I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]
Offline I'm a believer in God. Can you please help fix it?
- Login to post comments
Offline nigelTheBold wrote:Bill Hicks talking about a good-experience-on-drugs news story wrote:“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here’s Tom with the weather.”
Not quite the same as what you are claiming, but closer than I can get myself.
This is the hippie version. But I basically agree.
Like the distinction matters.
- Login to post comments
Offline Just to make this easier I have taken t all the previous responses and my initial question. So we don't have to go looking through the 800+ responses to find them. (if they found this important to begin with)
{My question}Just wondering is there anything I can do to disrupt, change, alter, or cause the ultimate purpose of existence to fail (according to your belief)?
I read the entire thread and I have not seen this addressed yet.
{Paisley's 1st Reply}No, you can't. You can only delay your realization of this truth.
{My 1st response}Thank you. My life and your life have no effect of the outcome and are therefore meaningless to it.
P.S. Sorry for the delay.
{Paisley's 2nd Reply}Quote:"Delay does not matter in eternity, but it is tragic in time." (source: ACIM)
{My 2nd response}So you agree that your worldview doesn't escape what you claim makes materialism absurd?
Under your worldview we have nothing to do with the outcome or "ultimate purpose" so we are in fact meaningless to it.
{Paisley's 3rd Reply}No, I do not agree. (Are you making some kind of deterministic vs. free will argument?)
I believe that we are all prompted by the divine call and play an integral role in the outcome.
The second sentence is a contradiction to your very first reply to me.
Also I have made no argument's I am only trying to understand and to point out flaw's so you can make better arguments.
{Continuation of Paisley's 3rd Reply}
Quote:"There is no living thing that does not share the universal Will that it be whole, and that you do not leave its call unheard. Without your answer it is left to die." (source: ACIM)
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
- Login to post comments
Offline The belief in God is based on an intuitive sense perception of a higher power or spiritual reality. I believe in God because I am naturally inclined to do so. That the religious impulse is virtually universal leads me to believe that most human beings share my view. You're the one who's in the minority, not me!
What good is your universal religious impulse when it leads its supporters to completely unrelated destinations ? There is no such thing as consensus among theists. Division is the operative term when describing theism.
Oh yes Paisley, I'm sure if you were to walk into the local United Pentecostal Church, wander up to the podium and make your case for believing in "THE UNIVERSAL MIND" they would shower you with "Amen Brother, preach the word !!!" and embrace your theology with open arms.
Speaking of minorities, what are the numbers of self-identifying panentheists ? You're only one of two on this forum and most people, including other theists, have never even heard of the religious microcosm that your beliefs represent.
ps, I guess if you included recent convert Sam Harris into your spiritual sect you could bump up the panentheisic membership to what.... maybe twenty or thirty ? ( note: Paisley quickly scampers off to Wikipedia in an attempt to create a devastating comeback )
Look out other religions of the world and behold panentheism....a new spiritual paradigm is on the horizon !!! 
- Login to post comments
Offline The terms empiricism and rationalism are not exactly interchangeable.
Also, John Locke (the founder of empiricism) held that knowledge of God could be arrived at through intuitive sense perception.
Of course they're not interchangeable. That's why I called it "rational empiricism."
As for Locke and theology, you are making an appeal to authority. I don't care what Locke thought about God.
Evolutionary Quantum Computation (EQC) is based on the view that consciousness arises from quantum indeterminacy and that everything is conscious (this is known as 'panpsychism'). This obsviously has implications for panentheism.
EQC is speculation at best. It still falls in the realm of, "Making shit up," and has no place in rational dialogue, except when used as, "EQC is just another example of 'making shit up.'"
Until it can be tested, it is simply an interesting idea, on which you can base no rational conclusion.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline I have already given you the epistemological basis for my metaphysics; It's the same as yours - namely, faith.
This position is untenable.
Faith is not an epistemology. It's the exact opposite of an epistemology, in fact. The simplest requisite of an epistemology is that it defines a method of gaining knowledge in a predictable and reproducible way. Notice I say nothing about absolutes. For instance, Richard Jeffrey worked on an epistemology called "radical probability," or as Jeffrey himself put it, "Probability all the way down." The practical application in computer science of Jeffrey's work is one of the best examples of philosophy and technology working together.
As I have pointed out several times, the application of "faith" is subjective. If you line up a dozen people and ask them to apply "faith," you will end up with a dozen different conclusions. This is not knowledge. At most, you may gain knowledge about the person based on what they conclude from faith.
Science is based on uncertainty, not faith. The entire ontology is contingent. This is the exact opposite of faith. Science has a firm, proven epistemology. It has roots in both inductive and deductive logic, and empiricism.
At the beginning, there were four assumptions, which you will call faith. These analytic truths were:
The universe is objective. It exists. If this is untrue, there's no point in observing it.
The universe is observable. Not only does it exist, but our senses accurately report our interaction with the universe. If this were untrue, there's no point in observing it.
The universe is coherent. The rules apply wherever you are, here or a couple of billion light years away. If this were untrue, the universe would be different at different points, So far, our observations indicate a coherent universe.
The universe is consistent. Dropping a hammer in a gravity field will always result in the hammer falling towards the center of gravity, until obstructed by another object. If this were untrue, both inductive and deductive logic would fail, and we would not be able to arrive at a coherent ontology.
These four basic tenets were originally accepted as true. We needed a starting place, and so those were the assumptions. The great thing is, the more we learned, the less important these original assumptions became. The more comprehensive our ontology grows, the more these assumptions are proven as true.
That's the important thing about science. The assumptions are proven along with the concepts based on those assumptions. As the probability of truth for a theory asymptotically approaches 100%, so does the probability of truth of the assumptions.
So, no. You haven't stated your epistemology, and it isn't the same as mine. You can't merely state, "Faith." That's not an epistemology at all.
It's an excuse.
The belief in God is based on an intuitive sense perception of a higher power or spiritual reality. I believe in God because I am naturally inclined to do so.
Please note the subjective way you stated this. "I am naturally inclined to do so." An inclination in this sense indicates a subjective, not objective, position.
What evidence do you have that this "intuitive sense perception" is real? I know you believe it is, but that makes it no more real that bigfoot or UFOs or Nessie. As I stated before, the barest qualifier for a "truth" is that it is objective. As different people arrive at different conclusions based on their "intuitive sense perceptions," all evidence suggests that it is merely subjective, and not objective at all.
Or, to state it more baldly: there's no such thing as an "intitive sense perception." It has been disproven, time and time again.
That the religious impulse is virtually universal leads me to believe that most human beings share my view. You're the one who's in the minority, not me!
Shall we cover some of the other things that the majority do? (Specific examples apply only to the USA, and are used for illustrative purposes, not as definitive lists.)
Drink Budwieser.
Pick their nose.
Drink Folgers, or Starbucks.
Use MS-Windows.
Shop at Wal*Mart.
Follow the goings-on of celebrities.
Masturbate.
Watch Cops.
Scratch their ass.
