Heyo
Veteran Member
You see the problem?
You are basically inciting me to break rule #8.
If the mods are willing to suspend rule #8 for this OP, I'll destroy all my opponents with logic.
-
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!
RF (Religious Forums) FIGHT CLUB (without breaking rules)!
- Thread starter DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan
- Start date
You are basically inciting me to break rule #8.
If the mods are willing to suspend rule #8 for this OP, I'll destroy all my opponents with logic.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I've actually been thinking about this very same thing.
But I didn't touch on it because I wasn't sure whether we can even discuss the rules like we are, objectively, in normal threads.
Jedster
Well-Known Member
Thanks for such a detailed response.
FWIW I do not think you are a liar.
Some of the things you have described, I have also experienced.
Experiencing things that appear supernatural does not necessarily imply any god. We just assume.
I am pretty sure that when people saw the first light bulb(or even fire), they assumed 'something more'. Which is quite acceptable considering the available empirical knowledge of the time.
Things that we consider supernatural show our present lack of the true nature of existence and will eventually be understood by our increase in empirical knowledge.
When something becomes understood, the false concepts surrounding just dissipate.
(there is a word for this that sounds a bit like supernatural, but I forget the word. Anyone?.
I remember @Jayhawker Soule using the word on a few occasions, but cannot find the posts ).
Your God sounds pretty cool
.ETA: I hope I didn't brake any rule)
Heyo
Veteran Member
I think and hope we can. Rule #2 prohibits open discussion of moderation, i.e. application of the rules. The rules have been discussed before, even OPs started by the staff to exactly that purpose.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
You think there are ladies and gents wanna join the fight club?
Anyway, you're OP won the fight with me.......... TLDR...... was snoozing by third para......
Oldbadger (Deists are sexy! Yeah!)
Preternatural agency?
Please Mods! Sort of please suspend Rule 8 a bit, not totally, but just enough for Heyo not to be afraid. I've been having magical dreams now almost every night, my last dream that I just woke up from was full of magical symbols that most wouldn't realize. I am ready for MORTAL KOMBAT!
Is it really proselytizing though? I mean, you would mainly be focused on just explaining why you believe what you believe, and why what other people believe you don't believe, and you can keep saying "I'm not prossy, you do you, not me!"
You think there are ladies and gents wanna join the fight club?
Anyway, you're OP won the fight with me.......... TLDR...... was snoozing by third para......
Oldbadger (Deists are sexy! Yeah!)
Haha, sleeping does tend to win most fights:
Thanks for such a detailed response.
FWIW I do not think you are a liar.
Some of the things you have described, I have also experienced.
Experiencing things that appear supernatural does not necessarily imply any god. We just assume.
I am pretty sure that when people saw the first light bulb(or even fire), they assumed 'something more'. Which is quite acceptable considering the available empirical knowledge of the time.
Things that we consider supernatural show our present lack of the true nature of existence and will eventually be understood by our increase in empirical knowledge.
When something becomes understood, the false concepts surrounding just dissipate.
(there is a word for this that sounds a bit like supernatural, but I forget the word. Anyone?.
I remember @Jayhawker Soule using the word on a few occasions, but cannot find the posts ).
Your God sounds pretty cool
ETA: I hope I didn't brake any rule)
I totally agree that it could be something else, the problem is that it seems to respond to and identify itself with God, like before it gave me 2 one hundred dollar bills, it said "I am the God of Luck" and then went on this lengthy lecture as I walked where it was showing me various signs and things, it turned this guy in a window standing almost naked like a zombie just standing there staring at nothing, and then it took me to this place to collect some money (the task I was out for), and there the song played "I bless the rains down in Africaaa", nothing much had happened yet, except that in its lecture it was talking about how my father found money in the ground in some stories, how I always look around and on the ground for the bounty and gifts, and then I went and stood, and then was deciding if I should head back or not, and after a while, decided to head back, and on my walk back, there was one hundred dollars as it had just mentioned the money on the ground stuff, and then I looked and one hundred more dollars, and then I looked around and prostrated myself on the grass and thanked The Master, and then was given a further gift, which I had been looking for, a special kind of specific shirt that I had been looking for was laying out there too separately a bit. That morning I had also just spent 200 dollars on something, a dedicatory thing for God.
Yes, I don't mind if its "something else" at all really, that has done each of these things, because what I call God, based on logic and reasoning, is not the things that appear in between as the cause of this or that, but whatever at all is actually responsible for generating experience in the first place, so even if a person had just come up to me, and then different people, those aren't what I'm giving the real credit to, but that there is experience, that the experience appears out of my control, there is the appearance of change, that it is being generated and caused by something ultimately and re-generated and upheld in between, that we don't appear to be the ones doing it, nor is "a moment" present in its form as a moment to do anything when it is eliminated before the next moment, it ceases to exist "as is" so isn't even present to be held responsible for the next moment or frame, so that what is "doing it" and "doing that" is what I call God, so that when these strange events occur, where the thing whispers and identifies itself as God and does things which show a precise control over experience or reality and lots of power, regardless of all the elements that may be present in between or responsible immediately, it is "whatever is responsible for these random and amazing experiences, what is generating them" that I exclusively refer to as "God", and that makes just about everything "in between" entirely controlled by whatever is responsible for generating all this random chaos, our decisions, our experiences, our thoughts, the whole appearance of anything such as how nature appears to us and what it does and what happens, what we eat that morning or the whole narrative and its apparent influences, all of that, is simply condensed to the Cause of the Effect, which can be called God, or The Reality, or whatever one might want to call it, Chaos, except that, it appears to be intelligent, responsive, or controlling and responsible for the appearance of anything at all intelligence and responsive.
Jedster
Well-Known Member
yes. That's the word I was looking for.
Thanks
This thread is mainly in the Debate area for the purpose of debating, I highly doubt, so long as people are nice to each other, humorous a bit, and don't start flinging huge insults or being really indecent, that the Mods are not going to be coming here to trap people to collect tickets for the Moderator's Policing Ball.
Jedster
Well-Known Member
A detailed post that clearly explains what you call God.
