Existence of god

Discussion in 'Religion' started by shivansh, Mar 27, 2013.

  1. rr6 Banned Banned

    Write4UTell me the difference between your statement and the following statement."Humanism is an everyday practice, i.e. something we do consistently ergo consistent reoccurring patterns in our lives that assist us living orderly life".

    religion vs humanism are two differrent words.

    Huh? YOu confused dude. I never made such claims as suggest. Best recheck you messages and figure out who is who your replying to.

    Huh? You have me confused with someone else, dude as you keep infer statements I have not made.

    Again dude I made no comments regarding your "cosmic inflation". I think you have your messages confused with someone else.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. rr6 Banned Banned

    One God Indeed

    If I recall your "panthesim" = One God. Yes I agree with that.

    God( ess ) = Universe = occupied space

    I wonder why they use the word "pan"? Frying pan, Peter Pan, Panther cats, Pan the goat man.

    I don't get it.

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    And that which you have to offer is real hope?
    Given that so far, you haven't provided any real input on this matter, I remain all ears. Although I am becoming more and more frustrated.

    How does one do that?

    You keep refusing to elaborate on this point, and all your input basically comes down to repeating the soundbite "You just have to figure it out yourself."

    You're basically saying - "There is that, but I can't show it to you nor tell you how to find it. You just have to believe it is there."

    Sounds familiar? If it does, it's because it is: it's pop-Christianity. "Just have faith."

    What are you talking about?
    You're operating out of a caricature, a strawman of spirituality/religion.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    The pope came out with a statement saying everyone has to stop letting people's differences get in the way of treating them with respect and to stop wasting so much time on these issues. That is a change. It isn't a full on change of doctrine, so i don't know if they will just keep their doctrine and become decent interpreters of scripture and therefore love their neighbors, or actually change their view completely over time. These guys have massive political power, so I doubt they will ever be less than a bunch of years behind the curve.
    The pope certainly isn't the voice of god. He is just some dude, like the president, or the Dalai Lama. He might be really cool or smart, I don't know him. He might even be getting ideas inspired by god somehow, I don't know, but if he tells anyone not to love their neighbor he is off the list of reliable people.
    I would say if god actually communicated some doctrine, during the Bronze Age, the doctrine would have to be understandable by those people. Since no person can grant an understanding of god to someone else, the modern person would by necessity have to understand to some degree the doctrine as applicable to their lives, but humans translated and translate it all for each other to try to get a grip on. Asking for a human religion without humans interpreting it doesn't really make any sense. Unless you get the "word of god" spoken directly to you, there will be humans intermediating.
    You have set up up very nice dilemma here. The church can either change and be nothing more than some humans talking, or it can maintain Bronze Age ideas forever and be a blight on society.
    so you feel the Catholics should stay in the Bronze Age and just get left behind the rest of the planet?
    and of course, since you know their motivations and true idea inside the Vatican you know it is an appearance, but hey no bias.
    you and others have certainly set up an impossible task for the church. They arose during a time when everything was totally different, but if the text mentions slavery in a way that is actually ahead of the Romans in terms of slave treatment, it gets bashed for supporting slavery. If the texts are reinterpreted they also get bashed as being from men, although people obviously wrote about things they knew, and any inspired texts meant to communicate to the world would have to to be written in context of the world they were written in. The only way some of you would be satisfied is if the bible had mention of computers and jet planes and modern egalitarianism, which of course would have meant nothing to the people far in the past. If I were to want to create a feeling of safety within my belief, i would certainly look for a way to set up this kind of dilemma with my definitions of opposing ideologies, rather than take responsibility for choices, knowing they aren't being made for me.
    Agreed, but are the people in the Catholic Church powerful or are the people who climb the ladders of power within the organization powerful? The fact that those types of people who have risen to power within the organization then try to assert their control just like any primate group leader should come as no surprise.
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    How would you know?

    And why should we trust you?

    Not to mention that the president, or the Dalai Lama aren't just "some dudes".

    You're "some dude," right? Can you just like that become president, or major spiritual/religious leader?

    Pffft. Just redefine "love" and problem solved.
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Which means what exactly?

    What about the doctrine of eternal damnation? Is this evidence of good religion, or bad religion?

    If the doctrine of eternal damnation is bad religion - then all Abrahamists are bad people.
  10. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps it was good for them. It seems pretty clear that Judaism is not a religion where they were supposed to convert anyone. Who is to say god didn't talk to some other people in some other place a different way and give them their own ideas and connections to god?
    Also I am pretty sure a lot of Jews didn't believe in an afterlife at least according to some studying I have done, so it is pretty hard to get eternal damnation out of that. They even believe in reincarnation sometimes, or that evil people create demons to torment themselves, which sounds like karma and the lower planes below animal existence. http://www.jewfaq.org/m/olamhaba.htm
    Christianity on the other hand has an issue, but I do think most people are just trying to follow what they need to to be decent people and feel good about themselves, and also get on the team of the god they are being told is going to put them in hell.
    I am not saying eternal damnation is not a gun, but in the hands of good people it is not used. OR they go try to convert people they want to be saved. And then of course there is the fact that most people are basically neutral outside their own social and family groups,so I wouldn't expect super kind, non-fearful, interpretations of religion from them. Certainly not from the seekers of power, who are going to see it all through the lens of primate group power dynamics. And then there is the fact that many of the problems are just basic logic issues, caused by people not wanting to use or not being able to use logic. Many people can't follow first principles logically.
    Also it is quite possible to interpret separation from god as simply being dead, or as an eternal torment for somebody with a deep connection to god like the John who writes about it. Separation from everything good is basically what we can create for ourselves anyway as a society.
    And finally, yes I think people that don't have a problem with a god that allows people to be tormented for eternity have a moral problem, although in other ways they may be far better people than you or I. So if somebody's religion has this concept and they also strive to help others and make the world a better place, they are doing more than I am most days, although I wouldn't worship a god who I thought was not good, which basically makes us both wash out as, "ok". Good old, "ok".
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Why wouldn't it be?

    Which is a gun.
  12. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    I have no faith that he is, and to the best of my ability to reason it out, he is not the voice of god, but you don't have to trust me. Figure it out for yourself whether historically the popes have had the appearance of infallibility. The bible says nothing of it, other than calling peter the rock, peter who screwed up many times and certainly wasn't infallible. So peter wasn't infallible but all the guys who got his job later on are? No this is straight politics, probably started back when the eastern Christians split and Constantinople etc, but It wasn't defined officially til more recently. Come on. This is sectarian dogma. Even in the Wikipedia example for the usage of "infallibility" is for the pope to say that people who don't believe in the virgin aren't Catholics. Good for him, let him define the religion he is in charge of without question. Not my responsibility since he isn't going to listen to me anyway.
    They are to me - they poop and get sick and die, just like everyone else. And no, I am not some dude. I am more critically significant to me than the president or the Dalai Lama, and rightfully so. Not to say their position in the world isn't more important, and I might possibly take a bullet for one of them for the sake of social stability, but they aren't my consciousness , and as far as I know I need this me of mine to do life. although I am not sure what the Dalai Lama would say about all that haha.
    love has a definition and implications. If someone wants to go against those in their new definition, they are being illogical, and semantically retarded.
  13. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    why would it be?
    Which is a gun.[/QUOTE]no, because some are TRYING to help people. I am sure the Buddha would have said telling your child there is a monster in the house to get them out when the house is on fire would be morally fine, just like the lying about a pretty oxcart would be. Haha, we are going to get back into deontology and consequentialism again. And those people wouldn't and don't listen to me anyway, so they have to allowed their other merits, rather than focusing on their mistakes.
  14. rr6 Banned Banned


    ...."18. Panthesism : PAN theism (pan’ thee iz um) n....."The doctrine that the forces and laws of the universe are equal to God"

    I'm not sure that is exactly the same as I'm expressing but it appears close enough for government work.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    [B"]U"ni[/B]verse = "G"od( ess )

    Ess = gravity = essence of God/Universe

    Gravity = contractive IN phenomena/force

    EMRadiaiton = expansive OUT phenommena/force

    Cosmic Heirarchy

    0) Mind/intelligence ergo concepts ideas( relative truths ) and cosmic laws/principles( absolute truths )
    01) Space infinite
    ...01a) macro-micro infinite non-occupied space,
    ...02a) finite occupied space aka Universe

    We have faith, trust hope that the autos do not cross over the center line to cause impact.

    We believe there exist a finite set of cosmic laws/principles ex 2nd law of thermodynamics--- physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed ---ergo we have faith, trust and hope that there exists an underlying integral order that some would define as God or the soul or the spirit of Universe.

    Spirit-1 = physical/energy ergo fermions and bosons

    Spirit-1 = metaphysical intention as mind/intelligence

    Soul-1 = biological

    Soul-2 = pattern/shape/geometry etc... ex a spiral pattern is not the medium of wood, metal etc it is the metaphysical pattern.


  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    That's like saying - "Yes, it is possible to become enlightened, but you have to figure it out yourself."

    No, it's not politics, it's the old problem of how an unqualified person can recognize a qualified one, when it takes a qualified person to know one.

    Of course, your solution is the standard resort to pride - thank heavens you can do that!

    Or just powerful.

    no, because some are TRYING to help people. I am sure the Buddha would have said telling your child there is a monster in the house to get them out when the house is on fire would be morally fine, just like the lying about a pretty oxcart would be. Haha, we are going to get back into deontology and consequentialism again. And those people wouldn't and don't listen to me anyway, so they have to allowed their other merits, rather than focusing on their mistakes.[/QUOTE]

    And the important thing is that they TRY to help people - even if in the process, they kill them, yessss ...
  16. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Yes, we know, but what you really, really, really want and want to believe are not supported by reality, they are just fantasies and delusions.
  17. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    it is more like saying, "try this way and see for yourself."
    sure, you have to have your own belief about god to make a decision, even if it is just that god isn't real, so the pope isn't the voice of god, which is what many people here would say.
    Yes, I understand that the important thing is ALSO the consequence, a reality that makes a lot of these issues more complicated than people want to accept.
  18. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    What is the nature of God? An all powerful, all knowing being. What can possibly possess such qualities. Maybe God is the original ancestor of all things and saw the birth of matter and knows how to play with it giving him god powers.
  19. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Some of these things I've experienced. Other things will depend upon what we can do with technology.
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    No, you haven't.
  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    In a one-lifetime conception, which includes the mainstream Christian only-one-lifetime-for-action conception, this advice is perverse. And so is the giver of such advice.

    In a one-lifetime conception, mistakes are either fatal, or irrelevant.
    If fatal, people will be paralyzed by trying to figure out what is "the right thing" and thus won't do anything, thus ensuring the fatal outcome.
    If irrelevant, there is no point in deliberately trying anything, as things will work out the way they will regardless what one does.

    So either way, a one-lifetime conception is pernicious, a no-win situation.

    It's more than just that. It's that the whole notion of preaching to outsiders of a religion is inherently abusive.
  22. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Yes i have.
  23. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    In your self-deluded mind.

Share This Page