The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > No god doesn’t mean life is dull, monotonous or pointless > Comments

No god doesn’t mean life is dull, monotonous or pointless : Comments

By Jake Farr-Wharton, published 4/11/2011

A naturalistic interpretation of the universe is both valid and far from depressing.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
As the years roll by, as a collective community, we are continually
communicating with each other in order to improve the human condition.
First word of mouth, wall paintings and smoke signals. Then the invention of writing on stone and paper, the invention of printing, the book,film and the newspaper. Morse code then radio, talk-back on radio. Television and the computer.
Our brain is continually sifting information. we are now more aware than ever before about where we come from and where we are heading.
Through all of these mediums individuals have set themselves up to try and manipulate the majority for their own ends.
If we can work out a system whereby the common good is always paramount we will be on our way to Utopia.
Posted by Raise the Dust, Friday, 4 November 2011 8:34:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raise the Dust I couldn't agree with you more but from my view point I see the human race losing their compassion and accepting that 1% of the world population control the other 99% and unfortunately they are amoral, unethical, greedy and manipulative.

As for the existence of God the writers argument holds no original ideas they are the same as many that preceded it. My question to the writer is who created the gasses, molecules etc that over a period of billions of years evolved into Homo Sapiens? It is as illogical to believe that something simply existed without stimulus as it is to believe in God. in fact you believe in God to you it is evolution
Posted by Ulis, Friday, 4 November 2011 5:26:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My question to Ulis is: "who created the God whom you believe created the gasses, molecules etc that over a period of billions of years evolved into Homo Sapiens?" If one needs 'creating' then why not the other?

"It is as illogical to believe that something simply existed without stimulus as it is to believe in God."

The difference is that we have evidence for the existence of one and not the other. It's not illogical to believe in the existence of something in the past when you can see it exists now. God, on the other hand...

But the paucity of responses to this article suggests that Jake is preaching to the converted anyway.
Posted by Jon J, Saturday, 5 November 2011 8:30:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ulis,

Is it equally illogical to think that God came into existence without stimulus?

What is God?
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 5 November 2011 9:14:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking as a Christian, I can only agree with the author that there is no “benevolent, interventional/interactive creator whom you appease during your life in hopes of a blissful immortality in the form of an afterlife”. I also agree with him that this view is not “akin to claiming that the universe is dull and monotonous and ultimately pointless.”

Investigating the universe is a never-ending and exciting adventure, each new scientific discovery giving rise to new awe and new questions to ponder. And that is in addition to the utilitarian justifications for the quest.

None of these things, however, dissuades me from trying to come closer to God.
Posted by crabsy, Saturday, 5 November 2011 11:48:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Google chart plots the population of the world from year 1800 when it was at one billion humans to this year, 2011, in which it has reached seven billions.

The extrapolation of this graph to the end of this century points to a figure of 14 billions.

Will people stop breeding from the year 2100 on?

Yes. God will see to it.

He has the powers to provide some more space for us, either by increasing the surface of this planet or creating a twin planet next to it.

Besides,God has a stake in man’s life as, if all humans die, there will be no need for Gods.
Posted by skeptic, Saturday, 5 November 2011 5:28:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
she'll be jake..quote..
""to many theists,..is a terrifying proposition.""

nopt really..i would be comforted
if one of you clever a-thiest..guys would give some definitive proof
that god dont egsist..it would greatly free me to clear out some of those i now am forced to love..because thats what god want's/expects[me/us to love][expects us..to show grace mercy..charety kindness etc]

but if god dont egsist
well heck we could simply pull a few corrupt weeds

so i will read your rave with great care

''The Natural Nature of Nature''

got that right
its not the science of nature..cause science dont claim 'nature'..nor natural nor nurture[only scientific observer staus..

that generates theories and hypothesis
but little 'faulsifyable fact,..especially regarding the process you call wevolution..[as in macro evolution..that lol..evolves a bacteria from a virus..or a fish into a cow]

SHOW me the first
warmblood mammal/coldblood fish
[ie that gap between fish..[coldblood fins scales]
and warm blood fur mammal with legs/hips shoulderblades

how dare you claim to explain..""The argument from design""

IF YOU GOT FACTS of science proof
PRESENT THEM

name the first 'life'
name the efolution it evolved into

JUST GIVE TWO NAMES
and present their micro dna change
that might validate macro evolution..into new genus

""all you need to do is look at the human hand""

thats right..show me sciences best 'hand'
it is very poor compared to the two hands god made for you
[each with their own fingerprint..own dna]

SCIENCES attempts to make a hand
cant even come close

while werre at it..make some life..by science method
[use your own cell..dont just scoop the dna from a living bacteria

and insert a psssweak twenty basepair..strand of lab made dna..
and decieve imbisiles..you made life...[lol]

heck just try to make a cell membrane
you cant..[live with it]

you got a theory
not a science
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 6 November 2011 9:20:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author is well intended but unfortunately reinforces the "cold and mechanical" stereotype of us atheists.

We need to distinguish between beliefs and values. Atheists are very good about beliefs: reason and science reign supreme, hip hip hooray. But alas, atheists are largely mute about the subject of values.

And when believers throw out the "cold and mechanical" nihilist charge, it is the lack of values they are talking about.

Roving off onto a tangent about the wonderment of scientific discoveries is hardly going to make a case that us atheists have developed a compelling value system to rival religion, or that the humanist movement has matured into rearing communities around such values.

No, the wonderment of science doesn't answer the question of where atheists get their values from, nor which package/philosophy of values we ought to promote.

And the reason atheists rarely talk about values is, ironically, that there is only one place atheists can get their values from without a god: that place is emotion/feelings. (cue the dramatic music).

And we all know if you talk to an atheist about emotions they'll likely scurry off to the nearest nerd convention. They are rendered mute when a question cannot be answered by reason and science.

Cue David Hume: "Reason is... the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them".

Cue Bertrand Russell: "All human activity is prompted by desire... If you wish to know what men will do, you must know ... the whole system of their desires with their relative strengths."

Dang! Everything old is new again.

So there you go. If atheists want to dispel the "cold and mechanical" stereotype then we have to develop a philosophy of desire. Wonderment is nice, but it doesn't really address the question.

So that's the challenge for the next generation of atheist/humanist leaders: to articulate a value system in the language of desire. No small task...
Posted by mralstoner, Sunday, 6 November 2011 10:02:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I disagree, mralstoner.

>>So that's the challenge for the next generation of atheist/humanist leaders: to articulate a value system in the language of desire.<<

You make the mistake that so many theists make, which is to assume that atheism is just an alternative form of religion, that needs "leaders" in the same way that religion does. Further, that it is the responsibility of those leaders to "articulate a value system".

Atheists are united under only one banner: we don't accept that there is this thing called "God", who, in various different guises in the many different religions that exist, provides mankind with an alternative father figure.

Apart from that, we either accept or reject the social and ethical norms in exactly the same way that Christians - or members of any other sect, come to that - either do or do not "sin". Fortunately for the world and its harmony, we choose good over evil in pretty much the same proportions as religious folk... with one small exception: we don't tend to go to war in the name of atheism, while history is littered with conflicts that only began because two sets of religious folk disagreed.

If ever there appeared an atheist "leader", I, for one, would refuse to follow him on principal. The image of a whole lot of people accepting the leadership of one individual's "value system" smacks to me of another religion in the making.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 7 November 2011 7:55:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, your neutrality is a facade. None of us can be neutral.

All atheists are human, all humans have a value system, therefore all atheists have a value system.

Your value system is something like liberalism, anti-authoritarian, fear of cults, live and let live, etc.

That's OK, that's your choice. But I think that's no way to build a community that I would want to live in. It's risky business leaving a vacuum of leadership and values.

If you don't spoon feed the folks with the values that you want propagated, well, history shows that some other fool will lead them astray.

Humanism needs structure, content, community, leaders, memes, ideas that survive generations.

You have a fear of value systems, cults, and leaders for some reason. It may make you feel good but it won't build any lasting humanist movement. Humanism, of a kind we'd want to live in, will die if it doesn't mature and solidify.

You are a member of the cult of liberal humanism: a dangerously vacuous cult, if you ask me. I don't deny your right to advocate liberalism, but I will surely point out the dangers of it.

You are probably the kind of person who thinks any semblance of groupthink inevitably leads to stifling repression. I think we're both well aware of the dangers of groupthink. The question is: are you aware of the dangers of no groupthink? Apparently not.
Posted by mralstoner, Monday, 7 November 2011 10:12:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles said: "The image of a whole lot of people accepting the leadership of one individual's "value system" smacks to me of another religion in the making."