You are clearly a very open person and are probably ridiculed by many. I think that is why people with similar experiences don't speak up.
In the not so distant past, you would have been called a witch or even locked up in an asylum as would many of the prophets and messengers.
I totally agree, and that is one reason I am so glad to be in this era where I'm much more protected, I would certainly have been accused of something and slain, even today people have said all sorts of things and accused me of things, I was attacked on lots of Occult and Witch type websites even ironically for being basically the real deal when it comes to being a traditional witch like the accounts make them out to be, someone claiming to experience weird things or not matching up to the norms, and so fundamentalist or dogmatic extremism still fills people even when they think they have abandoned Christianity or call themselves Witches or Satanists but are really just the same as their parents most likely despite their charade rebellion. People would become jealous seeming, try to hack me, send death threats to my email [email protected] or at least threaten me on forums.
So even though these are great times to mostly safely express oneself or talk about strange things, they are still somewhat dangerous and there can be consequences. Seeing that some of the more belligerent of my enemies drop dead rather quickly, or what might seem like early deaths (as I'm not typically fighting with particularly elderly people), also gives some comfort, and heightens (what might be the self-important delusion), that there may be some purpose behind my trying to talk about these things to people, or calling out things I think aren't quite right or are very wrong, like this one guy in India who got on my case and was ridiculing me but somehow it became exposed that he was literally a hugely dangerous person who was harming the poor in India by telling them to reject medicine and medical care, he himself was a doctor supposedly, and he was taking their life savings and putting them in debt for his uttering a single prayer in private supposedly.
He was just some random enemy who popped up and was ridiculing me for my beliefs, but then bit by bit it became totally exposed what he was, and boy was it rotten. That has happened multiple times, where I somehow get into some kind of huge debate with some person who ends up being some kind of cult leaderish person and spreading dangerous lies or harming people in some way and they end up getting exposed through the debating (I don't even know these things or find out, they usually end up revealing it all themselves), and then they also rather quickly drop dead, like its their last hurrah.
It has happened a number of times, and in the case of more direct troubles, I even weirdly get to hear in quite a bit of detail, not only about their dying (which is weird enough since I don't know these people or look them up), but I also hear about the manner of their death, which seems to have similar elements to it. Even my neighbor, who never saw me, but would bang against my wall whenever there was a sound from upstairs pipes (and not caused by me) and threaten to decapitate me and would also call me a "Witch" lol without ever seeing me or knowing me at all, finally dropped dead and was pulled out of that apartment in a stretcher which I just happened to see.
Worse than him though was this other guy who was constantly trying to contact my wife and even find her, and then I got to hear all about his sudden death somehow, and how he apparently "saw lights" and these lights and colors before collapsing dead in front of his mother. Its just freaking weird that these people I don't know at all or have any contact with, I end up hearing all about their death stories in detail, and its popping up in my experience. There were multiple stories about the lights from people who were with people who dropped dead and were causing me problems (I think maybe the lights are that they are having some kind of a brain aneurysm thing or a stroke or something, even though they are relatively young).
I try never to do anything bad or which I think would warrant my loss of what I imagine as protection from harm, I live in some degree of fear of this thing, because not only do I consider Death a reality which clearly exists as a major part of this life all around us, but how it can reach and strike anyone unexpectedly is terrifying, though I do celebrate and feel very pleased when people who are demonstrably "evil" and causing me tons of problem or threatening me or otherwise being disturbing and evil seeming presences in the world drop dead without one waiting until they are 90 years old or something, so that the bad things they are incessantly doing or the threat is gone away and silenced (and without my doing anything).
Times were way bad in the past, where even these deaths might have some how wound up getting me in trouble or accused by any jealous or malicious party.
The way I interpret the religions of the past also, even if no one else at the time might have thought of them this way, is that they are still viable to consciously interpret as references about reality, that since everything can be considered the act of this thing I call God (I mean whatever is responsible for experience, history, whatever is heard of), all those things in the past we hear about now are also possible, that all those things like "Apollo is spreading disease" can be taken as true in certain ways, linguistically, and in reference to what I am talking about, so that Apollo would be just another name or reference to whatever is ultimately responsible for whatever that experience may have been, like a plague for example, or Covid-19 now and what humanity is going through, and who particularly dies, when and how.
When God matches up perfectly with "whatever happens", the word may seem to lose its meaning possibly to some degree, but it also becomes basically impossible to deny what has been linked to the clearly apparent and undeniable present case. So that if all actions and events are credited to this "God", then God becomes wholly visible, unquestionable, even something to fear. God is Real, when the Real is God.
So the only difference becomes the intelligence, the response, which for me, if there is any intelligence at all (like my own intelligence, your intelligence which is in my experience) then all this intelligence is Real, and The Real is here doing it all, and so there is apparently that we hear, we see, we understand, we communicate, we receive responses, we receive results, even when it seems that no other living thing is around, but that which is animating this experience, is around, doesn't appear to be "me" since I can't consciously or deliberately control it, and appears to be in communication through absolutely everything generated by it, which makes all those old statements about "Everything is the Word of God" possible for a somewhat justified interpretation at least, regardless of how anyone might have understood it differently or in less pragmatic or useful seeming ways or in a cartoonish fashion which might not accord with the Reality.
Love rules sovereign over all. It conquers all. It makes brothers and sisters of all. No argument or rhetoric or dissertation stands a chance against love. My weapon is love. My armour is love for all humanity. There is no more potent medicine than love. The law of attraction is nothing but the law of love.
What were the most important last words of those held hostage on that ill fated plane? “I love you”. That’s the only thing that mattered then and it’s the only thing that really matters now.
With love, I disarm you all and claim the victory.
Love to you all.
What were the most important last words of those held hostage on that ill fated plane? “I love you”. That’s the only thing that mattered then and it’s the only thing that really matters now.
With love, I disarm you all and claim the victory.
Love to you all.
What is love?
Look at the world you live in!
Traumatic insemination - Wikipedia
Love seems to be a word, bandied about and thrown here and there, to refer to some kind of manic sensation that doesn't match up apparently with anything much in reality. If there is any "true love" it seems rather rare overall.
