If god is an alien......
bigfl...@gmail.com
We have now got to the point were we can blow the world up, poison it
with radioactivity, pollute beyond recovery, re engineer our own dna,
smash particles at huge international expence (while children are
still dying of starvation), and frighten the hell out of our children
with movies like 2012.
We have coome a long way!!
No wonder there is great interest in the subject. Makes a damn sight
more sense than all the religiosity dogmas.
BOfL
Ed
wrote:
An alien is someone who is not from here. If "here" is a country than
people from other countries are aliens. If "here" is a planet then
aliens are those who were not born on this planet. By this logic God
is clearly an alien whether She's from Alpha Centauri or is a timeless
entity that created the universe; either way an alien.
bigfl...@gmail.com
'Here' has very different meanings whether you are referring to a
place or a person.
BOfL
turtoni
ANY god would be alien.
> We have now got to the point were we can blow the world up, poison it
> with radioactivity, pollute beyond recovery, re engineer our own dna,
> smash particles at huge international expence (while children are
> still dying of starvation), and frighten the hell out of our children
> with movies like 2012.
Not really. Whtaever we do, life will retun in one way or another. Our
time is the pimple on a gnats ass.
> We have coome a long way!!
Not far at all really.
> No wonder there is great interest in the subject. Makes a damn sight
> more sense than all the religiosity dogmas.
>
> BOfL
Disaster movies have always been of interest. Something to do with our
own mortality i imagine.
Shakespeare wrote some good plays about this.
THE BORG
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f1f099f-909d-4ed0...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
God is the food you eat, the air you breathe. God is the
ground you walk on, your body, your eyes.
God is the sky, God is the rain.
Only those who are blind make stupid remarks as you have
done above.
The only part of you that is not God is your self, your
intrinsic and unique life force, your character,
personality, your choices, your decisions.
This applies to all humans, and all animals and creatures.
All else is God.
God is everywhere, and is constantly present and visible and
very obvious to those who can see and hear.
THE BORG
THE BORG
"Ed" <edg...@att.net> wrote in message
news:b621262f-ba55-4fc3...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
***
Of course you may view God as "she".
You can view God as she, he, it, or they, all these words
apply.
But the operative word is ALL.
In other words you should not view God as only she or only
he or only it or only they.
ALL these words apply.
God is both alien and not alien.
He is from here and there and everywhere.
God can be alien, or God can not be alien.
Being all powerful, God can do anything, and thus God can
render all as irrelevant.
THE BORG
THE BORG
means do.
God is each person's perfection and ideal.
If to you a female persona would be your perfection and
ideal, then this is who God is to you.
Some prefer a beautiful white horse, an Elf, a strong man, a
young man, a young boy. Some view God more as abstract, the
wind, the rain, the sound of the ocean.
God has infinite names, characters, personalities and can be
anyone or even anything!
Some men like the idea of a young girl or lover, or a woman
come mother, and if you like to view God this way, then
fine.
There are no rules on how to love God, or how to view God.
But remember that God is startlingly original, and if you
ever do meet God, you may find that you yourself do not know
what you consider your own ideal and perfection, but God
does.
And you may find that God is a jet aircraft, or space rocket
that travels faster than light!
But such is the endless diversity and wonder of God.
THE BORG
THE BORG
girl, age 17, never been kissed, a virgin, sweet, fragrant,
pretty and you fell in love.
She has a certain way, a certain style a certain sense of
humour.
To you this is God, this is your view of God.
But say another man met God, and to him God was a Warrior,
age 40. A tall strong man who was very intelligent and
could teach and guide.
You may say
"God has a nice sense of humour and is very sweet."
The other man would say
"God has an atrocious sense of humour and is terrifically
funny, and he is so intelligent."
And you may say
"Oh no, she was not that intelligent, more lovely and
charming."
And the other man would say
"Oh no, God was HUGELY intelligent."
But you are both right.
These are merely two characters or persona or presentations
of God, and God has infinite of these.
So you can view God in any way you choose.
A child can view God as Father Christmas, or a little bunny
rabbit.
You can change your view of God.
If you wake up tomorrow and find you are gay, and prefer to
view God as a gay male.
Then this is fine.
THE BORG
THE BORG
quantities.
The girl you meet would have specific limitations, naturally
you would not want to meet a lovely charming girl who could
cause hurricanes and earthquakes and who can redefine
matter.
So the girl you meet who is a character or presentation of
God to you, would have limitations and intelligence and
character specific to the girl.
So a man who meets God as a Warrior age 40, again the
character would have specific limitations and a certain
style and sense of humour.
Remember that the 17 year old girl you meet, would be
different if her name was Jane, or Petal, or Flora, or
Gemma. Each 17 year old girl character would be different.
So even in this one character, 17 year old girl, would be a
huge number of different girls with different names,
different appearance, different intelligence.
But to be sure, each one would be your ideal, your perfect
and like no other girl you have ever met.
This is a small clue as to how diverse and interesting God
is.
THE BORG
THE BORG
regards
"God created the universe."
You have to find out WHO God was at the time.
Was God a he or she or it or they at the time?
What was the name, persona, character?
Did God create alone or did he create with others, such as
Angels, or friends?
Did it merely take a moment? Or did they spend hundreds of
years perfecting details of every leaf, every flower, every
pattern to every wing of every bird.
Every sound, every rainfall, every snowflake.
And this on Earth alone?
You should use intelligence and judgement when you think of
God.
Do not listen to religions and texts and stories.
Look around.
Look at the skies and clouds and think for yourself.
Listen, and judge for yourself what could possibly be the
nature of a he she or they or whoever whereby somewhere like
Earth does exist.
Never listen to anyone else in your personal relationship
with God.
Your relationship with God is personal, and takes precedence
over your relationship with anyone else.
No one else can provide the food you eat, air, water, your
body, the ground you stand on, your eyes, your ears, sound.
So naturally your relationship with God matters a huge
amount more that your relationship with anyone else.
But it is personal and private.
God would never discuss your relationship, or your view, or
your life, or your private secrets, these are all between
you and God alone.
Each and every person, each and every life, including each
animal, bird, creature, fish has a personal relationship
with God.
God is the meaning and reason of everything and for
everything.
But humans have no idea who God is, or how to view God.
They have some fairly ugly religions and some very small
minded narrow views, but you will learn more from rainfall,
and oceans, and clouds, and the food you eat, and the music
you hear and intelligence and challenges and synchronicities
and fate and destiny and predetermination.
Because all is known to God.
The future is known as well as the past.
It is very hard to be a friend to God or a friend with God.
But each life form has a personal relationship, a one to
one.
And each and every person experiences suffering, teaching,
learning, according to how their personal relationship with
God is progressing.
One day you may meet God.
Maybe you have already met him.
Maybe he was that bird that sang on that day you thought the
sun may never rise again that brought such hope to your
heart.
Maybe he was that stranger who smiled at you, and made you
wonder how anyone could have such a beautiful spirit.
Maybe he was that falling leaf, that fell a certain way, and
for a moment you knew beauty.
Maybe he was that old lady who squeezed your hand when you
were sad, and who stated that the universal panacea and
answer to all things is a cup of tea!!!
God appears in all shapes and sizes. In all forms and
disguises.
The blind man you help across the street, as much as the
strong man who helps you up after a fall.
The great and talented rock star, the useless nobody who
lazes in bed all day.
The fantastic intelligence, the village idiot who professes
a relationship with stars.
THE BORG
THE BORG
You can say Supreme Being, Ultimate Mind, Highest
Intelligence, Creator, Great Spirit in the Sky, Divine
Being, Leader, King, Lord, or even John or Peter or David.
They are all his names.
You can use Queen, Jenny, Gemma.
You can use Horse, Great White Bird, Noddy, Teddy Bear.
You can use any word or name, as he is in many respects ALL
words and names.
Snowflake, soap bubble, jet aircraft, light, water.
Tree, fish, whale, shark, panther.
Some prefer Supreme Being, Divine Being, King of the Skies
and Creation, Sweet Lord, (no connection to Jesus), Divine
Lord, Leader and Governor and Controller.
