
> 
> "Creation" are like the bubbles within this ocean. They exist for a time and are reabsorbed back into the ocean they came from.
> 
> Even that is a poor description.
> 
> My view of things in life is much like wearing a pair of bi-focals. I see everything here that others see, but at the same time, with a slight shift of my perception, I see the ocean which surrounds our little bubble here. I not only see it, I feel it as if it were me.
> 
> Because it is.
> 
> And upon my physical death, I'll give up my individuality and return to it.
> 
> Just as you all will.
> 
> 
> 
> x



And without accepting  both the manifest and unmanifest, you are not truly enlightened.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Samael said:


> Here's my reasoning:
> 
> My understanding of God is reality as we know it as well as a beyond that can't be proven or disproven, so the latter does not exist for the purpose of this conversation. To better understand God, one would have to better understand reality. To better understand reality, one would have to understand scientific concepts and methods. Therefore, when science proves something I understood wrong, my understanding of God was wrong and has to be corrected. Does this make sense?



Definitely. One of my professors is a medical doctor and zoologist, who is also a Christian minister, a Freemason, a big fan of the esoteric, and the number one fan of scientist-mystic Emmanuel Swedenborg. The guy's my hero.


----------



## Nutswir

Must there has to be a god?
I think little green men visited our planet and planted a testtube seed which was called "evolution us"
a less smarter group in hte universe, who could evolve into something like them.
How old is the universe? greenies dont have forever to wait us to show something neat, so they pointed us a romodel
LOL  and "god" allows them to have control over us

Our system is "the bibel"? Everything and nothing circles around god. So... maybe there are more systems?
Sry for my english but operation scientology is starting to sound good :D


----------



## Papa1

Samael said:


> Here's my reasoning:
> 
> My understanding of God is reality as we know it as well as a beyond that can't be proven or disproven, so the latter does not exist for the purpose of this conversation. To better understand God, one would have to better understand reality. To better understand reality, one would have to understand scientific concepts and methods. Therefore, when science proves something I understood wrong, my understanding of God was wrong and has to be corrected. Does this make sense?



I might be missing something, but why is having an incorrect understanding of God incompatible with being a man of God? In most religions (such as Judaism) isn't God an infinite entity, and so inherently incomprehensible and confusing to us? Doesn't Judaism also teach _interpretation_ i.e. ambiguity i.e. the potential to be wrong in its holy texts?

I don't think there's anything preventing an appropriate belief in both God and scientific rigor.


----------



## New

yes. it does. sometimes a question has to be asked.


----------



## xexon

Enlightenment cures the asking of questions.

"And without accepting both the manifest and unmanifest, you are not truly enlightened"

It isn't that I don't accept both, it's just that I can only find words for one of them.



x


----------



## Papa1

Samael said:


> yes. it does. sometimes a question has to be asked.



Is this in response to my post??


----------



## jazzlvr66

xexon said:


> I started my own journey from a scientific point of view.
> 
> Big Einstein fan.
> 
> Like him, I was looking for what ties everything together. The highest form of energy.
> 
> It wasn't until I made the jump from physics to metaphysics that I understood.
> 
> You can't involve yourself in metaphysics if you don't have a very extended range of perception. I was born that way, so the journey for me was very rewarding and continues to pay benefits to this day.
> 
> To know what God is has no dependency on thinking. The power of discrimination is the only real important element of that.
> 
> It is the ability to FEEL that reveals "God".
> 
> Beyond the 5 senses. Beyond the mind which processes that input.
> 
> If you do it correctly, all of creation becomes your body.
> 
> 
> 
> x


To Xenon: It's like you took the words right out of my mouth.  I can so relate to your post. I, too, was involved deeply in the sciences (my career)...but then over time I expanded my understanding of 'everything' through entering the metaphysics realm.  And yes, to comprehend God and reality, one has to be born extremely perceptive -- of your own sensory experiences AND experiences beyond the 5 senses.  Take the Myers-Briggs personality test - you probably would score as an "INFP"? (just a guess)


----------



## New

Papa said:


> Is this in response to my post??



yeah.


----------



## ebola?

Ask some scientists.
Survey response rates show biologists, chemists and physicists to have high rates of spiritual belief and religious affiliation.  Increase your N by expanding to women. 

ebola


----------



## RedLeader

Samael said:


> Here's my reasoning:
> 
> My understanding of God is reality as we know it as well as a beyond that can't be proven or disproven, so the latter does not exist for the purpose of this conversation. To better understand God, one would have to better understand reality. To better understand reality, one would have to understand scientific concepts and methods. Therefore, when science proves something I understood wrong, my understanding of God was wrong and has to be corrected. Does this make sense?



Empirical science can only resolve/show physical things about the world. If a concept of a god extends its characteristics to the immaterial, or the metaphysical realm, then the physical sciences cannot completely prove or disprove the existence.  Assuming that god possesses anything beyond physical properties, then for certain physical sciences cannot prove/disprove the existence.  It is an open-ended question as to whether metaphysics (logic, set-theory, math, etc.) could.  Again, though, you cannot "prove" something until you make a claim about what exactly it is that you want to prove - if you don't provide a candidate god, then you're not going to get anywhere.  Even to prove that "no candidate god" could exist, you'd have to then provide a basic set of common denominator factors that all candidate gods would necessarily share.  

I would say more, but I've written a novel in the S&T thread about the Universe origin, which touches a lot on how a creator would fit into what we know.


----------



## Papa1

Samael said:


> yeah.



Oops, just confused which question you were saying yes to. 

I don't see the contradiction. If anything, corrections made to a religious belief by scientific rigor seem like they have the potential to _strengthen_ the belief in the end, as long as the two are melded thoughtfully. Thoughtful, principled belief seems central to solid religious faith.

I think the key to incorporating religion and science would simply be humility, that is an acceptance that you're likely to be wrong about a number of things - including your religious beliefs. Given this, I'd really answer an unqualified yes to your title question.

And I agree with Ebola - from what I've heard, the rates of religious belief among scientists is roughly the same as with the general population.


----------



## xexon

Just wanted to let you folks know this is my final post.  Just no time. Ha ha.

I've enjoyed the conversations.

Final words?

Believe anything is possible.

Regards,


x


----------



## rantNrave

My problem with Christianity and religion in general is that there is an "US vs THEM" mentality that infects it and is at the root of their dogma.  Christians judge others for not believing as they do.  There is almost NEVER a "live and let live" attitude among the believers toward those who do not believe. Christianity doesn't teach tolerance. Tolerance is a most Christ-like quality that has been lost in modern day Christianity.

 One day two missionaries showed up at my door and not wanting to be rude, I told them I would be happy to listen to them if they could truthfully tell me that at anytime previously in their day of speading their happy tidings of how much they love their Jesus, that when walking away from a house where they had been rejected, that they HADN'T judged or critcized the person that had rejected them as they walked away. If they could tell me that truthfully, I would gladly listen to them. A bewildered look came across both their faces, and they turned and walked away. As they left, I asked them to please refrain from criticising me while still in my yard, I think its rude.


----------



## RedLeader

^ Is it possible for the statement "anything is possible" to be false? 

ugh...oh....


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

xexon said:


> I started my own journey from a scientific point of view.
> 
> Big Einstein fan.
> 
> Like him, I was looking for what ties everything together. The highest form of energy.
> 
> It wasn't until I made the jump from physics to metaphysics that I understood.
> 
> You can't involve yourself in metaphysics if you don't have a very extended range of perception. I was born that way, so the journey for me was very rewarding and continues to pay benefits to this day.
> 
> To know what God is has no dependency on thinking. The power of discrimination is the only real important element of that.
> 
> It is the ability to FEEL that reveals "God".
> 
> Beyond the 5 senses. Beyond the mind which processes that input.
> 
> If you do it correctly, all of creation becomes your body.
> 
> 
> 
> x



I totally agree with what you are stating! Normal academic intelligence can not perceive the spiritual in everything that is byond the mind that comes from a lightness of being!


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Samael, I have a further thought on this, that I didn't have time to write yesterday. To do science, one needs to follow the scientific method in collecting and assessing information. This involves withholding all conclusions or assumptions about one's test subject until supporting evidence is collected. To many people who go into the sciences, this mindset of hardnosed skepticism ("I'll believe it when I see it!") predates, underlies, and MOTIVATES their career choice. It likely already permeated the person's entire worldview long before they chose a career that made use of this mindset.

However, there are also many people who go into careers in science who DON'T have a deeply ingrained skepticism toward everything, the metaphysical included, as part of their basic worldview. I don't see this as problematic at all, so long as such people follow the scientific method strictly when working with their subjects.

Many scientists who are rationalists to the core, will poormouth colleagues of theirs who do and say things, even things utterly unrelated to their job (such as religion), which are not motivated by rationality. They'll get up on a high horse and claim they're more 'real' or 'full' scientists than these colleagues. I find their logic faulty -- just because you're a natural at something doesn't mean you'll necessarily perform better than someone who wasn't always so inclined. But then again, many people are always looking for reasons to feel better than others, especially in highly competitive games of prestige like science.

Think of it this way, by way of analogy: To be a prison guard, one needs to be able to be a hardass on the job. One does NOT need to be a hardass in one's private life, to do this job well. However, it shouldn't be surprising that this job does attract a large number of workers who ARE hardasses pretty much all the time. It also shouldn't be surprising that such workers consider themselves more qualified to do their jobs, than even highly competent correctional officers who turn into Ned Flanders every time they exit the barbed wire fence.



Papa said:


> Oops, just confused which question you were saying yes to.
> 
> I don't see the contradiction. If anything, corrections made to a religious belief by scientific rigor seem like they have the potential to _strengthen_ the belief in the end, as long as the two are melded thoughtfully. Thoughtful, principled belief seems central to solid religious faith.
> 
> I think the key to incorporating religion and science would simply be humility, that is an acceptance that you're likely to be wrong about a number of things - including your religious beliefs. Given this, I'd really answer an unqualified yes to your title question.



Very good point. I think humility is one important element of both good scientific inquiry AND good spiritual seeking. Both are, sadly enough, frequently undertaken with nary a bit of it. But my forays into both have seemed to drive home the point that there's a lot more going on than I could ever fully get a handle on, even in multiple lifetimes.



> And I agree with Ebola - from what I've heard, the rates of religious belief among scientists is roughly the same as with the general population.



Really? Wikipedia cites a poll of American "non-industrial scientists", showing just under half claiming some sort of religious faith. This poll would seem to support a 'some do, some don't' trend, when it comes to scientists and religion.

I think this is a difficult thing to poll for, though, on many grounds. The results of such a poll have the potential to vary substantially, based on:
*A) Who qualifies as a 'scientist'? *It seems very arbitrary that the cutoff would be defined as "non-industrial". I have a hard time seeing an engineer as less of a scientist than a professor of Evolutionary Psychoneurosociobiology. As a budding medical doctor, I see myself as a scientist full stop. But I've been told, even here, 'that doesn't count', because I'm not a producer of research.
*B) What qualifies as religious faith? *My first instinct would be to set the bar very low: 'Are you open to the existence of ANYTHING supernatural?' But even something so seemingly clear-cut is problematic, because it's likely many people would answer 'yes' to this question, but who would feel wholly uninterested in the spiritual, at the same time. Each person's faith, or lack thereof, is unique to that person, and a function of his unique way of placing himself in the world.
*C) How is the question worded?* It's very hard to ask someone a question about something highly personal and subjective, without making the question loaded, or biased toward a certain response.


----------



## Papa1

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Really? Wikipedia cites a poll of American "non-industrial scientists", showing just under half claiming some sort of religious faith. This poll would seem to support a 'some do, some don't' trend, when it comes to scientists and religion.



I'm taking this from a talk I heard on CBC; the gist was that many scientists are religious, so the popular idea of a divide between science and religion really isn't there on the personal level. I'll see if I can find a reference.


----------



## Heuristic

Samael said:


> Here's my reasoning:
> 
> My understanding of God is reality as we know it as well as a beyond that can't be proven or disproven, so the latter does not exist for the purpose of this conversation. To better understand God, one would have to better understand reality. To better understand reality, one would have to understand scientific concepts and methods. Therefore, when science proves something I understood wrong, my understanding of God was wrong and has to be corrected. Does this make sense?



I'm going to shamelessly ignore ebola?'s and MyDoors extremely sensible approach of actually looking at men of the sciences (I had typed women of the sciences for the sake of gender equality, until I became sidetracked by speculating as to what a Women of the Sciences calendar would look like... maybe a hot female astronomist for April, an astrophysicist for August, etc., anyway I digress), noting that many are religious, and answering your title question yes.  I just don't have anything to add to it.  They're right.

So, instead, I'd like to focus on the argument you made in the paragraph above.

If God = reality, and science helps us understand reality, then yes.

But... isn't there a danger here that by assigning everything to be part of God, we're actually trivializing the concept of God?  Do we want to be in the position of saying "I learned about God today" when we've researched the latest prices on laptops, for instance?  

Or, to put it differently, are all facts about reality equally important to knowing God?  

And supposing one day science comes up with a theory of everything, a theoretical framework in which all the physical phenomena of the universe might be explained and understood, does that then mean that we have somehow also understood God?

I have the sense that when people equate reality to God, they have something more in mind than a mere equivalence.  I don't know what that is though.  Any help?


----------



## New

Of course I'm assigning something more to it. That's my way of giving life meaning and how I express the connectedness of the knowledge. One learns about God by learning about laptops. One learns about God by studying migration patterns of arctic terns. 

Wouldn't trivializing God in that aspect also trivialize reality by association? Maybe I'm assigning meaning to reality rather than trivializing God.

And yes. We may understand all of what has been lain before us and become the _Deus ex Machina_ ourselves. But I doubt we'll be as we are now.


----------



## Heuristic

Samael said:


> Of course I'm assigning something more to it. That's my way of giving life meaning and how I express the connectedness of the knowledge. One learns about God by learning about laptops. One learns about God by studying migration patterns of arctic terns.
> 
> Wouldn't trivializing God in that aspect also trivialize reality by association? Maybe I'm assigning meaning to reality rather than trivializing God.
> 
> And yes. We may understand all of what has been lain before us and become the _Deus ex Machina_ ourselves. But I doubt we'll be as we are now.



I think I see what you're saying.  So in reality being God, you find a sense of wonder, and even reverence, in reality?  Or perhaps you believe that reality is God because of the sense of wonder and reverence that reality evokes?

If I've understood you correctly, then I would say that not only can those in the sciences be persons of God, but they frequently are--albeit without using the term God.  I would even say that the best scientists, on this conception of God, almost must be persons of God (so long that being a person of God doesn't require one to use the term God), since the devotion of time and concentration to a subject that enables one to be the best necessitates a sense of wonder, reverence, and excitement.  To be sure, social recognition plays a strong role, but it's just part of the equation. 

Fair point about asking if I am trivializing reality.  I think I was trying to express the idea that we find some aspects of reality more significant and important than others.  Also... and maybe this belongs on another thread... what about those aspects of reality that we find repulsive and evil?  Or that, if we have free will, we are continuously creating aspects of reality; are we also thereby creating parts of God?

I mean these as actual questions, not criticisms of your beliefs.  I'm agnostic when it comes to these things, and have no axe to grind.


----------



## New

Well, just like reality is a process, God is a process. But due to the conservation of energy, we're not really creating or destroying anything, just rearranging it. And there HAS to be some retardedly complicated equation for the human brain. Like, grossly complicated.

And just because something is repulsive or evil doesn't mean one can't find awe in it, that "spark of the divine" that makes something meaningful and powerful. Meaning and power aren't always things we consider good at the time.

And yes, your first assessment is would be correct.


----------



## yougene

Heuristic said:


> Fair point about asking if I am trivializing reality.  I think I was trying to express the idea that we find some aspects of reality more significant and important than others.  Also... and maybe this belongs on another thread... what about those aspects of reality that we find repulsive and evil?


A simplification of the model but imagine you have 2 different perspectives, the non-dual self and the relative self.  The relative self/ego ranks and operates on distinctions of opposites( good, evil ).  The non-dual self grasps all things equally as expressions of Spirit.  Every part reflecting the qualities of the whole from this view.  

The non-dual perspective is the more inclusive one in that the relative self arises as an "object" within the perspective.
So when the relative self moves towards the Good it is also a reflection of the non-dual Self since it is not separate from it.  When the relative self shows preferences it is a reflection of the non-dual Self.  The non-dual in this way embraces both perspectives.





> Or that, if we have free will, we are continuously creating aspects of reality; are we also thereby creating parts of God?


In Judaism and probably other traditions there is this idea of being co-creator.  God created man so man could be as God.  This takes on particular significance in the present day context, where the non-dual All is seen as unfolding/evolving Spirit.


----------



## ebola?

MDAO said:
			
		

> Really? Wikipedia cites a poll of American "non-industrial scientists", showing just under half claiming some sort of religious faith. This poll would seem to support a 'some do, some don't' trend, when it comes to scientists and religion.



Well, I contended that biologists, physicists, and chemists tend to have _relatively_ high levels of religiosity, usually below but not too far from the rate of the general population.  Sociologists and anthropologists tend to be irreligious, as religion becomes an object of study for many of them, enervating it's 'gut-level' impact.

It's just nicely ironic, given the moronic political debate about evolution vs. creationism, cast as a strict dichotomy.

I think this is a difficult thing to poll for, though, on many grounds. The results of such a poll have the potential to vary substantially, based on:



> A) Who qualifies as a 'scientist'? It seems very arbitrary that the cutoff would be defined as "non-industrial". I have a hard time seeing an engineer as less of a scientist than a professor of Evolutionary Psychoneurosociobiology. As a budding medical doctor, I see myself as a scientist full stop. But I've been told, even here, 'that doesn't count', because I'm not a producer of research.



I think that the difference is that scientists employ systematic methods to collect empirical data that confirms, unconfirms, or revises theory (particularly governing laws) through which we understand the world.

If an engineer specializes in applying prior technique to concrete situations, that isn't science per se...at least taken alone.  However, if this engineer, in creating novel solutions to problems at hand, invents new technology, particularly that which challenges or novel-ly illustrates physical theory, she is a scientist.

We're all scientists occasionally. 



> B) What qualifies as religious faith? My first instinct would be to set the bar very low: 'Are you open to the existence of ANYTHING supernatural?' But even something so seemingly clear-cut is problematic, because it's likely many people would answer 'yes' to this question, but who would feel wholly uninterested in the spiritual, at the same time. Each person's faith, or lack thereof, is unique to that person, and a function of his unique way of placing himself in the world.



mmm...These surveys are a bit un-nuanced.  They ask, "Do you affiliate with any religion?" "Do you believe in a 'higher power'?" "How often do you go to church?"  "Would you consider yourself 'spiritual'?" etc.  I could look up the exact GSS questions, if you'd like.

ebola


----------



## ebola?

H said:
			
		

> But... isn't there a danger here that by assigning everything to be part of God, we're actually trivializing the concept of God?



Possibly, if one makes a very casual reading of, say, Buddhism.
However, part of mystical practice (which I think anchors spirituality) is holding reverence in the everyday (a sort of meditation).



> Or, to put it differently, are all facts about reality equally important to knowing God?



Why would that be?  Given any particular thing, not all facts will hold equal importance in understanding that thing.



> I have the sense that when people equate reality to God, they have something more in mind than a mere equivalence. I don't know what that is though. Any help?



It is my opinion that when people equate god with 'the all', it differs drastically from identities held by mundane things.  Namely, god appears bound with the non-dual, that which lies beyond language and logic.  'The everything' is really a most imperfect pointer-concept.

But...I am pretty ignorant (raised agnostic, stayed so).



			
				H said:
			
		

> Or that, if we have free will, we are continuously creating aspects of reality; are we also thereby creating parts of God?



The way that I think about it is that god may be conceptualized as the the set of all possibilities and preconditions from which the actual emerges.  If we hold the axiom that all that is possible occurs in the multiverse, then God must be all.  If not, well, god remains in a sense 'the all', as the actual flows out of the possible and nothing else.

So, using metaphor, we are each various aspects of the universe coming to self-consciousness, as actual beings springing forth from the possible, our experiences providing the mechanism through which the universe perceives itself.  Would this mean that willing beings reauthor god in part?  Not really, as god is this set of prior conditions coupled with all possibility, which is by necessity a static background.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

ebola? said:


> Well, I contended that biologists, physicists, and chemists tend to have _relatively_ high levels of religiosity, usually below but not too far from the rate of the general population.  Sociologists and anthropologists tend to be irreligious, as religion becomes an object of study for many of them, enervating it's 'gut-level' impact.



Don't forget psychologists. I've met ones who are spiritual, but seldom ones who subscribe to organized religion. Similar to what you said, psychologists analyze human behavior, and to most of them, religion must be just another human behavior -- something to analyze from an outsider's perspective, not something to do and get into.



> It's just nicely ironic, given the moronic political debate about evolution vs. creationism, cast as a strict dichotomy.



Yeah really. Shades of grey indeed. The thing is, I bet many, if not most, American scientists who are religious DO NOT accept or support Creationism. Just like I'd bet most American scientists who are not religious have never spoken out or opened their wallets on behalf of the New Atheists / Brights.

Creationism is far more an artifact of American politics than a cosmic struggle of good vs. evil. It's about a certain set of Americans claiming divine legitimacy
to impose their ways of life on their fellow countrymen. (Those nutters occupy about the same socio-political niche in the US as emperor-worshipping ultranationalists in Japan.) There's plenty of room for robust personal faith, even after rejecting Creationism thoroughly. Especially if your religion is any besides Christianity!

Which brings me to another point: scientists in many other countries see no contradiction between being religious and being people of science. Several Indians I've spoken to about the whole 'culture wars' thing in the US don't see what the big deal is.

I think that the difference is that scientists employ systematic methods to collect empirical data that confirms, unconfirms, or revises theory (particularly governing laws) through which we understand the world.



> If an engineer specializes in applying prior technique to concrete situations, that isn't science per se...at least taken alone.  However, if this engineer, in creating novel solutions to problems at hand, invents new technology, particularly that which challenges or novel-ly illustrates physical theory, she is a scientist.
> 
> We're all scientists occasionally.



Good point. It probably varies from one engineer (or doctor) to another, then, how much actual science they do professionally.



> mmm...These surveys are a bit un-nuanced.  They ask, "Do you affiliate with any religion?" "Do you believe in a 'higher power'?" "How often do you go to church?"  "Would you consider yourself 'spiritual'?" etc.  I could look up the exact GSS questions, if you'd like.



I'd definitely like to see a link to the surveys, if you've got them.


----------



## dspade

to beleive that science and god are two different things is odd does not every single advancement in science make god seem more plausible. it is your mental image of god that conflicts science. all im sayin is that sometimes these pieces fit in a little too well to be completely random.


----------



## plot_in_us

there is no beyond that cant be proven or disproven. that is to say i havent read those threads yet. men of science must necessarily be men of god, although many would never put it in those terms.


----------



## Binge Artist

I think it's all a matter of how much "cognitive dissonance" you can tolerate.  Plus, the logic of beliefs is quite tricky.

Say you ask Bob, "Do you believe all men are mortal?" and he says "yes".

Then you ask him "Do you believe Socrates is a man?" again he say "yes".

Does this mean that Bob believes that Socrates is mortal?  Even if Bob is a rational, intelligent woman, the answer may still be no.

Basically, there's no way to determine if Bob believes the following statement has a truth value of 1: "For all x, (x is a man) implies (x is mortal)."  

We think we can model statements with predicate logic, but I think it may be off.  Really, predicate logic is just a game played with pencil and paper, so why should we assume that it perfectly models reality, just because it seems to hold with concrete examples?  I do believe that when the translation of your (or at least, my) beliefs into predicate logic yields a contradiction, it can be unnerving.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Binge Artist said:


> I think it's all a matter of how much "cognitive dissonance" you can tolerate.  Plus, the logic of beliefs is quite tricky.
> 
> Say you ask Bob, "Do you believe all men are mortal?" and he says "yes".
> 
> Then you ask him "Do you believe Socrates is a man?" again he say "yes".
> 
> Does this mean that Bob believes that Socrates is mortal?  Even if Bob is a rational, intelligent woman, the answer may still be no.
> 
> Basically, there's no way to determine if Bob believes the following statement has a truth value of 1: "For all x, (x is a man) implies (x is mortal)."
> 
> We think we can model statements with predicate logic, but I think it may be off.  Really, predicate logic is just a game played with pencil and paper, so why should we assume that it perfectly models reality, just because it seems to hold with concrete examples?  I do believe that when the translation of your (or at least, my) beliefs into predicate logic yields a contradiction, it can be unnerving.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me your post contains the implicit assumption that all true scientists let rationalism guide their thinking globally. My definition of a scientist is much more bare bones -- someone who inquires about their objects of study using the scientific method stictly. Note that this says nothing about how such people [must necessarily / ought to] think about and approach anything beyond what they and their collaborators are attempting to draw scientific conclusions on. It certainly says nothing about approaching matters (such as the metaphysical) that aren't even open to scientific inquiry.

Cognitive dissonance is only really an issue when there are two opposing beliefs in one person's mind. The scientific method is not a belief, it's a method.


----------



## Binge Artist

^I was making a few assumptions.

Let's consider an over-simplified example:
Suppose Bob is an astronomer who believes the literal Genesis creation.

Suppose Bob holds a series of beliefs, which, when translated into predicate logic, imply "(several billion years old) is true of (the universe)".  And suppose he translates his Genesis belief as "(6,000 years old) is true of (the universe)."

By my last post, I'm basically saying the following:
1. If I were Bob, I would feel somewhat "unnerved"
2. I could modify the predicate logic translation of my beliefs.
3. I could sort of cooly dismiss predicate logic as "not applicable to reality".

I know my last post wasn't worded too clearly, but it's kind of a complicated idea to the point that, even I'm not sure what I was talking about


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Everyone is their own god or goddess, it just depends on whether you engender that god (goddess) in you.


----------



## thujone

god is abstract, science is concrete.  only a walking conundrum can truly be faithful to both


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ I think that's kind of a false dichotomy. Doesn't everyone deal in both the abstract and the concrete, depending on the situation? I mean yeah, there are people who prefer one over the other, but I think of someone who can deal well in both of them as being balanced and well-rounded, rather than riddled with problems.


----------



## thujone

science is the pursuit of looking at what _seems_ to be abstract and finding the concrete in it.  religion is the pursuit of taking what is concrete and turning it into supernatural legend.  what really shits me is when christians who favour themselves to be highly intelligent go and say shit like "you can't prove god doesn't exist."  riiiiight.  well, the christian god can be kind of an asshole.  if there's a chance he exists, there's also a good chance all the other gods that were ever prayed to since time immemorial also exist and thus, why continue praying to this one asshole god, in houses of worship long ago demented by the catholic empire?  for crying out loud, the catholics even made a fucking medici the pope!  what the fuck do they know about ANYTHING that JC was put on the cross for? 

science may not be able to prove it's all a crock of shit, but that's only because religious zealots take any crushing defeat by logic as a reason to evolve the legend so that "god," his whereabouts, and his actions become even more abstract and even less possible to probe by scientific methods because all the religious convolutions leave the scientists wondering how sane these people must be in the first place!  

this is the major problem with monotheism.  there are literally so many fucking contradictions plaguing every mainstream religion that there's no way in hell a true man of science would ever sign up to worship a faith that can NEVER be reconciled with concrete proof.  

it's simply a collection of cults for which believers will say anything to defend and because of that, every single believer has their own interpretation of their religion.  why not just take the cosmic being out of it, and choose simply to live by the virtues extolled by the mainstream religions?  they're good, concrete virtues to follow, and i dare say that without the cosmic being and fervent sectarianism associated with these virtues simply because of a supposed deity standing behind them, we would have a lot less murder done in the world in the name of these cosmic abstractions.  

given these realities, i think it's rather silly to say it's a false dichotomy when it's clearly a clean break.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

god is a word, and it means nothing.


----------



## Heuristic

yougene said:


> A simplification of the model but imagine you have 2 different perspectives, the non-dual self and the relative self.  The relative self/ego ranks and operates on distinctions of opposites( good, evil ).  The non-dual self grasps all things equally as expressions of Spirit.  Every part reflecting the qualities of the whole from this view.
> 
> The non-dual perspective is the more inclusive one in that the relative self arises as an "object" within the perspective.
> So when the relative self moves towards the Good it is also a reflection of the non-dual Self since it is not separate from it.  When the relative self shows preferences it is a reflection of the non-dual Self.  The non-dual in this way embraces both perspectives.



Hmmm... I'm not sure entirely what you mean when you say that the non-dual self "grasps all things equally as expressions of Spirit."  Is there a contradiction between understanding that many things, or all things, have something in common, while also understanding that many things, or all things, have aspects that differentiate them?

For instance, I could say that all matter is composed of atoms, while also noting various distinctions between different types of matter.

And if this is the case... couldn't the non-dual self also differentiate between things it finds good or bad for various purposes?


----------



## yougene

Heuristic said:


> Hmmm... I'm not sure entirely what you mean when you say that the non-dual self "grasps all things equally as expressions of Spirit."


The ego can make these distinctions and ranks.  But ultimately the ego is arising within the empty space we label as the Self.  The Self doesn't have any rational faculties in and off itself.  It only has the capacity to contain phenomena like the self and the world around us.  The Self is only rational in the sense that it encapsulates the lower case self, and doesn't differentiate itself from it.  Even though the *S*elf grasps differentiation and ranking transitively from the relative self it registers phenomena as well, phenomena or "Spirit".





> Is there a contradiction between understanding that many things, or all things, have something in common, while also understanding that many things, or all things, have aspects that differentiate them?
> 
> For instance, I could say that all matter is composed of atoms, while also noting various distinctions between different types of matter.


I don't think there is any contradiction in categorizing like and different.  I think the paradox is seeing all things as differentiated while simultaneously seeing them as One.




> And if this is the case... couldn't the non-dual self also differentiate between things it finds good or bad for various purposes?


Only by extension, the non-dual Self encapsulates the differentiating self and all its attributes.


----------



## op8TOOLman

Old Testament was BEFORE God sent his only child to death for OUR grace.So that WE don't have to kill out 1st born or goats for forgivness.His grace given to us is such an awesome thing.
New Testamen is AFTER Jesus.Now all we must do is KNOW BELIEVE that Christ died for our sins.
Gos just did'nt send two everyday Joes to write his word.He CHOSE his prophets to write his words.

This talk can go until the end of time.I know what I know and truely feel.I also know I'd hate to be an "unbeliever" when all times are done.


----------



## op8TOOLman

I DO NOT believe in a "religion" though.
Religion is man made.Check out churches that are non denominational.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

thujone said:


> science is the pursuit of looking at what _seems_ to be abstract and finding the concrete in it.  religion is the pursuit of taking what is concrete and turning it into supernatural legend.



Yep. I'm with you so far. Both looking for patterns in the concrete world AND extrapolating from there outward to what could lay beyond, are both pretty normal, integral parts of the human experience.



> What really shits me is when christians who favour themselves to be highly intelligent go and say shit like "you can't prove god doesn't exist."  riiiiight.  well, the christian god can be kind of an asshole.



Depending on what the Christian in question takes as their most reliable source as to the nature of God. This is going to vary quite a bit from one Christian Church to another. Back when I considered myself a Christian, I always considered most the portrayals of the Old Testament God as misguided, but understandable given the context  the writers likely lived in. I was always taught (and still believe) that theology and metaphysics have come a long way since then.



> if there's a chance he exists, there's also a good chance all the other gods that were ever prayed to since time immemorial also exist and thus, why continue praying to this one asshole god, in houses of worship long ago demented by the catholic empire?  for crying out loud, the catholics even made a fucking medici the pope!  what the fuck do they know about ANYTHING that JC was put on the cross for?



A very good question to ask, indeed. I'm all for taking to task those who claim to take someone great as their hero, but then, hypocritically, act contrarily to this person's stated principles.

Sure all gods ever prayed to since time immemorial exist. A god is nothing more than a human approximation (usually anthropomorphized) for the ultimate reality that binds and contains all being. This ultimate One is utterly without attributes, and thus not easy to put into words or images. How any given person grasps this ultimate reality and whittles it down to a manageable size, will depend on what life has handed him.



> science may not be able to prove it's all a crock of shit, but that's only because religious zealots take any crushing defeat by logic as a reason to evolve the legend so that "god," his whereabouts, and his actions become even more abstract and even less possible to probe by scientific methods because all the religious convolutions leave the scientists wondering how sane these people must be in the first place!



No, that's not why. Science cannot confirm or deny the existence of anything supernatural, because statements concerning that which is by definition beyond the natural and observable are not testable or falsifiable.



> this is the major problem with monotheism.  there are literally so many fucking contradictions plaguing every mainstream religion that there's no way in hell a true man of science would ever sign up to worship a faith that can NEVER be reconciled with concrete proof.



If an article of faith were ever to be supplied with concrete proof, not only would it cease to be an article of faith, but it would cease to be supernatural too.

And I think if you read the surveys ebola? and I talk about, you'll eat your words. Plenty of people who approach the natural world with a very scientific attitude, give free rein to their hopes, dreams, imaginations, and inherited lore, when approaching the great unknown that lies beyond the natural world.

You're not one of these people. That's cool. I understand the thought processes that make this so for you. But please understand that this is a thinking style preference on your part, which preemptively says yes to science and no to religion. It's nothing intrinsic about being a scientist.



> it's simply a collection of cults for which believers will say anything to defend and because of that, every single believer has their own interpretation of their religion.  why not just take the cosmic being out of it, and choose simply to live by the virtues extolled by the mainstream religions?  they're good, concrete virtues to follow, and i dare say that without the cosmic being and fervent sectarianism associated with these virtues simply because of a supposed deity standing behind them, we would have a lot less murder done in the world in the name of these cosmic abstractions.



We'd have just as much murder, for other reasons, if religion was done away with. It's perfectly human to search for meaning and relate back (what 'religion' literally means in Latin) to the source of all being any way one can, even if that involves putting a human face on the source of all being. This may not be your cup o' joe, but there's nothing odd or perverse about it.



> given these realities, i think it's rather silly to say it's a false dichotomy when it's clearly a clean break.



What we're running up against is a difference in thinking style preferences. Not an ideological deadlock.


----------



## fizzle

How do you not believe in religion? Everything in your previous post pretty much summarizes a very specific religion.


----------



## op8TOOLman

Religion is man made.
Seventh-day Adventist,Mormons, Folk religion,so on and so on are all "religions"
To me religion is a set of rules made by MAN that preaches to you a set of guidelines on how to get to Hevan.God gave us grace and if we hold up our end,we'll be there.
I don't need someone who *claims*to have dug a scribe out of the ground 100 or years ago in New York to preach to me.(forget the name,but he founded the Mormon Church)
IMO,reading the Bible,doing right and living the word is what is expected.


----------



## dspade

yeah one way or another there is a god. what is god we should be pondering. somothing made time and time made us so what could possibly have shattered the 3rd dimension or what made dimensions to begin with. the christian god can be proven false through the study of religion you find it was taken from other ancient religions but religion will only lead to god if you take the ideals in the right way. as far as i see god is the creator.


----------



## thujone

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Sure all gods ever prayed to since time immemorial exist. A god is nothing more than a human approximation (usually anthropomorphized) for the ultimate reality that binds and contains all being. This ultimate One is utterly without attributes, and thus not easy to put into words or images. How any given person grasps this ultimate reality and whittles it down to a manageable size, will depend on what life has handed him.
> 
> And I think if you read the surveys ebola? and I talk about, you'll eat your words. Plenty of people who approach the natural world with a very scientific attitude, give free rein to their hopes, dreams, imaginations, and inherited lore, when approaching the great unknown that lies beyond the natural world.



i can't find any link to the surveys you allude to but i'd like to read them if you would provide a link?  

without reading them, i can only assume the reason that most scientists believe in some ultimate being is the same as my own reason: because people who explore further than man normally explores are more apt to stumble upon sights and experiences that seem to defy all logical explanations.  

but WHY is that a license to skip the obvious line of reasoning which states "i can't comprehend this yet, perhaps i will be able to in the future" and make instead a beeline for "GOD DID IT?"

that doesn't seem logical in the least.  if it sounds anything like a man of science at all, then it sounds like a DEFEATED man of science who is so distraught at finally coming to the realization of how little he/she truly does know that he/she decides to find solace in god rather something slightly less insane... like cutting a swath through a jungle of drugs.

forgive me if im making really broad assumptions here, but belief in god, however it's defined, is clearly also a pretty bigass assumption.




> If an article of faith were ever to be supplied with concrete proof, not only would it cease to be an article of faith, but it would cease to be supernatural too.



what rationale is there for chosing faith over reason?  faith has never solved a problem.  praying to god has never magically made my math homework complete by morning when i was in elementary school, only MY OWN reason did the work that god wouldn't do.  now, i'm a bit behind on my metaphysics, but what purpose is there in defining god as how you believe god's nature to be, if the god as you choose to define him does nothing for you?

because it makes you happy?  i'd like to allude to a study i heard of once, that tested whether people ENJOY wine, watches, and other luxury goods that cost too much, even more than their cheaper but better tasting, looking, etc, competitors.  turns out they do.  people enjoy a $400 bottle of wine that tastes like piss, because it costs $400.  it's psychosomatic, so is any psychological benefits anyone gains from belief.  people are, by some major flaw in our physiology, wired to take pleasure in things that don't even exist if they only believe strongly enough in it.

i'd like to conclude by bringing up the aztecs.  brilliant civilization, beyond a doubt.  yet they worshipped the sun.  they mapped the heavens yet thought the sun was controlled by a god.  we now know the sun isn't controlled by a god, but conveniently the mainstream religions advanced their stranglehold on impressionable people by explaining that god controls everything AND the sun.

how convenient, and megalomaniacal, to assume that big wide beautiful universe was engineered and designed by a being that looks more or less like we, his exhalted children, do.  let me ask you.  if everything needs to have an engineer, as the followers of god clearly believe, then who engineers chaos?  the devil?  the anti-god?  

are we so fucking proud that we can't simply say "I DON'T FUCKING KNOW" when we're presented with a situation we can't understand?  so proud that we need to grin a big smug grin acting like we know something nobody else knows because we're imagining god with the air of some sort of logical mindfuck that only we can understand individually?  What the hell do we need god for, when all the answers to the questions in our universe are just waiting for us to uncover?


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

thujone said:


> i can't find any link to the surveys you allude to but i'd like to read them if you would provide a link?



http://www.physorg.com/news102700045.html I'm pretty sure this article cites the same survey I was talking about earlier, though it's a different article.



> without reading them, i can only assume the reason that most scientists believe in some ultimate being is the same as my own reason: because people who explore further than man normally explores are more apt to stumble upon sights and experiences that seem to defy all logical explanations.



I hear ya. Quite possibly that's a major motivating factor.



> but WHY is that a license to skip the obvious line of reasoning which states "i can't comprehend this yet, perhaps i will be able to in the future" and make instead a beeline for "GOD DID IT?"
> 
> that doesn't seem logical in the least.  if it sounds anything like a man of science at all, then it sounds like a DEFEATED man of science who is so distraught at finally coming to the realization of how little he/she truly does know that he/she decides to find solace in god rather something slightly less insane... like cutting a swath through a jungle of drugs.
> 
> forgive me if im making really broad assumptions here, but belief in god, however it's defined, is clearly also a pretty bigass assumption.



I ask you the same thing I asked Binge Artist: What obligates a scientist to let rationality guide his/her every move? I understand that those who do are more likely to choose a career in science. But that doesn't change the fact that someone who isn't a strict rationalist can make a fine scientist in their field.



> what rationale is there for chosing faith over reason?  faith has never solved a problem.  praying to god has never magically made my math homework complete by morning when i was in elementary school, only MY OWN reason did the work that god wouldn't do.  now, i'm a bit behind on my metaphysics, but what purpose is there in defining god as how you believe god's nature to be, if the god as you choose to define him does nothing for you?



The rationale for choosing faith is to seek a personal connection with the source of all being, and a sense of place and purpose as an integral and indispensable part of creation.

There is no contradiction in being rational in dealing with the natural, physical world, and at the same time holding out faith that the natural world we observe is only one small part of something greater that lies beyond.



> because it makes you happy?  i'd like to allude to a study i heard of once, that tested whether people ENJOY wine, watches, and other luxury goods that cost too much, even more than their cheaper but better tasting, looking, etc, competitors.  turns out they do.  people enjoy a $400 bottle of wine that tastes like piss, because it costs $400.  it's psychosomatic, so is any psychological benefits anyone gains from belief.  people are, by some major flaw in our physiology, wired to take pleasure in things that don't even exist if they only believe strongly enough in it.