You smacked yourself for no reason. I never said the humanist movement had to be autocratic. Humanism should be a contested movement, equipped with knowledge of human nature, and empowered by free speech. The philosophy/values that resonate the most with people will then rise to the top. This is how to build a democratic humanism that is truly representative of human values.
Posted by mralstoner, Monday, 7 November 2011 10:22:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o0hh dear..wrre getting into a'thiest's
and thiests topic...oh well..next we get to evolution
so here

lets save some time

we coverd these topic many times
from many aspects

athiest's
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4698&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4683&page=0

spitual athiesm
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12050&page=0

species
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4591&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4225&page=0
religeon/evolution

evolution
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11112&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4568&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4556&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4579&page=0

morality
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11163&page=0

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11008&page=0

so i started my own topic
asking evolutionists only please
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3124&page=0

which has many more links
it continued at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2411&page=0

but lets look at your proof

tezzra
name the first life
name what it evolved into

give me the proof
for even one evolution..*OUT of genus
into a new genus..name names or admit

you got faith in the THEORY
of evolution..not proof

ie you got not one proof..for your faith in science
thus have only exchanged one belief SYSTEM..with an other
or else you would present it..[name names mate..]

the same science peers..that sold us on evolutions THEORY
are trying to sell us a new global tax..[for speculaters to set a market price on]

[ie to get a new tradable commodity...
from thin air]..nice cash flow if you can fool the people again

it barely needs rementioning
but that fanmouse case on evolution..didnt find against creation

if found science class wasnt the place to teach religeon
nothing more nothing less..[then the spin machine went to work

just like its doing now with change[not degfinitive cooling or warming]

lest we forget that huge cfc hole in the ozone layer
that said warming..!..[so is cfc warming..or c02]

thing is cfc means
we cant speculate up the carbon permits

its all froth and bubble folks
make you feel good ol fashend guilt

while stealing you blind...
and INCREASING your c02 consumption
re-building our power services..with expensive quick fixes..
that wont out-last their repayment of the loans[at intrest]..

to 'fix a lie'
sold to the fooled by science
materialists..doing busines as usual

consume
we will even subsidise your con-sumption
then you can feel more clever than the denia-list

smug became a drug
Posted by one under god, Monday, 7 November 2011 11:22:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am perfectly happy to hold different views to yours, mralstoner.

But I would appreciate it if you didn't spend quite so much time misrepresenting my opinion.

>>Pericles, your neutrality is a facade.<<

Neutrality? I consider my position to be far from "neutral". It is definitely atheist, and positively against organized religion. What on earth is neutral about that?

>>If you don't spoon feed the folks with the values that you want propagated, well, history shows that some other fool will lead them astray.<<

Strange observation. The twentieth century is littered with nations being spoon-fed their values by their leaders. Think 1930s Germany, that hot-bed of Catholic nationalism. The citizens weren't being oppressed at the time, which could certainly excuse those living through China's Cultural revolution, or as citizens of the Soviet Empire.

Show me a leader "spoon-feeding" values, and I'll show you a despot.

>>You have a fear of value systems, cults, and leaders for some reason.<<

Remember what I said about misrepresenting my position? Sure, I detest cults, that part is accurate. But I have absolutely no problem with leaders per se, the only exception being those who "spoon-feed" me their values.

And I most certainly do not fear value systems. We all have them, some are more acceptable than others. But when I hear someone tell the world that their value system is somehow superior to others, that's when I smell a tyrant in the making.

>>You are probably the kind of person who thinks any semblance of groupthink inevitably leads to stifling repression<<

Now you are simply being fanciful. I "probably" think nothing of the kind, nor do you have any indication that I do.

But you need to make up your mind a little: which is the worse crime you perceive in me, being anti-spoon-feeding-leader or being anti-groupthink?

My simple mind tells me that they are mutually exclusive. Especially to someone who is "neutral".

>>I never said the humanist movement had to be autocratic.<<

But it needs an autocratic leader, to spoon-feed values to the folks, right?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 7 November 2011 11:48:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking of cults, I find humanism one of the worst.

Atheism does not scare me - one can be a decent atheist and as close to God as others who formally profess to be religious believers. In any case, the absence of belief in God does not imply the absence of God!

Humanism, on the other hand, is a form of idolatry, of worshiping man in place of God. It presumes that man has a special place and value in the universe and although it falls short of formally claiming that man is God, that's what humanism is ultimately about, attributing man and his life with the highest consideration, which should be reserved to God alone.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 12:06:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"the absence of belief in God does not imply the absence of God!"

The corollary of this is that belief in God does not imply the existence of God.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 8:13:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The corollary of this is that belief in God does not imply the existence of God."

Thank God for this - a God that exists is actually a logical contradiction and a disgrace to His name. Lets not mix up God with the illusion of existence.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 9:56:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's not mix up Yuyutsu with the illusion of reasoned argument : )

If God is outside "existence"...perhaps we should concentrate on the concept of God. Things can exist as a concept - yes?
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 10:22:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haven’t had time to read the comments yet, but that at least ensures I won’t be influenced by others’ opinions…

Perhaps a nice conclusion could be something like: there is now more evidence of the fact that life emerged from chemical processes, than there is for suggesting the existence of a creator; or, there are some leaps to be made in order to “believe” in evolution, but that’s nothing compared to the leap you need to make to claim that we were all made according to the way any of the religious texts describe.

For me though, the trouble with this article is that it doesn’t quite have enough to convince a religious person that the world isn’t “natural, cold, and mechanical”. I was very interested in science in my younger years and even started my first degree in chemistry and molecular biology, but at the tender age of 18 I decided I needed more than that – ie if life is nothing but a series of chemical reactions, then yes like a theist I would say that it begs the question, what’s the point in living? So I went and found out!
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 11:53:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[cont]

The reason I think life is worth living is that people do have something like a “soul”. It’s not immortal – it dies with your brain. But it can be moved and shaken in delightful or disturbing ways by external stimuli, or through the machinations of its own thoughts, and it can be perceived by others. The Western canon since about the 15th century is pretty much wholly taken up with identifying a secular framework for life’s meaning and ethics. I’m not enough of an expert on it to explain how this is the case. But basically all I’ve ever really learnt is that life is a journey, and all you have to do is to spend it doing something you think is worthwhile, and stop doing the things you don’t, stay curious and keep learning and pushing yourself, surround yourself and interact with people you like, shut out people you dislike only after giving them a fair go, be judicious about what (or whether) you contribute to the next generation, cultivate your methods of escapism because you can’t be good all the time, and if existential angst takes you over, go visit a graveyard, read the gravestones of people you didn’t know when they were alive, and whose souls have died, and realise that’s all you’ll be if you top yourself. Might as well stick around until it’s over, because it will be, sooner than you think.

Do all of the above, and you’ll quickly find that religion provides insufficient sustenance for your soul. And if it does, try harder, because it's the easy way out. Still, I'm happy for people to make up their own minds.
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 11:55:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sam Jandwich,

Thanks for that....most uplifting : )
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 12:04:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The foolishness that comes from those who deny their Creator shows itself every time they open their mouths and deny the obvious. No wonder our loony bins are full of confused messed up people. The faith in mankind can only lead to delusion. Look at the messed up lives of the High Priests who preach their outward self righteousness in order to mask the greed, unfaithfulness and envy in their hearts. Thankfully it is the messed up, the broken and humble who find peace through the forgiveness of sin and the mercy shown by God. The self righteous will continue on their road of destruction trying to convince others that they have answers. Their faith defies belief.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 12:29:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's unfair, runner.

>>Look at the messed up lives of the High Priests who preach their outward self righteousness in order to mask the greed, unfaithfulness and envy in their hearts.<<

Not all priests are like that. Some of them work in poor parishes, with very little by way of the overt finery that some churches flaunt in front of their congregation. Very few, as a percentage of the population, actually molest choirboys. And many do actually continue as priests despite their obvious envy of those who are able to conduct normal lives.

It may seem a "messed-up life" to you. But they chose to do it. And a few do actually feel that they are doing good, I am told.

Altogether very uncharitable and judgemental of you.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 12:45:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"perhaps we should concentrate on the concept of God. Things can exist as a concept - yes?"

Yes, without a doubt, Poirot, not only do they exist, but in fact there are many different concepts of God, not just one.

Yet why should we bother about them? - concepts are ephemeral, and as such, dull, monotonous and pointless.

My love and devotion is towards God, not towards a concept.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 1:14:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

Your love and devotion is toward "your concept" of God.

If you didn't first hold the concept, you would be unable to project love and devotion (or anything) toward God.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 1:35:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If you didn't first hold the concept, you would be unable to project love and devotion (or anything) toward God."

Well, that's a limited view, like someone who never ate with his/her hands saying: "If you didn't first hold a fork and a knife, you would be unable to eat".

I can't personally boast of not being guilty of having a concept of God, but I do try to ignore it as best I can in my devotion, because when approaching God, concepts are a handicap.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 1:46:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

"a God that exists is actually a logical contradiction"

"My love and devotion is towards God, not towards a concept."

How can you have love and devotion for something which doesn't exist?
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 1:53:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

<<If you didn't first hold the concept, you would be unable to project love and devotion (or anything) toward God.>>

I know we've been through it all before, but I have to say that perception, no matter how faint, can precede conceptualisation. Perhaps it's an inevitable human tendency to form concepts and they are of course necessary. But we need to avoid them in the approach to God. As Yuyutsu says, they just obstruct the path towards God (or the Ground of Being, or the Holy Other, or whatever term one might prefer). We can never capture God in concepts, no matter how hard we try, and the effort to do so keeps us away from God. (But then, of course, we can't capture God at all by any means!)

So in meditation I try to abandon concepts.

Acolyte:

<<How can you have love and devotion for something which doesn't exist?>>

God insists that God does not exist! Existence is not the only sort of being.
Posted by crabsy, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 2:28:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
crabsy,

"God insists that God does not exist!"

You realise that this statement is paradoxical, don't you?

"Existence is not the only sort of being."

What other sorts of being are there?
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 2:33:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crabsy,

Perception can precede conceptualisation...interesting. I suppose it can, yet in order to project something like the concepts or feelings involved in love and devotion, isn't it necessary to have a concept of the entity onto which one is projecting them?
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 2:57:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Acolyte:

<<You realise that this statement is paradoxical, don't you?>>

Only the intellect finds a paradox, because it's the intellect that forms concepts and employs logic. If the quest is to come closer to God then the intellect can be a barrier.