There is no requirement at all to limit the word or name to
"God".
This is merely the Anglicized Western word, but not a good
one, as the word God is overused, misused, and is used for
profanity and blasphemy and the word God also exists in
numerous quantity with many other Gods who are written of on
Earth.
Father, Brother, sister, mother, lover, friend, dearest
friend, closest friend, you can use any of these names.
Guide, Teacher, Wizard, Master.
Choose a name or word that YOU personally feel happy with in
your own personal and private relationship.
Don't listen to anyone else.
Your relationship is between you and God and no one else and
is private and confidential.
If you personally prefer to view God as a "she" then choose
a name you like, Rain, Water, Snow, Jenny, Gemma, Mother,
Lover, and use this word or name if it suits you.
No one else will know.
THE BORG
Sir Frederick
>On Nov 16, 11:11�pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> ...then what �good time to re visit.
>
>ANY god would be alien.
Not if 'we' project and personify 'them'.
>
>> We have now got to the point were we can blow the world up, poison it
>> with radioactivity, pollute beyond recovery, re engineer our own dna,
>> smash particles at huge international expence (while children are
>> still dying of starvation), and frighten the hell out of our children
>> with movies like 2012.
>
>Not really. Whtaever we do, life will retun in one way or another. Our
>time is the pimple on a gnats ass.
When it comes to nanotech, a gnat's ass is pretty big territory.
>
>> We have coome a long way!!
>
>Not far at all really.
How 'far' is 'far' when it comes to a dance?
>
>> No wonder there is great interest in the subject. Makes a damn sight
>> more sense than all the religiosity dogmas.
But 'we' need 'our' stories, sense or not.
>>
>> BOfL
>
>Disaster movies have always been of interest. Something to do with our
>own mortality i imagine.
>
>Shakespeare wrote some good plays about this.
Haven't 'we' all? They remain unpublished and private,
but there they (plays, stories) are.
THE BORG
personally perceive God, you must also remember Angels.
Angels are individuals like you, but they are all male and
much taller and stronger than human males, and naturally are
far more beautiful in appearance. They are closer to God
than anyone else, and are friends, brothers, guardians,
carers, family, servants, workers, army, and fulfill many
other roles to and for God. They have been with God longer
than anyone else and so are loved more by God than any other
life anywhere. And they love God more than anyone else.
Angels can effect God by way of their thoughts and opinions.
And God does listen to Angels.
So when dwelling on God, reflect also on Angels.
That God has a multitude of great friends, brothers, and
those who he loves over and above anyone else. And he has a
multitude of those who he can depend on and count on and
rely on, no matter what, who would never betray him nor let
him down nor ever give in to temptation.
Never underestimate the power of Angels, and the power
Angels have over God.
Although you should never worship an Angel or pray to an
Angel, and although humans have never seen nor heard an
Angel, you should be aware of their existence. That there
is no one person alone in charge, but a host, a multitude of
Angels surround God at all times, and they think of no one
or nothing but God, and they love no one or nothing but God.
And to Angels all is relative to God and God only.
So whatever you do and say, remember also Angels.
THE BORG
bigfl...@gmail.com
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are obviously not enlightened enough to understand the nature and
purpose of my questions.
You see stupid? Then look at where you are looking from.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
BOfL
Giga
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f1f099f-909d-4ed0...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
bigfl...@gmail.com
ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
We have variations from 'god incarnated as human' to 'sons of god'.It
is natural to have an anthropomorphic disposition. Some with greater
imaginations can imagine god within that expanded capacity, showing
'huge strength and magnificent physique' the Cistene chapel ceiling
being a good example.There are endless examples of archetypes.
Any life experienced from outside our normal sphere of reference/
experience usually fits the bill.Believers settle for the anecdotal.
How much difference is there between indigenous populations seeing
aircraft for the first time, and our seeing extaterrestial craft?
As a rule, we often associate god with some form of supernatural
behaviour. Our religious upbringing has ensured that. The identity of
J.C. for instance, was linked more to the supposed miracles, than the
philosophical message.
Im sure if you asked extaterrestials, they would also
anthropomorphisize their images.
The best image I have heard (yes, we can 'hear' images:-), with
reference to the 'supreme entity', is we are all unique cells in the
body, each on a eternal journey of developing greater awareness of our
role.
BOfL
turtoni
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:13:34 -0800 (PST), turtoni <turt...@fastmail.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 16, 11:11 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> ...then what good time to re visit.
>
> >ANY god would be alien.
>
> Not if 'we' project and personify 'them'.
We'd have to "understand" it; so that it was on our radar. But the
point remains that any "god" would have to be alien aka not human.
> >> We have now got to the point were we can blow the world up, poison it
> >> with radioactivity, pollute beyond recovery, re engineer our own dna,
> >> smash particles at huge international expence (while children are
> >> still dying of starvation), and frighten the hell out of our children
> >> with movies like 2012.
>
> >Not really. Whtaever we do, life will retun in one way or another. Our
> >time is the pimple on a gnats ass.
>
> When it comes to nanotech, a gnat's ass is pretty big territory.
>
> >> We have coome a long way!!
>
> >Not far at all really.
>
> How 'far' is 'far' when it comes to a dance?
>
> >> No wonder there is great interest in the subject. Makes a damn sight
> >> more sense than all the religiosity dogmas.
>
> But 'we' need 'our' stories, sense or not.
>
> >> BOfL
>
> >Disaster movies have always been of interest. Something to do with our
> >own mortality i imagine.
>
> >Shakespeare wrote some good plays about this.
>
> Haven't 'we' all? They remain unpublished and private,
> but there they (plays, stories) are.
Indeed. Some are "better" than others in providing at the very least
empathy and at the most discovery.
Smiler
Whether you're religious or an atheist, "God" isn't a person.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
turtoni
>
> Whether you're religious or an atheist, "God" isn't a person.
Anything "God" to *us* would have to register on the radar for us to
put it in a "box" aka the word "God".
So i guess we could say any could that any "God" would have to be in
our "parties" so to speak otherwise it would be meaningless and
therefore not a reference to the word "God". But we could also say
that the word "God" refers to something completely alien and unknown
and therefore really irrelevant.
turtoni
> put it in a "box" aka the word "God".
>
> our "parties" so to speak otherwise it would be meaningless and
> therefore not a reference to the word "God". But we could also say
> that the word "God" refers to something completely alien and unknown
> and therefore really irrelevant.
typo fixed
turtoni
be relevant but that the essence of any god would be alien and unknowable
and therefore irrelevant (with it being unknowable)
turtoni
>
> Not if 'we' project and personify 'them'.
Which we have to do with the word "God". That in it's self is a
personification.
Yap
> bigflet...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 1:21 pm, Ed <edga...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 16, 11:11 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> ...then what good time to re visit.
>
> >>> We have now got to the point were we can blow the world up, poison
> >>> it with radioactivity, pollute beyond recovery, re engineer our own
> >>> dna, smash particles at huge international expence (while children
> >>> are still dying of starvation), and frighten the hell out of our
> >>> children with movies like 2012.
>
> >>> We have coome a long way!!
>
> >>> No wonder there is great interest in the subject. Makes a damn sight
> >>> more sense than all the religiosity dogmas.
>
> >>> BOfL
>
> >> An alien is someone who is not from here. If "here" is a country than
> >> people from other countries are aliens. If "here" is a planet then
> >> aliens are those who were not born on this planet. By this logic God
> >> is clearly an alien whether She's from Alpha Centauri or is a
> >> timeless entity that created the universe; either way an alien.
>
> > 'Here' has very different meanings whether you are referring to a
> > place or a person.
>
> Whether you're religious or an atheist, "God" isn't a person.
There is no concept or definition of a god.
But your above statement seems to imply there is some kind of a god.
Yap
Whether or not alien, you have assumed there is something called god.
There is no such thing, none whatsoever.
Aliens can be green little man, having no capabilities beyond human
ability?
Or they can be more technological superior, but possess no
supernatural ability?
Yap
I disagree with your first part.
Whether or not anything is in the image of a man does not make it
relevant.
The relevancy can only be true if the god has capabilities to benefit
people.
