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 4/11/2011A naturalistic interpretation of the universe is both valid and far from depressing.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Page 15
- 16
-
- All
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 18 November 2011 9:21:29 AM
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
|
"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?