<<What other sorts of being are there?>>

Insistence. God is not an object, not an entity, not supernatural...God insists.

Poirot:

<<...yet in order to project something like the concepts or feelings involved in love and devotion, isn't it necessary to have a concept of the entity onto which one is projecting them?>>

No. The fundamental source of devotion is a sense of gratitude welling up from the depths -- profound thankfulness for life, beauty, the universe, everything. This can occur without any image or conception of the source of what I'm thankful for.
Posted by crabsy, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 4:22:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
crabsy:" If the quest is to come closer to God then the intellect can be a barrier."

Ain't that the truth.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 5:28:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the god insists
thus that he egsists topic
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11008&page=0

i feel that god is in our goodness
or rather the oneness of our enjoined goodness

we hear of atonment...note
at-one-meant..

think of this we are flesh..
animated as much chemicly as electonicly
so

our muscles move by an electric impluse..
our brain has electric sig-nature

this elect-trick-al emination gives us the image
we see in a kirilan photograph..but essentialy is energy

science law says energy cant be created nor destroyed
so one second your 'living'..the next your 'dead'

but think
where did..all that mind/muscle 'energy'..go to
[to the collective at one=meant..we call god..[the collective sum total of all that ever was ..all that ever can be..and all that ever will be

the collective inteligence..
collective life..collective logic
that calls itself simply 'i am'

we live in a finite expanding uni=verse
in time it expands into so finer divisions..
it disipitates out..into the aether..[again]..

till in time
bits start attracting togeter
and instead of expanding..the mass starts collapsing in on itself
with such impetus..that it condenses in its final[pre big bang..size]

when once again a small change of state
[and the earth was yet again..'without form'
and yes the darkness was on the face of the deep

and yes the collective good..[god]
mooves..yet again..on the face of the waters

and the innocent [of all living loving grace and mercy
gets his/her own re birth moment..[emerging from the waters]

dares to say,..
wtf..'let there be light'

and with a big bang*..
behold it shon for miles

and the collective at=one-meant..saw that yet again
its all goog..[all god]

i insist..!
thus i egsist
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 9 November 2011 7:06:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"How can you have love and devotion for something which doesn't exist?"

I enjoyed Crabsy's answers while I was timed out. Now let me put it in my own words:

A better question is "How, and why would you, love and be devoted to something which does exist?"

There is nothing but God - existence is an illusion, so if you ever loved or adored anything or anyone (including yourself), then you loved and adored God, only you probably did so in an unconscious and indirect way.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 9 November 2011 8:08:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, now we have the claim that our very existence is an illusion.

>>There is nothing but God - existence is an illusion...<<

There must come a point, surely, when it starts to dawn on these folk that the very fact that they need to pervert the English language in order to describe God, indicates the utter shallowness of their ideas.

It reminds me of those 1960s hippies, who had collectively discovered that dope turns them into semi-geniuses, as they all sat around telling each other "wow, man, that's so... true!"

How empty can your thinking get, guys?

"There is nothing but God"

I wonder how Ivan Milat fits the "nothing but" concept. Or Anders Behring Breivik.

"Existence is an illusion".

That's interesting. So Jesus' existence was an illusion? I suspect there are a few devout Christians who might disagree with that idea, Yuyutsu. I'm sure Peter Sellick is right there with you, though, it's right up his street.

But honestly, what utter tosh.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 9 November 2011 3:57:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do I cease to exist when God realises he is a metaphysical solipsist?
Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 10 November 2011 3:15:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
per ridicules is so good at picking out a brief line
then using it out of context..to garner his harvest

if only things were as simple as he thinks
but he is SUSTAINED TO LIVE..by the same life sustaining good

he is living this same dream of sepperatness
even here ammoung others of like ilk..as himself..and my self

look at yourself..ol mate
that you you call you..mate that is more than you
[its over a trillion other life forms..living in and on you

without them doing 'their thuing'
you couldnt 'do' your thing

if the yeasts didnt do as yeast do
if the acids didnt do what they do
if your body didnt have the bugs in/on it
no life can live [of itself]..not even yours

there is a bigger picture...you
[and i]..arnt 'just' you and i..its a host of other living things

collectivly..[in total]..all life has the same life sustainer
all living the gift of their life..given faclitated..sustained..by god

if you got proof of no god
or that you can make you live..[by your will alone]..

please present it
your clever enough to know you cant

you got opinion..thats all
just like we got

as the koran says
first make just one like it
[ie first make yoyur own life]..before decrying
the good god of life/nature/nurture..doing it all

such is his nature
serving the best equally the least
their life gift

the one good living loving god
doing it all..for all of us

till you prove different..
got any proof ol mate
or just opinion?
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 10 November 2011 7:17:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

Sounds like you're a devotee of Bishop Berkeley. An interesting philosophical position, if not a particularly sound one. But even within subjective idealism, spirits and ideas still have existence. 'Cogito ergo sum' constitutes a sound rebuttal of the notion that existence is an illusion.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Thursday, 10 November 2011 9:09:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who is Bishop Berkeley, Rizla?

Why can't I just think for myself?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 10 November 2011 9:13:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, you know what happens when you think for yourself Yuyutsu.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 10 November 2011 9:53:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

Bishop Berkeley:
http://bit.ly/toYBHJ

You can - nobody has control over what you think. It's just that chances are, somebody else has already had the idea, and in many cases written it down for future generations. Original ideas are rare beasts.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Thursday, 10 November 2011 12:18:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Rizla.

From my first glimpse at Berkeley's theory, I can already see one difference:

Berkeley claims that tables and chairs do not exist, but are ideas in the minds of perceivers.
I do find that odd - I never deny that tables and chairs do exist. What I am saying is that existence itself is an illusion. Also, I don't claim that existence is an idea in the mind, but that it is rather a perceptual illusion, that what we perceive as existence, along with all existing forms and shapes within it, truly is God, for there is nothing but Him.

'Cogito ergo sum': I am under the illusion that I think, therefore I am deluded that I exist.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 10 November 2011 3:21:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

"I am under the illusion that I think"

Well, you certainly got that part right.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Thursday, 10 November 2011 4:14:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think I get it, Yuyutsu.

>>I never deny that tables and chairs do exist. What I am saying is that existence itself is an illusion.<<

So, the existence of tables and chairs is an illusion, but you don't deny that they exist.

>>what we perceive as existence, along with all existing forms and shapes within it, truly is God<<

So tables and chairs are... God?

Oh.

>>'Cogito ergo sum': I am under the illusion that I think, therefore I am deluded that I exist<<

Deep. Reminds me of something... ah yes. The great Douglas Adams.

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Fit the Twelfth.

................................

ZAPHOD:
He-heh. Man, like, er, man, what’s your name?

MAN IN SHACK:
I don’t know. Why, do you think I ought to have one? It seems odd to give a bundle of vague sensory perceptions a name.

ZARNIWOOP:
Listen, we must ask you some questions.

MAN IN SHACK:
All right. You can sing to my cat if you like.

ARTHUR:
Would he like that?

MAN IN SHACK:
You’d better ask him that.

ZARNIWOOP:
How long have you been ruling the universe?

MAN IN SHACK:
Ah! This is a question about the past, is it?

ZARNIWOOP:
Yes.

MAN IN SHACK:
How can I tell that the past isn’t a fiction designed to account for the discrepancy between my immediate physical sensations and my state of mind?

ZARNIWOOP:
Do you answer all questions like this?

MAN IN SHACK:
I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things. More, I cannot say.

ZARNIWOOP:
No, Listen. People come to you, yes?

MAN IN SHACK:
I think so.

ZARNIWOOP:
And they ask you to take decisions about wars, about economies, about people, about everything going on out there in the Universe?

MAN IN SHACK:
I only decide about my universe. My universe is what happens to my eyes and ears - anything else is surmise and hearsay: for all I know these people may not exist. You may not exist. I say what it occurs to me to say.

..............................

Classic.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 10 November 2011 4:36:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu: <<'Cogito ergo sum': I am under the illusion that I think, therefore I am deluded that I exist.>>

Acolyte: <<"I am under the illusion that I think"...Well, you certainly got that part right.>>

Your laughter rings through your words, Acolyte, and mine joins with yours! To the ego the notion of its own non-existence is truly hilarious in its absurdity. That's because the ego is founded on its innate will which was originally set free by God, but in its pride the ego denies that. Once we cut through all the elaborate constructions we erect to hide the truth, we realise the joke we have played on ourselves.

Wm Trevor: <<Do I cease to exist when God realises he is a metaphysical solipsist?>>

I would question the choice of words, but you may be on track to real insight there. Unconsciously perhaps?

Is God's creation a cosmic joke? Perhaps the more we drop our ego-defences the more we might admit the joke, join in the fun and participate with abundant joy in God's creation.
Posted by crabsy, Thursday, 10 November 2011 4:52:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I would question the choice of words..."

This from a guy who tried to single-handedly redefine the word 'insist'.

Yes, I would agree that the creation of God is a cosmic joke.
After I got it, I laughed until I cried.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 10 November 2011 5:05:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’m afraid all we’re seeing here from Yuyutsu and Crabsy is pure wordplay - nothing more. Wordplay employed with the sole intent of setting up a new God whom they hope to shelter entirely from all criticism.

I suspect Dawkins is on to something in his prediction that religion will probably die a very quick death if this is where it’s headed.

Even if you could indoctrinate a child with such a convoluted and sophisticated theology, the utterly inconsequential nature of it would, I suspect, see only a very few of those indoctrinated notions of God ever survive teenage angst or a complete lack of interest in such seemingly pointless intellectual pursuits.

