God does not exist

Yime is pretty sweet. It would take a strong man to resist the lure of yime.

 

So…what’s wrong with porn?
i find pornography an interesting social phenomena. I watched heaps of it. When all is said and done it always left me with a lonely feeling. An individual’s need for happiness and the pursuit of pleasure is a constant human drive. obviously.
The world is full of what we call surrogates, that being objects concepts and activities that bring only a short term solution to human discomfort and the ultimate existential challenge of being alive.
Pornography is ultimately pretty limiting in the fact that there are only limited amount of things one can do with the body and the form of the other or others who participate in depictions of sexual acts.however than there the abusive side of the equasion .this is why sex work is best legal and taxed regulated.
The porn industry is a billion dollar industry.
Facts
U.S. pornography revenue: $13.3 billion
Pornographic websites: 4.2 million (12% of total websites)
Pornographic pages: 420 million
Daily pornographic search engine requests: 68 million (25% of total search engine requests)
Daily pornographic e-mails: 2.5 billion (8% of total e-mails)
U.S. adults who regularly visit Internet pornography
Web sites: 40 million
Internet users who view pornography: 42.7%.
So it looks like it’s a pretty popular past time. Hint: Masturbation is fun and safe.
I find it time to move on from this thread. Is there a god? I think in the end its up to the individual not to enforce their values on another either by reason or emotional force.
Cheers ink8290

 

No. I already explained that some things give enduring satisfaction and some things don't. For atheist support on that point, check out Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape. Why end? I don't think we have a choice in the matter. All good things come to an end--i.e., the grave. By "lasting" I assumed that you'd understand that I meant lasting or enduring a long time, not forever, although I think the same values could be said to be eternal--like truth, beauty, etc. Most people I think aren't puzzled by the end of life, although many are disturbed by it. Or are you trying to say something else? I find your last sentence to be incomprehensible. Could you clarify?

No, I select meaning from available alternatives. I don't agree with Sartre that we can "make" any old meaning we want and have a satisfying (i.e., meaningful) existence. See again, Harris. And why use God as a metaphor? Because that's the best I can do. See Joseph Campbell. Or Jung. Or Frankl.

 

Joseph Campbell was very well loved because of his awesome ability to put matters into a form that the person who had little or no background could understand. the guy was a genius at communication.
oh i found these videos on utube.
https://www.youtube.com/user/campbellfoundation?feature=results_main

 

Funnily enough i was having a beer with God the other day in my local pub, he was thinking of shaving his beard off, it was so old school.....:2thumbsup:

 

yeah..wow

 

So which? Eternal or not?

As for the puzzle, perhaps it isn't a puzzle after all. I'll try to clarify. The life that one would want to live over again would find no reason to live it over again, being that life. I mean, a life that is joy itself would find no reason to return to itself, already being the self-same life it would return to. lol I'll try to put it another way - Maybe the life of bliss I am attempting to describe would not want to live itself over, but would simply, sheerly, live. :-D

How can god be your best metaphor if you don't know what it is to begin with?! You don't agree we can make meaning for ourselves (by which I assume, tell me if I'm wrong, we must have it made for us by 'god'.) Or do you mean our "true" meaning has yet to be revealed as it were, hence your sitting on your...er, joyous bet? ;-D I don't think I can be any more direct - If you do not know god, what do you mean by god?!


p.s. What do you make of my saying that we're all eachothers meaning?

p.p.s. All these men you refer to, and refer me to, have they established something of meaning to you? Or was it just god through so many different mouthpieces?

 

What happened to, we want more?
What is sheerly live?

I think it is relevant only in that as we do to each other we do also to ourselves.

Obviously I don't answer for okiefreak. I make no wagers. I need do nothing.
The name I drop is I am.
We are spirit reaching toward spirit in all things.

"I never thought I'd live to be a hundred,
I never thought I'd get to do the things that all those other sons do,
and they do.

I never thought I'd live to see my freedom,
An age ago my maker was refusing me the pleasure of the view.

I never thought I'd live to be a million,
I never thought I'd get to be the thing that all those other sons see,
and they see."

 

Maybe. As long as it followed the same principles.

Campbell defines G_d as :"A metaphor for that which transcends all categories of human thought." That is completely consistent with the portrayal of YHVH in the Old Testament. The best we can do is have some inkling of what G_d is. We see through a glass darkly, or as the Toltecs say, tezcatlipoca (smokey mirror). Jewish and Christian mystics tend to talk exclusively in terms of what G_d is not. I think of G_d as the felt presence of a Higher Power which is, among other things, the ground of being (Tillich) and the totality of human idealism. The "ground of being" is another way of saying ultimate meaning and value. Admittedly, from the standpoint of clarity, that leaves a lot to be desired, but I think it's the best that I or anyone else can do. And its good enough for me.

Probably not what you'd make of it, but I like it. If we all reflect the image and likeness of G_d, then every encounter with a human being is an encounter with G_d. In that sense, we are all each other's meaning. Even you.

I'd say "and" instead of "or".

 

Okie:

I don't follow, what same principles? What of principle does all life share, but...life?

What is G_d? Where did the o go?! lol Not to put it outside of becoming, but the "ground" of all being is being. So you think god is the best we can do, yet you think we can't, only having an inkling of what it is. More questions arise, "Higher power" Higher than what? So long as it is higher than our reach, most believers don't seem to mind! It's still better than an ultimate, final meaning. And that notion of the totality of the ideal would possibly interest me if it were rather its infinity.

So those men made meaning which you in turn made, 'and' it was just god who made it?! Incomprehensible. lol

 

thedope:

What, you think altogether we want more than life itself?

Do you mean, what is it not to die? Would you like to find out?

That we are all eachothers meaning has more relevance, more meaning, than that. Are you willing to give it more? I give it the meaning that we have only to love eachother.