It is just like another human being a number of the population, has no
relevancy to you, unless he is your relative or family member, or a
person in authority?
Giga
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f961a9a8-b355-4d75...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
=I like that analogy! Though not sure if it is accurate, but nicely puts
that particular theory.
turtoni
> Not correct.
> There is no concept or definition of a god.
Using the word is a concept or definition you fucking moron.
turtoni
It's irrelevant because it's UNKNOWABLE. Any God whatever thing has to
be in the image of man otherwise it's irrelevant because we'd know
nothing about it since it would be unfathomable.
turtoni
> On Nov 18, 1:28 pm, turtoni <turt...@fastmail.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 12:18 am, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>
> > > Whether you're religious or an atheist, "God" isn't a person.
>
> > Anything "God" to *us* would have to register on the radar for us to
> > put it in a "box" aka the word "God".
>
> > So i guess we could say any could that any "God" would have to be in
> > our "parties" so to speak otherwise it would be meaningless and
> > therefore not a reference to the word "God". But we could also say
> > that the word "God" refers to something completely alien and unknown
> > and therefore really irrelevant.
>
> Whether or not alien, you have assumed there is something called god.
Yes, there's a fucking word called "god" a concept if you like.
> There is no such thing, none whatsoever.
What, the word god does not exist? There is no such concept? Bullshit.
> Aliens can be green little man, having no capabilities beyond human
> ability?
True. But i'm using it in another sense. "unlike one's own; strange;
not belonging to one"
> Or they can be more technological superior, but possess no supernatural ability?
The god concept is that the thing is alien. "unlike one's own" aka NOT
HUMAN. ALIEN.
Smiler
Neither of which define "God" as a person, which was my point.
Richo
> bigflet...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 1:21 pm, Ed <edga...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 16, 11:11 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> ...then what good time to re visit.
>
> >>> We have now got to the point were we can blow the world up, poison
> >>> it with radioactivity, pollute beyond recovery, re engineer our own
> >>> dna, smash particles at huge international expence (while children
> >>> are still dying of starvation), and frighten the hell out of our
> >>> children with movies like 2012.
>
> >>> We have coome a long way!!
>
> >>> No wonder there is great interest in the subject. Makes a damn sight
> >>> more sense than all the religiosity dogmas.
>
> >>> BOfL
>
> >> An alien is someone who is not from here. If "here" is a country than
> >> people from other countries are aliens. If "here" is a planet then
> >> aliens are those who were not born on this planet. By this logic God
> >> is clearly an alien whether She's from Alpha Centauri or is a
> >> timeless entity that created the universe; either way an alien.
>
> > 'Here' has very different meanings whether you are referring to a
> > place or a person.
>
> Whether you're religious or an atheist, "God" isn't a person.
>
I have to disagree with you here.
God certainly isnt a human.
In Christianity God is actually 3 persons - In Judaism and Islam he is
1 person.
If God isnt a person then it isnt God as far as I (and most humans
that have ever lived on Earth) are concerned - for example if God is
an impersonal natural force - like gravity or some such - then it isnt
a god in the sense that I mean when I say I am an atheist.
Any God that isnt a person is automatically "not a god" as far as I am
concerned and I cant be bothered disbelieving in it.
I am an atheist in the sense that I dont believe in a god - and I mean
by god a being that has a mind and a will - like a person has a mind
and a will.
The God of Deism - the God of Spinoza - The God of Einstein - isnt a
person and therefore isnt a god in the sense I mean when I say "I dont
have a god" "I dont believe in a god" "I dont worship a god".
Mark.
Smiler
Not persons, but beings.
>
> If God isnt a person then it isnt God as far as I (and most humans
> that have ever lived on Earth) are concerned - for example if God is
> an impersonal natural force - like gravity or some such - then it isnt
> a god in the sense that I mean when I say I am an atheist.
>
> Any God that isnt a person is automatically "not a god" as far as I am
> concerned and I cant be bothered disbelieving in it.
So, to you, a supposed god that's a being, and not a person, isn't a
supposed god no matter how many people suppose it to be a god?
>
> I am an atheist in the sense that I dont believe in a god - and I mean
> by god a being that has a mind and a will - like a person has a mind
> and a will.
> The God of Deism - the God of Spinoza - The God of Einstein - isnt a
> person and therefore isnt a god in the sense I mean when I say "I dont
> have a god" "I dont believe in a god" "I dont worship a god".
I don't believe in ANY god(s).
Richo
All persons are beings - but not all beings are persona.
>
>
> > If God isnt a person then it isnt God as far as I (and most humans
> > that have ever lived on Earth) are concerned - for example if God is
> > an impersonal natural force - like gravity or some such - then it isnt
> > a god in the sense that I mean when I say I am an atheist.
>
> > Any God that isnt a person is automatically "not a god" as far as I am
> > concerned and I cant be bothered disbelieving in it.
>
> So, to you, a supposed god that's a being, and not a person, isn't a
> supposed god no matter how many people suppose it to be a god?
>
Yeah - pretty much.
Mind you the actual number of such people is *very* small compared to
the
billions of humans that believe in personal gods - Christians,
Muslims, Hhindus etc.
We can treat the rare exceptions as statistical anomolies and
curiosities - or just ignore them.
>
>
> > I am an atheist in the sense that I dont believe in a god - and I mean
> > by god a being that has a mind and a will - like a person has a mind
> > and a will.
> > The God of Deism - the God of Spinoza - The God of Einstein - isnt a
> > person and therefore isnt a god in the sense I mean when I say "I dont
> > have a god" "I dont believe in a god" "I dont worship a god".
>
> I don't believe in ANY god(s).
>
So if someone says "existence is God" or "the Universe is God"
You dont believe in existence? You dont believe in the Universe?
It seems to me you have to draw the line somewhere or you find
yourself disbelieving in everything just to be able to say "I don't
believe in ANY god(s)."
Cheers, Mark.
Great Dayne
> I have to disagree with you here.
> God certainly isnt a human.
Sure looks like one:
Day Brown
> In Christianity God is actually 3 persons - In Judaism and Islam he is
> 1 person.
>
> If God isnt a person then it isnt God as far as I (and most humans
> that have ever lived on Earth) are concerned - for example if God is
> an impersonal natural force - like gravity or some such - then it isnt
> a god in the sense that I mean when I say I am an atheist.
>
> Any God that isnt a person is automatically "not a god" as far as I am
> concerned and I cant be bothered disbelieving in it.
>
> I am an atheist in the sense that I dont believe in a god - and I mean
> by god a being that has a mind and a will - like a person has a mind
> and a will.
> The God of Deism - the God of Spinoza - The God of Einstein - isnt a
> person and therefore isnt a god in the sense I mean when I say "I dont
> have a god" "I dont believe in a god" "I dont worship a god".
if you get Chaos theory, you can see that eventually what we now call a
'self replicating' form would evolve. Gaia. But because of Chaos, that
replication has errors, ie, She thus EVOLVES. And when She reached the
point of sentience, differentiated Herself from the physical world,
'Maya'. Hence the original Trinity: Chaos, Gaia, & Maya. Often depicted
as three goddesses dancing. Dance still is a mix of order and spontaneity.
While there have always been sophisticated minds thinking about this,
Gaia was seen as the Great Earth Mother, ie a personality. But unlike
the Levantine alpha male tyrant concept, She gave birth to life that it
mite go out to fulfill its own destiny rather than some 'divine plan'.
I dont see anything in it that conflicts with Chaos theory, Quantum
mechanics, evolution, or any other science. Hence, the usual efforts by
self proclaimed 'atheists' to debunk belief dont work. Nobody had the
authority to define Gaia, and there is no scripture doing so either.
Without a clear definition of the term, atheistic arguments cant
delineate what it is people should not believe either.
If some gullible or naive want to believe in a great mother who loves
them, I dont have a problem with it. Unlike the Levantine alpha male
tyrant concept, its not useful to demagogues trying to start witch
hunts, purges, or wars. Atheism did not prevent that kind of thing in
Communist systems and did not because it did not consider the effect of
the gullibility of the masses who will make a god of a man if you do not
provide some other model. By their fruits yea shall know them.