No, this highly convoluted version of theology (and as Pericles noted, perversion of the English language) is not a starting point for indoctrination but the last refuge of a belief taking cover from a barrage of reason in an increasingly educated world.

This new God we’re seeing is simply an invention by those whose intellects have lead them to a point that they find incredibly uncomfortable and so, instead of facing reality, they invent a new God and make him even more absurd and even more mysterious than the ones who came before it.

All this new brand of theist has done, is come to the realisation that the more literal interpretations of God are fundamentally false; that they’re internally incoherent; that they contradict themselves and everything we know about reality and are abominations by ignorant savages trying desperately to understand the world, and failing.

But they at least did a good job of trying and they came up with explanations that not only seemed plausible at the time, but still seem plausible to anyone not willing to investigate reality.

Sorry guys, but until either one of you can so much as begin to demonstrate that there is any substance at all to any of your claims, then they are no less absurd than my claim that the Cosmic Space Pixie created everything five minutes ago and implanted our brains with fake memories, and should be treated thusly.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 10 November 2011 9:00:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aj/quote..''All this new brand of theist has done, is come to the realisation that the more literal interpretations of God are fundamentally false;""

mate the concept of god being the dreamer
and we the dream..isnt a new thought
its been arround for a long time

at its root lies the fact we are
thus the reason for our being [god]..is more real than we be

that if we boil it down..we egsist
because he insists[and it was an athiest who started that thread]

""that they’re internally incoherent;"'

says you who are a-thiest'..lol
cant makeup your own name"

""that they contradict themselves"'

yes an all athiests are of one like mind..[lol]

""and everything we know about reality""

comes from our life experiences...and study
just like yourn

""and are abominations""

say you
pewww

""by ignorant savages"'

you sure got it all...lol
and bias too..[oh well this is god giving you frewill]

your just like us
""trying desperately to understand the world, and failing.""

[even a dead clock is right twice a day

""But they""
who is 'they'?

who..""at least did a good job of trying
and they came up with explanations that not only seemed plausible at the time, but still seem plausible to anyone not willing to investigate reality.""

they athiest?
they thiest?
they yours?
they is mine?

till we..""demonstrate that there is any substance at all to any of your claims,""

and remove mankinds freewill
remove our ability to believe or not..AS WE CHOSE

mate god wont let that happen

he dont want min dless slaves
he wants[eventually]..equals

grownups..with chooices
not children with blind obediances

""implanted our brains with fake memories,""

no of course materialists
crass comercialism[spin]..dont play with our minds

heck all mankind
has had its control freaks..
and liars..and spin..control freaks..thus all

"should be treated thusly."

tainted..

only god is pure

and as good/god..is within all living
all life deserves respect..regardless..of other judgments
Posted by one under god, Friday, 11 November 2011 6:33:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you AJ Philips.

That's the post I would have written if my eyes hadn't been full of tears. Whether they were tears of laughter, or despair at the futility of trying to engage with such nonsense, I couldn't really tell.

The linkage you make with the potential death of religion is a telling one. For centuries, religion has relied for its continuity upon the use of simple stories to impress children. I personally remember them well - my copy of the Christian Bible has illustrations interspersed among the tales, mostly of a long-golden-haired Jesus doing his miracles and being thoroughly nice to everyone.

To shift the simple "be nice" concepts into the realms of double-speak and double-think as our friends crabsy and Yuyutsu have done, is a classic marketing error. The audience here is too smart and knowledgeable to fall for its faux-sophistication, and the traditional audience it should be reaching - wide-eyed kiddies - would be unable to relate to it.

I don't think that they will single-handedly destroy religion, though, any more than Dawkins will. There remains a fundamental need in the human psyche for an idealized father-figure who tells you what to do, as a safe haven from actually having to take responsibility for your own decisions. This need isn't going to go away, and it certainly won't be rationalized out of existence by pseudo-intellectualizing religion's purported foundations.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 11 November 2011 8:36:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one under god,

Once again, I can really only guess here, because your posts are all Greek to me... something about non-functional timepieces being an abomination? What's so terrible about timekeeping devices which don't work properly, one under god?
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 11 November 2011 10:28:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Phillips, Pericles and anyone else:

1 You both seem to be as hooked on literalism as the religious fundamentalists you often berate. For you, a word must mean only what a dictionary or everyday conventions say it means, and you rail against any attempt to play with words in pursuit of bringing fresh insight. The “word-play” you deride is how our language and culture has been enriched for untold centuries. Without it there would be no poetry, for example. In the case of experience of the Divine/God/One/whatever, whom we can never satisfactorily describe, everyday language is useless and so it must be stretched, twisted, played with if we are to give even an inkling of the experience.

2 You cling to the belief that the child’s idea of God is the same God towards whom the faith of all Christian adults reaches. That is simply wrong. Spirituality must mature if it is to be healthy for an adult: after childhood it is unhealthy to have “an idealized father-figure” as your notion of God. It seems that, because you never really explored spiritually beyond that childish stage and then rejected the notion of God that you had encountered, you now always think of all belief in God as childish. Know that there are many Christians throughout the world who have passed beyond the Oedipal phase, no longer projecting a parent-image into the sky, no longer wanting to be absolved of “responsibility for their own decisions”. And yet they are still finding real creativity, love and joy in God, inspiring them to contribute that to the world.

3 You can be a great and good human being while still calling yourself an atheist or agnostic, and many people are doing just that. They have my respect and admiration. I aim not to “convert” anyone to Christianity or any religion but to convey some insights that I cannot conceal. My language obviously fails to earn your respect, but I persevere because some experiences or views of reality just demand expression, whatever the reception might be. God insists.
Posted by crabsy, Friday, 11 November 2011 1:05:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
acolyte:..as person assisting a priest
or as the ass-istant or follower

regardless the illiterate accolite rizzlala..wrote

quote''What's so terrible about timekeeping devices
which don't work properly,..one under god?''

clearly not reading in full..my posts
has confused you..never the less i will explain

time is relitive...even the motions of the heavens
dont match the neded materialistic precision..

the matrerial measure of time is flawed
[and i see nuthin wrong with that..this material realm is far from perfect..[said to be the realm of satan]..so its best we learn to not expect any perfections here..[in this time and space]

its difficult to guess why you made your request
no doudt it would link back to the 6 days of creation..or some other athiest ocolite destractions..[so let try to head these off at the pass..cut them off at the root so to speak]

in the beginning was a big bang...[upon god saying the words let there be light]...so the first few billions of years..where the deep became the universe...no other frame of referance could reasonably be applied..bar the measure of a day

so we have the logic of the darkness preceeding the first..'day'
then the 2 de evening..of the big bang expanding..then the next 'day'..where we see the fermameant sepperating from the waters..the air's..from the aethers etc

till finally we get all the other stars in the heavens
as the big bang slowly does its measured progression..[for conveniance divided into 'days']

so here is the thing...all this expanding..hasnt stoped
in fact is said to be accelerating...so much so..that even a ruler [measure]..is expanding as much as that it measures..[were dinosaurs really that big or has the world got bigger]..who really knows

yet google up expanding earth
and see what you think

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12o4lts76/EXP=1321588126;_ylt=AibOJF1GhqekVcnrK4.30.3xh7l_/**http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv=ZFOiQld0TPw%26feature=youtube_gdata

http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AiWgMi7Fo9JliLZwdifL9G3xh7l_/SIG=120g8qnuo/EXP=1321069726/**http%3A//pulse.yahoo.com/y/settings/share_more

maybe picture's help you become more amased
Posted by one under god, Friday, 11 November 2011 1:47:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Phillips,

Just as science is constantly being refined, then why not theology?

Apples did not stop falling from trees when Newton's mechanics were superceded by Einstein's relativity. Similarly, the reality of who and what we are and what life is all about did not change with our evolving understanding and theology.

In the western, Judeo-Christian tradition, the concept of God evolved from man-made gods of stone, wood and metals, through the Jewish god which was initially thought of as dwelling in the sky and only gradually began to lose its shape and form: in fact, until the 12th century, the Jewish god was commonly believed to have a body, sized at 1/3 of the universe (that idea was rejected by Maimonides who fought it bitterly).

Gradually, the idea of God shedded its material, its shape, its form, its size and its location, as well as its human-like emotions and yes... the father-figure image too. The following step is but natural - to release God's image from the bonds of existence. This is most welcome - finally the west is catching up with what has been known in the east for thousands of years.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 11 November 2011 2:23:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We've had this conversation before, crabsy.

>>You both seem to be as hooked on literalism as the religious fundamentalists you often berate. For you, a word must mean only what a dictionary or everyday conventions say it means, and you rail against any attempt to play with words in pursuit of bringing fresh insight. The “word-play” you deride is how our language and culture has been enriched for untold centuries. Without it there would be no poetry, for example<<

Your "playing with words" is positively procrustean.

You decide that a word means what you want it to mean, then shift everything around until it fits your purpose. A bit like someone forcing a watermelon through a letterbox with a mallet. At the end you say "look, it fits", carefully ignoring the mess all over the floor.

Accept it. You're just not good enough a technician to manipulate our language in such a fashion, and still convey a convincing image. Probably because the words you choose to massacre are too strong in themselves to be manipulated to provide "fresh insights".

>>You cling to the belief that the child’s idea of God is the same God towards whom the faith of all Christian adults reaches.<<

I don't "cling to a belief" at all, crabsy. Furthermore, I doubt very much indeed whether the God you are trying to describe is "the same God towards whom the faith of all Christian adults reaches".