Just because a lot of people do something, doesn't make it good. Just because most people believe something doesn't make it true. (Nor does it make it untrue.) Most people don't think about their belief in God enough to question it. Most people don't even go to church, or in any way practice the religion in which they ostensibly believe.
"God" is nothing more than a desire to understand our world. We are naturally curious apes, and we like to be able to explain things. Many people don't want to put forth the effort to understand our world, and so they accept God, because then they can just say stupid shit like, "God works in mysterious ways," or, "The brutal murder of a two-year-old by her parents is the Will of God," or, "Quantum mechanics is probabilistic in nature, so it must be God."
Others, like many of us here, believe we don't need to understand everything to accept that which we do understand. There are huge unknowns right now. The more we learn about the universe, the more we realize how much we have yet to learn. This is nothing big, nor new. Hell, back in the 19th century, they believed science had just about discovered everything there was to discover.
Boy, were they in for a shock.
The ontology can change. A shift can happen that re-frames our understanding in new light. This happened with classical physics less than a hundred years ago. As our understanding of quantum structure grows (when we finally get to the point we can start testing it), I suspect we'll see another shift in understanding. This doesn't void our current understanding, nor any of the data we've acquired.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline The second sentence is a contradiction to your very first reply to me.
Just another example of paisley's continued duplicity in argumentation (recall: "pantheism is rational, atheism is irrational. No, wait. pantheism is non-rational. Yeah, that's it"; "I don't follow christian theology. No wait, I do...or do I?" ).
Expect some dissembling explanation like "I was only speaking tongue-in-cheek", if not complete avoidance -- he does as much with our discussion.
There are no theists on operating tables.
| ππ | π† |
| π† | †† |
- Login to post comments
Offline Magus wrote:The second sentence is a contradiction to your very first reply to me.
Just another example of paisley's continued duplicity in argumentation (recall: "pantheism is rational, atheism is irrational. No, wait. pantheism is non-rational. Yeah, that's it"; "I don't follow christian theology. No wait, I do...or do I?" ).
Expect some dissembling explanation like "I was only speaking tongue-in-cheek", if not complete avoidance -- he does as much with our discussion.
Paisley is a weasel, no doubt about it. He's just here to play his theological "catch me if you can" games. What a self-important weenie.
- Login to post comments
Offline Years ago, when I married, I was an agnostic atheist. I did not believe in God, but I understood the universe was so complex, so beautiful, I had an intuition of God. As I studied, I understood this was Spinoza's God, Einstein's God, the God of a perfect universe. I didn't believe this was God (any more than Einstein did, apparently), but I understood that God could exist. So marrying a believer was not hard. I thought Love Would Conquer All.
You had an intuition of God? This is interesting.
Spinoza's God is a deterministic, pantheistic God and is compatible with the metaphysical position of neutral monism or dual-aspect monism. It's not compatible with atheistic materialism.
The attraction of Spinoza's philosophy to late eighteenth-century Europeans was that it provided an alternative to materialism, atheism, and deism. Three of Spinoza's ideas strongly appealed to them:
- the unity of all that exists;
- the regularity of all that happens; and
- the identity of spirit and nature.
Spinoza's "God or Nature" provided a living, natural God, in contrast to the Newtonian mechanical "First Cause" or the dead mechanism of the French "Man Machine."
source: Wikipedia "Baruch Spinoza"
Since then, I have realized there are logical reasons God can't exist. But I also understand there are logical reasons people want God to exist.
What are the "logical reasons" why God can't exist?
Just to be clear: we all have delusions. My in that mankind is generally good. I believe we are getting better, that we are leaving adolescence behind, and moving on to a next stage (whatever that stage may be). When I said we all had non-rationality, this is what I meant. I do have irrational beliefs.The difference is, I don't try to claim my irrational beliefs trump rational beliefs.
This "non-rational" belief qualifies as a teleological argument for the existence of God.
The difference is that I do not hold that the scientific method is the only avenue of inquiry.
Paisley wrote:I am not claiming to have absolute knowledge of God. This is why it is called faith. Duh!I like you more all the time. I'm grinning my fool head off at this.
You are at your best when you are at your most honest. If you want to continue the discussion of your knowledge of God, I'd be happy. This, to me, contains more possible fruitful discussion than anything you've said so far.
Honesty? I have consistently acknowledged that I live by faith.
Paisley wrote:Metaphysics is concerned with the nature of reality. All metaphysical positions are beliefs. This bears repeating. All metaphysical positions are BELIEFS! (This includes the metaphysical position known as materialism or physicalism!) You do not have knowledge of ultimate reality. So I will kindly ask you to stop making this pretense that you do. It's intellectually dishonest.The belief in God is not subject to the scientific method. It cannot be disproven.
Just because you have limited your worldview to the scientific method gives you no justification to impose this same limitation upon everyone else. I know that this is a point of contention for you but I suggest you learn to deal with it.
It's not intellectually dishonest. I have presented my epistemology, my basis of knowledge. You have not. The only intellectual dishonesty is yours. I have been forthright, honest. You have hidden behind platitudes and inane wordplay. I believe you truly mean everything you say, so I think calling it "intellectual dishonesty" is not quite correct, either. I think you just haven't developed a full epistemology, which is why I've been harping on it.
What you call epistemology is just a hierarchy or network of beliefs which ultimately rests on some basic presuppositions. I fail to see why you are harping on my presuppositions when you clearly have your own.
My worldview is based on something that has given us a coherent ontology that is congruent with reality. The reason I call this out is simple: any epsitemology must be coherent, and it must be congruent with observed reality. Otherwise, it is not rational.
My epistemology is coherent. There is nothing in my belief in God that does not cohere with observed phenomena (both external and internal).
Also, your worldview of materialism is a metaphysical belief that does not cohere with observed phenomena - namely, quantum indeterminancy. The fact is that pantheism coheres more with the scientific evidence than atheistic materialism.
I'm describing the merest, simplest, most complete form of rationalism available. And all I ask of you is this: provide an epistemology that is coherent, and congruent with observed reality. It might not be that provided by science; your ontology might be completely orthogonal to that provided by science. (There is a lot of evidence that the ontology currently provided by science is not the last word in realistic congruence.)
The bottom-line is that you cannot justify all your beliefs without appealing to intuition.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:God is not in conflict. The ego is.Sure, why not toss some psychological terms into the postmodern idea bucket. Nothing has to fit together or make sense; we'll just feel our way through things, and perform spoken word pieces about how "cosmic" and neat-o the "universal consciousness" is. Then we can all pray to "Ja" and give each other flaxseed enemas.
Seriously, you've said absolutely nothing. I can't argue for or against your point, because you haven't made one. What could your statement even mean? What could it even be intended, by a blithering pseudo-panentheist idiot incapable of expressing a coherent point, to mean? All your statement amounts to is that the "ego" is in conflict with "god" which you've failed to distinguish from nothing.
The ego is nothing - the antithesis of being itself.