Now, if you want to start a eugenics program to breed out the gullible
to prevent this and evolve into the kind of rational society we'd all
like to see, why you have my support. But til then, Gaia would help.
Richo
good point.
Some gods are human - Jesus, Krishna, Heracles
However before jesus was human - he was God - So God was human for 30
years but not human for an eternity - so its a very minor quibble.
"God isnt usually human"
Mark.
Richo
> Richo wrote:
> > In Christianity God is actually 3 persons - In Judaism and Islam he is
> > 1 person.
>
> > If God isnt a person then it isnt God as far as I (and most humans
> > that have ever lived on Earth) are concerned - for example if God is
> > an impersonal natural force - like gravity or some such - then it isnt
> > a god in the sense that I mean when I say I am an atheist.
>
> > Any God that isnt a person is automatically "not a god" as far as I am
> > concerned and I cant be bothered disbelieving in it.
>
> > I am an atheist in the sense that I dont believe in a god - and I mean
> > by god a being that has a mind and a will - like a person has a mind
> > and a will.
> > The God of Deism - the God of Spinoza - The God of Einstein - isnt a
> > person and therefore isnt a god in the sense I mean when I say "I dont
> > have a god" "I dont believe in a god" "I dont worship a god".
>
> In the original Aryan creation cosmology, Chaos, not god, was first. But
> if you get Chaos theory, you can see that eventually what we now call a
> 'self replicating' form would evolve. Gaia. But because of Chaos, that
> replication has errors, ie, She thus EVOLVES. And when She reached the
> point of sentience, differentiated Herself from the physical world,
> 'Maya'. Hence the original Trinity: Chaos, Gaia, & Maya. Often depicted
> as three goddesses dancing. Dance still is a mix of order and spontaneity.
>
of reality" into persons?
If you are then you are just doing what superstitious humans have
always done - make Thunder and Lightning into an angry man in the sky.
Thats isnt wisdom - its a mode of misunderstanding.
If its all metaphor - then yeah maybe it is useful - maybe it helps us
understand.
Maybe.
> While there have always been sophisticated minds thinking about this,
> Gaia was seen as the Great Earth Mother, ie a personality. But unlike
> the Levantine alpha male tyrant concept, She gave birth to life that it
> mite go out to fulfill its own destiny rather than some 'divine plan'.
>
Some conceptions of Deity are less toxic than others - good people
tend to believe in Good gods.
Psychotic and sociopathic people believe in some pretty nasty deities.
Still - they tend to be "persons" - broadly defined - is my point.
> I dont see anything in it that conflicts with Chaos theory, Quantum
> mechanics, evolution, or any other science. Hence, the usual efforts by
> self proclaimed 'atheists' to debunk belief dont work. Nobody had the
> authority to define Gaia, and there is no scripture doing so either.
> Without a clear definition of the term, atheistic arguments cant
> delineate what it is people should not believe either.
>
I believe in reality - I dont turn reality - or aspects of reality
into characters - magical persons.
Thats my atheistic "argument".
Its not really an argument - its me saying "this is how i think, and
how I think I should think."
My attitude is that I want to see reality as clearly and truthfully as
I can and "project" as little of my own creation onto it as possible.
It ultimately comes down to "are you interested in truth?".
> If some gullible or naive want to believe in a great mother who loves
> them, I dont have a problem with it. Unlike the Levantine alpha male
> tyrant concept, its not useful to demagogues trying to start witch
> hunts, purges, or wars. Atheism did not prevent that kind of thing in
> Communist systems and did not because it did not consider the effect of
> the gullibility of the masses who will make a god of a man if you do not
> provide some other model. By their fruits yea shall know them.
>
I dont disagree with anything you say .
> Now, if you want to start a eugenics program to breed out the gullible
> to prevent this and evolve into the kind of rational society we'd all
> like to see, why you have my support. But til then, Gaia would help.
Gaia or belief in Gaia?
Mark.
Day Brown
> Very poetic - but in this discussion - are you making these "aspects
> of reality" into persons?
were ascribed to the Greek pantheon. But behind the pantheon, sensed in
some primordial past, the idea was that Gaia and the Great Earth, were
somehow alive.
The Vedas make it more clear with the notion that it is all a projection
in 3 dimensions. As Bengalese Saint Ramprasad said, "a projected matrix"
that we would understand as a real time holograph rendered in esquisite
detail right down to the position of atoms, none of which can be closer
to each other than 10X-35 meter. Which is a 'pixel' of space.
So in that sense, everything we see whether animate or not, is being
constantly projected. And again, as Ramprasad went on, "out of the mind
of Kali" (his name for the great goddess). But Ramprasad does not fear
Gaia, but grateful for gifts. He dont attempt to say why, does not say
She has an agenda, which we assume a 'person' does.
> If you are then you are just doing what superstitious humans have
> always done - make Thunder and Lightning into an angry man in the sky.
> Thats isnt wisdom - its a mode of misunderstanding.
I cant be as clear as I like, especially trying to be brief.
> If its all metaphor - then yeah maybe it is useful - maybe it helps us
> understand.
> Maybe.
> Psychotic and sociopathic people believe in some pretty nasty deities.
> Still - they tend to be "persons" - broadly defined - is my point.
Agreed some religions are designed to pander to psychosis. Atheism
presents arguments as if the hearer were sane, at the same time the
atheists claim they are deluded. Only a fool argues with fools.
> I believe in reality - I dont turn reality - or aspects of reality
> into characters - magical persons.
Neither did I.
> Thats my atheistic "argument".
> Its not really an argument - its me saying "this is how i think, and
> how I think I should think."
At the start of "The Golden Sayings of Epictetus" he notes how artists
practice simple things for the eye, the musician simple tunes for the
ear, and weight lifters start out light, so he wonders if we'd do better
to put the weighty issues aside while we practice trying to think more
clearly. That is, tolerate the ambiguity of not claiming to know. Which
is hard, because as Dr. Freud noted, neurotics cant tolerate ambiguity.
> My attitude is that I want to see reality as clearly and truthfully as
> I can and "project" as little of my own creation onto it as possible.
> It ultimately comes down to "are you interested in truth?".
If so, then you mite consider how to strengthen the mind.
>> Now, if you want to start a eugenics program to breed out the gullible
>> to prevent this and evolve into the kind of rational society we'd all
>> like to see, why you have my support. But til then, Gaia would help.
>
> Gaia or belief in Gaia?
Depends. Said the Brahmin to the Bishop:"I dont pray to a stone idol
anymore than you pray to a wooden cross." Some will have naive concepts,
like a loving Great Earth Mother. Which sounds fluff bunny to me, but a
lotta people are too emotional. Which is largely driven by their genetic
endowment- the hormone levels. So, I wont rag on their case anymore than
I would try to convince a little kid Santa was a myth.
Money donated to Gaia rather than the Virgin Mary wont end up in the
coffers of the Vatican. If the good people supported the Goddess rather
than sweet Jesus, then Jim Jones, David Koresh, and most recently, Tony
Alamo, would not have been fucking teen age girls. Never mind the Altar
boys. Atheism has never made a dent in that.
There is one other thing seen in the Vedas: Soma. Which ethnobotanist RG
Wasson discovered was still being used by Ugarit shamen, and made from
Amanita Muscaria. Soma reliably produces an altered state of
consciousness. An experiment with the mind that commonly revealed some
aspect of the Matrix.
Initiates also often come to understand what the Vedas meant when they
tell Arjuna that some of what he sees are divinely created and animated
forms which only exist as a challenge to the fulfillment of his Kharma.
I dont recall the Vedas saying why he needs to fulfill it. But in any
case, there's no need for these forms to have a soul, and I dont claim
to have one either.
Thing is, they are, like Turing machines, programmed to think as they
do, act as they act, and while you may learn from one, you cant teach
one anything. The Vedas call them "Avatars". I dunno why an Avatar could
not be programmed to seek truth. I dunno that all the Bohdisattvahs
claimed to have a soul either, only that they all had words for those
who did. It does not matter to me whether you have a soul or not. I only
claim not to know whether souls exist or not, and dont claim that they
can not exist.