What we do have, seem to be chemicals flowing through our veins, things telling us to pursue things, and we have an agenda. How is it not always conditional and conditioned? How is it not destructive when it is absolutely unconditional?
After you answer what is love, then tell me, where is the love?
The love is conditional, the love is a sensation, here is how it seems to work:
Something give you pleasure, you want to extend that pleasure and that it continues to occur, so you protect and care for and take care of this thing that you love, so that it continues to be able to provide you with pleasure.
Is that really something to make such a big fuss about?
Is that really something that voids out all the other stuff?
How can one claim that what even "allows" the suffering is at all benevolent or "loving", would you allow your own beloved spouse or child or pet be lit on fire and do nothing at all about it? You have all the power in the world (let's say) and you just stand by and watch, and you tell me you LOVE ME?! YOU LOVE ME?!
You're kidding me! That is Sadism, that is Sick!
Lets say you loved me, or someone loved you, and they never told you, all they did was sent you a virus that makes you feel like you can't breath. Makes sense? No way.
Lets say you were the creator, and you could invent anything, and you invent all this, and you could make people strong, but you make them weak, and you could make them happy, but you make them sad, and able to be sad, and miserable, and you make their lives full of losses, over and over again, decaying, losing, things falling away, changing for the worse and the worse. You didn't have to, but you did, is that Love?
No, actually, its Hate. So it could be said, with far more proof, that you are despised, you are punished, you are tortured even before you've committed any crime or spread any harm. From the day you were born you suffer and begin your process of decay and destruction, furthermore, in order to survive you continue your wide rolling destruction upon the Earth, through killing, killing plants and animals, and mashing them in what few teeth you have left, and turning things that were beautiful, into literal feces, that smells, and can kill people if they eat it, or give them suffering or death because of things like bacteria which can poison them or toxins. Maybe you poop rainbows though, since you believe in this "Love". Even if you did poop rainbows, and could eat them, rainbows are made of light, and would not provide you with much of any nutrients, and so you would starve, and die, and not know what your future or fate will be, considering what your fate had been in this life where you were provided with only rainbows to eat and starved to death.
Phew! Talk about some serious Dark Energy eh? Yet, isn't the Truth better than the Lie? Isn't "Love" the Lie really?
Look at these Sexy Girls I've shown you. We love them for their looks, their hawt bods. They give us pleasure, if they distressed us, they would be causing us pain, if we were talk to them, they would likely reject us, and cause us pain, because no one wants to talk to an Ogre, because Love is Conditional, what you describe doesn't really exist much, its just "You give me pleasure, I want you to be rewarded, protected, and live, so that you continue to give me pleasure".
Or do you want people do flourish if they do harm? Do you like those organisms which make children cry out in terror and pain? Do those give you pleasure, do you want them to continue to live? Not if you're sane you don't.
So what is your armor really? Rainbows. They can not protect you, despite what the Bible may say.
Your loved ones, love you, BECAUSE, and if you were bad, a monster, and they loved you, they themselves would be wicked and destructive for doing so. It is only that you are lovely to them that you are loved by them.
We seek the approval of The Master, and The Master, who has invented these concepts such as "lies" and "love" in all its form, is also responsible for everything else and their opposites, and these are merely novelties, they do not rule the Universe, they can be made into nothing, and if God really loved you, so much would be missing from your experience and your life, and if God really hated you, he'd likely make you like any of us, weak, and afraid, and in doubt, when God has all the wealth and bounty, freedom to create all and any reality, yet gives you THIS? Then tells you to be grateful for it! You call that your buddi?
Slish Slosh Bam Kaboom! Whose next?!
A brief recap of the bloodbath!
Those who follow things and say things they can't know, can't see, can't explain, can't justify, and "just do, just because" were slaughtered into Man-steaks for their Miss-steaks!
Those who speak of Love, had their eyes forced opened:
A brief recap of the bloodbath!
Those who follow things and say things they can't know, can't see, can't explain, can't justify, and "just do, just because" were slaughtered into Man-steaks for their Miss-steaks!
Those who speak of Love, had their eyes forced opened:
Christianity:
I am closest to a Unitarian, and next to them probably a Calvinist, or otherwise some kind of Ancient Early Christian that did not take the worshipping Jesus as God incarnate thing literally or seriously (if there was such a type).
Even so, in most forms of Christianity, it is officially considered important that people believe that Jesus is the incarnation of God on Earth, and that him being such is to be believed merely on the statements interpreted from the New Testament, which no one alive was present for or could verify, and even if they were to verify it, it would not compute or calculate to some kind of undeniable irrefutable evidence that "This man-form is specifically God or the Only God, and others are not (just better at hiding it, as Jesus seemed a bit keen on hiding it too, but didn't hide it as well as the possibly non-existent and possibly made-up Judas for example, a much better pretender if that were the case).
The Christians thus, stand upon nothing sure, and they spend their time boldly saying to others what they can not even ever know! How terrible? Its like a person saying to someone "oh yeah, definitely, there is a bridge there" and there might not be, and they lead then to the destruction of people. How wicked! Wouldn't you find it wicked that someone who doesn't know something, something regarding your safety, future, and life, confidently says that something is so when it might not be so and they don't know really if it is so, they just think so, and then you end up driving off a cliff like a bunch of demon-possessed pigs?
Islam:
I am a Muslim by the definition set forth in the Qur'an and the Qur'an is my favorite religious text over all and the Islamic framework is the one I follow most closely, but!
Muslims typically heavily rely upon a text and then other texts especially which they claim instruct them on the behaviors and statements of their Prophet and other important figures, which like the gospel, can not be verified in any sure way, and seem to contain content which is anachronistic and incorrect to the time and place, and more than all this, seems to be illogical, in error, and blindly followed by some to their own detriment in many cases and a detriment to their own conduct, behaviors, beliefs, and social interactions.
Furthermore, they insist upon the truth of stories in the Qur'an without having witnessed any such themselves, and so are not very careful with their words or beliefs (which is understandably very difficult and inconvenient to speak very strictly the best sort of truth), which would be that by the best thinking and logic, God could indeed make the statements or tales presented in the Qur'an to be true easily and instantly, but they were not present for these events at all, and have no direct experience of them as they were said to occur.
