[MEGA] God

[elemenohpee]

I do not know why you choose to be hostile (or at least, word your posts in such a manner). In any case, it seems that we simply do not look at the same issue from a similar point of view. That is fine. I vehemently disagree with you, but I will not be disrespectful about it. Please don't take this as me "giving up"... I simply do not see the point in arguing when we clearly don't even agree on definitions. One last comment though...

Sorry, its the rationalist in me. I see things like plants being ultra-conscious and my brain tries to claw its way out of my ear. I think your ideas are ridiculous, but I am not trying to be disrespectful. The way in which I worded my posts is a product of my contempt for new-age ideas, not you personally. I do see it as giving up, if you cannot come up with arguments against what I said. I don;t know what definitions you are unclear about, but I'm sure we could settle those. What is the significance, if any, of the fact that humans are the most complex structures in the known universe?

 

[VibeTribeScribe]

The idea of God was mythologically contrived by humans as a represention of our powerlessness in the face of nature. The Judeo-Christian notion of God is an anthropocentric expression which attributes distinctly human characteristics to the formation and sustainment of perceived order in the universe. Such characteristics include the idea of conscious design and human form. In addition, concepts unique to human perception, such as causality, are also attributed to God's form.

Many humans are unwilling to accept that any perceived system, and its inherent order, was generated spontaneously without an intended purpose. Our inability to obtain knowledge of what happens to one's consciousness after the point of death has led to speculation about the existence of an afterlife.

Belief in an afterlife provides solace to those who have lost a loved one and also allows individuals to have courage in the face of death. Without the belief in an afterlife, individuals might consider that all of their fruits of labor are simply lost at the point of death.

Belief in an afterlife might allow individuals to think that they will be able to maintain the wisdom and love that have been accumulated through an individual's mortal life.

In actuality, consciousness is allowed for by the functioning physical body, however it does not necessarily result (ie obliviousness/sleep/coma). When the body ceases to function, consciousness is no longer possible and an individual becomes reduced to a mass of the components which coalesced to give rise to a functioning body.

If life is characterized as an animated self propagating system of matter, atoms and even stars can be considered living. Life on Earth can be interpreted as the result of a self propagating chemical reaction. However this is a mechanical reduction of the infinite complexity of which life is composed which can be interpreted in innumerable ways.

Our spiritual existence can be distinguished from our mechanical existence in that it is embodied by feelings and connectedness subjectively experienced by a given individual, however the essence of spirit is mysterious, spontaneous, and beyond rational explanation.

The Judeo-Christian God is an expression of anthropocentric values, the endeavor of Judeo-Christians to control nature and use it for our own purposes. This is a self destructive, for our environment sustains us and benefiting it will ultimately benefit us, but by destroying we ultimately destroy ourselves, since we rely upon it.

The enculturation of Judeo-Christian values have led humanity to cultivate and escalate an imbalance with the environment. When the carrying capacity of the environment can no longer support the populations of society, civilization is bound to collapse.

God is a symbol composed of our values and allowed for by speculation about the unexplained. If God does exist, we have no way to perceive its existence. All that we can perceive is the manifestations which individuals attribute to God's conscious design. To claim that these manifestations are enough to imlpy God's existence, an individual credits unfounded delusions. It would be equally as valid/invalid to attribute wind to the wakes of invisible flying spirits.

In this day and age, an ecocentric mythological idea of a higher being would be more constructive. However man kind clings to commonly accepted ideals and is collectively unwilling to replace those ideas with more constructive ones.

Meaning and purpose are human contrivances, however many if not all humans rely upon meaning and purpose in order to function in society. Judeo-Christian values can certainly be seen as constructive within the realm of humanity (even though they create disharmony between humans and their environment).

These values promote compassion and collective benefit over selfishness and personal benefit. Mediating our inclinations with the inclinations of others allows us to cultivate positive reciprocation between one another.

This way of life is discrepant from that of the undomesticated living world in that we take from nature but do not provide in return, for example in the food chain, even though we inescapably contribute to the nitrogen cycle.

Our tendency to engineer our own sustaining environment also seperates us from undomesticated living organisms. In foresight, humans may ultimately escape the dangers of an uncontrolled natural environment by engineering an ecologically balanced artificial environment.

To me this represents a failure of humans to recognize the connectedness we have with nature. Nature provides to us, it created us. However all we can think to do is escape it, while exploiting its provisions.

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

vegan

our entire convo was based on a misconception and is thus null and void

the fact that you will not aknowledge the incorrect definition that I was using is why you are playing semantics.

would you like me to go back and edit all of my posts so you can understand them, or can you be a big boy and figure it out on your own?

I can't believe you baited me into posting about the same thing yet again.

your behavior in this thread suggests that you have some serious ego problems.

you are now the only person in 2 years to make me use the ignore feature.

congrats... SHATT couldn't even do that

 

[Jamshyd]

Sorry, its the rationalist in me. I see things like plants being ultra-conscious and my brain tries to claw its way out of my ear. I think your ideas are ridiculous, but I am not trying to be disrespectful. The way in which I worded my posts is a product of my contempt for new-age ideas, not you personally. I do see it as giving up, if you cannot come up with arguments against what I said. I don;t know what definitions you are unclear about, but I'm sure we could settle those. What is the significance, if any, of the fact that humans are the most complex structures in the known universe?