Once more, Ramprasad says there are a myriad worlds, so there's no
reason some cant exist that do not have souls. But for what possible
reason? Or, for that matter, why should some with souls exist? Back to
the original Ayran creation myth. Its all an accident. If you could ask
Gaia, I expect She'd say "oops!"
turtoni
(*differing in nature and/or character)
Now go away and play with the word "alien" as given to you by the
movie ET.
Great Dayne
> On Nov 20, 9:24 am, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 6:52 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have to disagree with you here.
> > > God certainly isnt a human.
>
> > Sure looks like one:
>
> >http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page
>
> good point.
> Some gods are human -
>
> years but not human for an eternity - so its a very minor quibble.
>
> "God isnt usually human"
You misunderstand entirely, son.
We are all children of deity.
Jesus taught us this when gave us instruction on prayer:
'our father who art in heaven ...'
Smiler
Nope. Beings, in the religious sense, are supposedly living things.
> All persons are beings - but not all beings are persona.
>
Not all coffee cups are regarded as gods, either :-)
>>
>>
>>> If God isnt a person then it isnt God as far as I (and most humans
>>> that have ever lived on Earth) are concerned - for example if God is
>>> an impersonal natural force - like gravity or some such - then it
>>> isnt a god in the sense that I mean when I say I am an atheist.
>>
>>> Any God that isnt a person is automatically "not a god" as far as I
>>> am concerned and I cant be bothered disbelieving in it.
>>
>> So, to you, a supposed god that's a being, and not a person, isn't a
>> supposed god no matter how many people suppose it to be a god?
>>
> Yeah - pretty much.
> Mind you the actual number of such people is *very* small compared to
> the
> billions of humans that believe in personal gods - Christians,
> Muslims, Hhindus etc.
> We can treat the rare exceptions as statistical anomolies and
> curiosities - or just ignore them.
>
Yet Deists call their supposed, absent deity God.
>>
>>
>>> I am an atheist in the sense that I dont believe in a god - and I
>>> mean by god a being that has a mind and a will - like a person has
>>> a mind and a will.
>>> The God of Deism - the God of Spinoza - The God of Einstein - isnt a
>>> person and therefore isnt a god in the sense I mean when I say "I
>>> dont have a god" "I dont believe in a god" "I dont worship a god".
>>
>> I don't believe in ANY god(s).
>>
>
> So if someone says "existence is God" or "the Universe is God"
> You dont believe in existence? You dont believe in the Universe?
>
Does not believing in the Tooth Fairy mean I don't believe teeth exist?
Or does not believing in Vampires mean I don't believe there's blood flowing
around my body?
> It seems to me you have to draw the line somewhere or you find
> yourself disbelieving in everything just to be able to say "I don't
> believe in ANY god(s)."
>
Exactly the same as "I don't believe in ANY fairies".
Where do *you* draw the line with them?
Great Dayne
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvgen1.htm
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God
created he him
http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvgen5.htm
5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in
his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth
Smiler
We should believe quotes from you book of myths, fables, fairy tales,
contradictions and downright lies, why?
BOfL
Because you have to start somewhere.We created Father Christmas so as
people grew, they could discover the Spirit Of Christmas within.
A Christmas Carol is a good example, dont you think?
BOfL
turtoni
> people grew, they could discover the Spirit Of Christmas within.
>
> A Christmas Carol is a good example, dont you think?
>
> BOfL
A "higher" consciousness is another good example.
Don't you think? (Rhetorical)
Yer fucking hypocritical bankrupt conman.
Virgil
bigfl...@gmail.com
> If god were an alien, what created it?
What makes you think it had to be created? Thats is just a useful word
meaning opposite of destroyed.
A construct of the relative mind.
BofL
Richo
> On Nov 19, 5:20 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 9:24 am, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 18, 6:52 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have to disagree with you here.
> > > > God certainly isnt a human.
>
> > > Sure looks like one:
>
> > >http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page
>
> > good point.
> > Some gods are human -
>
> > However before jesus was human - he was God - So God was human for 30
> > years but not human for an eternity - so its a very minor quibble.
>
> > "God isnt usually human"
>
> You misunderstand entirely, son.
You are not my father.
> We are all children of deity.
I'm not.
> Jesus taught us this when gave us instruction on prayer:
> 'our father who art in heaven ...'
Thor drove a chariot pulled by two Billy goats - who cares its just a
story.
Mark.
bigfl...@gmail.com
Dont worry about it. If you understood the subtleties of karma you
would know it will all be taken care of. As it is, it is clear how you
will find out first hand, even though you stay hidden in the bushes.
Do you have problems with road rage also?
People dont know the other drivers, but it doesnt stop them spewing
out similar nastiness.Get it? It comes from inside.
BOfL
Richo
personalities.
> > All persons are beings - but not all beings are persona.
>
> Not all coffee cups are regarded as gods, either :-)
>
Sure.
Gods are beings that have a mind a personality.
That's the point.
>
> >>> If God isnt a person then it isnt God as far as I (and most humans
> >>> that have ever lived on Earth) are concerned - for example if God is
> >>> an impersonal natural force - like gravity or some such - then it
> >>> isnt a god in the sense that I mean when I say I am an atheist.
>
> >>> Any God that isnt a person is automatically "not a god" as far as I
> >>> am concerned and I cant be bothered disbelieving in it.
>
> >> So, to you, a supposed god that's a being, and not a person, isn't a
> >> supposed god no matter how many people suppose it to be a god?
>
> > Yeah - pretty much.
> > Mind you the actual number of such people is *very* small compared to
> > the
> > billions of humans that believe in personal gods - Christians,
> > Muslims, Hhindus etc.
> > We can treat the rare exceptions as statistical anomolies and
> > curiosities - or just ignore them.
>
> Yet Deists call their supposed, absent deity God.
>
Yes - they are the exception that throw the rule into stark relief.
What is the difference between an absent Deistic God and a quantum
vacuum fluctuation?
None at all - as far as we will ever know.
>
> >>> I am an atheist in the sense that I dont believe in a god - and I
> >>> mean by god a being that has a mind and a will - like a person has
> >>> a mind and a will.
> >>> The God of Deism - the God of Spinoza - The God of Einstein - isnt a
> >>> person and therefore isnt a god in the sense I mean when I say "I
> >>> dont have a god" "I dont believe in a god" "I dont worship a god".
>
> >> I don't believe in ANY god(s).
>
> > So if someone says "existence is God" or "the Universe is God"
> > You dont believe in existence? You dont believe in the Universe?
>
> Does not believing in the Tooth Fairy mean I don't believe teeth exist?
> Or does not believing in Vampires mean I don't believe there's blood flowing
> around my body?
>
No, and these are very poor analogies.
The tooth isn't the tooth fairy.
The vampire isn't the blood.
So I don't see any connection.
> > It seems to me you have to draw the line somewhere or you find
> > yourself disbelieving in everything just to be able to say "I don't
> > believe in ANY god(s)."
>
> Exactly the same as "I don't believe in ANY fairies".
> Where do *you* draw the line with them?
>
Fairies are mythical spirit beings that are supposed to be closely
connected with the earth and particular wild places.
I don't believe they exist.
I don't see the point of the question though.
Mark.
Virgil
<30c28955-8717-4175...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
"bigfl...@gmail.com" <bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2:50�pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > �If god were an alien, what created it?
>
> What makes you think it had to be created? Thats is just a useful word
> meaning opposite of destroyed.
If it was neither born or otherwise created AFTER the universe began
then it must have been in existence from the beginning of the universe
and would be quite godlike.
Smiler
But they are not persons.
>>
>>>>> If God isnt a person then it isnt God as far as I (and most humans
>>>>> that have ever lived on Earth) are concerned - for example if God
>>>>> is an impersonal natural force - like gravity or some such - then
>>>>> it isnt a god in the sense that I mean when I say I am an atheist.
>>
>>>>> Any God that isnt a person is automatically "not a god" as far as
>>>>> I am concerned and I cant be bothered disbelieving in it.