"The ego joins with nothing, being nothing. The victory it seeks is meaningless as is itself." (source: ACIM)
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:There is scientific evidence that mind is fundamental which presents evidence for pantheism.
Quantum mechanics provides evidence that mind is fundamental (regardless of interpretation).
Also, there are numerous scientific experiments conducted in parapsychology that have demonstrated psi suggesting that mind is fundamental.
However, the most compelling evidence for the existence of God is the phenomenal world. Science cannot account for why there is something rather than nothing. That's the bottom line.
That being said, what conclusive evidence do you have that atheistic materialism is true? Answer: NONE!
That's nice, but it still doesn't work for me. I just don't do mystical.
This is not the mystical; it's science. I guess you allow yourself the luxury of disregarding scientific evidence that does not comport with your preconceived notion of reality.
Just because science can't account for something today, does not mean that will always be the case. Why jump to conclusions, wait and see. In 40 to 80 years proof of something may come or not. Be patient! If you can't know, why try to interpolate with so few data points? All it gives is misconstrued conclusions and faulty interpretations. You said earlier in this thread theology and your views change with knowledge. What you think you know today will not be the same in 25 years. You may figure out the mistake you are making by then. I have read your arguments and you think you have it all understood, but others have come to the same erroneous position in the past on other positions. You are no different. Remember this discussion when you are an old man.
The fact is that there is scientific evidence to support a pantheistic worldview. So, the notion that there is no scientific evidence for some God-belief is patently false.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline nigelTheBold wrote:Years ago, when I married, I was an agnostic atheist. I did not believe in God, but I understood the universe was so complex, so beautiful, I had an intuition of God. As I studied, I understood this was Spinoza's God, Einstein's God, the God of a perfect universe. I didn't believe this was God (any more than Einstein did, apparently), but I understood that God could exist. So marrying a believer was not hard. I thought Love Would Conquer All.You had an intuition of God? This is interesting.
Spinoza's God is a deterministic, pantheistic God and is compatible with the metaphysical position of neutral monism or dual-aspect monism. It's not compatible with atheistic materialism.
Quote:The attraction of Spinoza's philosophy to late eighteenth-century Europeans was that it provided an alternative to materialism, atheism, and deism. Three of Spinoza's ideas strongly appealed to them:
- the unity of all that exists;
- the regularity of all that happens; and
- the identity of spirit and nature.
Spinoza's "God or Nature" provided a living, natural God, in contrast to the Newtonian mechanical "First Cause" or the dead mechanism of the French "Man Machine."
source: Wikipedia "Baruch Spinoza"
nigelTheBold wrote:Since then, I have realized there are logical reasons God can't exist. But I also understand there are logical reasons people want God to exist.What are the "logical reasons" why God can't exist?
nigelTheBold wrote:Just to be clear: we all have delusions. My in that mankind is generally good. I believe we are getting better, that we are leaving adolescence behind, and moving on to a next stage (whatever that stage may be). When I said we all had non-rationality, this is what I meant. I do have irrational beliefs.The difference is, I don't try to claim my irrational beliefs trump rational beliefs.
This "non-rational" belief qualifies as a teleological argument for the existence of God.
The difference is that I do not hold that the scientific method is the only avenue of inquiry.
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley wrote:I am not claiming to have absolute knowledge of God. This is why it is called faith. Duh!I like you more all the time. I'm grinning my fool head off at this.
You are at your best when you are at your most honest. If you want to continue the discussion of your knowledge of God, I'd be happy. This, to me, contains more possible fruitful discussion than anything you've said so far.
Honesty? I have consistently acknowledged that I live by faith.
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley wrote:Metaphysics is concerned with the nature of reality. All metaphysical positions are beliefs. This bears repeating. All metaphysical positions are BELIEFS! (This includes the metaphysical position known as materialism or physicalism!) You do not have knowledge of ultimate reality. So I will kindly ask you to stop making this pretense that you do. It's intellectually dishonest.The belief in God is not subject to the scientific method. It cannot be disproven.
Just because you have limited your worldview to the scientific method gives you no justification to impose this same limitation upon everyone else. I know that this is a point of contention for you but I suggest you learn to deal with it.
It's not intellectually dishonest. I have presented my epistemology, my basis of knowledge. You have not. The only intellectual dishonesty is yours. I have been forthright, honest. You have hidden behind platitudes and inane wordplay. I believe you truly mean everything you say, so I think calling it "intellectual dishonesty" is not quite correct, either. I think you just haven't developed a full epistemology, which is why I've been harping on it.
What you call epistemology is just a hierarchy or network of beliefs which ultimately rests on some basic presuppositions. I fail to see why you are harping on my presuppositions when you clearly have your own.
nigelTheBold wrote:My worldview is based on something that has given us a coherent ontology that is congruent with reality. The reason I call this out is simple: any epsitemology must be coherent, and it must be congruent with observed reality. Otherwise, it is not rational.My epistemology is coherent. There is nothing in my belief in God that does not cohere with observed phenomena (both external and internal).
Also, your worldview of materialism is a metaphysical belief that does not cohere with observed phenomena - namely, quantum indeterminancy. The fact is that pantheism coheres more with the scientific evidence than atheistic materialism.
nigelTheBold wrote:I'm describing the merest, simplest, most complete form of rationalism available. And all I ask of you is this: provide an epistemology that is coherent, and congruent with observed reality. It might not be that provided by science; your ontology might be completely orthogonal to that provided by science. (There is a lot of evidence that the ontology currently provided by science is not the last word in realistic congruence.)The bottom-line is that you cannot justify all your beliefs without appealing to intuition.
Oh for crying out loud, are we going down the same God-damned road yet again ? 
It's the same fucked up argument over and over and over and.....
Bring this pathetic argument to a conclusion. Declare yourself the winner and move the fuck on !!!
You're like an obnoxious house guest who doesn't know when to leave. Wrap it up, make your closing argument and accept the verdict. If our atheistic beliefs bother you so much then it's your problem.....not ours. You have failed to sway us with your obnoxious repitition.....perhaps you can resort to that old theistic standby and resort to violence to shake us free of our status as infidels. A panentheistic jihad.
Your endless droning about your meaningless and insignificant "intuition" is wearing thin. You have a snowball's chance in hell of ever achieving an intellectual victory in this thread so you keep repeating yourself over and over and over....
Oh for a God-damned mute button on this thread to block out Paisley's useless drivel.
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:That being said, what conclusive evidence do you have that atheistic materialism is true? Answer: NONE!If it isn't, you're committing a stolen concept by continuing to exist and make stupid comments. Your argument couldn't rightly be that there isn't what there is, but rather that there's more. Since you've failed to produce the "more," you're trying to shake the foundations of what is. Shake away -- you're still stuck with an argument from ignorance.
You're confusing metaphysical naturalism with metaphysical materialism. They're not the same.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline There is scientific evidence that mind is fundamental which presents evidence for pantheism.
Quantum mechanics provides evidence that mind is fundamental (regardless of interpretation).