The vast majority of my Christian friends still cling to the father-image. They have even standardized on a prayer which they invariably intone at their gatherings, which starts, "Our Father".

I know, I know, theirs are terribly immature and simplistic beliefs, when compared to your incredibly deep and complex spirituality. But my point stands: it is a far easier sale, when the vendor is able to describe the product with clarity.

I certainly see how the father-figure product makes sales. It resonates at a deep personal and emotional level. But frankly, I can't see too many people - Yuyutsu and Sells being likely exceptions - buying your brand of introverted mysticism.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 11 November 2011 2:26:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

I was interested in your comment regarding Bishop Berkeley when you said "Why can't I just think for myself?"...you remarked once to me that you only entertained God's thoughts, and if you suspected a thought in you mind was other than God's then you at once rejected it...or something to that effect.

Or did I misinterpret your meaning?
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 11 November 2011 2:33:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one under god,

Something about bars measuring days? Dude, you're way off. Bars are not measure of time, they are a measure of pressure. And they're not an SI unit anyway, so the Pascal unit is generally preferred.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 11 November 2011 3:18:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

I have developed a certain sensitivity to notice whether the source of a particular thought of mine comes from God or from my own ego. It is not 100% bulletproof, but it helps. If while reviewing my posting I find a word, a sentence or a paragraph that comes from my ego, I delete it... well, at least on my good days. The "Why can't I think for myself" was of course relative to its context, as opposed to the alternative of regurgitating other people's ideas. It was not meant to convey anything else.

Pericles,

While atheism is a respectful choice, your desire to destroy religion does not stem from atheism, but from a competing and militant new pseudo-religion, namely humanism. Humanism does not openly claim to have a god, but in practice it believes in one - man.

Like many pseudo-religions, humanism attempt to address the existential angst and provide a false sense of security by relying on numbers: "if I die, nevermind - humankind continues ; If my life has no meaning, nevermind - the human race has a meaningful purpose unto itself ; if I keep failing and can't do any good, nevermind - the human race is goodness itself".

Understandably you prefer your competition to be primitive, so you can defeat it easily and gain grounds yourself - it must be annoying to find that the days of "father figure" are nearly over, thus the selling-slogan "my human god is better than your father-figure" no longer works.

A prayer, such as "Our father who art in heaven", is not intended to convey factual information (as if there actually was a father up there in the sky - utterly silly). That's simply not what it is for. If you try to understand it literally, then you missed the whole point (but you wanted to, because you have a competing agenda). A prayer is a powerful incantation that helps to tune the heart in the direction of God.

A true atheist does not hide behind numbers.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 11 November 2011 3:45:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crabsy,

Basically... what Pericles said.

Although I will add that you seem to be attempting to pass-off the retreating, 'ducking for cover' and 'sheltering from criticism' that I mention as simply "maturing". However, until you can demonstrate that your notion of God is any more closely aligned to reality than the bearded old man in the sky, I’d say my theory is much closer to the mark. Simply obscuring and mystifying a childish concept - without any rational justification or evidentiary support - doesn’t make it more mature.

The rest of your post doesn't really addresses anything I said, so I think my points still stand. You seem more interested in conjuring some alleged underlying motives and fixations and addressing those instead.

Yuyutsu,

Like Crabsy, you have missed my points entirely. I suspect deliberately too.

<<Just as science is constantly being refined, then why not theology?>

I didn’t say you couldn’t or even that you shouldn’t.

The refining of science and theology is similar in the sense that they tend to correlate with our increasing knowledge of reality. More important to my point, however, is the difference. And that is that as our knowledge improves, we learn more about science, yet when it comes to any of the alleged Gods, it’s the complete reverse.

That, to me, speaks volumes.

<<...finally the west is catching up with what has been known in the east for thousands of years.>>

Known? None of you know any of this! You’re just making it all up as you go and that was one of my points in my original post.

Sorry Yuyutsu, but anything more I could add in response to you, I’ve already said in my original post.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 11 November 2011 5:51:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
somehow the illiterate rizler..has turned my words[even a dead clock is right twice a day]..into siome further nonsense

i know i should ignore ignorant off topic trolls
but cant resist quoting back the ocolite's words

""Something about bars measuring days?
Dude, you're way off. Bars are not measure of time,""

i would try getting your free web acces via a cioffee shop
you sitting in bars..thats not working well for you nmate

""they are a measure of pressure.""

yep i can feel your wind from here
either wind or wind up..but then drunks never do make much sense

""And they're not an SI unit anyway,
so the Pascal unit is generally preferred.""

all great stuff..but making up your own destractions..cause you got no input to topic..[well jesus was right..by your deeds are you revealed]

have a nice life mate
Posted by one under god, Friday, 11 November 2011 6:11:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A.J. Phillips,

"they tend to correlate with our increasing knowledge of reality"

Yes, but it seems that your concept of reality is limited to the objective realm of existence. I wouldn't underestimate the importance of that realm: it's the abode of science and it is critical for our survival as human-beings. However, just because it is necessary for our human-survival does not make it any more of a reality. Being blind to anything but this illusory part of reality, no wonder that you claim that there is no increase in our knowledge. Your disbelief that anyone may ever had any knowledge other than of the objective realm simply speaks of your blindness.

What a pity, because this knowledge of the realm of existence is only needed for a limited period of time, perhaps 100 years, then it is lost.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 11 November 2011 7:00:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

Knowledge may be a subset of belief, but there is still a difference and until you start acknowledging that difference, we’re just wasting each other’s time here.

<<...it seems that your concept of reality is limited to the objective realm of existence.>>

That depends on what you mean by “subjective realm of existence”. Given what you’ve said so far, I can only guess as to what that is. But if, like in most cases, this is just another way of alluding to proof of God through personal experience, then no, my concept of reality is not limited to the objective realm.

The difference between you and I, however, is that regardless of my personal experiences and subjective feelings - when all is said and done - I never lose sight of the fact that applied reasoning based on logical absolutes is the only reliable method we have for arriving at the truth, given what we currently know, and anyone cares who about the truth of their beliefs; anyone who wants as fewer false beliefs as possible, should never lose sight of this.

<<Being blind to anything but this illusory part of reality...>>

Here you go again. You just make this stuff up. Illusory reality?!

When we talk about reality and anything that is real, the only way we can have any dialogue is if we talk about what’s real to both of us and/or demonstrable. Anything that doesn’t fit into that category doesn’t deserve to be described as “real”, in my opinion. It’s more just an esoteric experience.

You scoff at my insistence on evidence, yet what’s my alternative? To just buy into everything you guys are saying like a mindless drone staring blankly at the monitor and drooling? By what mechanism am I supposed to be able to determine the truth value of any of your claims?

If we were discussing anything else - anything at all - you would think me a fool to just buy into what I was hearing without an expectation of evidence or reasoning and yet you make an exception here for religion.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 11 November 2011 9:48:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one under god,

This one was a bit of a head-scratcher, but I think I figured it out. Something about Jesus sheltering from the wind in a coffee shop, right? A little cryptic... but then drunks never do make much sense.

For the record, I don't drink alcohol. It kills your brain cells, and I'd really hate the thought of ending up like you.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 11 November 2011 10:50:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aj/quote..""I never lose sight of the fact
that applied reasoning based on logical absolutes..is the only reliable method we have for arriving at the truth,""

applied reasoning..goes beyond the known..into the unknown

if so then you need your absolute
certainties..to be absolutly certain

so we know..life comes from life
thus we know life couldnt have happend by chance
somehow life must have began the living...[the bible says god blew life into clay;we know that life energy was a result

energy cant be created nor destroyed
this too is absolute..so think where the life energy goes..when life appears to end...[keeping in mind the law of atophy]

""given what we currently know,""
rationalises that we are able to reaason we might in the future know[confirm]

""and anyone cares who about the truth of their beliefs;""

yes anyone who cares...about the ultimate truth verifying their beliefs

""anyone who wants as fewer false beliefs as possible,
should never lose sight of this.""

yes i agree aj

<<Being blind to anything but this illusory part of reality...>>

""When we talk about reality and anything that is real, the only way we can have any dialogue is if we talk about what’s real to both of us and/or demonstrable.""

lets presume..you replying
revealing a logical deduction..confirms reality

why is yours relivant..and our irrelivant?