>>
>>>> So, to you, a supposed god that's a being, and not a person, isn't
>>>> a supposed god no matter how many people suppose it to be a god?
>>
>>> Yeah - pretty much.
>>> Mind you the actual number of such people is *very* small compared
>>> to the
>>> billions of humans that believe in personal gods - Christians,
>>> Muslims, Hhindus etc.
>>> We can treat the rare exceptions as statistical anomolies and
>>> curiosities - or just ignore them.
>>
>> Yet Deists call their supposed, absent deity God.
>>
> Yes - they are the exception that throw the rule into stark relief.
Ah. The "the exception proves the rule" fallacy.
> What is the difference between an absent Deistic God and a quantum
> vacuum fluctuation?
> None at all - as far as we will ever know.
>
What is the difference between any god and a quantum vacuum fluctuation?
None at all - as far as we will ever know.
>>
>>>>> I am an atheist in the sense that I dont believe in a god - and I
>>>>> mean by god a being that has a mind and a will - like a person has
>>>>> a mind and a will.
>>>>> The God of Deism - the God of Spinoza - The God of Einstein -
>>>>> isnt a person and therefore isnt a god in the sense I mean when I
>>>>> say "I dont have a god" "I dont believe in a god" "I dont worship
>>>>> a god".
>>
>>>> I don't believe in ANY god(s).
>>
>>> So if someone says "existence is God" or "the Universe is God"
>>> You dont believe in existence? You dont believe in the Universe?
>>
>> Does not believing in the Tooth Fairy mean I don't believe teeth
>> exist?
>> Or does not believing in Vampires mean I don't believe there's blood
>> flowing around my body?
>>
> No, and these are very poor analogies.
>
> The tooth isn't the tooth fairy.
And existence isn't god.
> The vampire isn't the blood.
>
And the universe isn't god.
> So I don't see any connection.
>
>>> It seems to me you have to draw the line somewhere or you find
>>> yourself disbelieving in everything just to be able to say "I don't
>>> believe in ANY god(s)."
>>
>> Exactly the same as "I don't believe in ANY fairies".
>> Where do *you* draw the line with them?
>>
> Fairies are mythical spirit beings
As are gods.
> that are supposed to be closely
> connected with the earth and particular wild places.
> I don't believe they exist.
It seems to me you have to draw the line somewhere or you find yourself
disbelieving in everything just to be able to say "I don't believe in ANY
fairies."
>
> I don't see the point of the question though.
>
Maybe now you do?
turtoni
> Whether or not alien, you have assumed there is something called god.
There is no such thing as Yap. None whatsoever.
And since you have an adversion to debating about concepts: STFU
Smiler
>> Yap wrote:
>> Whether or not alien, you have assumed there is something called god.
>> There is no such thing, none whatsoever.
>
> There is no such thing as Yap. None whatsoever.
>
Are you in the habit of communicating with non-existent beings?
Sorry! I forgot that, indeed, you are. You pray to your supposed god, don't
you?
turtoni
> turtoni wrote:
> >> Yap wrote:
> >> Whether or not alien, you have assumed there is something called god.
> >> There is no such thing, none whatsoever.
>
> > There is no such thing as Yap. None whatsoever.
>
> Are you in the habit of communicating with non-existent beings?
How can it be a being if it's non-existent?
> Sorry! I forgot that, indeed, you are.
Discussing the concepts, theories, hypothetical situations and even
philosophical reasoning around the word "god" has nothing to do with
how you might possibly have been molested at Sunday school and
brutally scarred for life.
> You pray to your supposed god, don't you?
I might at times; wished things were different if thats what you mean?
turtoni
>>> Whether or not alien, you have assumed there is something called god.
>>> There is no such thing, none whatsoever.
>>
>> There is no such thing as Yap. None whatsoever.
>
> Are you in the habit of communicating with non-existent beings?
Prove to me that this "Yap" being you believe in; actually exists.
Smiler
If he doesn't exist, why do you reply to 'his' posts?
Why would you do that if you believe he doesn't exist?
We can both see the objective evidence that someone calling themself "Yap"
exists...his posts.
I have never seen any objective evidence that any god, of any description,
exists.
If you have this objective evidence (not beliefs, opinions or any part of
any 'holy' book, as they are not objective), please show it to us.
You'd be the first ever and would likely win a Nobel prize.
Bet you can't, though!
Smiler
> On Nov 25, 9:03 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>> turtoni wrote:
>>>> Yap wrote:
>>>> Whether or not alien, you have assumed there is something called
>>>> god. There is no such thing, none whatsoever.
>>
>>> There is no such thing as Yap. None whatsoever.
>>
>> Are you in the habit of communicating with non-existent beings?
>
> How can it be a being if it's non-existent?
Good point. I must remember to put the word 'beings' in quotes.
>
>> Sorry! I forgot that, indeed, you are.
>
> Discussing the concepts, theories, hypothetical situations and even
> philosophical reasoning around the word "god" has nothing to do with
> how you might possibly have been molested at Sunday school and
> brutally scarred for life.
That may have been your experience but your delusions about me are not
correct.
I never went to Sunday school. I never was a Christian. I never have
believed in any god of any description. I was never indoctrinated into any
religion.
>
>> You pray to your supposed god, don't you?
>
> I might at times; wished things were different if thats what you mean?
So you admit that there is no objective evidence for any god but 'wish'
there is a god.
Hardly evidence of your supposed god's existence!
turtoni
> turtoni wrote:
> >>>> Yap:
> >>>> Whether or not alien, you have assumed there is something called
> >>>> god. There is no such thing, none whatsoever.
>
> >>> turtoni:
> >>> There is no such thing as Yap. None whatsoever.
>
> >> Smiler:
> >> Are you in the habit of communicating with non-existent beings?
>
> > Prove to me that this "Yap" being you believe in; actually exists.
>
> If he doesn't exist, why do you reply to 'his' posts?
> Why would you do that if you believe he doesn't exist?
>
> We can both see the objective evidence that someone calling themself "Yap"
> exists...his posts.
> I have never seen any objective evidence that any god, of any description,
> exists.
> If you have this objective evidence (not beliefs, opinions or any part of
> any 'holy' book, as they are not objective), please show it to us.
> You'd be the first ever and would likely win a Nobel prize.
> Bet you can't, though!
I could tape a piece of paper to a lump of meat and write "God Yap" on
it if you like?
turtoni
> I never went to Sunday school. I never was a Christian. I never have
> believed in any god of any description. I was never indoctrinated into any
> religion.
Indeed. You don't know anything about what you're talking about.
> >> You pray to your supposed god, don't you?
>
> > I might at times; wished things were different if thats what you mean?
>
> So you admit that there is no objective evidence for any god but 'wish'
> there is a god.
People believe what they want to believe; including you.
> Hardly evidence of your supposed god's existence!
Next you'll be saying words don't exist!
Smiler
> On Nov 26, 8:13 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>> I never went to Sunday school. I never was a Christian. I never have
>> believed in any god of any description. I was never indoctrinated
>> into any religion.
>
> Indeed. You don't know anything about what you're talking about.
I'm talking about atheism and I know a whole lot more about that than you
do.
>
>>>> You pray to your supposed god, don't you?
>>
>>> I might at times; wished things were different if thats what you
>>> mean?
>>
>> So you admit that there is no objective evidence for any god but
>> 'wish' there is a god.
>
> People believe what they want to believe; including you.
I do not believe in any god(s). Please explain what I *believe* about
god(s)?
>
>> Hardly evidence of your supposed god's existence!
>
> Next you'll be saying words don't exist!
Words exist but, sometimes, what they are naming doesn't exist.
Leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, fairies, yetis and orks are all valid words
but none of the things they name exist.
Exactly the same with god(s), heaven, hell, souls, demons and angels, unless
you can show some objective evidence that any of these exist.
Your beliefs, opinions and supposed 'holy' books are not objective evidence.
Good luck with that! If you do manage it, you'd be in line for a Nobel
prize, as nobody has done it in all of recorded history.
Smiler
And that would show that Yap was a god, how exactly?
Hey, some South Seas islanders worship Prince Phillip as a god.
He exists and is married to Queen Elizabeth II of England.