I think it unfair to suggest Okie is a name-dropper. You might drop "I am" and take up thedope you know. I am not you, no matter that our selves have self in common. :-D

When do you get to be god? On your deathbed? Let's be ourselves, the moody blues will overtake us if we don't. :-D

 

I'm referring to Frankl's idea (which has some atheist support from Harris) that, although there are a wide variety of meaningful (read ultimately satisfying) ways to live, there are also a wide variety of pursuits that, in my judgment, lead to unhappiness for a person and those around him or her. Buddhists and Hindus call these attachments. In the Baghavad Gita, Krishna discusses these at length and explains why they're ephemeral. Plato, Aristotle, and even Epicurus make a similar point. You may not agree. Many in the world today don't. All I can say is, we make our bets, and will experience the consequences.

The o went the way of the a and e in YHVH. lol That's the way the rabbis write it, and they do so to make a point. lol That when you fill in the e's & o's, you reify the concept and give it false objectivity. lol And that's why I "think g_d is the best we can do, even though we have " only an inkling of what it is". lol I'll refer you to another book: Karen Armstrong's The Quest for God, which might be titled "The Quest for the Unknown". lol Read and learn. lol Just because G_d is ineffable doesn't mean that the concept isn't useful. lol If you disagree, well, I guess we just disagree. lol. These semantic word games may fascinate you. lol. I noticed how you and the dope went down that rabbit hole on another thread for pages and pages and pages, day after day after day, and don't want to fall into the same trap. lol With discussants like that, who needs trolls. lol But I think further conceptual clarification is unproductive. lol I'm a pragmatist. lol It works for me. lol If something better works for you, go for it. lol One more book: Pastor Robin Meyers , Saving Jesus from the Church: How to Stop Worshipping Christ and Start Worshiping Jesus. lol

 

Okiefreak:

Are you attached to the idea that life has to die?

Sure the concept of god might be useful, if you knew what it was you were conceiving. lol We can conceive 'the ineffable' until the cows come home. You say if something works better for me, go for it, after saying you think nothing works better for anyone than god! And this: - "That when you fill in the e's & o's, you reify the concept and give it false objectivity." -What on earth? Apart from the vowels in a word having nothing whatsoever to do with the matter, how is reification giving a false objectivity?

 

More of life?

No I mean what is sheerly?

I can't find any more. I can do without some opinion.

What is love?

I suggest it only to the extent that he claims certain individuals as influential.

You know nothing of thedope that is not first an element of I am. Knowledge is being shared. Private potential remains that.

In case you haven't heard, I am.

 

The vowel is fundamental to the matter. The consonant is a matter of taste.

 

Yes, not more than.

But you're the dude with the dictionary thedope! This is the first and might be the last time I ever do this:

You don't share my opinion we have only to love eachother? Where do we ever really posess for possessions sake?

Do you mean you don't know?

And they no doubt have been influential to him. What would you have him call them? "I am"? I am say that this sentence is structured strangely. lol

Whose self? Whose "I am" Yours or mine? Our own? We only have ourselves in common because we have self in common. This does not mean I'm you! lol That is not private potential, but purely personal. lol

Is everyone else god along with you? We'll be able to simplify the births and deaths register at the very least.

 

You could have said you coined it from the word sheer.
When are we not purely alive?

No. Love is what we are, we need do nothing.

I don't know about possessions sake but everywhere we are being.

Wasn't a statement of my position but a question.

His talent and privilege is to name the animals. I do not begrudge him that.
I was saying simply that i am not extending some ones argument other than my own.

Coming and going with you alone.

Those who find joy their purpose, otherwise they are confused about themselves.

 

Here we go again. This has got to be the final round. It's been my experience that life has to die. Would you call that an attachment or just a fact of life?

Not at all. I think nothing works better for anyone than meaning, but atheists and agnostics can find meaning for themselves that has nothing to do with God and can still be lasting. Aristotle and Epicurus thought virtue and reason led to true happiness.

By Jewish tradition, the name of G_d cannot be pronounced, because doing so gives people the false impression that they know all about God, which they don't. (Note: I said Jewish tradition. Here again, we're talking metaphor for a broader point that we can sense something and be moved by it without completely understanding it.) I think I've made that point well enough, and if you don't agree with it, well we just disagree. Irreconcilable differences! Let's get divorced! lol I believe that I could be 100% wrong about everything I believe. Nothing is certain, not even that. But I'm playing my hunches on the basis of my own experiences and the best evidence available to me: the amazing fact of conscious, intelligent life, the integrated complexity of the universe, and the teachings and example of Jesus--not "proof" but enough to bet a life on.

 

:sunny:

 

thedope:

Coined? I should have added:

My point.

Being becomes what it is. Possession that is not love is not possession.
What do you want to do?

But you were saying being is nothing doing. lol

One you asked me recently, and which I answered. Not good enough?

I suppose animals is a step up from "fat carcasses" lol Sam Harris is still alive, I'm sure he'd appreciate the sentiment. :-D

The argument being...?

No, the personal belongs to everyone.

I'm not god with you, or without you thedope. I wish you and the chosen the very best though! :-D Maybe we'll meet up in joy one day!

thedope:

The matter of the concept? No.


Okie:

I asked if you were attached to the idea that life has to die, but regardless, it is only in your experience that life dies, not that it has to. You have not experienced death. Have you experienced dying?

Generous of you! Especially after saying god is everywhere. ;-D

I don't mind if you censor your vowels, but I still don't get it. lol
Something about signifying you know not what you signify, like donning the dunces hat and sitting in a corner of ones own volition? Tell me if I'm getting warm! :-D

So it is not even certain that you believe you could be wrong?!

You never answered my question. If you don't know what god is, what do you mean by it?!