I guess a good place to start is the fact that you decided to label my ideas as "New Age" yourself and then have "contempt" for them. What exactly is "New Age"? Can you define it for me? If it gives you any solace, I do not have much appreciation for the two things that are commonly called "New Age": the 2012 thing; and the enlightenment-in-10-minutes books or "Kaballah Braceletts". Was there something else known as "New Age" that I am not familiar with?

In any case, I guess by "definitions" I meant our points of view on a similar subject. We obviously see it from two conflicting points of view and I feel that you are arguing simply to mock my ideas rather than share respectfully. So there is no point in arguing as it will simply lead to more conflict. It is not my intention to force you or anyone else to change your opinions on this matter. I simply present mine, and its up to you to accept them or not. I have tried to make myself as clear as possible - if there is anything I said that you do not understand, you can ask for specific clarification. Anything more I say about my ideas will border on preaching, and preaching is something I avoid.

To answer your question, I do not think that complex equals superior. In fact, to present it as a metaphor, you can write the most complex, 500-volume exposition on "The Truth" using all the words from all the vocabularies in the world, and at the end you'll still be lying.

 

[elemenohpee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_age


That metaphor is nonsense. Just writing something does not make it true, so yes, you could write a lengthy book full of lies and it would not be superior because it is long. When you look at life, however, you have to look at what the complexity is achieving. A rube-goldberg machine is not superior simply because it is complex, in fact, it is inferior because it complicates something that could be done an easier way. The complexity of the human brain is not achieving the same goals as say, an insect brain. The complexity is there for a reason, it increases the computing powers of the brain, thus allowing for self-awareness, things like technology, etc. do you really believe that a rock is superior to a human because it is "selfless"?

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

^^^^^ yes

it's a matter of letting go and rolling with the flow, not a matter of computing (which tends to make us try to walk against the stream)

 

[BreakingSet]

God is the universe because God is his creation but God also existed before this universe and being eternal, will continue exist after it so the universe is far too limited a concept to capture God.

I like this guy!^^

Robert Anton Wilson said in one book or another that God tended to exist in the frontier of the imagination: people tend to look for, or tend to see "God" where there imaginations quit.

I was having fun the other day imagining god as a force (like gravity or time or magnetism). It's that force spoken of since antiquity that creates by destroying; you know, a fire ravishes the forrest and through ash leaves the forrest more green sort of thing. It touches matter and incourages life somehow.

 

[elemenohpee]

^^^^^ yes

it's a matter of letting go and rolling with the flow, not a matter of computing (which tends to make us try to walk against the stream)

I don;t understand how you people can put so little value in the human experience. There would be no concept of "rolling with the flow" if it were not for the human brain. This nobility that you percieve in selflessness wouldn;t exist, things would just be.

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

^^^ right

and if we did not have to conceptualize it, we would already be there

take yourself for example.... or rather... take me.. I have a clear conceptual understanding of what enlightenment is and what it entails... but I am not doing it... my humanity is keeping me from it


yes it is nice as a human to be able to experience both perceptions, but very very few people can.

all of these concepts (about how you are supposed to get there and what it will be like) are the very things you are holding on to that are keeping you from experiencing it first hand.

 

[elemenohpee]

^^^ right

and if we did not have to conceptualize it, we would already be there

take yourself for example.... or rather... take me.. I have a clear conceptual understanding of what enlightenment is and what it entails... but I am not doing it... my humanity is keeping me from it


yes it is nice as a human to be able to experience both perceptions, but very very few people can.

all of these concepts (about how you are supposed to get there and what it will be like) are the very things you are holding on to that are keeping you from experiencing it first hand.

Could you clarify your post a little? I'm havign some trouble understanding what you mean. Conceptualize what? are u talking about enlightenment here? in the philosophial sense? hindu, buddhist?

 

[vegan]

our entire convo was based on a misconception and is thus null and void

the misconception has been cleared
you said yourself "when i say the universe...i'm not restricting it to the current scientific concept of the universe...i.e. what we can observe through sight (space, stars, etc.), mathematical experiments, etc...your alternate universes...multiple universes, etc., are all included in my infinite universe"
you said that "multiple universes" are included in your idea of "infinite universe"
so you agree that our universe is just a part of your "infinite universe"
what now prevents you from going to back to the conversation and answering my questions instead of pretending that i misunderstood what you said to avoid answering them?

the fact that you will not aknowledge the incorrect definition that I was using is why you are playing semantics

i acknoweldged it and said a more correct word would be multiverse. but you prefer to deny it than have to answer

I can't believe you baited me into posting about the same thing yet again.

may i return the compliment?
i don't find it fun to talk to a wall throwing back the same ball over and over
but i dislike your dishonnesty of avoiding the argumentation by pretending that we don't get what you mean
and i don't want you to think that you can walk off so easily
yes, i'm a big child

your behavior in this thread suggests that you have some serious ego problems.