Also, there are numerous scientific experiments conducted in parapsychology that have demonstrated psi suggesting that mind is fundamental.
However, the most compelling evidence for the existence of God is the phenomenal world. Science cannot account for why there is something rather than nothing. That's the bottom line.
[...]
This is not the mystical; it's science. I guess you allow yourself the luxury of disregarding scientific evidence that does not comport with your preconceived notion of reality.
I'm sorry, you don't get to piss all over science (the method OR the community) without getting a little friction from me. "Mind is fundamental" is a philosophical statement, NOT a hypothesis, NOT evidence, NOT a theory, NOT ... anything, actually. The idea that quantum mechanics could be interpreted to mean that "mind is fundamental" could only be espoused by someone who has experienced a complete and utter disconnect from the reality of quantum theory. You're actually confusing "mind" with "information", which completely blows my "information".
You just cited "scientific experiments conducted in parapsychology" (?!?) and provided ignorance as a case for God. I MUST conclude that you cannot understand the scientific method. There's no other way to interpret your viewpoint. If you honestly believe that ignorance is an argument for ANYTHING, then you will always have problems communicating with people who do not. It's such a gross and fundamental misunderstanding of reason that it prevents productive communication.
That being said, what conclusive evidence do you have that atheistic materialism is true? Answer: NONE!
All evidence in science is material. The probability is that it will continue to be material, as no other type of evidence has been (or can be) observed. Your objections to the framing of probability theory, measure theory and information theory with regards to quantum mechanics are completely and demonstrably unfounded, and are basically offensive to even an amateur mathematician in their degree of childishness.
The continued misrepresentation of the scientific method and its resulting body of knowledge on your part cannot in good conscience go without comment. That's the only reason people continue to post: because scientific knowledge isn't the subject of some hobby, it's real knowledge; the kind that comes from years of hard work. That work - and the time it takes - have value even beyond technological application. It allows us to really understand our surroundings, something that isn't available from an argument from ignorance. The fact that we can do the work of science is amazing and inspirational. That's why it's so infuriating to see someone treat it like a cheap quote book. It's embarassing, but it's worse than that: it's insulting to everyone who has ever dedicated their lives to honest research. You might consider doing some yourself.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline As far as the Einstein quote: you do realize Einstein was a deist? What he was calling "mysticism" is not the same as the mysticism to which you refer. Nor is the religion. Einstein much essentially an atheist who looked at the wonder of the cosmos and called it "God," for lack of a better word.
Einstein said he believed in a Spinoza God. The God of Baruch Spinoza was pantheistic. Also, Einstein was influenced by Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophy which is primarily based on Buddhism.
But the reasons I insist you prove it according to my "preconceived" methodology is because you've not presented an alternative epistemology yet. Until you have presented a framework by which to describe your subjective experiences as "knowledge," rather than simply subjective experience. I have only the single epistemology I know to be effective at gaining knowledge: the scientific method.
Metaphysical truth is beyond the purview of science. And to insist that I use a methodology that is by its very nature incapable of determining the true nature of ultimate reality is ridiculous.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline WILL, what I can say ? You do FUCKING rock, keep jamming, my eyes can hear !
Ummm, all my sympathy Mr. P , you bad boy , you devil ! Just like me ..... 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mOzRNfuH7g
Is Ozzy a prophet or what ! An Archangel, for sure ! (a messenger)
aren't we all !? .... geezzz , such crazy words .... "ever heard of 'G awe D' they asked a caring wise man focusing on suffering" .....
and Buddha laughed ...... 
<------ see the yin yang
<------ see the trinity , Sex and drugs and r&r ....
go science , stop religion , oh my intuition , oh my gawed !
- Login to post comments
Offline The belief in God is based on an intuitive sense perception of a higher power or spiritual reality.
No, the belief in God is based on the child's perception of its parents, and the subconscious need to continue to look for an external source of authority and guidance, because that is the earliest learning and interaction we have, and these early patterns of learning form lasting imprints that influence our behavior throughout our lives. What you're calling an intuitive sense of a higher power is just the leftover 'the world is big and complicated, so look to daddy to make sense of it' wiring that served its purpose when you were a toddler, but doesn't now.
I believe in God because I am naturally inclined to do so.
You believe in God because you are programmed to look for external sources of guidance and authority. You were programmed to do so by experience, not intuition, because (as I have said), this was the earliest pattern of behavior trained into you.
That the religious impulse is virtually universal leads me to believe that most human beings share my view. You're the one who's in the minority, not me!
Didn't we already cover this? Majority doesn't mean it's right. Remember the flat earth, celestial spheres, maggots spontaneously generating on rotting meat, etc etc?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
- Login to post comments
Offline magilum wrote:Paisley wrote:God is not in conflict. The ego is.Sure, why not toss some psychological terms into the postmodern idea bucket. Nothing has to fit together or make sense; we'll just feel our way through things, and perform spoken word pieces about how "cosmic" and neat-o the "universal consciousness" is. Then we can all pray to "Ja" and give each other flaxseed enemas.
Seriously, you've said absolutely nothing. I can't argue for or against your point, because you haven't made one. What could your statement even mean? What could it even be intended, by a blithering pseudo-panentheist idiot incapable of expressing a coherent point, to mean? All your statement amounts to is that the "ego" is in conflict with "god" which you've failed to distinguish from nothing.
The ego is nothing - the antithesis of being itself.
Stolen concept.
Quote:"The ego joins with nothing, being nothing. The victory it seeks is meaningless as is itself." (source: ACIM)
Stupid quote.
- Login to post comments
Offline magilum wrote:Paisley wrote:That being said, what conclusive evidence do you have that atheistic materialism is true? Answer: NONE!If it isn't, you're committing a stolen concept by continuing to exist and make stupid comments. Your argument couldn't rightly be that there isn't what there is, but rather that there's more. Since you've failed to produce the "more," you're trying to shake the foundations of what is. Shake away -- you're still stuck with an argument from ignorance.
You're confusing metaphysical naturalism with metaphysical materialism. They're not the same.
You're confusing one sentence quips with arguments.
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh, and Paisley... just admit to being a current or former fundamentalist Christian. It's coming out of your pores.
- Login to post comments
Offline Them are very wise words BMcD ....
, the Christ so in you ! the summary is , What is NOT god !? Right ? Mr. P ???
The Buddhas say , get over it .... all is one , Now what ? ummm, So I will meditate on this .... Yes THIS , me , should I worship something more than I ? Why? I am what am. What is that ? That would be hard core science ..... as Philosophy and religion do ask the same questions .....
How , Why ? and so there is G A W E D ...... and science, as all is ONE.
I don't understand the worship thing ??????? WTF ? I AM what I AM. Faith ? I don't fucking get the faith thingy ????? WHY ? Something more than I , ?
- Login to post comments
Offline What you call epistemology is just a hierarchy or network of beliefs which ultimately rests on some basic presuppositions. I fail to see why you are harping on my presuppositions when you clearly have your own.
Because my presuppositions have advanced knowledge in a demonstrable way. Yours have not.