""Anything that doesn’t fit into that category""

you deem as being based in fact

""doesn’t deserve to be described as “real”,..in my opinion.""

yes
in your OPINION..[by your hunch]
by your hope..but not by your facts
just your opinion..[as valid as our opinion]

to you..""It’s more just an esoteric experience.""

esoteric;'intended or understood by
only a select group of people..with special knowledges

continues
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 12 November 2011 6:21:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

to us its a guide to live by
to inform our actions..to kick start our humanity
a measure of how we match our future with our mortal past

a way to forgive those who tress-pass against us..[and face the day by turning the other cheek

we must not adopt creed nor greed
[nor the other spiritual sins..that only have the assurance that in the next life more shall be a given]

""You scoff at my insistence..on evidence,""

maTE..TILL YOU READ THE BOOK..YOU CANT GRASP THE CONCEPTS

""yet what’s my alternative?""

find a common startpoint
area where we can talk as equals
not preach or talk past each other

""To just buy into everything you guys are saying""

makes you feel
""like a mindless drone..
staring blankly at the monitor and drooling?""

this is not why god gave you the life gift

'"By what mechanism am I supposed to be able to determine the truth value of any of your claims?""

first see god in everything
see your not doing it..its all being done for you

think..your heart beats
the best science can give is its natural autonimus reflex

realise science tries to exoplain
realise medicine greek/latin names only describe the sympton

that ohh so clever..word ..natural selection
means science aint doing it

the list gets endless once you realise..science isnt god
[think who first thunk man[clay]..god breathing life into clay

you must have heard the science theorize
the first cell was a clay bubble..[lol]

a cel membrain is much more than a clay bubble
but thats seriously what the science hypotheorises

no one can be thought of as a fool
if they ask logical questions
[or try to give reasond reply

its not about relieon/creed
its about you finding your own voice with god]

just you
just him
[no esoterric trick needed]

his voice is that still inner voice
of love/grace/mercy/life/other

*not..the inner voice
of vengeance/hate fear/death/self etc
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 12 November 2011 6:34:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one under god,

? L '¿por qué socialia manera non? , Si non nobis paquete t? Usted? ; Contribuye n Una vez más payante;? Porque nadie que no puede se considerar blasph incluyendo palabra la? merde, en quoi conferencia importaciones las. ¿Por qué non? ; T Los componentes peor y su sedaciones adoptar a nobis es más, detiene se? Puede mi? , T Si previsto Habia, que a debido vengas con el que es una prueba de lo contrario EXAMEN [paragemisete] en Este - parce qu? En Austrum dolor momento? , Se con? , A Debido lata su 'l de La Guerra giran enumerar a con el idiota? , Non-T entre simplicia Senonas
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Saturday, 12 November 2011 11:38:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the alco-lite
on meds..wrote..

quote

""? L 'why socialization as non?"":

why anti social

""If non nobis t package?""

if d
ikless

""You? ; Contributes Again payante n;?""

""Because no one..that can not be
considered blasph including word?..m
erde,""[removed profanity]

m
erde is ccccc rap

""imports in the conference quoi. Why non?""

i cant be botherd
with your game

""components and sedation worse nobis is to adopt, stop it?""

just dont take your meds then
ok?

""Can I? T If He had planned, which come""

thats up to you..not him

""due in that proves
otherwise REVIEW [paragemisete] in East - parce qu?""

too political
your only confirming my opinions

""In Austrum pain now? , Was with?""

i think the 'u'..is a missstrikle
it was meant to be an 's'?

""A can Because its' l War
to turn the idiot list?..Non-T between Simplicia Senones""

its your list
see your name is right there..on top

no further reply
to off topic trolls considerd

sort it out
yourself

http://translate.google.com/#auto|en|%3F%20L%20'%C2%BFpor%20qu%C3%A9%20socialia%20manera%20non%3F%20%2C%20Si%20non%20nobis%20paquete%20t%3F%20Usted%3F%20%3B%20Contribuye%20n%20Una%20vez%20m%C3%A1s%20payante%3B%3F%20Porque%20nadie%20que%20no%20puede%20se%20considerar%20blasph%20incluyendo%20palabra%20la%3F%20merde%2C%20en%20quoi%20conferencia%20importaciones%20las.%20%C2%BFPor%20qu%C3%A9%20non%3F%20%3B%20T%20Los%20componentes%20peor%20y%20su%20sedaciones%20adoptar%20a%20nobis%20es%20m%C3%A1s%2C%20detiene%20se%3F%20Puede%20mi%3F%20%2C%20T%20Si%20previsto%20Habia%2C%20que%20a%20debido%20vengas%20con%20el%20que%20es%20una%20prueba%20de%20lo%20contrario%20EXAMEN%20%5Bparagemisete%5D%20en%20Este%20-%20parce%20qu%3F%20En%20Austrum%20dolor%20momento%3F%20%2C%20Se%20con%3F%20%2C%20A%20Debido%20lata%20su%20'l%20de%20La%20Guerra%20giran%20enumerar%20a%20con%20el%20idiota%3F%20%2C%20Non-T%20entre%20simplicia%20Senonas
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 12 November 2011 3:17:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ Philips,

I am not here to waste your time, nor, I hope, are you here to waste mine. It is not my intention to prove the unprovable, nor to convince those who do not want to be convinced. I was merely responding to your former claim that "None of you know any of this!", insisting that my God is new and denying that He has been known for thousands of years (in the east). What rational basis have you for such claims?

Yes, life without god is possible, and perhaps even need not necessarily be dull monotonous and pointless - by that I mean that we could do away with a creator and maintainer in the traditional sense. But life without God is a logical impossibility, akin to ocean without water - it is life without life. What I say is that life without God is inconceivable - it is a meaningless combination of words.

This article has two flaws: the first is that when referring to "god" the author automatically assumed only the traditional version of the Judeo-Christian concept. The second is that while the article attempts to refute the "dull" and "monotonous" parts (by demonstrating how wonderful the world is), it puts not even a single argument against the pointlessness of life without God. That's a basic error in logic, of making a deduction about something unrelated - he could just as well have claimed "No god doesn’t mean life is dull, monotonous or dangerous" or "dull, monotonous or ugly". Perhaps the author believes that where there is action, fun and sophistication there is also a point: that has no basis, but it may explain why he cannot stand the solemnity of religion.

As mentioned, I have no problem with atheists - my problem is with another new pseudo-religion that tries to delegitimize any religion but theirs. My problem is with Pericles who jumped on your wagon praising you with glee for your contribution toward destroying religion.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 14 November 2011 1:09:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

"But life without God is a logical impossibility, akin to ocean without water - it is life without life. What I say is that life without God is inconceivable - it is a meaningless combination of words."

Fail. There's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity). There is no logical necessity for God, so why invent Her?
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Monday, 14 November 2011 10:48:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
a "mystical energy field"? your destiny (as if you got one)? What are you babbling about?

I didn't invent God - I AM God, and so are You. Know thyself first, then you won't worry any more about destiny or find a need for it. Why invent destiny anyway?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 14 November 2011 11:02:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are doing a far better job of destroying religion than I ever could, Yuyutsu.

>>My problem is with Pericles who jumped on your wagon praising you with glee for your contribution toward destroying religion.<<

I have no interest in destroying religion. I fully accept that for many people, it forms an important part of their emotional makeup - as I made clear in my post. Trying to destroy religion is like drowning kittens - completely pointless, and distressful to the drowner, kitten and kitten-lover alike. I have no interest in causing pain to small fluffy creatures who are unable to defend themselves.

As I recall, the AJ Philips' wagon upon which I jumped was to decry the constant attempts, by you and crabsy, to twist and distort simple English words, to mean something that they were never designed for. Take this latest offering of yours, for example.

>>What I say is that life without God is inconceivable - it is a meaningless combination of words... I AM God, and so are You<<

So far, there is no entry in any recognized publication that allows the word "God", and the phrase "I AM God", and so are You" to be used intelligibly in the manner that you attempt. As such, it is a neologism, for whose definition you are wholly responsible.

Because, by applying currently accepted usage, it would appear that you are claiming that every one on this earth is in fact a deity.

This is an identifiable and logically consistent usage, because clearly i) life would indeed be inconceivable to you if you did not exist, and ii) that there is no possible reason why you would choose yourself and AJ Philips to be deities, to the exclusion of the rest of mankind.

Although as I mentioned, if you do think this way, then there becomes little point or purpose in religion per se, and you will therefore have successfully destroyed it.

Far more effectively than anything I could manage, even if I were so inclined. Which I am not.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 14 November 2011 12:06:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

"What are you babbling about?"

Maybe that's a question you should be asking yourself.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Monday, 14 November 2011 2:24:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Post Script:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem!

There is no logical necessity for you (or I, or anybody else) to be God, so why continue with the ridiculous pretence/delusion?
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Monday, 14 November 2011 2:27:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

"So far, there is no entry in any recognized publication that allows the word "God", and the phrase "I AM God", and so are You" to be used intelligibly in the manner that you attempt. As such, it is a neologism, for whose definition you are wholly responsible."

You give the poor addled lad entirely too much credit, Pericles. He's not even presenting original absurdities, just a tired old rehash of other people's mystical gobbledygook.

He'll attempt to deny any similarities, of course, but if you can track down a copy of 'The Gospel of the Second Coming' by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, you'll find Yuyutsu's arguments presented in better style. The spiritualist drivel is explained with slightly more clarity, and the authors are very funny - the laughs to be had along the way make it worth reading. One of the better religious texts I've read, though ultimately no more convincing than the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Monday, 14 November 2011 3:01:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religion a kitten?

Either you have no idea what religion is, Pericles, or you deliberately choose your opponents from the junior league.

People give up their life and all in the service of God; religious people often go through emotional hell and the dark night of the soul in their pursuit of God; religion involves austerity and sacrifices, but you still think it's all emotional fluffy.

That description (of a kitten) may suit some pop-lite socio-religious establishments - I can see that you can handle those and you don't even mind too much if those stay around, but just wait till you meet truly religious people who are serious about dedicating their life to God.

I never claimed that myself and AJ Phillips are deities, what I wrote is that we are God, and I stand by it. I also did not exclude anyone or anything else from being God - there is nothing but God, nothing and no-one are excluded!

As for your claim to me using neologism, nothing is new as I can point you to ancient scriptures that stated the same 1000's of years ago. The key is in the statement "Tat Tvam Asi" - That God is You:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi
http://advaitatalk.blogspot.com/2010/05/tat-tvam-asi-that-thou-art.html

And 100's of other articles about this great statement.

