Do you talk to GOD?

[arfa brane]

vocalisation to a deity, who may or may not actually exist--aka the Biblical God in whom we need to have faith and follow or worship correctly.

I'll mention here that I was raised in a neighbourhood with a fair share of Catholic households. I was converted to the Christian faith at the age of 14, but it didn't last long.
I still don't know that I can rationalise what happened, but I was sold a story, something definitely happened but it wasn't after all, what everyone was telling me it was.

These days after a bit of research and practising certain techniques, I think I have a better view, if not a better idea; not needing an idea somehow makes the view better, at least some of the time.

And there it is--if what I know about it isn't what everyone is telling me, then I'm sorry but it will have to do, until, y'know. Jesus will have to actually show up, in person, so to speak.

 

[Tiassa]

Why we're having trouble here with understanding each other ....

If I hem and haw about four hundred or so words that might go here ....

Four hundred twenty words, says the software. Anyway, these are the four hundred or so words that follow observation of strange irony.

†​

• But as James continues to ask you to answer for the inadequacies of his own idol, well, that's the thing isn't it—there are a two important components in the demands: First is the construction of the fallacious object; second is assignation.

The approximate shape of his godling in a shoebox is not some utter mystery, but consider that the difference about whether God is an idea or not has to do with what we mean by an idea. To split the hair, consider monotheism in terms of what counts as everything. While this can be the parlor game that wrecks everything, our more useful take is to think of universes and multiverses, and by the time we get to the multiverse within a multiverse, it becomes apparent that there really isn't any point in trying to draw such omniversal boundaries; what emerges is recognition that if we ever find a boundary describing a certain sort of stasis, then we find the limit of "God", and that probably means it's not really God.

And, to be certain, that isn't really useful toward judging and scorning the idol of James' shoebox mystery.

Thus: You are, generally, talking about something else entirely. We might discuss the rise of the neocortex↗, or emergence of writing; I have an unfinished line about comprehending the color blue. And maybe sometime we might consider scattered humanity spending eight or ten thousand years wandering around, surviving hand in whatever states of mind as natural selection specialized our emotional range according to living priorities preceding and motivating the rise of civilization. If I observed last year↗ that perhaps I should not have omitted an excerpt discussing Mencius on conscience and altruism, our present moment makes the line feel hilarious.

Still, if we might discuss a prospect that our abstract obligation to something transcending ourselves suggests our religious inclinations are an evolutionary result, that just isn't the sort of discussion James pursues. To the other, if it sometimes reads like he's in perpetual dispute with a Children's Illustrated NIV, it's also true I've reminded him before about his need for something to react to in lieu of coming up with an affirmative thesis of his own. The idea of an idol in a shoebox seems pretty obvious, and if the approximate shape of his mystery is not so mysterious, the actual detail is.

He needs you to play a certain role, and you're talking about something entirely different.​

†​

I had omitted them originally, thinking they would complicate #115↑, but as it goes, it turns out to have been a good idea to keep them for future consideration.

 

[arfa brane]

Well, there is the unfortunate aspect of religions preying on society; of people ending up in cults and living much like slaves to a religious leader.
That kind of thing is definitely where you will find people who need saving.

It seems that the human need to belong, to be relevant in a group, trumps a lot of rational behaviour; there are people who know how to exploit this and enrich themselves. I could mention a Pope or two.

But of course, there are many new-age preachers who seem to be able to readily summon together a band of believers. Why are people so gullible when it comes to you-know-what?

 

[James R]

Tiassa:

I see that your intention is to talk past me rather than to me. That is very rude - your talking about me as if I'm not right here. I'd really rather you kept your opinions about me to yourself. Stop trying to bully. You're an adult. This isn't the school playground.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

I stated that in my imagined Universe where the laws of physics varied sentient entities were present and was curious as how scientists would react to such a situation

My thoughts were along the lines of - a group would go with the doubled speed of light should be the norm, a group for the normal, group for the half speed and a group for the situation as it was

All groups worked on trying to predict when changes would occur

Changes to what? Which changes? I'm not a scientist. I'm a philosopher/debator. Sorry about that. I'm sure you'll find some to analyse what you have said scientifically. So they would see stuff at different times. Big deal.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

Why do most religions have music and singing, when people gather together? I think you could have a problem, anthropologically speaking, trying to separate evidence of musical traditions from religious ones, looking just about anywhere in human history.

Are religions really evidence, though, or are they some other aspect of anthropological "God"?

Because people just generally like music and singing and gathering together. And they really like looking up to some powerful authority figure who lots of other people look up to, because it is good for group dynamics and social harmony.

 

[Michael 345]

Because people just generally like music and singing and gathering together. And they really like looking up to some powerful authority figure who lots of other people look up to, because it is good for group dynamics and social harmony.