Because my presuppositions are founded on observable reality. Yours are not.
Because my presuppositions have been proven over and over. Yours have been proven to be FUCKING BROKEN over and over.
That's the biggest one. And I think it bears repeating: your method of gaining knowledge has been proven to be BROKEN as a method of gaining objective knowledge. It. Just. Doesn't. Work. No matter how earnestly or often you say you gain knowledge by faith, it just doesn't work.
So, since you've not been able to demonstrate how it might even work, I can only assume you have no epistemology. "Faith" is not an epistemology, it's a lack of discernment, by definition. It's an acceptance of that which cannot be proven.
My epistemology is coherent. There is nothing in my belief in God that does not cohere with observed phenomena (both external and internal).
EDIT: added this section.
It doesn't even come close to being congruent with observed reality. There's nothing in the universe to suggest there is a God. And by definition, there's nothing we can observe that would disprove God. However, every bit of "evidence" for God so far has been defeated as we gain more knowledge about the universe. As we push back the veils of ignorance, we find only more of our own universe. Any congruence with reality in your God is strictly artificial.
Your claim of gaining objective knowledge through introspection is not congruent with observed reality. This is in direct opposition to all the evidence. So, yes, there is something in your belief that isn't congruent with reality.
As far as internal "phenomena," you claim that your God will somehow cause your consciousness to endure forever and ever. How can you know that, without conversing with your God? Intuition? Based on what data?
Also, your worldview of materialism is a metaphysical belief that does not cohere with observed phenomena - namely, quantum indeterminancy. The fact is that pantheism coheres more with the scientific evidence than atheistic materialism.
Dude, how the fuck do you think we discovered quantum indeterminacy? Science. How are we researching it now? Science. Not by looking inward and going, "Ohh, shiny AND probabilistic. Must be God." By observation, induction, analytical analysis, deduction, and proof. This is how science works. By even referencing quantum indeterminacy as supporting your claim, you are admitting to the validity and efficacy of science. So I say again: the epistemology of science works. It gains us knowledge, in a provable fashion.
How does your epistemology give us knowledge, and how do you know it is valid knowledge? And "faith" isn't an answer. It's a cop-out.
Pantheism has nothing more to do with QM than any other theism.
All you're doing is saying, "We don't know a whole lot about QM, so there must be God." You're falling prey to the God of the Gaps. And that is the worst possible reason to believe in God. You bolster it with intuition, but since science (the same method that discovered QM, for which you have such a stiffy) has proven "intuition" is unreliable at providing knowledge, that boat won't float until you've backed it up with something else. (Oh, I know. QM. That's what backs it up.)
The bottom-line is that you cannot justify all your beliefs without appealing to intuition.
I certainly can, and I have. Over and over again. Our society is where it's at because of the knowledge gained through science. Science has proven itself as an effective epistemology. As you haven't even given me an epistemology (other than "faith" ), you have nothing.
Nothing.
And of course science uses intuition. I've said that about a gazillion times. Scientists use intuition during the hypothesis-forming stage.
Here's the difference between science, which is proven to work, and your method, which science has proven doesn't work:
Scientists then apply analysis. Using deduction, scientists derive predictions from their intuitively-generated hypothesis. If these predictions are supported by observable evidence, the probability of the correctness of the hypothesis increases. At some point, the probability of correctness approaches the "extremely likely" range, and the hypothesis is promoted to theory.
At this point, other hypothesis may be based on the original theory. As these new hypothesis are tested, they also are testing the original theory.
In this way, every assumption is tested against observable reality. Every single one. Even the most fundamental ones.
In science, nothing can be proven 100%. Everything is contingent. Some things are 99.9999% certain (such as the theory of evolution through natural selection), but nothing is proven with absolute certainty. The ontology can shift with the observation of new data.
But, things can be disproven with absolute certainty. And one that was disproven many decades ago is the idea of using introspection to gain objective knowledge. Also disproven: that intuition is a reliable source of knowledge.
Don't get me wrong. Intuition is powerful. Modern research suggests most of our thinking happens unseen, unnoticed. We process so much information without ever being aware we are doing so. This allows us to instantly recognize when we can trust someone, like someone, or what-have-you. This kind of intuition is based on observable information.
Where intuition most readily fails is when you are intuiting something for which you have no objective information. Here's where it gets dangerous. You claim you have looked inside yourself (introspection) and found God. Here's where your entire philosophy falls short: YOU CANNOT GAIN KNOWLEDGE THROUGH INTROSPECTION.
I know you claim to have a special ability that allows you to do so. That is an absurd, unsupportable claim. Again, science has proven that there is no knowledge to be gained from introspection. Unfortunately, it doesn't even give you knowledge about the one realm to which it belongs: your own mind. People have greater problems figuring themselves out than figuring out others. As Richard Feynman said, "... you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool."
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Paisley wrote:There is scientific evidence that mind is fundamental which presents evidence for pantheism.
Quantum mechanics provides evidence that mind is fundamental (regardless of interpretation).
Also, there are numerous scientific experiments conducted in parapsychology that have demonstrated psi suggesting that mind is fundamental.
However, the most compelling evidence for the existence of God is the phenomenal world. Science cannot account for why there is something rather than nothing. That's the bottom line.
That being said, what conclusive evidence do you have that atheistic materialism is true? Answer: NONE!
That's nice, but it still doesn't work for me. I just don't do mystical.
This is not the mystical; it's science. I guess you allow yourself the luxury of disregarding scientific evidence that does not comport with your preconceived notion of reality.
I don't quibble with the scientific experiments only your warped interpretation of reality. I didn't bother to dissect your statements as they were seething with gross exaggeration and misconstrued representation of the scientific method and accumulated knowledge.
You injected mystical into the equation when you went from the phenomenal world exists therefore it is evidence god exists. You have previously claimed you learned of god from within. You have claimed that you have always felt such presence. If that isn't utilizing mysticism what is? As I said in my last post, just because something can't be currently answered by science does not mean it will always be left indeterminate. If science had found all of the principles underlying the universe we'd be hopping from star system to star system. There are unknowns that will not be understood in your lifetime. Get used to it instead of creating a warped interpolation of science.
The mind is fundamental sounds legitimate at first glance but to exactly what. It really says absolutely nothing of value in your statement. You then jump to your mystical belief it proves pantheism.
Your use of QM as evidence of the mind being fundamental again is completely warped misunderstanding of the difference between information and mind.
The scientific experiments conducted in parapsychology only provide test data that there may be unexplained areas of the human mind not proof of pantheism. As with any other area under scientific investigation time will tell what exactly is the explanation for these events. You instead want to jump to the conclusion it provides evidence that god or pantheism is involved. You have no patience for investigation of the unknown but rather you choose to jump to conclusions with only isolated unrelated strands of data. No connection is made between your claim and reality by claiming it is so. It shows only you have stretched scientific knowledge outside proved concepts to a point where interpretation leads to many paths none of which have sufficient real evidence.
