Audie
Veteran Member
Maybe instead of " OBVIOUS" it's the
Ms America thing, "I firmly believe..."
Obviously is that you know nothing about the
ToE.
That bit about "chance" is what card player would call a " tell".
-
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!
No thanks no God!
- Thread starter Hereashortwhileonly
- Start date
Maybe instead of " OBVIOUS" it's the
Ms America thing, "I firmly believe..."
Obviously is that you know nothing about the
ToE.
That bit about "chance" is what card player would call a " tell".
Sorry, did I say it is obvious to you or anyone else?
But, while you are free to believe whatever suits your life, it is obvious to me (a higher intelligent Will behind my existence) even if all other humans are created to play the roles of conventional intelligent robots (guided by pre-programmed instructions, embedded in them by their maker and known as natural instincts). As you know, an ordinary robot is not supposed to be programmed to wast its time searching its maker. Such a robot has to just achieve the tasks for which it was made till its end-of-service time comes.
I admit that I am not expert in word's games as you are, so I am sorry if I couldn't express my point clearly by using words like 'random' and 'by chance'.
Please note that I am not here to convince anyone about anything, I just say what I have in mind to fill my free time; sorry for any inconvenience.
Audie
Veteran Member
No, you said obvious to you. But "firmly believe" is wholly
different from "obvious" which of needs must be something true.
If you cannot express something even to yourself it's a sign you don't understand it.
The talk of " random" and "chance" is an
obvious sign that you don't know much of
anything about ToE.
Clarity of expression is the opposite of a word game.
Last edited:
You are right.
Hereashortwhileonly
Member
I agree with you to a point; and I think especially amongst the causaians, where atheism has taken a particular root, this is the case.
It leaves a gap in their need to understand being, and so this becomes the main battlespace for the question of God's existence (which is taken for granted in certain other cultures, further south). I.e. it is posited as an intellectual question, primarily.
But emotionally, the human being's need to be in relation as the heart of human fulfillment, is tied to his impulse to give thanks and praise, so that without such an impulse the opportunity to fulfillment would be stunted.
The diffiiculty with emotional needs, however, is that they are the most tricky to identify within ourselves, because we adapt and become very used to our outlooks and our circumstances.
I think if you observe how people from religious cultures exude a natural happiness which northern-westerners don't, this comes down to having the opportunity (pathways opened) to give thanks and praise with the whole of their being. As well, to say I'm sorry! and forgive me! with the whole of their being.
In other words, the capacity to be in relation.
Audie
Veteran Member
The lack of capacity is on the part of those
who must invent some " god " to fill some
strange need (lack of something )
in their lives.
I've no such need nor do very many of today's
educated Chinese.
As noted before, this praise and thanks yiu find so important is directed inward at your own
imagination and shows a distinct lack of
appreciation for the the things themselves, for what they are.
Not that you will take ten seconds to try to
grasp why I said that.
Hereashortwhileonly
Member
Hi, you raise some interesting points about the nature of belief, and while I disagree with your conclusions or start-point, it does go to the heart of the question, if we take the journey to its end
"The lack of capacity is on the part of those
who must invent some " god " to fill some
strange need (lack of something )
in their lives."
I agree that belief in God does fulfill a need. Otherwise, people wouldn't have such belief. Question is what is that need? Is belief in God its natural fulfillment, or does such belief represent a distortion of the fulfillment?
If we begin from the position that the human being has certain needs - that can tell us about who the human being is - the truth of him/ her - and in this need, and its appropriate satisfaction, we would find the truths of reality. Why? Because the human being has faculties of reason, imagination, consciousness which, along with his earthy material condition, makes him this connection between the earth and the heavens, the visible and the hidden - ie his self-consciousness allows the universe to "know itself" and thereby fulfill its destiny.
So, what need does belief in (God) answer?
I say, one primary need it answers the need for true relation. What? Why do I need to believe in an imaginary entity to relate to the world or to myself or to my neighbour? I can have perfectly good relations with people without recourse to belief in another entity.
What do I mean by true relation?
One of the features of relation is knowing - when I have a relation with another person, I am sharing their consciousness in some way. By this way, the person feels less lonely than if there was no such person there to relate to. Some aspects of their being is being seen and known about, and the same with me. We share in one another. And, depending on the situation, this can make a person feel vulnerable and cause them to reject the relation, if not trusting the other person or fearing a judgement. Some people prefer to relate to animals than human beings, and find this type of relation easier. As a solitary type myself, I can understand this impulse. So what's the difference between the relation with an animal than another human being?
It is one rung down the ladder on having a capacity for full relation. We can relate to the pure being of an animal, and this also has its own reward and can alleviate loneliness. But an animal cannot relate to us as human beings with the additional complexities entailed. So what?
This tells us that implcit in our understanding of relation, is this aspect of knowing and the capacity to know.
"I can't relate" - it means, doesn't it?, I've never experienced that so I don't know how it feels. I don't know.
What's the point?
Behind all of this is a need to be known, and in turn, to know the one who knows me.
I can't be known by a tree. I can relate as an organic being in some way, but that's it.
I can't be known by a horse.
Can I be known by another human?
Yes - to an extent. Why only an extent?
Because another human being is unable to know all of me. They cannot know my thoughts. They cannot know the whole span of my life, all my actions and experiences, all my feelings, hopes, fears. I can communicate this, sure, but it will always be limited - both by the limitations of what I can communicate, and the limitations of what they can relate to and understand. And thrown into the mix of all this is the fact that human beings are flawed - we have our own interests, our own view, our own faults, which prevents us from being just "always there" for someone else or even "100% devoted" to the other person.
For all of these reasons, if all we had were the beings we see, we would never be able to satisfy the need to be fully known.
Can we know ourselves?
Because of our nature to self-delusion and limitations, this may be even harder than knowing others! It is impossible that we can know ourselves, just by ourselves.
So... to satisfy the need, requires an All Knowing Being. He would know every thought you have, every intention in your heart - even those you are unaware of! - and every action. Only such a being would be able to truly judge you also. So satisfying another need we have, which is true judgement. What do we do when we aren't conscious of such a being? We distort this need. We do one of two things:
We see, no-one can judge anyone else, and judgement is wrong, and basically anyone can do what they like, and that's okay for them. I.e. relativity.
In some ways, that seems liberating. But, it doesn't fit with the human being's innate need for judgement. They will judge others, and they will still themselves want to be judged. You find for instance that amongst people who say that we should never judge the life choices of others, they will be the most judgemental towards people who don't agree with their world view! They may call them fascist, backward, or any such name. I.e. all they've done is subverted their need for judgement and switched it to some other target.
Or, we make ourselves the All Knowing Judge and trust in our own capacity to judge the truth of another person. Religion says, hate the sin, love the sinner - because you cannot stand in judgement of them personally.
What else?
Giving thanks and praise is innate to the human being as a relational creature.
We don't see animals praising one another, but humans do it all the time. We don't see animals saying thank you, but we see it with human beings. (I know that sometimes animals indicate their gratitude for food, but it is not giving thanks in the greater sense of having consciousness of what has been done, rather a reflex.)
Why do human beings do these things unique to them?
I propose it answers the need for connection.
When we say thanks or praise another we are acknowledging them and their attributes. So it is another way to the knowing and being known, that is at the heart of relation.
The capacity to be known, therefore, can only be true through the existence of the All Knowing.
And as such, a person's deepest need cannot be fulfilled.
Now, does that provide proof of the truth of (God)?
I say that to deny (God) is, in effect, to deny the truth of oneself.
Of course, I appreciate that modern people say that the need is a "developed trait" which may have provided "individual and group benefits", and therefore its satisfaction is a type of delusion also.
I make two responses to this:
Firstly, this modern outlook can't be the basis for knowledge only doubt-on-doubt. According to the same theory, the explanation for why the God-need should be rejected could also be rejected on the same terms: that disbelief is a delusional outlook developed because it benefits certain humans to propagate this outlook.
We need to breathe, therefore oxygen. Oxygen, therefore the need to breathe.
We need to sleep, therefore we sleep.
This is the basics of human fulfillment beyond which all is speculation and creating complexities where they don't exist.
And secondly, if we are victims of "developed convenient illusions" then the theory we reach this understanding through is itself in doubt, because it is a product of the human being and his self-interested "conveniant illusion" creative tendency. I.e. it is circular - and the only escape from all such circularity when it comes to human understanding, in the end, has to be revelation - but that is another point!
Put another way, "you're saying the human intuition can't be trusted - you human, who is telling me the human can't be trusted!"
"As noted before, this praise and thanks yiu find so important is directed inward at your own
imagination and shows a distinct lack of
appreciation for the the things themselves, for what they are."
Hm, I agree that one should appreciate something in itself for what it is, and that this is a higher good than appreciating it for some instrumental purpose. However, I disagree that that is what happens when we do appreciate with sincerity, because I posit that appreciation is always a relational act, beit explicitly or implicitly. People who don't believe in a Higher Creator may think they escape this in the appreciation of nature, but when we look at how they use language we see that's not true (see below). Why might they think this? Because appreciating nature is an escape from our worldly relations, which always involve an element of instrumental (purpose-directed) thinking, and in this way bring us an avenue to the transcendent and (God).
In doing so, and in wanting to affirm appreciation for "the thing in itself", I believe you are expressing a need for (God) and appreciation of (Him). How so?
Relation with (God) is the relation which frees us from the insufficiency and self-interest inherent to our relations in everyday life, and into the Eternal (pure) relation.
When we praise a work of art, we are implicitly praising the creator of that work. The one follows from the other. If you were asked, and do you praise the creator of this for their work, of course you say yes. If you analysed it, you'd want to know the meaning, and through the work you would have some relation to "what is being said" by the artist.
Now, if that artist happens to be nearby and we say the praise out loud, of course, it is inevitable that the sincerity of our words may be compromised by a desire to please them.
When we observe the beauty of some woodland trees, there is no such danger is there? (Except to impress someone else with our appreciation.)
The difference between praise and thanks in all our human interactions and with the All Knowing, is that only (He) can know what is truly in your heart, and only (He) can appreciate the depth and sincerity of your own appreciation.
And what is behind the need for appreciation? Why do we appreciate beauty?
I say it is another way of connection, and thereby, again, it answers our deepest need for relation. Appreciation of beauty happens through something or someone affecting us, and thereby we are brought close to that thing or someone, ie. brought closer to true relation.
A person doesn't need any complex leaps of imagination or faith to realise this truth - it is implicit in the words which we use.
connection and relation happens between subjects.
That's why we don't talk about connecting to a computer, except in a technical sense. Or connecting to a robot. Or connecting to a bottle of water. Or a tap.
But people do talk about nature in that way. Why? Because intuitively they appreciate it as a subject-subject experience.
And if the logic of atheism was taken to its conclusion people wouldn't accept its consequences. They wouldn't accept that you shouldn't talk about "connecting with nature" because nature is not a subject to be connected with - it doesn't have will or a consciousness of its own. They would think you strange - "of course you can connect with nature! I feel that and experience that all the time!"
So what is the truth of this feeling?
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Way too much to read and respond to now.
Let me give an example of just seeing a narrow
back into one's own skull.
Walking across campus with this other girl
A fine big autumn color maple leaf falls at out feet.
She picks it up, oh look God sent this to us to
represent the Trinity!
"So why does the leaf have five parts?"
Oh, it means god sent it to represent the pentarch!
She isnt seeing the leaf at all.
Didn't really even look at it, it's not hard to
count to five.
Someone else will look at the grand canyon
and be grateful to God for making it with a
few days of Noah flood.
It's all just people praising their own imagination.
Let me give an example of just seeing a narrow
back into one's own skull.
Walking across campus with this other girl
A fine big autumn color maple leaf falls at out feet.
She picks it up, oh look God sent this to us to
represent the Trinity!
"So why does the leaf have five parts?"
Oh, it means god sent it to represent the pentarch!
She isnt seeing the leaf at all.
Didn't really even look at it, it's not hard to
count to five.
Someone else will look at the grand canyon
and be grateful to God for making it with a
few days of Noah flood.
It's all just people praising their own imagination.
In reality, humans don't have the same needs, period 
So if someone cannot believe this fact, he would be confused always about what some others say and do.
Obviously those who don't have a certain need in their life that some others have in theirs, have no choice but to think that this need has to be an imaginary one.
So if someone cannot believe this fact, he would be confused always about what some others say and do.
Obviously
those who don't have a certain need in their life that some others have in theirs, have no choice but to think that this need has to be an imaginary one.wellwisher
Well-Known Member
If you believe in evolution, it says that humans evolved from apes. It you can accept that, that implies humans, like apes, had natural instinct at one time. Natural instinct is species dependent with each species having its own internal instinctive program. The sheep will graze while the lion will hunt.
The instinctive program, connected to the earliest natural humans, is called human nature and defines human as a species. We all have natural human propensities, that a visiting space alien would equate with all humans being a unique species.
Most humans have repressed their natural instincts, in favor of ego-centric choice and will power; social conditioning from the outside. This is the true nature of original sin and the loss of paradise. Instinct, was once an inner voice that decided for us; paradise. Knowledge of good and evil, came from the outside, and was designed for unique ego will and choice. This uniqueness can lead to individual and social dissociation; loss of paradise. It was based on consciousness migration from right to left brain.
If you look at biology and the DNA, DNA is very conservative and does not easily change via will power and choice. Our natural human instincts still exist within our genes, but they have been repressed and made unconscious, in favor the ego and the conscious mind.
Jesus calls this repressed natural operating system of instinct the inner man. This quiet inner voice of instinct can integrate one with nature and with each other. Religions are methods to help the ego tap into this inner voice, since all that is natural is a subset of God. However, the superego of culture favors external knowledge and often tries to sabotage the internal knowledge from the inner man, since each is opposite of the other. Fake news and Hollywood teach the ego how to think and behave movie to movie and fad to fad.
The two most advanced cultures on earth; USA and China, are based on religions; Christianity and Buddhism, which do make a distinction between the inner man and the outer man. This natural instinct induction, from religion, helps to integrate the mind, in spite of obstacles that should dissociate each nation. In the USA, the open freedoms which should lead to anarchy and dissociation, remains united. While the huge population of China in light of change and modernization remain unified. This is also in spite of egocentric atheism and culturalism, calling unnatural, natural leading to dissociation.
The instinctive program, connected to the earliest natural humans, is called human nature and defines human as a species. We all have natural human propensities, that a visiting space alien would equate with all humans being a unique species.
Most humans have repressed their natural instincts, in favor of ego-centric choice and will power; social conditioning from the outside. This is the true nature of original sin and the loss of paradise. Instinct, was once an inner voice that decided for us; paradise. Knowledge of good and evil, came from the outside, and was designed for unique ego will and choice. This uniqueness can lead to individual and social dissociation; loss of paradise. It was based on consciousness migration from right to left brain.
If you look at biology and the DNA, DNA is very conservative and does not easily change via will power and choice. Our natural human instincts still exist within our genes, but they have been repressed and made unconscious, in favor the ego and the conscious mind.
Jesus calls this repressed natural operating system of instinct the inner man. This quiet inner voice of instinct can integrate one with nature and with each other. Religions are methods to help the ego tap into this inner voice, since all that is natural is a subset of God. However, the superego of culture favors external knowledge and often tries to sabotage the internal knowledge from the inner man, since each is opposite of the other. Fake news and Hollywood teach the ego how to think and behave movie to movie and fad to fad.
The two most advanced cultures on earth; USA and China, are based on religions; Christianity and Buddhism, which do make a distinction between the inner man and the outer man. This natural instinct induction, from religion, helps to integrate the mind, in spite of obstacles that should dissociate each nation. In the USA, the open freedoms which should lead to anarchy and dissociation, remains united. While the huge population of China in light of change and modernization remain unified. This is also in spite of egocentric atheism and culturalism, calling unnatural, natural leading to dissociation.
Audie
Veteran Member
In reality, humans don't have the same needs, period
So if someone cannot believe this fact, he would be confused always about what some others say and do.