First of all, how do you know that no higher power of any kind exists, and that the natural world we can observe and measure is all there is? This has been a running assumption throughout your entire post. The fact is, none of us know. So your guess is as good as mine. And as I've said, scientists are only bound to follow the scientific method in inquiring about what's observable, testable, and measurable in the physical world. Beyond that, they're free to speculate, and hope and dream, all they want.



> i'd like to conclude by bringing up the aztecs.  brilliant civilization, beyond a doubt.  yet they worshipped the sun.  they mapped the heavens yet thought the sun was controlled by a god.  we now know the sun isn't controlled by a god, but conveniently the mainstream religions advanced their stranglehold on impressionable people by explaining that god controls everything AND the sun
> 
> how convenient, and megalomaniacal, to assume that big wide beautiful universe was engineered and designed by a being that looks more or less like we, his exhalted children, do.  let me ask you.  if everything needs to have an engineer, as the followers of god clearly believe, then who engineers chaos?  the devil?  the anti-god?



I really recommend you read some Process Theology. Or some works on Kabbalah. You talk before about 'God as however you choose to conceive of him', but these last couple of paragraphs show that you're stuck on this image of a guy in the sky, who dwells outside the universe somehow. 



> are we so fucking proud that we can't simply say "I DON'T FUCKING KNOW" when we're presented with a situation we can't understand?  so proud that we need to grin a big smug grin acting like we know something nobody else knows because we're imagining god with the air of some sort of logical mindfuck that only we can understand individually?  What the hell do we need god for, when all the answers to the questions in our universe are just waiting for us to uncover?



Are we so fucking proud as to assume that everything about existence is uncoverable, measurable, and understandable?

We're getting off topic. This thread is not an argument about God's existence. It's about whether belief in God keeps one from being a scientist, or vice versa, without going crazy. All you need to do is look at the demographics of people who do science, to see that this is hardly the case.


----------



## thujone

my god (irony,) that article was so terrible i almost began smashing my head against the wall.  in conclusion, 



> RAAS data reveal that younger scientists are more likely to believe in God than older scientists, and more likely to report attending religious services over the past year. "If this holds throughout the career life-course for this cohort of academic scientists," Ecklund says, "it could indicate an overall shift in attitudes toward religion among those in the academy."



so the answer is clearly yes, men of sciences can also be men of god, but it doesn't mean they're very good at being scientists.  haven't the requirements for getting B.Sci/M.Scis been getting more and more lax in the past decade or so?  Yes they have, do click on THIS to discover.  as if the original article that spawned this post wasn't proof enough of "research getting weirder." 8)



> I ask you the same thing I asked Binge Artist: What obligates a scientist to let rationality guide his/her every move? I understand that those who do are more likely to choose a career in science. But that doesn't change the fact that someone who isn't a strict rationalist can make a fine scientist in their field.



because the very nature of science is, as previously mentioned, to look for CONCRETE SOLUTIONS in SEEMINGLY ABSTRACT PROBLEMS.  I hate going in circles.  Believe me, I know that someone who is a strict rationalist will actually make a WORST scientist than someone with the capacity to believe that nothing is truly impossible.  But that has NOTHING to do with belief in Gods that can't possibly ever be reconciled with PROOF that they do exist.  A great scientist wants to GET to impossible, and GRASP it.  There is no GRASPING god rationally, ergo there's no bloody reason for any intelligent scientist to waste their time on faith and belief that can't be quantified.



> The rationale for choosing faith is to seek a personal connection with the source of all being, and a sense of place and purpose as an integral and indispensable part of creation.
> 
> There is no contradiction in being rational in dealing with the natural, physical world, and at the same time holding out faith that the natural world we observe is only one small part of something greater that lies beyond.



so basically, you're implying there's nothing contradictory about a scientist spending their whole life studying science just to believe there's a whole nother universe out there in which none of their previous knowledge can apply.  what the hell is the purpose of learning science in the first place then?  so they can waste their time on rational things when there's so obviously a god beyond all the rational that requires of you no knowledge of anything, just a bit of FAITH!?



> First of all, how do you know that no higher power of any kind exists, and that the natural world we can observe and measure is all there is? This has been a running assumption throughout your entire post. The fact is, none of us know. So your guess is as good as mine. And as I've said, scientists are only bound to follow the scientific method in inquiring about what's observable, testable, and measurable in the physical world. Beyond that, they're free to speculate, and hope and dream, all they want.



I don't, but it's common practice in scientific circles to call bullshit on claims that can't actually be proven by anyone, anywhere, ever.  Let's assume for a moment that "God" is totally universal, and that there are no real prophets, no manifested descendants, and no other gods to fuck with the original's grand schemes.

Let's also assume we know nothing about the nature of God.  Basically, we're turning back the clock to before religion even existed as a means by which to explain God with.  Now YOU tell me, what should i tell others the nature of God is like?  What should i tell others about his works, about his desires, about his rewards?  I see nothing of God, except for strange visions that manifest themselves when I dream.  Coincidentally, I often incorporate elements of what's on my mind before I sleep in my forthcoming dreams.

Gee, I guess if someone had God on their mind it would seem likely that their imagination is manifesting all kinds of cool shit about what God's like in their minds, so they can wake up and feed the rest of the world with bullshit about what they FEEL God is like.  Without knowing for certain of course, since you probably would never have even assumed God exists in the first place were you not full of paradigms saying otherwise.



> Are we so fucking proud as to assume that everything about existence is uncoverable, measurable, and understandable?



what's proud about saying "I don't know?"  what's proud about admitting that we have no freaking clue?  obviously it's far more proud to act like there's something we know that nobody else knows and using that supposed knowledge as an excuse to be a prig to non-believers.



> We're getting off topic. This thread is not an argument about God's existence. It's about whether belief in God keeps one from being a scientist, or vice versa, without going crazy. All you need to do is look at the demographics of people who do science, to see that this is hardly the case.



the topic question clearly warrants a binary response.  i assume the reason this thread was left open in spite of that was to foster discussion, which by natural means must include probing the nature of God and whether or not it can possibly meet half-way with science, which I've been continually pointing out it does not and for such and such reasons.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

thujone said:


> my god (irony,) that article was so terrible i almost began smashing my head against the wall.



Granted. But the point was the survey, not the article. I just linked to the first article I found that analyzed the survey. I can find another, with better data interpretation and better writing, if you like.



> so the answer is clearly yes, men of sciences can also be men of god, but it doesn't mean they're very good at being scientists.



Doesn't mean they're bad either. Since science involves an intricate and robust system of checks and balances, including collaboration and peer review, I see any truly bad scientist, regardless of their metaphysical beliefs, getting selected out of any institution of good repute pretty quickly. As my wife said about engineering, either the thing you build works or it doesn't. So I scoff at the notion that scientists who believe in the supernatural are a polluting and detrimental presence at institutions of science.



> because the very nature of science is, as previously mentioned, to look for CONCRETE SOLUTIONS in SEEMINGLY ABSTRACT PROBLEMS.



Granted philosophy of science is not my area. But I was always under the impression the essence of science is measuring and testing concrete things, and finding statistical correlations in those measurements. But I digress.



> Believe me, I know that someone who is a strict rationalist will actually make a WORST scientist than someone with the capacity to believe that nothing is truly impossible.  But that has NOTHING to do with belief in Gods that can't possibly ever be reconciled with PROOF that they do exist.  A great scientist wants to GET to impossible, and GRASP it.  There is no GRASPING god rationally, ergo there's no bloody reason for any intelligent scientist to waste their time on faith and belief that can't be quantified.



Again, what obligates a scientist to limit themselves to the measurable and quantifiable all the time? Seems to me they're only obligated to do this while they're on the job with their test subjects.



> so basically, you're implying there's nothing contradictory about a scientist spending their whole life studying science



No scientist spends their WHOLE LIFE studying science. Well OK, maybe a few do. But most are like the average person, they have lots of other hats they wear and roles they play in their day to day lives, multiple facets to their personalities that call for different thinking and relating styles.



> just to believe there's a whole nother universe out there in which none of their previous knowledge can apply.  what the hell is the purpose of learning science in the first place then?  so they can waste their time on rational things when there's so obviously a god beyond all the rational that requires of you no knowledge of anything, just a bit of FAITH!?



I'll point out the fallacy of this by way of analogy. Say I grow up in a small isolated tribal society in the Amazon rainforest. I eventually learn that there's a much larger society called Brazil all around me, and if I foray into it, none of my previous social knowledge will necessarily apply. Would that render all my original rearing and education utterly pointless? If I stay tied to my people, certainly not.



> I don't, but it's common practice in scientific circles to call bullshit on claims that can't actually be proven by anyone, anywhere, ever.



*sigh* I don't know how much clearer I can make this. What you're describing is a style of thinking that predisposes one to gravitate toward the sciences. It's not a prerequisite for doing science. A prison guard who likes to arrange flowers and listen to Celine Dion in his spare time is probably going to cop shit from his coworkers if they find out. But that doesn't inherently make him less qualified to be a prison guard.



> what's proud about saying "I don't know?"  what's proud about admitting that we have no freaking clue?  obviously it's far more proud to act like there's something we know that nobody else knows and using that supposed knowledge as an excuse to be a prig to non-believers.



Um... neither I nor anyone else in this thread said anything about believers being prigs to non-believers. One can hold beliefs without being smug or showy (let alone preachy!) about them to anyone. I don't know how it is where you work or study, but in my program, we have every shade of worldview, from evangelical Christian to staunch materialist, and everyone gets along fine. Why? Because we talk about, and collaborate on, MEDICINE, not religion or philosophy or politics or spirituality. We talk about what we have in common, not what we don't. At my school, it would be in INCREDIBLY poor taste to openly take someone to task for their beliefs, or really anything about how they live their lives, except how they learn and practice medicine. The subject doesn't even come up. I assume it's probably the same at any higher education science department or scientific place of work: you talk about, and judge each other based on, what you're working on, and what you believe about ultimate reality is your own private business, just like your sex life.

In other words, I have a hard time believing that most scientific circles are places where open mockery of things supernatural is common, and you're socially and professionally blackballed if you won't partake in it.

I think the reason we're repeating ourselves and not seeing eye to eye on this, Thujone, is because my definition of science is very functional -- it's merely something one DOES. Whereas you seem to see it as more than that, something along the lines of a way of life, a global mindset. I don't buy your argument because I see the doing of science as utterly divorced from belief, philosphy, and ideology altogether.


----------



## Papa1

thujone said:


> so the answer is clearly yes, men of sciences can also be men of god, but it doesn't mean they're very good at being scientists.  haven't the requirements for getting B.Sci/M.Scis been getting more and more lax in the past decade or so?  Yes they have, do click on THIS to discover.  as if the original article that spawned this post wasn't proof enough of "research getting weirder." 8)



The rates of religiousness among scientists are roughly the same as they were at the turn of the 20th century. I'm taking this form a CBC program, but I'm happy to look up details if you want.

The conflict between religious beliefs and the scientific method (whatever that is) is largely a pop culture myth. More on this later.


----------



## Binge Artist

RedLeader said:


> ^ Is it possible for the statement "anything is possible" to be false?
> 
> ugh...oh....



I say it's necessary that the statement "anything is possible" is false.

For, suppose "anything is possible" were true in some "hypothetical, logically-consistent universe."

Then, in said universe, any statement that begins with "Necessarily" is false (because it's negation would be possible).

Hence, in ANY universe, any statement that begins with "Necessarily" is false (because there exists a particular logically consistent universe in which that statement is false).

Thus, "Necessarily, nothing is necessary"...which is a fucking META contradiction.

Gotta love the illogic of self-referential logic.


----------



## mihna

*Would you kill god?*

So, I finally started watching Haruhi Suzumiya. A show about a girl who is a god and does not realize it and is capable of recreating the universe to suit her unconscious desires. 

Anyways, I had a sudden chilling thought...can you kill god? What would happen if you tried? I asked myself what I would do if I was her best friend kyonand realized I would  seriously contemplate murdering her to find out.

My possible sociopathic tendencies aside, what would you guys do?  Would you decline for moral reasons? Or fear? Or would your urge to see what happens get the best of you?


----------



## law12345

no I would just twist God's arm a bit to make some changes.


----------



## L O V E L I F E

No.

I don't believe in suicide.


----------



## malakaix

I have no desire to kill myself.


----------



## Jabberwocky

If we get into Gods that can be slayed, we are into something like gnosticism or polytheism I would think.

But the question for one that would slay God would have to be the same question one would ask before an assassination or coup. Who is the successor or likely successor? Who would benefit or be hurt by the transition or vacuum that occurs?

But that assumes God has exercised any of his power. If he is like the deist God it maybe does not matter: impotent through inaction vs impotent by having been slayed, seem about the same to me.


----------



## mihna

I guess I should clarify that the girl in question _has no idea that she is god_. The way her divinity was described makes it plausible that she would be able to die because she thought she was mortal. So as long as she died before she could register the thought "I don't want to die"....

I don't understand the suicide posts. I never said she was neccesary for the universe to exist. Just that she could change it. Of course I'm sure she could kill me herself, if I gave here the chance.


----------



## mihna

Enki said:


> If we get into Gods that can be slayed, we are into something like gnosticism or polytheism I would think.
> 
> But the question for one that would slay God would have to be the same question one would ask before an assassination or coup. Who is the successor or likely successor? Who would benefit or be hurt by the transition or vacuum that occurs?
> 
> But that assumes God has exercised any of his power. If he is like the deist God it maybe does not matter: impotent through inaction vs impotent by having been slayed, seem about the same to me.



You'd just have a godless universe. She wasn't a god in the judeo-christian sense. More like an upstart that could bend reality to her will. Then again  maybe not. hence the desire to test it.


----------



## malakaix

It sounds like your looking for an answer which relates to the specific show more so then an answer to the question itself 'Would you kill God?'.


----------



## mihna

well the title is certainly ambiguous but I did relate my questions to a specific set of circumstances. 
A broader discussion would be difficult what with all the different views of what could be a god and the inevitable religious discussion that would emerge.


----------



## Raw Evil

I, personally would - providing that slaying this god of yours would be visible to and acknowledged by its believers.

Then the human race could finally get on with their lives.


----------



## delta_9

This is quite a funny thing to mull over actually.  I find it interesting that any of you think you _could_ kill god in the first place.

OP, killing god just to find out what would happen is pretty fucked up IMO.  I would at least need a legitimate reason to even consider it in the first place.  I would much rather tell her she's god and hope she'd make the world a better place.  If she wasn't down with that then maybe I'd kill her 

Btw I watched 1 episode of The melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya a few months ago and was turned off pretty quick.



> I don't understand the suicide posts. I never said she was neccesary for the universe to exist. Just that she could change it. Of course I'm sure she could kill me herself, if I gave here the chance.


I think they meant to say that they were god.  I could be wrong though.


----------



## mihna

delta_9 said:


> This is quite a funny thing to mull over actually.  I find it interesting that any of you think you _could_ kill god in the first place.
> 
> OP, killing god just to find out what would happen is pretty fucked up IMO.  I would at least need a legitimate reason to even consider it in the first place.  I would much rather tell her she's god and hope she'd make the world a better place.  If she wasn't down with that then maybe I'd kill her
> 
> Btw I watched 1 episode of The melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya a few months ago and was turned off pretty quick.
> 
> I think they meant to say that they were god.  I could be wrong though.



I think one of the factions in the show actually considered killing her because they deemed it too dangerous to allow her to exist. But they were considered a radical party and the official stance was wait and see.

But idk the open-ended question would haunt me...If I was 100% convinced she was a god, I may give in to my curiosity and justify it with her being dangerous later.


----------



## delta_9

mihna said:


> I think one of the factions in the show actually considered killing her because they deemed it too dangerous to allow her to exist. But they were considered a radical party and the official stance was wait and see.
> 
> But idk the open-ended question would haunt me...If I was 100% convinced she was a god, I may give in to my curiosity and justify it with her being dangerous later.



So you'd rather be dangerous now than allow her to be dangerous later? 8)


----------



## Changed

"If you meet Buddha on the road... kill him."


----------



## Volundr

Ah but God is already dead.


----------



## twentysix

if you kill something you consider your God, you either find that it wasn't your God, or you cease to .. yea. I don't know what I'm talking about. That might be a lie. It might be necessary. I might wish nothing. Just go about.. are you really blaming God? Who is God? Why aren't you God? I don't believe in suicide, either..

You are God. You are stuck in an abusive relationship. Who really wants to know you? Who do you really want to know? Do you really think that that cute little kitten wouldn't eat you if it were 23 feet tall?

It's an illusion. You're alone. You have no point. Now you're dead. Go fuck yourself.. no.. nonono.. wait... MASTURBATE!

SKYDIVE!!!






689, 0, 12345, 7, 23, 42! 41? 40. 7 7 4 3 20 9 0


----------



## Roger&Me

'Ey, leave Fibonacci outta this!


----------



## rantNrave

Nah, wouldn't kill him, maybe throw him in the looney bin. Thats where they put people who show up at the Emergency room saying they are God /Jesus. 

"SURE you're God, now come this way into the nice rubber room."

" now if you're really God, you can miracle your happy ass right outa there"


----------



## capstone

God, as most call the living unifying consciousness, exists in all things living. Including people, excepting those who sell their soul. Either way, still part of the same energy. By killing others, and allowing others to do so, we all do our small part to kill god.

just a thought


----------



## Max Power

Volundr said:


> Ah but God is already dead.



Thanks Friedrich. :D


----------



## Methlehem

Nah, it's a free country...  But if he has a wallet, I'm taking it.


----------



## Sweet P

Sometimes I've had deicidal tendencies, but I don't think I could kill god.

I'd just kick him in the balls for giving me the wrong body and a faulty mind.


----------



## Belisarius

Would I kill God?  Nah; people need to keep busy.

I'm only half-kidding.


----------



## thujone

capstone said:


> God, as most call the living unifying consciousness, exists in all things living. Including people, excepting those who sell their soul. Either way, still part of the same energy. By killing others, and allowing others to do so, we all do our small part to kill god.
> 
> just a thought




according to Alexa, your posts make up 95% of the bullshit on the internet


----------



## capstone

^Witty.


----------



## Thou

capstone said:


> God, as most call the living unifying consciousness, exists in all things living. Including people, excepting those who sell their soul. Either way, still part of the same energy. By killing others, and allowing others to do so, we all do our small part to kill god.
> 
> just a thought



That's what I got from the question. Except on a grander scale than just 'killing others.' 

Assuming it's an abstract way of asking _if it was in your power to do so, would you level existence_? Interesting question, especially since the answer would serve to reveal quite a bit about how this person in question values collective existence.


----------



## Bowser22

My mate met God on a beach in India. Says he's a midget black guy with a goatee beard and a limp.... true story. I wouldn't kill him though. Who else can you shout for when you have a pair of crazed eyes lookin at ya and time just got real important...


----------



## L2R

they say it's better to regret something you did than something you didn't do




they are morons


----------



## Blennz

their is no one specific god. We are all part of the universe and therefore we are all part of god. It is a collection of all of us rather then their being one omnipotent being. You kill another person and you kill a part of yourself (thus the suicide posts). Murderous and generally 'evil' behaviour slowly degrades the overall world. The more often you see that kind of behaviour the less impact it makes on you and thus the more sensitized you become to it, allowing it to be a smaller deal to you.

Generally good behaviour and loving other human beings does the opposite of that, and makes this world a better place to live in. If everyone you saw showed gratitude and had a friendly vibe towards you then you would be in less of a place to act the 'evil' and more inclined to do the 'good' thing. That also goes for the same way you treat animals etc. As everything is part of a greater one.

Despite saying that, no im not vegetarian etc. But niether is this world perfect  infact its quite far from it.


----------



## capstone

thouart_that said:


> Assuming it's an abstract way of asking _if it was in your power to do so, would you level existence_?



With great power comes great responsibility?


----------



## Nihilus

mihna said:


> I guess I should clarify that the girl in question _has no idea that she is god_. The way her divinity was described makes it plausible that she would be able to die because she thought she was mortal. *So as long as she died before she could register the thought "I don't want to die"....
> *
> I don't understand the suicide posts. I never said she was neccesary for the universe to exist. Just that she could change it. Of course I'm sure she could kill me herself, if I gave here the chance.



Headshot?

I would kill the girl supposing she becomes the image of god as we know it. _Worship me or die, but know that I still love you_ ...shit like that.


And regarding the suicide posts, I don't know why it's so hard to understand for others... let's put it this way...would you poke a sleeping dragon in the eye? 

P.S. That's my interpretation of the suicide posts.


----------



## treezy z

it is not possible to kill God because God is all and beyond matter and is all matter and is above life and death.

now if you're talking about the God in the in the old testament of the bible, i'd kill the bastard in a heartbeat.


----------



## L2R

i'd only kill god for the meat

and sport


----------



## jackie jones

Op:

The _Old Testament_ = He is coming.

The _New Testament_ = He is here.


Do not let the worst of mortals get the best of you. Jesus Christ is responsible for everything you love. He was never killed, and can never be.


----------



## rangrz

I'd assume God is hostile to me, and thus engage the subject until the contact is a kill.

Then brag about how much I pwn.

more seriously;

I don't believe in God to start with, and if I was capable extinguishing something, I wouldn't call it a God as it would be non omnipotent. If its the God of the Torah/bible/Qu'ran, and I could kill it, I would I disagree with its ethics, and i would  end most of the wars in the world in a single hit. making me a cool guy.


----------



## punktuality

I recommend reading The fantasy series "His Dark Materials" by Phillip Pullman if you are interested in this idea. 

The books are set both in fantasy worlds as well as our own world and the traveling between dimensions which allows for amazing interpretations of science and god that differ, yet are the same in each world/dimension.

***SLIGHT SPOILER ALERT***








Without trying to spoil too much they deal with the issue in such a way as that it is a positive thing when God dies allowing God to actually be free and liberated from a world that has deemed him irrelevant and unnecessary.


----------



## B9

^ Yeah a good book - for a kids book anyway - gets a bit crap in the last volume tho


----------



## PrettyKitty

punktuality said:


> I recommend reading The fantasy series "His Dark Materials" by Phillip Pullman if you are interested in this idea.
> 
> The books are set both in fantasy worlds as well as our own world and the traveling between dimensions which allows for amazing interpretations of science and god that differ, yet are the same in each world/dimension.
> 
> ***SLIGHT SPOILER ALERT***
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without trying to spoil too much they deal with the issue in such a way as that it is a positive thing when God dies allowing God to actually be free and liberated from a world that has deemed him irrelevant and unnecessary.




That's book sounds amazing. I'm going to look into buying it. Thanks


----------



## capstone

How would one even go about killing god? 

I wonder if when you kill god, like decapitation or burnt alive, would you take its place? If so, that's about as good as incentive as any. 

Then again, only satanists want to kill god.


----------



## QuasiStoned

I wouldn't want to kill anyone, much less god (if such a figure truly exists).


----------



## Psyduck

*Would you dig up an artifact that proved God to be false?*

If there were a stone burried somewhere in the dessert, which had written on it "God does (does not) exist", would you dig up the dessert to find the stone? 

Modification:
a) Would you do it if you knew you would find the stone before you die?
b) Would you do it if there was a chance that you don't find it?


----------



## Sweet P

Nope. The writing on the stone might not be true, making the whole task pointless.


----------



## Psyduck

You know a priori that the writing is valid. My point was to bring out the meaning (or to use a contemporary word: 'function') of God for people behind the curtains of "having faith in god".


----------



## ninjadanslarbretabar

i dont understand this
what do you mean the writing is valid ? to whom ? to yourself or others or to science or ..?


----------



## Psyduck

The knowledge is a priori, in the same way we can deduct that a triangle can't have two angles of 90°. This knowledge is not based on empiricism, scientific theories, or religious texts. The knowledge is a priori and necessarily true. The premisses of this thought experiment is actually not that important. I wanted to question the importance of the existence or non-existence of a God to people.


----------



## malakaix

I don't need a stone to re-assure myself that i am god ;p


----------



## bagochina

*Depends what kind of stone*.














I probably would look for it out of curiosity as that would be half the fun.  I already know God exists but finding a nice piece of Mother Nature would be like icing on the cake.

Peace,
Seedless


----------



## capstone

I know god exists within my soul, so why would I need to look anywhere to find it?

The rock itself is a manifestation of god's consciousness anyways. Technically, any ordinary rock would be proof of god. 

Without god, there would be no rock.


----------



## Sweet P

Psyduck said:


> You know a priori that the writing is valid. My point was to bring out the meaning (or to use a contemporary word: 'function') of God for people behind the curtains of "having faith in god".



There is no way I could know _a priori_ that a stone saying "god does (or doesn't) exist" is valid. There is no logic to validate it.



capstone said:


> I know god exists within my soul, so why would I need to look anywhere to find it?



Knowing and believing are two different things. In philosophy, knowledge must meet three criteria: it must be true, you must believe it is true, and you must be justified in believing it is true. There are a few counter-arguments to that, but I think it's still pretty solid. You cannot _know_ that a god exists - none of us can.


----------



## L2R

no, i would not. 

if i spent my whole life searching for an answer i might not even find, i'd have been wasting it. the knowledge one way or another won't really make a shred of difference in the long run, so i'd rather just live.

but to be pedantic (as this thread seems to be about), of course god doesn't exists, well not in any way we can comprehend. the something is highly unlikely to fall within our means to grasp, describe or label. so the question is still misleading.


----------



## ResinTeeth

Seems like a waste of time imo.


----------



## toa$t

this stone would tell you nothing, nor would it convince anyone else of anything, without a unilaterally accepted definition of god. sure, you could have a priori knowledge about whether 'god' exists. but without the expression 'god' singling out some unique entity or concept...


----------



## alasdairm

i think i am missing something. the stone says "_God does (does not) exist_"?

that statement in itself makes very little sense to me. even if the stone said either "_god exists_" or "_god does not exist_", why would i have any reason to believe what was written there? it could have been carved by anybody and placed there 20 minutes ago...

alasdair


----------



## raver2008

If you already knew what the stone had written on it why would you even bother going and wasting all that time searching for it?


----------



## toa$t

alasdairm said:


> i think i am missing something. the stone says "_God does (does not) exist_"?
> 
> that statement in itself makes very little sense to me. even if the stone said either "_god exists_" or "_god does not exist_", why would i have any reason to believe what was written there? it could have been carved by anybody and placed there 20 minutes ago...
> 
> alasdair



the stone thing is irrelevant and misleading. I think the idea of the thought experiment is to determine whether you would want to discover whether or not god exists, once and for all. and without a concrete definition of god, I think that is a meaningless question.


----------



## swilow

If by dessert, we mean cakes, hell yeah, I'd dig :D


----------



## Sweet P

^ Ha! Good one.


----------



## undead

*is god a being or an idea?*

i'm interested in peoples' perspectives on this. mind you, i'm not a religious person, never have been, likely never will be. that said, i've always considered myself to be agnostic (or at least what i've come to know as agnostic) as i don't necessarily believe in god, but i don't rule out the possibility that there is a greater power.

i was thinking today "do people think of god as a person or being that we can't see/hear/etc. or do they see god as an idea which they, themselves, maintain where god is basically a symbol for their moral standards?


----------



## Pillthrill

An idea. Some people can't deal with not knowing, not having an explanation that covers ALL the bases. god does that for them. 
Personally, I'm perfectly fine with "I don't know"


----------



## Roger&Me

I see god as the totality of existence; the entire universe, and the underlying algorithm that unites it as one system. I am a part of god and so are you.  At least that's what I believe.

I'm not sure what label you could apply to me. I'm certainly not a theist, and I don't think I'm a deist either. But I guess that I do believe in some sort of "supreme being" now that I think about it, but I don't believe it is elusive in any way-- its everywhere around us, inside us, outside us, far away, close by, over here, over there, and everywhere. It just Is.


----------



## guerillabedlam

I agree with Pillthrill, God is an idea. It's a way to fill in the numerous anomalies and unanswered questions we have about life and the universe.

At this point in my life, I can't accept religion and I can't accept ideas like God is all around us, because as organisms and energies we are constantly feeding on other organisms and energies which in my mind doesn't add up to some cohesive all inclusive  'powerful being.' I personally think that all inclusive viewpoint has some subconscious meaning to it, (like an archetype) but I don't dare to try and dissect it and make sense of it.

I really don't even understand why this question is pondered so much.

Once we get to other planets, near other star's planets, and other galaxies, then maybe we can truly make suppositions about some ultimate diety. Til then I think at most the idea of something like Gaia 'Earth Mind' is the only thing i feel worth trying to figure out.

I also imagine if we encountered other alien organisms it may put a different perspective on things.


----------



## meimthacre8or

I was born Christian and raised as such but once I could really think independently I wouldn't consider myself anything I think spirituality is different for everyone I think major religion is for people who can't think independently who need answers to things unexplained if I called myself something I'd say ignorantism I don't care how we got here why were here I'd rather not know it doesn't mean anything to me I just try to focus on my self am I being what I would consider moral and just I'm a grown boy who doesn't need someone or some ideal to tell me what's right or wrong or how to be


----------



## L2R

oh swil, you zinged the hell out of this. nice work. :D


----------



## L2R

both, an idea of being rather than an idea of just happening. namaste (i bow to the god inside you).


----------



## ebola?

As I see it, entities and ideas interpenetrate, the dialectic of 'being' 'creating'/'eliciting' knowledge and experience of 'being' but conditioning a material aspect of itself (an entity), which causally launches and shapes such knowledge, embodying this knowledge via matter, forming an entity to which ideas point.

We'll find that only God as encompassing all 'being' will be expansive enough to anchor a god-concept adhering to precepts of the omni-conditions (eg, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.).

Therefore, god is both and neither.


----------



## ebola?

> Some people can't deal with not knowing, not having an explanation that covers ALL the bases. god does that for them.
> Personally, I'm perfectly fine with "I don't know"



hehe...this could describe me, amirite? 
As to the usefulness of our pursuits, well, utility toward what end?  Our good in itself is that conceptual map that constitutes the fundamentals of what reality is.  Now, this goal isn't necessarily (or even empirically) superior to any other particular pursuit, but it's what matters to 'us'. 

ebola


----------



## Psyduck

Ok, this is going nowhere good. I expected the discussion going another direction. 

The whole point was to compare the "existence/non-existence" to the "belief/disbelief" in God, not rambling about the stone. The stone was just a metaphor for the epistemic justification of your belief or disbelief in God. My question therefore was: "Does this epistemic justification change anything for your (non-)religious attitude, or is only the (non-)relation to God that is relevant for you? How important is the epistemic justification of a God these days for people, or does it have no relevance at all anymore?"

malakaix: Saying you're God because you experienced so during an awesome psychedelic experience doesn't prove a thing. You just 'believe' that experience was valid, you don't have an epistemic ground for that. If I rub my eye I can 'believe' there really are black circles in front of me as well.


----------



## Taryth

No, I wouldn't.

I'm quite certain no entity comparable to a deity exists within our universe (with reservations and wiggle room), and so have no need of reaffirming that.

Aside from that, the stone wouldn't prove the [non]existence of any entity named "God" to anyone but myself, as only I would have _a priori_ knowledge of the stone's validity, thus rendering it useless as a tool to inform the masses.  You specifically stated that _I_ have _a priori_ knowledge, and so my answer is based on that single stipulation: only I know of the stone, and of it's validity.

BTW- which "God" are we referring to?






Sweet P said:


> There is no way I could know _a priori_ that a stone saying "god does (or doesn't) exist" is valid. There is no logic to validate it.



The question is hypothetical, and thus doesn't _require_ a justification.  It operates outside the realm of our reality, and thus certain allowances must be made.  Obviously, sandy vagrants don't know of the existence of random pebbles with scribbling on them (which are, in fact, buried in the middle of some desert), nor would they somehow be able to completely verify the validity of this pebble's claim without ever even viewing it. 
But that's our world.  A hypothetical question doesn't obey those rules, and is posed in such a way as to be obviously hypothetical (usually).

Where is the imagination?


And hey!  This is the *PHILOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALITY* forum.  Of COURSE they are going to be hypothetical situations posed!


----------



## Taryth

It is an idea until you prove (rather, provide evidence*) that it is a being.

Problem solved.






*Which would then have to be reviewed (and subsequently validated), of course . . .


----------



## alasdairm

Psyduck said:


> How important is the epistemic justification of a God these days for people, or does it have no relevance at all anymore?"


surely it's never been important and it never will be. that's the very definition on faith.

alasdair


----------



## L2R

^yup

and taking the matter the other way, since we are genetically programmed to conserve our energy (even to our own fatty detriment), it wouldn't be wise for a "god" to make herself too evident to us.


----------



## capstone

Did God make Man, or did Man create God?


----------



## L2R

in soviet russia, they ask "do they eat dog in 'nam?"


----------



## dansgirl

The God I talk to is the embodiment of the strongest person I could be, the person I talk to when I need to be heard, but don't want to turn to anyone. I "know" that he's not really there, as I am an atheist, but all of my energy gets directed to him, so he's as real as I need him to be.


----------



## capstone

If by ancient gods you mean "interfering alien civilizations"....


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Impacto Profundo said:


> both, an idea of being rather than an idea of just happening. namaste (i bow to the god inside you).



This.

I also often wonder whether WE'RE all ideas in the mind of GOD, rather than vice versa (emanationism).


----------



## capstone

^Tools of cosmic consciousness existence to experience?


----------



## L2R

who're you calling a "tool"!  

yeah, so to speak. consider a singular omnipotent and omnipresent being being everything. no purpose. no value. how would one appreciate life if it was a static indefinite state? it would be impossible. to fracture and shatter the oneself into all the things and creatures that make up what is, the one can experience the pain, joy and ultimately the important *value* of existence. even if the process of mortal experience is illusion, it still makes this point.


----------



## ebola?

my opinion is that this type of illusion is illusory only in appearing complete/encompassing when it isn't.


----------



## L2R

a matter of perspective of matter


----------



## B9

Roger&Me said:


> I see god as the totality of existence; the entire universe, and the underlying algorithm that unites it as one system. I am a part of god and so are you.  At least that's what I believe.
> 
> I'm not sure what label you could apply to me. I'm certainly not a theist, and I don't think I'm a deist either. But I guess that I do believe in some sort of "supreme being" now that I think about it, but I don't believe it is elusive in any way-- its everywhere around us, inside us, outside us, far away, close by, over here, over there, and everywhere. It just Is.


 Aye 


Something like god is everything - the universe if you will - omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience ring a bell ? - allowing the the children to play as they wish in his beard - which is of course metaphorical and very real I got trapped in it once & he needs to comb it more frequently the idle old bugger!


----------



## vegan

it's a word, charged with heavy historic meaning, that won't disappear from people's vocabulary, even when they talk about something that has no connection with the historic use of the word god


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

There's a story I once heard as an undergraduate minoring in Japanese. It's legendary, and I can't verify it, but it goes along with the point you're trying to make:

Apparently sometime after WWII, the Japanese government for the first time allowed archaeologists to explore some royal burial mounds in Japan that are highly sacred to Shinto (indigenous Japanese animist religion), and date from before the farthest reaches of documented Japanese history. The archaeologists found mummies in Korean clothing from that time period, as well as other artifacts that were clearly Korean in origin. The archaeologists were mortified, and someone up the chain of command decided right then and there that the excavation would be called off, and the findings never published, because of the ramifications this would have for the myths the Japanese people like to believe about themselves and their origins. (If this story is true, then obviously SOMEONE involved leaked this information, which is believable.)

But the thing is, even if this study were published and widely reported in the Japanese press, I don't think it would precipitate a widespread crisis of faith among Japanese nationalists. After all, they got over the Emperor's radio announcement that he wasn't divine in 1945, and today, belief in the Japanese nation as blessed and special is as strong as ever. It just has a new basis nowadays, namely, the strong economic performance, high levels of social discipline, and uniformly high living standards the Japanese have shown they are capable of maintaining.

So would it be, I think, for the stone you propose, OP. If a codex were found that indicted one or more of the great monotheistic faiths, the faithful would not abandon their faiths en masse -- they would simply reframe the basis of their worldview, emphasizing those aspects of it that were spared indictment by the codex's contents, and de-emphasizing those that clearly were indicted. You'd see SOME increased outflow, for sure. But the religions would more change than die.

The point is, I really think most people have a need to believe in some form of higher power. Seeing life as without inherent meaning and externally-dictated direction -- a random accident of an uncaring universe -- is simply unacceptable to most people. There will always be a strong minority of people who don't have this need at all, and can dispassionately embrace a view that the apparent material world is ALL THERE IS. These people have always been there, and I say have always made up a sizable minority, it's just that only recently have the political situations conducive to their promulgating their worldview have emerged. But these people need to realize that there will always be people, at least a sizable minority if not a majority, who could never be persuaded into seeing things their way, and IMHO, shouldn't be expected to.

Psyduck, I've retitled your thread for clarity's sake. Hope you don't mind.


----------



## capstone

^You're right on Japan's origins, of course they first came from the mainland. But, war fever usually does bury history, when the common people couldn't give a hooker's shit about it, but the government is always afraid of losing their power. Thus, history dies, and tyranny breeds.


----------



## That-Strange-Guy

Both, I know that may be hard to grasp but this will help explain.

http://fastspiritualawakening.com/PsychicDevelopment.pdf


----------



## capstone

God Is The Idea.


----------



## L2R

jebediah springfield or hans sprungfeld?
i want the trooth!


----------



## /navarone/

God is energy, god is strenght, god is justice, god is virtue, god is wisdom, god is love

God is the incarnated bodyless entity of all of the above.

And we stand below helplessly fascinated, like looking seagulls dancing in the twilight.


----------



## ninjadanslarbretabar

how about both

edit piaf: well now post impulsive, im happy to see so much _both _in this thread 

we are the world, we are the children 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			
		
		
	


	



; ) jk


----------



## GoddessLSD-XTC

God is a feeling or experience, like love . . . there are those who believe in God (that a miracle might save us from the "evil One") and those who know or experienced god; I am both.


----------



## B9

If I was paid to do the job - no problem - otherwise why bother?


----------



## Sykoknot

God has to many various definitions for it to be so loosely defined. 

My god, is existence itself, therefore making it a being in which we see/hear/communicate with every moment of our lives. But this communication is blocked in a large percentage of humans by the ego, and by society. To the people whom are sufferers of the ego, god is merely an idea, a thing you can choose to believe in. 

So, in my opinion, God is a being. To many others, its just an idea.


----------



## SimplyOwnage

I am god, of course I'd proof myself wrong.


----------



## psyly

If I was convinced of the proof I'd surely dig it up, but than I have written several dictionary editors and publishers about my conviction that the definition for lunar month needs to include both the definitions for synodic lunar month and sideral lunar month. If I have a have an opportunity to make things clearer or more simple I'll usually embrace the situation. If there is no god it is absolutely the best thing to have any proof out in the open. The God thing is not simple and there being no artifact I can let it lay where it is.


----------



## moonyham

i dont care if he exists or not. So no, i wouldnt.


----------



## B9

^ What about if you were paid say $10,000 to do it tho?


----------



## moonyham

B9 said:


> ^ What about if you were paid say $10,000 to do it tho?



Depends how long it would take. Id do it as a JOB, ie, ill work for money.. but if it ends up being less than minimum wage at the end of it then no thanks.


----------



## Pythagoras

The question is moot as no such 'rock' nor 'writing' could exist. I don't think this thought experiment experiments on the thoughts you desired.

As Sweet P correctly pointed out, Knowledge, Truth and Belief are all various epistemic models (which we continue to tinker with to this day, and remain central questions of epistemology). God generally falls into the belief category. Nothing (strictly speaking very few things) can disprove my belief. Noumena rarely disprove the supernouminal.


----------



## daysonatrain

"I see god as the totality of existence; the entire universe, and the underlying algorithm that unites it as one system. I am a part of god and so are you.  At least that's what I believe."

+1 Roger&Me

I dont see god as a being or an idea.  God is the essence of everything, the very fact that this universe (and whatever is beyond it) is "here." God is light, energy, every particle that makes up this being i call me, and that being i call you.  God is love and sadness, fear and hate.  

Its fascinating and a bit sad that only humans have this need to classify god as "something tangable."

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
-einstein


----------



## ranunky

I think it's an idea. Like unicorns.

I also think it's a being. A non-existant being.


----------



## Raw Evil

*I got a halo 'round my head*



/navarone/ said:


> God is energy, god is strenght, god is justice, god is virtue, god is wisdom, god is love



God is freedom
God is truth
God is power
God is proof
God is fashion
God is fame
God gives meaning
God gives pain



We are also all of these.


----------



## LSDMDMA&AMP

In Christianity (not that i am a christian..confirmed catholic but i dont believe in the shit.) it would seem god is a person, well entities, but it seems in most religions the concept of god is both that of an idea (as a creator) and a person (a messiah, in terms of jews saying he is coming, same with muslims and Jesus for christians, etc.)


----------



## rewiiired

God is an idea. A really bad idea. An unnecessary idea.

