Theist's the Hard Truth

[shunyadragon]

And considering that you considered "The kind of people who belong to atheist societies" as "not clear on being selective of certain atheists", I consider that you don't really know what you are talking about.

I believe you need a refresher in English. Like believers in almost all belief systems, atheists to one degree or another associate or live in atheist societies.For example: Zen communities are atheist societies,

 

[74x12]

I look for God and found God many times. When ever I went looking, God was there in whatever form I imagine at the time God should be in. I also agree that if a person looks for God with all their heart they will find the God they seek. At this point I've found God so many times, finding God is simple.

I'm actually surprised there are folks who say they've never found God. However I'm willing to presume that not everyone's brain works exactly the same way.

Maybe you've found God once or twice but after a dozen times you start to wonder if God could be whatever you wanted God to be. If you could create your own God and experience a relation with the God you've created just as real, meaningful and fulfilling as any of the Gods you've been told by others that exist.

All I have to do is plant the ideas and willingness to believe into my subconscious mind and God becomes a reality in my experience. Not that hard once you've done it a few time. For most I suspect this usually occurs at a subconscious level. Folks aren't even aware of creating God. I've just had it done enough, went through the process enough times, I can consciously "will" it.

So who is God's creator. I know I am. I suspect you are as well. You're just not aware of the process.

Explain what you mean you found God and he was whatever you wanted. You had some kind of "spiritual" experience or what?

 

[Augustus]

I believe you need a refresher in English. Like believers in almost all belief systems, atheists to one degree or another associate or live in atheist societies.For example: Zen communities are atheist societies,

I believe you need a refresher in English. In English, as with language in general, meaning derives from context.

If you would care to go back and check, the post I actually replied to referred to a specific atheist society (i.e. organisation): The Atheist Alliance. This was the context.

Just because a Zen community could be labelled as an "atheist society" based on other dictionary definitions of the terms abstracted from context, doesn't mean that what I said in a specific context, could also mean "Zen communities".

I know you love a bad-faith pedantic quibble, but blatantly wrong bad-faith pedantic quibbling isn't really an endearing quality

 

[Vinayaka]

i was 12 first time I saw snow. I liked it, at first anyway.

That has been my observation for almost anyone seeing it for the first time. The only thing I can think of off hand for myself is eating a mango. I didn't know what it was, but then, whoa!

 

[Nakosis]

Explain what you mean you found God and he was whatever you wanted. You had some kind of "spiritual" experience or what?

Well there's Dogoda a wind goddess. She is playful, gentle, very kind. It is a most more visceral than with Abrahamic deities. Then there's the fairies. Many have names but I saw several hundred dancing on my lawn. Didn't really know any by name. I came across a burning bush. Maybe the same God which beckoned Moses and told him to remove his sandals. Then there was Jesus. Bright golden light, blinded to everything else. Immediate feeling of peace and a release from sin. I also followed a physical manifestation of God for a number of years. Kind of short and chubby but had a nice smile.

A few personal conversations with God. Very profound and thought altering. Stuff I certainly couldn't have figure out on my own. I met a rainbow serpent, but he was not a nice God. It's his job to hide the truth from man. I think the Abrahamic God was behind him, the serpent was fulfilling the purpose of the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God. I felt at the time very betrayed by the Abrahamic God. I've forgiven him since though.

I could go on, but there are plenty of Gods to believe in with their own unique experiences.

 

[Audie]

Well there's Dogoda a wind goddess. She is playful, gentle, very kind. It is a most more visceral than with Abrahamic deities. Then there's the fairies. Many have names but I saw several hundred dancing on my lawn. Didn't really know any by name. I came across a burning bush. Maybe the same God which beckoned Moses and told him to remove his sandals. Then there was Jesus. Bright golden light, blinded to everything else. Immediate feeling of peace and a release from sin. I also followed a physical manifestation of God for a number of years. Kind of short and chubby but had a nice smile.

A few personal conversations with God. Very profound and thought altering. Stuff I certainly couldn't have figure out on my own. I met a rainbow serpent, but he was not a nice God. It's his job to hide the truth from man. I think the Abrahamic God was behind him, the serpent was fulfilling the purpose of the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God. I felt at the time very betrayed by the Abrahamic God. I've forgiven him since though.

I could go on, but there are plenty of Gods to believe in with their own unique experiences.

I kinda dont think our multiplier is gonna
understand that, but will think he does.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe you need a refresher in English. In English, as with language in general, meaning derives from context.

If you would care to go back and check, the post I actually replied to referred to a specific atheist society (i.e. organisation): The Atheist Alliance. This was the context.

Just because a Zen community could be labelled as an "atheist society" based on other dictionary definitions of the terms abstracted from context, doesn't mean that what I said in a specific context, could also mean "Zen communities".

I know you love a bad-faith pedantic quibble, but blatantly wrong bad-faith pedantic quibbling isn't really an endearing quality

So incoherent I am unable to respond to this rant.

 

[sayak83]

Are the individual cells of our body intelligent/self aware to some degree?

Sure we maybe the "cells" of some super entity, but I'd suspect we have about as much chance of understanding such an entity as any of the cells of our body have understanding our body's self aware consciousness. Billions of cells die in your body every day. How much concern/compassion do you have for each individual cell?

No reason to think if such a "super entity" did exist that it have any more concern for one of us then you have for an individual cell among the billions of cells the die each day in your own body.

Maybe the cells of you body have some feeling they are part of a bigger organism that has a plan for them all. Do you? Do you have a plan for the billions that die to bring them back or somehow continue their existence?

Homeostasy exists in the body does it not. Every cell is embedded in a highly interdependent matrix with many many communication channels and feedback loops within the body going right upto and the brain. None are randomly existing isolated entities. Their birth, division, activity and eventual death occurs in a very programmed and controlled manner. Everything is under animate (even if non-conscious) supervision. If things go off track there are several levels of corrective feedback loops that seek to rebalance the situation. So your question of if every cell is under "our" care is more nuanced than you think.
Anyways, the entire universe\multiverse structure also hints at a similarly rich (or even richer) embedding matrix...something science did not anticipate even 50-70 years ago.

I do not believe in a God to pray to it in order to get stuff or to get immortal life in heaven. Such considerations are irrelevant to me. The question I am asking is what is the nature of this reality in which I am experiencing and am embedded in.

 

[shunyadragon]

Homeostasy exists in the body does it not. Every cell is embedded in a highly interdependent matrix with many many communication channels and feedback loops within the body going right upto and the brain. None are randomly existing isolated entities. Their birth, division, activity and eventual death occurs in a very programmed and controlled manner. Everything is under animate (even if non-conscious) supervision. If things go off track there are several levels of corrective feedback loops that seek to rebalance the situation. So your question of if every cell is under "our" care is more nuanced than you think.
Anyways, the entire universe\multiverse structure also hints at a similarly rich (or even richer) embedding matrix...something science did not anticipate even 50-70 years ago.

I do not believe in a God to pray to it in order to get stuff or to get immortal life in heaven. Such considerations are irrelevant to me. The question I am asking is what is the nature of this reality in which I am experiencing and am embedded in.

This interbedded matrix is and is determined by the Laws of Nature, whether of Divine origin or simply natural.

 

[Augustus]

So incoherent I am unable to respond to this rant.

If you find the concept that meaning is context dependent 'incoherent', no wonder you have such difficulty accurately responding to posts

 

[viole]

My reasoning is this:
1 I take for granted that the existance of God is at least possible (given that nobody has disproved his existance)

Don't you have enough evidence of the things that justify your particular faith (e.g. resurrections and such)?

If yes, why do you venture in complicated arguments involving cosmology, physics, origin, ,etc. under a weak (in terms of being general) premise about a non specified God?

If not, how do you justify your Christian faith?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SalixIncendium]

If one needs a non religious person to tell them something is wrong, perhaps too one should look at their psychological profile rather than what that person is saying or not that they follow.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you find the concept that meaning is context dependent 'incoherent', no wonder you have such difficulty accurately responding to posts

Context of 'dependent' is not the issue. Believers in any belief system may be consider 'dependent' on whatever. Your posts addressed atheist in stereotyping, and not acknowledging the diversity among atheists.

This post was incoherent:

believe you need a refresher in English. In English, as with language in general, meaning derives from context.

If you would care to go back and check, the post I actually replied to referred to a specific atheist society (i.e. organisation): The Atheist Alliance. This was the context.

Just because a Zen community could be labelled as an "atheist society" based on other dictionary definitions of the terms abstracted from context, doesn't mean that what I said in a specific context, could also mean "Zen communities".

I know you love a bad-faith pedantic quibble, but blatantly wrong bad-faith pedantic quibbling isn't really an endearing quality

You repeatedly reinforced the stereotyping like in the following:

Yet people who actively describe themselves as 'freethinkers' always seem to think the same things

The reality is that people who 'describe themselves as 'freethinkers' may be from many diverse religious beliefs.

 

[Jollybear]

A person who is NOT religious telling someone else they doing wrong, why is that not ego, but someone religious trying to do the convincing, is ego?

 

[SalixIncendium]

A person who is NOT religious telling someone else they doing wrong, why is that not ego, but someone religious trying to do the convincing, is ego?

This is not at all what I was communicating in my posts.

 

[atanu]

I understand what you are attempting to show. The conscious mind can't observe itself. Therefore there is nothing materialistic to observe. How conscious awareness exists is difficult to rationalize.

So I can't say you are wrong, only I choose to see it for now in materialistic terms. That may change but for now I see no necessity to jump to a non-materialistic conclusion.

It is nice that we can at least understand each other. Before leaving this point, I will like to point out that both ‘material' and 'non-material' are words, born of materialistic paradigm.

 

[Jollybear]

This is not at all what I was communicating in my posts.

What was you trying to communicate?

 

[SalixIncendium]

What was you trying to communicate?

I wasn't trying. I communicated. You tried to understand and came to conclusions based on what you understood. But I digress.

I think it was clearly stated in post #20 of this thread. I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything spiritual or religious nature.

In other words, people believe as they do as it pertains to religion and spirituality for a reason. It's not mine to convince them of anything. If one asks, I'm happy to share, but one's beliefs are personal and their own.

 

[Jollybear]

I wasn't trying. I communicated.

If you communicated, then you tried to convey a point. I misunderstood the point apparently.

You tried to understand and came to conclusions based on what you understood. But I digress.

Yea, i tried to understand, and you tried to make a point.

I think it was clearly stated in post #20 of this thread. I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything spiritual or religious nature.

Yea and i asked a question and i still got no clear answer on it.

You said that trying to convince others is egotistic. I asked, are parrents then egotistic for teaching there children? You still havent given me a clear answer.

In other words, people believe as they do as it pertains to religion and spirituality for a reason. It's not mine to convince them of anything. If one asks, I'm happy to share, but one's beliefs are personal and their own.

So a child that bullies his little brother, thats his own personal belief and his parrent should not convince him to stop?

Also if i may comment, how do you know what others motives are who try to convince others of there religion or spirituality? How do you know if there motive is ego or concern?

Are you then not playing JUDGE of others motivations?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If you communicated, then you tried to convey a point. I misunderstood the point apparently.

No, I communicated my point. There was no try.

Yea, i tried to understand, and you tried to make a point.

Well, I suppose you're half right, so you get partial credit.

Yea and i asked a question and i still got no clear answer on it.

Yes, you asked a question, and yes, you got a clear answer. I'm responsible for what I say, not what you understand. If you are struggling to understand my point, ask questions. Don't accuse me of being unclear.

You said that trying to convince others is egotistic. I asked, are parrents then egotistic for teaching there children? You still havent given me a clear answer.

Yes, I have. I told you that you are speaking of moral and ethical teachings, not spiritual or religious ones. So your analogy has no relevance to the discussion.

So a child that bullies his little brother, thats his own personal belief and his parrent should not convince him to stop?

Again, that is not a belief. It is a value. Please stop confusing the two.

Also if i may comment, how do you know what others motives are who try to convince others of there religion or spirituality? How do you know if there motive is ego or concern?

Please explain what else they could possibly be.

Are you then not playing JUDGE of others motivations?

Unless you can provide an ulterior motive, no.