Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense! - Part 2

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by garbonzo, Sep 2, 2012.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    very astute....

    They can if one knows how to read them...and not many are capable of understanding them at that depth...

    just my take ok....

    I haven't really looked at it Advaita Verdante in depth but I believe that they are quite profound on just this subject.

    The illusion of separate identity as you so aptly put it, is just that, an illusion. This illusion is created by "Brahma manifesting in the physical form" as your "material body" and thus restricted and limited by that which conditions and controls that body of a material and societal kind. The living body generates the existential ego that "Brahma" or "I" has to somehow learn to transcend and achieve universality to be realised as Brahma in the flesh with out the mortal conditioning placed upon a corporal body.
    Every personna is therefore an extension of Brahmas quest to be realised as immmortally, eternally material.
    I believe the journey is exemplified in the traditional committment to what is called the Brahmacharya

    It is only by learning about your true nature as a self "I" that you learn to transcend the limitations of your individual reflection and gain a more complete multiplistic [collective] reflection. When you can see youself in the entire universe your name will become the label Brahma.

    This is how cult leaders can become so influencial as believers see them selves reflected in the leaders body. Thus the leader monopolises the focus of self worship of his followers. [they worship him more than they worship them selves and extreme case will even worship the leader as if he IS themsleves - aka God]

    By externalising worship to another being you are forever seeking yourself in that other being... By seeking only self with in, you remain independant and free of emmeshing [attachment] with others. Hence the problems with tradtional religions where the object of worship is external thus disempowering yourself and granting power to some other entity instead.

    for those who don't know the image of Brahma here is an exellent painting:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Oh well. I like still the joke about the two monist yogis, as I think it makes a very salient point.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    and well a... are they both right?.....yep... and that's the reason why we have so much conflict in the world.... [chuckle] "The eternal war of the Monists" aka God complex
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    how is it you know of the Adviata Verdante? If you don't mind me asking....
  8. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    As I said before, if you turn to science to discover why A=C, it will tell you: because A=B and B=C. It's as finite as you need it to be.

    That depends on what you mean by "all" and "why" any really has nothing to do with understanding that life evolved which requires very little (if any) contemplation.

    What can be more denigrating than denying the nose on your face, falling for myths and behaving superstitiously, when all that's needed is to roll up your shirtsleeves and study, and advance yourself? I think most people think it's pretty denigrating to live in the Middle Ages with the treasure trove of free information available today to the lingering curse of the Byzantine flu.

    Since that would have little or nothing to do with whether life evolved (except perhaps Rothko is announcing the fallacy of denialism) then ... ? There wouldn't be much point in analyzing a painting in the way you seem to want to do it.

    There's not much too much variation in rationale about the idea that the brain evolved, as did animal behavior. The things you are describing such as attraction to colors and shapes, could just as well encompass a study of the bower bird. The question of how humans acquired animal traits is pretty obvious.

    Last time I checked, aesthetics had nothing to do with science. Being moved is maybe a good topic of psychology, but still very remote to the topic of evolution.

    Or, more simply put, religions AVOIDS truth, reality, evidence, fact, history and science. Which is pretty much the opposite of how you cast it.
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    This doesn't help at all. In order for this to make any sense, I have to assume that the statement is true. But as I said, without some evidence to suggest that God exists, there's no logical path that leads me to accept that the forest is God.
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    then assume it is false instead and see if it makes sense...
    There is no need to assume anything...treat it as abstraction, mere notions to play with as pure metaphor... no need to believe anything...
    the forest is your whole self, the tree is only the part you know of as yourself...
    the more you know about your self the more you know about your whole self.
    It is premised on the notion of self worship, self service, self devotion, the internal equivalent of what people normally do externally by worshiping an external God. [ one that is outside the universe and not inside the universe - you]

    You worship yourself, you seek only self interest..so ask yourself , what exactly are you worshipping when you worship yourself?
    What is self?
  11. Balerion Banned Banned

    Nonsense. As I just said, the only way this works is if you assume God exists. It does not make a logical case for God, it simply assumes God is real. Hence, "Say we have a large forest that is called God."

    Do you need to embarrass yourself for three pages on this subject like you always do, or can you actually stop for a second and think about it? I mean, aren't you tired of apologizing?

    Pseudo-philosophical gibberish based on a poor understanding of the source material. QQ, you are once again punching above your weight.
  12. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


    What do you base your ''feeling'' on?

    I doubt people make the decision ''to believe in God'', anymore than they would make the decision to fall in love.
    I think it is more accurate to say that people make decsions to join a religion, or become religious. But I don't necessarily equate
    religion with theism.

    I don't know anyone that rejects ''evolution''. People reject darwinian evolution.

    Who rejects science because they believe in a diety?
    How is it even possible to actually reject science?,
    Do you think it was atheists who were responsible for science?

    ''Belief'' pertains to the individual, not the collective, as it is based on the individual's experiences. You cannot ''believe'' something that you don't believe, and you cannot
    make someone'' believe'' as their experiences are unique to them.

    Good question.

    If you were to ask people ''what does it mean to be in love with someone?'', I'm sure the answers would differ in the same way, simply because their experiences are different.
    Yet there is a kind of ''uniformity'' to it, an understanding that can be realised by someone who knows you, based on their interaction (experiences) with you.

    Experience breeds first class knowledge, while explaining those experiences are second-hand.

    Why should people accept something purely because it sounds reasonable?

    Children don't need to be indoctrinated to believe in God, they are naturally inclined to accept the supernatural.
    One needs to be indoctrinated to become atheist.