It's not even that the idea of god isn't a sufficient explanation; it doesn't even pass as an explanation. It explains nothing. If you use the idea to explain where we came from because "we had to come from somewhere", this doesn't answer the question so much as transfer the question onto that imaginary friend called god himself: after all, if "we had to come from somewhere", should not the same logic be applied to god? And the argument regarding how our complexity or design implies a creator like a coffee-maker implies the existence of a coffee-maker-maker: again, would not the same logic apply to the coffee-maker-maker? If we need a god, doesn't god need a god, and that god's god need a god, and...

And maybe it has to do with faith. Blind certitude. The absence of questioning. Equating critical thinking as with blasphemy. How ridiculous.

God is an idea. A bad idea. We are a social species, and we always look for our alpha male or female. We can't break ties with mommy or daddy so we imagine a cosmic parental figure to keep all the shit in life in line and explain things. We have the drive to find our alpha for the species, so cook up this imaginary friend, this imaginary father-figure, and we call this Uber-Alpha by the name of "god".

We need to grow up. Its an idea so astronomically bad it has stunted the intellectual evolution of our species.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

rewiiired said:


> God is an idea. A really bad idea. An unnecessary idea.



Are you just speaking for yourself? I ask because I saw on your profile that you're into the occult. In my understanding of the Western Occult tradition, God is indeed an idea, namely, a person's anthropomorphization of Ultimate Being, which is formless and ineffable. But every occultist I've ever spoken to, even is he doesn't himself make use of this mental exercise or find it spiritually useful, is cool with the fact that other people do find it a useful for their purposes.


----------



## Tunnelfission

If I was asked this, I would hesitate to answer but if I really had to... i'd say god has to be everything. You can use a few different terms to mean the same all encompassing godhead.

I've been saying cosmos. or simply what "is"


----------



## stonerfromohio

God is not a concept, god is not a form, god is not restricted to any label or word or shape or size or taste, touch, smell, or sound, god is beyond good and evil, transcends everything yet is everything and contained within everything.  

Everything appears within the boundlessness of God, dharmakaya, Brahman, Supreme being, The Tao or The way, or Allah, or God consciousness or Krishna Consciousness there are infinite symbols pointing towards that which is beyond mere conventions and words.  It is the experience-less experience, immanent and transcendent, that which in everything appears.

Unchanging, infinite reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe.

In Buddhist terms:

unmanifested, inconceivable aspect of a Buddha out of which Buddhas and indeed all phenomena arise and to which they return after their dissolution.

The unmanifest absolute in which all phenomenon appear, dance and dissolve back into the great expanse, or sky-like-mind.

It is also called love, pure, compassionate, all pervading like space, possesses clarity, and is self-illuminating.

God is Suchness.  

No-thing


----------



## DOB

for me god is everything,this whole universe is just little piece of his body


----------



## /navarone/

Raw Evil said:


> God is freedom
> God is truth
> God is power
> God is proof
> God is fashion
> God is fame
> God gives meaning
> God gives pain
> 
> 
> 
> We are also all of these.




You got it bro!

There's nothing above, it's all within!
We'tr just to stupiid to admit it and so we bow to someone we are not wish to be.


----------



## /navarone/

you should take a look at Jainism on Wiki.

Truly amazing! It's unbelievale what some people understood befoe christ and atomic energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism


----------



## theseeker

God is an idea that has outlived it's usefulness. The world and the universe  become much, much more interesting once you take any idea of god out of them. Cast away the ecclesiastical crutches and be free.


----------



## Bob Loblaw

God is sentience.


----------



## /navarone/

theseeker said:


> God is an idea that has outlived it's usefulness. The world and the universe  become much, much more interesting once you take any idea of god out of them. Cast away the ecclesiastical crutches and be free.



God is not an entity, it's a concept.

We all think we know out own language, but do we really?
every word has avery profound and intricated meaning.
once u understand that, your one step above.


----------



## HoneyRoastedPeanut

To me, God is an idea. It is the personification of supreme control, knowledge, and benevolence. It is an ideal state that religious humans aspire to, but that by definition is impossible to achieve. It is also the deification of human attempts to dominate others, the endless pursuit of control over the environment, and the ego.

What a lot of people here think of as God - that is, everything in the universe - is not something that I would call "a being". That implies that it exists outside of and apart from everything. To me, this is instead the connection that everything in the universe feels to everything else. In particular, the connection all Earthly life feels to all other Earthly life, because we are all a tiny branch of one big tree, part of the collective lifeforce of our planet. It is being itself, love, the spiritual equivalent of gravity. 

I fall somewhere between an agnostic and an animist. I don't think the question of whether there is a God or not is relevant. I believe in respecting all forms of life without playing favorites, because in the grand scheme of existence we all follow the same laws. I believe in the power of _being_, not the power of _a being_.


----------



## Sweet P

God is a being that lives in the imaginations of spiritual people.


----------



## Acyuta

Well, if you and I are persons the Source of our existence probably contains personality, albeit of an omni-X nature. How could we have qualities that our Source doesn't have?
There's a _sanskrit_ word for that: BHAGAVAN (_bhag_= quality/opulence; _VAN_= one who possesses). _Bhagavan_ (God) possesses all qualities to an unlimited degree, which the subjective aspects of Her/Himself reflect.
We're all God, and yet we're not. 
_
oḿ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaḿ
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate_
Translation:
_The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance._

In defense of the use of the word 'Him'... studying the vedas you'll read that God is the supreme ENERGETIC/ACTIVE principle, archetypical masculine themes, whereas the feminine aspect of Godhead is considered the ENERGY/RESPONSIVE principle, which refers to His subjective aspects (which means we're all female) :D


----------



## Bardeaux

Roger&Me said:


> I see god as the totality of existence; the entire universe, and the underlying algorithm that unites it as one system. I am a part of god and so are you.  At least that's what I believe.



This is exactly how I see it. The bible says we were created in god's image, which I cannot argue with. The universe (god) is made up of the same elements as I am. I've tried to explain this concept to my religious grandmother when she asked if I believed in god, but she didnt exactly follow. 

To me, the word "god" is interchangeable with the word 'universe'


----------



## Heresy

Which one to you is the least easiest to define?


----------



## Acyuta

Bardo5 said:


> To me, the word "god" is interchangeable with the word 'universe'


Is it? The universe is so small compared to God, if He exists. And if He does, by definition He's omnipotent. To call God the Universe or vice-versa would seem an injustice 8) For theoretically She's/He's much more than that.

"God is a being whom no greater being can be concieved" -some philosopher


----------



## ebola?

But couldn't one say that you're failing to do justice to the concept of the universe?

re: the quote:

Ironically enough, that's the definition of God used in the "ontological proof" for his existence, one of the 'proofs' that's most easily shown fallacious. . .

ebola


----------



## L2R

funny, in my book the definition of god is "not a cat."

2 points: 

1- wouldn't time be meaningless in infinity? couldn't the infinite be an illusion, something like a sphere or a doughnut shape on which as one travels in one direction, they unwittingly find themselve back to where they began?

2- the use of god as a synonym for universe crosses in their common shared definition of "all that there is".


----------



## Max Power

There's is a fault in the original question, since it creates a difference between 'being' & 'idea', or being and anything else for that matter.


----------



## L2R

what do you mean "the"???


----------



## B9

Someone mentioned humans being created in gods image - how accurate is the translation from the original text ? Perhaps image could = imagination - however this is a complete guess as I've never looked into the translation of such text - so if we're part of gods imagination the concept of the universe = god seems sound - on that utterly speculative basis anyway :D


I'll go and do something useful now


----------



## Bowser22

God is...... a mathematical genius of proportions outside of the concept of our tiny little minds. His equations and conclusions are the reason for our very existence. I know not what form he takes but i do know this.. organised religion has RUINED our appreciation of God.. and for that they should burn in the hell they preach.


----------



## B9

^ good to see you post my friend


----------



## Bowser22

B9 said:


> ^ good to see you post my friend



always here but mostly watchin....ye know yourself... need to get together soon and compare notes. hi 2 all


----------



## daddysgone

*How is the Existence of the Universe Possible in the Absence of a Creative Force(God)*

There is a very basic problem that I cannot get past when considering the accepted scientific model of the universe.

While cosmologists have done an amazing job at tracing the universe and its evolution, back to a point fractions of a second after its creation, they don't seem to be able to explain the actual moment of creation (and for me, that is the all important detail).

In a nutshell, this is the problem that seems impossible to get past:
One of the most basic laws of our universe is that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
If one assumes that premise to be true, how did the universe come into being.  Scientists love to discuss the big bang, but that does not address this question.  In the big bang all the matter in the universe was condensed into a tiny point which then exploded and has been expanding ever since.  There is no problem with that theory since it starts from a point where the matter already exists (it is just very condensed).  The big bang essentially just dispersed this matter and therefore does not involve the creation of matter, just a change in its form.

However, WHERE DID ALL OF THIS MATTER COME FROM?  It seems that there are only 2 possibilities.
1-There was nothingness one instant, and then all of the matter in the universe simply popped into being.  The obvious problem here is that is violates the most basic law of our universe-that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

2-Matter has always existed.   This seems equally problematic.  The idea that there literally was not a beginning and that all the matter in the universe has always been, is literally unthinkable. 

So.....how are we all here.  To me, the only answer that makes any sense is the acceptance of some creative power which works above what we consider to be "the possible".  Whether you want to call this God or not is irrelevant.  The point is, I do not see an alternative.  Essentially what Im saying is that it seems that the only way around this problem of creation is "magic".  


Lastly, please don't use the "Other Universes or Previous Universes Solution".  I have often heard scientists attempt to solve this problem of creation by stating that our universe and all the matter contained within it, sprang forth from the collision of previous, or other universes.  While this might be true, it does not solve the problem of creation because you have just backed up another step.  You still need to answer the question of, "OK, but where did all the matter from THOSE universes come from?"
Am I missing something?  Does someone have a solution to all of this, or have something to add that I've somehow completely missed? -DG

.


----------



## Jamshyd

daddysgone said:


> 2-Matter has always existed.   This seems equally problematic.  The idea that there literally was not a beginning and that all the matter in the universe has always been, is literally unthinkable.


It is unthinkable indeed, and I see absolutely no problem with that.

A better question might be is why humans are so fond of themselves as to imagine that their tiny monkey brains are able to accommodate any information out there.


----------



## Sykoknot

I believe the physical universe was created by our perception. Nothing we have 'Learned' is really true. Rather it is an invention of our minds that we apply to our own creation (the universe) in an attempt to understand what we have created. 

I find it easier to believe the universe was just a bunch of chaotic, shapeless, meaningless waveforms that our consciousness organized, than to believe some almighty power created all this.


----------



## hobhead

it's akin to attributing human attributes to pet animals .  science only has the power to grind on to understanding what constituted the 'beginning'.  not superstition !


----------



## daddysgone

Sykoknot said:


> I believe the physical universe was created by our perception. Nothing we have 'Learned' is really true. Rather it is an invention of our minds that we apply to our own creation (the universe) in an attempt to understand what we have created.
> 
> I find it easier to believe the universe was just a bunch of chaotic, shapeless, meaningless waveforms that our consciousness organized, than to believe some almighty power created all this.



But the physical universe has obviously existed LONG before we were around to perceive it.  This being the case, the universe clearly does not need us to "perceive" it in order exist.-DG

Jamshyd-I agree with your point regarding our limited cognitive abilities.  Just because we cannot conceive of something, that hardly means that it is not possible.  

Still, regardless of whether or not we can "conceive" of such things, it still presents a problem for scientists since it violates their own laws.  Perhaps it is possible for matter to be created from nothing, but if so that violates one of the main laws that humans themselves conceived.  
Meaning:  How can a scientist maintain that matter cannot be created or destroyed while still clinging to the notion that at some point in time there was nothing, and then a moment later there was everything? -DG


----------



## Jamshyd

^ Well, I personally don't see the point of discussing further something that we admit is so much larger than us that we cannot individually conceptualize. Attempting to put it in words (or equations) is, to me, an act of arrogance.

But you guys are free to discuss this further if you want. Just stating my opinion.


----------



## Sykoknot

daddysgone: We have only made ourselves to believe this universe existed before us.


----------



## amapola

daddygone

You are using laws of the universe, to determine undefinable states before the universe, which you can't do.  Also remember time is just one of our currently palpable four dimensions, so it didn't exist before the Big Bang either.

Finally the whole matter not being created or destroyed is a little misleading and a little newtonian.  Special relativity predicts something called materialization of energy which entails opposite particle pairs with a net charge of zero springing into existence and then most often colliding and canceling each other out but not always (like at the event horizon of a black hole).


----------



## B9

I cannot see why it's unthinkable that the universe is was & will be eternal - perhaps that's what's beyond our comprehension.


----------



## opiaddict

" A fool says there is no God." -Probverbs.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

OP, I think you might find this recent thread of interest:
Why is there something rather than nothing?


----------



## alasdairm

^ that is a great thread.

to the op, i suggest you read flatland. it won't necessarily help you find an answer but it might help you see that, maybe, you're just not wired to understand the answer.

alasdair


----------



## TheAppleCore

How is the existence of the universe possible in the _presence_ of a creative force?


I wholly agree with those who have stated that we will never come close to understanding any of this -- but, it's a guilty pleasure of mine to speculate...


----------



## Portillo

God/Creator/Architect of the Universe/Mother Earth - does exist! Thats how the universe is possible.


----------



## TheAppleCore

^ I was actually a little uncertain about the issue before today -- thanks for clearing that right up.


----------



## Portillo

Np.


----------



## DexterMeth

I use "god" as a three letter word for "it/all", and not in the religious context at all...but definately deeply and guiltily in the spiritual..and I'm definately not quite sure how at all.  I definately agree with the big bang theory (although it's a VERY VERY tiny part of a MUCH BIGGER and ultimately infinite equation, as is the universe)...but seriously..how does something come from nothing? It doesn't...the universe is eternal.  What we see as the big bang is either a tiny sliver of the actual universe, or as I saw below:

Some theorists speculate that big bang theory of the universe happen(S) like the death of star that goes into white dwarf mode.  The star expands massively then implodes... If the same thing happened with the whole universe, the expanding part would be what we see as our universe right now and would explain for the constant expansion...the implosion part would be how we could trace back to why the universe is expanding in the first place.  Why did it start imploding?....because it was expanding of course  ...it's a circle.  It's funny to think about stuff as far out as this, but then if Kristin Stewart sat on your lap you'd tremble...I know I would...but it'd be the nice kind. lol. 

Creation is impossible to comprehend.. for to comprehend would be to be god.  There is simply no way to even scratch the surface of this subject.  Nearly every human that has ever existed has been trying to do this many many times and LONG before us.  We're not going to be the magic few that figure it out.


----------



## vegan

not a comment by me, but by a christian, saint thomas aquinas

he believed in god. i don't
but i agree with this argument

paraphrased



> "thinking of god before the universe doesn't make sense
> god was born with the universe
> 
> how could you argue that an eternal god who would have already been here for an infinite time would have waited so long to decide on a whim to create the universe?"



don't have the time to go on right now but i'll just add, why bother with inventing this god story then
if he appeared with the universe, there's enough with explaining how the universe appeared
no need to add a layer which doesn't resolve the problem


----------



## Askeladden

there is no god, for i have killed him.

anyways, believing a god did all this is just the easy way out in actually understanding the universe, existence, and yourself.  what religious people are doing is trying to inhibit a part of their brain.

the highest power..... is HUMAN FREE WILL

but yes, with this HUMAN FREE WILL, people have the right for spiritual exploration to help
them understand their lives and the world around them, and find satisfaction in the human condition.

BUt THOU SHALL NEVER LOOK DOWN UPON AND A MAN AND SAY "I will pray for your soul"
its wrong, degrading, and judgmental, and NO GOD EVEN has the right to judge a man's soul


and im pretty sure that psychonauts created the universe..... 

/just my 2 cents


----------



## daysonatrain

while i dont believe this is a question we humans will ever "figure out" it sure is a fun one to discuss/debate 

to me, like DM, god is a word used to mean "all," god is existance.  one of my favorite quotes is this...

"i want to know gods thoughts the rest are details" -einstein

god is the "laws" that make things work.  by work i mean how one molecule of hydrogen and two molecules of oxygen bind together to create water.  I think the term 'creative force' is not very accurate imo, there is no force behind it, it is simply the way that molecules and the processes of mind are fitted to work, in its infinite variables.  

(ok after reading this i realized it doesnt make much sense but im going to post it anyway)

isnt it interesting that a universe can birth a species that even asks these questions? even if the answer can not be rationally understood.

sidenote- on one 'breakthrough' psychedelic trip, as i was coming down i came to the realization that the entire universe is simply waves of light and dark matter (or the opposite of light) interacting and finding new ways to 'play' together.


----------



## B9

Spherical waves of light & sound - lovely


----------



## AfterGlow

If "God" existed before the universe did and "He" created it....  then where did "God" live before there was a universe and where did "He" come from?    That is equally as baffling as what came before the universe and how did it come into being.  

If you can believe that "God" always was, then you should have no problem believing that the Universe, or some form of it, always was.   Why should it be any easier to believe in God than in an infinite universe?


----------



## Sykoknot

^I conquer.
I could believe in an infinite universe before I believe in God. To believe in god has so many irrationalities to it. While believing in an infinite universe is quite the opposite: logical.


----------



## solistus

First, I don't see how God would solve any of this.  If God created the Universe, who created God?  If you can accept that God always has existed, why not matter?  The Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle theory gives us a pretty viable framework for imagining an infinitely repeating cycle with no ultimate beginning or end (although time itself technically ceases to exist during the cycle switch - time stops and starts again, with an undefined unit of time in between because time itself can only exist relative to matter in spacial dimensions.  

I also like philosopher/psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek's reading of the theory that matter and antimatter were initially created in equal amounts to produce matter out of nothing, that existence itself represents some kind of "cosmic imbalance" in the perfect peace of the empty void that is "true reality".


----------



## solistus

Oh, and one more thing - you assume time is "real" and that it's really linear.  Maybe applying subjective human concepts like the linear passage of time to cases like "before the universe" simply produces meaningless results, much like trying to apply 'common sense' Newtonian rules of matter's behavior at the subatomic level.  To put it another way, perhaps that thing we call time is not an external dimension that reality "happens within" - perhaps instead, time itself is a subset of that reality.  First there is, then there is time.  So, to ask of the time before existence is, perhaps, simply to misunderstand the nature of time.


----------



## clara

The big bang, then there was everything, eventually the matter cools and comes back together in a single point ( over un immagianable time) then bam it happens again - its expanding and. Contracting like a cosmic lung.  What's not to get?


----------



## Sweet P

I think it's reasonable to believe the universe was created by some "creative force". But the creative force doesn't necessarily have to be a god or some other kind of sentient being. There are creative forces all around us that aren't sentient.


----------



## psychomimetic

There was no moment of creation. As far as I understand it, the universe shrank until it became a point of singularity, then began expanding again, and will eventually shrink again, etc., for an infinite period of time. I don't see how the existence of the universe is possible with a creative force (god), magic is a totally ridiculous explanation, it makes far less sense then physics. Just because something isn't known, doesn't mean it can't be known.


----------



## L2R

conceptually, the existence of a creator force is equally as absurd as the lack of one


----------



## castoutbySociety

The real question is how is gods existance in the universe possible. you read the bible? it is impossible for god to be omnibenevolent (all good), omniscient (all knowing), and omnipotent (all powerful) all at the same time. have you studied philosophy/read any Descartes? Bc what he was trying to argue was a metaphorical existance outside of the world of God...you know...I think therefore I am. Yup.


----------



## Sweet P

^ I've read the bible, and god definitely isn't omnibenevolent (especially in the Old Testament). The question "how is the existence of the universe possible in the absence of a creative force" doesn't imply anything religious or spiritual.


----------



## mr.mackey

Ya, i gave up on the bible like 2 pages in, first god knows and can see everything, then hes in the garden and doesnt know and cant see what Adam is doing...its direct contradiction, but hey, I dont think its meant to be a literal discourse on the nature of reality.

I think the idea of creative force does imply something distinctly religious and spiritual for most people because the religious or spiritual experience of most people is the answer to the questions of who are? why are we? and where did we come from? these are the questions that all major religions and even minor ones seek to answer, its the same question that modern theoretical physics is trying to answer. I agree with the statement that it doesnt HAVE to be spiritual, but I think in reality it always is.

Check out Saint Augustine for some info about the nature of God, obviously he's a christian but I think he does a better job explaining the christian understanding of God than anybody else Ive read. plus he really loves sex so I identify with him alot.

I tend to think of it as an occam's razor type of situation, in that it is more reasonable to assume that there is a god, than to assume there isnt. just from the sheer intricacy and complexity of the universe alone.


----------



## Bowser22

*Man meets God on a train*

This was posted by another bluelighter but for the life of me i can't find the post to appoint appropriate kudos. 

Anyhoo... i thought it deserved it's own thread. 

It is an extremely interestin read.

http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal

Talking to God...

I met god the other day.

I know what you’re thinking. How the hell did you know it was god?

Well, I’ll explain as we go along, but basically he convinced me by having all, and I do mean ALL, the answers. Every question I flung at him he batted back with a plausible and satisfactory answer. In the end, it was easier to accept that he was god than otherwise.

Which is odd, because I’m still an atheist and we even agree on that!

It all started on the 8.20 back from Paddington. Got myself a nice window seat, no screaming brats or drunken hooligans within earshot. Not even a mobile phone in sight. Sat down, reading the paper and in he walks.

What did he look like?

Well not what you might have expected that’s for sure. He was about 30, wearing a pair of jeans and a "hobgoblin" tee shirt. Definitely casual. Looked like he could have been a social worker or perhaps a programmer like myself.

‘Anyone sitting here?’ he said.

‘Help yourself’ I replied.

Sits down, relaxes, I ignore and back to the correspondence on genetic foods entering the food chain…

Train pulls out and a few minutes later he speaks.

‘Can I ask you a question?’

Fighting to restrain my left eyebrow I replied ‘Yes’ in a tone which was intended to convey that I might not mind one question, and possibly a supplementary, but I really wasn’t in the mood for a conversation. ..

‘Why don’t you believe in god?’

The Bastard!

I love this kind of conversation and can rabbit on for hours about the nonsense of theist beliefs. But I have to be in the mood! It's like when a jehova’s witness knocks on your door 20 minutes before you’re due to have a wisdom tooth pulled. Much as you'd really love to stay… You can’t even begin the fun. And I knew, if I gave my standard reply we’d still be arguing when we got to Cardiff. I just wasn’t in the mood. I needed to fend him off.

But then I thought ‘Odd! How is this perfect stranger so obviously confident – and correct – about my atheism?’ If I’d been driving my car, it wouldn’t have been such a mystery. I’ve got the Darwin fish on the back of mine – the antidote to that twee christian fish you see all over. So anyone spotting that and understanding it would have been in a position to guess my beliefs. But I was on a train and not even wearing my Darwin "Evolve" tshirt that day. And ‘The Independent’ isn’t a registered flag for card carrying atheists, so what, I wondered, had given the game away.

‘What makes you so certain that I don’t?’

‘Because’, he said, ‘ I am god – and you are not afraid of me’

You’ll have to take my word for it of course, but there are ways you can deliver a line like that – most of which would render the speaker a candidate for an institution, or at least prozac. Some of which could be construed as mildly amusing.

Conveying it as "indifferent fact" is a difficult task but that’s exactly how it came across. Nothing in his tone or attitude struck me as even mildly out of place with that statement. He said it because he believed it and his rationality did not appear to be drug induced or the result of a mental breakdown.

‘And why should I believe that?’


‘Well’ he said, ‘why don’t you ask me a few questions. Anything you like, and see if the answers satisfy your sceptical mind?’

This is going to be a short conversation after all, I thought.

‘Who am I?’

‘Stottle. Harry Stottle, born August 10 1947, Bristol, England. Father Paul, Mother Mary. Educated Duke of Yorks Royal Military School 1960 67, Sandhurst and Oxford, PhD in Exobiology, failed rock singer, full time trade union activist for 10 years, latterly self employed computer programmer, web author and aspiring philosopher. Married to Michelle, American citizen, two children by a previous marriage. You’re returning home after what seems to have been a successful meeting with an investor interested in your proposed product tracking anti-forgery software and protocol and you ate a full english breakfast at the hotel this morning except that, as usual, you asked them to hold the revolting english sausages and give you some extra bacon. ‘

He paused

‘You’re not convinced. Hmmm… what would it take to convince you?’

'oh right! Your most secret password and its association'

A serious hacker might be able to obtain the password, but no one else and I mean

NO ONE

knows its association.

He did.

So how would you have played it?

I threw a few more questions about relatively insignificant but unpublicised details of my life (like what my mother claims was the first word I ever spoke – apparently "armadillo"! (Don't ask…)) but I was already pretty convinced. I knew there were only three possible explanations at this point.

Possibility One was that I was dreaming or hallucinating. Nobody’s figured out a test for that so, at the time I think that was my dominant feeling. It did not feel real at the time. More like I was in a play. Acting my lines. Since the event, however, continuing detailed memories of it, together with my contemporaneous notes, remain available, so unless the hallucination has continued to this day, I am now inclined to reject the hallucination hypothesis. Which leaves two others.

He could have been a true telepath. No documented evidence exists of anyone ever having such profound abilities to date but it was a possibility. It would have explained how he could know my best-kept secrets. The problem with that is that it doesn’t explain anything else! In particular it doesn’t account for the answers he proceeded to give to my later questions.

As Sherlock Holmes says, when you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Good empiricist, Sherlock.

I was forced to accept at least the possibility that this man was who he claimed to be.

So now what do you do?

Well, I’ve always known that if I met god I would have a million questions for him, so I thought, ‘why not?’ and proceeded with what follows. You’ll have to allow a bit of licence in the detail of the conversation. This was, shall we say, a somewhat unusual occurrence, not to mention just a BIT weird! And yes I was a leetle bit nervous! So if I don’t get it word perfect don’t whinge! You’ll get the gist I promise.
***********************************



‘Forgive me if it takes me a little time to get up to speed here, but it's not everyday I get to question a deity’

‘The Deity’ he interrupted.

‘ooh. Touchy!’ I thought.

‘Not really – just correcting the image’

Now That takes some getting used to!

I tried to get a grip on my thoughts, with an internal command - ‘Discipline Harry. You’ve always wanted to be in a situation like this, now you’re actually in it, you mustn’t go to pieces and waste the opportunity of a lifetime’

‘You won’t’ he said.

Tell you! That’s the bit that made it feel unreal more than anything else - this guy sitting across the table and very obviously accurately reading my every thought. It's like finding someone else's hand inside your trouser pocket!

Nevertheless, something made me inclined to accept the invasion, I had obviously begun to have some confidence in his perception or abilities, so I distinctly remember the effect of his words was that I suddenly felt deeply reassured and completely relaxed. As he had no doubt intended. Man must have an amazing seduction technique!

So then we got down to business…

‘Are you human?’

‘No’

‘Were you, ever?’

‘No, but similar, Yes’

‘Ah, so you are a product of evolution?’

‘Most certainly – mainly my own’

‘and you evolved from a species like ours, dna based organisms or something equally viable?’

‘Correct’

‘so what, exactly, makes you god?’

‘I did’

‘Why?’

‘Seemed like a good idea at the time’

‘and your present powers, are they in any way similar to what the superstitious believers in my species attribute to you?’

‘Close enough. ’

‘So you created all this, just for us?’

‘No. Of course not’

‘But you did create the Universe?’

‘This One. Yes’

‘But not your own?’

‘This is my own!’

‘You know what I mean!’

‘You can’t create your own parents, so No’

‘So let me get this straight. You are an entirely natural phenomenon.’

‘Entirely’

‘Arising from mechanisms which we ourselves will one day understand and possibly even master?’

‘subject to a quibble over who "we ourselves" may be, but yes’

‘meaning that if the human race doesn’t come up to the mark, other species eventually will?’

‘in one.’

‘and how many other species are there already out there ahead of us?’

‘surprisingly few. Less than fourteen million’

‘FEW!?’

‘Phew!’

‘And how many at or about our level?’

‘currently a little over 4 ½ billion’

‘so our significance in the universe at present is roughly equivalent to the significance of the average Joe here on planet Earth in his relation to the human race?’

‘a little less. Level One, the level your species has reached, begins with the invention of the flying machine. I define the next level in terms your Sci Fi Author Isaac Asimov has already grasped. It is reached when you achieve control of your own primary – the Sun. What Asimov calls a Type I technology. Humanity is only just into the flying machine phase, so as you can imagine, on that scale, the human race is somewhat near the bottom of the level one pack’

‘and all these species are your children?’

‘I like to think of them that way’

‘and the point?’

‘at its simplest, "Life Must Go On". My personal motivation is the desire for conversation. Once you’ve achieved my level, you cease to be billions of separate entities and become one ecstatic whole. A single entity that cannot die, however advanced, or perhaps, more accurately, because it is so advanced, will get lonely and even a trifle bored! I seem to be the first. I do not intend to be the last’

‘so you created a Universe which is potentially capable of producing another god like yourself?’

‘The full benefit will be temporary, but like most orgasms, worth it.’

‘this being the moment when our new god merges with you and we become one again?’

‘don’t play it down, that’s the ecstatic vision driving us all, me included – and when it happens the ecstasy lasts several times longer than this universe has already existed. Believe me, it really is worth the effort.’

‘Yes, I think I can see the attractions of a hundred billion year long orgasm’

‘and humans haven’t even begun to know how to really enjoy the orgasms they are already capable of. Wait till you master that simple art!’

‘So it's all about sex is it?’

‘Ecstasy is merely a reward for procreating, it is what makes you want to do it. This is necessary, initially, to promote biological evolution. However once you’ve completed that stage and no longer require procreation, you will learn that ecstasy can be infinitely more intense than anything offered by sex’

‘Sounds good to me!'

'How direct is your involvement in all this? Did you just light the fuse which set off the big bang and stand back and watch? Or did you have to plant the seeds on appropriately fertile planets?’

‘The seeds evolved in deep space, purely as a result of the operations of the laws of physics and chemistry which your scientists have begun to attain a reasonable grasp of. Yes I triggered the bang and essentially became dormant for nearly 5 billion years. That’s how long it took the first lifeforms to emerge. That places them some 8 billion years ahead of you. The first intelligent species are now 4.3 billion years ahead of you. Really quite advanced. I can have deeply meaningful conversations with them. And usually do. In fact I am as we speak’

‘So then what?’

‘Do I keep a constant vigil over every move you make? Not in the kind of prying intrusive sense that some of you seem to think. Let's say I maintain an awareness of what's going on, at a planetary level. I tend only to focus on evolutionary leaps. See if they’re going in the right direction’

‘And if they’re not?’

‘Nothing. Usually’

‘Usually?’

‘Usually species evolving in the wrong direction kill themselves off or become extinct for other reasons’

‘Usually?’

‘There have been one or two cases where a wrong species has had the potential of becoming dominant at the expense of a more promising strain’

‘Let me guess. Dinosaurs on this planet are an example. Too successful. Suppressed the development of mammals and were showing no signs of developing intelligence. So you engineered a little corrective action in the form of a suitably selected asteroid’

‘Perceptive. Almost correct. They were showing signs of developing intelligence, even co-operation. Study your velocirapters. But far too predatory. Incapable of ever developing a "respect" for other life forms. It takes carrying your young to promote the development of emotional attachment to other animals. Earth reptiles aren’t built for that. The mammals who are, as you rightly say, couldn’t get a foothold against such mighty predators. You’ve now reached the stage where you could hold your own even against dinosaurs, but that’s only been true for about a thousand years, you wouldn’t have stood a chance 2 million years ago, so the dinosaurs had to go. They were, however, far too well balanced with the ecology of the planet, and never developed technology, so they weren’t going to kill themselves off in a hurry. Regrettably, I had to intervene.’

‘Regrettably?’

‘They were a beautiful and stunningly successful life form. One doesn’t destroy such things without a qualm.’

‘But at that stage how could you know that a better prospect would arise from the ashes?’

‘I didn’t. But the probability was quite high.’

‘and since then, what other little tweaks have you been responsible for in our development?’

‘None whatsoever. I set an alarm for the first sign of aerial activity, as I usually do. Leonardo looked promising for a while, but not until the Montgolfier brothers did I really begin to take an interest. That registered you as a level one intelligent species’

‘So Jesus of Nazareth, Moses, Mohammed…’

‘hmmm… sadly misguided I’m afraid. Anyone capable of communicating with their own cells will dimly perceive me – and all other life as being connected in a strictly quantum sense, but interpreting that vision as representing something supernatural and requiring obeisance is somewhat wide of the mark. And their followers are all a bit too obsessive and religious for my liking. It's no fun being worshipped once you stop being an adolescent teenager. Having said that, it's not at all unusual for developing species to go through that phase. Until they begin to grasp how much they too can shape their small corner of the universe, they are in understandable awe of an individual dimly but correctly perceived to be responsible for the creation of the whole of that universe. Eventually, if they are to have any hope of attaining level two, they must grow out of it and begin to accept their own power and potential. It's very akin to a child’s relationship with its parents. The awe and worship must disappear before the child can become an adult. Respect is not so bad as long as it's not overdone. And I certainly respect all those species who make it that far. It’s a hard slog. I know. I've been there.’

‘You’ve been watching us since the Montgolfiers, when was that? 1650s?’

‘Close. 1783’

‘Well, if you’ve been watching us closely since then, what your average citizen is going to want to know is why you haven’t intervened more often. Why, if you have that sort of power, did you allow such incredible suffering and human misery?’

‘It seems to be necessary.’

‘NECESSARY??!!’

‘Without exception, intelligent species who gain dominance over their planet do so by becoming the most efficient predators. There are many intelligent species who do not evolve to dominate their planet. Like your dolphins, they adapt perfectly to the environment rather than take your course, which is to manipulate the environment. Unfortunately for the dolphin, his is a dead end. He may outlive the human race but will never escape the bounds of planet earth - not without your help at any rate. Only those who can manipulate the world they live in can one day hope to leave it and spread their seed throughout the universe.

Unlike the adaptors, who learn the point of cooperation fairly early on, manipulators battle on. And, once all lesser species have been overcome, they are so competitive and predatory that they are compelled to turn in on themselves. This nearly always evolves into tribal competition in one form or another and becomes more and more destructive - exactly like your own history. However this competition is vital to promote the leap from biological to technological evolution.

You need an arms race in order to make progress.

Your desire to dominate fuels a search for knowledge which the adaptors never require. And although your initial desire for knowledge is selfish and destructive, it begins the development of an intellectual self awareness, a form of higher consciousness, which never emerges in any other species. Not even while they are experiencing it, for example, can the intelligent adaptors - your dolphins - express the concepts of Love or Time.

Militarisation and the development of weapons of mass destruction are your first serious test at level one. You're still not through that phase, though the signs are promising. There is no point whatsoever in my intervening to prevent your self-destruction. Your ability to survive these urges is a crucial test of your fitness to survive later stages. So I would not, never have and never will intervene to prevent a species from destroying itself. Most, in fact, do just that.’

‘And what of pity for those have to live through this torment?’

‘I can’t say this in any way that doesn’t sound callous, but how much time do you spend worrying about the ants you run over in your car? I know it sounds horrendous to you, but you have to see the bigger picture. At this stage in human development, you’re becoming interesting but not yet important.’

'ah but I can't have an intelligent conversation with an ant'

'precisely'

‘hmm… as you know, humans won’t like even to attempt to grasp that perspective. How can you make it more palatable?’

‘Why should I? You don’t appear to have any trouble grasping it. You’re by no means unique. And in any case, once they begin to understand what's in it for them, they’ll be somewhat less inclined to moan. Eternal life compensates for most things.’

‘So what are we supposed to do in order to qualify for membership of the universal intelligentsia?’

‘Evolve. Survive’

‘Yes, but how?’

‘Oh, I thought you might have got the point by now. "How" is entirely up to you. If I have to help, then you’re a failure. All I will say is this. You’ve already passed a major hurdle in learning to live with nuclear weapons. It's depressing how many fail at that stage.’

‘Is there worse to come?’

‘Much’

‘Genetic warfare for instance?

‘Distinct Possibility’

‘and the problem is… that we need to develop all these technologies, acquire all this dangerous knowledge in order to reach level two. But at any stage that knowledge could also cause our own destruction’

‘If you think the dangers of genetic warfare are serious, imagine discovering a secret thought or program, accessible to any intelligent individual, which, if abused, will eliminate your species instantly. If your progress continues as is, then you can expect to discover that particular self-destruct mechanism in less than a thousand years. Your species has got to grow up considerably before you can afford to make that discovery. And if you don’t make it, you will never leave your Solar System and join the rest of the sapient species on level two.’

’14 Million of them’

‘Just under’

'Will there be room for us?'

'it’s a big place'

‘and, for now, how should we mere mortals regard you then?’

‘like an older brother or sister. Of course I know more than you do. Of course I’m more powerful than you. I’ve been alive longer. But I’m not "better" than you. Just more developed. Just what you might become’

‘so we’re not obliged to "please" you or follow your alleged guidelines or anything like that?’

‘absolutely not. Never issued a single guideline in the lifetime of this Universe. Have to find your own way out of the maze. And one early improvement is to stop expecting me - or anyone else - to come and help you out.'

'I suppose that is a guideline of sorts, so there goes the habit of a lifetime! '

'Seriously though, species who hold on to religion past its sell-by date tend to be most likely to self destruct. They spend so much energy arguing about my true nature, and invest so much emotion in their wildly erroneous imagery that they end up killing each other over differences in definitions of something they clearly haven’t got a clue about. Ludicrous behaviour, but it does weed out the weaklings.’

‘Why me? Why pick on an atheist of all people? Why are you telling me all this? And why Now?’

‘Why You? Because can accept my existence without your ego caving in and grovelling like a naughty child. '

'Can you seriously imagine how the Pope would react to the reality of my existence?! If he really understood how badly wrong he and his church have been, how much of the pain and suffering you mentioned earlier has been caused by his religion, I suspect he'd have an instant coronary! Or can you picture what it would be like if I appeared "live" simultaneously on half a dozen tele-evangelist propaganda shows. Pat Robertson would wet himself if he actually understood who he was talking to.

Conversely, your interest is purely academic. You've never swallowed the fairy tale but you've remained open to the possibility of a more advanced life form which could acquire godlike powers. You’ve correctly guessed that godhood is the destiny of life. You have shown you can and do cope with the concept. It seemed reasonable to confirm your suspicions and let you do what you will with that information.

You can and will publish this conversation on the web, where it will sow an important seed. Might take a couple of hundred years to germinate, but, eventually, it will germinate.

Why Now? Well partly because both you and the web are ready now. But chiefly because the human race is reaching a critical phase. It goes back to what we were saying about the dangers of knowledge. Essentially your species is becoming aware of that danger. When that happens to any sapient species, the future can take three courses.

Many are tempted to avoid the danger by avoiding the knowledge. Like the adaptors, they are doomed to extinction. Often pleasantly enough in the confines of their own planet until either their will to live expires or their primary turns red giant and snuffs them out.

A large number go on blindly acquiring the knowledge and don't learn to restrain their abuse. Their fate is sealed somewhat more quickly of course, when Pandora’s box blows up in their faces.

The only ones who reach level two are those who learn to accept and to live with their most dangerous knowledge. Each and every individual in such a species must eventually become capable of destroying their entire species at any time. Yet they must learn to control themselves to the degree that they can survive even such deadly insight. And frankly, they’re the only ones we really want to see leaving their solar systems. Species that haven’t achieved that maturity could not be allowed to infect the rest of the universe, but fortunately that has never required my intervention. The knowledge always does the trick’

'Why can't there be a fourth option - selective research where we avoid investigating dangerous pathways?'

'As you can see from your own limited history, the most useful ideas are also, nearly always, the most dangerous. You have yet, for instance, to conquer fusion power but you need to do so in order to achieve appropriate energy surpluses required to complete this phase of your social development. It will, when you've mastered it, eliminate material inequalities and poverty within a generation or two, an absolutely vital step for any maturing species. Yet the discovery of the principles which will soon yield this beneficial bounty could, had you abused them, have ended your attempt at civilisation.

Similarly, you will shortly be able to conquer biological diseases and even engineer yourselves to be virtually fault free. Your biological life spans will double or treble within the next hundred years and your digital lifespans will become potentially infinite within the same period: If you survive the potential threat that the same technology provides in the form of genetic timebombs, custom built viruses and the other wonders of genetic and digital warfare.

You simply can't have the benefits without taking the risks'.

‘I’m not sure I understand my part in this exercise. I just publish this conversation on the web and everything will be alright?’