The fact is that there is scientific evidence to support a pantheistic worldview. So, the notion that there is no scientific evidence for some God-belief is patently false.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline Nigel, pauljohn and other well-informed atheists participating in this thread:
I'm not trying to spoil your fun, but why are you still trying to convince Paisley the human lamp post that he is wrong ?
You gentlemen ( and others ) have skillfully and repeatedly deconstructed his arguments ad infinitum.
Paisley is an intelligent fellow whose intelligence has failed him. He has combined his intellect with religious delusion and together that presents an impenetrable barrier to reason. You will never reach him as he is too far gone. How can you stand to put so much effort and time into dissuading someone who is clearly a lost cause ?
Do you think that after a few thousand more exchanges that Paisley will suddenly have a ( non-spiritual ) epiphany ?
- Login to post comments
Offline Good question PDW, "Do you think that after a few thousand more exchanges that Paisley will suddenly have a ( non-spiritual ) epiphany ? " ////
I think all of us here are learning ... and I always think of the silent RRS readers, whom I try to keep in mind as I post, especially the young. That's a big reason why I try avoiding fancy words .... as Epiphany = new meaningful insight.
I read Paisley as caring, searching, and sharing his ideas. Who is most stubborn here is anyones guess, Me ?! Knowing each others mind is educational. I must add that the Pantheist ideas are certainly an improvement over the "god of abe" ones. Understanding consciousness is way challenging. WTF is going on ? He who is not in AWE, is dead ! Paisley is a "Live Wire", how dangerous, I'm not sure ? Story book Jesus called his buddy bold Peter, Satan ....
Hey brother Paisley, I haven't seen you post in the other threads?
Dangerous or getting free ? - Motley Crue - Live Wire: Dolby Stereo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-Pg4r33bM
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Why don't you say the truth instead of engaging in mischaracterizations?To begin with, I simply stated that the scientist and the mystic are searching in their own way for the same thing - namely, a unversal law or principle to explain everything. The scientist calls this law the elusive "theory or everything" while the mystic calls it "love."
Secondly, when you challenged me on this, I quoted Albert Einstein who stated that the mystical is both the source for true science as well as true religion.
While I do believe that God is love, I do not believe it can be proven by the scientific method. This is why I said the only "proof" is faith. Just because you are insisting that I prove it according to your preconceived methodology does not mean that I must oblige.
Y'know, the more I think about this, the more I realize something. You quoted me asking you for proof of this "love is the force that ties the universe together" assertion of yours, and then mischaracterized that to magilum as me denying love existed. Then you come and accuse me of mischaracterization for the assumption that you were equating love to the theory of everything. Our little exchange went something like this:
paisley in post #534 wrote:I guess the scientist calls it the "unified field theory" or the "theory of everything." The mystic calls it love.
This was not "our little exchange." Post #534 was addressed specifically to "FulltimeDefendent," not to you!
Which seems to state you believe the TOE is the same thing as that which the mystics call "love." To perception-check, I replied with:nigelTheBold in post #537 wrote:Oh my fucking non-existent God. You are trying to equate the TOE with love? THAT is your ultimate philosophy?
So, I called you out specifically on this issue earlier. I took your silence as implicit agreement with my statement that you equate "Love" (whatever that means in this context) with the TOE. You have some great big old sweaty balls to accuse me of mischaracterization in a post responding to my calling out your mischaracterization.
But then I realized: you are just avoiding the actual discussion.
Again.
Just for the record, you did state that I have to first "prove that love exists" in post #594 pg. 19:
You have a long way to go to support your assertion that a Theory of Everything is equivalent to a universal love-force. First, you have to prove that love exists, and is a force. Second, you'd have to prove that it pervades the universe. Third, you'd have to prove that it's equivalent to a currently non-existent Theory of Everything.
Also, I will repeat myself because you are evidently not reading my posts...
I simply stated that the scientist and the mystic are searching in their own way for the same thing - namely, a universal law or principle to explain everything. The scientist calls this law the elusive "theory or everything" while the mystic calls it "love"
So do I believe that scientists are searching for a universal law to explain everything? Yes...definitely. The scientist calls this universal law the "theory of everything." The mystic calls this universal law "love."
"There is no other principle that rules where love is not. Love is a law without an opposite. Its wholeness is the power holding everything as one." (source: ACIM)
Do I believe that "love is the reason for everything?" Yes, definitely. I stand by this. So what exactly is your objection?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Mysticism and gnosticism as an epistemology is an emperor with no clothes. Those who practice it believe themselves to be finely dressed, but are in fact quite naked. The fundamentals of it have been firmly and loudly debunked via empiricism for many decades. Even logically it is an intellectual wasteland. (Yeah, I'm mixing my metaphors. I'll continue to present the finest blend of metaphors money can buy from Wal*Mart.)Consider. Your assertion is that you have personally experienced God through meditation and other means of looking inward. You bolster this with the statement that others have experienced God in the same way, and so the experience indicates there is a God.
Is this a correct summation?
Faith is the desire of the Spirit to know itself. The realization of this knowledge is termed the gnosis. This is the impetus for mysticism.
So, what's the truth? Are roller coasters objectively some sort of life force, as they make us feel more alive, or are they the opposite, some sort of death force, as our one friend feels? The majority of our sample loves them, and find they make us feel more alive, so there must be a real life-force in roller coasters. That must be the truth.There is no significant difference between gnosticism and roller coasters.
You err. Both the life-urge and death-urge are within you. In philosophical terms, this is known as the "conatus" or the dialectic.
"No one can die unless he chooses death. What seems to be the fear of death is really its attraction." (source: ACIM)
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:"No one can die unless he chooses death. What seems to be the fear of death is really its attraction." (source: ACIM)
Is this what you've been so insistently referencing?
LOL.
- Login to post comments
Offline A quick look at the "acim" site , I found this
"Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God." ////
Okay, Yeah, as the atheist BUDDHA / JESUS said , fuck religion hocus pokus superstitious shit. Stop the "unreal" bull shit dogma .....
"Herein lies the peace of God. " NO NO NO , That is but the half of it, God is all , and I do fucking HATE .....
- Login to post comments
Offline nigelTheBold wrote:So, what's the truth? Are roller coasters objectively some sort of life force, as they make us feel more alive, or are they the opposite, some sort of death force, as our one friend feels? The majority of our sample loves them, and find they make us feel more alive, so there must be a real life-force in roller coasters. That must be the truth.There is no significant difference between gnosticism and roller coasters.
You err. Both the life-urge and death-urge are within you. In philosophical terms, this is known as the "conatus" or the dialectic.
And so Paisley was enlightened.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline Do I believe that "love is the reason for everything?" Yes, definitely. I stand by this. So what exactly is your objection?
My objection is that this is absurd, to use a favorite term of yours.
"Love" is an emotion. It is a subjective reaction, a mental state and a cascade of hormones and firing neurons. The reaction is in response to a variety of stimuli, such as seeing someone of whom you are fond (a rather tautological situation, I admit).