    No it's not, especially from a childs pov.
    It shows that ultimately they take what they want from their parents, not that they automatically follow.
    It's my own terminology which I think describes your attitude in this, and most probably other discussions you may have with theists, or religionists.
    The point is that you have already reached a conclusion, so anything that contradicts that conclusion is rejected unless it can be used to bolster your position.

    I doubt that you are actually interested in learning anything about theism, or real religion despite claiming to be (as yet).

    Okay, regarding theism, have you accepted anything I have put forward?

    Yes it was.
    It seems that you view the world from the perspective of a (modern/new) atheist.

    you remarked...

    I just wonder at times is it because it's easy that people choose to believe in God, I mean you have these religions and churches that have been around for hundreds of years, this whole mythology, bibles stories, creation myth's etc....

    The programing that prevents you from going any further than your current worldview.

    Then why do people reject it?
    And please don't come with ''because they believe in a diety'' unless you can elaborate on it with more detail.

    Are you seriously telling me you didn't understand a word of this?

    Our ''methodologies'' are unique to us, it might be good to bear that in mind.

    This life is very short, and everyone is entitled to live it, and interpret their experiences, because they unique.
    You are very close to violating that, by stating that people who do not think like you, are somehow less than you, because you
    you are right, and they are wrong, or misinformed. This is no different to the religious, and atheist (communism) institutions that put this mentality into
    practice, which had terrible consequences.

    Live and let live.

  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    And how shall we live and let live, when religious groups insist on introducing farce into the discussion about public education in evolution?
  14. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


    Again, nobody rejects evolution, but they reject darwinian evolution

    I suggest you distinguish between the two, for clarity, as I don't want to keep reiiterating. Thank in advance.

  15. Balerion Banned Banned

    No, idiots reject Darwinian evolution. Only people who either don't know the science (you) or people who believe the science is wrong because it contradicts the bible (idiots) reject Darwinian evolution.

    You reject science all the time by pretending there's some difference between evolution as a concept and Darwinian evolution. Evolution is evolution. It works, and your attempts to differentiate don't.
  16. Balerion Banned Banned

    Not at all. Car mechanics do not have to be car enthusiasts, whereas religious folks must be theists. Theism is not a separate entity from religion, but a broader sense of it. Especially in this context, "theist" is simply a better, more concise way of saying "religious person."

    Technically, no, but in practice...

    Obviously. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be able to sniff out a god's presence via its impact on the material universe, so to say it says nothing of god is silly.

    Nonsense. I'm not going to just assume that I'm also a spiritual being. Give me evidence of such a thing, then we can talk.
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Balerion is correct. The only reason religionists separate it is because they are uncomfortable with the full implications of the theory.
  18. Gorlitz Iron Man Registered Senior Member

    I'm sorry people but I just cannot in any way shape or form get my head around the idea that you can compare a child being indoctrinated to religion with the fact they may not wish to dress in the same style of clothes as their parents.

    Is that just me being thick, does that actually make sense and I'm missing something?
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    I'll give it a go...
    So you have an a priori assumption of a multiplistic ego... any way of verifying that the assumption is both correct and necessary?
    Further, how is it possible to look at the whole while being just a single?
    "May be"?
    God remains a possibility, as long as it is not logically impossible, although what can be learnt by labelling something as "God" as opposed to what it is, that I also question.
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member


    Unfortunately you and most others are totally fixated on the label "God". It is like the label God is stuck like a craw in your head...

    why is that do you think?

    I personally do not use the label God I use the label "universe" instead...

    Just that the universe is a hell of lot more to it than what is currently considered possible by science.
    If you wish to be hung up on your own reflected limitations don't cry foul about those who aren't.
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    human behaviour as demonstrated by sociopaths and psycho paths. Also as demonstrated by those who seek and maintain real and sustainable power of influence.
    By simple marketing strategies that are effective because they capitalise on knowing their market etc etc...
    By knowing yourself allows you to know others...beyond your own, as demonstrably in "Balerions" case, self imposed limitations.
    Psychology 101.
    How many examples do you need to demonstrate that the more you know about your self the more you know about the universe around you...?
    To realise that there is considerably more to the human being than mere "neurons water and carbon"
    A multiplistic ego is only a term used in the attempt to convey meaning to those who are unfamiliar with the concept of a universal ego or super ego...

    The human race for example has a collective "ego" demonstrated in all those apocolyptic moves, those video games, those Olympic games and so on..
    Is there evidence of a human collectve ego? I think so ...plenty.

    Is the human collective ego multiplistic? Is it made up of individual personnas?

    What do you think?

    even sciforums has a "collective multiplistic ego"
    It takes very little logical extending to suggest that the universe as a whole has similar.

    to downplay the sheer wonder of our own existance is to inflate by ego contriviance our own sense of esteem in the face of it.
    So of course science seeks to diminish humanity and the universe to the level of their own competancy...because it makes their self esteem feel much better when they do.

    Human race Inferiority complex big time.
  23. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Think about how many billion people in the world conceive of a God in the general sense it is being used here. It's quite a universal concept, and at least as old as Plato's account of the trial of Socrates, that is, about two generations older than Alexander the Great. The fixation you see is nothing more than staying on topic.

    Look again at the thread title.

    By far the only limitation, as it pertains to this thread, is the denial of best evidence, in preference to personal interpretation of ancient myth and superstition.

    In raising this you remind me of the prisoner in chains in Platos' Cave Analogy.


Share This Page