‘Not necessarily. Not that easy I’m afraid. To start with, who’s going to take this seriously? It will just be seen as a mildly amusing work of fiction. In fact, your words and indeed most of your work will not be understood or appreciated until some much more advanced scholars develop the ideas you are struggling to express and explain them somewhat more competently. At which point the ideas will be taken up en masse and searches will be undertaken of the archives. They will find this work and be struck by its prescience. You won’t make the Einstein grade, but you might manage John the Baptist!

This piece will have no significance whatsoever if humanity doesn’t make certain key advances in the next couple of centuries. And this won’t help you make those advances. What it will do is help you recognise them’

'can I ask what those advances may be?'

'I think you know. But yes - although you are at level one, there are several distinct phases which evolving species pass through on their way to level two. The first, as we've discussed, is the invention of the flying machine. The next significant phase is the development of the thinking machine.

At your present rate of progress, you are within a few decades of achieving that goal. It marks your first step on the path of technological evolution. Mapping the human genome is another classic landmark, but merely mapping it is a bit like viewing the compiled code in a dos executable. It's just meaningless gibberish, although with a bit of hacking here and there, you might correctly deduce the function of certain stretches of code.

What you really need to do is 'reverse engineer' the dna code. You have to figure out the grammar and syntax of the language. Then you will begin the task of designing yourselves. But that task requires the thinking machine'

‘You say you avoid intervention. But doesn’t this conversation itself constitute intervention – even if people alive now completely ignore it?’

‘Yes. But it's as far as I’m prepared to go. Its only effect is to confirm, if you find it, that you are on the right path. It is still entirely up to you to navigate the dangers on that path and beyond.’

'But why bother even with that much? Surely it's just another evolutionary hurdle. We're either fit enough or not…'

'In many ways the transition to an information species is the most traumatic stage in evolution. Biological intelligences have a deeply rooted sense of consciousness only being conceivable from within an organic brain. Coming to terms with the realisation that you have created your successor, not just in the sense of mother and child, but in the collective sense of the species recognising it has become redundant, this paradigm shift is, for many species, a shift too far. They baulk at the challenge and run from this new knowledge. They fail and become extinct. Yet there is nothing fundamentally wrong with them - it is a failure of the imagination.

I hope that if I can get across the concept that I am a product of just such evolution, it may give them the confidence to try. I have discussed this with the level two species and the consensus is that this tiny prod is capable of increasing the contenders for level two without letting through any damaging traits. It has been tried in 312 cases. The jury is still out on its real benefits although it has produced a 12% increase in biological species embracing the transition to information species.

‘Alright, so what if everyone suddenly took it seriously and believed every word I write? Wouldn’t that constitute a somewhat more drastic intervention?’

‘Trust me. They wont’

'and so it's still the case, that, should another asteroid happen to be heading our way, you will do nothing to impede it on our behalf?'

'I'm confident you will pass that test. And now my friend, the interview is over, you have asked me a number of the right questions, and I’ve said what I came to say, so I’ll be going now. It has been very nice to meet you - you're quite bright. For an ant!’ He twinkled.

‘Just one final, trivial question, why do you appear to me in the form of a thirty something white male?’

‘have I in any way intimidated or threatened you?’

‘No’

‘Do you find me sexually attractive?’

‘er No!’

‘So figure it out for yourself…’


----------



## Raw Evil

I think I've read this before, but it was good to read it again. Thanks for the post!


----------



## Max Power

reminds me of this great talk with the eastern pimp himself, Alan Watts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1LzVN8nqg0


----------



## Portillo

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions. 

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgements to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause, there is no first cause... 

"This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control." - Robert Jastrow


----------



## TheAppleCore

Portillo said:


> "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."



I like the imagery presented in this quote. Some questions simply cannot be answered by scientific observation.


----------



## heavywthhigh

*creation vs creation*

Creation, I believe is by one and only one, the God who was and is and always will be.
  I do tend to sit in awe by his universe and all its beauty and ferocity, but for me that's where it ends with a marveling wonder and a strong appreciation.
  The Creation of people is where i marvel and my fondness for the architect grows and with this growth is where i find answers to questions that use to baffle not only myself but most everyone else. 
  I am humbled by the fact that a finite creature a creation as myself with a sick mind, destructive behavior and the worst of all extremely prideful could in fact be loved intimately by Such a wonder as God the Creator of all things.

  My desire and yearning for the truth never yields nil, always shows fruit and I’m never left wanting or left wondering how or why.


----------



## MattPsy

What about a self-consistent loop?
Where the end conditions determine the start conditions.
Life as a necessary feature for configuring the restart parameters.
Universe as self-creating computation.


----------



## captainballs

without going into a long diatribe, i can give an opinion about this question that is based on the recent discoveries of the things we don't know.

my opinion is that human logic about creation is bound by the notion of time. creative force and divine intervention are not a necessity if one accepts the possibility that the machine constructed itself ad hoc and is able to go back and change things in order to maintain functionality. I like to use the analogy of a corporation involved in a pyramid scheme. Money is neither created nor destroyed, much like matter, but is borrowed and traded to keep things going and forge a temporarily legitimate organization.

The difference between a simple corporate pyramid scheme and the universe, í believe, is that the universe can operate itself without the rules of time when necessary. If the electron needed to be there yesterday, there is a trick to put it there.


----------



## captainballs

very cool


----------



## MarkRenton

Wow. I am truly blown away. I felt like I was speaking to God myself while reading this, it is so spot on that I can't take it. This is how our universe works, it saddens me every moment that we all don't realize exactly what is being said here!!! We have a chance to go well beyond anything we ever thought was possible


----------



## Unbreakable

sweet


----------



## therapture

opiaddict said:


> " A fool says there is no God." -Probverbs.



"Only a fool could think there is a god" -rational man


----------



## therapture

We cannot know how the universe came to be, what it was before, or what it will become. We are much too simple too understand something that is far beyond us. That in itself, does not imply a god. As others have noted, god cannot be everything. The bible is full of contradictions because it is a collection of stories, written (and re-written to suit certain persons) in a time when basic science seemed to be "magical". 

Even if "god" created the universe, who created god? So you say the universe is much too complex to have just "happened", that some powerful entity created it, well...that goes for "god" too! 

We cannot, and probably never will, know these answers. To blame the universe on a god simply because we can't understand it (the universe) fully is not a reason in itself to create this omnipotent, all knowing "god". That is asinine and makes no sense whatsoever to a rational, independently thinking man.


----------



## therapture

Portillo said:


> "Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?'* And science cannot answer these questions. *



Neither can god. Science has not proved how the universe began, there are theories with certain good evidence, but we cannot truly know the truth. We cannot know what came before this time and space configuration as it is completely outside our realm of capabilities to comprehend.


What came first, the chicken or the egg? Who created this mythical "god", since everything has to have a beginning? If "god" is so powerful, why does he not know what his own creations were doing in the bible? If he really was there, why did he not just make the bad people go away instead of sending plague after plague after plague to force them to do his bidding? Why do people pray to god and when something good happens to them it is because they are blessed by god and he did it for them, but when something bad happens to them, it either: 1) was part of god's plan or 2) evil caused it. You simply cannot have it both ways. If god was all powerful, there would be no need for death, murder, disease, wars, etc.

There may be a higher intelligence, in fact, I believe that is almost a certainty, but an ethereal creator sitting up there watching us...no. Unfortunately people have been brainwashed from very young children to believe in this force that takes care of them, guides them, and saves them (or kills, murders, strikes them down). Take responsibility for yourself, your own rational thinking mind, and god really doesn't make sense any more.

Teach children the possibilities of both sides when they are old enough to think it out, and I bet most would not find god to exist.


----------



## Portillo

therapture said:


> There may be a higher intelligence, in fact, I believe that is almost a certainty, but an ethereal creator sitting up there watching us...no.



Like most ppl, you believe that there is something out there, as long as its not god, its all good.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

therapture said:


> Teach children the possibilities of both sides when they are old enough to think it out, and I bet most would not find god to exist.



I've read a number of surveys about belief in a higher power in different countries, and what I've gleaned is that when a good quality secular education is available to all, and the populace is given full freedom to make up their own minds on the issue, the demographic trends of belief tend to fall into a 'rule of thirds', roughly: 1/3 believe in a unitary god of some sort, 1/3 believe in some other sort of higher power, life force, or other spiritual reality, and 1/3 believe in neither. This is the general trend in Europe, Northeast Asia, and the richer countries of South America. 

I think this natural trend points to three major and divergent thinking preferences, when it comes time for people to frame their lives in the greater picture. One third need comfort and extrinsic meaning to their lives above all, and tend to seek conventional and communal answers to humanity's biggest questions. One third have a weaker need for this, and are content with less certain-sounding answers. And one third value objective truth far above emotional comfort, and see much benefit in accepting less comforting answers to humanity's greatest questions, if they have reason to believe these answers are more likely to be true.

So I agree with you that children should be informed about all the major options when it comes to ultimate truth, and allowed to decide for themselves what they believe. Because then they're more likely to end up with a belief system that's well tailored to their cognitive style and personal needs.

I really think trying to coerce someone into believing (or disbelieving) is about as silly as arguing with someone else's musical tastes. It's a matter of preference, and what works for you and fits with how you see your place in the world. No one can make that choice for you. If there is a loving and understanding God, it seems to me he/she/it certainly understands and forgives unbelievers' unbelief.


----------



## SpelunkingTheMind

very cool piece.. Max, you got me hooked on Alan Watts there, I've known of him but never really sat down to listen to him, some very fun lectures of his on youtube


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Alan Watts was definitely a man who 'got it'. A common question asked at medical school interviews is 'If you could have dinner and conversation with any person living or dead, who would it be?'. Alan Watts was my prepared answer for this one, which I was not asked, sadly.


----------



## felix

that was a great read, thanks for posting it Bowser.


----------



## MarkRenton

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Alan Watts was definitely a man who 'got it'. A common question asked at medical school interviews is 'If you could have dinner and conversation with any person living or dead, who would it be?'. Alan Watts was my prepared answer for this one, which I was not asked, sadly.



He sees both the big and little pictures, something key to anyone who "gets it"


----------



## moonyham

Wow... just wow. Im convinced, i dont know what it is but something about that convo.. feels wierd. It all makes sense.


----------



## swilow

Awesome. Nice perspective shift too


----------



## Inkst

He then stole every account the writer owned, knowing his secret password.

EDIT: A nice article to think about, I don't want to sound ungrateful, I just found the secret password part a little.. weird.. who thinks about their secret answer or password like that?


----------



## Albion

Well I'm just going to post this article everywhere I can, thus spreading the word and playing a part in this acceptance of truth


----------



## MarkRenton

JSPete said:


> Well I'm just going to post this article everywhere I can, thus spreading the word and playing a part in this acceptance of truth



I've started as well, passed it on to a number of friends and posted it on facebook, a small step to get young minds working.


----------



## Ravr

Interesting


----------



## naginnudej

Socrates meets Jesus:
http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/prometheus/socvsjes.htm


----------



## happyland

WOW I can't wait to explore my mind and ponder this


----------



## Bowser22

Inkst said:


> He then stole every account the writer owned, knowing his secret password.
> 
> EDIT: A nice article to think about, I don't want to sound ungrateful, I just found the secret password part a little.. weird.. who thinks about their secret answer or password like that?



Don't think you quite read that bit right. He said he knew his passswords and that no-one on the planet knows that

I do like the play on the authors name though "Harry Stottle"... get it?


----------



## SpelunkingTheMind

naginnudej said:


> Socrates meets Jesus:
> http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/prometheus/socvsjes.htm



goodness i wonder what personal attitudes the author of this holds, it's such an accurate portrayal of both figures that it seems impossible to tell where his personal emotions lie 8)


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

I'd meant to read this whole thing. Definitely glad I did. All I can say about it is hey, you never know. Even if this is a complete work of fiction, it's pretty philosophically interesting.


----------



## tdawe1

Elaborate fiction but interesting none the less


----------



## delta_9

> This was posted by another bluelighter but for the life of me i can't find the post to appoint appropriate kudos.


If memory serves, I read this in a thread over at PD some time ago.   It had to do with machine elves .


----------



## azzazza !?

its in the P&S social thread as well, beginning of the last page


----------



## naginnudej

SpelunkingTheMind said:


> goodness i wonder what personal attitudes the author of this holds, it's such an accurate portrayal of both figures that it seems impossible to tell where his personal emotions lie 8)



what?!?!? you didn't like it?


----------



## TearItDown

*Why do so may bluelighters love god?*

I understand that many people on here have had or still do have serious drug addiction problems. I don't mean to be anti-god, anti-religion but I'm pretty tired of seeing so many posts about god and religion. 

I hate it when people say that they were saved by god, and god helped them get through their tough times. That isn't really true. YOU got yourself through the tough times. That was all you. There is no big guy up in the sky helping you become sober and safe. Everything happened because of people. Drastic, important changes occurred because of everyday people, because of ourselves. You may believe that god saved you, but he didn't. You saved yourself, YOU, the most important person in your life, YOU. 

People need to understand that the way religion is practiced worldwide os detrimental to the advancement of humanity. I don't think religion is entirely pointless, don't put that in your head. Religion has a lot of important values to take and learn from. A couple weeks ago I was watching a pretty long and in depth program about Buddhism. I thought it was funny at times, because the stories were so fantastic and unrealistic, then it hit me. While some people actually believe the stories as fact, I saw them as tools to learn from. The teachings have higher motives, they may not be completely true at all, but you can learn a lot of good values from them. 

I know my words will fall to deaf ears, but I just want to urge you all, don't put faith in god, put faith in yourself. In me, in your brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers, in YOURSELF. Stop blaming god for bad things and praising him for good things. In the end, it's just us humans surviving through US. If god is so amazing to "his children" where has he been? If everyone would put more faith in humanity, maybe less would suffer because of conflicting religious views? Just some food for thought, I appreciate hearing your responses.


----------



## L2R

to which posts do you refer?


----------



## TearItDown

I've seen dozens upon dozens of posts in both the focus forums and in the drug discussion forums related to god and salvation because of god. I think it's out of place to cite specific examples.


----------



## jpgrdnr

Its interesting that in P and S we don't see much of that. In terms of dealing with addiction there is that "belief in a higher power" aspect. People in crisis tend to cling on to something that gives their life meaning. And probably people tend to take it too far...replacing their addiction. I wonder at the larger need for people not to identify with themselves but with something external, some sort of psychological defense? I mean the nature of addiction is based upon excuses at its root. So why not blame God and not the chemical need for stimulus? I think there is something innate about it, thoughts?


----------



## alasdairm

bluelight is a subset of the population of the world. around 80% of the population of the world believes in god in some form or another so why is it surprising that number is reflected in the number of bluelighters who believe in god?

alasdair


----------



## jpgrdnr

Are we talkng about people who found religion as a means of coping with addiction? Or are we talking about people who are just religious? There's a song by screeching weasel called "the Science of Myth" ...if religion gets you thru the dark times...what's wrong with that? Ill look up the line...


----------



## Raw Evil

Religion is best used as a collection of metaphors which, when understood as exactly that, can help us to understand, explain, and manipulate the world around us. Unfortunately, far too many fail to see the metaphor for what it is, and end up drawing the wrong conclusions from what could have been useful information.


----------



## Sweet P

Really? I've only seen one or two Bluelighters openly talk about their faith in god.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Impacto Profundo said:


> to which posts do you refer?



My thoughts exactly.

I've always been struck by how FEW folks around here give God the thumbs up. At one time, I could remember a post for a great number, probably more than half, of staff members, in which they made it clear they were atheist or agnostic. I would have to say that this site is all in all a tolerant one in most ways (which is why I love it), but I'll estimate that it's one that leans noticeably more anti-religion than pro, on the whole. We'll have more of an idea, though, after the Drugs and Spirituality survey runs.

As to your point about religion-as-practiced being harmful, I agree that a lot of people are mistaken, and followers of false prophets who are mistaken people themselves, as to what real spirituality is. Everybody yearns to find a fitting, proper, and indispensable place in the greater scheme of things. But what this yearning motivates you to do is up to you. Religion is exactly what we make it to be. The best way to disarm a hypocrite is to uphold the same values as he does, but actually practice them and stand up for them, using your head and heart in tandem.


----------



## fastandbulbous

Because religion fills the same sort of gap that drugs fill in many people's lives (hence the famous quote by Marx about it being the opium of the masses). Look at how many abstainance programs get god involved. All it's doing is replacing a reliance on one way of coping with life with another and allowing the person to dodge responsibility for certain actions


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

fastandbulbous said:


> Because religion fills the same sort of gap that drugs fill in many people's lives (hence the famous quote by Marx about it being the opium of the masses). Look at how many abstainance programs get god involved. All it's doing is replacing a reliance on one way of coping with life with another and allowing the person to dodge responsibility for certain actions



I other words, both drug habits and religion lighten life's load? To some extent I agree, but I think beyond that basic similarity, the resemblance disappears fast.

I don't think 'dodging responsibility for certain actions' is fair to say at all, in the context of abstainers who become religious. On the contrary, I've found such people are looking to FACE, find redemption for, and be at peace with, the crappy ways they treated themselves and other people when they were in the throes of addiction.

Some of the times I've felt more 'fuck Bluelight' than ever have been when I've seen a recent former addict post about how his newfound faith has helped him get clean, only to be ridiculed -- not for being preachy and intolerant, but just for having the audacity to state without irony that he takes religion seriously. (I've even seen this go on in The Dark Side!  ) I say if religion or spirituality is what WORKS for a person to stay sober, then we are betraying our community's mission of harm reduction by driving away people who've chosen God or Buddha and forsaken drugs. Sorry to go off topic, but this is one of those things that really chafes me something fierce.

I've do my part to make this a community you shouldn't need to be godless to feel comfortable participating in.


----------



## Portillo

Because bluelighters are smart open minded ppl. As opposed to the "the only thing that exists in the universe is earth and humans" mentality.


----------



## Taryth

If god will help someone conquer their addiction, or simply sustain them through rough periods, why resent it/him/her/the idea?

So long as those people don't foist their religion on me, I say cheer for them!  God is an extremely powerful psychological tool, and I for one feel inclined not to deter those who would seek solace in god, but to support them in their endeavors.  Happiness is rare, so why endanger it further?

But I think the OP was mainly referring to folks who do indeed foist their beliefs on others in a "preachy" manner.  As to that, I must say there are very few on Bluelight, as have others.


I don't personally care for religion, but neither do I care for fish.  Doesn't stop me from cooking fish for guests who enjoy fish.


----------



## B9

I've only noticed a few posters really proclaim region as being their saviour from drugs, most of us are kicking our heels in some form of purgatory or going full on through hell laughing maniacally as we do.

Bluelighter is just a religious stereotype.

I quite like fish myself.

I don't mind religious people so much though I'm averse to preachers, some religious based programmes suit some people trying to get clean from drugs for various reasons, probably mainly based upon the levels of social support. I'm not into even looking toward anything like AA/NA largely because I'm prejudiced against organised religious groups & I'd like to believe that I can control my drug use - this control is theoretical so far, however god loves a trier. Rightio I'll gird my loins & do battle with myself again.


----------



## ASquishyApple

Religion and spirituality are completely different though. I don't care much for organized religion. The scriptures used tend to be full of wisdom; however, religion tends to build walls and create barriers between people. The idea that my belief system is THE right one and anyone who believes differently is wrong and needs to believe what I believe has not been good for humanity. My biggest criticism with religion is that it often creates people who want to force their beliefs on others and it creates hypocrites who do not practice what they preach without acknowledging and admitting their own struggles with following whatever it is they are preaching.

Where many people differ, I believe, on the subject of God is what/who/where/when/why he is. I myself don't believe that God is some guy in the sky running the show, but I do believe there is a God. I have many beliefs about what identifies God that I'm not going to go into. Part of my belief in God is definitely a result of my failure to see any purpose to humanity as a whole and by extension each individual life without a God. My belief in God has prevented me from seriously pursuing suicide though I have contemplated it many times. We know so very little about what we are capable of observing in the universe that I believe it will be a long time before we are even close to proving or disproving the existence of a higher power. 

I most easily see God's existence in "coincidences". Often times I ask myself what is the purpose to some seemingly random atrocity, annoyance, accident, or even act of love. After enough time, I am generally able to see the purpose behind what happened or at least see how it could serve a purpose past what I can observe in the universe. These sort of events can easily be dismissed as mere coincidences but as they start to happen frequently viewing all of them as random events becomes scientifically absurd. I believe God can most easily work through anything that involves randomness or chance. According to quantum physics and the multiverse theory, I am in the universe corresponding to the events I have observed merely by chance and that there are perhaps an infinite (or at least incredibly large) number of copies of myself in which every other possible outcome of every possible event is experienced. This theory best fits the current mathematical models; however, mathematics itself is a bit of an abstraction. Also, the models we have now are based only on what we currently know and could be completely wrong no matter how complete and true they may seem. The idea of a spherical planet was once an absurdity as well as the idea that the universe does not physically revolve around our planet. Even the idea of aether (or quintessence) from Aristotelian physics that was dismissed has some truth to it.

I'm not sure what posts you are referring to. At least from what I have read on bluelight, it seems that those who are atheist or agnostic are more apt to express their beliefs, forcefully, on bluelight. I also think that the kind of religious people who would openly and forcefully express their beliefs have never heard of bluelight as these people are far from the drug culture. 

And again as others have said, whatever helps you successfully overcome your problems and addictions without causing more problems than what it was worth definitely has legitimacy.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Portillo said:


> Because bluelighters are smart open minded ppl. As opposed to the "the only thing that exists in the universe is earth and humans" mentality.



Thank you. ^^ 

I believe in God because it's what I have faith in based on everything I have ever experienced in my life. I DO NOT have a religion or follow religion. Religion tries to define which can't really be defined. Spirituality is endless, constantly moving and growing, where as religion says "this is it. this is how it is". 



> I know my words will fall to deaf ears, but I just want to urge you all, don't put faith in god, put faith in *yourself*. In *me*, in your *brothers *and *sisters*, our *mothers* and *fathers*, in *YOURSELF*.



You just basically listed out all the things I think of as God. God is love. God is all of us together.


----------



## higher than you

Why do you care what people believe in, if we choose to follow the lord, thats what we want.  Why do you think you have all the answers.


----------



## Mjäll

I guess some people don't feel comfortable trusting themselves fully. They can turn to a god instead. That's fine with me but giving the idea of god epistemic credit is counterproductive in every sense.


----------



## Roger&Me

Funny, I've always noticed the opposite. As a generalization, BLers seem to be dogmatically atheistic. At least that's what I've noticed.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Mjäll said:


> I guess some people don't feel comfortable trusting themselves fully. They can turn to a god instead. That's fine with me but giving the idea of god epistemic credit is counterproductive in every sense.



See, this is so wrong. I DO trust in myself fully. Which is why I DO have faith in my own spirituality and do not need a religion to connect to God.


----------



## Damien

higher than you said:


> Why do you care what people believe in, if we choose to follow the lord, thats what we want.  Why do you think you have all the answers.





TearItDown said:


> People need to understand that the way religion is practiced worldwide os detrimental to the advancement of humanity.



OP, I have not noticed the trend of which you speak. 

Why should we put faith in anything though?


----------



## weekend addiction

alasdairm said:


> bluelight is a subset of the population of the world. around 80% of the population of the world believes in god in some form or another so why is it surprising that number is reflected in the number of bluelighters who believe in god?
> 
> alasdair



QFT. Gay people tell everyone their gay... Why can't religious pple come out of the closet.


----------



## Portillo

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Thank you. ^^
> 
> I believe in God because it's what I have faith in based on everything I have ever experienced in my life. I DO NOT have a religion or follow religion. Religion tries to define which can't really be defined. Spirituality is endless, constantly moving and growing, where as religion says "this is it. this is how it is".



Thank you too.


----------



## psychoblast

I feel like you are saying, "Love the leaf instead of the tree." That makes no sense to me.

I also believe people often credit God with their successes simply because it is seen as egotistical to take the credit for yourself. For example, if an athlete is asked why his team won a match, and he thinks it was because of how good his teammates are, he will say "My teammates did great." If that same athlete thinks his team won because of how great he was -- that he basically had to carry the team -- he will say "I thank God for this victory." Which is code for, "It sure as hell wasn't my teammates."

~psychoblast~


----------



## ResinTeeth

Honestly I haven't noticed an excessive amount of God-love on here and I've been around for over a year. 

If someone's belief in God gets them through an addiction then by all means quit your bitching, shut the fuck up and let them believe in God. It's not your problem.

Also, God is a loaded term. When I refer to God I most certainly am not referring to a patriarchal figure with a beard sitting in the clouds. There are many different interpretations of what "God" is. My belief is that "God" is the all-pervading non-descript force from which everything springs. It is the base essence of all existence. 

-God is perception

"God" can be pretty abstract depending on the person.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> Also, God is a loaded term. When I refer to God I most certainly am not referring to a patriarchal figure with a beard sitting in the clouds. There are many different interpretations of what "God" is. My belief is that "God" is the all-pervading non-descript force from which everything springs. It is the base essence of all existence.
> 
> -God is perception
> 
> "God" can be pretty abstract depending on the person.



Thank you. THANK YOU. I sometimes feel like I could rip my hair out with frustration trying to get people to understand that "God" does not = "the Christian idea of God" or the some other religion. No particular religion owns the word God so it drives me mad when people say things like, "I hate how people believe in God, [insert whatever religion they have a problem with] doesn't make sense, etc".

Why is it so hard to understand that you can believe in God without being religious?


----------



## jackie jones

Although it goes against all my logical thought processes, I still believe. I am not certain why, yet it has always been truth to me.

Praise be to the Lord


----------



## Damien

I don't think it's very illogical. Fantastic? Yes, but not illogical.


----------



## Marvo Ging

Well, I've been around BL for some months now, mainly on PD and ED and didn't notice that much theism in neither forum... anyway I'm almost completely agnostic, the only thing I realy believe is that there is something "holy", eternal, etc. in every human being, a soul per se, but I don't think "I" am my soul, I think the soul is independent of the ego and have no idea what happens to this "spark" after we die, nor do I care. Is the existence of such a thing God? Maybe. 

I think organized religions had their role in keeping society relatively stable before we had governments but that isn't that much needed anymore, for me now they are just another mostly harmless cultural manifestation.


----------



## jackie jones

Damien said:


> I don't think it's very illogical. Fantastic? Yes, but not illogical.




Are you a Christian as well, Damien?


----------



## Damien

I try, yes.


----------



## jackie jones

I am so happy to hear that, Damien. I love it when I find out people are Christians


----------



## Damien

:D haha, me too.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

I'm glad a lot of people seem to understand faith.  I find hardcore athiests to be just as obnoxious as hardcore Christians. Anyone who thinks their way is the only way is blind, period. I also think anyone who is 100% sure about the workings of the Universe and the meaning of this life is blocking themselves off to a greater truth. Spirituality is always flowing and growing and learning. To say "This is how things are" stops that flow. I do "know" a lot, but what I've found over the years is the big picture just keeps growing and growing and it's bigger and more beautiful than I ever could have imagined in the past.


----------



## Sentience

I really have not seen an excess of the kind of behavior that the OP is talking about, and when I have seen it I brush it off and dont trip about it. Its really none of my business even if I dont share their beliefs.

I have more esoteric beliefs personally. I have had issues with ex addicts who suddenly become holy rollers, but I have not experienced that here.


----------



## TearItDown

Damien said:


> OP, I have not noticed the trend of which you speak.
> 
> Why should we put faith in anything though?



Faith is important because it helps us overcome challenges. Faith is the last ray of hope before we give in and are defeated. Faith shows confidence.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Thank you. THANK YOU. I sometimes feel like I could rip my hair out with frustration trying to get people to understand that "God" does not = "the Christian idea of God" or the some other religion. No particular religion owns the word God so it drives me mad when people say things like, "I hate how people believe in God, [insert whatever religion they have a problem with] doesn't make sense, etc".
> 
> Why is it so hard to understand that you can believe in God without being religious?



Why use the word "God" at all when you know its been used primarily by people with fallacious conceptions of divinity and such?

Why use the word "God" if you are going to deprive this word of the meaning ascribed to it by the vast vast majority of human beings now and throughout history?

Why use the word "God" if you are going to define it as something so abstract when you realize that it is only limited and stereotyped and misconceived due to its existence as  a historically and dogmatically loaded term?

It seems to me that the word God is so loaded that it should be abandoned all together because the comment "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God" actually seems to reveal NOTHING about true belief.


----------



## Quantum Perception

*God?*

What would you define as God and why?


----------



## mav3rick

Interesting question..

I'm unsure as to how I could define God, considering God is supposed to be all-seeing, all-knowing and alla that.. I guess God is what you need it to be.. I personally don't think God exists, I mean, how can there be one entity that controls all? Zeitgeist has it locked down as far as I'm concerned..

I asked my best mate, who's religious what he defines as "God".. He said "The premium human being who gave his only son to repent our sins. God is warmth, God is peace."

Mav


----------



## Quantum Perception

I think the latter part of your religious friends answer is right IMO. Idk, i see god not as any enetity of knowing or judging, as much as encompassing. Its hard to think of it, but i see god as the enternal present moment. like the moment that eveything in reality shares, this moment right now, thats god.
i wonder if people agree with that idea. 

And zeitgeist shudent been seen as a kill to sprituality, just religion.


----------



## Quantum Perception

TearItDown said:


> I understand that many people on here have had or still do have serious drug addiction problems. I don't mean to be anti-god, anti-religion but I'm pretty tired of seeing so many posts about god and religion.
> 
> I hate it when people say that they were saved by god, and god helped them get through their tough times. That isn't really true. YOU got yourself through the tough times. That was all you. There is no big guy up in the sky helping you become sober and safe. Everything happened because of people. Drastic, important changes occurred because of everyday people, because of ourselves. You may believe that god saved you, but he didn't. You saved yourself, YOU, the most important person in your life, YOU.
> 
> People need to understand that the way religion is practiced worldwide os detrimental to the advancement of humanity. I don't think religion is entirely pointless, don't put that in your head. Religion has a lot of important values to take and learn from. A couple weeks ago I was watching a pretty long and in depth program about Buddhism. I thought it was funny at times, because the stories were so fantastic and unrealistic, then it hit me. While some people actually believe the stories as fact, I saw them as tools to learn from. The teachings have higher motives, they may not be completely true at all, but you can learn a lot of good values from them.
> 
> I know my words will fall to deaf ears, but I just want to urge you all, don't put faith in god, put faith in yourself. In me, in your brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers, in YOURSELF. Stop blaming god for bad things and praising him for good things. In the end, it's just us humans surviving through US. If god is so amazing to "his children" where has he been? If everyone would put more faith in humanity, maybe less would suffer because of conflicting religious views? Just some food for thought, I appreciate hearing your responses.



No offence, i see your point, but u need to respect exoteric forms of healing. Of course the person did it them selves (esoteric knowledge) but they need a tool (god or angels) to help them do it, this would be exoteric healing. So even thought it would be better for them to understand their self power, if god helps em out of addiction, then by all means woruship w.e god. but if they become anvengelical and push ppl on to it, then fuck that shit.
It would be nice if people looked more at the esoteric side of religions (spirtual side) instead of the literal interpretational exoteric ones.


----------



## mav3rick

Yeah, my friend agrees with you. 

I don't however but that's just because I don't think a God of any kind exists.. Lol

I do seperate religion from spirituality though, I think you can be spiritual and not be religious. The thing that I think I don't understand the most is, how can a sinner commit a sin, then repent and everything is ok? What's the point in 'sin' anyways? 

 Good conversation, thanks!


----------



## Portillo

Supreme Being/Architect of the Universe.


----------



## I NUK3D U

I would define God as the category under which anything that can't be explained is listed under...


----------



## capstone

Portillo said:


> Supreme Being/Architect of the Universe.



lol, that's very masonic of you.

How many "god" threads are there?

I've lost count.

God is Unifying Consciousness, the material all our souls are made of, and all matter for that matter, where we are all infinite consciousness gods existing within the larger god matrix hologram. This is how "god" can be omnipresent, because if it is the consciously aware universe, and the universe is everywhere...

The ones worshiped in modern religions relate to ancient paganistic sun worship. Jesus actually goes back to older deities related to the Sun. Some are the alien influences which created, or at least manipulated our species into its current state. Most do not know this. 

The "God" of the institutions are Control, and the worship of death. True Godhood is the utilization of our own godhood consciousness to (re)connect to the source, Universal Loving Life.



			
				mav3rick said:
			
		

> The thing that I think I don't understand the most is, how can a sinner commit a sin, then repent and everything is ok? What's the point in 'sin' anyways?



There are many things that are not commonly taught, and much skewing of the truth. "Sin" was actually an Akkadian deity who was the the son of Enlil and Ninlil, and became identified with Semitic Sin, which also goes back to paganistic Moon, or Lunar worship. Side note: "Moses" was actually the Priest of a Lunar cult, grandfather of Pharaoh Tutankhamen, whose real name was Akhenaten.

*Sin (mythology)*

See, the religions are the Greatest Stories Ever Told, but only if you fully understand what they are saying, which is usually highly occultic in nature.


----------



## Sweet P

A three letter word.

That is all.


----------



## capstone

^Speaking of words, forgot something in my original post. There are three distinct gods in the Old Testament, and a couple of other religions. They were a Sun god,  Lunar God, and the worship of sex. Side note: Even though it is cleaner, circumcision has to do with the pagan sex cults, as it makes arousal quicker and easier, there's absolutely nothing "Holy" about it.

Original Point: The word "god" is simply "dog" backwards, and there's actually a very real reason for this. The Canaanites worshiped Sirius in the night sky, which we all know of as the "Dog Star." The Canaanites were also a lunar cult, the progenitor of Egypt's and the Hebrew systems. Another interesting side note: The country "Syria" is also named after Sirius.

And this is only the tip of the religious institutions' "pro-pagan-da."

Just my .02 of things to think about.


----------



## bagochina

A free rambling force that makes up everything on this planet earth.  From that cute little blond chick with the sunshine in her eye, to the mysterious, coded dreams I long for, to the negativity I allow to permeate my thinking, to the way the water shines a reflection up onto the trees making them seem to swim in a sparking light.  

To me God is a all knowing life force that cheers me up when I am down and levels my thinking when I am to up.  A state of mind/body that some days I seem to long for much more knowledge and sometimes wish I could join the great gig in the sky.  Everything happens for a reason though, so whatever happens will be.

peace,
seedless


----------



## ASquishyApple

God is undefinable and incapable of being completely understood by the human minds. I believe that God is the good. He is holy and everything that could be considered good or virtuous. I believe the highest good is love and that God is love. Every other good is an extension of love. God created the universe and is the universe which is how he is omnipotent, all knowing, and omnipresent. There was some film producer who believed that reality is God manifested. I agree with this but also believe that there is so much more to God. 

As far as the topic of sin goes. I believe that a sin is directly disobeying God. It's not that God gives commandments and whatnot just for control or power but for the individual's own good. So a sin could also be seen as doing something wrong when you know you shouldn't. IME sinning doesn't help in the long run.


----------



## ASquishyApple

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> Why use the word "God" at all when you know its been used primarily by people with fallacious conceptions of divinity and such?
> 
> Why use the word "God" if you are going to deprive this word of the meaning ascribed to it by the vast vast majority of human beings now and throughout history?
> 
> Why use the word "God" if you are going to define it as something so abstract when you realize that it is only limited and stereotyped and misconceived due to its existence as  a historically and dogmatically loaded term?
> 
> It seems to me that the word God is so loaded that it should be abandoned all together because the comment "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God" actually seems to reveal NOTHING about true belief.



What other word in the English language could be used in place of God? This is simply a part of language every word has certain baggage and connotations associated with it that greatly differs from person to person. Often times this results in misunderstandings in conversation. If we were to use a new word for every seemingly new idea or concept or different interpretation of a preexisting word, even less would be understood. If we were to spend the time explaining exactly what we mean for every single statement, conversations would go nowhere. You can look at other words and see the same situation as the word God. For instance if I use the word love, many different understandings exist. I could tell you that I love a person and you wouldn't necessarily know what I mean. I could mean a familial bond, a bond of deep friendship, or a close bond of deep intimacy involving physical relations. This is simply an inherent problem with language and I don't think there is much that can be done about it.


----------



## CAPSLOCK

either: (     )
or: the sum of all (that old chestnut)
but, really, we all know the meaning and dont need to define..


----------



## Portillo

capstone said:


> lol, that's very masonic of you.



Thanks.


----------



## capstone

And, the word "Sir" comes from the word "Sirius." I could go all day like this, but at the risk of being annoying, won't, hehe.

I just wonder how many truly comprehend and understand just what gods(translation=Ancient Esoteric Concepts) they are worshiping and happily handing their souls over to. If anything, I think a real god would want us to save ourselves.


----------



## n3ophy7e

capstone said:


> How many "god" threads are there?



That's what this forum is here for  


I personally have no definition of "god", because I don't believe in one.
The word "god" literally has no meaning to me whatsoever.


----------



## Sentience

Just because some people make it ambiguous doesnt mean that it is to everyone....I mean if you ask Ghandi who God is, he can go back and forth between Monotheistic and Pantheistic traditions, Christianity and Islam, Buddhism and indigenous shamanism, and find a common thread or truth in all of it. Even in Hinduism, the many gods are really just different manifestations of reality....different traditions elevate their myth to the level of supreme personality Godhead, but the underlying reality never changes.

When somebody says they believe in God, this tells me that they believe in some form of higher power, be it a more rigid and dogmatic literal interpretation of Bible stories, or a more loose/fluid Taoist perspective (Tao and 'God' becoming synonymous in some peoples minds). Whatever they believe in, its probably not materialist Atheism, and they are more likely to believe in a higher power outside of themselves even if they feel they are connected (ie, not into dieficiation of the self). It suggests submission (Unless they believe in but do not follow/worship the god they believe in) or co-creation/cooperation. This person could be a Rabi, and Sufi mystic, a native shaman, a neo-pagan...whatever. It doesnt tell me what their beliefs are but it does tell me something, as does the statement "i dont believe in God".


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> Why use the word "God" at all when you know its been used primarily by people with fallacious conceptions of divinity and such?
> 
> Why use the word "God" if you are going to deprive this word of the meaning ascribed to it by the vast vast majority of human beings now and throughout history?
> 
> Why use the word "God" if you are going to define it as something so abstract when you realize that it is only limited and stereotyped and misconceived due to its existence as  a historically and dogmatically loaded term?
> 
> It seems to me that the word God is so loaded that it should be abandoned all together because the comment "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God" actually seems to reveal NOTHING about true belief.



I use the word God because I BELIEVE IN GOD. My beliefs are not taking from the meaning given to the world by history-they are simply taking it, and building upon it to take it to a higher place. I was a Christian for years, and went to church and everything. I always tell people, I didn't stop being a Christian, I just.. took it somewhere higher. And higher. And higher until my beliefs weren't recognizable as Christianity anymore. But I never stopped believing in God. My idea of_ how to experience and connect_ to God just isn't as limited as theirs.


----------



## capstone

^If you didn't know what it means, you wouldn't be using it. And, "definition" and "meaning" are two totally different things.


----------



## psychoblast

God is the conscious aspect of everything that exists.

Everything has some level of consciousness (consider that even stones exhibit the choice to move towards something and away from something else, commonly called gravity).

To put it another way, God is the highest consciousness.

~psychoblast~


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> What would you define as God and why?



All of the love in the universe.

Or rather, the frequency of love itself, as a collective, vibrating throughout all space and time. 

The grand design.

I have many, those are just a few. I like the way psychoblast put it though. The highest consciousness.  Yeah. I like that. Simple, but true.


----------



## malakaix

Capstone and MynameisnotDeja reflect my own views.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> how can there be one entity that controls all?



I don't know if there are many people who believe that or see God that way. Even Christians believe that we, as earth beings, have free will to make our own choices. One can definitely believe in a higher power without assuming it's controlling everything. In my beliefs, we are the ones creating/controlling our own universe through our thoughts and the energy we put out. Our higher powers (whatever you pray to) is just helping us to do that more effectively. Sometimes it helps to ask for help, to gain perspective, to get some feedback on what is going wrong, and how to make it better. That's what prayer/talking to God is for me anyway.


----------



## Sentience

I think that is a great perspective....I dont limit myself to one tradition, but as I get older I am able to look back and see the good in the tradition I was raised in....I also see a lot of human ignorance...a lot of humans trying to mold God in their own image, as a racist homophobic woman hating war monger....which is exactly what the people who wrote some of these texts were....But then again, I find the occassional gem. Some writters of the book I seem to like more than others, and I do not believe they were all equally inspired....I think a lot of it is just fiction and parables, and much has been left out or lost in translation, and some of it was pretty ignorant to start with....but I blame humans for that.