Can do that for many situations, or without a situation being required

Had many of those (no situation required) and definitely without the really like looking up to some powerful authority aspect. I would not go with the really like more just accept

social harmony not from what I understand about church groups

 

[foghorn]

The original question: do you talk to God? seems quite straightforward, until you invoke the Clinton defense.
It depends what the meaning of the word "talk" is. Carlos Santana can make an electric guitar talk (in Spanish). Who or what is this talking "to"?

But wait, we're supposed to understand the question in the "common" way; verbalisation and vocalisation to a deity, who may or may not actually exist--aka the Biblical God in whom we need to have faith and follow or worship correctly. A ring-in for the many forms of God required by an elite to effect social control, get temples built etc.

If you hum a tune, are you "talking", in what sense, or according to what meaning of words? Are you communicating at all, and with what?

Second try at getting arfa brane to answer...
In the case of the guitar it was a sound evoking feelings.
In the case of yourself and whatever it is you experience (feelings?), what is it about those experiences that cause you to interpret their origin as something from outside of yourself?

 

[foghorn]

Well, there is the unfortunate aspect of religions preying on society; of people ending up in cults and living much like slaves to a religious leader.
That kind of thing is definitely where you will find people who need saving.

It seems that the human need to belong, to be relevant in a group, trumps a lot of rational behaviour; there are people who know how to exploit this and enrich themselves. I could mention a Pope or two.

But of course, there are many new-age preachers who seem to be able to readily summon together a band of believers. Why are people so gullible when it comes to you-know-what?

My belief is better than your belief.
I have even seen it on this site where a member (not you) of a certain religion takes the piss out of those in that same religion who have a 'simpler' belief of ''God'' than himself.
Is that religious snobbery or what.

 

[foghorn]

Four hundred twenty words, says the software. Anyway, these are the four hundred or so words that follow observation of strange irony.

†​

• But as James continues to ask you to answer for the inadequacies of his own idol, well, that's the thing isn't it—there are a two important components in the demands: First is the construction of the fallacious object; second is assignation.

The approximate shape of his godling in a shoebox is not some utter mystery, but consider that the difference about whether God is an idea or not has to do with what we mean by an idea. To split the hair, consider monotheism in terms of what counts as everything. While this can be the parlor game that wrecks everything, our more useful take is to think of universes and multiverses, and by the time we get to the multiverse within a multiverse, it becomes apparent that there really isn't any point in trying to draw such omniversal boundaries; what emerges is recognition that if we ever find a boundary describing a certain sort of stasis, then we find the limit of "God", and that probably means it's not really God.

And, to be certain, that isn't really useful toward judging and scorning the idol of James' shoebox mystery.

Thus: You are, generally, talking about something else entirely. We might discuss the rise of the neocortex↗, or emergence of writing; I have an unfinished line about comprehending the color blue. And maybe sometime we might consider scattered humanity spending eight or ten thousand years wandering around, surviving hand in whatever states of mind as natural selection specialized our emotional range according to living priorities preceding and motivating the rise of civilization. If I observed last year↗ that perhaps I should not have omitted an excerpt discussing Mencius on conscience and altruism, our present moment makes the line feel hilarious.

Still, if we might discuss a prospect that our abstract obligation to something transcending ourselves suggests our religious inclinations are an evolutionary result, that just isn't the sort of discussion James pursues. To the other, if it sometimes reads like he's in perpetual dispute with a Children's Illustrated NIV, it's also true I've reminded him before about his need for something to react to in lieu of coming up with an affirmative thesis of his own. The idea of an idol in a shoebox seems pretty obvious, and if the approximate shape of his mystery is not so mysterious, the actual detail is.

He needs you to play a certain role, and you're talking about something entirely different.​

†​

I had omitted them originally, thinking they would complicate #115↑, but as it goes, it turns out to have been a good idea to keep them for future consideration.

Oh look, here's Tissa trying to shape the questions of others. Tiassa, ask your own questions yourself.
Tiassa, what makes you think there's a god?

 

[arfa brane]

In the case of yourself and whatever it is you experience (feelings?), what is it about those experiences that cause you to interpret their origin as something from outside of yourself?

I don't always interpret the origin as being outside of myself. Strictly speaking, the sound your breathing makes is external because you hear it in the same way you hear external sound.
And you don't hear your own voice the same way other, external people do, when you speak or sing.

Otherwise I'm confident I still retain the ability to discriminate between sounds from outside 'myself' and sounds from inside. Your body makes a lot of noise as you may know, joints pop and creak, there's your heartbeat, blood rushing in your ears, etc. Lots of internal noises.