my behaviour?
at least i don't pretend to have a friend using my account to let slip an off-topic taunt

you are now the only person in 2 years to make me use the ignore feature.

translation : "rather than show i don't know what to answer, i prefer to pretend not to hear"

sorry, people, for this pathetic exchange

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

Could you clarify your post a little? I'm havign some trouble understanding what you mean. Conceptualize what? are u talking about enlightenment here? in the philosophial sense? hindu, buddhist?

i'm generally talking about thinking in words

but specifica;;y, sure, buddhist/taoist concepts

instead of letting go and simply being we are talking and thinking about it

the two are very different

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

the misconception has been cleared
you said yourself "when i say the universe...i'm not restricting it to the current scientific concept of the universe...i.e. what we can observe through sight (space, stars, etc.), mathematical experiments, etc...your alternate universes...multiple universes, etc., are all included in my infinite universe"
you said that "multiple universes" are included in your idea of "infinite universe"
so you agree that our universe is just a part of your "infinite universe"
what now prevents you from going to back to the conversation and answering my questions instead of pretending that i misunderstood what you said to avoid answering them?

what was your question again?

and do you still think that something can exist outside of everything? or am i misunderstanding you again?

my behaviour?
at least i don't pretend to have a friend using my account to let slip an off-topic taunt

i was not pretending, but i guess you won't take my word for it

may i return the compliment?
i don't find it fun to talk to a wall throwing back the same ball over and over
but i dislike your dishonnesty of avoiding the argumentation by pretending that we don't get what you mean
and i don't want you to think that you can walk off so easily
yes, i'm a big child

this is why i thought we were done talking a long time ago..... you kept asking the same questions and i kept giving the same answers dispite whatever misconceptions we discovered. our entire convo was a sham because we were talking about two entirely different things. comparing apples to oranges if you will. I just dont see how that could be productive

sorry, people, for this pathetic exchange

why then did you keep fueling it?



if you think that you can explain a point to me that we have not already trashed or that might produce anything useful, then i'll be happy to discuss it.

if you simply want to continue this childish ego contest, then we can take it outside to the PM and stop destroying this thread.

 

[Jamshyd]

elemenohpee, I guess you make of humanity more than it deserves. What do human achievements have against death? What is a generation's lifetime in the eyes of, say, pluto (the planet)? Do you get the idea...?

EDIT: As for that wikipedia link... so I guess you take that as being your definition of new age? Well, I do not see my ideas expressed on that page, so I guess your labeling them "new age" is erroneous. .

 

[knight_marshall]

If god was the universe, and therefore we are all the one conscious being, then damn I'm messed up. Not only am I standing on myself right now, but this morning I ate myself, and yesterday I shat on myself. I didn't think I was into scat... eww!!

The only way I can see a god existing is if we exist within that God's mind. For a God to exist within our own fabric of existance, they had to have created themselves which is... well, whatever you want to think it is, but I'll say stupid. And if that is so, then that God must exist within the mind of it's own God, for how else does it exist. And then we are all God's too, because those beings in our minds exist. Kinda takes the relevance out of it. Well, at least if you do care about the god above you, your a selfish prick for not caring about the beings that YOU govern over. Well, at least you are if you don't devide your life between those above and below. Me, I'll care about myself and those within my own existance/universe.

 

[elemenohpee]

I understand how tiny and insignificant humanity is compared to the universe. But you don;t think that a piece of the universe becoming aware of itself is even a curiosity? i mean come on, you have to admit having a concious experience is a pretty cool concept.

 

[B9]

Now then folks lets face it, if you read back over these posts you will find that the "ego" is very much in evidence. Or perhaps you would disagree. Which wouldn't surprise me at all.

zophen

 

[elemenohpee]

Jamshyd, if you had bothered to read past the first sentence you would have seen this:
"Rather than follow the lead of an organised religion, "New Agers" typically construct their own spiritual journey based on material taken as needed from the mystical traditions of all the world's religions as well as shamanism, neopaganism and occultism. Participants are likely to dip into many diverse teachings and practises, some mainstream and some fringe, and formulate their own beliefs and practices based on their experiences in each. No clear membership or rigid boundaries actually exist."

 

[gloggawogga]

^^^^^

Yeah but the idea that plants and even inaminate objects are concious beings is still not a "new age" idea. Its an idea older than the oldest religions in the world, and one that is still believed in most of the Eastern religions. If you object to the idea thats fine, but don't object to its because some people who call themselves "new age" believe in it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism and notice they aren't associating it with "new age".

Oh...and for the topic of thread "God = The Universe", one word: Pantheism. Which BTW is central to Hinduism, which is hardly "new age". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

 

[elemenohpee]

good point, I take back my new age statement

I'm well aware theat the concept of god being the universe isn't new age. But from what I remember of my religion class, the universe being conscious isn't part of that. I'm not 100% sure about that, so correct me if I'm wrong.