The Book of Daniel has the humility and wisdom that is reminiscent of Jesus and New Testament teachings, but was actually an old Jewish prophet who predated him by hundreds or thousands of years....i forget which. Some of the OT with all the ritualism and animal sacrifice seems more like it was man made...like they were emulating Egyptian ritual magick and had it make it look cool like they were performing some kind of magic on a stage. The real stuff is the wisdom that brings your awareness to a higher place. The ritualism I can take or leave, and the prejudice I can definitely do without.

But whatever is out there, it hardly seems fair to end up hating our own spiritual roots just because zealots usurp the idea and turn it into a tool of oppression. 


Belief is very personal though. I dont care what people believe as much as I care how they act towards me and each other....While I think its more than actions, or going through the material motions, I also dont think its as simple as choosing the right religion and saying some magic sentence with your mouth...maybe that works as an affirmation of intent, but if you stop there you pretty much dropped the ball....and if you dont look critically at the text or the establishment you may even be lead down the wrong path entirely.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

I think this topic deserves a mega thread, starting from the bottom of the archives. Stay tuned folks.


----------



## Bidcore

I actually find quite a few are atheistic, which is cool. Atheism for the win!
I have met lots of cool Christians, but quite a few of them seemed... really weird. 
My thoughts on religion are simply "If your beliefs inform your actions, then to the best of your ability you would want your beliefs to be true". Quite a simple philosophy to understand, and it has many implications.


----------



## psychoblast

TearItDown said:


> Faith is important because it helps us overcome challenges. Faith is the last ray of hope before we give in and are defeated. Faith shows confidence.



If faith is such a virtue, then you should never doubt anyone or anything you are told, and you should give away all your money to the first con man who comes along.

DUP!

Clearly, the virtue is not in faith itself, but in the wise selection of where to put your faith. The creed of moderation in all things is a good idea here. Faith in oneself is wise and is a virtue IN MODERATION (otherwise it becomes conceit). Faith in others is wise and is a virtue in some circumstances, not in others.

Anyway, what helps us overcome challenges is NOT faith (i.e., the sense that we are CERTAIN to overcome the challenges no matter what), but rather hope (i.e., the sense that we have a good chance to overcome the challenges with effort).

What, you are never going to cook a new recipe based on the mere "chance" that it will taste good, you must have some kind of certain sense that it is fated that it will taste good or you will not even make the attempt? That is stupid. So you do not need FAITH to overcome challenges, you merely need optimism / hope.

~psychoblast~


----------



## Jamshyd

Just a placeholder for the God megathread project.


----------



## qwe

>>Clearly, the virtue is not in faith itself, but in the wise selection of where to put your faith>>

yes.  why not put it in the spaghetti monster?  because your frontal lobe is making you trip the fuck out and you think "this is so amazing, it can't possibly come from me", and society has perfected the ability to plant hardcore beliefs into people, so your amazing experience mixed with tradition caused you to attribute your experience to the local concept of divinity?

the brain produces every piece of our consciousness.  since consciousness itself does not seem to be limited by the energetic processes of the universe and has unlimited types of experience (eg, you can turn the pain or pleasure dial as high or low as you want.  if you were in control of a brain, you would be able to give a soul a "religious experience" or a "hell" or anything in between.  it's just information shuffling and being interpreted)

since all of our consciousness is produced by our brain, and sometimes our experience is unexplainable and very emotional, of course we turn to concepts like "god", where "god is everybody" and at the same time "god is love" and at the same time "god is the universe"

i'm sorry, but those are separate things.  there is a connection, but calling the connection god is similar to calling any emergent complex system god, like a watch or a city

if god is everything, and the universe is god, then there is no god---there is just an amazing universe that provides astounding unexplainable (as yet) experiences

existentially, spirituality can evolve one as a person, but by spirituality i mean spelunking the tunnels of one's consciousness, subconsciousness, and, if there is such a distinction, whatever entity houses one's "qualia"


----------



## SececaRD

TearItDown said:


> I hate it when people say that they were saved by god, and god helped them get through their tough times. That isn't really true. YOU got yourself through the tough times. That was all you..





How can you talk for me??


Thru the Lord Jesus Christ and his grace and mercy, Ive got 2 year and 3 months clean from heroin!!


----------



## Bidcore

SececaRD said:


> How can you talk for me??
> 
> 
> Thru the Lord Jesus Christ and his grace and mercy, Ive got 2 year and 3 months clean from heroin!!



Ah yes, Jesus Christ got you through, not your own will. How foolish of us.
Do you not realize that faith in God being behind you in your decisions and backing you up is simply positive self reinforcement? 
Also, why did Jesus help you get off of heroin, and not other people?
These sorts of arguments remind me of people who are like 'It's a MIRACLE!'
A miracle is something that is unlikely to happen, and it does, which is positive in the eyes of the person. A tragedy is something that is unlikely to happen, and when it does it is viewed negatively. Miracles and tragedies happen all the time, because we assign the positivity and negativity to them. But when it comes down to it, its an event that was deemed unlikely by the person and it happened. But unlikely events happen... they're just not likely.


----------



## Jackal

I seem to have missed all the God loving that's been going on.  

Which god are we talking about here. Do you think they used protection? You never can know whose been up a deity's ass before you.

For the record, I believe in nothing and everything.


----------



## qwe

i fucked god once.  never doing salvia again.  well maybe someday

no chance for protection -.-


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> yes. why not put it in the spaghetti monster? because your frontal lobe is making you trip the fuck out and you think "this is so amazing, it can't possibly come from me"



It does come from us though... God is within. My favorite quote is "God is in me, or not at all". Some interpret that quote (I forget who said it) to mean that there is no God, but I take it to mean that we are all carriers of God (or Christ consciousness, higher self, whatever perspective works for you). For that reason, I feel faith in myself IS faith in God, since God speaks through me and my life.

I notice so many people seem to see things as one way, or the other way. I always tend to see things multiple ways at once and then realize all ways are the same, just different angles of viewing...



> Ah yes, Jesus Christ got you through, not your own will. How foolish of us.



Once again, why can't it be _both_?


----------



## qwe

>> I notice so many people seem to see things as one way, or the other way. I always tend to see things multiple ways at once and then realize all ways are the same, just different angles of viewing... >>

this is of course the way to analyze things, but there are lines to be drawn, lest faux news starts to be considered serious


----------



## Cornishman

God is the big bang. 

God created everything.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

qwe said:


> >> I notice so many people seem to see things as one way, or the other way. I always tend to see things multiple ways at once and then realize all ways are the same, just different angles of viewing... >>
> 
> this is of course the way to analyze things, but there are lines to be drawn, lest faux news starts to be considered serious



I think when you view things spherically, you develop and instinct to just know when something is bullshit. I do anyway.


----------



## Bidcore

Well from what we can discern from around us, the Universe has gone from little complexity to more complexity. I.e from a non-complex singularity to complex galaxies and of course complex life. Planets, largely spherical to our eyes, with their complex weather systems, formed BY THEMSELVES through existing laws. As did life. 
I feel a lot of arguments for God are like this
a) there is beauty in the world (beauty is subjective, some people think death is beautiful, or pedophiles think young children are beautiful) and subjectivity is no cause for argument.
or
b) the Universe is complex, therefore, it was created.
I don't subscribe to either theory, but my main argument is with b).
First of all, that logic is circular. If the universe is complex so it needed to be created by something infinitely complex, then by that logic this complex God also needs a creator. But then for some reason theres always a stupid statement like he's the alpha, the omega, beginning and end. 
I hate the notion of faith too. 
Always when arguing with the faithful they are like 'I just have faith,' but what is faith but wants and desires mistaken for knowledge?
There's no proof for God, so why believe it? Because you want to? 
I just think if your beliefs inform your actions, then you want your belief to be true as best as you can logically discern. If you can't logically say something exists, why believe it?


----------



## Bidcore

^ Because you are assuming that an infinite God sacrificed himself (Jesus was God incarnate according to Christian Dogma) to atone for the sins of mankind. This is called scapegoating, a medieval practice and is viewed as incredibly immoral. Why must blood be spilled? 
It's just a _ridiculous_ theology, with no moral merit what so ever. Nor spiritual. In my opinion, more spirituality is found outside in nature, or studying the works of Darwin, or just learning about the world.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Bidcore said:


> ^ Because you are assuming that an infinite God sacrificed himself (Jesus was God incarnate according to Christian Dogma) to atone for the sins of mankind. This is called scapegoating, a medieval practice and is viewed as incredibly immoral. Why must blood be spilled?
> It's just a _ridiculous_ theology, with no moral merit what so ever. Nor spiritual. In my opinion, more spirituality is found outside in nature, or studying the works of Darwin, or just learning about the world.



Well I agree much with the last thing you said. Most of my spirituality, if I had to define it, just comes down to appreciating the balance of nature.  As far as the Jesus thing, it is not 100% black and white. Many people believe in parts of Christianity. I personally don't really believe in the whole Jesus sacrificed for our sins stuff, but I still follow some of the teachings of Christ and read the Bible in an oracle sort of way (I sometimes just open to a random page and read something and apply it to my life in a personal way). So when I say it can be both I mean you can have your own personal faith and also look to Jesus, in your own way. At least I do, but maybe people like me are rare. Most seem to believe, you are religious or youre not. You take the Bible literally and follow it word for word, or not.

Me I just pick and choose which parts of different religions make sense to me, mix them all together with my own completely unique take on things. I don't follow other peoples rules. :D


----------



## ebola?

jamshyd said:
			
		

> Well, I personally don't see the point of discussing further something that we admit is so much larger than us that we cannot individually conceptualize. Attempting to put it in words (or equations) is, to me, an act of arrogance.
> 
> But you guys are free to discuss this further if you want. Just stating my opinion.



IMO, to try to attain this impossibility is a key part of being human.>
...
My usual line appeared already.


----------



## Sentience

Arguing against a literal interpretation of Christianity or Judaism is pretty easy to do. It doesnt take a genius to find contradictions or things that dont match up with science. Being able to successfully do so is no sign of great intelligence either. I dont think the value of these traditions (for better or for worse) lies in whether the myths stand up to scientific scrutiny. I think the value (or harm) lies elsewhere.

I do not believe in a literal interpretation of what I was taught growing up in Catholic school.....however, I lean towards believing that there is 'something' more, and dont see a lot of credibility in a strictly materialist worldview. 

The notion that that all we see/know is all there is to be seen/known is a ridiculous position....as is the idea that if an idea cannot be proven that it should be assumed to be false....I guess nothing is really 'proven' in science, but philosophically there are gaps and weakness in scientific thinking....like having to take a position that cannot be true simply for the sake of maintaining objectivity. I dont know if anyone understands what I am saying, but if we were to apply pure science to every aspect of our life we would be crippled if we could not make some assumptions and judgment calls about the world around us...but that isnt science.


----------



## ebola?

I thought that there was a thread on this before...lemme see if I can dig up my thoughts in another post:

Well, I failed to find it.  Briefly, 'god' is the background of conditions of possibility out of which we, the actual, emerge. . .but god also encompasses the actual in determining it. . .but god doesn't 'exist', per se, as it's a configuration bounding the actual in terms of possibility.

So this position is both atheist and pantheist, as god is everywhere but also could be construed as a 'nonexistent' asymptotic 'limit' case, beyond the bounds of the system of which we're a part (ie, the actual universe) and the limits of our ability to discern (to adequately know the universe as a system, one'd need observe the universe from the outside, an imagined fiction for us).  It then follows that 'god' cannot be captured by logics, as god is the precondition for such logics.

A possible adjunct (general corresponding ontology):
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?p=6661042&highlight=nitrous#post6661042

Also, prior thread on this topic:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=403378
...
Good topic.  Hopefully, I wasn't too 'cool story, bro' on it. 

ebola


----------



## B9

Anyone fancy a go on a trampoline ?


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ I agree with this post completely. Being a subscriber to scientism (i.e. entertaining the possibility of only those phenomena with robust scientific evidence behind them) is as much a personal choice as subscribing to any other metaphysical framework. It's completely axiomatic; you cannot PROVE that all phenomena that truly exist are knowable to human science. But nor has scientism ever been falsified either, and that and its usefulness as a very good bullshit filter makes it attractive to people who have no motivation to favor any other metaphysical framework. But at the end of the day, the world as it presents to us does not force scientism.


----------



## drscience

I am God. So are you.


----------



## deadhead507461

God 
A higher being that people believe in to have a sense of security and acceptance in such an unknown world.


----------



## azzazza !?

ebola? said:


> Briefly, 'god' is the background of conditions of possibility out of which we, the actual, emerge. . .but god also encompasses the actual in determining it. . .but god doesn't 'exist', per se, as it's a configuration bounding the actual in terms of possibility.
> 
> So this position is both atheist and pantheist, as god is everywhere but also could be construed as a 'nonexistent' asymptotic 'limit' case, beyond the bounds of the system of which we're a part (ie, the actual universe) and the limits of our ability to discern (to adequately know the universe as a system, one'd need observe the universe from the outside, an imagined fiction for us).  It then follows that 'god' cannot be captured by logics, as god is the precondition for such logics.



very heideggerian of you


----------



## Roger&Me

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> ^ I agree with this post completely. Being a subscriber to scientism (i.e. entertaining the possibility of only those phenomena with robust scientific evidence behind them) is as much a personal choice as subscribing to any other metaphysical framework. It's completely axiomatic; you cannot PROVE that all phenomena that truly exist are knowable to human science. But nor has scientism ever been falsified either, and that and its usefulness as a very good bullshit filter makes it attractive to people who have no motivation to favor any other metaphysical framework. But at the end of the day, the world as it presents to us does not force scientism.



Warning: goin' off on a little tangent here. :D Not exactly replying to you MDAO, more using your comments as a springboard to jump off of. 

Well science is very unique as a conceptual entity, IMO, especially when compared with other academic disciplines: because its based on a fallacy that is not widely recognized. 

Most people assume that because a concept can make consistent predictions, it is therefore "the truth". The apparent ability of science to systematically rank the validity of ideas is very attractive to many people, I think, because it offers a false sense of solid ground on which to brace reality. However, one only has to look back into history to see this notion as inherently fallacious. 

For instance, Kepler developed a remarkably accurate system for predicting the orbits of the planets around the sun. A system which we now know to be completely inaccurate theoretically, but perfectly capable of making good predictions. So its easy to see how "scientific evidence" is only slightly less bullshit than other completely 'unproven' bullshit. :D 

However, this is not the way science is popularly percieved; for many people, scientific proof is akin to saying "this is the way *it is*!". Though history is pock-marked with evidence that this is clearly not the case.

And even today, in an age of unprecedented technological advancement, plenty of currently widely accepted scientific theories are iffy at best. Take for instance, the Standard Model of particle physics-- or the periodic table of the elements. Both of which are essentially board games that we play with ourselves in order to make predictions. They work on paper and in the laboratory, but still fail to explain much about the way things really are.

These two concepts are good examples, because they are both highly analogous concepts, and they also fly in each other's face. Chemistry's periodic table was seen by many as being "the way it is" as far as matter is concerned, but it turned out later that there was more going on, so another "game" had to be invented to explain yet more aberrant observations, thus reigning them back into the scope of prediction.

Scientism is, IMHO, a great example of how people think about a concept as outsiders to the concept. If you spend your time actually *doing* science, it becomes apparent quite quickly that there is far more to reality than can be explained through such crude means. 

At its core, science really is an incredibly blunt and crude tool. In fact, the very nature of scientific genius is uncompromising stupidity: one must simplify enormously complex systems down to a level that can be understood by the limited human mind, while still retaining the essence of the fundamental relationships inherent to those systems. Its just the act of drawing rigid boxes around concepts that are inherently squirmy and nebulous; sure it makes prediction much easier, but it gets us no closer to understanding reality in any type of meaningful way.

Well now that I've gone and typed it up, I'm unsure as to whether I've actually said anything in this post. :D I'm just kicking a few ideas around, because I spend so much time surrounded by the concept of 'Science', its occurred to me that humanity has very little idea of what science actually even is-- or what it _means_, to be more precise. IMO, scientism is a great example of this confusion prompting people towards a dogmatic extreme. 

Don't get me wrong, I think the natural sciences are very important. But they're not inherently superior to any other way of understanding the world, they are imperfect abstract representations of reality just like all the other various forms into which academic thought has congealed. If I'm trying to say anything, maybe I'm trying to say that we are all full of shit. :D Humans are just too dumb not to be, because our minds cannot comprehend the infinite complexity of reality. So maybe we should stop arguing about "the way things are", and instead start worrying about what concepts _work_ to make people's lives happier and thus make the world a better place to exist.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Roger&Me, your last paragraph rings true with me. I take a very pragmatist / utilitarian approach to truth: what's true equals what works. I like this pragmatist definition of truth because it gives due weight to subjective experience and to what's known as 'common sense': if a statement is true to your firsthand experience of the world, you are in a position to deem it 'true', full stop. We all do this anyway. This doesn't give you a free pass to close your mind to new experiences, including those that might call into question what previously seemed like something you could hang your hat on. But it does acknowledge that consistency builds certainty, and both are in the eye of the beholder.

If someone tells me he believes in God because God speaks to him directly, I'm not going to immediately whip out my pad and prescribe him risperdone. I'm open to the possibility that some of us are privy to genuine realms of experience that are not a part of what we call consensual reality, and there's only something there to be 'fixed' if the person is having obvious troubles navigating life.


----------



## bagochina

^ but would Risperdal really fix the person or would it just be a pharm band-aid that might do more harm than good.  

peace,
seedless


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Band-aid. It just makes functioning in life a little more possible. It actually worsens the flat mood of schizophrenia and the depressive phase of bipolar, in a lot of cases. But at least it stops delusions and hallucinations.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> If someone tells me he believes in God because God speaks to him directly, I'm not going to immediately whip out my pad and prescribe him risperdone. I'm open to the possibility that some of us are privy to genuine realms of experience that are not a part of what we call consensual reality, and there's only something there to be 'fixed' if the person is having obvious troubles navigating life.



Thank you for this. When I pray "God" answers me. Whether you want to call it "God" or "My higher power" is a matter of choice. To me they are one in the same. The highest part of me IS God, IS the universal consciousness, ever since I was a child I was able to "tap into" this... force.. this consciousness, this light, that didn't feel like "me".. It feels like looking backward down onto my ego mind and seeing little me there, living her life. And from within this higher place, I can see things that I can't always see from within my ego mind. I call this connecting to God, some might call it meditating or nirvana or other words. But it's all the same thing!

It would sadden me if people thought that was a "hallucination" just because they hadn't experienced it themselves. When I go to that place, I get love, healing, answers to my problems. If that's a hallucination, it's a pretty cool one. :D From within that place, I've seen God, or my definition of it anyway, and it's beautiful. I just wish people could see that you don't need any particular religion to connect to that; it's inside us all.


----------



## coopie

You can't tell me God doesn't exist and I can't tell you he does, well actually - we can say those things - but simply saying that wouldn't make us believe each other would it? 

You're allowed to have your complaint - and others are allowed to preach at people, even if you think they shouldn't. But I don't think you don't have a right to complain either.

If believing in God makes people happy, then so be it, IMO. I've heard people explain people who get off drugs and onto God as 'replacing one crutch with another'  - who cares tho really, if they want a life without drugs and having that kind of life is possible with believing in God in their case - good for them. I don't see any harm there. Sure people get subjected to bible bashing here and there -  and there are people who believe in God who don't preach and bible bash - because they respect other's beliefs etc - but you never hear from those people do you? 

I know you said your not anti religion etc, and I'm not saying you are - just another angle I thought I'd put out there...

Cheers,

Coopie


----------



## Roger&Me

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Band-aid. It just makes functioning in life a little more possible. It actually worsens the flat mood of schizophrenia and the depressive phase of bipolar, in a lot of cases. But at least it stops delusions and hallucinations.



I'm not a huge proponent of psychology, but I've been told there is good evidence that delusions can be resolved cognitively in many cases. I haven't researched the matter myself; it would probably be an interesting thing to look into. 

It's probably not common in the medical community to suggest such a route, but if the evidence turns out to look sound, it would probably be better for the person's health in the long run than maintaining them on risperdal. 

It seems contrary to the Hippocratic oath to prescribe a patient such a drug without at least _trying_ some less abrasive alternatives before deciding to continue the patient on the medication long-term. 

But that's another matter for another thread entirely.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ Indeed. There are healthy, functional people who hear voices or see things other people don't see, or swear they receive messages telepathically or are privy to some sort of secret knowledge. And if they're fine with these experiences, and the experiences don't get in the way of them holding down jobs, maintaining normal social relationships, or staying with the bounds of the law and socially acceptable behavior, then as far as I'm concerned, there's no problem to fix. Maybe these people truly are tuned in to things most of us aren't, or have a gift. Perhaps their experiences are an effect of brains that work differently than most people's. Or maybe both. But that's not for me to say -- I'm not a philosopher of mind or a psychologist. I'm just a physician.


----------



## B9

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> ^ Indeed. There are healthy, functional people who hear voices or see things other people don't see, or swear they receive messages telepathically or are privy to some sort of secret knowledge. And if they're fine with these experiences, and the experiences don't get in the way of them holding down jobs, maintaining normal social relationships, or staying with the bounds of the law and socially acceptable behavior, then as far as I'm concerned, there's no problem to fix. Maybe these people truly are tuned in to things most of us aren't, or have a gift. Perhaps their experiences are an effect of brains that work differently than most people's. Or maybe both. But that's not for me to say




Telepathy does happen - not that I'm claiming to posses any of the virtues mentioned by MDAO it does occur tho.


----------



## aparenz

*I believe in something, but it will never be "God".*

Every day as my mind takes in more and more knowledge from past historical findings my thoughts have moved farther astray from any type of common belief found in this world.

I don't believe that there is no "God" per se because this word is way too vague for me. When one says they believe in God, it means nothing to me. So you believe that some power governs this world? Do you believe that some power governs this galaxy? Universe? It all just has collided together forming a bunch of rubbish that I dare not listen to any "believers" opinion no more. The idea that a single entity can control all at once is not far-fetched, but the evidence is nowhere to be found.

I'm currently only the age of 19 and have an infinite amount of studies to be done on such a touchy and "faith" based subject. Simply the idea that one can regard the bible as god's will or whatever bullshit one might call it is the most laughable idea to me. So in this universe, what are we, one light year from our sun? What is the radius in light years of this galaxy? Billions? At least millions. So you believe that we are infinitely lucky that "God" sent us these various pieces of work to one out of an infinite amount of planets out there?

I'd rather not type any more because I could go on forever. But this is an interesting discussion that I'd love to hear other people's point of views off of this one touchy subject.

I hope my opinion isn't hurtful to others beliefs, but I feel the need to express a base of abstract thought.


----------



## ebola?

Heh...if only by accident.  I have to admit my understanding of Heidegger rather poor. . .

ebola


----------



## Portillo

At least your thinking outside the box. Dont give up, theres definately more to this universe than earth and humans.


----------



## superelephant

aparenz said:


> So in this universe, what are we, one light year from our sun?



Wrong. We are one astronomical unit from are sun. Much smaller of a unit. Light takes about 8 minutes to reach earth from the sun, not a year.


----------



## aparenz

"0.0000152207001522070015220700152207 light years. On avg it takes just under 8 and half minutes for light to reach the earth from, the sun."

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080101104039AAE6N30

Thank you. That strengthened my point further and made me less ignorant. =)


----------



## Bardeaux

> Wrong. We are one astronomical unit from are sun. Much smaller of a unit. Light takes about 8 minutes to reach earth from the sun, not a year.



correct
149, 597, 870.7 kilometers 
92,955,887.6 miles

Ofcourse the biblical, grey bearded, cloud dwelling god is a silly concept. But we are just too primitive to come to any conclusions on a scale the size of 'god'. Existance and life could be a mere coincidence or it could be a science experiment performed by highly advanced beings or anything in between.


----------



## azzazza !?

^thats probably _his_ fault


----------



## daysonatrain

^42


----------



## rowland2110

All that is.


----------



## Ugster

I used to have a huge problem with the idea of God, it conflicted too much with my scientific and (failed) religious programming. I  had too many negative connotations associated with the word God. 

I have now learned to accept that when people talk about a God, they are generally referencing  their conception of a "higher power" or greater force in this universe. 

To me, God is only a word we have created to symbolically represent our conception of the totality of the universe. It is a word symbolically used to represent the divine force that is penetrating and animating this universe, which is beyond all of us.

And in that respect, God is not God... God is a symbolic representation of our ability to conceptualize within the constructs of this universe. Our language has many words for this, and God has just one of them.

Now, that being said. I believe in God, and I have experienced God, and I will say this... God is much bigger than a word, because God can not be conceptualized. It is not meant to be conceptualized.  The force that is driving this universe is infinite and completely transcendent of life itself, no mind can fathom the complexity of the infinite. 

To me, God is Love, God is Infinity, God is the force that moves all things. God is everything and nothing. God is you, and god is me. I am God and so are you. 

I prefer to use the word Spirit, because it doesn't have as many negative religious connotations, but that is just me, but by accepting the word "God" I am able to better understand other people who are operating from that paradigm when they are speaking to me.

If I am conversing with a Christian, it does me no good to deny his word for the divine absolute. I have to recognize that when he talks of God he is only talking about his conception of the highest power in the universe. Everyone has a conception of a higher power in this universe, even if they are an atheist. The higher power for an atheist is Death, and that is a force that we all must succumb to eventually. 

Much Love and Many Blessings.


----------



## Quantum Perception

Maybe God is the present moment in-of-itself. Like what the Buddhists call suchness. Is that clear at all?


----------



## Quantum Perception

^right on

You should look up Ken Wilber's explanation of the first, second, and third person views of God.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ My understanding is that the esoteric conception of God is closest to what Buddhist thinkers call 'Buddha Nature', which is in all things and all people inherently, but that the Buddhists see no value in anthropomorphizing it, and find the word 'God' in general unhelpful to understanding the true nature of reality and of mind.


----------



## Captain.Heroin

Most intelligent people don't believe in a god that controls everything, at least most people at this website.


----------



## Captain.Heroin

As an individualist, I tend to agree with the sentiment of the OP.  However, it's important to remember, that people's beliefs are theirs for a reason.  If someone believes they were powerless to get over their, let's say crack addiction, and they managed to get over it, is it wrong they give credit to God?  Would you rather them have a bloated self-stroked egotistical person, or a humble one?  

Another way someone might view this is that someone found god within themselves, and that's what helped them get over a drug addiction, and in this sense, giving credit to god is also giving credit to themselves.  I don't think it's too far out to believe that god manifests itself within certain individuals.  

With this being said, the OP's sentiment that the individual themselves quit drugs and God can't do that for you, is an agreeable one in my opinion.  Some people will never give themselves enough credit, and will wield their idea of God as what should be the concept of god for everyone else; and that does make me rather sick.  

Lastly, everyone's concept of god is different.  I don't believe there is a god for everyone, nor is there god within everyone.  That would be a flawed view IMO, but if someone wants to believe god _is_, somehow, in everyone, or if there is one god for everyone, I don't care to challenge their belief.  I just think it's not _their_ belief, but rather, what was forced upon them by their own society or their own parents, and they just happened to be gullible enough to believe what the first person told them was true regarding god.  



Cornishman said:


> God is the big bang.
> 
> God created everything.



Pantheists would go so far as to say god is everything.  

In this sense, praising god for an individual's feat would also be giving themselves partial or complete credit.  



MynameisnotDeja said:


> I'm glad a lot of people seem to understand faith.  I find hardcore athiests to be just as obnoxious as hardcore Christians. Anyone who thinks their way is the only way is blind, period. I also think anyone who is 100% sure about the workings of the Universe and the meaning of this life is blocking themselves off to a greater truth. Spirituality is always flowing and growing and learning. To say "This is how things are" stops that flow. I do "know" a lot, but what I've found over the years is the big picture just keeps growing and growing and it's bigger and more beautiful than I ever could have imagined in the past.



I find most atheists to be rather interesting and deep people.  Some atheists are annoying, yes.  

Not all atheists object to other people's ideas of god, they just mock them behind their back in their spare time.  Just like you can make fun of atheists because you (may or may not) believe they are going to burn in hell for being a non-believer.  

I respect most people who do not believe in God who use reason and logic to back up their beliefs.  Ayn Rand's beliefs in religion, are just as valid as mine, IMO.  



psychoblast said:


> Anyway, what helps us overcome challenges is NOT faith



Quoted for truth, and because it's the most rational and reasonable thing I've seen posted in this thread so far.  



SececaRD said:


> How can you talk for me??



Did God flush the rest of your stash down the toilet, or did you? 

Did you decide to stop going to the dope man, or did God kill the dope man for you?

We're not talking for you, we're just seriously doubting that God helped you quit heroin.  Can you explain to me how this mysterious, emotion-based phenomenon happened, or are you just going to quote a bible verse and tell me that because of that, god intervenes in everyone's life, and he obviously must have in yours?  

As far as I'm concerned, if god created everything, god made you and god made heroin.  God made you into a heroin addict.  If he got you clean, he's the one to blame for getting you addicted.  

Stop blaming your problems on God and start being accountable for your own actions, and people might take your beliefs on god seriously, instead of scoffing at them.


----------



## Enlitx

I think that when most people in the United States speak of a god, they are referring to a creator that has a personal interest in our lives.   Many people on this board are more vague, citing a higher power that we somehow "join" after death.  And yet here are others that speak of god as the physical laws of the universe, but I find that misleading, since it would be much simpler to refer to them as the laws that they are.

Ultimately, people believe in this because they are emotionally predisposed to such a belief.  No one wants to die, so people cling to the idea that there is something more after death.  Generally, people start with the classic religions of society.  Once these religions are examined and found wanting, people will move on to a more vague interpretation such as a "higher consciousness" or a "universal consciousness".  While it is much easier to find inconsistencies and problems with the Bible since there is so much text, the idea of a universal consciousness is equally unfounded.  There is nothing to suggest any kind of god exists.  People feel safer with the more liberal interpretations of god since there isn't much concrete stuff to attack, but it is all the same type of emotional needs being met.  

To me, it is rather simple.  There is a strong evolutionary incentive to believe in a higher power, and yet there is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest such a higher power exists.  So which is more likely, that a higher power exists or that we delude ourselves into thinking one does?


----------



## Enlitx

B9 said:


> Telepathy does happen - not that I'm claiming to posses any of the virtues mentioned by MDAO it does occur tho.



Really?  Because countless experiments have determined it does not happen.  There is no mechanistic explanation for how it could possibly happen, and everyone who has claimed this power turned out to be a fraud.  

These facts would lead me to believe that telepathy most definitely does not occur.


----------



## infectedmushroom

^^Agreed.

People have a crippling inability to let go of the notion of a greater spirit or lifeforce (even if they reject traditional notions of god.) 

Why can't people let go and just realize that the world around them is the result of billions of years of gradual development? Thats where the beauty in existence lies, the fact that you dear bl reader, the tree in your street, your pet, your grandma and the entire world you see is the result of billions of years of gradual evoloution.

Why does it need to be explained by a spiritual metaphysical being as opposed to reason and science, which does NOT detract in any way from its majesty and grandeur? Infact i've realized now once rejecting notions of a higher spirit the absolute awesomeness present in the smallest of things.

I for one would rather put my coins in the corner of science and evidence. Yes, I cannot deny there is the %0.1 chance of there being a higher spiritual being; but why not go for the %99.9 chance offered to us by rationality and science which is supported by (relative to spiritual belief) ENDLESS amounts of evidence?

ps. I know this may not be worded as well as it could but it took me long enough, i'm quite stoned 

p.s.s Sorry I just had to add something. I read above someone commented about even athiests having a conceptionof a higher being, (being death.) The argument here is based around the notion of an afterlife (something I don't want to go into to deeply now unless I get a reply to this.) In My (abbreviated) opinion, death is simple. Blood stops flowing to the brain. Your ability to perceive the world and be conscious (facilitated by your brain) thus ends as there is no blood flowing to the brain to allow it run (like a car without petrol.) TA DA! Wonderful isn't it? You die, maggots eat your brains, and life continues. I'm sorry to burst your bubble; but you and I, nor anyone else, is special. Like a chicken, to a rat, to a human, we end up the same. 

Someone tell me where doggy heaven is because i'd love to go when I die.


----------



## Raw Evil

infectedmushroom said:


> ^^Agreed.
> 
> People have a crippling inability to let go of the notion of a greater spirit or lifeforce (even if they reject traditional notions of god.)
> 
> Why can't people let go and just realize that the world around them is the result of billions of years of gradual development? Thats where the beauty in existence lies, the fact that you dear bl reader, the tree in your street, your pet, your grandma and the entire world you see is the result of billions of years of gradual evoloution.
> 
> Why does it need to be explained by a spiritual metaphysical being as opposed to reason and science, which does NOT detract in any way from its majesty and grandeur? Infact i've realized now once rejecting notions of a higher spirit the absolute awesomeness present in the smallest of things.



Metaphysics isn't "magic". It's just another way of examining the phenomena around you, and noticing the little subtleties that normally don't attract attention. Things that turn out to be pretty fundamental in the functioning of this universe.

Emergence is a pet topic of mine. It is the phenomenon of complex behaviour arising from large networks of simple, interconnected nodes or cells. One example is the "group intelligence" of insect colonies - while individual insects are very simple creatures, the collective of them functioning together forms a hive-mind which appears to function as an individual. This pattern is observed in other things as well: organic molecules form cells, cells form individual organisms, organisms form societies (pack-hunting animals and humans are two good examples of this)... This concept is an observed phenomenon in the real world. It even happens with traffic on the Internet. Twitter is an amazing example of this, if you've ever used it. I find that the most amazing example of emergence, however, is our own consciousness.

Another favourite idea of mine is what I have blandly termed information transfer. This happens on many scales, the most well-known of which is within our own brains - neurons communicate to each other in a two-way fashion. However, structured communication is not the only way information is transferred. It happens when to rocks hit each other in space: information about the first rock's velocity is combined with that of the other rock. If information about the second's velocity can be observed, the first's can be determined. The information is transferred forward through time, and stored as a combination of velocity and rotational momentum.

Similarly, information about the state of Earth's environment at the beginnings of life is encoded in the world around us. Firstly in our own DNA (the evolutionary evidence of the shapes and chemical make-ups of different organs), as well as being archived in fossils and the occasional "mummified" creature from the ages, and of course the mineral structure of rocks, mountains and the like. Unlike neurons, however, the "basic" physical universe does not achieve much two-way communication. Evolution is somewhat of an outlier here, since it is both unidirectional like the physical universe, yet like a network of neurons relies on the sharing of information (DNA) to continue to function.

Since emergence relies on networks of communication, and information transfer happens literally everywhere, does this not suggest that it is at least *possible* that "mind" (which we have clearly seen exists within networks of a specific type of interconnected, stateful cells) can exist on large scales, using nodes of space rocks, stars/black holes, cells and even individual humans? What if your network goes from a gajillion interconnected cells to just another rock? All that has happened is that your lump of brain matter has transitioned from a fast-thinking, small-scale network to a slow-thinking, large-scale one.


----------



## Enlitx

Raw Evil said:


> Since emergence relies on networks of communication, and information transfer happens literally everywhere, does this not suggest that it is at least *possible* that "mind" (which we have clearly seen exists within networks of a specific type of interconnected, stateful cells) can exist on large scales, using nodes of space rocks, stars/black holes, cells and even individual humans? What if your network goes from a gajillion interconnected cells to just another rock? All that has happened is that your lump of brain matter has transitioned from a fast-thinking, small-scale network to a slow-thinking, large-scale one.



Possible?  Sure. The probability of such a thing is another story.  As far as we know the only thing that can produce consciousness is a highly evolved biological organism.  Period.  Nothing suggests that consciousness has been produced in any other way.  Would you seriously consider the idea that pink unicorns run the weather from atop a mountain?  I mean, it is possible.  The difference is that you have no emotional investment in that improbable theory, but people have an emotional investment in the idea that there is more to come after death, or there is consciousness beyond our own.  It is a matter of being candid with yourself and having the emotional fortitude to acknowledge the realities of the situation.

I do believe that there is consciousness somewhere else in the universe, since the probability of alien life is pretty high, but I don't believe in a larger or higher consciousness.  It has taken long enough for our own consciousness to evolve.


----------



## Quantum Perception

God has become a dirty word...


----------



## Quantum Perception

^ yea god as a term carrys alot of stigma.

But i do believe that a devoute theist is as ignorent as a devoute atheist.


----------



## higher than you

God is LOVE


----------



## Shrooms00087

I do not believe God as a "Being" or another form of "life". 

As far as creator and ruler of the universe, I'd say the title goes to the universe. Or the two deities Hydrogen and Helium. I will admit there is room for a creator or some "Being". I just think he/she/it would have bigger better things to do than watch and judge us. Unless he/she/it likes the drama


----------



## ebola?

> Maybe God is the present moment in-of-itself.



Yet this 'moment' always is, but simultaneously can never come to be; we emerge of this 'moment' as a self-referential 'strange loop' (see Hofstadter)--we see our take on this moment, and our take on our take on the moment, however unable to capture the totality--a snake cannot complete devouring itself.


----------



## Quantum Perception

There has to be a reason why there is reality, as opposed to no reality. There must be some metaphysical structure which allows phenomenon to exist. Whether or not this thing that allows reality is judgmental, I am not sure, but I think no. But I cant deny the fact that I am thrown into this world, along with everyone else, not of my "own" doing. Even if we did this all to ourselves, (Hindu idea of reality as a play) just to forget, I still seem some force, allowing my experience to happen.


----------



## ebola?

> There has to be a reason why there is reality, as opposed to no reality.



Why's that?


----------



## boarderb

Omnipotent, Omniscient, all.


----------



## Quantum Perception

ebola? said:


> Why's that?



Why is there no reality? There has to besome metaphysical strucutre allowing reality. That dosnet have to be a man with a white beard in a chair or something. It could be love in its essence, or just the divine play of the Hindus. Whatever the case, there is something more to reality.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> Not all atheists object to other people's ideas of god, they just mock them behind their back in their spare time. *Just like you can make fun of atheists* because you (may or may not) believe they are going to burn in hell for being a non-believer.



Except I _don't_ make fun of atheists. I don't _make fun_ of anyone for their beliefs.


----------



## Jesusgreen

You have to remember, about 1/3 of the world's population are Christians. I personally think belief is good, so long as you choose yourself what to believe in and are not forced there by others or life events. I personally do not follow religion as I do not agree with organised religion, my beliefs stem much closer to the idea of there being no creator at least in the shape of a being, however I believe that the earth and universe are very much alive and that they are a central part in our lives, something far more ancient and powerful than any man-made impression of the ego (Aka God). However that is not to say that I believe that someone believing in God is wrong, I believe that religions started as a means to interpret spirituality in a different way, it does not matter so much what you believe, what matters is that you believe _something_.

Anyone else agree?


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ Yes. I'll agree with the general notion that it's good idea to believe in something greater than yourself, and that there's nothing inherently wrong with using your heart and your imagination to speculate about where you fit in the big picture.


----------



## cobaindrix

im simplyi going to say, all is one, there is no seperation. god is a word, you could give it to everything that exists but it would be pointless. i had a moment of 'finding god', realising that all is one


----------



## alex-112

I'm a med student and therefore don't know much about philosophy/physics, but here's my opinion anyway.

-According to the medical scientific method, the totality of the world is based in only what you can perceive and experience empirically- i've come across a myriad of different epistemological frameworks- this is the one that has proved most useful to me personally.

-From empiricism it follows that god exists as a creator, given that everything that can be observed and thus understood has to begin and end and is therefore finite (given infinity is beyond measurement) and has therefore to be 'created'.

-Taking the existence of matter as a valid (cogito ergo sum etc), i think that what we experience as the universe is a manifestation of a temporary separation between 'matter' and 'anti-matter' that occured as the moment of creation.

-I think of God as a creative phenomena that provoked this temporary division.  

-This is not the same as big bang theory- which only explains the process of the expansion of the universe from after its emergence from a singularity. This means big bang theory doesn't try explaining what caused this creation to occur and thus how the physical universe came to exist.

-When the two matters are separated by this creative phenomenon, matter assumes characteristics which allow its perception via its interaction with different kinds of energy i.e. radiation, atomic energy.  

-As for what energy actually is, I have no idea- maybe its a vibration/by-product of the inherent instability of matter/anti-matter which 'leaks' from the two mediums.

-But it doesn't explain why 90% of the universe is occupied by dark matter, and only 10% matter, rather then 50-50 which would be logical for the two to cancel one another out? And it also gets stuck at the point where to explain what god actually is.

-According to this theory, when this polemic between anti matter and matter is resolved (which is inevitable if time is considered infinite and linear and matter cannot expand infinitely) i.e. the two become one, cancel each other out and equal zero (1 + [-1] = 0). 