Obviously
Eeeeewweh, making up things about
people you cannot possibly understand.
Audie
Veteran Member
Condense this and a response will be possible.
Four decades ago, I realized that I need to see the world as it is on the ground, not as I like it to be. Since then, nothing surprised me.
About those whom I may be interested in, I just analyse their reactions and the fruits of what they may say and do. And, I, unlike most people, do this, just for my own knowledge, nothing else.
I don't debate or argue because I just say what I have in mind about an idea while I remember always that it is wise sometimes avoiding the talks about certain natural truths which likely hurt some hearers.
Now, do I need be a prophet to predict, that your reply, if there will be one, is not supposed to please me
Audie
Veteran Member
Four decades ago, I realized that I need to see the world as it is on the ground, not as I like it to be. Since then, nothing surprised me.
About those whom I may be interested in, I just analyse their reactions and the fruits of what they may say and do. And, I, unlike most people, do this, just for my own knowledge, nothing else.
I don't debate or argue because I just say what I have in mind about an idea while I remember always that it is wise sometimes avoiding the talks about certain natural truths which likely hurt some hearers.
Now, do I need be a prophet to predict, that your reply, if there will be one, is not supposed to please me
I may predict your going with OT and
irrelevant.
Thanks to Jesus, my God (The Will behind my existence), I was able discovering the logical answers of all my important questions about life; my own deep nature and the real world as it runs on the ground.
Yes, my reply here may sound irrelevant because I thank God for giving me all the knowledge I need more than anything else.
I bet you are also happy with the knowledge you got so far. But, you likely have no reason to thank anyone for it because you got it by yourself.
Audie
Veteran Member
Whatevs
Hereashortwhileonly
Member
In reality, humans don't have the same needs, period
So if someone cannot believe this fact, he would be confused always about what some others say and do.
Obviously
Humans do have the same needs. We need sun, we need love.
Look, I appreciate that atheists don't accept the consequences of a godless universe. They just carry on like normal human beings. I'm not saying everyone is conscious of the need. Why?
Because people carry on as though God exists.
They are not Nietzsche, they are not Sartre. They are not deep minds. They just carry on. Oh look, I'm alive. Used to be space dust, now look at me! Wowza bananas. Let me crack on and have a good time.
Sorry to sound flippant, but there's zero chance of shifting a viewpoint on this.
It doesn't being with Need, so much as Need to Need.
Peace.
Edit. Actually, you're right, they don't have the same needs that's true.
And this imaginary thing - of course one needs imagination for belief. We need imagination to think of anything. We want stats and facts! And if your (God) doesn't show up on the stats and facts then why should I accept (Him)?
Last edited:
Hereashortwhileonly
Member
Human being have a need to be known and know the knower who knows them. This is relation.
Only an All Knowing could know us in full - know all our actions and what is in our hearts.
Therefore such Being is necessary to satisfy this fundamental need.
The need is proof of reality because we are the truth of the cosmos in minature - that is what human being is - earth + intelligent consciousness.
Alternative theory is this is "evolved trait" which causes in us God-need, but that is not proof of God.
I critique this view in the post.
Humans don't have the same needs because they are not created (even in the same family) of the same structure and nature exactly.
About imagination, should say I am imagining my own existence?
Where does my existence reside?
In which part of my living body I do exist?
In other words, which part of it I shouldn't lose; otherwise my existence on earth ends for good?
Isn't it my brain?
But does this means if I lose any part of it my existence ends?
Of course not. So which parts of it form the core of my existence in the time/space realm?
Truth be told, I don't know and I don't care. But even without knowing (seeing) where my existence resides in my given living flesh exactly, I don't mind believing in my existence.
Also, I personally perceive another being in me because I have noticed, in practice, it is not defined by the action/reaction rules of my living flesh. Again, I also didn't need to know/see where its existence resides in me to believe in its existence.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Well I'm an atheist, so I don't believe there is any deity to thank. I also don't believe it is instinctive behaviour, but learned behaviour. However I'm curious, do you thank the deity you believe created everything for creating cancer, malaria, Parkinson's, child cot death etc etc...?