Instead of this though, Muslims say with confidence things they don't know and can't know, and are in many ways telling lies and being dishonest or misleading in ways similar to the other religious people who abandon careful language and reason and start on with "Faith" which (in the sense of "Blind Faith") should never be necessary. You should only do what you know, and your hope should be as wise as you can calculate it based on what is apparent or well-reasoned, or else you're worse than an animal, as even animals appear to reason and make determinations based on their experience and what seems to be the case to them.
Can they demonstrate in any certain way that Muhammed did or said any of the things they claim, or even really existed? Can they demonstrate that even if he did, that he was guided by God for certain? Can they demonstrate that even if he was guided by God, that what was told to him by God was good at all or beneficial for us, and that he was not deceived as God in the Qur'an holds power to mislead anyone at all even from the beginning? No, and so "blind faith" is incompatible with "True Islam" in my opinion. The Qur'an is a good book though, and does seem to instill ideas like these that I am presenting itself, in a way which appears superior to me and more palatable and comprehensibly and believably than say the Buddhist writings which are much older as well. People are more attracted to the Buddhist writings due to prejudice and bias, the actual material itself in the Buddhist writings is quite often undeniably absurd and ridiculous, but people tend to just overlook that because they found their exotic vacation from their Christianity or whatever (in the case of the Western Buddhists who tend to overlook the very wacky beliefs that were widespread for the majority of Buddhist History as the "real Buddhism" considered taught by the "real Buddha". Just like White Jesus though, we have White Buddha too, and White Buddha is a glasses wearing, bicycle riding, bald, vegan, since God is so often in our own Image it seems.
Judaism:
The Bible, a book I consider very painful to experience (maybe because I'm possessed), is a book I dislike almost over all others, for its fame and reputation and influence I feel is undeserved, and that in many ways it promotes Evil far more than any Good in multiple ways, and can be too easily used and justified towards evilness as compared to any actual goodness. Even so, I consider myself basically a Jew in every possible sense of the word, and more likely similar to the Karaites, though I consider the Oral Law also useful and not to be entirely neglected if it provides benefit. The Karaites are the sort of "Text Only" Protestants of the Jews, and the reason I may resemble any group like these, is it provides me with more freedom as compared to other sects possibly, that is why as a Muslim I also abide closely to the Qur'an, and as a Christian I prefer the Protestant groups like the Calvinists and Unitarians as well as very Early Christians who didn't have as much of the formal dogmas perhaps and may have been more free overall from the hierarchies.
I believe largely in the God of the Bible, despite the opposition you may see and my finding the Bible a hideous and malignant text, by my beliefs, it and all other things, books good and bad as well, were generated by the same Over-Power behind all my experiences and whatever seems to exist in my experience now.
I think that the Bible promotes and support racist ideologies, tribalism, elitism, exclusivism, jingoism even, every sort of vile thing you can imagine, the perfect work for creating villains and villainy, and I believe that it also supports a callous view of things that encourages a small ethnic group to consider themselves an elite minority and a God that isn't Universal really, but has favorites at the expense of all of humanity which are at a loss and the losers and the enemy even, and not to be anything like them or else.
We see these sorts of beliefs and ideas pop up repeatedly, even a celebration of xenophobia and the slaughter of people who were making compromises, or were mixing up and trying to join in with society, a celebration which later even Christians seem to have adopted, and practice to this day in some sects and varieties, and all this seems to stem from the Bible largely, which seems anti-cosmopolitan and very hostile to so many things, so much so that the alienated population then even seems to turn on itself in the book, so that Hate has gone out of control, making the New Testament "Love" theology that many people try for, all the more strange and contrasting, to the point of making the past work and build up unintelligible in relation to the latter, though we see the Truth really emerge as to what the real influence is of the text, through the history of its repeated imitations one way or another, like a Passion Play made Global in scope, a live action snuff-play.
So, what do I have against the Jews? I've boxed the Christians and left red marks on them, given black eyes to the Muslims, so now for these people that sort of Bridge the Gap between these two, and have one foot in the West and another in the (Middle) East!
What is wrong with Judaism is elitism, and all those things I mentioned before, and that their faith is put again in this book, which seems full of propaganda and bad ideology, ideology which may be said to have helped the survival of these people, but really had led to them being either secretly or openly maligned all across the world and history. Their selfish and self-prioritized elitism and exclusivism and thinking they are God's elite priests that they should separate themselves from the rest of the rabble, has led to a bad attitude (much like my own, as these sorts of beliefs will do), and this concept and belief really rests on nothing except (an often badly interpreted) collection of texts that are glorified and made much more of than they seem to really deserve. In a literary sense, they are unnecessarily hoisted over everything else by so many, when they are with any clear analysis (at least how they seem to me) pretty darn terrible books in every sense, barely good at all compared to other things, neither do they seem to be believable, symbolically easy to derive much value from, they seem to be rubbish really, like what the followers of such books tend to call everything else, but maybe that is because they have terrible taste, like a baby being raised on cigarettes or something.
The Bible even casts doubt and invalidates itself (or so it could be said, using some verses and claims within it), and may not really have helped the Jewish people as much as they may think (or maybe it really did). These Jews who are alive today, did not make the Covenant under Sinai or whatever, they did not see or know this God or anything, and at this point, they are just attached to the statements of a long line of people, most of which they also never knew, who never knew each other, and are putting so much of their faith in promises which may not have ever even been given, and a Contract they think this Book might hold in it as proof, which may have never really been made, and if it was made, what do they know what or who might really have been what made it?
Furthermore, because the Laws seem unreasonable now, even illegal, the Jewish people are inhibited from following the Commandments (which often seem terrible, so thank goodness or God for that), and have found ways to bypass the laws or sort of do ridiculous or silly things in order to follow traditions in some way, like women wearing false hair or wigs on top of their real hair as a kind of luke-warm compromise in between showing hair and not showing hair, and wearing a little box on the head with certain words on it, as if God asked them to do that (which they can show you the verses they base this practice on), but all of it seems that they are being made into fools or clowns by the God they trust in, which might as well be an extremely malicious entity, even towards them.