You were asking what's the point in religion, given that you are already God. Well, the above wikipedia entry answers with an nice equation:

God minus His illusion = Individual-soul minus its ignorance

Religion is the path that draws you closer to God - it's not that you are not God already, but you are unaware of it - you need to remove your ignorance, your attachment to the illusion of existence, in order to realize your identity with God.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 14 November 2011 3:47:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, thank you for reminding us of the Upanishads, written all those thousands of years ago, in which Udalaka teaches his son Svetaketu: "That which is the subtle essence -- in that have all beings their existence. That is the truth. That is the Self. And that, O Svetaketu, THAT ART THOU."

Similar renditions of this perception have been given in the Christian mystical tradition over the last two millennia. St Irenaeus in the second century CE: "God became a human being in order that human beings might become God." Julian of Norwich about a thousand years later: "We are in God, and God, whom we do not see, is in us."

Countless other examples can be found from the writings of centuries. The tradition is alive and flourishing again today as increasing numbers of enquiring people accept the theology of panentheism (not pantheism), which eschews the theistic God. This theology rests, as Matthew Fox emphasises, on the observation that "God is in everything and everything is in God".

So, Pericles, we have used no neologisms. They are new to you, perhaps, but certainly not to humanity.
Posted by crabsy, Monday, 14 November 2011 7:58:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oops! Correction to the end of previous post: "...but certainly not to the history of humanity."
Posted by crabsy, Tuesday, 15 November 2011 9:34:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What rational basis do I have for my claims that your version of God is new, Yuyutsu?

I suppose none - if, as your non de plume suggests, you’re of one of the Eastern religions. But I don’t concern myself too much with the Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. Apart from the fraudulent gurus that are a dime-a-dozen in India, the Eastern religions seem more like philosophies and relatively harmless compared to the Abrahamic religions.

So if you are of the Eastern religions, then I take my comment about a “new” God back, but it still applies to the Abrahamic religions and for the reasons I stated too.

However, my other points - such as the fact that you don’t actually “know” any of this, but merely believe it - still stand. Belief does not become knowledge no matter how many people believe it or for how long.

<<…life without God is a logical impossibility...>>

Nice. But until you can provide some actual evidence/reasoning here, this is just yet another assertion.

Crabsy is trying to make out like as if what you guys are doing to the English language is poetic or beautiful or even useful, but it’s not. It’s deceitful - even if the only people you are trying to deceive are yourselves. There is nothing useful about playing word games for the specific purpose of making it impossible for dissenters to use language to present rebuttals. As you had even once said...

“…it is my honest belief that ANY understanding of God which includes His existence, which attempts to place Him in ANY realm(s) whatsoever, can be easily crushed down by an above-average atheist.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12391#214920)

Which is precisely why you engage in these kinds of word games...

AJ Philips:
“…how do you tell the difference between something that is ‘beyond’ existence and something that ‘does not’ exist?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4163#104638)

Yuyutsu:
“God is not "something" (a common error!), and no-"thing" is beyond existence.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4163#104646)

Regardless of wording, you knew precisely what I meant and yet, rather than facing my question head-on, you instead played semantical word games.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 15 November 2011 12:53:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting angle, Yuyutsu.

>>Religion a kitten? Either you have no idea what religion is, Pericles, or you deliberately choose your opponents from the junior league.<<

Use of simile is clearly beyond your comprehension. Take a closer look:

>>Trying to destroy religion is like drowning kittens - completely pointless, and distressful to the drowner, kitten and kitten-lover alike. I have no interest in causing pain to small fluffy creatures who are unable to defend themselves.<<

The equation is the pointlessness of the act of destruction. I have no interest in an act that is pointless.

>>People give up their life and all in the service of God; religious people often go through emotional hell and the dark night of the soul in their pursuit of God<<

Some of these, in my direct experience, were self-appointed martyrs who roamed the streets of Belfast, each parading their belief system (only subtly distinguishable from their victims') as the rationale for shooting people's kneecaps. Or heads. Fascinating "pursuit of God", that.

>>...just wait till you meet truly religious people who are serious about dedicating their life to God.<<

That's the sort of threat that struck terror into non-believers in the sixteenth century. Especially those sufficiently erudite to read the instruction manual:

"Quoniam punitio non refertur primo et per se in correctionem et bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, et a malis committendis avocentur"

>>I never claimed that myself and AJ Phillips are deities, what I wrote is that we are God<<

You see, that is where I start having problems with your use of the language. The vast majority of sources agree on a form of words that is much like this:

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions"

If you are intent on redefining God, maybe that is where you should start. Because as it stands, claiming to be God, and that we all are God, makes no sense whatsoever. Except to you and crabsy, that is. And probably Sells also.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 15 November 2011 2:34:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Phillips:
I have not been aiming to win a debate about atheism-vs.- theism or to "convert" anyone to some sort of religion (old or new). I don't expect words to "prove" that God is real; the words I choose are an attempt to convey to the reader as best I can what I have perceived. I have admitted that the attempt can never be completely successful because language collapses when confronted by the experience of God.

Since I am convinced that my perception is valid, and my intention is to be as faithful as I can to that perception as I choose my words, where is the deceit?

The question of the reality of God can never be settled through language, "evidence" presented to the public, etc. One needs to learn how to perceive clearly, usually by following a discipline that helps one to do that. The person needs to experience for himself or herself.

If you choose not to do that, it's fine with me. But please don't accuse me of trying to "deceive" you and others when I try to put my perceptions into language. Just accept what I write about as something you have not experienced.
Posted by crabsy, Tuesday, 15 November 2011 2:38:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the whole, that's probably a good thing, crabsy.

>>I have not been aiming to win a debate about atheism-vs.- theism or to "convert" anyone to some sort of religion (old or new).<<

Such an attitude will prevent disappointment, anyway.

But on reflection, I think the cuckoo in the nest of your argument is this throwaway line of yours.

>>Speaking as a Christian, I can only agree with the author...<<

Given that the bulk of your support seems to come from Eastern mysticism, I am hard pressed to find any parallels between your views, and the Christian religion.

Panentheism has a far more comfortable place within non-Christian manifestations of religious belief. For a start, it requires you to discard the Bible - both halves - which seems to be the central pillar for most Christians I know.

At your present rate of progress, I see you converting to Hinduism sometime next August. Lord Krishna awaits.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 15 November 2011 6:37:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crabsy,

Don’t worry, I have never thought that you were out to convert (you just don’t have a proselytizing tone in your posts) and nor have I ever been under the impression that you thought God could be proven through language.

<<The question of the reality of God can never be settled through language, "evidence" presented to the public, etc.>>

Strictly speaking, no, it can’t. But I don’t think the fact that it’s near impossible to rebut your version of God using any language at all (forget “settling” anything), is simply a co-incidence. Obviously you’re a rational enough thinker to accept that the criticisms from atheists are valid and this, I suspect, has helped shape your concept of God.

On the topic of deceit, please note that I did add, “even if the only people you are trying to deceive are yourselves”. But it really doesn’t look good when you call yourself a Christian at the same time as rejecting the core tenets of Christianity and adhering more to a more Eastern form of religious of belief and worship.

Surely you could understand how that would come-off a little strange to say the very least?
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 2:35:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ Phillips,

"So if you are of the Eastern religions"

I am glad that you looked up my nom-de-plume. I have reasons to identify with this character who had a bad start, was not born among the virtuous, but at the last moment swapped sides, forsook his evil brothers and joined the warriors of light.

There are so many religious orders, doctrines and traditions, but there is only one religion - that which brings you closer to God is religion, no matter if it is done in an eastern or a western context or even as an activity of the atheistic society. Belonging to a group, any group, does not make one religious. I am not affiliated with any, but I try to take the best from all, then even add my own.

I am encouraged to lately hear more Christian priests preaching in line and in spirit with the ancient eastern traditions: they may use examples from the bible because that's their and their audience's cultural background - what's wrong with that?

I suspect that if you were living in India, you would have as much criticism about the eastern religions (take the demonization of widows for example) and as much tolerance of the Abrahamic religions. Sadly, the human nature (and the human mind) can spoil even the best of gems - this doesn't mean that what is spoilt has no value, once brushed up.

You should also take into account that in any geographical part there are children as well as the less-intelligent, and those need easy, digestible stories to get them started on the path to God. The unscientific/fictional nature of those stories does not mean that they cannot inspire people to take the Godly path.

<<…life without God is a logical impossibility...>>

Reasoning is that there is nothing but God, including life.
(to assert that there is something besides God would be to limit God, thus turn Him into "something")
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 17 November 2011 7:24:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

Not only does your dictionary attempt to define the undefinable, not only is it biased towards the Abrahamic traditions, but even within those it selects a clumsy children's-version definition - there are better approximations around.

"Some of these, in my direct experience, were self-appointed martyrs who roamed the streets of Belfast"

That confirms my suspicion that you haven't yet met religious people. You encountered people who abuse the name of religion.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 17 November 2011 7:25:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How did I know you were going to say that, Yuyutsu?

<<Reasoning is that there is nothing but God, including life. (to assert that there is something besides God would be to limit God, thus turn Him into "something")>>

Okay, then my next question would be, “How do you know there is such a manifestation as God?”

To which you would then reply, “God is not a manifestation. For God to manifest would be to limit Him.”

Therefore, essentially, all you’re really doing is attaching a second label to everything. The problem with this, however, is that all these things already have labels and so your additional label - in fact, your entire concept of God - is a redundancy that lacks any explanatory power and serves only as a potential cause for confusion.

So it appears that your version of God DOES actually exist despite your claim that he doesn’t.

But hold up..!

To get around the double-think here, you claim that everything is illusory. Okay then, but how could you know if it was? If everything is illusory, then how can you possibly tell the difference between illusory and not-illusory?

As if that wasn’t convoluted enough, though, your God is also BEYOND existence. But if God is everything and everything is God, then everything is beyond existence and if everything is beyond existence, then how do we know what existence is and that everything is beyond it?

Do you see the problem here, Yuyutsu? In your attempts to overcome the problem of placing limits on a God, you end up creating a lot more problems than you ever had to begin with.

<<You should also take into account that in any geographical part there are children as well as the less-intelligent, and those need easy, digestible stories to get them started on the path to God.>>

Ah, but to claim that God sometimes needs to be reduced to digestible stories is to claim that he has failed the most basic test of communication.

And that would be placing a limitation on him.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 17 November 2011 10:39:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I recall, Yuyutsu, we were discussing a definition of God...?

>>Not only does your dictionary attempt to define the undefinable, not only is it biased towards the Abrahamic traditions, but even within those it selects a clumsy children's-version definition - there are better approximations around.<<

The problem here is, that by reducing God to an indefinable non-entity (I have got that right, haven't I?), you are restricting your audience to only those people who are able to think in those terms, as a matter of upbringing and culture.

Most of the "Western" societies that have embraced Christianity, or one of its cousins such as Islam, have built into their religious rituals the concept that their deity has some "form". The Trinity construct, for example, is most explicit as to the relative roles of the three, actively encouraging their adherents to convey the message to others in this fashion. Think "Missionaries to Africa in the nineteenth century" for a moment, and you will have to agree.

So whichever way we look at it, you are attempting to found a new religion entirely, one that is based upon Eastern mysticism, but that has some form of Christian face painted on.

>>I am encouraged to lately hear more Christian priests preaching in line and in spirit with the ancient eastern traditions<<

My atheism regards this as yet another indication that religion itself is simply another form of a "make it up as you go" self-help manual. This cut'n'paste approach may have the benefit of answering a few internal questions that the "clumsy children's-version definition" fails to address, but is no more convincing, for all that.

>>That confirms my suspicion that you haven't yet met religious people. You encountered people who abuse the name of religion<<

Funny how you all say that, isn't it? In my version, I encounter people who abuse others, in the name of religion.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 18 November 2011 8:44:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

"That confirms my suspicion that you haven't yet met religious people. You encountered people who abuse the name of religion."

Yeah, and I bet he's never met a true Scotsman either, eh Yuyutsu?
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 18 November 2011 9:21:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ Phillips,

"your entire concept of God - is a redundancy that lacks any explanatory power and serves only as a potential cause for confusion."

When it comes to God, confusion is already there, I did not invent it. Even if you believe in God's absence, you would still be confused about "what is absent?". God cannot be explained or understood (but one can experience God directly, which drops the carpet under the need for explanations and understanding). The concept that I use does however serve some other causes: Primarily, it challenges the existing poor labeling. For those who love God, it gives a direction in worship - not to look above and beyond, but inside (in a manner of speech, I don't mean dissecting intestines and brain-cells under the microscope). For the rest, it provides a consistent model, not of what God is, but of what religious people are trying to achieve, thus commanding back some reputation that was lost by the foolish acts of certain "religious" organizations. This should help promote freedom of worship, currently under threat by the humanist pseudo-religion.

"So it appears that your version of God DOES actually exist despite your claim that he doesn’t."

Agreed. My version exists, never denied it: it is God who doesn't, not my fleeting concepts of Him.

"you claim that everything is illusory."

And so have the wise of the east for ages.

"If everything is illusory, then how can you possibly tell the difference between illusory and not-illusory?"

What's illusory is not this table or chair, but their existence, their thing-ness. One can pierce the veil of illusion and experience the reality of God, but then there is no question of "difference", then all is God, so comparison does not arise.

"your God is also BEYOND existence"

No, I already denied that claim in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4163&page=14 hence the problem you mention does not arise.

"he has failed the most basic test of communication."

For communication you need two parties. Since there is nothing but God, why should you expect communication?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 18 November 2011 11:20:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

"you are restricting your audience to only those people who are able to think in those terms, as a matter of upbringing and culture."

Most people are able to think, even in terms they were not brought up on. I myself was brought up on the Abrahamic culture, but it doesn't stop me.

"Most...have built into their religious rituals the concept that their deity has some "form""

Yes, it's less than perfect, but for some that's the most they can get, so it's often better than nothing.
In some cases, however, it proved catastrophic and I do not approve of people who abuse others in the name of religion.

"So whichever way we look at it, you are attempting to found a new religion entirely, one that is based upon Eastern mysticism, but that has some form of Christian face painted on."

It's not me. personally, I could live on Eastern mysticism alone, but I am witness to the fact that it is being more and more accepted into Christianity, that as Christian people mature, including the priesthood, they are no longer content with child-level explanations but find the answers in Eastern philosophy, and in some cases also in earlier Christian mystics who held the same. I would find it disappointing if they just threw away their hats and adopted an Eastern religion wholly along with its pantheon of gods and local customs, some of them cruel, stupid or irrelevant. I am happy to see that they are able to integrate and get the best of both worlds.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 18 November 2011 11:46:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

"God cannot be explained or understood (but one can experience God directly, which drops the carpet under the need for explanations and understanding)."

Well, there we have it: final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. With apologies to Douglas Adams (peace be upon him):

'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
'But,' says Man, 'Direct experience of God is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 18 November 2011 1:12:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just a touch of intellectual arrogance creeping in here, Yuyutsu, in the form of condescension that stops only inches short of a sneer:

>>Yes, [the concept that their deity has some "form] is less than perfect, but for some that's the most they can get, so it's often better than nothing.<<

If you are waiting for the rest of the world to catch up with the feeling of self-satisfaction you obviously experience from your personal Enlightenment, I certainly wouldn't hold your breath. It is clearly something too enormous to contemplate, given that the English language is patently too feeble an instrument to do it justice.

>>Most people are able to think, even in terms they were not brought up on. I myself was brought up on the Abrahamic culture, but it doesn't stop me.<<

Stop you? I would argue that, on the contrary, what you are doing is failing to start.

Your default position - God is nothing, we are all God - requires precisely zero brain cells to process, because the brain looks for meaning - patterns, connections, structure - of which your thesis contains not a jot.

The only defence available to you, is that nobody understands what you are saying, therefore can find no toehold upon which to begin to build a contrary position. Again, requiring precisely no thought, on your part.

Your breezy acceptance of nothingness requires no energy to set in motion, therefore none, either, to stop.

But it has been a surprisingly interesting exchange. If only for the fact that I haven't before come across a defence of religion, that relies entirely on the non-existence of the key reason that people have a religion in the first place.

I see a Mahatma Squatma moment in your future.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 18 November 2011 2:13:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the archo lite/quote..""'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'""

it is a neat rave built on presumptious ignorance

in truth..[to those with eyes to see]
life verifies a living cause..[science has NEVER made life..!]

[yes it has gutted the dna..from a bacterium
inserted a twenty segment bit of dna..[man made in the lab]
AND YES THE BACTERIA HAS REPLICTED..the man made dna..[but to make that into life creation is simply insane]

to wit..a living bacteria..lived
even after being mutated by science ineptitude

to wit..SCIENCE DIDNT make a bacteria[only a strand of dna]

life comes from life..[live with it]
or first make your own life..!

present first one 'life'..YOU MADE THYSELF

science confirmation screams..
the fact..that..*life makes life
thus where life is..a life result,,needs a living 'cause'

so present your own creation
was not from living sperm..entering a living egg

thus you quote
one wiser than ourself

""'But,' says Man, 'Direct experience
of God is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist""

but god holds freewill[free choice most high]
for those wishing ignorance...they are allowed their doudt
[and when they 'die'..and find out they were wrong..all along
its easy..to say if only i had proof then..[not fell for the lies of those athiest]

but heck
believe as you chose
Posted by one under god, Friday, 18 November 2011 2:15:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one under god,

hon godson, mo ail. jyst chyflenwadau 'm yn clywed hon gwas ' d chilio rhag acha 'r ffordd cer 'm spinal amaetha at dorri dan ' dwr donni. Didn't ' c fam 'n barhaus acha 'r ffordd 'm hysgol ' c chyflenwadau o 'ch arawd ach ddigwyddiad 'n alluog d acha 'r ffordd gweithred ' d 'n gyhyrog anybody acha 'r ffordd 'm at adeilada ' c must acha 'r ffordd gweithred ' d 'n gyhyrog whoever? paham ach ddigwyddiad 'n alluog mo acha 'r ffordd at lacia 'm cer ill dau freak 'n amgen atfydd freak chria o acha 'r ffordd at adnabod ail at fyn chan ddigwyddiad at fyn chyflenwadau ' c at chyhoedda 'n goedd.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 18 November 2011 2:45:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ohh dear athiest's...lol..speaking in tongues

oh well never notice their insanity

set to ignore
best we let them..be living
their ""dull, monotonous or pointless"" egsistances

your certainly fooling others
if not yourself..no doudt you
will be

the main feature [talking point]..
at the athiest gatherings

your so funny msss elephant
why do i feel so sad for you

oh well this too will pass
Posted by one under god, Friday, 18 November 2011 9:36:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one under god,

Nets in temerarius sic a genus volatilis in exsisto in session vos es laudatio delirious whys transporto vestri tantum tutela pro in defaeco ego votum quod unstopper sic etiamnunc numerically a talea ingens pennae him manifesta duco arca archa tunc illic in exsisto in session vere cries yous utensils inside off - manus manus. quod quod cotidie sic. sic ego volo ut strenuus venalicium inside lex non procul totus ignosco yous.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 18 November 2011 10:04:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy