Thread: Where Do You Stand ?

Originally posted by Faceless Dreamer
Am I the only one?
I believe in God and in an afterlife.
Christian Mystic best describes me.
It must be quite sad for you all, having nothing to believe in.

Sad? It's an amazing thing to cherish the moment. it's all we really have. If I were christian Id be sad that I have to spend energy now, concerning myself with what happens after I die. It's not for me, anyways.

Saying that, I dont believe death will be the end of my conciousness. It'll most likely be the end of me as I know me now, but I find it hard to believe that just because my body dies, whatever it is inhabiting this body wont go into the dirt. The way I look at it, every moment we're dying and being born. I look at a photo of my 5 year old self, and I know that that little boy is dead. He's nowhere to be seen, and every cell that made up that body is gone. Every single one! So what is it that remains constant? My conciousness. Which, when my body dies, will have to go somewhere, and who knows what that'll be like.

I dont believe in filling in religion everywhere science has yet to discover. If its true, it can be proven...somehow...eventually...maybe

Originally posted by Oneironaut


I understand your position, and certainly don't mean to offend your beliefs.
That said, I think you're misunderstanding mine.
If existence were totally blue, it would be completely logical to believe that we would not see anything that were not blue, because that would fundamentally go against existence being blue. Absolutely no conflict with that statement, whatsoever.
However, what existence would be like if there was a Creator, is not so matter-of-fact as argueing against any non-blue existence in an existence that has already been fundamentally concluded to be blue. (Hope I said that in a way that makes sense.)
To question the existence of a Creator is one thing. To delegate what existence would be like if a Creator did exist is something completely different. That is implying that you know God's behavior, and how he would work if he really did exists. Forget the religious characterizations of God. (or the fact that they vary from region to region) What if, in fact, there Was a creator, and he has since turned his back on man and completely left his creation to chaos, consequentially (sp) resulting in an existence that has no tangible proof of His existence? Or possibly that there is a method to his madness, and although we cannot find a way to agree with his methods or observe that his absence of participation does not proof his inexistence, he does Still exist.
My point is, to say that you don't believe in a creator is one thing. This leaves an infinite number of possible reasons for Not believing so, but (my opinion only) by saying that \"such and such would be true if there was a God out there, somewhere\" is to say that you are aware of God's role, his motives, his very persona (using His figuratively, any possible Creator could very well be female, or asexual) is, to me, absolutely not logical.
That's all I'm saying.

Think about it as saying \"A selfish, unlawful child, with no fatherly discipline does not mean his father is no longer living. Maybe it means his father is alive, and not a part of his son's life?\"

I have not been saying what existence would be like with a mere creator. I have been saying what it would be like with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator. By definition, it would be the way I have described it. But of course, I am very open to counter arguments. Your father example does not involve an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being, so it is not a fair analogy. The difference is, by definition, the omnipotent creator does not have to adhere to any laws of reality, but the father you mentioned does. Just like a totally blue existence would not contain things that are not blue, an existence created by an infinitely powerful being who is all loving would not contain the slightest spec of suffering.


Reverend Awaken, you are not just expressing confidence in God. You are also expressing confidence in YOUR analysis and understanding of him as well as YOUR supposedly superior ability to acquire those things.

[quote]I'll make several short statements, but I cannot stay under the 20 word limit.[list] God exists and is more female than male[*] We are made from the image of God[*] Hurray to religions that emphasize the self, e.g. The Eight-Fold Path/Eight Noble Truths. [*] I really do not like religions that require anything else, like mass on Sunday (Catholicism)[*] Earth is a timeout, we are here to learn our lessons.[*] We are also here to find (our way back to) God[*] This planet is so screwed up, we should just total it and start anew, which I believe is coming soon, i.e. December 21, 2012.[*] Things do happen if you truly want them to happen.[*] The previous bullet also holds for dreams, but dreams are in a plane that vibrates faster, and allows things to happen more quickly.[list]

See, DistantClone's unorganized religion is what I'm talking about. All of it is subject to fad, fashion, and marketing.

Post-feminist sexism this, psychotherapeutic consumerism that, media fear culture here, fairy tale patronism there.

Dec 12, 2012. Every generation has its apocalypse and every time it fails to happen. It used ot be the year 2000, anyone rememebr that? And I find that most people who believe this dont actually know why. All they can come up with is that the mayan calendar ends then or that they read it in a book.

Change in the world is constantly accelerating. It always has been. So every generation is experiencing faster changes than the one previous to it. So therefore, every generation thinks that thier generation is going through something magnificently different. Because we look back at the last 100 years and realize, "never before has so much change happened in 100 years!" But then look at the 100 years before that. Never before that, has so much change happened.And the 100 years before that. So this, coupled with horomones and personal change and growth, causes many to feel the whole world is changing with them, and something really big must be around the corner! Throw in a few drugs here and there and the end is surely near! Now just find a close enough date and spread the word!

Of course I don't know that the world isnt going to end, or trasform ,or whatever, in 2012, but after talking with so many people about it, and even believing it myself at one time, Ive realized that there is no good reason available for believing it. I have yet to hear anyone explain it logically. Ive heard it tried though. Try reading Terrance Mckenna's schizophrenic drawing of the same conclusion. He took so many drugs and tried to write up how every science somehow pointed to this date....but it's like "A beautiful Mind" (for those that saw it). He looked through the newspaper, and he wanted to find codes in it..so he did. Terrance Mckenna sat down for a long time with numbers and charts and texts, and tied them together into one totally insane book, complete with charts and equations, and all of his schizophrenic wonder. Of course you'll have the last laugh when the day of reckoning arrives!

God:
Dumb all over, a little ugly on the si-ide!

I believe Life is just too beautiful to be just a coincidence. There's a God. I also believe we can't apreciate it enough in just a lifetime, so there's a an Afterlife as well.

More than 20 words, I know, but God and Afterlife are two things, so...

Mat 24:36 `And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known--not even the messengers of the heavens--except my Father only;

Originally posted by Kaimelar
I believe Life is just too beautiful to be just a coincidence. There's a God. I also believe we can't apreciate it enough in just a lifetime, so there's a an Afterlife as well.

I'd like to know how a throat that is constructed in such a way that requires food to pass over the airway to reach the stomach is beautiful, much less intelligent.

And while we're on the subject of beauty and food traveling through the body...

I was born with a condition called pyloric stenosis. The muscle that controls the regulation of food leaving the stomach was simply too large and would sometimes not let food leave the stomach at all. The result? We're not just talking baby spit up here. I mean projectile vomiting. Horrible, smelly messiness. Everywhere. While I was still weeks old I had to go under surgery and have them just plain cut off some of my stomach muscles. Untreated I might have died of dehydration. I have a scar on my gut that says life is damned ugly.

Tell them how ugly life is.....

Disabled athletes get indoor invite
Hazel Robson celebrates winning gold at the Sydney Paralympics
Hazel Robson celebrates winning gold at the Sydney Paralympics
Disabled athletics has been given a place at the World Indoor Championships for the first time in the 16-year history of the event.

A 60m for women with Cerebral Palsy (T36) will be run on Friday 14 March, the first day of the three-day championships.

And there will be a men's 800m for arm amputees (T46) contested the following day.

"These two events were selected as they are suitable for indoor athletics," championships director Terry Colton explained.

"And they provide an opportunity to showcase disability events not normally seen in the UK.

"We are grateful to the IAAF for agreeing to include the events, which we were keen to incorporate so that the championships are as inclusive as possible," he added.

BRITISH TEAM
Women's 60m (T36)
Hazel Robson
Men's 800m (T46)
Andrew Bird & Danny Crates
The international field of invited athletes were selected on their performances at the 2002 IPC World Athletics Championships.

The hosts will be represented by Hazel Robson, Andrew Bird and Danny Crates.

Robson won silver medals in both the 100m and 200m at the IPC World Athletics Championships, to go with a 100m gold at the Sydney Paralympics.

Bird's haul of honours include a bronze from the 1500m at the IPC World Championships.

Crates is the defending 400m European champion and won bronze in the same event in Sydney's Paralympics.

And you would take their achievements away and ascribe them to God?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Isa 61:3 To appoint7760 unto them that mourn57 in Zion,6726 to give5414 unto them beauty6287 for8478 ashes,665 the oil8081 of joy8342 for8478 mourning,60 the garment4594 of praise8416 for8478 the spirit7307 of heaviness;3544 that they might be called7121 trees352 of righteousness,6664 the planting4302 of the LORD,3068 that he might be glorified.6286

God took their pain, and made it something beautiful

Originally posted by Ex Nine
See, DistantClone's unorganized religion is what I'm talking about. All of it is subject to fad, fashion, and marketing.

Post-feminist sexism this, psychotherapeutic consumerism that, media fear culture here, fairy tale patronism there.

Those may be unorganized, and I agree they are, but they certainly are not the basis of any religion. Those are the decisions I've made, it's not a religion. Those views are mine and mine alone.

Realize I believe God is more female because eight is an even number. That is not feminism. Realize a lot of those views come from a free book on the internet. None of which is marketed to consumers. Realize I think the mass negativity of people is why the world is in such poor shape. Here you are telling me "No, we can't do that! Unorganized religion is terrible, it means you are a free thinker and we should be close-minded!"

Realize that I don't think there is any worse think we can do than to lose our childish curiousity and innocence, and that's exactly what your religion does. It beats people into the same mold, same belief system. We our individuals, we should have a sense of individuality. What may be right for you may not be right for me. There is no one-size fits all approach.

Ex Nine, I am telling you I am white. Be careful who you call black, you tea kettle.

Originally posted by DistantClone

Those may be unorganized, and I agree they are, but they certainly are not the basis of any religion. Those are the decisions I've made, it's not a religion. Those views are mine and mine alone.

Realize I believe God is more female because eight is an even number. That is not feminism. Realize a lot of those views come from a free book on the internet. None of which is marketed to consumers. Realize I think the mass negativity of people is why the world is in such poor shape. Here you are telling me \"No, we can't do that! Unorganized religion is terrible, it means you are a free thinker and we should be close-minded!\"

Realize that I don't think there is any worse think we can do than to lose our childish curiousity and innocence, and that's exactly what your religion does. It beats people into the same mold, same belief system. We our individuals, we should have a sense of individuality. What may be right for you may not be right for me. There is no one-size fits all approach.

Ex Nine, I am telling you I am white. Be careful who you call black, you tea kettle.

I think Ex made a good point. An awful lot of unorganized religion isn't based on ANYTHING but pop culture. You ARE NOT an unconformist. Don't kid yourself. You're just conforming to another crowd. Honestly, the reasons you provided just don't seem to cut it for me...I'd be more inclined to take Ex's side.

DC, well then just say you stand for safeguarding childlike curiosity and innocence. That people should have a sense of individuality. And that you're open to relativism.

And that you think people should have free access to books. That negativity causes real problems. And that you believe in some yet unrevealed form of numerology.

See? I'm not telling you to be closed-minded.


As for you, Awaken, I am convinced you are a robot. Not surprising, as others have already come to that conclusion.

------

Oh yeah, and if God's eight, I'm Nine.

I think when people say I don't believe in god. They are a little confused about what "god" actually means. Due to religious dogma. They are speaking in the religious context. Probally thinking of a guy with a white beard.

When they say no afterlife, They fail to realize they have never been dead. And they mistake self for an illusion.

You cannot deny reality, and reality cannot be anything other than yourself. How can it not be? It is illogical to deny reality, and the fact that you have to be it. Reality is just another word for god. "reality" does not die. "truth" does not pass away. This is the soul of god which you cannot possibly be seperated from. It's simple mathematics and sacred geomerty. All is one.

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
I think when people say I don't believe in god. They are a little confused about what \"god\" actually means. Due to religious dogma. They are speaking in the religious context. Probally thinking of a guy with a white beard.

When they say no afterlife, They fail to realize they have never been dead. And they mistake self for an illusion.

You cannot deny reality, and reality cannot be anything other than yourself. How can it not be? It is illogical to deny reality, and the fact that you have to be it. Reality is just another word for god. \"reality\" does not die. \"truth\" does not pass away. This is the soul of god which you cannot possibly be seperated from. It's simple mathematics and sacred geomerty. All is one.

that's gotta be the biggest load of bullshit i've ever heard...
someones just taken one to many sugar cubes...

Originally posted by nirvana
think when people say I don't believe in god. They are a little confused about what \"god\" actually means. Due to religious dogma. They are speaking in the religious context. Probally thinking of a guy with a white beard.

Of course! Everyone's wrong because they aren't using your definition!

You cannot deny reality, and reality cannot be anything other than yourself. How can it not be? It is illogical to deny reality, and the fact that you have to be it. Reality is just another word for god.[/b]

Redefining a word is not proof for god. An example:

You cannot deny the computer monitor you're looking at right now, "computer monitor" is another term for god. Ergo, god exists.

All you've done is proved that the original thing exists. Why is reality god? Why isn't reality..... reality. Why anthroporphise it and turn it into a godhead?

I think occams razor (the principle of parsimony) would work well here. Would there be any difference between reality (as reality) and reality (as god)? What does reality (as god) provide that reality (as reality) doesnt? If there is no difference than why involve a supernatural entity?

-spoon

Originally posted by spoon
Redefining a word is not proof for god

well put

Atleast spoon thinks about it and explains his view the best he can.

Originally posted by spoon
Redefining a word is not proof for god.

An example:

You cannot deny the computer monitor you're looking at right now, \"computer monitor\" is another term for god. Ergo, god exists.

See you have the wrong definition of the word to start with. The computer monitor alone is not god. Anymore than a part of your cell in your body is you. Your right the computer monitor you cannot deny. It is part of everything, therefore part of gods existence.

All you've done is proved that the original thing exists. Why is reality god? Why isn't reality..... reality. Why anthroporphise it and turn it into a godhead? [/b]

Your the one that is redefining the word. By attributing to the word 'god' something imaginary that does not exist. For example you could believe that the word \"life\" and its definition does not exist. By attributing to it imaginary qualitys that are nonexistent. Such as
saying life is something that does not die, everything dies, and will beomce dead, so nothing is really life. This is the similar logic you use with the word. \"god\" You say god is such and such. Nothing is such and such so nothing is god. When others talk about god. You imagine this definition and say to them god does not exists. when people say ofcourse your god does not exist if you think thats what it means. You then say, hey you are making a new definition!! But your the one that has the definition wrong in the first place. I can prove this by pointing out the fact that reality exists. My definition of god is present. And your definition of god, does not exist the way you are thinking, and is not present. No wonder you don't believe in your definiton of \"god\". It has nothing to do with reality. Where is the mysteries supernatural entity you keep saying is god? It doesn't exist. not the way you are thinking god is suppose to.

therefore calling reality god, I don't think that is anthroporphising it, it's just stating the real definition of the word. Why don't People understand something that simple? I don't know. Maybe because of all the scripture classes they taught in school and the things they didn't teach. For example. Logic. There was never a subject for that. There was a subject for mathematics. The subjects were isolated apart from each other. Christianity had nothing to do with mathematics, yet both claimed to teach truth, so both should have been either intergrated so they are compatible, or disgarded alltogether. You cannot teach contradictions. Even mathematics they failed to teach in the proper context. We were all taught about christianity, but we were never taught about logic. And you get these distorted views about what god should mean. I don't think that is the only reason for the misunderstanding though.

I think occams razor (the principle of parsimony) would work well here. Would there be any difference between reality (as reality) and reality (as god)? What does reality (as god) provide that reality (as reality) doesnt? If there is no difference than why involve a supernatural entity?[/b]

What do you mean by involving a supernatural entity. You are mixing your definition up and mistaking it for the proper one now. maybe going back to the guy with the white beard? God is an appropriate word, because it gives one guidlines about the purpose of ourself, the truth about who we are, the reason we are here, and how we are here.

Do you call yourself reality? Life? Consiousness? do you call yourself a supernatural entity? Or do you call yourself a human? What exackly is the difference here? It does help to place these words in the right context when they are understood. And It's the same with everything that exists. What is not understood is it is all one thing. You can call water on the ocean waves, and say there is 3, 4 or 10 000 waves. Or 10 000 entitys. But they are all part of the ocean. And we are all part of reality.

It is a mathematical certainty.

I find it the saddest thing when people fail to realize just how beautiful life is.

Originally posted by Kaimelar
I find it the saddest thing when people fail to realize just how beautiful life is.

Yeah, me too.

Especially when I see parents beating their kids. Why don't they understand that they are beautiful?

Lucky for you and me, we know that abusive parents are beautiful. Especially when they draw blood and leave bruises. Such beautiful lifeblood.

Universal Mind wrote:
I have not been saying what existence would be like with a mere creator. I have been saying what it would be like with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator. By definition, it would be the way I have described it. But of course, I am very open to counter arguments. Your father example does not involve an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being, so it is not a fair analogy. The difference is, by definition, the omnipotent creator does not have to adhere to any laws of reality, but the father you mentioned does. Just like a totally blue existence would not contain things that are not blue, an existence created by an infinitely powerful being who is all loving would not contain the slightest spec of suffering.[/b]

I think the problem would begin with your automatically assuming the creator would be omnibenevolent. His omnipotency has nothing to do with his behavior, nor does it have anything to do with the Father/Son analogy that I used, earlier. I would agree with you that if the creator was omnibenevolent, it would be MUCH easier to try to assume how existence would be, because it would built around the foundation of an omnibenevolent creator. That much is more or less common sense.
However, who are we to assume that any omnipotent creator is to, by default, be omnibenevolent as well? An omnipotent being, by definition, is all powerful. This does nothing to answer the question of its polarity. Good or Evil. Malicious or Benevolent. Any characterization of your assumption of “God Must Be Omnibenevolent” is, indeed, nothing more than your own assumption, and where your side of this particular debate doesn’t quite hold up, in my opinion. The father figure analogy I used is just fine because it has nothing to do with a question of ability. It is a question of “Just because the father chooses to have no interaction with his son, or even decides to make it seem to his son that he Has no father, that does not mean the father doesn’t exist. Omnipotent or Not. Bringing omnipotency into that analogy simply to negate the analogy does nothing to help explain your point of view, because omnipotency has nothing to do with the explanation that I’m giving.
IF God exists, and is omnipotent, that in no way means that he is Obligated to use that omnipotency toward omnibenevolence. THAT would be making him “adhere” to your characterization of how you Think God is supposed to act, which, as you stated earlier, you just Can’t Do with an omnipotent being.
That said, once again, If you are simply saying that “There must not be an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being out there, because existence would probably go this way, or that way” then that’s fine. That is your conclusion on whether or not there is omnibenevolence governing existence. HOWEVER that does nothing to negate the possibility of an omnipotent omnipresence out there, because an omnipotent being is not, by default, omnibenevolent. I think that would be wishful thinking on your part (and quite possibly All of our parts), and its absence certainly doesn’t negate omnipresence at all. It just means that if a God does exist, and I agree with you on this, he is certainly Not omnibenevolent.

Originally posted by Ex Nine


Yeah, me too.

Especially when I see parents beating their kids. Why don't they understand that they are beautiful?

Lucky for you and me, we know that abusive parents are beautiful. Especially when they draw blood and leave bruises. Such beautiful lifeblood.

Life is beautiful in spite of those horrible things. Its the way its meant to be. Besides, you wouldnt be able to apreciate the beauty of certain things if there weren't horrible things for them to be compared with.

Originally posted by Oneironaut

Universal Mind wrote:
I have not been saying what existence would be like with a mere creator. I have been saying what it would be like with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator. By definition, it would be the way I have described it. But of course, I am very open to counter arguments. Your father example does not involve an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being, so it is not a fair analogy. The difference is, by definition, the omnipotent creator does not have to adhere to any laws of reality, but the father you mentioned does. Just like a totally blue existence would not contain things that are not blue, an existence created by an infinitely powerful being who is all loving would not contain the slightest spec of suffering.

I think the problem would begin with your automatically assuming the creator would be omnibenevolent. His omnipotency has nothing to do with his behavior, nor does it have anything to do with the Father/Son analogy that I used, earlier. I would agree with you that if the creator was omnibenevolent, it would be MUCH easier to try to assume how existence would be, because it would built around the foundation of an omnibenevolent creator. That much is more or less common sense.
However, who are we to assume that any omnipotent creator is to, by default, be omnibenevolent as well? An omnipotent being, by definition, is all powerful. This does nothing to answer the question of its polarity. Good or Evil. Malicious or Benevolent. Any characterization of your assumption of “God Must Be Omnibenevolent” is, indeed, nothing more than your own assumption, and where your side of this particular debate doesn’t quite hold up, in my opinion. The father figure analogy I used is just fine because it has nothing to do with a question of ability. It is a question of “Just because the father chooses to have no interaction with his son, or even decides to make it seem to his son that he Has no father, that does not mean the father doesn’t exist. Omnipotent or Not. Bringing omnipotency into that analogy simply to negate the analogy does nothing to help explain your point of view, because omnipotency has nothing to do with the explanation that I’m giving.
IF God exists, and is omnipotent, that in no way means that he is Obligated to use that omnipotency toward omnibenevolence. THAT would be making him “adhere” to your characterization of how you Think God is supposed to act, which, as you stated earlier, you just Can’t Do with an omnipotent being.
That said, once again, If you are simply saying that “There must not be an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being out there, because existence would probably go this way, or that way” then that’s fine. That is your conclusion on whether or not there is omnibenevolence governing existence. HOWEVER that does nothing to negate the possibility of an omnipotent omnipresence out there, because an omnipotent being is not, by default, omnibenevolent. I think that would be wishful thinking on your part (and quite possibly All of our parts), and its absence certainly doesn’t negate omnipresence at all. It just means that if a God does exist, and I agree with you on this, he is certainly Not omnibenevolent.[/b]

What I have been arguing on this web site is that a simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator could not possibly exist. The issue of whether or not a limited God could or one that is not totally good could exist is something I have not debated here. I have said a few times that it is much more believable, but that I think it is far fetched. I think it is about as probable as the existence of the Tooth Fairy, but I don't know of an argument that proves completely that it is impossible. Same goes for the Tooth Fairy.