It could be that Marcion was wholly convinced by his claim that the Old Testament is really the work of an Evil God, something like the Christian's overpower of "The Devil".
I don't think there is any great use in being a Jew or identified as a Jew, and so I've mainly never identified myself as such, just like I don't proclaim Islam, or Christianity even, to avoid persecution, from everyone "else".
Atheism:
The Atheists and I probably differ very little, the only difference being that I worship God and they don't acknowledge that word as being useful to describe anything that is real or capable of helping them. I say they are missing out. Furthermore, one of the latest popular statements invented by Atheists perhaps is this "Look at this list of Gods (then they list a bunch), we believe in just one less", maybe I've misquoted it, but what this little interesting thought experiment seems to be about is that the modern Monotheists reject all the past Gods as False and Unreal, and the Atheists reject all those and the Monotheistic God as well, so that is just one more than the Monotheists.
Atheists, and I, both think we believe in what is well reasoned, and apparent, and do not believe in what can not be reasoned, and is not apparent really or verifiable. We both believe in "Experience" and "The Reality", and the only difference might be that they say "Whatever responsible for everything, our experience, or the reality" is "dead, and nothing, not intelligent, or powerful, just is", and I say "just is, is powerful, intelligent, Like Nothing, Existing/Animating, responsible for the the generation of moments and the experience of change".
Now, the Atheists, are at a disadvantage in several ways. They may be "missing out" on access to (at the very least) the impression that they have some support, can relieve anxiety through prayers to something they (at the very least) might imagine as real. Atheism is almost like Non-Religious Vegetarianism, why would you not partake in these coping mechanisms, especially considering how it shouldn't matter much to you after all?
I have heard many Atheists describe religions and religious thinking for them to be more distressing than comforting, so maybe they are people who just can't seem to "do it right" for their own apparent benefit and enjoyment.
Of course, you can't make a person believe something they are totally stuck on not believing or being able to believe. For example, if I insisted that God can only mean a Unicorn and the word can only be used to refer to Unicorn, and that I don't believe Unicorns exist, no one can make me belief in a Unicorn and I can't successfully really get the genuine joy of believing in Unicorns if I am just pretending and don't have the Unicorn spearing my heart.
That is why, "The New Man" (which may have existed in the past as well in larger numbers than may be known or recognized), seems in many ways lost on some of their vestigial pleasure providing sensory systems, born spiritually circumcized, lacking in the pleasure of devotional delusion, not attracted to intercourse with The God due to the numbness they feel regarding the concept they have settled upon as by definition dead, and not being necrophiliacs either (like perhaps the Christians might be said to be, or those who worship Osiris or Tammuz maybe, Gods that Die or Died).
Furthermore, if the others are correct, many others, the Atheists will be at the disadvantage again, not only having wasted their lives being unable to enjoy worship or prayer or deluding oneself into thinking there may be another life or extended hopes and a place and a way to be better comforted besides "at least I'll be dead someday and unable to experience anything", but will then have to face (all too late according to these many others) how they had been so wrong, and that the Evil Overlord was actually real, and now they are going to Prison for some stupid infractions, darnit! So all their life of denying and refraining from eating the meat of Prayers amounts to nothing but a life missing out followed by a life of suffering. Truly, that seems like the story of a total Loser in the most literal sense, someone at a loss who can't even gain!
I believe in All those Gods that the Atheists have enjoyed claiming don't exist, because in some senses or interpretations or ways of taking them, those Gods are just words for things that we all know and admit appear to exist. Not only do they exist as words, they exist also as references to things we all see and know. Who denies Thor? Thor means Thunder. You would be a lying fool to say that Thunder only refers to nothing and there is no thunder. Clearly there is Thunder, there is no denying there is Thunder. Yet, what the Atheist denies, is the same as what I would also deny, that there is no Cartoonish entirely literal man in the sky with a mallot bashing things and making that sound, but its unlikely that plain words like Thunder and Thor were being used by people who actually believed such things (but maybe they did, who cares, they are dead, and whether they lived as idiots, they are then dead idiots all the same and have nothing to do with us, we didn't know them, can't know them, can't know what they really thought, though it seems evident that human beings were roughly the same throughout the past in their brain functioning and were most likely being poetic and only symbolically anthropomorphizing things, but even if they weren't, who gives a dang?! This is about us now, and what is available and left to us now, and how to make words mean what is false seeming or what is true seeming and in accordance with what we know or see or experience or the clear Reality).
To Be Continued (Upcoming):
Buddhism
Hinduism
Shinto
Paganism
Ancient Religions
Philosophies
Hedonism
Nihilism
Materialism
Science
The Bible
The Qur'an
The Vedas
The Hindu Epics
The Hadiths
The Gospels
Bahai
Free Masonry
Occultism
Diabolism / Demonolatry
Hellenism
Native American Spirituality
Folk Beliefs
Taoism
Chinese Traditional Religion
Militarism
Nationalism
Socialism
Communism
Patriotism
Democrats
Republicans
Left
Right
Racism
Eugenics
Terrorism
War
Policing
Technocracy
Technology
Medicine
Genetic Alteration
Transhumanism
Artificial Intelligence Advances
Luddite
Occasionalism
Panentheism
Pantheism
Overpopulation
Procreation
Voodoo
Hoodoo
Santeria
Magick
Magic
Palo Mayombe
Allah
Unicorns
God
Odin
Thor
Shiva
Vishnu
Krishna
Rama
Hanuman
Ganesh
Tezcatlipoca
Aphrodite
Inari
Homosexuality
Pre-Marital Sex
Misogyny
Chauvinism
Human Rights
Human Rights Abuses
Abortion
Genocide
Politicians
Cults
Scientology
New Religions
The New Age
Edgar Cayce
Sigmund Freud
Carl Jung
Executions
Institutionalization
De-Institutionalization
Euthanasia
Animal Euthanasia
Feeding and Supporting the Poor
Charity
Fasting
Prayer
Worship
Murder
Rape
Pedophilia
Revenge
Horror Films
Violence in Media
Violence in Games
Video Games
Computers
Modern Phones
Social Media
Internet
Dawkins
Darwin
Reality
Truth
Disease
Magical Energy/Esoteric Energies/Vibes
Hippies
Non-Medicinal Drug Use or Recreational Drug Use
Drug Use
Intoxication
Pollution
Vegetarianism
The Atheists and I probably differ very little, the only difference being that I worship God and they don't acknowledge that word as being useful to describe anything that is real or capable of helping them. I say they are missing out. Furthermore, one of the latest popular statements invented by Atheists perhaps is this "Look at this list of Gods (then they list a bunch), we believe in just one less", maybe I've misquoted it, but what this little interesting thought experiment seems to be about is that the modern Monotheists reject all the past Gods as False and Unreal, and the Atheists reject all those and the Monotheistic God as well, so that is just one more than the Monotheists.
