sandandfoam
Veteran Member
How is that different from how believers experience God?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God Is An Imaginary Friend For Grown-Ups
- Thread starter Neo-Logic
- Start date
How is that different from how believers experience God?
blackout
Violet.
You're welcome!
Now about belief.
If people did not "believe" in the superior validity and nature of science...
would they revolve their whole "life" concepts around it's premise and findings?
You might say that the "scientific method" is the "sacred rite/right". no?
(the "doctrinal" foundation?)
Repeated testing, the ritual.
(the repeated testing is generally agreed upon. is it not?)
The scales, thermometers and test tubes...
the sacred objects...
the white robes...
the "theories" of the day= the accepted "doctrinal beliefs" of the day
(till a "better" "more accurate" "more provable" one comes along)
EVERY single person's life
is nothing more than the sum total of THEIR BELIEFS.
ie... what they believe.
(or... what they think and see... or think they see... or believe they see.)
Funny how even the measurement 1/3 is so subject to "belief".
(ie...what the observers believe they see)
Captain Civic
version 2.0
No problem. I like debates where there's no name calling or condescending inferences.
Neo-Logic said:
I put a lot of belief in the archaelogical remains of the NT, and other off-shoot 'evidences' from that, eg. the disciples' amazing transformation of attitude towards Christ after His resurrection. Not to mention that what Christ teaches really resonates with me.
Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
There is a BIG DIFFERENCE. Le'ts assume there were no influencing artworks or established figures of what God is or should look like. Then we took a group of followers who claim to have seen God and we asked them to pick out a painting of their "God" from a pile, what are the odds they would all pick the same portrait?
ON the other hand, if we took a bunch of people who claim they know me, for example, then gave them all different pictures to pick from, what are the chances that all of them will come back with MY PICTURE?
What is "God' in this example?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It is the flow thereof. Can you have wind in a vacuum?
They do tend to get in the way, despite them being the forest.
Can you have air in a vacuum?
blackout
Violet.
lolololol!!!!!!! I owe you frubals!
Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
I'm afraid 1 out of 3 is all you will get with this thread my friend.
You're right that for people to take action, there must be belief. The cycle goes like this: Belief --> Action --> Results --> Belief --> Action --> Results .. repeat repeat repeat
People do everything in life because they believe in something. The question is, what is it that they believe in order to take the action?
Redefining religion in its few ways possible to cram science under it is fundamentally flawed. Scientists are motivated by the production of results and their belief lies in the action/ scientific method. Religion, on the other hand, lacks quantifiable action process, result measurement, and replaces that all with the first step of belief.
Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
God in this example as pertaining to these related set of quotes, is the imaginary figure of the mind. Someone posed the question that people too, are imaginary figures of the mind. I argued that figures of the mind with something that is real (quantifiable) and something that maybe real (God), are different. Resulting in subsequent replies.
There are other cycles.
For instance, one goes Ignorance -> Action -> Consciousness -> Name/form -> Mind -> Relationship -> Feeling -> Love -> Taking -> Existence -> Birth -> Death -> Ignorance ->... repeat repeat repeat
blackout
Violet.
There are many TYPES of religion.I'm afraid 1 out of 3 is all you will get with this thread my friend.
You're right that for people to take action, there must be belief. The cycle goes like this: Belief --> Action --> Results --> Belief --> Action --> Results .. repeat repeat repeat
People do everything in life because they believe in something. The question is, what is it that they believe in order to take the action?
Redefining religion in its few ways possible to cram science under it is fundamentally flawed. Scientists are motivated by the production of results and their belief lies in the action/ scientific method. Religion, on the other hand, lacks quantifiable action process, result measurement, and replaces that all with the first step of belief.[/quote]
Which definition specified the acceptable methods of religion?
People measure and weigh ALL KINDS OF WAYS.
Try and put love and magick and art in your test tubes.
If matter is the only measurable/testable "matter" of your reality...
than I guess matter is the reigning God of your method.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Would you consider the God of Spinoza an imaginary friend?
Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
There are many TYPES of religion.
Which definition specified the acceptable methods of religion?
People measure and weigh ALL KINDS OF WAYS.
Try and put love and magick in your test tubes.
If matter is the only measurable/testable matter of your reality...
than I guess "matter" is the reigning God of your method.
Yes. There are many definitions of religion. However, there is only one definition of science. Applying scientific method for testing of theories to produce reproducable results. :franken:
blackout
Violet.
There are other cycles.
For instance, one goes Ignorance -> Action -> Consciousness -> Name/form -> Mind -> Relationship -> Feeling -> Love -> Taking -> Existence -> Birth -> Death -> Ignorance ->... repeat repeat repeat
There are also other gods.
But I'm too lazy and tired to put up a wonderful flow chart like Patty.
Patty is making my work night SO MUCH FUN!
Good. Then if it's imagined, we don't have to bother with it, as it's not real.
blackout
Violet.
Still that definition (of science) is in no way mutually exclusive of religion's definition.
It can clearly be a sub-set.
It can fit both definitions.
It can.and so what?