-Normality is therefore resumed as universe returns to an equilibrium that is imperceptible/inconceivable to us because it does not exist in a physical sense- although 'god' must be a part of this nothingness in order to have sparked the creative division.  

-Since we cannot understand the concept of nothingness, it is implied that god is also unknowable.

-Question- should i have multiplied 1 by -1 (which = -1 i.e. the model is wrong) since the antithesis of division is multiplication, which is implied as necessary by my return to zero-sum?  
-The original division of matter and anti-matter is also mathematically impossible since nothing/anything (i.e. 0/n) = 0
-therefore 'mathematically' we both cannot exist and cannot _not_ exist.
-I've gone wrong badly wrong somwhere as evidently god can divide zero and thus produce the universe.


----------



## Enlitx

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> ^ Yes. I'll agree with the general notion that it's good idea to believe in something greater than yourself, and that there's nothing inherently wrong with using your heart and your imagination to speculate about where you fit in the big picture.



Nothing inherently wrong in a purely idealistic fashion, but in reality things are much darker.  While there are some that can practice religion entirely in peace, history has taught us that religion is a very destructive thing.  I am not just talking about wars, I am talking about the retardation of science and logic.

Since religion, by definition, is based on faith and lacks any substantive proof, none of the various flavors can be shown as superior.  In the end, you have people fighting each other over which imaginary friend is better.  There are too many downsides and better alternatives to advocate such a primitive ritual.


----------



## Enlitx

alex-112 said:


> Writing this took me about 6 hours, pity me.



Yikes.  As a medical student I hope that you don't go off on these tangents often, your time is too valuable.  

And psychoblast, once again you are throwing around the word consciousness as if it has no meaning.  A rock being affected by gravity is not consciousness, no matter how loosely you would use the word.  Unless you want to completely re define the word, that is.  

Mynameisnotdeja, how could you say that god is all the love in the universe?  What would that even look like?  Love is a specific emotion experienced by individuals and enabled by the limbic system.  You can't group that together as a single entity, it just does not make sense.  Sounds nice, but it is just nonsensical.


----------



## alex-112

Enlitx said:


> Yikes.  As a medical student I hope that you don't go off on these tangents often, your time is too valuable.



My time is no longer valuable as i finished my exams last week, four months of menial labour to look forward to, but thanks for the concern


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Enlitx said:


> Nothing inherently wrong in a purely idealistic fashion, but in reality things are much darker.  While there are some that can practice religion entirely in peace, history has taught us that religion is a very destructive thing.  I am not just talking about wars, I am talking about the retardation of science and logic.
> 
> Since religion, by definition, is based on faith and lacks any substantive proof, none of the various flavors can be shown as superior.  In the end, you have people fighting each other over which imaginary friend is better.  There are too many downsides and better alternatives to advocate such a primitive ritual.



Did I say anything about religion?


----------



## Enlitx

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Did I say anything about religion?



Ok, replace religion with unfounded belief in a supernatural power.  Although religion seems to concentrate the evils sprung from faith based ideas, the source is still the same.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Enlitx said:


> Ok, replace religion with unfounded belief in a supernatural power.  Although religion seems to concentrate the evils sprung from faith based ideas, the source is still the same.



You can't prove your rejection of faith to be superior to any of the flavors of supernatural belief, either. No matter what, life is transitory for each of us, this entire universe in its present form is transitory, and this existence is each of ours to love, live, and believe however we see fit.


----------



## TearItDown

Just wanted to let you guys know, that even though I haven't contributed to this in a while, I appreciate all of the responses. I was really interested to see several different viewpoints on the issue of a god existing. While I don't think a god really exists, after seeing how passionate some people are, I realize they have every right to it. I sort of view as really believing in a god naive, but there are a lot of things that can't be proven or disproven. People definitely believe in a lot of crazy, untrue things, I think religion is up there but everyone has a right to believe anything they want. Once again, thank you all for contributing, I really appreciate the earnest thoughts about religion.


----------



## ThizzMon$teR

Id like to share my beliefs if you don't mind. Im not trying to bring down anyone or hate on anyone but these are just my beliefs. Religion to me is just a distraction to the true nature of what really goes on, therefore i do not believe in religion nor do i believe in the god portrayed by religion. I believe there is a higher power, which in all honesty i don't know what it is i just believe there is a higher power.

Now here is something to think about. I sorta follow this type of belief. Oh and by the way i didn't write this so I don't take any credit for it.


Alright for this scenario I am going to refer to the "God" as It.

Everyone knows dimensions are real, it's not an opinion it's a fact. If you believe in alternative dimensions or not that's irrelevant, layered dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D etc) exist.


We live in the third dimension. Imagine this It exists in the tenth dimension. It can see us, in fact everything in every layer below it but we can not see it. We all have multiple "paths" in life. You can go to highschool and finish, or drop out, go to university, be a dentist or a janitor, etc. God is supposedly all knowing and all seeing. The 10D thing can travel to any point of time, in any path, in any layer of the multiverse. It would be able to know whatever it wants that happened, is going to happen, or could have happened.

Now I don't know everything about all religions, I'm not going to pretend I do. Christianity is shoved down our throats everywhere so I am going to use that as an example. Heaven is in the clouds supposedly, but no one can find it. Why? Because if you believe in this way, when you die you become a spirit or whatever. This spirit may exist in another dimension, where heaven and hell also are. This would explain this completely.

This It may or may not have created us. Most likely yes, but it doesn't have to of created us

Now if you wanted to make it more confusing there a million different scenarios. This It could possibly reside in a lower dimension, such as the fifth for example. There could be a higher being in a higher dimension still.

Further, this It might not be an It at all, there could easily be multiple of these beings. There could be one "God", or a whole civilization. It (or they) could be microscopic in size, or as big as you can possibly imagine. It could be the universe, or just a shapeless thing.

It could be more intelligent then we can comprehend, or it could have no mind at all. Like the H.P. Lovecraft stories, it could be a mindless idiot that lives in the center of the universe that created everything and destroys all by mindlessly blowing on a flute.


This theory would explain every religion, "ghosts" (why no one can see them properly, because they are higher than us), heaven, hell, etc.


----------



## qwe

people need to stop being so apologetic over religion

this is religion we're talking about.  worse than hitler, stalin, whatever you want to name.  more deaths and misery and inhumanity than any other belief system (arguably)

so if you think there is no god, Say it proud!  and theists can eat my banana


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Once again, believing in God does NOT mean you are supporting religions which have caused deaths and misery. My belief in God has zero to do with any religion of the past. 

And besides, religion doesn't cause deaths or misery, it's _people _using it as an excuse to spread hatred or do terrible things. It's like the whole _guns kill people_ vs _people kill people_ argument. Don't blame religion for horrible things of the past when there are plenty of people who follow religion and live peaceful, happy lives and don't judge or force it on others. Anything can be interpreted almost any way someone chooses to and there are infinite ways different people interpret religion or spirituality.

Lumping things together and drawing those sorts of lines is not something I can understand in general. Everyone is unique and hardly anyone has the exact same beliefs as another.


----------



## TearItDown

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Once again, believing in God does NOT mean you are supporting religions which have caused deaths and misery. My belief in God has zero to do with any religion of the past.
> 
> And besides, religion doesn't cause deaths or misery, it's _people _using it as an excuse to spread hatred or do terrible things. It's like the whole _guns kill people_ vs _people kill people_ argument. Don't blame religion for horrible things of the past when there are plenty of people who follow religion and live peaceful, happy lives and don't judge or force it on others. Anything can be interpreted almost any way someone chooses to and there are infinite ways different people interpret religion or spirituality.
> 
> Lumping things together and drawing those sorts of lines is not something I can understand in general. Everyone is unique and hardly anyone has the exact same beliefs as another.


Religion was killing people long before the "guns kill people" argument even began. To have millions murdered and say that no one is responsible is ridiculous.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

What are you talking about? PEOPLE murder other people, not religion. It has nothing to do with it coming before the "guns kill people" argument. You clearly missed the point of what I was saying...?

Religion is not some big guy with a gun that kills people. If people murder people and use their religion as an excuse, that is still murder, being done by people. People use all sorts of things as excuses to do horrible things. There is no reason to attach spirituality to murder and holocausts just because some people have twisted their religions around as an excuse to murder. That has nothing to do with spirituality whatsoever. The original topic of this thread was bluelighters loving God, not religion. 

And when did I say "no one" is responsible???

Sometimes, I swear I feel I am talking in a foreign language when I try and get points across on these threads.... I don't get it.


----------



## TearItDown

MynameisnotDeja said:


> What are you talking about? PEOPLE murder other people, not religion. It has nothing to do with it coming before the "guns kill people" argument. You clearly missed the point of what I was saying...?
> 
> Religion is not some big guy with a gun that kills people. If people murder people and use their religion as an excuse, that is still murder, being done by people. People use all sorts of things as excuses to do horrible things. There is no reason to attach spirituality to murder and holocausts just because some people have twisted their religions around as an excuse to murder. That has nothing to do with spirituality whatsoever. The original topic of this thread was bluelighters loving God, not religion.
> 
> And when did I say "no one" is responsible???
> 
> Sometimes, I swear I feel I am talking in a foreign language when I try and get points across on these threads.... I don't get it.



People kill people, but so do it for their religion. People kill JUST for their religion. It's hard to take religion out of the murder if that was the reason behind it. Not everyone has the same view of spirituality as you, you need to accept that sometimes religion and spirituality IS as vault for murder.


----------



## AussieSWIMer

I only read the first post so forgive me for not keeping up with the conversation but seriously the thoughts you manifest by thinking about God can be so life changing and really show you the right way to love and forgiveness and really caring.

I'm sure many Christians would agree with me as it's something you have to experience and let go with.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

TearItDown said:


> People kill people, but so do it for their religion. People kill JUST for their religion. It's hard to take religion out of the murder if that was the reason behind it. Not everyone has the same view of spirituality as you, you need to accept that sometimes religion and spirituality IS as vault for murder.



I never said some people didn't use their religion as an excuse to do terrible things. I agreed with you on that. 

And I quite obviously know that not everyone has the same view of spirituality as me.  That's my point! Don't lump all spirituality together! 

It's a negative attachment you are choosing to hold, which is fine, but... it doesn't seem very productive. Or fair to the billions of peaceful religious folks all over the world...no? Like I said, it's just a negative attachment, a viewpoint, which is okay to look at, as long as you don't let it give you preconceived ideas about any religious person you come across. That would only be unfair to you (I'm using "you" in the grand sense, not personally, I don't know you well enough to know what you think of people upon meeting them) and you might block some really awesome people from your life just because of knowing they are religious. 

Be open to all people as individuals and you might learn something from them. I used to be pretty closed off to hardcore right wing Christian types, even as a spiritual person myself, but upon meeting some amazing people who have very different views than me but are still able to communicate and share, I have opened my mind even more to the concept that there is no one right way to the "truth".


----------



## Enlitx

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> You can't prove your rejection of faith to be superior to any of the flavors of supernatural belief, either. No matter what, life is transitory for each of us, this entire universe in its present form is transitory, and this existence is each of ours to love, live, and believe however we see fit.



Really?  How many wars have been started because one side is blindly called to actions through atheism?  How many people have been tortured in the name of atheism?  How many scientific discoveries have been blocked because of atheism?  

I'll even forgive these actions of mass malfeasance for a second.  How much time has been wasted contemplating the nature of an invisible friend?  How many countless hours have been squandered while one ponders what arbitrary and vague notion of an afterlife best suits their emotional needs?  At best, these supernatural thoughts waste time and energy.  At worst, they result in the loss of human life and retardation of human intellect.

So yes, one can logically deduce that some belief systems are better than others.  I get that you don't like confrontation and you would rather say all is equal instead of making someone feel uncomfortable, but life isn't always about making others feel as good as possible.  Sometimes reality makes some people unhappy, and I think that you are being disingenuous with your comments.  Of course no one can prove 100% that one belief is right, but nothing is ever proven 100%, and to start going around treating everything as equal just because something cannot be shown to be absolutely proven is ridiculous.  Furthermore, just because some people lead peaceful lives and embrace science while believing in supernatural powers does not mean the belief in the supernatural is a harmless thing.  On the whole, it has been shown as a primitive and antiquated belief system.


----------



## brutus

After overdosing, the doctors gave me a 10% chance to live through the first night. The next day, my body was even worse and I died twice. My doctors didn't even think that I could be saved. But within a week, my body was perfectly fine. Not a single doctor has been able to explain how I lived.

I don't believe in God solely because of that, but that proves to me that God exists and I am here for a reason.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> I never said some people didn't use their religion as an excuse to do terrible things. I agreed with you on that.
> 
> And I quite obviously know that not everyone has the same view of spirituality as me.  That's my point! Don't lump all spirituality together!
> 
> It's a negative attachment you are choosing to hold, which is fine, but... it doesn't seem very productive. Or fair to the billions of peaceful religious folks all over the world...no? Like I said, it's just a negative attachment, a viewpoint, which is okay to look at, as long as you don't let it give you preconceived ideas about any religious person you come across. That would only be unfair to you (I'm using "you" in the grand sense, not personally, I don't know you well enough to know what you think of people upon meeting them) and you might block some really awesome people from your life just because of knowing they are religious.
> 
> Be open to all people as individuals and you might learn something from them. I used to be pretty closed off to hardcore right wing Christian types, even as a spiritual person myself, but upon meeting some amazing people who have very different views than me but are still able to communicate and share, I have opened my mind even more to the concept that there is no one right way to the "truth".



Ok, even if you remove all of the other generalizations associated with spirituality you are left with one intrinsic property you can't get around.  The belief in a supernatural or higher power is a faith based notion that provides emotional comfort.  

I am saying that this is unnecessary in this age of science.  It is a primitive way to try and figure out how the world works and how you fit into it.  It is just as primitive as saying that a rainbow is a little mark from god instead of understanding how light interacts with fluid.  Of course it is much easier to go this route, since scientific inquiry takes time and commitment if one is to understand it, but the truth is always better to ascertain, even if it takes more effort.  It also takes emotional courage to realize that we simply have no good reason to believe in anything supernatural outside of our own emotional desires.  

I am with qwe, people need to stop wearing the kid gloves with religion (supernatural beliefs) and treat it like the archaic belief system that it is.  Yes it will take emotional courage and intellectual fortitude to attain an alternate belief system, but the progress of humanity depends on it.


----------



## Enlitx

wiggi said:


> After overdosing, the doctors gave me a 10% chance to live through the first night. The next day, my body was even worse and I died twice. My doctors didn't even think that I could be saved. But within a week, my body was perfectly fine. Not a single doctor has been able to explain how I lived.
> 
> I don't believe in God solely because of that, but that proves to me that God exists and I am here for a reason.




How does this prove anything about a god?  This happens all the time.  This would be like someone having an epileptic seizure 1000 years ago and attributing it to the spirits of Satan.  As I have stated before, it is the easy way out of an explanation.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

wiggi said:


> After overdosing, the doctors gave me a 10% chance to live through the first night. The next day, my body was even worse and I died twice. My doctors didn't even think that I could be saved. But within a week, my body was perfectly fine. Not a single doctor has been able to explain how I lived.
> 
> I don't believe in God solely because of that, but that proves to me that God exists and I am here for a reason.



That is a beautiful story. I am glad you lived to tell it. And I'm glad that it was a source of renewed faith for you. Keep spreading the faith and the good vibes, just reading that story brightened my morning. You survived for a reason.


----------



## qwe

> Religion is (...) some big guy with a gun that kills people


beautiful analogy!

let me add to it, for some nuance

it's a big DONUT guy around the earth (since you pray upwards... sorry anyone at the poles) and he has a big ass machine gun, but with SMALL rounds cuz he prefers wounds to catastrophes*.  he likes to prance around all day shooting randomly on earth causing chaos** here and there causing about 33% of our problems on earth***, physical and mental

* well SOMETIMES he's in the mood for breaking out the bazooka and causing mass panic and disaster; he's a god just like everyone else

** no need for a "god works in mysterious ways" here: chaos is the cutting edge of order, a beautiful quote

*** well he created it, and psychology says, the will to create is matched in humans by the will to destroy, and a child will always destroy his sand castle.  and since god was modelled after man, qed


----------



## qwe

> Really? How many wars have been started because one side is blindly called to actions through atheism? How many people have been tortured in the name of atheism? How many scientific discoveries have been blocked because of atheism?
> 
> I'll even forgive these actions of mass malfeasance for a second. How much time has been wasted contemplating the nature of an invisible friend? How many countless hours have been squandered while one ponders what arbitrary and vague notion of an afterlife best suits their emotional needs? At best, these supernatural thoughts waste time and energy. At worst, they result in the loss of human life and retardation of human intellect.


it may be a necessary evil, an evolutionary sociological stepping stone.  see the chaos quote in the post above


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> That is a beautiful story. I am glad you lived to tell it. And I'm glad that it was a source of renewed faith for you. Keep spreading the faith and the good vibes, just reading that story brightened my morning. You survived for a reason.



I think he survived so god could have more time to punish him and allow him to feel pain.  His survival is a sign that god wants to do more evil things in his life.

See where this line of thinking gets you?  Your comment and mine have an equal amount of reason and proof to back them up.  There is no good reason to believe one over the other.  Don't you think there is a better way to analyze what goes on here on earth?


----------



## Enlitx

qwe said:


> it may be a necessary evil, an evolutionary sociological stepping stone.  see the chaos quote in the post above



I agree, I have always adhered to the notion that religion developed partly as a sociological glue and partly as a form of individual therapy so that people could cope with the evils of the world.  

I just feel that we are at a point now where we can move on to the next paradigm.  Religion is no longer necessary to explain things, mend society, or help individuals with their emotions.  Of course, as with any paradigm shift, there will be some issues and loss of comfort in the transition, but the overall health of humans as a species will improve.  Lets all evolve together .


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

qwe said:


> beautiful analogy!
> 
> Let me add to it, for some nuance
> 
> it's a big donut guy around the earth (since you pray upwards... Sorry anyone at the poles) and he has a big ass machine gun, but with small rounds cuz he prefers wounds to catastrophes*.  He likes to prance around all day shooting randomly on earth causing chaos** here and there causing about 33% of our problems on earth***, physical and mental
> 
> * well sometimes he's in the mood for breaking out the bazooka and causing mass panic and disaster; he's a god just like everyone else
> 
> ** no need for a "god works in mysterious ways" here: Chaos is the cutting edge of order, a beautiful quote
> 
> *** well he created it, and psychology says, the will to create is matched in humans by the will to destroy, and a child will always destroy his sand castle.  And since god was modelled after man, qed



lolwattt :D That was awesome mental imagery for me, lol.


----------



## qwe

Enlitx said:


> I think he survived so god could have more time to punish him and allow him to feel pain.  His survival is a sign that god wants to do more evil things in his life.
> 
> See where this line of thinking gets you?  Your comment and mine have an equal amount of reason and proof to back them up.  There is no good reason to believe one over the other.  Don't you think there is a better way to analyze what goes on here on earth?


not to mention that the paramedics could have fudged a number and gave the wrong chances, or that he was "lucky" which does happen from time to time.  i'm actually lucky all the time, it's awesome


----------



## Enlitx

qwe said:


> not to mention that the paramedics could have fudged a number and gave the wrong chances, or that he was "lucky" which does happen from time to time.  i'm actually lucky all the time, it's awesome



It amazes me that out of all these explanations people will choose the most unlikely and far out explanation.   I guess it has to do with people wanting to think that the universe is always centered around them.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Enlitx said:


> Really?  How many wars have been started because one side is blindly called to actions through atheism?  How many people have been tortured in the name of atheism?  How many scientific discoveries have been blocked because of atheism?



This is not a logically sound analogy, because atheism is not a positively defined category of belief. It's negatively defined -- the only thing that all atheists have in common is something they all lack, not something they all have. So the question then becomes, are people who lack a belief in a higher power a separate population from people who have a belief in a higher power, with regards to willingness to use violent and exploitative means to achieve their aims? I think a sociological or psychological study able to demonstrate this unequivocally would be very methodologically hard to design. For example, high socioeconomic status would be a confounding factor, because it's causally related to both low degrees of religiosity and low propensity to violent crime, joining the army, joining a gang, or most other measurable indicators you could use for 'permissive stance toward the use of brute force'. This wouldn't prove that losing one's religion makes one a less violent person.



> I'll even forgive these actions of mass malfeasance for a second.  How much time has been wasted contemplating the nature of an invisible friend?  How many countless hours have been squandered while one ponders what arbitrary and vague notion of an afterlife best suits their emotional needs?  At best, these supernatural thoughts waste time and energy.  At worst, they result in the loss of human life and retardation of human intellect.



See, here's the thing that kills me about these sorts of impassioned arguments from physicalists (formerly known as materialists): By choosing to be a physicalist and accepting all that this philosophically implies, you've undermined the basis for really valuing anything above anything. After all, if physicalism is true, then we're all just random, quite possibly one-time, fleeting, unbelievably insignificant accidents in a cold, indifferent, impersonal universe, that itself is ultimately bound for heat death and disappearance forever. I dunno dude, with that prospect, it's pretty hard to put on a pedestal such things as human intellect, the life of the mind, reason, advanced technology, history, peace and prosperity, or even art. It's hard to really say that anything has intrinsic value, in a world where nothing and no one has intrinsic meaning or any intrinsic purpose. If this is the case, why NOT just while away your life wallowing in your warm liquid goo of choice with your pink drink in one hand, a needle in your arm, and your hand on your genitals? Why not just off yourself right now? Or, if it's not going to ultimately matter at all if I'm wrong, and I won't even be there to see that I guessed wrong, why NOT just give in to my yearnings for a higher power and/or a transcendent reality? Under physicalism, there's really no reason why not to. Atheism has no AntiGod, who'll damn me to an eternity in a nether-realm without a single book or Internet connection, if I stray from the path of unwavering reason.

The above paragraph is my standard spiel on why I don't buy secular humanism.



> So yes, one can logically deduce that some belief systems are better than others.



'Better' is relative, and implies a purpose. Better at doing what? Better at accomplishing what? (I'm aware you've already answered this implicitly, so I'll save you having to repeat yourself, and confirm that I'm indeed asking this rhetorically.) It's clear that having no belief in a higher power or anything supernatural serves your personal purposes well. That much is clear. And I won't begrudge you this metaphysical stance -- it's your life to live, it's your choices to make. If you're happy and healthy and your life is in balance, who am I to gripe?

But please understand that your worldview does not serve anyone and everyone's needs and purposes well. Not by a long shot. In fact, for some people, it's the last thing they need.

And so, that said, I'm going to politely remind everyone here one more time that no one posting in P&S is welcome to antagonize another poster for their stated beliefs, if they clearly weren't looking for debate. This rule is in the P&S guidelines now, because this forum serves a broader range of people, and is a more enjoyable experience for all, filled with more light than heat, when it's followed. If anyone feels this is unreasonable, I'm happy to ask the Senior Moderators to hear both sides, and make a judgement as to whether this is a fair rule. If they deem it unfair, I'll not only take down the rule, but turn in my modstick too -- I'll not mod a forum where this rule isn't upheld or wanted.



> I get that you don't like confrontation and you would rather say all is equal instead of making someone feel uncomfortable, but life isn't always about making others feel as good as possible.



Life may not always be about it, but this forum is. We're not a bunch of scientists or academic philosophers. We're not a professional union or a paid think tank. We don't publish a peer-reviewed journal. We don't claim to be an authoritative source on anything besides minimally harmful psychoactive drug use. P&S is here to serve the needs of all people for whom drug use is connected to philosophical and spiritual pursuits, so that they may use the right drugs in the right dosages whilst taking the right precautions, so as to achieve THEIR PERSONAL philosophical and spiritual aims with minimal risk of harm to themselves. This includes many people who believe deeply in things supernatural. To greet such people here with "Turn pirate or walk the plank!" would not be serving our mission as part of BL.



> Sometimes reality makes some people unhappy, and I think that you are being disingenuous with your comments.



Sorry you feel that way. My stance on this matter is actually something I've given quite a lot of thought to, and discussed at length with other moderators here. I'll make sure next time I live up to Enlitx's standards of ingenuity.



> Of course no one can prove 100% that one belief is right, but nothing is ever proven 100%, and to start going around treating everything as equal just because something cannot be shown to be absolutely proven is ridiculous.  Furthermore, just because some people lead peaceful lives and embrace science while believing in supernatural powers does not mean the belief in the supernatural is a harmless thing.  On the whole, it has been shown as a primitive and antiquated belief system.



Thanks for your opinion, man.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> I'm going to politely remind everyone here one more time that no one posting in P&S is welcome to antagonize another poster for their stated beliefs, if they clearly weren't looking for debate.



Very good to know.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

> See, here's the thing that kills me about these sorts of impassioned arguments from physicalists (formerly known as materialists): By choosing to be a physicalist and accepting all that this philosophically implies, you've undermined the basis for really valuing anything above anything. After all, if physicalism is true, then we're all just random, quite possibly one-time, fleeting, unbelievably insignificant accidents in a cold, indifferent, impersonal universe, that itself is ultimately bound for heat death and disappearance forever. I dunno dude, with that prospect, it's pretty hard to put on a pedestal such things as human intellect, the life of the mind, reason, advanced technology, history, peace and prosperity, or even art. It's hard to really say that anything has intrinsic value, in a world where nothing and no one has intrinsic meaning or any intrinsic purpose. If this is the case, why NOT just while away your life wallowing in your warm liquid goo of choice with your pink drink in one hand, a needle in your arm, and your hand on your genitals? Why not just off yourself right now? Or, if it's not going to ultimately matter at all if I'm wrong, and I won't even be there to see that I guessed wrong, why NOT just give in to my yearnings for a higher power and/or a transcendent reality? Under physicalism, there's really no reason why not to. Atheism has no AntiGod, who'll damn me to an eternity in a nether-realm without a single book or Internet connection, if I stray from the path of unwavering reason.



IPlenty of philosophers have given moving arguments to finding meaning, purpose, and drive without the need for anything having "intrinsic" values or spiritual conceptions of reality.  Really at the end of the day it isn't the grand philosophical or metaphysical conception of reality that gets people through the day its the tangible human interactions and experiences which need no metaphysical framework through which to derive value or meaning or deep fulfillment. We have complex human consciousness through which to derive individualized meaning and purpose, it doesn't have to be pushed upon us by divinity or magic.

I mean it seems as if your argument against physicalism is "but I don't like the outcome because its not happy".

You begin with denouncing physicalist philosophy and then extol the virtues of relativistic thinking, does this not seem to reinforce the lack of intrinsic value or meaning?

I think that most "believers" undervalue the potential of human consciousness to provide meaning, drive, purpose, etc etc ...


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> IPlenty of philosophers have given moving arguments to finding meaning, purpose, and drive without the need for anything having "intrinsic" values or spiritual conceptions of reality.



Try the one on me that you've been most impressed with. Drop me a few names that you hold dear. I've read a number of them, and even explored secular humanism for a while, and I haven't been convinced by any of them. I can only really think of one nominally secular system of morality has ever achieved lasting popularity: Confucianism. And this took hold in places that for a large part retained indigenous folk beliefs regarding the supernatural.

Yeah, I'm aware of the logical fallacy of 'argumentum ad numerum' -- popularity does make something right or wrong. But it sure is a good measure of people's perceived needs, and what people can find use for.

In conclusion, I don't think there's any substitute, for most people, for longingly and imaginatively extrapolating our knowledge of and interaction with this world, into purported realms beyond.



> Really at the end of the day it isn't the grand philosophical or metaphysical conception of reality that gets people through the day its the tangible human interactions and experiences which need no metaphysical framework through which to derive value or meaning or deep fulfillment.



I say it's both. And lots of other things too.



> We have complex human consciousness through which to derive individualized meaning and purpose, it doesn't have to be pushed upon us by divinity or magic.



Granted. But nor does it rule out divinity or magic.



> I mean it seems as if your argument against physicalism is "but I don't like the outcome because its not happy".



Yeah, I find physicalism pretty unacceptably bleak. But beyond that, I am far from convinced it behooves anyone, that it's anyone's duty or responsibility, to jettison all notions supernatural, or to aggressively or obtrusively push other people to do so. I'm not convinced that physicalism is the only logical possibility that that an intelligent, thinking, educated person who's entirely honest with himself and others could possibly hold. And nor am I convinced that it's the only sensible option for an ethically-minded person who truly has the future of humanity in mind.



> You begin with denouncing physicalist philosophy and then extol the virtues of relativistic thinking, does this not seem to reinforce the lack of intrinsic value or meaning?



No, not necessarily. You believing what you believe, and me believing something entirely different and contradictory, could just be of each of us playing our respective and proper parts in some master plan.



> I think that most "believers" undervalue the potential of human consciousness to provide meaning, drive, purpose, etc etc ...



You can't really lump all believers into one category on this. What about Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Sufi Muslims, Jewish Renewalists and Kabbalists, Quakers, Western esotericists, and Unitarians (plus many more), who believe that each human consciousness IS a piece of the divine godhead, and would certainly agree that meaning, drive, and purpose flow from it?


----------



## TearItDown

MynameisnotDeja said:


> I never said some people didn't use their religion as an excuse to do terrible things. I agreed with you on that.
> 
> And I quite obviously know that not everyone has the same view of spirituality as me.  That's my point! Don't lump all spirituality together!
> 
> It's a negative attachment you are choosing to hold, which is fine, but... it doesn't seem very productive. Or fair to the billions of peaceful religious folks all over the world...no? Like I said, it's just a negative attachment, a viewpoint, which is okay to look at, as long as you don't let it give you preconceived ideas about any religious person you come across. That would only be unfair to you (I'm using "you" in the grand sense, not personally, I don't know you well enough to know what you think of people upon meeting them) and you might block some really awesome people from your life just because of knowing they are religious.
> 
> Be open to all people as individuals and you might learn something from them. I used to be pretty closed off to hardcore right wing Christian types, even as a spiritual person myself, but upon meeting some amazing people who have very different views than me but are still able to communicate and share, I have opened my mind even more to the concept that there is no one right way to the "truth".



Since this thread is full of analogies, I think I'll add my own.

Little billy thought that he was the most superior, intelligent child in his entire class. Billy was so sure of his capabilities, that he decided to place a wager with the teacher. Billy said, "If I get a 100 on this spelling test, then everyone else gets a 100." The teacher thought for a little bit, then agreed, under one condition. If Billy did not get a 100, everyone would fail. Billy didn't care for the other class mates, since he thought he was the best anyway, but he didn't mind helping them out. Billy was the only student who didn't get a 100, but everyone else failed anyway. Everyone lost because of one person. One person (ONE religion or belief) can ruin it for everyone (now I'm waiting for you to say you accept that notion when it's clear you don't).


----------



## Enlitx

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> This is not a logically sound analogy, because atheism is not a positively defined category of belief. It's negatively defined -- the only thing that all atheists have in common is something they all lack, not something they all have. So the question then becomes, are people who lack a belief in a higher power a separate population from people who have a belief in a higher power, with regards to willingness to use violent and exploitative means to achieve their aims? I think a sociological or psychological study able to demonstrate this unequivocally would be very methodologically hard to design. For example, high socioeconomic status would be a confounding factor, because it's causally related to both low degrees of religiosity and low propensity to violent crime, joining the army, joining a gang, or most other measurable indicators you could use for 'permissive stance toward the use of brute force'. This wouldn't prove that losing one's religion makes one a less violent person.



Although a detailed study of the effects of religion would be difficult, it is not difficult to posit a general assumption.  Supernatural beliefs invite irrational behavior.  Violence does not always occur, but the likelihood of unfounded hatred increases.  It also encourages irrational belief in other areas.  The only positive thing that I can see is that people will feel comforted by their beliefs, but since the collateral damage that can come with those belief is real, I simply advocate for a logic based belief system.  




MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> See, here's the thing that kills me about these sorts of impassioned arguments from physicalists (formerly known as materialists): By choosing to be a physicalist and accepting all that this philosophically implies, you've undermined the basis for really valuing anything above anything. After all, if physicalism is true, then we're all just random, quite possibly one-time, fleeting, unbelievably insignificant accidents in a cold, indifferent, impersonal universe, that itself is ultimately bound for heat death and disappearance forever. I dunno dude, with that prospect, it's pretty hard to put on a pedestal such things as human intellect, the life of the mind, reason, advanced technology, history, peace and prosperity, or even art. It's hard to really say that anything has intrinsic value, in a world where nothing and no one has intrinsic meaning or any intrinsic purpose. If this is the case, why NOT just while away your life wallowing in your warm liquid goo of choice with your pink drink in one hand, a needle in your arm, and your hand on your genitals? Why not just off yourself right now? Or, if it's not going to ultimately matter at all if I'm wrong, and I won't even be there to see that I guessed wrong, why NOT just give in to my yearnings for a higher power and/or a transcendent reality? Under physicalism, there's really no reason why not to. Atheism has no AntiGod, who'll damn me to an eternity in a nether-realm without a single book or Internet connection, if I stray from the path of unwavering reason.
> 
> The above paragraph is my standard spiel on why I don't buy secular humanism.



You are correct, there is no ultimate value in anything.  We are a random blip in a vast universe.  I live in a way that maximizes my pleasure.  Since I was raised to care about others, treating other people well increases my own pleasure.  Although there is no ultimate and objective purpose behind it all, I find my life to be full of meaning and joy because I give it meaning and joy.  I find that this leads to a very fulfilling and worthwhile existence.  Everyone could live like this if they can just make the transition from a life that requires a higher purpose or higher order.  It is difficult at first, but it is only difficult for a short amount of time.  That is why I said people need emotional courage to make the leap.  

Of course this does invite the possibility of a mass murdering society like the Nazi regime, I find that humans have too many survival/societal instincts to seriously worry that secular humanism is a threat to our survival.  I seriously doubt that if everyone adopted this philosophy there would be nothing but murder, chaos, and mindless self indulgence in our society.  In fact, I generally find atheists to be kind and thoughtful people.  That is just my own anecdotal experience though.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> 'Better' is relative, and implies a purpose. Better at doing what? Better at accomplishing what? (I'm aware you've already answered this implicitly, so I'll save you having to repeat yourself, and confirm that I'm indeed asking this rhetorically.) It's clear that having no belief in a higher power or anything supernatural serves your personal purposes well. That much is clear. And I won't begrudge you this metaphysical stance -- it's your life to live, it's your choices to make. If you're happy and healthy and your life is in balance, who am I to gripe?
> 
> But please understand that your worldview does not serve anyone and everyone's needs and purposes well. Not by a long shot. In fact, for some people, it's the last thing they need.



Better in the same sense that I outlined above, if peace and intellectual progress are valued ideals.  There wouldn't be time wasted on absurd notions like an invisible friend in the sky.  That time could be used for productive things on earth.  I have yet to find a function served by religion that could not be served by a secular function.  The only thing that would necessarily be nixed is the idea that there is an ultimate purpose to it all.  

Ultimately though, it comes down to what is probable.  I mean, it would be nice if I really believed that unicorns ran the universe and they really cared about me, but it is highly improbable.  Even if religion served some purpose, the ideas behind it are absurd in the same since that unicorn overlords are absurd.  If people would say that their beliefs are unfounded, highly improbable, and ultimately exist because they really wish they were true, that would be one thing.  But instead people say that they believe in these supernatural things and it is just as valid as any other viewpoint, which it isn't.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> And so, that said, I'm going to politely remind everyone here one more time that no one posting in P&S is welcome to antagonize another poster for their stated beliefs, if they clearly weren't looking for debate. This rule is in the P&S guidelines now, because this forum serves a broader range of people, and is a more enjoyable experience for all, filled with more light than heat, when it's followed. If anyone feels this is unreasonable, I'm happy to ask the Senior Moderators to hear both sides, and make a judgement as to whether this is a fair rule. If they deem it unfair, I'll not only take down the rule, but turn in my modstick too -- I'll not mod a forum where this rule isn't upheld or wanted.



I have tried to be very civil about what I have said.  If I have broken any rules let me know.  As far I can tell, I have only addressed the ideas so far.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Life may not always be about it, but this forum is. We're not a bunch of scientists or academic philosophers. We're not a professional union or a paid think tank. We don't publish a peer-reviewed journal. We don't claim to be an authoritative source on anything besides minimally harmful psychoactive drug use. P&S is here to serve the needs of all people for whom drug use is connected to philosophical and spiritual pursuits, so that they may use the right drugs in the right dosages whilst taking the right precautions, so as to achieve THEIR PERSONAL philosophical and spiritual aims with minimal risk of harm to themselves. This includes many people who believe deeply in things supernatural. To greet such people here with "Turn pirate or walk the plank!" would not be serving our mission as part of BL.



I am cool with the function of this board, but is it not a message board so that people can discuss the ideas?  People have their opinion, I have mine.  Some people claim that every idea is equally valid, and I disagree.  It is just another viewpoint, I have not attacked anyone nor suggested that people stop posting their ideas.  I have simply offered my viewpoint on the philosophy being discussed.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Sorry you feel that way. My stance on this matter is actually something I've given quite a lot of thought to, and discussed at length with other moderators here. I'll make sure next time I live up to Enlitx's standards of ingenuity.



I probably shouldn't have stated that you were being disingenuous.  What I meant was that you probably use logic and reason to make all kinds of decisions in your life but you stop as soon as it comes to supernatural beliefs.  I didn't mean it as a personal attack, hope you didn't take it that way.   



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Thanks for your opinion, man.



No problem, dude.


----------



## Enlitx

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Yeah, I find physicalism pretty unacceptably bleak. But beyond that, I am far from convinced it behooves anyone, that it's anyone's duty or responsibility, to jettison all notions supernatural, or to aggressively or obtrusively push other people to do so. I'm not convinced that physicalism is the only logical possibility that that an intelligent, thinking, educated person who's entirely honest with himself and others could possibly hold. And nor am I convinced that it's the only sensible option for an ethically-minded person who truly has the future of humanity in mind.



I agree that physicalism is not the only _possible_ explanation that an educated person could hold.  But, it is by far the most _likely_ explanation available.  It is like looking at an apple that is about to fall off of a tree.  Yes, that apple could go straight up after the twig breaks, but what would an educated person guess?

There is a reason that most of the discussion about supernatural theories are based around how they make a person feel, because there is nothing to talk about how they actually might exist beyond very generous extrapolations.  

Physicalism makes you feel bleak, and other theories offer more in the way of emotional reinforcement.  I think that is the whole story right there.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

> Try the one on me that you've been most impressed with. Drop me a few names that you hold dear. I've read a number of them, and even explored secular humanism for a while, and I haven't been convinced by any of them. I can only really think of one nominally secular system of morality has ever achieved lasting popularity: Confucianism. And this took hold in places that for a large part retained indigenous folk beliefs regarding the supernatural.



Well I doubt anyone I could list would be a surprise or unknown to you, though Camus has always been quite a moving and convincing character in his philosophical (and "fictional") writings, especially The Myth of Sisyphus, with his conception of a world in which meaning is found through the self in the struggle and search not the ascribed and intrinsic meaning.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Enlitx said:


> Although a detailed study of the effects of religion would be difficult, it is not difficult to posit a general assumption.  Supernatural beliefs invite irrational behavior.  Violence does not always occur, but the likelihood of unfounded hatred increases.  It also encourages irrational belief in other areas.  The only positive thing that I can see is that people will feel comforted by their beliefs, but since the collateral damage that can come with those belief is real, I simply advocate for a logic based belief system.



Well until we're in possession of some data, then, let's not treat it as any sort of substantiated link, but rather as your pet theory. You've got yours and I've got mine. We all believe in things unproven, because surprisingly little is proven.

You're in the minority in finding a logic-based belief system makes you feel fulfilled. That's great for you that you are. 



> You are correct, there is no ultimate value in anything.  We are a random blip in a vast universe.



You surmise.



> I live in a way that maximizes my pleasure.  Since I was raised to care about others, treating other people well increases my own pleasure.  Although there is no ultimate and objective purpose behind it all, I find my life to be full of meaning and joy because I give it meaning and joy.  I find that this leads to a very fulfilling and worthwhile existence.  Everyone could live like this if they can just make the transition from a life that requires a higher purpose or higher order.  It is difficult at first, but it is only difficult for a short amount of time.  That is why I said people need emotional courage to make the leap.



This was not my experience. I explored atheism for years, and called myself one for some time too. It didn't get gradually easier for me at all. I've always had a strong inner sense my entire life that I'm here right now for a higher mission or purpose of some sort. And I've found when I take that intuition seriously and let it guide my life, good things just tend to happen to me and the people whose lives I'm a part of. And when I dismiss this sense of mine as a accidental and meaningless fluke of firing neurons, the effect is much the opposite. Spare me any comments you may have about me being unfortunate to be born with certain genes or brain neuroarchitecture or anything similar. I've made my choice based on experience, and I need no one's pity.