Atheists, and I, both think we believe in what is well reasoned, and apparent, and do not believe in what can not be reasoned, and is not apparent really or verifiable. We both believe in "Experience" and "The Reality", and the only difference might be that they say "Whatever responsible for everything, our experience, or the reality" is "dead, and nothing, not intelligent, or powerful, just is", and I say "just is, is powerful, intelligent, Like Nothing, Existing/Animating, responsible for the the generation of moments and the experience of change".
Now, the Atheists, are at a disadvantage in several ways. They may be "missing out" on access to (at the very least) the impression that they have some support, can relieve anxiety through prayers to something they (at the very least) might imagine as real. Atheism is almost like Non-Religious Vegetarianism, why would you not partake in these coping mechanisms, especially considering how it shouldn't matter much to you after all?
I have heard many Atheists describe religions and religious thinking for them to be more distressing than comforting, so maybe they are people who just can't seem to "do it right" for their own apparent benefit and enjoyment.
Of course, you can't make a person believe something they are totally stuck on not believing or being able to believe. For example, if I insisted that God can only mean a Unicorn and the word can only be used to refer to Unicorn, and that I don't believe Unicorns exist, no one can make me belief in a Unicorn and I can't successfully really get the genuine joy of believing in Unicorns if I am just pretending and don't have the Unicorn spearing my heart.
That is why, "The New Man" (which may have existed in the past as well in larger numbers than may be known or recognized), seems in many ways lost on some of their vestigial pleasure providing sensory systems, born spiritually circumcized, lacking in the pleasure of devotional delusion, not attracted to intercourse with The God due to the numbness they feel regarding the concept they have settled upon as by definition dead, and not being necrophiliacs either (like perhaps the Christians might be said to be, or those who worship Osiris or Tammuz maybe, Gods that Die or Died).
Furthermore, if the others are correct, many others, the Atheists will be at the disadvantage again, not only having wasted their lives being unable to enjoy worship or prayer or deluding oneself into thinking there may be another life or extended hopes and a place and a way to be better comforted besides "at least I'll be dead someday and unable to experience anything", but will then have to face (all too late according to these many others) how they had been so wrong, and that the Evil Overlord was actually real, and now they are going to Prison for some stupid infractions, darnit! So all their life of denying and refraining from eating the meat of Prayers amounts to nothing but a life missing out followed by a life of suffering. Truly, that seems like the story of a total Loser in the most literal sense, someone at a loss who can't even gain!
I believe in All those Gods that the Atheists have enjoyed claiming don't exist, because in some senses or interpretations or ways of taking them, those Gods are just words for things that we all know and admit appear to exist. Not only do they exist as words, they exist also as references to things we all see and know. Who denies Thor? Thor means Thunder. You would be a lying fool to say that Thunder only refers to nothing and there is no thunder. Clearly there is Thunder, there is no denying there is Thunder. Yet, what the Atheist denies, is the same as what I would also deny, that there is no Cartoonish entirely literal man in the sky with a mallot bashing things and making that sound, but its unlikely that plain words like Thunder and Thor were being used by people who actually believed such things (but maybe they did, who cares, they are dead, and whether they lived as idiots, they are then dead idiots all the same and have nothing to do with us, we didn't know them, can't know them, can't know what they really thought, though it seems evident that human beings were roughly the same throughout the past in their brain functioning and were most likely being poetic and only symbolically anthropomorphizing things, but even if they weren't, who gives a dang?! This is about us now, and what is available and left to us now, and how to make words mean what is false seeming or what is true seeming and in accordance with what we know or see or experience or the clear Reality).
To Be Continued (Upcoming):
Buddhism
Hinduism
Shinto
Paganism
Ancient Religions
Philosophies
Hedonism
Nihilism
Materialism
Science
The Bible
The Qur'an
The Vedas
The Hindu Epics
The Hadiths
The Gospels
Bahai
Free Masonry
Occultism
Diabolism / Demonolatry
Hellenism
Native American Spirituality
Folk Beliefs
Taoism
Chinese Traditional Religion
Militarism
Nationalism
Socialism
Communism
Patriotism
Democrats
Republicans
Left
Right
Racism
Eugenics
Terrorism
War
Policing
Technocracy
Technology
Medicine
Genetic Alteration
Transhumanism
Artificial Intelligence Advances
Luddite
Occasionalism
Panentheism
Pantheism
Overpopulation
Procreation
Voodoo
Hoodoo
Santeria
Magick
Magic
Palo Mayombe
Allah
Unicorns
God
Odin
Thor
Shiva
Vishnu
Krishna
Rama
Hanuman
Ganesh
Tezcatlipoca
Aphrodite
Inari
Homosexuality
Pre-Marital Sex
Misogyny
Chauvinism
Human Rights
Human Rights Abuses
Abortion
Genocide
Politicians
Cults
Scientology
New Religions
The New Age
Edgar Cayce
Sigmund Freud
Carl Jung
Executions
Institutionalization
De-Institutionalization
Euthanasia
Animal Euthanasia
Feeding and Supporting the Poor
Charity
Fasting
Prayer
Worship
Murder
Rape
Pedophilia
Revenge
Horror Films
Violence in Media
Violence in Games
Video Games
Computers
Modern Phones
Social Media
Internet
Dawkins
Darwin
Reality
Truth
Disease
Magical Energy/Esoteric Energies/Vibes
Hippies
Non-Medicinal Drug Use or Recreational Drug Use
Drug Use
Intoxication
Pollution
Vegetarianism
Buddhism: Ok, lets see if I can write these even faster!
