If God Is Real

^ I've dated your type before, wild stuff

We can learn things from written words, whether they be fiction, non-fiction, or religious scripture, without subscribing to supernatural beliefs.

 

When I was a pot smoker, I would sometimes have to give a friend some money in order for them to go out and buy some weed for me because the guy who had it wouldn't sell it to me because he didn’t know me. I knew that my "friend" was going to pinch the bag and then throw in some seeds to make the weight come out right. And on top of that, I knew he was going to add five or ten dollars to the real price, and I would have to fork it over. I couldn't really complain because that's what I did to him and others when the occasion arose. And in a very broad sense, I was doing unto them as I would have them do unto me. Okay, this isn’t coming out right, but since that has never stopped me before, I’ll keep going.

I held myself as the standard by which to judge everybody else, which meant that I only trusted people to be a little less honest than I was. Therefore, I needed to keep the company of those who were just a shade shadier than I was in order to confirm my ideas about the true nature of trust. And besides, they offered a contrast was good for my self-image. Sure, I knew that there were honest people out there, but I didn't see them as honest. I saw them as naive and gullible . . . potential targets.

But I was a different person then. It was a different time. Hell, that was way back in . . . April, I think. I don’t know, I can’t remember. Oh hey, wait a minute, it was really cold. That’s right, I remember now. My hands were freezing because I spent the last of the money from bottle-returns on a pack of cigarettes and rolling papers instead of the gloves I so sorely needed. So it had to be February. Yeah, definitely February.

I was hoping to clarify my last post, but that sure didn’t happen. So, forgive me for going off topic like that, but the hour is late, and all I can say is that, though the mind is tired, the fingers are willing . . . and able. Who am I to say no to them?

But yeah, I think that anyone would be hard-pressed to come up with a better way to separate people than through the introduction of religions. How can you not have some contempt for those who think you’re full of shit for believing in your particular savior? The problem is that once someone says or does something out of the ordinary that strikes others as profoundly enlightening, they attempt to crystallize the event or the words or the person who said the words or did the deed. And then they build shrines and churches as monuments to their beliefs concerning the words and event. And then ya got the "us and them" thing goin' on. Someone says, “I don’t think Paul meant what you say he meant.” And the other guy says, “Well, there’s nothing stopping you from going over there and building your own monument to what you think he meant. And then you, and others like you, can sit there and believe what you want.” And the first guy says, “I think I will.” And the other guy says, “I hope you do.” And the first guy says, “I’ll pray that one day you come to see the light.” And the other guy says, “Yeah, and I’ll do the same for you.” And they all lived separately ever after.

 

I can see that I can still believe god does not exist since no one has proven his existence.

 

In the name of good science, let's not round off the data for the sake of appeasing personal bias.

Results are inconclusive.

 

a book. written by humans. proving nothing.
what makes you think a god, a very nice good god, and cristianity, modern, fanatical, protestant christianity specifically. being almost completely dead wrong about almost everything else, can't both exist at the same time?

 

What does that mean? "Christianity, modern, fanatical, protestant Christianity specifically, being almost completely dead wrong about almost everything else..."? Does this exclude "mainline" Protestant churches, like the Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, Disciples of Christ, UCC, or so-called "Progressive" Christians? Whatever one might say about them, "fanatical" doesn't seem to be an appropriate adjective. Like other human belief systems, Christianity is a collection of competing memes--some of which have survival value, some of which (not necessarily the same ones) offer insights into spiritual reality. I think a "very nice god" can co-exist with some very false and nasty ones, including self-styled "Christian" memes, but if we're discerning, we can tell which is which.

 

You would then have to hold this attitude towards everything from Ahura Mazda to Goblins to Unicorns to Zeus; and nobody does. We're all atheist to Zeus, goblins, unicorns, and Ahura Mazda. Anyone here who say they are agnostic towards these things has been hitting the peace pipe too much. In practice we all act as though these entities for sure do not exist. The same behavior can be extended towards any arbitrary diety being discussed, yes even the god of christianity.

 

Hitting the peace pipe too much? Why is peace antithetical to honesty or good sense? We act the way we do because of the gods we do think exist, the proportions of which are delineated by your invocations. We always choose with a guide.

 

Quite right, and I do. Symbols of mind, little more.

Conceptual forms can harmonise beautifully with particular passages of life, but the concept should follow the song, not the other way around, otherwise you get dissonance.

No concepts are real, in much that same way that "C Major" isn't a sound.

 

Yes, i always do not have any preconceived notions when first meeting someone...i let whatever history that will be between me and whoever do the talking........but in answer to your statement........shall I also think of murderers, hurters, slaughterers, etc as in god's image?
I am not a believer in a higher power....so.....i think we are all light star beings including all of nature and anything that lives.
What would make us so special from all of the other life on this planet?

 

The embracing of the supernatural as part of the Universe is also part of the learning process.

 

This doesn't make sense; to be agnostic towards something is to hold that knowledge regarding that entity's existence in reality is forever unknowable. To be atheist towards something, is to hold that the entity does not exist in reality.

You are saying that you are "agnostic" and then redefining the entities as "merely symbols in mind"; well that would make you an atheist. People who believe in God don't believe that God is (only) a symbol in mind; they believe that god is an entity which creates actions (not the least of which is creating the universe, and you).

You can't say you're an agnostic towards god because its a mental symbol; everything is a mental symbol, but that's not what the word agnostic or atheist means.

By your own words you are actually an atheist to all these concepts I listed since you grant their maximum possible status as "mental symbol". I do the same, that's why I'm called an atheist.

The term supernatural is non-sensical; if it exists in the universe, then it's just "natural". David Hume wrote about this hundreds of years ago. If you had basic education in philosophy or science you wouldn't keep bumping up against "cognitive mistakes 101".

If you still think that there is something supernatural out there, then, wait for it, waaaaiiittttt for it, you just have to show us the money.

 

Get hold of your own sense first. The line should read to be agnostic towards something is to hold that knowledge regarding god or any thing beyond the physical, is unknown and perhaps unknowable. A person who claims neither faith in nor disbelief in god.


As to the agnostic view by those terms, are our thoughts physical?

 

I didn't say I was agnostic

I also didn't redefine anything, but I suspect the contrast between the rigidity of your definitions and the emptiness of my own could give that impression. "People who believe in God" believe very different things about God and will have very different ideas about what God even is through the very nature of unique biology and experience. No association will be the same, so what you are dealing with here is your individual conception about what you think other people believe.

And not everything is a mental symbol, sensation comes ever so slightly before.

I see your point regarding atheism though. You have my permission to call me an atheist

 

Since Astrology is beyond current Scientific understanding, wouldn't it be considered Supernatural? And i guess it would also just be natural, according to you, since they are one and the same. That would also make Magick both natural and Supernatural.

Supernatural: -of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

I'm still waiting on that info from you so i can give you that reading, and "show you the money".

 

Well, Writer? Do you want the money to be shown or not? Why are you holding out?

 

You believe there is no god is the reason you call yourself atheist. It is a mental proposition. Your deduction doesn't follow. A mental symbol is a conception. That we arise in conception is our biological/mental fact. Tasting and knowing man. We cannot be unlike reality. The mind is naturally abstract. Mental symbols are used to communicate conception, thought word and deed. Everything we deal with is an idea composed of the dynamic of tasting and knowing or sense and cognizance. This is not our limit, the mind being as it is naturally abstract, but it is our only motive power.

 

Conception accounts for the pulse of both the seen and the unseen. It is equally at home in biology as it is with the abstract.

 

I need these questions answered before I give you actual, sensitive personal information of the type you requested earlier, and not just emotionally sensitive information of the type you refuse to submit.*

I want these questions answered as a matter of public record on this discussion so everyone following this conversation can see exactly what is happening:

1) What information do you require of me?

2) How will you use this information?

3) Describe a scenario in which I participate and am swayed by your thesis that astrology is real; talk about what it would look like for me to be convinced.

4) Describe a scenario in which I participate and am not swayed by your thesis that astrology is real; talk about what it would look like for me to not be convinced despite your ultimate, final, last and best effort to convince me that astrology is real. Discuss in detail how this falsifiable hypothesis of yours could be falsified in this experiment you are about to conduct.

If you put real thought into these answers then I will provide you with the information you request and we will do this for real china.

*Let it be known for the record that the information which I was not comfortable giving a stranger on the internet are actual identity metrics such as date of birth, time of birth, place of birth, etc, things that say, someone interested in identity theft or fraud would pay well for. The information which Chinacat refuses to produce for this forum amounts to a narrative description of his experiences with "Kundalini"; that is, no metrics of any kind, but rather just a basic description of the actual phenomenon which he swears up and down exists but refuses to discuss in any kind of detail whatsoever, despite the fact that he claims it will turn the world of science upside down, completely undermine our knowledge in medicine, physiology, cosmology, and genetics, for a start, and cause a paradigm shift on this planet the likes of which we have never seen.

Please, Chinacat, proceed, I don't want you to think that I'm not serious about allowing you to put your foot in your mouth in a grand finale of bullshit.