> Of course this does invite the possibility of a mass murdering society like the Nazi regime, I find that humans have too many survival/societal instincts to seriously worry that secular humanism is a threat to our survival.  I seriously doubt that if everyone adopted this philosophy there would be nothing but murder, chaos, and mindless self indulgence in our society.  In fact, I generally find atheists to be kind and thoughtful people.  That is just my own anecdotal experience though.



I agree wholeheartedly that a murderous nazi-ish regime is quite far-fetched. I was thinking more along the lines of, without religion or spirituality of any kind (but no other major changes), people who were ignorant and deeply troubled within themselves would eventually just find other excuses to hate and fight, and overall levels of injustice, intolerance, and wrongdoing would be just as high as they are now. The root of the problem, to me, isn't supernatural belief. It's people with unmet needs or lacking inner peace who exploit others as an expression of this.



> Better in the same sense that I outlined above, if peace and intellectual progress are valued ideals.



One can achieve peace, democracy, and intellectual process by just keeping church and state separated, and defending freedom of religion (or freedom to choose no religion). One doesn't need to be a physicalist, or to promote physicalism, to uphold and believe in these ideals.



> There wouldn't be time wasted on absurd notions like an invisible friend in the sky.



I wish you wouldn't use language like this. It's insensitive and inflammatory. Don't worry, I'd get on someone's case for going on about 'godless heathen monsters' too. It's just not the spirit I'd like to foster here. Thanks.



> That time could be used for productive things on earth.  I have yet to find a function served by religion that could not be served by a secular function.  The only thing that would necessarily be nixed is the idea that there is an ultimate purpose to it all.



And that's a vital component, to many people. It may seem minor to you, but my hunch is that most people could not reasonably be expected to adopt and stick with the worldview you advocate. This is just a hunch, from my own life experience and those of people I've known and spoken with. I could be wrong, and only time will tell, as the internet and the free exchange of ideas around the globe accelerates and penetrates ever deeper. Either way I've made my choice and I'm sticking with it.



> Ultimately though, it comes down to what is probable.  I mean, it would be nice if I really believed that unicorns ran the universe and they really cared about me, but it is highly improbable.  Even if religion served some purpose, the ideas behind it are absurd in the same since that unicorn overlords are absurd.



What IS it with you people and unicorns? Yeesh. Many philosophers and theologians tossed around ideas about possible extensions of this phenomenal world, or master plans behind this earthly existence, that are more modest, more impersonal, much more in touch with up to date studies done in the sciences, and not reliant on crude imagery like an old dude with a beard sitting on a cloud, or an equine earthling with a psychedelic coat and and a phallic horn.

I'm aware you won't entertain these ideas either, because there is no hard data supporting them. But please give spiritual thinkers a bit of credit when it comes to taking probability into account. I'm willing to entertain really any possibility BUT there being no inherent meaning, purpose, or plan to our lives. And I even HAVE entertained that one before, for quite some time. I'm not the only one. It's not an either-or choice between believing in some cartoonish vision that's FAR out of touch with even most little kids' understanding of the phenomenal world, versus believing in nothing that isn't proven.



> If people would say that their beliefs are unfounded, highly improbable, and ultimately exist because they really wish they were true, that would be one thing.  But instead people say that they believe in these supernatural things and it is just as valid as any other viewpoint, which it isn't.



That depends on what one considers valid grounds for accepting something as true, when it comes to things that resist definitive proof. You'll clearly only entertain a speculative idea if it meets your standard for estimated probability. But others have different criteria and approaches to this. There are some people I know for whom it would be hard for me to disbelieve ANYTHING they say, I just know them so well and have that trusting of a relationship with them. For some people, seeing is believing. I have personally witnessed a few brushes with the otherworldly, including one that was shared and witnessed by more than myself. I'm firmly convinced there is no mundane explanation.

I haven't found my entertaining of ideas that are out of this world have caused me to abandon good sense and rationality in my material life. If anything, they've been a motivation for GREATER sensibility! I know plenty of believers of all sorts who are incredibly practical people.



> I have tried to be very civil about what I have said.  If I have broken any rules let me know.  As far I can tell, I have only addressed the ideas so far.



Your post in the thread 'You are beautiful' rubbed me the wrong way. I'd rather you didn't make posts in people's threads of highly abstract and poetic spiritual writing, telling them their writing is devoid of meaning. Leave the deeming and handling of aimless posts up to us mods -- we actually have a rule about that, and enforce it.

Please read the P&S guidelines, if you haven't done so already. Not everyone posts with the intention of letting their post torn apart for flaws. People who are just looking for comfort, company, and community, should feel free to post their far-out ideas here, and not be ridiculed or taken to task for them. As I've said before, this forum doubles as a sancturary -- a chapel where drug users fish around for higher meaning in their own various ways.



> I am cool with the function of this board, but is it not a message board so that people can discuss the ideas?  People have their opinion, I have mine.  Some people claim that every idea is equally valid, and I disagree.  It is just another viewpoint, I have not attacked anyone nor suggested that people stop posting their ideas.  I have simply offered my viewpoint on the philosophy being discussed.



I never said every idea is equally as valid. I state in the rules that every idea expressed here deserves being taken seriously and treated with respect. This fosters creativity, spontaneity of expression across a gamut of opinions, and a warm and welcoming environment. It is a message board for this. It is not an arena where all ideas aired are fair game for harsh logical scrutiny, followed by a public disembowelment of the idea for an amused crowd, if the attacker finds the idea doesn't stand up. If that's the kind of forum you're looking for, please look elsewhere. We had that here. Nobody liked it, nobody stuck around long.

So just so we're clear, don't make posts just to ridicule other people's ideas



> I probably shouldn't have stated that you were being disingenuous.  What I meant was that you probably use logic and reason to make all kinds of decisions in your life but you stop as soon as it comes to supernatural beliefs.  I didn't mean it as a personal attack, hope you didn't take it that way.



No problem. And you're correct, that's pretty much how I roll.



> I agree that physicalism is not the only possible explanation that an educated person could hold. But, it is by far the most likely explanation available. It is like looking at an apple that is about to fall off of a tree. Yes, that apple could go straight up after the twig breaks, but what would an educated person guess?



I don't find it's quite that obvious a logical step.



> There is a reason that most of the discussion about supernatural theories are based around how they make a person feel, because there is nothing to talk about how they actually might exist beyond very generous extrapolations.
> 
> Physicalism makes you feel bleak, and other theories offer more in the way of emotional reinforcement. I think that is the whole story right there.



No, that's not the whole story right there. That's part of it, to be sure. It's also, as I've stated above, parts intuition, firsthand experience, and conversations with other highly intelligent as well as highly spiritual people in my life.

But regardless, I find your reduction of it to this crude and offensive. I resent what I perceive as you trapping me into making shameful admissions. (I haven't forgotten you telling me last year I was unfit to be a physician, because I wouldn't ABSOLUTELY script an antipsychotic to ANY patient of mine who admitted to hearing voices.) Why do you wish to shame me? Pile another stone on when I see that virtually all the posts you've ever made have had something to do with pushing atheism, including to people who are demonstrably unreceptive to this agenda of yours. This means I have scant indication you have any other interest in this website. And then there's the fact that you've openly stated your desire to be a contrarian and iconoclast, which goes very much against the grain and the spirit of this forum, and well... I've got a problem with you, Enlitx. What did you expect?

I'm not going to puff myself up by unfairly accusing you of some violation and hitting you with an infraction. That doesn't accomplish anything. Instead, this time I'm just going to be very upfront with you and make this a conversation between two gentlemen. We have a community here, and that community has a culture and some standards of exchange. Please be respectful of this, or don't post here. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say it.


----------



## 33Hz

Enlitx said:


> You are correct, there is no ultimate value in anything.  We are a random blip in a vast universe.  I live in a way that maximizes my pleasure.  Since I was raised to care about others, treating other people well increases my own pleasure.  Although there is no ultimate and objective purpose behind it all, *I find my life to be full of meaning and joy because I give it meaning and joy. *



Like how religious/spiritual people give their life meaning and joy by believing in fairy tales? What makes you so special that you are free to assign your own meaning to life, while people that don't share the same outlook are denied this right? 8)


----------



## qwe

> See, here's the thing that kills me about these sorts of impassioned arguments from physicalists (formerly known as materialists): By choosing to be a physicalist and accepting all that this philosophically implies, you've undermined the basis for really valuing anything above anything. After all, if physicalism is true, then we're all just random, quite possibly one-time, fleeting, unbelievably insignificant accidents in a cold, indifferent, impersonal universe


gotta take this pile of bullcrap!

the reason physicalism undermines *nothing* is because, let's say we have souls.  i'm a physicalist and i think we have souls (NOT of course supernatural), some sort way for our brain to feel/qualia, but in a scientific-explainable-physical way

how do we feel *qualia*?  it's a mystery.  which means science is totally incomplete.  we don't know anything beyond the big bang or parts of glial cells.  our knowledge is so incomplete

as such, it is perfectly possible that there is a *natural* *physical* phenomena at work allowing us to "feel" "taste" "see" etc, and physicalism is saved-

-the qualia itself provides meaning, and the physical universe produces qualia

because if there is something non physical, what the hell is it?  i understand there are so many possibilities for different branes (spacetimes) and the bulk and all this string stuff.  i think we have explored too little science to be able to say "consciousness cannot be explained by science"

>>then we're all just random, quite possibly one-time, fleeting, unbelievably insignificant accidents in a cold, indifferent, impersonal universe>>

chaos is the cutting blade of order


----------



## Enlitx

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Well until we're in possession of some data, then, let's not treat it as any sort of substantiated link, but rather as your pet theory. You've got yours and I've got mine. We all believe in things unproven, because surprisingly little is proven.



Although there are no hard numbers, you cannot keep going back to this "everything is equal" stance, no matter how appealing it might be.  Why are people afraid of Iran with a nuclear weapon?  At the very least, it is partly because they have a religious intolerance of the Jews.  Why did the Catholics torture people during the Crusades?  In a very large part, if not solely, because of religion.  Why was abstinence preached in Africa instead of condom use, endangering millions of people?  Yep, religion.  There are countless examples, and new examples pop up every day.  These are problems that could be abated or mitigated if the belief in a supernatural power was removed.  There is no way to get around it, the belief in a supernatural power invites all kinds of problems.  

Even if you were able to get everyone to hold a peaceful and unobstrutive religious ideology, there would still be the issue of time being better spent.  And that is *if* you could get most people to do that, which seems highly unlikely at this point.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> You're in the minority in finding a logic-based belief system makes you feel fulfilled. That's great for you that you are.



I believe I am in the minority because of tradition and culture.  If you look at Europe it is clearly trending towards atheism in a big way.  Most of the groundbreaking scientific advents have only been around for less than two hundred years.  Religion has been around for thousands of years.  Give it time, and I don't think I will be in the minority.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> This was not my experience. I explored atheism for years, and called myself one for some time too. It didn't get gradually easier for me at all. I've always had a strong inner sense my entire life that I'm here right now for a higher mission or purpose of some sort. And I've found when I take that intuition seriously and let it guide my life, good things just tend to happen to me and the people whose lives I'm a part of. And when I dismiss this sense of mine as a accidental and meaningless fluke of firing neurons, the effect is much the opposite. Spare me any comments you may have about me being unfortunate to be born with certain genes or brain neuroarchitecture or anything similar. I've made my choice based on experience, and I need no one's pity.



So you are saying that your belief in religion is largely driven by the emotional reinforcement you receive?  That is what I have been saying too.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> I agree wholeheartedly that a murderous nazi-ish regime is quite far-fetched. I was thinking more along the lines of, without religion or spirituality of any kind (but no other major changes), people who were ignorant and deeply troubled within themselves would eventually just find other excuses to hate and fight, and overall levels of injustice, intolerance, and wrongdoing would be just as high as they are now. The root of the problem, to me, isn't supernatural belief. It's people with unmet needs or lacking inner peace who exploit others as an expression of this.



People still might find a reason to fight, but I can't think of a scenario where the people of Africa would be denied life saving condoms because of anything other than religion.  At some point you are going to have to concede that religion brings problems that would otherwise be avoided. Since I believe that people can find the same happiness without religion, I find that these problems are unacceptable.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> One can achieve peace, democracy, and intellectual process by just keeping church and state separated, and defending freedom of religion (or freedom to choose no religion). One doesn't need to be a physicalist, or to promote physicalism, to uphold and believe in these ideals.



Yes, but religious thinking still creeps into our leaders even if there is no obvious violation of the separation of church and state.  Look at the Texas schoolboard fiasco, the condom issue in Africa, etc...  There are problems with religion that won't be solved until there is no religion.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> I wish you wouldn't use language like this. It's insensitive and inflammatory. Don't worry, I'd get on someone's case for going on about 'godless heathen monsters' too. It's just not the spirit I'd like to foster here. Thanks.



Ok, sorry about that one.  Replace absurd with highly improbable.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> And that's a vital component, to many people. It may seem minor to you, but my hunch is that most people could not reasonably be expected to adopt and stick with the worldview you advocate. This is just a hunch, from my own life experience and those of people I've known and spoken with. I could be wrong, and only time will tell, as the internet and the free exchange of ideas around the globe accelerates and penetrates ever deeper. Either way I've made my choice and I'm sticking with it.



I think that people could believe in something different.  It is simply a matter of tradition and society.  Our society has had religion ingrained for so long that it will be a slow process to pull it out, but it is already happening all over the globe, and I don't see any signs of it slowing down.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> What IS it with you people and unicorns? Yeesh. Many philosophers and theologians tossed around ideas about possible extensions of this phenomenal world, or master plans behind this earthly existence, that are more modest, more impersonal, much more in touch with up to date studies done in the sciences, and not reliant on crude imagery like an old dude with a beard sitting on a cloud, or an equine earthling with a psychedelic coat and and a phallic horn.
> 
> I'm aware you won't entertain these ideas either, because there is no hard data supporting them. But please give spiritual thinkers a bit of credit when it comes to taking probability into account. I'm willing to entertain really any possibility BUT there being no inherent meaning, purpose, or plan to our lives. And I even HAVE entertained that one before, for quite some time. I'm not the only one. It's not an either-or choice between believing in some cartoonish vision that's FAR out of touch with even most little kids' understanding of the phenomenal world, versus believing in nothing that isn't proven.



People like me use unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters because we want to point out just what it is you guys are believing in.  Most people believe in a god that looks like us because that isn't hard to imagine, it is familiar to us.  The same goes for an abstract notion of god.  There is nothing in this imagery that makes us feel ridiculous yet it still fills that emotional need I have talked about.  The problem is, a pink unicorn and an abstract god have just as much evidence.  Either one is just as valid as the other.  So what we are saying is that if you believe in the abstract supernatural power, you are essentially believing in unicorns and the like, you just choose to dress it up in comfortable clothing.  It is certainly not more "reasonable" to believe in an abstract god instead of a pink unicorn overlord, both have the *exact* same amount of credible evidence at their backing.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> That depends on what one considers valid grounds for accepting something as true, when it comes to things that resist definitive proof. You'll clearly only entertain a speculative idea if it meets your standard for estimated probability. But others have different criteria and approaches to this. There are some people I know for whom it would be hard for me to disbelieve ANYTHING they say, I just know them so well and have that trusting of a relationship with them. For some people, seeing is believing. I have personally witnessed a few brushes with the otherworldly, including one that was shared and witnessed by more than myself. I'm firmly convinced there is no mundane explanation.
> 
> I haven't found my entertaining of ideas that are out of this world have caused me to abandon good sense and rationality in my material life. If anything, they've been a motivation for GREATER sensibility! I know plenty of believers of all sorts who are incredibly practical people.



I am just asking that people use the same type of judgment used in most other areas of life when it comes to the supernatural.  It is rather frustrating to try and have a meaningful discussion about a higher consciousness when there is absolutely no standard to go by.  All of a sudden all of the deductive reasoning tools and intelligence one has accumulated goes out the window, because people don't want to step on other people's toes with regard to religion.  Churches used to enforce this cognitive dissonance with penalty of death for heretics, and now it has lessened into a social taboo.  Either way, it is a mechanism that has evolved to protect ideas that would normally be thrown to the wayside long ago.  This is what I mean by religion being ingrained into society and taking a long time to die out.  There used to be much stiffer penalties for criticizing religion, and now they are lessening.  In the future, it won't be taboo to question religion the same way one would question the claim that the sky is falling.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Your post in the thread 'You are beautiful' rubbed me the wrong way. I'd rather you didn't make posts in people's threads of highly abstract and poetic spiritual writing, telling them their writing is devoid of meaning. Leave the deeming and handling of aimless posts up to us mods -- we actually have a rule about that, and enforce it.



Well, I will bite my tongue about that specific post.  What exactly would you consider aimless?  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Please read the P&S guidelines, if you haven't done so already. Not everyone posts with the intention of letting their post torn apart for flaws. People who are just looking for comfort, company, and community, should feel free to post their far-out ideas here, and not be ridiculed or taken to task for them. As I've said before, this forum doubles as a sancturary -- a chapel where drug users fish around for higher meaning in their own various ways.



I think we can reach a compromise here.  I will only comment on posts that have already generated discussions with opposing viewpoints.  That sound good?




MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> I don't find it's quite that obvious a logical step.



Why?  Nearly all of the evidence would suggest the apple would fall, but there is a very small chance that it could go up.  I find this exactly like the supernatural.  Nearly all of the evidence would suggest that there is nothing out there, but there is the slight chance that something is.  What are the key differences?  You even admitted that the supernatural can't be examined with the same scientific scrutiny and logic that one would apply elsewhere, so aren't you essentially saying that the evidence suggests there isn't a supernatural power, so normal evidence can't be used?  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> No, that's not the whole story right there. That's part of it, to be sure. It's also, as I've stated above, parts intuition, firsthand experience, and conversations with other highly intelligent as well as highly spiritual people in my life.



I would argue that intuition is just an extension of your emotional state.  And since evidence (beyond anecdotal)  wasn't on your list, I find it hard to believe that anything other than emotion had any real impact on your decision.  From all your posts I have read, it seems pretty clear that it is your emotional state that drives your belief.  You find belief fulfilling, so you choose belief.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> But regardless, I find your reduction of it to this crude and offensive. I resent what I perceive as you trapping me into making shameful admissions. (I haven't forgotten you telling me last year I was unfit to be a physician, because I wouldn't ABSOLUTELY script an antipsychotic to ANY patient of mine who admitted to hearing voices.) Why do you wish to shame me? Pile another stone on when I see that virtually all the posts you've ever made have had something to do with pushing atheism, including to people who are demonstrably unreceptive to this agenda of yours. This means I have scant indication you have any other interest in this website. And then there's the fact that you've openly stated your desire to be a contrarian and iconoclast, which goes very much against the grain and the spirit of this forum, and well... I've got a problem with you, Enlitx. What did you expect?
> 
> I'm not going to puff myself up by unfairly accusing you of some violation and hitting you with an infraction. That doesn't accomplish anything. Instead, this time I'm just going to be very upfront with you and make this a conversation between two gentlemen. We have a community here, and that community has a culture and some standards of exchange. Please be respectful of this, or don't post here. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say it.


[/QUOTE]

It is not crude, I just think that it is pretty clear that you are choosing belief because of the way it makes you feel.  It is the primary reason most people choose to believe in the supernatural.  Being raised in a society that values religion will make almost everyone form some sort of emotional attachment to religious belief, and it is usually why people become so emotionally heated when their religion is challenged.  It is also why fMRI scans have demonstrated that religious belief is strongly tied to emotional areas of the brain, and less so to critical thinking areas.  

I stand by my statement that someone who hears voices needs to be treated.  Even if medication isn't offered, there must be some type of therapy.  It is not just me either, ask the AMA.  I am not trying to shame you, I am simply discussing ideas.  How is saying that your religious beliefs are driven by emotion trying to shame you?  I would guess that nearly everyone believes because of emotional reasons, I am not trying to shame the whole world.  I think you need to take a step back and stop taking this so personally.  That is what I hate about religious discussions, since it is usually tied to emotional parts of a person's psychological make up, it is hard to have frank discussions without eliciting undue emotional responses.  

You made a snarky comment about how you don't live up to my standards.  I let it go because I know we are debating ideas and things can get heated.  I am not taking what you say personally, it is an internet message board, that would be unproductive.  Just relax dude.

Like I said, I will remove all language that you perceive as inflammatory, such as "absurd".  I will only jump in on discussions that have already generated opposing viewpoints.  That sound good?

And really, I am usually pretty busy.  Today was my first day off in two weeks, I start grad school very shortly, you won't have to put up with me forever .  I promise you though, I am not just jumping in here to stir up trouble and troll, I hope that is evident by the substance in my posts.


----------



## Enlitx

33Hz said:


> Like how a religious/spiritual people give their life meaning and joy by believing in fairy tales? What makes you so special that you are free to assign your own meaning to life, while people that don't share the same outlook are denied this right? 8)



Huh?  Where did I ever talk about denying the right to believe in something?  I simply advocated for one belief over the other.  I must have missed the post where I suggested we set up a totalitarian government that denies people religious freedom.


----------



## Enlitx

qwe said:


> gotta take this pile of bullcrap!



I am waiting for MDAO to pounce on you like he pounced on me for being disrespectful.


----------



## qwe

Enlitx said:


> I agree that physicalism is not the only _possible_ explanation that an educated person could hold.  But, it is by far the most _likely_ explanation available.  It is like looking at an apple that is about to fall off of a tree.  Yes, that apple could go straight up after the twig breaks, but what would an educated person guess?
> 
> There is a reason that most of the discussion about supernatural theories are based around how they make a person feel, because there is nothing to talk about how they actually might exist beyond very generous extrapolations.
> 
> Physicalism makes you feel bleak, and other theories offer more in the way of emotional reinforcement.  I think that is the whole story right there.


like i said in my totally awesome post above, science is totally incomplete

so physicalism does NOT have to make you bleak

there could be branes/spacetimes where yoda's are doing lightsaber battles, colliding branes causing orgasms lasting three times the time this universe will last, and all physical

anything magical.... physical can mimic.  in fact, the magic act the true mimic!


----------



## qwe

Enlitx said:


> I am waiting for MDAO to pounce on you like he pounced on me for being disrespectful.


well, you're assuming i wasn't referring to the idea/belief structure and not the person (aka, it wasn't an ad-hom at all.  the only guilty thing i did was use a bad word... bullcrap... which isnt even that bad)

being a level 6 meme warrior, i am able to call meme viruses "bullcrap".  like the pope is bullcrap


----------



## Enlitx

qwe said:


> well, you're assuming i wasn't referring to the idea/belief structure and not the person (aka, it wasn't an ad-hom at all.  the only guilty thing i did was use a bad word... bullcrap... which isnt even that bad)
> 
> being a level 8 meme warrior, i am able to call meme viruses "bullcrap".  like the pope is bullcrap



I never attacked anyone either, it was very clear that I was calling an idea absurd, yet I was not spared the rod.  Although I suspect MDAO may have a special dislike for me. %)


----------



## qwe

did i rod you?  you must be the pope then!


----------



## Enlitx

qwe said:


> did i rod you?  you must be the pope then!



Are you MDAO?


----------



## qwe

sorry i misread.  a lot of sedatives and GABA-ergics are in my brain atm, making opie w/d barely bearable


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Enlitx said:


> Although there are no hard numbers, you cannot keep going back to this "everything is equal" stance, no matter how appealing it might be.  Why are people afraid of Iran with a nuclear weapon?  At the very least, it is partly because they have a religious intolerance of the Jews.  Why did the Catholics torture people during the Crusades?  In a very large part, if not solely, because of religion.  Why was abstinence preached in Africa instead of condom use, endangering millions of people?  Yep, religion.  There are countless examples, and new examples pop up every day.  These are problems that could be abated or mitigated if the belief in a supernatural power was removed.  There is no way to get around it, the belief in a supernatural power invites all kinds of problems.
> 
> Even if you were able to get everyone to hold a peaceful and unobstrutive religious ideology, there would still be the issue of time being better spent.  And that is *if* you could get most people to do that, which seems highly unlikely at this point.



You're spinning your wheels at this point with me, because I stand by what I said before. Religion is used as a convenient excuse to fight over issues that are for the most part quite related to material problems in this world. So long as those and other similar problems persist, then religious or not, people will get violent over them.



> I believe I am in the minority because of tradition and culture.  If you look at Europe it is clearly trending towards atheism in a big way.  Most of the groundbreaking scientific advents have only been around for less than two hundred years.  Religion has been around for thousands of years.  Give it time, and I don't think I will be in the minority.



Like I said, time will tell. From surveys I've read about belief in Europe, like the Eurobarometer Survey, it seems to follow the rule of thirds -- 1/3 believe in God, 1/3 believe in some other form of higher power or life force, and 1/3 believe in neither. My interpretation of this data is that when people are given free access to quality education, information, a free press, and complete freedom to believe as they choose, beliefs run the whole gamut, based on people's life experiences and temperments.



> People still might find a reason to fight, but I can't think of a scenario where the people of Africa would be denied life saving condoms because of anything other than religion.



Really? I can think of plenty. Corruption leading to skimming away of the African nation's condom funds, for one. Trade blockades used as a weapon of war, for another. Labor strikes at the nation's only condom factory would do it. So would a covert plan by the government to increase the population; Japan, a developed and rather secular country, saw the birth control pill go unapproved for sale for decades, just due to vested economic interests in it remaining unavailable.



> At some point you are going to have to concede that religion brings problems that would otherwise be avoided.



No, I won't, because I just don't see the causation. Sorry.



> Yes, but religious thinking still creeps into our leaders even if there is no obvious violation of the separation of church and state.  Look at the Texas schoolboard fiasco, the condom issue in Africa, etc...  There are problems with religion that won't be solved until there is no religion.



Cry me a river. Legal battles in the US, a fairly functional and transparent democracy, over church-state issues, tend to uphold the separation of church and state consistently, even in a general population composed mostly of believers. Politicians who make remarks in political speeches that favor one belief system over another get called on it, and the people who call them out on it don't get their doors kicked in. I fail to see the problem.



> Ok, sorry about that one.  Replace absurd with highly improbable.



I was referring to your use of the phrase 'imaginary friend', actually. Please don't use this expression here.



> I think that people could believe in something different.  It is simply a matter of tradition and society.  Our society has had religion ingrained for so long that it will be a slow process to pull it out, but it is already happening all over the globe, and I don't see any signs of it slowing down.



Again, time will tell. Religion could be ebbing for the time being, only to reemerge in new forms a few generations from now. Also, don't make the mistake of lumping everyone who doesn't affiliate with any religion with your belief system. Plenty of people continue to be personally spiritual, and it's just the ORGANIZED part of organized religion they don't cotton to.



> People like me use unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters because we want to point out just what it is you guys are believing in.  Most people believe in a god that looks like us because that isn't hard to imagine, it is familiar to us.  The same goes for an abstract notion of god.  There is nothing in this imagery that makes us feel ridiculous yet it still fills that emotional need I have talked about.  The problem is, a pink unicorn and an abstract god have just as much evidence.  Either one is just as valid as the other.  So what we are saying is that if you believe in the abstract supernatural power, you are essentially believing in unicorns and the like, you just choose to dress it up in comfortable clothing.  It is certainly not more "reasonable" to believe in an abstract god instead of a pink unicorn overlord, both have the *exact* same amount of credible evidence at their backing.



I was asking rhetorically, dude.



> I am just asking that people use the same type of judgment used in most other areas of life when it comes to the supernatural.



No can do, compadre. I just don't see the merit, or the fun, in limiting oneself to what's supported by hard evidence when we're talking about realms that are by definition beyond what science can measure and test, and might possibly buck our entire notions of what's logical and probable.



> It is rather frustrating to try and have a meaningful discussion about a higher consciousness when there is absolutely no standard to go by.  All of a sudden all of the deductive reasoning tools and intelligence one has accumulated goes out the window, because people don't want to step on other people's toes with regard to religion.



And _*I*_ find it frustrating to have a meaningful discussion about otherworldly phenomena where one is not free to imagine and speculate and dream and scheme to their heart's content. I find it frustrating to be bound by rules of only entertaining what I can logically show to be probably, at the expense of entertaining the possible. I spend most of my waking life in the material world making decisions chiefly based on what's logically sound and likely. When I'm dealing in speculative realms beyond the material world, I want a break from all that!



> In the future, it won't be taboo to question religion the same way one would question the claim that the sky is falling.



It'll depend on the setting and company. Time will tell. Please don't be a maverick here.



> Well, I will bite my tongue about that specific post.  What exactly would you consider aimless?



Read the P&S guideline about inane posts.



> I think we can reach a compromise here.  I will only comment on posts that have already generated discussions with opposing viewpoints.  That sound good?



That sounds awesome.



> Why?  Nearly all of the evidence would suggest the apple would fall, but there is a very small chance that it could go up.  I find this exactly like the supernatural.  Nearly all of the evidence would suggest that there is nothing out there, but there is the slight chance that something is.  What are the key differences?



Heh, you picked a bad example, because the paranormal phenomenon my wife and I witnessed involved a stationary object moving deliberately up in the air. I've been there that one rare time an object floated up (then gently horizontally, then gently down to a new spot), rather than falling down or staying in its place, so your analogy sure won't prove the nonexistence of the supernatural by me.



> You even admitted that the supernatural can't be examined with the same scientific scrutiny and logic that one would apply elsewhere, so aren't you essentially saying that the evidence suggests there isn't a supernatural power, so normal evidence can't be used?



Bah! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



> I would argue that intuition is just an extension of your emotional state.



That's not entirely correct. It involves more thought pathways than just this.



> And since evidence (beyond anecdotal)  wasn't on your list, I find it hard to believe that anything other than emotion had any real impact on your decision.  From all your posts I have read, it seems pretty clear that it is your emotional state that drives your belief.  You find belief fulfilling, so you choose belief.



Yes, I do find it fulfilling. But I don't think you have a good appreciation of all the things I've experienced that have led me (or any other thoughtful or intellectually curious non-nonbeliever) to where I stand. Your wording is a crude reduction that does not do justice to the spiritual and philosophical viewpoints I've been expressing on BL for years.

Like I said to azzazza in another thread, sometimes reduction, simplification, and modeling are good and useful mental tools. But they have to be (and usually are) done with a goal in mind to be helpful. When you seek to reduce my metaphysical viewpoint to, "He entertains the supernatural for emotional comfort", I won't deny that that's part of the story, but I have to wonder what goal of yours would be served by making this reduction, and the possibilities that spring to mind immediately aren't goals that I applaud.



> It is not crude



Yes, it is. As the recipient of the remark, I'll let you know how it came across. That's not your place to judge.



> I just think that it is pretty clear that you are choosing belief because of the way it makes you feel.  It is the primary reason most people choose to believe in the supernatural.  Being raised in a society that values religion will make almost everyone form some sort of emotional attachment to religious belief, and it is usually why people become so emotionally heated when their religion is challenged.  It is also why fMRI scans have demonstrated that religious belief is strongly tied to emotional areas of the brain, and less so to critical thinking areas.



Just like art and music appreciation. And there's nothing wrong with this. What's unreasonable about wanting a place in the greater picture that's significant and inherently meaning-driven? People don't like their musical tastes criticized either, and tend to respond emotionally to that too. Most people don't choose the music they like based on a rational assessment of who's important, influential, or technically proficient; they choose it because they like it, and it speaks to them and moves them. So long as we have no idea as to the answers to the big questions, the world beyond ours is an open canvas for human yearnings and imagination. Yes, the supernatural and paranormal most certainly warrant a different conversational approach than mundane material phenomena.



> I stand by my statement that someone who hears voices needs to be treated.  Even if medication isn't offered, there must be some type of therapy.  It is not just me either, ask the AMA.



I'll do that.



> I am not trying to shame you, I am simply discussing ideas.  How is saying that your religious beliefs are driven by emotion trying to shame you? I would guess that nearly everyone believes because of emotional reasons, I am not trying to shame the whole world.  I think you need to take a step back and stop taking this so personally.



Well, your comments were not exactly flattering or respectful of my stance. But it's in my nature to give people the benefit of the doubt, so you say you weren't aiming to get my goat, I believe you. But you did succeed in doing just this, and I'm not the only one who has taken umbrage to the way you've worded things. I just thought you ought to know this for future reference.

I'm a pretty patient man who really tries hard to meet all kinds of viewpoints and opinions halfway, and tries to understand where people are coming from. I'm not dogmatic or conservative at all -- like I've said, I live right on the theist side of the border with agnosticism -- the only option I won't entertain is that this is all. there. is. Everything else I'll entertain. I have friends and chatting companions among of every shade of belief, here, and I've made very few enemies here. But you, and only really you Enlitx, give me a very hard time about just that one thing. I take it personally because this is personal, and I find your approach to me and others on the matter unduly cold and callous.



> That is what I hate about religious discussions, since it is usually tied to emotional parts of a person's psychological make up, it is hard to have frank discussions without eliciting undue emotional responses.



Hence the rule for respect for all expressions of belief. This is just not a subject that can be argued about dispassionately. I find it mind boggling that you've expected some of the gems you've spouted about 'imaginary friends' and whatnot to be taken well.



> You made a snarky comment about how you don't live up to my standards.  I let it go because I know we are debating ideas and things can get heated.  I am not taking what you say personally, it is an internet message board, that would be unproductive.  Just relax dude.



This is much more than _just_ an internet message board to many people who frequent it, myself included. Sorry, but I'm a passionate guy, and you happen to be picking a bone with me over a subject I'm incredibly passionate about. One of my most cherished principles is that of compassion above all -- even logic and sensibility work in service of compassion and are subordinate to it in my world. It hits my rawest nerve to see people forsake compassion in the interests of being logically flawless, concise, or even funny.



> I promise you though, I am not just jumping in here to stir up trouble and troll, I hope that is evident by the substance in my posts.



It was not always entirely evident, no. But again, I'll take you at your word.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, Enlitx.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> Well I doubt anyone I could list would be a surprise or unknown to you, though Camus has always been quite a moving and convincing character in his philosophical (and "fictional") writings, especially The Myth of Sisyphus, with his conception of a world in which meaning is found through the self in the struggle and search not the ascribed and intrinsic meaning.



I'll have a look. Thanks.


----------



## Alcohol120

In reply to the OP;

I think it's amusing how you hate when people push religion on you, yet you're outright saying there is no god and criticizing people for believing there is. You say humanity suffers from conflicting religious views, and that people should accept your way of thinking, but maybe you're the one who needs to look at things differently? You offer questions of "where has god been?" yet if you looked at things from a different angle you may want to ask "where have we gotten ourselves?"


----------



## 33Hz

Enlitx said:


> Huh?  Where did I ever talk about denying the right to believe in something?  I simply advocated for one belief over the other.  I must have missed the post where I suggested we set up a totalitarian government that denies people religious freedom.



lol, fair enough.

I was pretty smashed when I wrote that. Probably best to just ignore everything I wrote.


----------



## Enlitx

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> You're spinning your wheels at this point with me, because I stand by what I said before. Religion is used as a convenient excuse to fight over issues that are for the most part quite related to material problems in this world. So long as those and other similar problems persist, then religious or not, people will get violent over them.



I mentioned issues besides war.  How about the church imprisoning Galileo and hindering science?  How about Turner being chemically castrated because he was gay?  The list is endless, religion does have inherent costs.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Like I said, time will tell. From surveys I've read about belief in Europe, like the Eurobarometer Survey, it seems to follow the rule of thirds -- 1/3 believe in God, 1/3 believe in some other form of higher power or life force, and 1/3 believe in neither. My interpretation of this data is that when people are given free access to quality education, information, a free press, and complete freedom to believe as they choose, beliefs run the whole gamut, based on people's life experiences and temperments.



Time will tell, but it is trending in a certain direction.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Really? I can think of plenty. Corruption leading to skimming away of the African nation's condom funds, for one. Trade blockades used as a weapon of war, for another. Labor strikes at the nation's only condom factory would do it. So would a covert plan by the government to increase the population; Japan, a developed and rather secular country, saw the birth control pill go unapproved for sale for decades, just due to vested economic interests in it remaining unavailable.



I am talking about that specific president making that specific decision at that point in time.  It was the fault of religion and no other. 



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> No, I won't, because I just don't see the causation. Sorry.



Then you are trying very hard to not see it.  Sure, not everything I listed was solely caused by religion, but some of it was most assuredly the result of religion.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Cry me a river. Legal battles in the US, a fairly functional and transparent democracy, over church-state issues, tend to uphold the separation of church and state consistently, even in a general population composed mostly of believers. Politicians who make remarks in political speeches that favor one belief system over another get called on it, and the people who call them out on it don't get their doors kicked in. I fail to see the problem.



Do me a favor, if you are going to sit there and bemoan how I treat people, lead by example.  Don't make snide comments to me and then demand that I treat others with the utmost respect.  I am trying very hard to accommodate you, try to be an adult about this.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> I was referring to your use of the phrase 'imaginary friend', actually. Please don't use this expression here.



Alright.  




MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> No can do, compadre. I just don't see the merit, or the fun, in limiting oneself to what's supported by hard evidence when we're talking about realms that are by definition beyond what science can measure and test, and might possibly buck our entire notions of what's logical and probable.



Ok, so then admit that these ideas are the result of your own personal desires and not on equal footing as other, more empirically sound theories.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  On one hand, you are saying that every theory is equally as valid and should be treated with the same amount of deference, and on the other hand you are saying that you don't approach these ideas with the same amount of integrity because it wouldn't be fun.  Pick one.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> And _*I*_ find it frustrating to have a meaningful discussion about otherworldly phenomena where one is not free to imagine and speculate and dream and scheme to their heart's content. I find it frustrating to be bound by rules of only entertaining what I can logically show to be probably, at the expense of entertaining the possible. I spend most of my waking life in the material world making decisions chiefly based on what's logically sound and likely. When I'm dealing in speculative realms beyond the material world, I want a break from all that!



I have no problem with people speculating about these things.  I find it fun to think about far out ideas like god, the matrix, etc...  My problem is that when someone says, "Ya, thats a neat idea, too bad it is probably just a fantasy", you jump in and call foul.  You are trying to have it both ways, something has to give.  If you noticed, I jump in when people ascribe to these unlikely philosophies as if they were truth, and I simply point out how unlikely it would be.  Beyond that, I have no problem speculating about these things, I just think it counter productive for people to hold these beliefs as a likely representation of reality.  




MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Heh, you picked a bad example, because the paranormal phenomenon my wife and I witnessed involved a stationary object moving deliberately up in the air. I've been there that one rare time an object floated up (then gently horizontally, then gently down to a new spot), rather than falling down or staying in its place, so your analogy sure won't prove the nonexistence of the supernatural by me.



And people witness UFOs, aliens, gods, demons, etc... Much of the time they witness things that are mutually exclusive, and that is why something more than anecdotal evidence is necessary.  Otherwise we would still regard seizures to be the work of demons.  But ya, I get it, you believe in supernatural stuff.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Bah! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



Since when do you care about evidence?  Can we use evidence as a standard now?  Are we going to use logic and deduction or are they out the window completely?  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> That's not entirely correct. It involves more thought pathways than just this.



Indeed, it was a quick simplification, and for the purposes of this thread irrelevant. 



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Yes, I do find it fulfilling. But I don't think you have a good appreciation of all the things I've experienced that have led me (or any other thoughtful or intellectually curious non-nonbeliever) to where I stand. Your wording is a crude reduction that does not do justice to the spiritual and philosophical viewpoints I've been expressing on BL for years.
> 
> Like I said to azzazza in another thread, sometimes reduction, simplification, and modeling are good and useful mental tools. But they have to be (and usually are) done with a goal in mind to be helpful. When you seek to reduce my metaphysical viewpoint to, "He entertains the supernatural for emotional comfort", I won't deny that that's part of the story, but I have to wonder what goal of yours would be served by making this reduction, and the possibilities that spring to mind immediately aren't goals that I applaud.



Of course it is simplified, but everything you have said thus far suggests emotions are the primary reason for your belief.  I simply hold the view that any serious philosophies or worldviews should be based on empirical evidence, as emotions have historically led to dangerous/wrong/improbable worldviews.  My intention is simply to have a discussion and pass the time, and in doing so I analyze ideas the same way I analyze everything.  There is no deeper and sinister motives behind my behavior.  Either way, I was never seeking your approval for my "goals", nor do I see any need for you to bring them it.  It appears to me you are trying to paint me as someone with low character as to further your own point of view. No need to go there, we can keep this civil.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Yes, it is. As the recipient of the remark, I'll let you know how it came across. That's not your place to judge.



You seem to be especially touchy when it comes to my remarks, just relax and stop taking it so personally.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Just like art and music appreciation. And there's nothing wrong with this. What's unreasonable about wanting a place in the greater picture that's significant and inherently meaning-driven? People don't like their musical tastes criticized either, and tend to respond emotionally to that too. Most people don't choose the music they like based on a rational assessment of who's important, influential, or technically proficient; they choose it because they like it, and it speaks to them and moves them. So long as we have no idea as to the answers to the big questions, the world beyond ours is an open canvas for human yearnings and imagination. Yes, the supernatural and paranormal most certainly warrant a different conversational approach than mundane material phenomena.



Nothing wrong with wanting a higher purpose, but be honest enough to admit that this desire is the primary reason for such beliefs.   And don't act shocked and offended when others simply point out this fact, and are willing to show that beyond individual emotional desire, there isn't much substance as to the likelihood of such claims. 




MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Well, your comments were not exactly flattering or respectful of my stance. But it's in my nature to give people the benefit of the doubt, so you say you weren't aiming to get my goat, I believe you. But you did succeed in doing just this, and I'm not the only one who has taken umbrage to the way you've worded things. I just thought you ought to know this for future reference.
> 
> I'm a pretty patient man who really tries hard to meet all kinds of viewpoints and opinions halfway, and tries to understand where people are coming from. I'm not dogmatic or conservative at all -- like I've said, I live right on the theist side of the border with agnosticism -- the only option I won't entertain is that this is all. there. is. Everything else I'll entertain. I have friends and chatting companions among of every shade of belief, here, and I've made very few enemies here. But you, and only really you Enlitx, give me a very hard time about just that one thing. I take it personally because this is personal, and I find your approach to me and others on the matter unduly cold and callous.



My goal was never to piss people off.  I have been quite mild in my criticism of belief or my discussion of ideas.  I have purposely held back any remarks that would be deemed as unduly offensive.  I slipped with the imaginary friend remark, but really, I see worse stuff all the time on this board.  I think you simply have a problem with me, and I am asking that you take a step back and stop making everything a personal affront on your character. 

You have admitted that you will not entertain the idea that this is all there is.  All that I am asking is that you admit you are doing this for emotional reasons, otherwise why would you completely write off the idea that this is all there is?  I am fine with conceding that it is your right to believe in such things, all that I am asking is that you grant me the same right to believe that such a worldview is very likely untrue based on what we know.  

I have already agreed to only comment on threads that have already generated debate.  Most of my comments will just be a request for explanation or asking people to think more precisely about what they believe.  For example, if someone believes in a higher consciousness, what exactly are they talking about and how exactly would they envision it to work. That generates good discussion, and I don't see foresee any problems with it.  I will refrain from simply saying something isn't true, and instead try to develop the specifics of an idea.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Hence the rule for respect for all expressions of belief. This is just not a subject that can be argued about dispassionately. I find it mind boggling that you've expected some of the gems you've spouted about 'imaginary friends' and whatnot to be taken well.



I am candid, I will admit that.  I have already stated how I will go about things in the future, hopefully it will alleviate any problems.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> This is much more than _just_ an internet message board to many people who frequent it, myself included. Sorry, but I'm a passionate guy, and you happen to be picking a bone with me over a subject I'm incredibly passionate about. One of my most cherished principles is that of compassion above all -- even logic and sensibility work in service of compassion and are subordinate to it in my world. It hits my rawest nerve to see people forsake compassion in the interests of being logically flawless, concise, or even funny.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not always entirely evident, no. But again, I'll take you at your word.
> 
> I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, Enlitx.



I get that you are passionate about this subject.  I have agreed to some compromises that will hopefully ease the tension.  I would ask that you allow me to be passionate about my beliefs if you are able to be passionate about yours.  If you can adamantly argue that there is more to this life than the next, let me be passionate about my belief system.


----------



## qwe

>>You're spinning your wheels at this point with me, because I stand by what I said before. Religion is used as a convenient excuse to fight over issues that are for the most part quite related to material problems in this world. So long as those and other similar problems persist, then religious or not, people will get violent over them.>>

while i agree, wouldn't there be *more* violence with religion?

it just adds another reason to kill.  it increases bigotry etc.  it'll bind a society together, but some of the members of that society are going to be burned at the stake

not to mention the quibbles of nations, religion gives nation-bashing-nation a huge boost


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Enlitx, I think I've adequately addressed why I think your summary of my viewpoint doesn't do it justice, and why I won't just affirm it and be quiet.

You do touch a nerve with me, and I think it comes down to this: I feel very strongly that people (and all other sentient beings) have a right to deem and define 'reality' as they each see fit, and I don't think it's your place or anyone's to deny or begrudge someone that liberty.

I think we should just cut this conversation short, because I don't want to take anything else personally. And rest assured, it's your viewpoint and how you wield it that chafe me, Enlitx, not you as a person. In fact, I bet if we avoided this topic altogether, I'd probably find you a perfectly cool guy to meet.

I do really appreciate your willingness to abide by the spirit of the forum, by the way.


----------



## hazydavy84

I believe that GOD is a "power greater than myself, that can give me Good Orderly Direction in my life"

As others have said, God and spirituality are two completely separate things


----------



## TearItDown

Alcohol120 said:


> In reply to the OP;
> 
> I think it's amusing how you hate when people push religion on you, yet you're outright saying there is no god and criticizing people for believing there is. You say humanity suffers from conflicting religious views, and that people should accept your way of thinking, but maybe you're the one who needs to look at things differently? You offer questions of "where has god been?" yet if you looked at things from a different angle you may want to ask "where have we gotten ourselves?"



I'm not pushing something based on mythology on others, though. I'm urging people to believe in what they can see.


----------



## Liquid Sunshine

Believe what you will. I've been an atheist since I was very young, and I've found such beauty and power in the world without any kind of theistic input. I don't care what others believe, whatever makes them happy. Really, I promote freedom of choice more than anything, including choices I disagree with. 

I've read the bible through many times (in fact I used it to learn to read as a small child) and I've done a fair amount of research into a lot of religions. I've always found some beauty in them, some ideal or philosophy that is profound and powerful. I've also always found things I disagree with. 

I just try to keep an open mind and take what I can but discard what I know to be false (or feel to be, at least). Science is my tool for discerning one from the other typically, but it's not always the best tool. Some things you just have to trust yourself and turn it over and feel it out in your mind and your heart. You know.


----------



## vegan

there is a historical definition of god / gods

and it annoys me when people say "for me, god is everything that's around / or whatever"

because this induces misunderstanding
you're not talking about the same thing as a person following a traditional religion is talking about

so let's use a different word or just explain your concept

but using the word "god" to describe something else is the same as someone saying
"I like chocolate"
and someone else answering
"me too, but what i call chocolate is orange jam"

"oh, ok! we both like chocolate"

no
you don't both like chocolate

and you don't both believe in "god"

the word "god" is loaded with historical concepts and it totally misleads others to use the same word  when you're actually talking about a different concept (ex : universal consciousness)

let's call a cat a cat and a dog a dog


----------



## hobhead

gods are superstitious constructs .  there are hundreds and hundreds of organized religions thus they are all bullspit man made constructs as well .
spirituality is a cocked up notion if it goes past the semantic ' so and so appears to be in good spirits' etc .


----------



## TearItDown

Liquid Sunshine said:


> I just try to keep an open mind and take what I can but discard what I know to be false (or feel to be, at least). Science is my tool for discerning one from the other typically, but it's not always the best tool. Some things you just have to trust yourself and turn it over and feel it out in your mind and your heart. You know.



This is basically an outline on how I try to live.


----------



## brutus

MynameisnotDeja said:


> That is a beautiful story. I am glad you lived to tell it. And I'm glad that it was a source of renewed faith for you. Keep spreading the faith and the good vibes, just reading that story brightened my morning. You survived for a reason.



Good to hear that it brightened your day.

Seems like you can't mention anything about being a Christian on here without a million people attacking you and saying all kind of bullshit. I don't harass others for what they believe and belittle them. But Christians are the close minded ones.

It's really fucked up how some people responded to what I said about my experience. I will pray for yall.


----------



## Alcohol120

TearItDown said:


> I'm not pushing something based on mythology on others, though. I'm urging people to believe in what they can see.



As far as I can tell you aren't urging, you're saying what you believe is correct. You're criticizing someone believing and expressing that they believe, and saying it bothers you. What you're doing is worse, since you're not just expressing it, you're trying to deter someone from believing something else. I bet since you hate someone even expressing it, you would REALLY hate it if those people got in your face about it and said you were wrong. A thread with a title of "Why do so many atheists get in your face" would bother you. Except the people saying they love god aren't getting in your face, they're just expressing something that's helped them.

You can't see magnetism, you can't see the wind, you can't see that the universe is infinite, but you believe in those things, right?


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

qwe said:


> >>You're spinning your wheels at this point with me, because I stand by what I said before. Religion is used as a convenient excuse to fight over issues that are for the most part quite related to material problems in this world. So long as those and other similar problems persist, then religious or not, people will get violent over them.>>
> 
> while i agree, wouldn't there be *more* violence with religion?
> 
> it just adds another reason to kill.  it increases bigotry etc.  it'll bind a society together, but some of the members of that society are going to be burned at the stake



Hate the tool or hate the one who wields it as a weapon? I think that's the philosophical issue here.

qwe, I get the sense more and more that you and I basically believe the same thing but are coming at from two very different backgrounds and therefore use very different wordings and analogies.

My last word on the subject: If infinite purposelessness gives us infinite freedom to define meaning the way we choose, then I'm going to take this liberty as it's given me to use as I see fit, and use it to hold out hope that that purposelessness is itself an illusion.


----------



## TearItDown

Alcohol120 said:


> As far as I can tell you aren't urging, you're saying what you believe is correct. You're criticizing someone believing and expressing that they believe, and saying it bothers you. What you're doing is worse, since you're not just expressing it, you're trying to deter someone from believing something else. I bet since you hate someone even expressing it, you would REALLY hate it if those people got in your face about it and said you were wrong. A thread with a title of "Why do so many atheists get in your face" would bother you. Except the people saying they love god aren't getting in your face, they're just expressing something that's helped them.
> 
> You can't see magnetism, you can't see the wind, you can't see that the universe is infinite, but you believe in those things, right?



I see evidence for those things, I see no evidence for a deity. I've also never read about a war started by atheists for the cause of atheism against another religion. That is a huge point I'm trying to make.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> Little billy thought that he was the most superior, intelligent child in his entire class. Billy was so sure of his capabilities, that he decided to place a wager with the teacher. Billy said, "If I get a 100 on this spelling test, then everyone else gets a 100." The teacher thought for a little bit, then agreed, under one condition. If Billy did not get a 100, everyone would fail. Billy didn't care for the other class mates, since he thought he was the best anyway, but he didn't mind helping them out. Billy was the only student who didn't get a 100, but everyone else failed anyway. Everyone lost because of one person. One person (ONE religion or belief) can ruin it for everyone (now I'm waiting for you to say you accept that notion when it's clear you don't).



I don't know why you'd think I would say I accept that... as you said, I clearly don't see things that way at all.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> there is a historical definition of god / gods
> 
> and it annoys me when people say "for me, god is everything that's around / or whatever"
> 
> because this induces misunderstanding
> you're not talking about the same thing as a person following a traditional religion is talking about
> 
> so let's use a different word or just explain your concept



Lot's of different words have many uses or definitions. But I think most people who talk about the word "God" do mean it as a universal consciousness or higher power. Or the Universe itself (which, usually to those of us who use the word God, we think of the universe itself as a higher power).


----------



## TearItDown

MynameisnotDeja said:


> I don't know why you'd think I would say I accept that... as you said, I clearly don't see things that way at all.



So you don't think one religion can ruin it for everyone? Because several have. Several religions took it upon themselves to exterminate other people because their beliefs differ. No group of atheists have ever went to war and exterminated religious people in the name of atheism.


----------



## Enlitx

I just think that people who are superstitious (i.e. religious) need to realize that the secular population usually has a big hang up with what might be possible.  I think MynameisnotDeja seems like a perfectly pleasant person, and I would never fear her, in fact she would probably be really fun to be around.  Still, the general idea of a belief system that teaches one to disregard fact, believe with faith, and do so with vigor has led people to do horrible things.  I think a lot of atheists just want people to be rational so that their emotional impulses can be checked before a problem could possibly develop.  

And yes, I realize atheists are capable of the same violence, but they must do so knowing full well that their actions aren't serving a higher purpose or will be forgiven some day.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Lot's of different words have many uses or definitions. But I think most people who talk about the word "God" do mean it as a universal consciousness or higher power. Or the Universe itself (which, usually to those of us who use the word God, we think of the universe itself as a higher power).



Ya, I would have to agree though that people should stick to a historically defined definition of God.  It can get rather confusing and only serves to muddy the waters.  If you think that the universe is god, just call it the universe.  To me, god generally means a sentient being that is more powerful than humans and generally interested in our affairs, or at least involved in them at some point in time.  Anything else could probably be better defined with a separate word.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> I'll have a look. Thanks.



Let me know what you think.

Camus is one of my favorites.


----------



## SpunkySkunk347

Why do people like God? There are a few possibilities:

A) They value love and compassion above all other human emotions.

B) They can use the banner of God as a veil to hide their deceptive nature, as well as use it to manipulate other people by calling into question their loyalty to God - i.e. they catalyze religion for personal gain. This was called "Slave Morality" by Nietzsche

C) They want to think that "goodness" is something that will be compensated for after death, 

C2) ... and in their mind, this allows them to blame their problems on other people by viewing those people as "evil"

D) They are scared of not existing after death. Which actually subconsciously means they are scared that if they die, nobody will remember them. This is because the human mind won't naturally fear death unless some aspect of the Will to Live is being deprived. So if you suddenly find yourself afraid of dying without any immediate reason, it means that your unconscious mind realizes you aren't valued by anyone. Otherwise, when a person is loved and/or has a spouse and children, they will feel a mixture of sadness and joy when approaching death, instead of dreading their death - because their unconscious mind realizes they will live on posthumously.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Believing in God does not mean I believe I will exist after death. Just saying. Not everyone who believes in God believes in the typical idea of "heaven" or afterlife.


----------



## TearItDown

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Believing in God does not mean I believe I will exist after death. Just saying. Not everyone who believes in God believes in the typical idea of "heaven" or afterlife.



No one is saying you do.


----------



## qwe

^but it is rather odd, given that "god" is supposedly eternal


----------



## medical_meccanica

Most of the comments from self-proclaimed atheists here seem to use the concepts 'God' and 'religion' interchangeably. I would use 'God' and 'everything' interchangeably, except that the word God conjures a much more emotional recognition of the grandness, wonder and mystery that is involved in the interrelatedness of absolutely everything that exists.


----------



## medical_meccanica

^

Except that there is more emotive meaning attached to the word 'God', rather than universe. It implies mystery and a more profound recognition of everything. For me, the point of discussing spiritual concepts is to gain a more chiseled idea of my own personal beliefs, not a clearer idea of 'historical definitions.'

Frankly, I think in a discussion with the title 'God?' you should expect the water to be at least a little bit muddy, and if it wasn't I'd be pretty disappointed with the discussion.


----------



## qwe

^ i don't think we need semantics at this point.  can't we agree we're talking about the ontological nature of the universe, its structure and rules, and how it effects (and even creates) us?

>>I would use 'God' and 'everything' interchangeably, except that the word God conjures a much more emotional recognition of the grandness, wonder and mystery that is involved in the interrelatedness of absolutely everything that exists.>>

okayyy...... but when you say just "everything", all of that stuff is still there with the word!  so you need to make another word that means the same thing, but you give this new word more emotion?  let's call the new word "Flying Spaghetti Monster"

btw i totally get the separation between religion and spirituality, religion and god, spirituality and god.  as an atheist i think i get these terms semantically correct more than most theists


----------



## medical_meccanica

^
Hahaha, the old flying spaghetti monster!

Well you've said you don't want any more talk of semantics and then go on to debate them! As long as you don't mind...

I think 'God' is a great word because it is so plain and phonetically abstract. Your argument in the third line is damn near perfect, it's just that the obvious silliness of the image that the words 'flying spaghetti monster' conjures up counters the grandness, wonder, mystery, etc. that I was referring to. But yeah, I completely agree that if people want to replace the word 'God' with something else because they can't help but connect it to other people's ideas - that would make a lot of sense, I just really don't feel the need to.

Especially since the word, while meaning different things to many people, still USUALLY sparks a conversation of depth, even (or especially) with atheists. Again, I think the flying spaghetti monster is a good argument, but by trying to be coy and evoke conflict by approaching the perception of god as something silly and funny, I think it puts off people who prefer to approach contemplation of the ontological nature of the universe with respect and humility. I don't think either way is right or wrong, different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Jesusgreen

TearItDown said:


> People kill people, but so do it for their religion. People kill JUST for their religion. It's hard to take religion out of the murder if that was the reason behind it. Not everyone has the same view of spirituality as you, you need to accept that sometimes religion and spirituality IS as vault for murder.



Key word here, religion. Religion and belief are two very different things. If you were to compare belief systems to music artists then the believer would be someone who writes his music, publishes it himself and shares it with the world for free - maybe busking for a bit of cash or selling some CDs of his own for a fair price. Those who follow religion rather than finding their own beliefs would the the ones who give in to mainstream music publishing, accepting a big record deal and giving up a lot of their own rights in exchange for it, while these people are not inherently bad, they will sometimes do bad thinks for their publisher (or their religion). The heads of religion are like the great big greedy publishing companies, all they care about is that they have plenty of money and followers.

This is not to say that following a religion is wrong, like I said, everyone needs to decide what they believe, even if what they believe is simply what they see in front of them and nothing else, some people decide a certain religion is right for them, and so they should follow it, however anyone in a religion should remember that they are there to follow their deity/s, not the priests/heads of the religion, and so they should never feel pressured into doing anything just because the religion's book, or the heads of the religion suggest it is right. They should take the time to think about what their peace loving deity's would want, not their war and money-hungry leaders.

I see religion as very similar to gambling, it is not wrong in itself, but the people running it are very very corrupt and greedy people.



> as an atheist i think i get these terms semantically correct more than most theists



Haha, I have to agree there. I am a theist myself, as I mentioned a few pages previously, but admittedly when I first began believing (initially as a Christian) I really was not very educated about religion or belief, I just simply accepted what I was told, and believed it. I also noticed most of my friends who believed the same/similar things also had very little knowledge about what they were actually supposed to believe. Ask most Christians about the bible and in all honesty most atheists could answer your questions better. I then spent the past couple of years combining science, dissociatives (Ketamine) and a lot of research to decide what I finally wanted to believe, finally coming up with a complete picture that to me is scientifically and spiritually accurate.


----------



## qwe

> Well you've said you don't want any more talk of semantics and then go on to debate them! As long as you don't mind...


my bad.  with that particular issue ("at this point") i don't unless you disagree... personally i think semantics are underrated


> But yeah, I completely agree that if people want to replace the word 'God' with something else because they can't help but connect it to other people's ideas - that would make a lot of sense, I just really don't feel the need to.


but a lot of these "gods" are VERY different from yours.  in fact most are.  you are very liberal for a spiritual person in today's age.  most believe in the donut that you pray up towards. so basically, i am saying you are trying to say we all need this new word, but now it can be ANY word, and your god-word can be totally diferent than mine


> Especially since the word, while meaning different things to many people, still USUALLY sparks a conversation of depth, even (or especially) with atheists


with all the scifi we have, do we really need one more epic?  epic of the universe, heard it a thousand times as a kid.  when humanity reaches the singularity, it won't be long before the bible is *archive* status.  i'd bet, but we have no clue when the singularity arrives (or if we're destroyed as the bible calls for). but if we survive, the bibles will be watched over by scholars that may or may not get laid (depending on the development of sexbots at the time) :/


----------



## vegan

> But I think most people who talk about the word "God" do mean it as a universal consciousness or higher power. Or the Universe itself (which, usually to those of us who use the word God, we think of the universe itself as a higher power).


i really don't think so

what percentage of the population do you think actually has any understanding of the concept of universal consciousness?

in many countries, close to no one
people following the 3 religions of the book believe in an old bearded man (but don't draw him!)
people following religions with pantheons believe in multiptle armed gods or other fantasies
even "godless" religions such as buddhism insert spirits wherever they can


for the majority of people, god or gods are more or less omnipotent beings, with personalities, usually a power of creation or even being creators of the universe, to be prayed, reacting to humans' actions, viewing humans as their children and other sentient beings  as furniture, etc.


stay aware that the posters of this forum are in nothing representative of global tendencies of thinking

what percentage of the human population has had mystical experiences?

what percentage of the S&P/PD posters population has had mystical experiences?

you'll get a huge difference in results


----------



## medical_meccanica

^
Maybe, but you're not talking to the total human population, you're talking to S&P posters, who are talking about their own personal concept of God.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> okayyy...... but when you say just "everything", all of that stuff is still there with the word! so you need to make another word that means the same thing, but you give this new word more emotion? let's call the new word "Flying Spaghetti Monster"



Hehe, it really doesn't matter what you call it. But I agree with medical mecannica about why I use the word "God" vs "Everything". But it really doesn't matter, in the end.. everything is everything and it's all just as vast and magical and amazing no matter what you want to call it.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

vegan said:


> i really don't think so
> 
> what percentage of the population do you think actually has any understanding of the concept of universal consciousness?
> 
> in many countries, close to no one
> people following the 3 religions of the book believe in an old bearded man (but don't draw him!)
> people following religions with pantheons believe in multiptle armed gods or other fantasies
> even "godless" religions such as buddhism insert spirits wherever they can
> 
> 
> for the majority of people, god or gods are more or less omnipotent beings, with personalities, usually a power of creation or even being creators of the universe, to be prayed, reacting to humans' actions, viewing humans as their children and other sentient beings  as furniture, etc.
> 
> 
> stay aware that the posters of this forum are in nothing representative of global tendencies of thinking
> 
> what percentage of the human population has had mystical experiences?
> 
> what percentage of the S&P/PD posters population has had mystical experiences?
> 
> you'll get a huge difference in results



Yeah, I agree the people here aren't really representing the whole world, I guess what I meant by my post is in my experience, many people I know personally or have met and talked about this sort of stuff with have an idea of "God" (or the higher power of the universe) similar to my own. 

But, it could just be that we tend to attract others who think like ourselves.


----------



## TearItDown

Jesusgreen said:


> Key word here, religion. Religion and belief are two very different things. If you were to compare belief systems to music artists then the believer would be someone who writes his music, publishes it himself and shares it with the world for free - maybe busking for a bit of cash or selling some CDs of his own for a fair price. Those who follow religion rather than finding their own beliefs would the the ones who give in to mainstream music publishing, accepting a big record deal and giving up a lot of their own rights in exchange for it, while these people are not inherently bad, they will sometimes do bad thinks for their publisher (or their religion). The heads of religion are like the great big greedy publishing companies, all they care about is that they have plenty of money and followers.
> 
> This is not to say that following a religion is wrong, like I said, everyone needs to decide what they believe, even if what they believe is simply what they see in front of them and nothing else, some people decide a certain religion is right for them, and so they should follow it, however anyone in a religion should remember that they are there to follow their deity/s, not the priests/heads of the religion, and so they should never feel pressured into doing anything just because the religion's book, or the heads of the religion suggest it is right. They should take the time to think about what their peace loving deity's would want, not their war and money-hungry leaders.
> 
> I see religion as very similar to gambling, it is not wrong in itself, but the people running it are very very corrupt and greedy people.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, I have to agree there. I am a theist myself, as I mentioned a few pages previously, but admittedly when I first began believing (initially as a Christian) I really was not very educated about religion or belief, I just simply accepted what I was told, and believed it. I also noticed most of my friends who believed the same/similar things also had very little knowledge about what they were actually supposed to believe. Ask most Christians about the bible and in all honesty most atheists could answer your questions better. I then spent the past couple of years combining science, dissociatives (Ketamine) and a lot of research to decide what I finally wanted to believe, finally coming up with a complete picture that to me is scientifically and spiritually accurate.



Why do theists always have to argue semantics till they fucking die? If I had meant belief I would have said it. No, I meant to say religion. I'm glad that even though you try and twist words around, you agree that mainstream religion is not really doing as good as it should. It's corrupt, greedy, and violent, which is the point I was trying to make. I'm not sure if you read my first post, because you should already know that one of my biggest problems is how mainstream religion runs today. It's good to hear that some theists actually see these flaws, most just shrug is off and say that religion can do no harm.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

The title of this thread (based on what you're saying) should be "Why do so many bluelighters love religion?" Because I understand the point you are making, most of my arguments in this thread have to do with not automatically attaching belief in God to religion.

Attaching too firmly to any belief, or using any belief system to spread fear or negativity does harm, no doubt. Many people use religion this way. But many people also don't. Many people receive great joy and comfort from their religion. I don't personally need religion for that, but if people do, and don't use it to think negatively or do negative things, then why lump it all together into one negative pile that seems to make you so angry?

If you want to live in a more peaceful world, you have to start with yourself. There is no way all of us are ever going to think the same or see the Universe the same. A peaceful world requires tolerance of others with different beliefs. And a lack of tolerance for violence and war, regardless of the reasons for it.


----------



## qwe

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Hehe, it really doesn't matter what you call it. But I agree with medical mecannica about why I use the word "God" vs "Everything". But it really doesn't matter, in the end.. everything is everything and it's all just as vast and magical and amazing no matter what you want to call it.


does this philosophical spark in you improve your life do you think?  can i ask about your mental status?

i have a theory that we self actualize once we first get a spark for something (like a hobby) then the sparks fly off in many directions and we become generalists


----------



## medical_meccanica

TearItDown said:


> Why do theists always have to argue semantics till they fucking die? If I had meant belief I would have said it. No, I meant to say religion. I'm glad that even though you try and twist words around, you agree that mainstream religion is not really doing as good as it should. It's corrupt, greedy, and violent, which is the point I was trying to make. I'm not sure if you read my first post, because you should already know that one of my biggest problems is how mainstream religion runs today. It's good to hear that some theists actually see these flaws, most just shrug is off and say that religion can do no harm.



I think theists are always seen to be arguing semantics because it is usually the _athiests_ who try to twist words around. I am more than happy to talk about God, but I like to stay on that topic and not have it _always_ lead to discussion of the evils of organised religion, which is a much more black and white discussion, I think. I think a _overwhelming_ percentage of people on this site would agree that religious institutions have exploited people and been the cause of suffering.

But if someone was to say "well belief in God is the cause of a lot of suffering"
I would have to say "whoa, actually, it's institutionalised religions that have caused suffering, not belief in concepts of God."

If the atheist believes that concepts of God cannot be separated from organised religion _and_ if the theist disagrees they are accused of arguing semantics. Really, in a more intellectual forum like this one, it is more that the theist is trying to establish what is actually being discussed, God or religion, because in my experience atheists interchange the two anytime is means they could gain some sort of 'upper hand' in the 'argument.'


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

qwe said:


> does this philosophical spark in you improve your life do you think?  can i ask about your mental status?
> 
> i have a theory that we self actualize once we first get a spark for something (like a hobby) then the sparks fly off in many directions and we become generalists



My mental status? lol... Do you mean am I happy, depressed, etc.

I would say I am a happy, positive person in general. I have my struggles like anyone else, although most of my struggles in life have revolved around some health problems/issues that I have had to deal with. Overall I consider myself very blessed to have been through what I've been through for everything my life thus far has taught me. I've been able to experience more things in my short days than some do in their entire life and that plays a role in my spirituality.

If I have a philosophical spark, I guess it's always been there. I've always been the way I am about God, religion, etc. My parents never had any religion or ideas about God when I was growing up so I found the concept of spirituality on my own, as a child. I feel blessed because my mind was always allowed to be so free, I was never taught fear, I was instead taught that the way I see the Universe is my truth and that there are many different ways of seeing or describing the truth, and that is how it should be. 



> But if someone was to say "well belief in God is the cause of a lot of suffering"
> I would have to say "whoa, actually, it's institutionalised religions that have caused suffering, not belief in concepts of God."



You're my new favorite bluelighter.


----------



## vegan

> ^
> Maybe, but you're not talking to the total human population, you're talking to S&P posters, who are talking about their own personal concept of God.


reread the posts
you understood... the opposite of my point


----------



## medical_meccanica

^
The impression I got was that you would prefer people to not use the term 'God' unless they are referring to a definition that fits into historical contexts of deities. You do not think it is appropriate to discuss an idea of universal consciousness under the banner of 'God,' because commonly in the general population that is not how the word is understood. (please correct me if I'm wrong!)

I was saying that you are not talking to the general population, and my impression of BL posters is that it is not rare for their concept of God to be defined as a higher/universal/collective consciousness, therefore on this site I think the use of the word God in this context is not misleading, as you suggested it might be.

I just think that if we are in a forum where we can discuss spirituality and refer to God without it instantly implying a physical being with super powers then we should be able to take advantage of that.


----------



## medical_meccanica

^
Why, thank you! :D

To be totally honest you've been one of my favourite posters since I signed up, I think we share many values.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

I agree that a word can have multiple meanings and uses. Word definitions shift over time and across cultures and subcultures, so it's kind of pointless to get irritated when someone uses a word to mean something that you don't use it to mean, or you aren't used to hearing it used to mean that. I agree that someone who's EVASIVE or won't explain their novel use of a word is very frustrating. But all you have to do usually is ask, 'What do you mean by ____?' and anyone who's not purposely trying to trick you will probably be happy to explain.

I see a strong preference for one set, precise definition for every word, and little patience with people taking liberties with the definitions of word, among people who work in the sciences. But what you must understand is that this is a conditioned preference that comes from a practical need in a specific field of work, much like former soldiers who fold their clothes and their bedsheets 'just so', because it's just what they're used to and just what feels right. It doesn't represent the way all language does or should work (That's a value judgement or opinion.). Outside of the practices of science and mathematics, it's not a standard you can reasonably hold people to.

Bottom line, in the larger world, a word means what people use it to mean.

Now, back on topic: The word 'God' comes from an Indo-European root having to do with invocation. The root of the word contains nothing explicit about a being in human-esque form. I highly encourage anyone to look up 'God' on dictionary.com -- many of the definitions do not explicitly favor this imagery in any way.

If you read up on the history and anthropology of world religions, too (or even just the history of religion in the West and the Middle East), I think you'll also find that conceptions of a Higher Power that are formless are anything but new or unprecedented. They may not currently hold as much popular sway as a grandfatherly figure who dwells above our world, but that's neither here nor there, if our argument concerns the existence of ANY higher power.

I think that if a higher power exists, it probably looks and behaves absolutely nothing like a human being or any other earthly creature. I don't doubt that a being with powers far beyond our human capabilities could be able to assume human form, if this suited its purposes, but that's not God's true form. If I'm speaking with someone whose concept of God is very concrete and anthropomorphized, I just tend to think that their hearts are in the right place, but they haven't given much thought to the nature of God.


----------



## Jamshyd

I personally never, ever use the word "God" when talking about my beliefs. It simply carries with it waaaaay too much conotational baggage and will serve no purpose other than to make the conversation counter-productive.

But then again, dissociation from nouns has always been a useful tool of mine. Why, just last week I legally changed my own name!

Detaching one's passions from words can go a long way to make you verbally-invincible, or as close as possible.


----------



## qwe

>>But if someone was to say "well belief in God is the cause of a lot of suffering"
I would have to say "whoa, actually, it's institutionalised religions that have caused suffering, not belief in concepts of God." >>

but belief in God led directly to these organized institutions and gave them the moral courage, blind faith, that allowed them to commit such attrocities!

but of course i admit, there'd be violence with or without religion.  just more systematized and more frequent violence if you have a centralized big badass church

@myname

awesome.  it's weird how some people have a curious/intellectual spark and some don't.  and it doesn't seem like it just appears, it seems to come really early or just in the genes*

* my advice to make the world a better place would be to have some babies.  that way, you can cancel out some of the babies born from negative nancies.8)jk


----------



## /navarone/

Finally someone put this question mark on the table.

It would be incredibly amusing to ask the same thing to the stereotypical protestant lecturer, just to see his mind slowly fuck up in confusing contradictions caused by the chaos of his undiscussable faith finally collapsing onto his reason.

I as well rarely tend to use the word God cause it would rather confuse people and make me look like an incoherent fool, however I do have my definition of god even if rather different from the usual connotations.
This is one of the reason why I loved Feuerbach and his Alienation theory. Many people took him for grated since he was immediately put to silence by the church but he had the guts to say what he though regardless of the consequences.

In my journey through the mind I came to the conclusion that the universe always existed and always will, that however doesn't intrinsically mean that the universe is not mutable, it can take millions of shapes, constantly reacting, expanding and collapsing into itself for eternity.
The physical entity of God is the whole universe as we define it (or trying to define) and will always follow its strict rules that we know as laws of physics.
However in this universe there is life which unlike mindless chaos of matter it is gifted with free will and reason which through our physical means (i.e. our body and its actions) can have an incredibly big, although not immense influence on the destiny of matter.

The word of God however does not reside in chaos but rather in the never-ending dungeons of life and its capability of consciousness even if we are way too stupid and short lived to understand it fully and that is why we pas our knowledge to the next generation in the hope that they will achieve something more.
Many people might attack me for what I said or am about to say but I again started to believe in a parallel reality which is reason walking hand in hand with goodwill and justice (i.e. Ethics) since something to truly exist does not necessarily have to be concrete or physical like the rest of matter and its elementary components. Like Hegel said: "All that is real is rational; and all that is ", and even the sense of justice, even if still imperfect, is highly rational when taken from the right point of view.

So to make it short, IMO, God has two entities: one physical that will always follow its laws and the other abstract/spiritual that is for us to uncover yet.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> but belief in God led directly to these organized institutions and gave them the moral courage, blind faith, that allowed them to commit such attrocities!



I suppose that would be true for some... it's something I've never understood, as my spirituality has always connected me to love and beauty and a place far away from such things.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

qwe said:


> but belief in God led directly to these organized institutions and gave them the moral courage, blind faith, that allowed them to commit such attrocities!



Not belief in God. Belief that they were justified in the eyes of God. People make up bullshit justifications for all kinds of messed up actions, and get really creative at finding sources of justification. Most of the most effective and popular of justifications I've heard used for intolerance, discrimination, and mistreatment have been entirely secular: allegations of uncleanly ways of living, accusations of cruelty and barbarity and therefore a lower level of civilization, scapegoating and stereotyping, throwing up one's hands and just saying 'you people' will never understand us OR we cannot fathom 'you people'.

There are deep and violent rifts in today's world between groups of people who share one popular religion, a common cultural heritage, and even a common language. There are serious tensions and animosities that remain in parts of the world that are largely irreligious -- Northeast Asia is a good example, or parts of the former USSR.

I just have a hard time seeing the historical evidence that blaming and excising organized religion for violence done in its name is really that effective in making the place less violent.

I don't deny that there are many places where levels of both violence and religiosity have declined at the same time. I don't deny that there are many places where both levels of violence and religiosity have risen at the same time. But I don't get the logical jump from this to 'Encouraging less religion will make society less violence prone'.



			
				qwe said:
			
		

> but of course i admit, there'd be violence with or without religion.  just more systematized and more frequent violence if you have a centralized big badass church



Yeah, I think that might be a problem with big institutions in general. They can move mountains -- and fling them at their enemies!


----------



## qwe

> Not belief in God. Belief that they were justified in the eyes of God. People make up bullshit justifications for all kinds of messed up actions, and get really creative at finding sources of justification


that's a really good point.  however, still, one less set of messed up justifications gone from this earth wouldn't be a bad thing.  religion tries to actively shape culture, throw it backwards in time, and it does so much damage culturally, spiritually, politically, economically, and individually


> I suppose that would be true for some... it's something I've never understood, as my spirituality has always connected me to love and beauty and a place far away from such things.


consider yourself more evolved (honestly)... but i just think you should save more of your support for spirituality, and less for religion.  religion does do some good, but if you weigh its good against its bad... but for individuals sometimes, religion is great for them.  though we can't discount the fact that it's all in their heads.  then again, everything is just a holographic projection our brain creates anyway, maybe everybody is the same distance from the truth

basically i'm saying the concept of spirituality applies much better for humans than religion, and support for religion is sorta sad to see.  then again, i would argue that religion came from spirituality in the first place.  maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing if we didn't have too much of it (like "big gov" and "too big to fail")

maybe we just need to decentralize and free trade everything and allow an equilibrium to develop, with guidance and funds from a central global congress, uniting the planet in peace and eliminating everything that is too big to fail.  but that's just me rambling politics..


----------



## medical_meccanica

^
The main difference between spirituality and religion in my eyes is that religion (in its ideal) implies a group of people exploring/worshipping the mystery of life together, and spirituality implies a personal exploration of meaning in an individual. I identify myself as spiritual but not religious probably because every religious group I have encountered are focused on tradition and their own exclusiveness, rather than the quest for meaning which most people face at some point in their lives.

I think you're right that once these groups of people become big enough to be institutionalised, that's when the focus probably does shift from each person's spiritual journey to the defining aspects of that group in particular. And an exclusive club sitting around discussing what makes it an exclusive club is boring, useless and usually problematic.

To me, good philosophical discussion regarding God/life/the universe with people who approach it with emotion and respect for others is the closest thing to the ideal of religious practice that I've been able to find.

I really liked your post, MyDoorsAreOpen


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Thank you medical meccanica. I liked yours too.

It's just that, I'm not sure you can stop people from gathering for the purpose of sharing a common spiritual vision. No democracy can, that's for sure. People are guaranteed the right to gather and affiliate for whatever purpose they want. And more authoritarian social structures have been hit or miss with regulating religion and dictating where people can and can't gather and worship.

I'm like you, dude. I'm pretty DIY when it comes to spiritual matters. But not everybody is like us. Some people just prefer to leave the finer points of spirituality to somebody else they feel they can trust, kind of the way most of us don't make our own pizza, even though we could. Picking your battles in this life and all that.

All we can ask, I feel, in this day and age, is that religious groups have people working for them who adhere to the law of the land while working in these groups' service, and don't intrude upon the lives of the other people they live amongst while practicing what they believe. Most small, benign religious groups that have tied a community of people together, have succeeded by not bothering anyone or drawing any negative attention to themselves in the greater community.

I feel religious communities whose teachings and ways of life are very much at odds with or antagonistic to the local populations they live amongst, would benefit a great deal by being told, in the words of their own holy texts, why it behooves them to be a bit more considerate and loving.


----------



## vegan

ok medical_meccanica
sorry. now i see what you meant

still, i don't see the point of "allowing" a small group to use the word "god" when talking to each other because this group is used to different concepts of "god"

when someone creates a new object, he gives a new name to it, right?
he doesn't call it a spoon
because a spoon already has a very clear definition

so why do some people here absolutely want to use the word "god", which has a very strict definition for everyone following a classic religion, within the group of posters here, and outside of this group

it's totally counter-productive
as soon as you'll take the conversation outside of this forum, you'll be faced by people misunderstanding what you say because you're saying "spoon" when you actually mean "this invention that allows you to fly" (for instance)

we may be talking to ourselves right now, but if a new poster appears, he won't understand what we're talking about

and it will be the same as soon as someone will take this topic outside of this forum
(i hope some people intend to do so, because talking to the 10 same people is only fun for a while, and if the conversation only stays in this forum, the progression will be lost)

as navarone says in the last post, if someone uses "god" when talking about a different concept from the classical god, or says "spoon" when talking about a "plane", "it would rather confuse people and make him look like an incoherent fool"



> Why, just last week I legally changed my own name!


looking to work in thailand again? 
don't forget the dye
what's your name now? (by the way, here it's very common. mainly if people consider that their name has given them bad luck. i met several people who did)


----------



## KingdomCome

It's the feeling that drugs give you, when you're high, it almost feels like all of the positive religion based stuff is true, then once the high is off it disappears.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Maybe for you...? 

I certainly had a spirituality long before I ever did any drug.


----------



## qwe

i agree that my spiritual spark came at a younug age (elementary age?) but once i took those mushrooms (and pot) that spark became a flame

the spirituality feeling isn't supposed to "go away", though.  you might just be talking about drug symptoms lingering @kingdom


----------



## Bidcore

I had the spiritual spark at a young age too.. around 13 onwards it began to develop. I would sit there and think about the interactions between everything - atoms, plants, animals... and I would question. I would think about why it all exists, and for one split second I would have this moment of pure clarity and understanding.... when it faded I could not even begin to tell you what I had thought of...
I don't get it as much, but I still can get it say when I'm watching the Planet Earth series of docos.
Ahhh the universe is amazing. It's a shame people have to trivialize and dumb it down by saying that a sentient God being created it all.
If I were to hazard a guess I would say it is far more complex and wonderous than that.


----------



## /navarone/

"We spend our whole life trying to figure out our own stupidity in other to know what is right and wrong, religions are meant to do this for you by putting their unquestionable philosophy of life in a creative tale"

something i wrote a few months ago...


----------