I consider myself a Buddhist too, believing in a version of Anatta and Sunyata, and using Buddhist terminology, mainly from the Mahayana and Esoteric Buddhist sects like those of Japan (Shingon mainly), and things influenced by their ideas also. Contrary to the popular Western sort of interpretation of everything Buddhist as somehow very non-religious and non-spiritual, Buddhism for the majority of its history and even up until today is very much full of all sorts of wacky spiritual content and "Theism" of all sorts, even if people don't like to admit to it, that is what a lot of the content seems to amount to.
If one actually reads the suttas (those deeds and sayings that are attributed to Buddha and his early followers during his life time), one will find a character that isn't very appealing (at least to my sensibilities) that also appears to make absurd and unbelievable claims, that can indeed to be tested, and pretty clearly can be expected to fail spectacularly. Furthermore, we are asked to believe that this person really existed, really did these things, and that his followers could also do the things that are claimed in these writings, and these are generally pretty much appearing to be very literal claims apparently meant to be taken literally and which were traditionally taken quite seriously as real.
The Buddha is very strongly opposed to sex and procreation, and though the lay rabble are allowed to do as they please, as they are next to animals in so many ways from the perspective of the elitist monks, there are strict repercussions for any sort of sexual act, and many other things mentioned in the Vinayaka of the Tripitaka (the set of rules for the true Buddhist monks, the ones who are actually seriously trying to attain the Nibbana and ascend even past the status of Deva). So however kind they might be from these people they beg from in order to live just long enough to acquire enough merit and magic to give themselves the best chances of whatever obscure goal or state of whatever they are seeking out, these people are not expected to be able to achieve this Master state until they too follow the way of the Buddha and the Sangha of Monks.
In order to do this, generally, it is expected that you would go about depriving yourself in various ways because you believe the claims of Buddha and that such a state can even be achieved by all this, which itself seems a bit silly and basically "why?" "Why would it be so?" "How did it come to be so, that it is such, that we should believe such?" "Is any of it really demonstrable?" "How about the claims of the siddhas or whatever one is supposed to be able to do to prove they are really on the right track?" "Why would such a system as is claimed to exist ever come to be anyway?", taking the claims seriously or literally, there is no way to justify them at all, demonstrate them at all, prove them at all.
Very few people seem to have actually read these stories, or read about these claims of magical powers, or read about how some guy was an actor and now his punishment for being an actor is that he is a flying skeleton being nibbled at by birds or something as he flies through the sky, and that people saw this.
That the Buddha just claimed to basically have these things happen or see things and people are like "Oh yeah, whatever you saw, it must be so". At this point, we don't even know he even was anyone or existed at all really.
Same goes for Mahavira and the Jain people and their tales of the former versions and predecessors and all that.
In my opinion, people who claim to be "Buddhist" but basically totally ignore the whole history of the religion or beliefs and basically don't believe in any of the stuff repeatedly described, even go ahead and basically don't follow any of the rules much at all, how are they really Buddhist? Its almost like Christians who do literally nothing but call themselves Christians, except the ones who call themselves Buddhists at least occasionally meditate or something.
So, for as much as they might try to present themselves as the modern wise guys, they make a whole lot of wacky claims, have a whole lot of wacky beliefs that are frankly unbelievable and which they can't seem to actually prove, and then they make a lot of excuses or diversions that "it isn't what matters or is important" or whatever, but they still hold and carry and promote these ideas, many of them which seem to be anti-human, and if followed, would lead to the end of all human life.
Also, the character of the Buddha is really unpleasant seeming if you study it, how he talks to people and treats them, how he abandoned his wife and son, naming his son "Fetter", and jumping out the window, and then really harassing this one guy who had sexual intercourse because his wife was begging him to in order to get pregnant because she wanted a baby (sick animal that she was) and he complied, and the Buddha wailed on him for it and nagging and nagging nyah nyah nyah, horrible little annoying dude. Like seriously, it makes a person want to say "Shaddap Pal". Go ahead and read the Suttas, find these ridiculous stories and be critical. They claim the Buddha asks people not to just believe things but to be critical, well guess what, its not hard to see how it can't be logically reasoned or concluded in many ways, only some of it, and barely at that, and in other cases its just totally out there.
This is coming from an actual super-human who has in-fact experienced things like those Siddhis or Siddhas and whatever, but not by the means described in the suttas, whereas those who follow the suttas very closely can't seem to generate those results at all except at best through magic tricks and fraud (which they aren't supposed to do, but they've been doing it here and there anyway, because, why not? Mess up, get another chance).
The Buddha also had some funny incidents and stories and enemies, and also the Buddhists spoke out against certain ideas and competing cults and philosophies which seemed to have ideas that may be represented even today (and might even be more sensible, logical, and believable than their own claims).
I think that a lot of the stuff in the Buddhist writings can even be considered more unbelievable or unjust in some ways than things found in the Bible, and that seems pretty hard to top when it comes to silly stuff, but when you have a guy who was just an entertainer being punished as a flying skeleton being picked at by birds or whatever.
Anyway, despite all that silliness, I am very frequently immersed in Buddhist material, and consider Vairocana, Avalokitesvara, the Dharmakaya, all that stuff, Amitabha, taken in certain ways to be real, true, effective, working, testable, fruitful, enjoyable, and that these are not human beings or men, nor are they men or ever were they men, but many of the stories which use these terms refer to men sometimes and humans in stories and other creatures. Praying Dharanis also appear to work, and making sense of their functioning is inexplicable with Atheistic ideas or other sorts of reasoning, they work (in my opinion), when they seem to work, without even knowing what is being said, because something is able to listen and respond and influence what comes after apparently, and thus us present and aware. That is the real, ever-present, Almighty Buddha, not Siddhartha Gautama the Shakyamuni man, and he was not any more than any other man, however different he may have wanted to set himself apart from the regular human activities and general "attachments".
More on the way from the list, feel free to take from that list or talk about anything!
I consider myself a Buddhist too, believing in a version of Anatta and Sunyata, and using Buddhist terminology, mainly from the Mahayana and Esoteric Buddhist sects like those of Japan (Shingon mainly), and things influenced by their ideas also. Contrary to the popular Western sort of interpretation of everything Buddhist as somehow very non-religious and non-spiritual, Buddhism for the majority of its history and even up until today is very much full of all sorts of wacky spiritual content and "Theism" of all sorts, even if people don't like to admit to it, that is what a lot of the content seems to amount to.
If one actually reads the suttas (those deeds and sayings that are attributed to Buddha and his early followers during his life time), one will find a character that isn't very appealing (at least to my sensibilities) that also appears to make absurd and unbelievable claims, that can indeed to be tested, and pretty clearly can be expected to fail spectacularly. Furthermore, we are asked to believe that this person really existed, really did these things, and that his followers could also do the things that are claimed in these writings, and these are generally pretty much appearing to be very literal claims apparently meant to be taken literally and which were traditionally taken quite seriously as real.
The Buddha is very strongly opposed to sex and procreation, and though the lay rabble are allowed to do as they please, as they are next to animals in so many ways from the perspective of the elitist monks, there are strict repercussions for any sort of sexual act, and many other things mentioned in the Vinayaka of the Tripitaka (the set of rules for the true Buddhist monks, the ones who are actually seriously trying to attain the Nibbana and ascend even past the status of Deva). So however kind they might be from these people they beg from in order to live just long enough to acquire enough merit and magic to give themselves the best chances of whatever obscure goal or state of whatever they are seeking out, these people are not expected to be able to achieve this Master state until they too follow the way of the Buddha and the Sangha of Monks.
In order to do this, generally, it is expected that you would go about depriving yourself in various ways because you believe the claims of Buddha and that such a state can even be achieved by all this, which itself seems a bit silly and basically "why?" "Why would it be so?" "How did it come to be so, that it is such, that we should believe such?" "Is any of it really demonstrable?" "How about the claims of the siddhas or whatever one is supposed to be able to do to prove they are really on the right track?" "Why would such a system as is claimed to exist ever come to be anyway?", taking the claims seriously or literally, there is no way to justify them at all, demonstrate them at all, prove them at all.
Very few people seem to have actually read these stories, or read about these claims of magical powers, or read about how some guy was an actor and now his punishment for being an actor is that he is a flying skeleton being nibbled at by birds or something as he flies through the sky, and that people saw this.
That the Buddha just claimed to basically have these things happen or see things and people are like "Oh yeah, whatever you saw, it must be so". At this point, we don't even know he even was anyone or existed at all really.
Same goes for Mahavira and the Jain people and their tales of the former versions and predecessors and all that.
In my opinion, people who claim to be "Buddhist" but basically totally ignore the whole history of the religion or beliefs and basically don't believe in any of the stuff repeatedly described, even go ahead and basically don't follow any of the rules much at all, how are they really Buddhist? Its almost like Christians who do literally nothing but call themselves Christians, except the ones who call themselves Buddhists at least occasionally meditate or something.
So, for as much as they might try to present themselves as the modern wise guys, they make a whole lot of wacky claims, have a whole lot of wacky beliefs that are frankly unbelievable and which they can't seem to actually prove, and then they make a lot of excuses or diversions that "it isn't what matters or is important" or whatever, but they still hold and carry and promote these ideas, many of them which seem to be anti-human, and if followed, would lead to the end of all human life.
Also, the character of the Buddha is really unpleasant seeming if you study it, how he talks to people and treats them, how he abandoned his wife and son, naming his son "Fetter", and jumping out the window, and then really harassing this one guy who had sexual intercourse because his wife was begging him to in order to get pregnant because she wanted a baby (sick animal that she was) and he complied, and the Buddha wailed on him for it and nagging and nagging nyah nyah nyah, horrible little annoying dude. Like seriously, it makes a person want to say "Shaddap Pal". Go ahead and read the Suttas, find these ridiculous stories and be critical. They claim the Buddha asks people not to just believe things but to be critical, well guess what, its not hard to see how it can't be logically reasoned or concluded in many ways, only some of it, and barely at that, and in other cases its just totally out there.
This is coming from an actual super-human who has in-fact experienced things like those Siddhis or Siddhas and whatever, but not by the means described in the suttas, whereas those who follow the suttas very closely can't seem to generate those results at all except at best through magic tricks and fraud (which they aren't supposed to do, but they've been doing it here and there anyway, because, why not? Mess up, get another chance).
The Buddha also had some funny incidents and stories and enemies, and also the Buddhists spoke out against certain ideas and competing cults and philosophies which seemed to have ideas that may be represented even today (and might even be more sensible, logical, and believable than their own claims).
I think that a lot of the stuff in the Buddhist writings can even be considered more unbelievable or unjust in some ways than things found in the Bible, and that seems pretty hard to top when it comes to silly stuff, but when you have a guy who was just an entertainer being punished as a flying skeleton being picked at by birds or whatever.
Anyway, despite all that silliness, I am very frequently immersed in Buddhist material, and consider Vairocana, Avalokitesvara, the Dharmakaya, all that stuff, Amitabha, taken in certain ways to be real, true, effective, working, testable, fruitful, enjoyable, and that these are not human beings or men, nor are they men or ever were they men, but many of the stories which use these terms refer to men sometimes and humans in stories and other creatures. Praying Dharanis also appear to work, and making sense of their functioning is inexplicable with Atheistic ideas or other sorts of reasoning, they work (in my opinion), when they seem to work, without even knowing what is being said, because something is able to listen and respond and influence what comes after apparently, and thus us present and aware. That is the real, ever-present, Almighty Buddha, not Siddhartha Gautama the Shakyamuni man, and he was not any more than any other man, however different he may have wanted to set himself apart from the regular human activities and general "attachments".
More on the way from the list, feel free to take from that list or talk about anything!