This reaction is not a fundamental state of the universe. It's not a "force," other than it may cause us to act in certain ways. THAT is the love I asked you to prove.
Not only that, but "love is the reason for everything" is semantically void. It means nothing, as stated. How is love the reason for everything? Because of God. How does God give reason to love? Because God is love. Love is the force that binds the universe. God is the universe. Without love, there is no universe; with no universe, there is no God. That is the trinity: the universe (the body), God (the mind), and Love (the soul).
None of this is rational, nor does it make any kind of true sense. I can get in that mindframe, certainly, but it's a foreign world where nothing has to make sense, as long as both God and Love exist to make the universe safe for me, where I know that when I die, I will not die.
None of this is rational, which is OK. It doesn't make you wrong (though I'd have to give the correctness of your proposition a likelihood close to 0%). Claiming this is rational does make you wrong, as you've amply demonstrated. I believe I've given you plenty of opportunity to provide support for your claim of rationalism, but you've failed fairly completely.
And as you've also failed to defend the proposition that science is an irrational epistemology, I can only assume you have no better argument than the many-times refuted, "As it provides no ultimate meaning, science is irrational." You've bordered on some intelligent arguments, though, so I guess I just kept hoping you'd break through with some truly well-thought rebuttals once you had to start defending your position. Unfortunately, you relied on evasion rather than actual intelligent thought about your position.
In any case, you have failed fairly spectacularly in defending the rationality of your beliefs, or in prosecuting your assertion that science as an epistemology or practice is irrational.
As that's been my only major quibble with your assertions (as I don't really care what you believe, as long as you don't try to foist off nonsense to our children and call it "science," or try to affect politics with your irrational beliefs), I'll leave you to your beliefs. ProzacDeathWish was spot-on, and you aren't suddenly going to begin to give a decent defence of your position. As I've only seen the same three or four rhetorical defences over and over in 840 posts (the bulk of which were hardly yours, of course), I reckon I'll leave you to your faith.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline Not only that, but "love is the reason for everything" is semantically void. It means nothing, as stated. How is love the reason for everything? Because of God. How does God give reason to love? Because God is love. Love is the force that binds the universe. God is the universe. Without love, there is no universe; with no universe, there is no God. That is the trinity: the universe (the body), God (the mind), and Love (the soul).
Both nigel and Paisley are wrong... Aphrodite is the goddess of love, ergo Aphrodite is the universe. Sorry Paisley, you were close!
I'm a believer in Aphrodite, so Paisley you think I'm wrong... can you please fix me?
- Login to post comments
Offline I'll believe in Aphrodite (or Venus if she prefers the Roman name) if she comes down and fucks the shit ou of me.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline Nigel's accurate summary FTW.
- Login to post comments
Offline i would belive in mrs williams to if she did that
Pantheism
First published Tue Jun 4, 1996; substantive revision Thu May 17, 2007Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) "God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature" (Owen 1971: 74). Similarly, it is the view that (2) everything that exists constitutes a "unity" and this all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34). A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3) "‘Pantheism’ … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it." Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist. Aside from Spinoza, other possible pantheists include some of the Presocratics; Plato; Lao Tzu; Plotinus; Schelling; Hegel; Bruno, Eriugena and Tillich. Possible pantheists among literary figures include Emerson, Walt Whitman, D.H. Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Beethoven (Crabbe 1982) and Martha Graham (Kisselgoff 1987) have also been thought to be pantheistic in some of their work — if not pantheists.
so you are god and you don't need to prove it just like nick gisburne www.youtube.com/watch
wow and all this time i thought i was divine whups lol
seiriosly tho i whould like to point out a big obvios note of reality here you aren't christan so do the cristans bother you about their religion ? they bother me every day of the week 24/7 365 + 10 times on christmas (i belive you may call it yule)they aren't as bad as o say islamic basterds who kill ppl with trains plains and automobiles pantheism isn't as bad as saying that you know god personaly and he will personaly orture your ass for not beliving like the rottin phycopathic basterd that the god in the christan bible is your god is you and everything around you congrats that god is actually provable you worship the earth moon and stars they are actually there and their properties can be defined nature the cold hard unforgiving bitchslut that she is kills all th poeple period end of story the universe is a temporary thing it WILL fade there is no escape from the enevitable doom that awaits the milkey way andromida is coming the earth will "die" too sooner than the sun evan so while you worship this concept realize that it is far from perfict and in fact nothing is
so why do we insist on living it is a choice nothing more nothing less we are the universe and th universe is us we are a tiny spek of life on a minute marble in the suburb of a fleaspeck of a galaxy the one thing that would redeem us as a specis is who and what we are a collecton of self replicating repairing molicules that are capable of thought reserch and love we are important to us as we are all family and are all made the same way live the way you want to this is your only time as that colection of genetic/memory code don't rely on me to tell you how because i won't i just want the fredoom to do the same
mohammed is mr poopy pants allah is a cootie queen and islam is a lint licker
http://seekerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/_blogger_5932_1957_1600_religion_of_peace_1-1.jpg
- Login to post comments
Offline seiriosly tho i whould like to point out a big obvios note of reality here you aren't christan so do the cristans bother you about their religion ?
You're probably asking Paisley, but I'll also answer since this applies to me in the same way. Yes, they do. Seriously, though, a lot of Christians bother everyone about their religion even other Christians, it' s a major part of that religion to hawk your beliefs everywhere you go.
.... your god is you and everything around you congrats that god is actually provable you worship the earth moon and stars they are actually there and their properties can be defined ...
I don't worship the earth moon and stars, I actually don't, as it were, worship at all, worship requires singling something out in contrast to some other thing, like life in contrast to death, for example, rather than this, Pantheism is seeing that death is life, they cannot be separated for one to be held above the other. If I am to worship life, then I must know that I also worship death in doing so, because there is no life without death. If I worship the great constructions of the universe (moon stars) then I worship the destruction of the universe because there are no constructions without destruction. However, I do not worship. There is no I without not I, and this is unity, there is nothing to single out.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline Thanks skywolf, that link is broke, yeah cool nick,
nick gisburne "I am God" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QYx3m-piLA
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gisburne2000
98 Videos http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=Gisburne2000&p=r
---- Exposing Ben Stein's "Expelled"
From: brittanythecaptain
_____________________________
,and of course we have "good and bad" concepts under most all "labels". Even good science, bad science.
- Login to post comments
Offline skywolf wrote:seiriosly tho i whould like to point out a big obvios note of reality here you aren't christan so do the cristans bother you about their religion ?
You're probably asking Paisley, but I'll also answer since this applies to me in the same way. Yes, they do. Seriously, though, a lot of Christians bother everyone about their religion even other Christians, it' s a major part of that religion to hawk your beliefs everywhere you go.
skywolf wrote:.... your god is you and everything around you congrats that god is actually provable you worship the earth moon and stars they are actually there and their properties can be defined ...
I don't worship the earth moon and stars, I actually don't, as it were, worship at all, worship requires singling something out in contrast to some other thing, like life in contrast to death, for example, rather than this, Pantheism is seeing that death is life, they cannot be separated for one to be held above the other. If I am to worship life, then I must know that I also worship death in doing so, because there is no life without death. If I worship the great constructions of the universe (moon stars) then I worship the destruction of the universe because there are no constructions without destruction. However, I do not worship. There is no I without not I, and this is unity, there is nothing to single out.
Eloise is the panentheistic god sentient ? Not in a metaphorical, symbolic sense. Sentient in the clinical sense..self aware, like the "old school" conventional gods are supposed to have been. Do you know what I mean ?
( This concept may have been dealt with already. It's just that I quickly burned out after encountering Paisley's vague answers combined with his very annoying attempts at insulting atheism. )
- Login to post comments
PDW, I never for a moment doubted it. I AM is good people, and I think most folks here can see that.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
and now brother Andy and friends have a Jesus/Buddha message
Andy Williams - Born Free - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RZHaQ3C3xQo
Atheism Books.
I wonder what mephiboseth would sound like if he abandoned Yahweh for an insincere, watered-down version of it. Oh, right.
Thanks. That clears up quite a bit. I'm still not quite sure of the subtleties of being a "pantheist/panentheist" hybrid/mixture/synthesis, but it's coming clearer.
Not quite the same as what you are claiming, but closer than I can get myself.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Ahhh, it was an unexpected little pleasure to find myself in the company of such good taste on this forum, I'm loving this frequent veneration of the dark poet. I don't find that he's well known in Australia, alas. When I was 20, this quote probably summed up my personal philosophy in and of itself, that, and "shut up and listen to him play!" which was part of the same set in Relentless, IIRC.
So anyhow, awkwardness of me aside; Panpsychism has been referred to pretty often now on this thread, more than a decade on I'm still a fan of Bill Hicks' short, sweet version but even so, it's not a complete concept in those words. Paisley has asked me if I prescribe to a form of panpsychism, personally, and though I tend not to call it that I did hint, strongly (I gave a description and a lead), in reply what form of panpsychist metaphysics I prescribe to
here:
and here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13045?page=19
In the second page I am basically attempting to outline Leibniz's Monads, you may have heard of "Monads" as a concept at the helm of category theory. A Leibniz monad, however more resembles topoi, topological groupoids (a more simple explanatory term might be a functor map)... but I digress into complicated blither, excuse me... basically, Nigel, if you want an explication of Panpsychism that you can really get your teeth into, then I would recommend a look into Leibniz's monads for a clean start.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
He is the funniest serious comedian ever. I've listened to all his albums about a thousand times each, and still laugh. He's not that well-known in the states, either, though he does have a small following. I believe the only country that's seriously appreciated him is England.
Goat Boy abides.
Thanks for the recommendation. I have been a fan of Leibniz the scientist for many years. I've never investigated Leibniz the philosopher, as I've not been that deeply interested in philosophy until recently. And if it will help me understand the philosophical basis of panpsychism, I'm certainly interested.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Thanks Eloise, Wish I'd read that long ago.
"Leibniz's monads" http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1260/_P1.HTM
Alot of words there to "basically" say all is ONE. I just skimmed this, and over all it's a huge improvement over the God of Abe mumbo jumbo. Wow, I really like alot of this. I do however have some problems with some of the wording, that have "hints" of dogma in them.
As in Verses 51 - 59 .....
72 - " God alone is completely without body". (?)
73 = reincarnation (recycling) Lotta "buddha" east in Leibniz cool writing.
For more general acceptance, the word "Love" (at essay's end) might better be substituted with "Motion" or or ????
This would be an xlint essay to take verse by verse and improve upon. I made a folder of this so I can highlite and eventually add my thoughts.
Paisley's Trinity-god (???), if taken more as a scientific statement can make simple sense to me.
The "father" = cosmos; "son" = parts of; "holy ghost spirit" = consciousness.
God is Atheist ..... All is ONE. Today, God of Abe, and the bibles are mostly a lesson of our past errors ..... I see pantheism as a definite improvement. I AM a frustrated optimist .....
Atheism Books.
You can write the references to 'God' as though to speak of the christian concept off, basically, to being characteristic of the era that Leibniz was living in, he could as well have called it 'Pan' or 'Brahman' for all the difference it makes in the philosophical content of this tract, all three reflect an equal metaphysical proposition.
I'd say this is somewhat a better description than the concept of reincarnation altogether. Leibniz rules out physical incarnations in favour of representational sites.
.... try Action, IAM.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Eloise, so elegant, so thoughtful, warm, and caring .....
Good points and I agree. I mention, in negative fashion, "god of abe" alot, in the hope to eliminate superstition, "god" separation, and fear, still in so many today. "Jesus was an atheist", I often say, to push the simple "saving" message of "ONENESS". I AM one with the father cosmos, said J/B .... etc etc. I'm certain you understand .... Most all I write, I do so thinking of the kids also reading .....
It's a terrible shame the likes of you and atheists aren't on a world wide TV. People would be quickly transformed and healed for the better ....
"Try Action" , yeah, that works much better for me .....
Now, just for fun, as I think of you Eloise .... Wish you could adopt me .... I trust and feel so comfortable with you .... I AM such a little boy needing the affection of a women like you ....
Stevie Ray Vaughan - Pride And Joy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkkT3u3vXjI
" I'm her [your] little lover boy ....."
Hey is it Paisley on the piano ? Keep on Jamming everyone, we will get this tune right, yet !
Make the world fun for all .....
Atheism Books.
This is the hippie version. But I basically agree.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Cool Paisley, you can be fun too. I AM a proud hippie beatnic, ummm what's that anyway ? ahhh, never mind .....
I am a 57 yr old American male , You ? Not that it makes a bit of difference to this god discussion, but a bit curious I AM ..... hey don't lie !
AND, You never answered the question; "Are you god ?" Just yes or no preferably, if you could ..... (not god of abe or any myth) Your god ..... are you ONE ?
Atheism Books.
You are thinking only in terms of the scientific method and missing the larger picture. Both analysis and synthesis are required for all thought. This is the essence of the dialectical process. However, what I call faith is an intuition of totality which is beyond the grasp of the analytical mind. You are assuming that if the analytical mind cannot grasp it then it does not exist.
The terms empiricism and rationalism are not exactly interchangeable.
Also, John Locke (the founder of empiricism) held that knowledge of God could be arrived at through intuitive sense perception.
I have already given you the epistemological basis for my metaphysics; It's the same as yours - namely, faith.
The belief in God is based on an intuitive sense perception of a higher power or spiritual reality. I believe in God because I am naturally inclined to do so. That the religious impulse is virtually universal leads me to believe that most human beings share my view. You're the one who's in the minority, not me!
Seth Lloyd views the universe as a quantum computer programming itself.
Evolutionary Quantum Computation (EQC) is based on the view that consciousness arises from quantum indeterminacy and that everything is conscious (this is known as 'panpsychism'). This obsviously has implications for panentheism.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead