God..YES Religion..NO.

What has GOD to do with religion?

Nothing.

Religion says it knows what god is.
This is crud.
Religion knows nothing about 'GOD' and the
presuppositionalist challenge is a crock of pooh.[it says...
"athiests and agnostics use 'borrowed capital' regarding morality
and such to refute the christian god"]
This is pooh.
Agnostocs DO NOT base their descriptions of reality or morals on any christian framework.
Good and bad existed long before christ.
Good and bad existed before religion of any sort.
Good and bad is a subjective position.

GOD is a concept to explain the complexity of reality.
Religious descriptions of god are poor attempts to explain why we are here.
No More
Religion has no more qualification to explain god than occam.
And it knows it.

Occam

 

Why would an agnostic such as occam say there is a god.?

Because there IS indicative REAL[empirical] evidence of such.

However there is NO existent realworld evidence to support the existence of any god of religion.
Religious descriptions of god are POOR stories by bad writers.
Winnie the pooh may be real.
As may jehovah.

But show the verification.
And YES
"verification"
IS a dirtyword to those that KNOW they cannot get it.

Occam

 

You speak the truth, Occam. =) Hats off, to you.

Hikaru believes in panenthism, to some extent. He has recently changed from being agnostic, and invites you to offer comments about his new religion. =)

 

Hikaru Zero

Occam knows little of pantheism.

Please elucidate.

Occam believes there MAY BE a GOD.
That is .
A direction or controlling force behind reality.
There is empirical evidence [indicative] for such.

Occam sees no evidence of 'multiple gods'

Show occam the evidence..he will believe it.
He has no prejudice on information.
What IS, IS.
What people SAY, IS. is usually not.

This is why reason/science is so popular.
Their idea of what IS. Usually IS.

Occam

 

-Hey Occam! -How ya doin!?! -Yea- About that religeon shit, -I dont think God likes it ONE BIT! -pist

 

Occam

Pantheism, by the ... generally accepted definition ... is the belief that the universe -- including its physics, equations, phenomena, and other relevant perceptions -- IS god. I.e. God is not sentient, God is the universe itself, including everything about it.

This is pantheism.
This is NOT panentheism (note the extra 'en' in this word).

Panentheism is a bit different. Start with the definition of pantheism, but then make the universe sentient; that God is, essentially, both the universe and the "spirit" of the universe.

Panentheism almost always requires the belief of a latent sentient spirit that exists in all places throughout this universe, and that latent spirit is the spirit of God.

As if God is the pond,
We are the fish inside.
This is pantheism.

As if God is the pond AND the cold temperature of the water,
We are the fish inside AND the warm temperatures of our bodies.
This is panENtheism.
And panenthism offers the proposition that truth is found through Oneness with the universe; in the analogy above, through matching our fish-bodies' temperatures to the same temperature of the water.

Hikaru does not like the word 'God.' It often leads to many misconceptions and stereotypes, leading listeners away from the true concepts behind his sayings. Therefore, Hikaru has chosen a new name for this "universal spirit," which is "Gaia," named after the Greek Goddess of the Earth.

Please note, the other defintion of pantheism, "belief in all gods," is not meant to be implied here at all. Hikaru does not believe in multiple gods, though he does not rule out the possibility of the existance of such.

=====

Hikaru likes to think that Gaia works to correct imbalances in the universe through karma. He cannot prove it, nor asks that others believe in it, but chooses to believe it, even though there is a great lack of evidence proving the existance of karma.

=====

Your thoughts, Occam? Hikaru knows you are agnostic, he has read many of your other posts, and also knows why you speak in the third person. =) For the same reason, he has decided to do so when his ego is not speaking. He means no disrespect, nor does he mean to mock.

 

"Agnostocs DO NOT base their descriptions of reality or morals on any christian framework.
Good and bad existed long before christ.
Good and bad existed before religion of any sort.
Good and bad is a subjective position."

- Razorofoccam

Hikaru agrees.

Our world contains "good," and "bad."
Fish live in our world.
Therefore, fish experience "good," and "bad."
But fish do not know the concept of religion,
Nor do they know the concept of God.
Thus, "good," and "bad" exist as concepts,
Nothing more.
And they have no relevance to religion.
For religion to define "good," and "bad,"
When "good," and "bad" are merely perceptions,
Religion is incorrect in doing so,
Merely adding labels and contorting concepts
Of our perceptions,
So that we may agree with religion,
And thus follow it.

But,
Much in the way that interpreting a sentence, (I like fish. -> I enjoy watching fish.)
To mean something different than the actual proposition, (I enjoy consuming fish.)
Is incorrect, and strays from truth,
Such is religion incorrect and divergent of the truth,
To generalize perceptions among every person,
When such perceptions are different for each of us.

 

Lumpy

No. I think a 'god' or whatever appreciates the stupid stories we tell about it.
We may be very amusing.
In fact.
What if we came to be because a 'god' needed a laugh ??

Occam

 

Hikaru

Wellmet my friend..

Firstly..Sorry for the 'typo' on Panenthiesm.

And thank you for the description/distinction on that word.
That 'god' or 'direction' as Occam labels it.
Is both the physicallity and 'spirit' of reality.
That reality IS god.
Is an interesting idea.

Occam sees direct supportive evidence [by his criteria]
Of direction.
The information systems [rules] that enable reality to exist are of titanic complexity and ballance. From the atomic world of
protons and neutrinos, to the macro world of stars and superclusters.
Such complexity requires organisation
Organisation requires rules
Rules require a 'director'

IF..Reality by panentheism.
IS the director
And the rules are imposed uppon the maker. By the maker.

So be it.

This is in fact, a far simpler explanation for a 'god' than occams diffuse
concept of 'direction'
Reality..that is..GOD.
Directs itself to be what it wishes to be.
If it wishes to be something that includes humanity.
It changes itself [the rules] to allow humanity to come about /using/
Evolution.

Thus evolution
IS GODS WAY OF CREATING

IF humanity were not so ego centered and short sighted
We would see it in a second.

Occam


[but remember, all occams propositions are based on his method.
His method may be faulty. Thus all the above is opinion only
He cannot SEE reality. he can only interpret it. Through logic and the senses]

 

Hikaru

Good and bad are not concepts originating in religion
or god.

Religion and the concept of god came to be because our reason said there is
GOOD and BAD.
Good and BAD are PRIME subjective positions that preceed any rational
qualification of them. [qualification IS rational , and irrational assessment]

REASON

Is the qualifier.
Why dont sheep fight back.?
Form a revolt against us humans who EAT them..?

They have no reason.

Work it out from there.

Occam

 

Occam

It is an honour to speak with you as well.
Hikaru is pleased that you enjoy his idea of Panenthism. =)

He also wishes to point out how every time,
"Good" and "bad" were in quotes.
This is because "good" and "bad" are subjective perceptions,
As you stated.

"Thus evolution
IS GODS WAY OF CREATING" - Occam

This is also what Hikaru believes,
In a way.
Perhaps, Gaia wanted to give life to other beings,
So she ... shall we say, morphed into this universe,
And gave to this universe
Occam's perception,
"direction."
Starting by allowing this universe to give birth to protocells,
And creating more complex animals from there,
Filling protocells with her sentient energy,
But distinguishing it from her own,
Creating a new sentience,
Giving it the ability to reproduce,
And introducing natural selection,
So that these organisms might evolve for the better.
This is what Hikaru believes.
Take it for what you will.
Evolution is, in his opinion, your "direction."
Or more specifically,
The act of introducing evolution to this world,
That Gaia may likely have done,
Is such direction.

Hikaru.

 

Religion, in one's opinion, is nothing more than a system, a dogma (i know its an oxymoron here) for people so that they can have hope in the unknown, that it will turn out to their advantage and support them, ideally for all eternity. Religion is a tool for people to create hope. It was invented by man, for man. First to have hope that we would survive through the winter, that our crops would live and harvest rich. Then, it evolved into giving us hope that we may continue to exist in some state similar to our present one eternally after death. I believe in a supreme being because I feel that is the only way this all could have been started, and I adhere to a set of rules and morals very similar to the Ten Commandments, but because it is respectable to myself and my fellow man. I respect all life and treat as I would like to be treated because I am part of it, not above it or separate from it. I do think religion for the most part is good for many people. It promotes good will, communion and fellowship, and respect for other people. I do not agree with many of the beliefs and goals of the larger Churches and Practices though, like Cathiolicism, I feel that the Cathlic Church tries too much to give itself power and influence in society and government. Religion should be a place for a man to walk to when he wants to go there, and leave if he wishes to do so. The church should not have power of that man, or any influence except in his mind. He may act toward others in the efforts of getting them to join him there, but never physically. Religion should ba choice and a path, not the people and their legs carrying them.

 

mebesideme:

You are absolutely correct.

Religion was designed with hope in mind.

And death.

Or was it?

Religion, whether Christian, or Islamic, or any other religion, causes death.

The Crusades. Today's attacks from the Middle East.

And the same could be said for perhaps hundreds of wars fought in the past 7000 years that humanity has existed.

Religion, though designed to give hope,

Causes death.

Religion is no better than death.

 

Death is the only certainty, the one eventuality that may be counted on. When you have nothing left, you still have death. Is it so bad?

 

Is it so bad?
Death?

The way Hikaru sees things ...

There are two ultimatums: Existance and non-existance.

If there is non-existance, one feels nothing.
If there is existance, one feels both the good and the bad.

Both are merely two perspectives that, in the end, average out to a "middle line" between feeling good and feeling bad.

That is, if you do not believe in reincarnation, heaven, or everlasting life.

If so, death is merely another stage in your "life." And thus, death ought not to be called such.

 

I believe everybody has a religion or a "personal or institutionalized system" grounded in certain beliefs. For example, I'd say occam's religion is empiricism, a system whose maxim fails by it's own criteria.

 

-How can ya build a religeon around GOD when He tells ya to do somethin differant every day?

 

Just to let you know, you sound like a real jerk, man.

First of all, I think the use of the word "new" in "new religion" meant that it was a new way of thinking for Hikaru. Not that the religion was just created.


Of course a religion can be new. THere are always going to be new ways of trying to describe God and new systems to help offer solutions to the complexities of life and issues that face mankind.

God IS always God. We have NO WAY of knowing which way is the "true way of seeing it". Any belief in any god requires faith.

Religion is MANMADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Learn to seperate RELIGION from GOD. God is the higher power, or the creative force of the universe. Different religions are man's way of trying to explain it.

There can not be one absolutely correct religion, but there can and is absolute Truth, which we just don't know, and aren't capable of knowing [all of it] at this point. We can discover small truths in ourselves if we will listen.... and most organized religions have valuable lessons and teachings that we can all learn from...

I can't answer for Hikaru Zero but my reply to you would be that creation (from the very first atom to you and me) came from God and since something can't come from nothing, and the only thing that has always existed is God, we are all pieces of of God. God is the life giving, organizing, sustaining force (spirit) in each of us, we are a part of that ultimate truth, and as we seek more truth we know ourselves, ie God more.

You'll have to lose the attitude to become enlightened. True enlightenment comes from earnest seeking... you may not come to the same conclusions as I have, but you'll never hear me making snide remarks about your beliefs like you just did in your post, something about it really showed your true character.

 

SingflowerCat, I find this utterly impossible. How is one to seperate "religion" from God? Any atempt to speak or even conceive of God is one's way of trying to explain Him, and thus he or she would be following some sort of religion be it institutionalized or personal. But, perhaps you can clear this up?

I believe otherwise. I think it's posible, just not actual.

Absolute Truth, or Absolute truths?

 

words, words, words...

isn't language fun!?

OK:

when I use the word religion, I use the dictionary definition of "any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy" (Websters) It's a system of belief, and GOD (or any worshipped thing/being) often is the object of the system of belief, worship, etc.

So GOD is different concepts to different people--- God is x to susie, and Y to mark, and q to me.

Religion is the system of describing or explaining x, y, or q. Or the way of worshipping x, y, or q. OR the reason behind someone's conduct due to a specific code of ethics (think 10 commandments) or philosophy (think existentialists.)

Macro/Micro... One Absolute Truth with many truths within it? Maybe?
I lean towards Truth, singular.
I don't profess to have it all exactly figured out. I'm enjoying thinking about your questions.

Perhaps I chose my words poorly here. I do think it's possible too, just so highly unlikely right now that it's not actual, therefore, there are no completely "true" religions. Or any that seem completely true to me yet.