Or am I not providing a satisfactory answer there?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Do you talk to GOD?

no
because i never know who might be listening

 

[foghorn]

Otherwise I'm confident I still retain the ability to discriminate between sounds from outside 'myself' and sounds from inside. Your body makes a lot of noise as you may know, joints pop and creak, there's your heartbeat, blood rushing in your ears, etc. Lots of internal noises.
Or am I not providing a satisfactory answer there?

Well, actually I thought you was using the 'talking guitar' thingy as an analogy of the way you 'sense' ''God''.
I didn't mean sound literally, I meant whatever way you 'sense' ''God'' .
And so, how or why do you interpret the experience's origin as something not of your own minds making?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

OK, Noah was down with God's will, so like, does that mean that the animals he picked up were chill as well?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

'sense' ''God''.

if its god
god can choose to be sensed or not sensed
if you need to put cash in the jar & do a special dance
it aint god
its a scam

OK, Noah was down with God's will, so like, does that mean that the animals he picked up were chill as well?

if they cant kill & eat it
it was not given a boarding pass
in those days animals were
tractors for farming or riding
food for killing & eating
skin & fur for wearing & weaving

the sanctification of animals was a scam tool to create a false sense of divinity of live in a dichotomy.
remember slavery then was normal
women & children were bought & sold for sex slaves

 

[Tiassa]

Oh look, here's Tissa trying to shape the questions of others.

You know, it's entirely possible they're talking about different things.

Tiassa, ask your own questions yourself.

You are aware, I tried that already?

Tiassa, what makes you think there's a god?

What makes you think I do?

This is why it's good to heed your advice about not taking you seriously↗.

As I told James R a while back↗:

• I use the word "Apathetic" to describe my outlook on God; I am neither theist nor atheist nor agnostic, and I literally do not care if God exists because it is just a word, and in the monotheistic framework describes an abstraction; this notion is not any pioneering work of my own, but something I learned from reading really smart people giving their best historical analyses to notions they personally didn't believe.​

It seems apt in our moment. I also, in that post, happened to suggest that an error about his argumentative framework was that it seemed reactive, and that he was hemming himself in by surrendering terms to the theists. Four years later, he's still doing it.

It seems I've used versions of the Apathetic line since around 2013, though an occasion in 2016↗ is remarkable for apparently being somehow confusing↗.

When you puff yourself up to ask questions like, "what makes you think there's a god?" do you actually stop to consider reality first, or is this just another example of why you shouldn't be taken seriously?

 

[arfa brane]

Well, actually I thought you was using the 'talking guitar' thingy as an analogy of the way you 'sense' ''God''.

Uh huh. I thought I was using the guitar thingy as a way to explore what "talking" means. But hey.

I didn't mean sound literally, I meant whatever way you 'sense' ''God'' .

Another surprise then. (!?)

And so, how or why do you interpret the experience's origin as something not of your own minds making?

Have you heard of Rene Descartes? When you experience anything, how do you know the origin is external and not something your own mind is constructing? What does "the origin of an experience" mean, and how can experience be external? Things that happen in the "external world" can cause experiences in human minds. Or they can cause neurological responses in human brains, if you like.

 

[arfa brane]

That sentence I aimed at James R, about knowing more than you think you do is actually generally true.

Or it is if you had the same kind of childhood I did, and I assumed all the children I knew did. This is when you are generally quite innocent about things like religion, but you might be aware there are churches people go to, or that some children go to "Sunday School".

So that thing that hit you back then, about what that was all about, is what I'm trying to bring in here. You know that first impressions really are the ones that last, right? So what you think you know about it, is related to those first impressions. But maybe, since you didn't really deal with it, or you got sick to death of what other people were telling you and gave up trying, you still can tell yourself you don't know, one way or the other.

What, exactly is this thing you "don't know"?

 

[foghorn]

• I use the word "Apathetic" to describe my outlook on God; I am neither theist nor atheist nor agnostic, and I literally do not care if God exists because it is just a word, and in the monotheistic framework describes an abstraction; this notion is not any pioneering work of my own, but something I learned from reading really smart people giving their best historical analyses to notions they personally didn't believe.

My bold.
Capitalising ''God'' where you did there, seems to say... I'm open minded to the idea there might be a god.
Me, gods are just a mind model some use to make sense of their world.
So, what was all that stuff about art and history you mentioned sometime back as being something to be considered when talking of a god, are you SO interested in the workings of the mind and the models it constructs to understand its surrounding?

 

[foghorn]

Uh huh. I thought I was using the guitar thingy as a way to explore what "talking" means. But hey.
Another surprise then. (!?)
Have you heard of Rene Descartes? When you experience anything, how do you know the origin is external and not something your own mind is constructing? What does "the origin of an experience" mean, and how can experience be external? Things that happen in the "external world" can cause experiences in human minds. Or they can cause neurological responses in human brains, if you like.

I have heard some people hear voices in their heads, why do ''doctors'' think that can't be?