Is that evidence that he's a god?
If so, why don't you worship him instead of your non-existent gods?
turtoni
> I'm talking about atheism and I know a whole
> lot more about that than you do.
You know a whole lot less about a whole lot more than i every wont.
turtoni
> I was never indoctrinated into any religion.
Next you'll be saying numbers don't exist!
turtoni
> Hey, some South Seas islanders worship Prince Phillip as a god.
> He exists and is married to Queen Elizabeth II of England.
> Is that evidence that he's a god?
Maybe you're onto something here Smiler: meatspace Gods
"I'll be back"
LATE.
turtoni
>> I'm talking about atheism and I know a whole
>> lot more about that than you do.
>
*Fixed
Smiler
Why would I do that?
turtoni
>
> Why would I do that?
The funniest irony is that your miserable snotty nosed runt of an
existence is all an illusion; there is no *you*.
YOU don't exist. Unless you want to call all those constructed stories
you've accepted as some type of god given "truth". They're not. The is
no "Smiler" or whatever else you happen to think what that thing
bolted onto you flapping meat is called. There is no you. You worship
at the biggest lie of them all!
HTHelps.
turtoni
Er, by reading the word "God and Yap" together?
> Hey, some South Seas islanders worship Prince Phillip as a god.
> He exists and is married to Queen Elizabeth II of England.
> Is that evidence that he's a god?
> If so, why don't you worship him instead of your non-existent gods?
Just cut out the middle man and worship your "self".
During "your" stories you may come across other stories that you build
into those stories and more stories are therefore "born". Of course we
need to hurry onto the points about the current story, hmmm, well,
there would seem to be at least two worlds: one of matter/objectivity
and the other of consciousness/subjectivity.
LATE.
Smiler
>>> Next you'll be saying numbers don't exist!
>>
>> Smiler:
>> Why would I do that?
>
> The funniest irony is that your miserable snotty nosed runt of an
> existence is all an illusion; there is no *you*.
>
If that's what you want to believe, go ahead. But why are you responding to
a non-existent person?
> YOU don't exist.
Boo!
> Unless you want to call all those constructed stories
> you've accepted as some type of god given "truth".
Nope No gods of any kind have ever been shown to exist.
It's you who accepts stories from your supposedly 'holy' book of myths,
fables, fairy stories, contradictions and downright lies as the "truth", not
me.
> They're not.
Glad you agree.
> The is
> no "Smiler" or whatever else you happen to think what that thing
> bolted onto you flapping meat is called. There is no you.
If that's what you want to believe, go ahead. But why are you responding to
a non-existent person?
> You worship
> at the biggest lie of them all!
>
Nope. I worship NO GODS!
> HTHelps.
Yep. It helps define your mental state as 'insane'. Thanks for that.
Smiler
So 'reading is believing' in your world, is it?
>> Hey, some South Seas islanders worship Prince Phillip as a god.
>> He exists and is married to Queen Elizabeth II of England.
>> Is that evidence that he's a god?
>> If so, why don't you worship him instead of your non-existent gods?
>
> Just cut out the middle man and worship your "self".
At least I exist, but I don't 'worship' anyone or anything as a god.
>
> During "your" stories you may come across other stories that you build
> into those stories and more stories are therefore "born". Of course we
> need to hurry onto the points about the current story, hmmm, well,
> there would seem to be at least two worlds: one of matter/objectivity
> and the other of consciousness/subjectivity.
>
Nope. I don't believe in the stories in your supposedly 'holy' book of
myths, fables, fairy stories, contradictions and downright lies.
Please explain what stories you suppose I believe in.
> LATE.
As in the late turtoni? Unfortunately, only what remains of your deluded
brain is dead.
Immortalist
> On Nov 18, 2:22 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 1:36 pm, "turtoni" <turt...@fastmail.net> wrote:
>
> > > So i guess i'm saying that any god has to be in the image of man for it to
> > > be relevant but that the essence of any god would be alien and unknowable
> > > and therefore irrelevant (with it being unknowable)
>
> > I disagree with your first part.
> > Whether or not anything is in the image of a man does not make it
> > relevant.
> > The relevancy can only be true if the god has capabilities to benefit
> > people.
> > It is just like another human being a number of the population, has no
> > relevancy to you, unless he is your relative or family member, or a
> > person in authority?
>
> It's irrelevant because it's UNKNOWABLE. Any God whatever thing has to
> be in the image of man otherwise it's irrelevant because we'd know
> nothing about it since it would be unfathomable.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) is a fictional
female deity in the form of a unicorn. The goddess was invented at
the usenet discussion group alt.atheism as an alternative to other
parody deities like Church of the SubGenius "J.R. Bob Dobbs" or Eris
of the Discordianism. Quoting from the alt.atheism FAQ:
Like most Goddesses, she's invisible and highly unlikely to exist.
However, there is much argument as to her exact colour, her shape and
size, and other properties of her nonexistence. She burns with anger
against theists, and allegedly grinds them beneath her holy hooves.
The "believers" famous sayings about faith in the invisible pink
unicorn is that, like other religions, it is founded in science and
faith. Science - that states that she must be invisible, since we
cannot see her. Faith - because we know in our heart that the
invisible pink unicorn exists. This is of course a parody of the
theological reasoning of other religions.
Richo
Why not?
> >>>>> If God isnt a person then it isnt God as far as I (and most humans
> >>>>> that have ever lived on Earth) are concerned - for example if God
> >>>>> is an impersonal natural force - like gravity or some such - then
> >>>>> it isnt a god in the sense that I mean when I say I am an atheist.
>
> >>>>> Any God that isnt a person is automatically "not a god" as far as
> >>>>> I am concerned and I cant be bothered disbelieving in it.
>
> >>>> So, to you, a supposed god that's a being, and not a person, isn't
> >>>> a supposed god no matter how many people suppose it to be a god?
>
> >>> Yeah - pretty much.
> >>> Mind you the actual number of such people is *very* small compared
> >>> to the
> >>> billions of humans that believe in personal gods - Christians,
> >>> Muslims, Hhindus etc.
> >>> We can treat the rare exceptions as statistical anomolies and
> >>> curiosities - or just ignore them.
>
> >> Yet Deists call their supposed, absent deity God.
>
> > Yes - they are the exception that throw the rule into stark relief.
>
> Ah. The "the exception proves the rule" fallacy.
>
You are saying its false but not giving me any clues as to why you
think its false.
> > What is the difference between an absent Deistic God and a quantum
> > vacuum fluctuation?
> > None at all - as far as we will ever know.
>
> What is the difference between any god and a quantum vacuum fluctuation?
> None at all - as far as we will ever know.
>
There is a very big difference between Thor and a quantum fluctuation.
Thor had a magic hammer - a quantum fluctuation doesn't have a magic
hammer.
There is a very big difference between God who sent his only Son to
die for our sins... and a quantum fluctuation that starts the
universe.
And so on ....
So there are many many differences between almost every god you can
think of AND absolutely no difference between the Deistic God and a
quantum fluctuation.
> >>>>> I am an atheist in the sense that I dont believe in a god - and I
> >>>>> mean by god a being that has a mind and a will - like a person has
> >>>>> a mind and a will.
> >>>>> The God of Deism - the God of Spinoza - The God of Einstein -
> >>>>> isnt a person and therefore isnt a god in the sense I mean when I
> >>>>> say "I dont have a god" "I dont believe in a god" "I dont worship
> >>>>> a god".
>
> >>>> I don't believe in ANY god(s).
>
> >>> So if someone says "existence is God" or "the Universe is God"
> >>> You dont believe in existence? You dont believe in the Universe?
>
> >> Does not believing in the Tooth Fairy mean I don't believe teeth
> >> exist?
> >> Or does not believing in Vampires mean I don't believe there's blood
> >> flowing around my body?
>
> > No, and these are very poor analogies.
>
> > The tooth isn't the tooth fairy.
>
> And existence isn't god.
>
Isn't Thor Isis or Yahweh. Sure.
You are avoiding talking about this - why?
> > The vampire isn't the blood.
>
> And the universe isn't god.
>
Well that is what I was talking about - but I see it makes you
uncomfortable so we don't have to discuss it if you don't want to.
> > So I don't see any connection.
>
> >>> It seems to me you have to draw the line somewhere or you find
> >>> yourself disbelieving in everything just to be able to say "I don't
> >>> believe in ANY god(s)."
>
> >> Exactly the same as "I don't believe in ANY fairies".
> >> Where do *you* draw the line with them?
>
> > Fairies are mythical spirit beings
>
> As are gods.
>
Usually.
> > that are supposed to be closely
> > connected with the earth and particular wild places.
> > I don't believe they exist.
>
> It seems to me you have to draw the line somewhere or you find yourself
> disbelieving in everything just to be able to say "I don't believe in ANY
> fairies."
>
But I do draw the line and can tell you where I draw it - you don't
want to tell me where you draw the line.
You don't want to tell me thats OK.
>
>
> > I don't see the point of the question though.
>
> Maybe now you do?
>
Nope.
I was hoping you would give me something in exchange for my thoughts.
You are obviously not in the mood for sharing.
Mark.
turtoni
> turtoni wrote:
> >>> Next you'll be saying numbers don't exist!
>
> >> Smiler:
> >> Why would I do that?
>
> > The funniest irony is that your miserable snotty nosed runt of an
> > existence is all an illusion; there is no *you*.
>
> If that's what you want to believe, go ahead. But why are you responding to
> a non-existent person?
Get back to me when you've done a little homework..
You could start here if you like but it might be beyond your scope:
"I heartily agree with the positive opinions of others here - this is
a first class addition to the lay person's literature on consciousness
by a world class philosopher. Absolutely fascinating and
revolutionary. I've written a detailed review at http://www.naturalism.org/metzinger.htm
, some sections of which I've excerpted here:
Even after giving up belief in the supernatural "up there," many
atheists and humanists continue to harbor quasi-supernatural
intuitions about the self and free will "in here." The little god of
the soul, the categorically mental agent or homunculus in charge of
the brain, is still alive and well in the thinking of many
secularists. As a result, some of the most profound developments in
the ongoing project of scientific enlightenment are still ahead of
us.
I am pleased to report that Thomas Metzinger's The Ego Tunnel is a
major contribution to this project, written for the curious and
fearless lay person wanting to know who, precisely, we are. I strongly
recommend this book. Here is the self fully naturalized, a radical
revision of the conventional wisdom about our essential nature - are
you ready? It's also a must read for anyone interested in
consciousness and the mind-body problem, since Metzinger has a well-
developed, empirically supported representational theory that explains
many of the puzzles about conscious subjectivity.
His two main themes, self and consciousness, are closely linked, and
they culminate in two rather unsettling conclusions. First, selves
don't exist in the way most folks suppose. Second, the solid, three
dimensional public reality that is so palpably there in our waking
lives turns out to be a private model of reality. On Metzinger's view,
the self - the feeling of being a mental me in charge of the physical
body - is a module within consciousness activated by your brain's
neural processing. The self is categorically *not* some substantial,
essential invariant entity, like a soul, spirit or homunculus. As he
emphasizes, there are no such things as substantial selves. Instead,
the self is a phenomenal (that is, experiential) construct that
disintegrates entirely when you fall into a dreamless sleep, to be
reactivated (usually in attenuated form) when you dream, and that
reappears nearly instantaneously when you awake in the morning. The
self is put online only when needed, part of a larger phenomenal
reality generated by the brain as it represents the world and you in
it. This reality seems perfectly concrete, but the startling fact of
the matter, a challenge to naïve realists (that is, just about
everybody), is that it's an appearance, a *virtual* reality. You, the
subject conjured up by the brain, do not directly encounter the world.
Rather, you participate in a larger brain-based representational
construction - consciousness - that maps the actual world closely
enough for you-the-organism to stay out of trouble. This global
simulation carried out in each of our heads, what we can't help but
take as real, is what Metzinger calls the Ego Tunnel. Welcome to the
Matrix...
...The full exposition of his theory, daunting in its intricacy but
ultimately very rewarding, can be found in his 2003 tour de force
Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity. So if you find
The Ego Tunnel philosophically or empirically sketchy, look there. As
I advised a philosophy grad student recently: "Try Being No One, you
might like it."
The Ego Tunnel is reasonably demanding in its own right, given the
breadth of material and its undeniable strangeness for those
encountering the self-model theory for the first time. Even for
veterans of consciousness studies it offers much that's worthwhile and
likely new: some mind-stretching thought experiments; interviews with
researchers on the binding problem (the unity of consciousness),
dreams, and empathy; and an imagined conversation with a post-biotic
philosopher who pities us merely human thinkers, stuck in our crude
reality models (this is just one of several well-timed dessert moments
in the book). Metzinger is a first rate, albeit human,
neurophilosopher, fully cognizant of mind science as well as
philosophy, and a very good writer in his second language (German the
first). You might occasionally get boggled and baffled as you
negotiate The Ego Tunnel, but never bored. The main thing is that
you're getting a glimpse behind (what you might not yet realize is)
the veil of consciousness, in a sense escaping the tunnel into non-
subjective reality, if only conceptually. You're also getting a
preview of what our lives might be like under a radically revised
notion of self, should the "consciousness revolution" Metzinger
contemplates come to pass. There might be, he suggests, some profound
personal and social consequences that follow from fully naturalizing
ourselves...
...Metzinger argues that it's only by assimilating the naturalistic
truth about who we are that we can defend individual autonomy against
mass culture and its potential for manipulation. Facing the scientific
facts about the self also expresses a central human value: maintaining
our cognitive dignity and responsibility as knowers, what he calls
"the will to clarity." The philosophical, scientific, and moral issues
raised in this book couldn't be more demanding, but Metzinger
exemplifies how we can best meet the challenge: by an unflinching
commitment to rational and empirical investigation, wherever it leads,
carried out within a democratic, open society of individuals informed
about their true nature. Whether or not it's completely right about
the mind, The Ego Tunnel models the intellectual and ethical virtues
that will be required of us, as Metzinger puts it, to "ride the tiger"
of the consciousness revolution.
Tom Clark
Center for Naturalism"
http://www.amazon.com/Ego-Tunnel-Science-Mind-Myth/dp/0465045677
turtoni
---->YOU<----
> Smiler:
> Nope. I worship NO GODS!
aka
I GODS! ,,,,,worship NO..
i rest my case.
turtoni
They ALL exist in my opinion. Seriously. Sure we'd have to math up the
word exist so that we can make some calculations and that's where i'm
arriving at; but the kids want these concept gods to do things. They
want to be able to pick and prod numbers. And dig them out. Where as
you and me might imagine that those things could swim and wash around
in the worlds of subjectivity and consciousness.
Smiler
>>> You worship at the biggest lie of them all!
>
> ---->YOU<----
>
>> Smiler:
>> Nope. I worship NO GODS!
>
> aka
>
> I GODS! ,,,,,worship NO..
>
What don't you understand about NO GODS?
That's NO GODS.......No exclusions!
>
>
> i rest my case.
Your delusions mean that your case is a nut, IOW, you're a nutcase.
turtoni
(snip)
> Your delusions mean that your case is a nut, IOW, you're a nutcase.
You're the non-existent God. You worship yourself.
But..
YOU DON'T EXIST.
It's just a stupid collection of nutcase stories.
So the lecturing about non-existence is hilarious.
HTHelps.
Smiler
> On Nov 30, 4:29 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
> (snip)
>> Your delusions mean that your case is a nut, IOW, you're a nutcase.
>
> You're the non-existent God. You worship yourself.
>
Keep on believing in your delusions. Who am I to disabuse you?
> But..
>
> YOU DON'T EXIST.
Yet you keep replying to me, a supposedly non-existent person!
It's you who are making me a god, by replying.
Seek psychiatric help, urgently.
>
> It's just a stupid collection of nutcase stories.
What stories?
If you're referring to the stories in your 'holy' book of myths, fables,
fairy stories, contradictions and downright lies, I totally agree that
they're "just a stupid collection of nutcase stories."
>
> So the lecturing about non-existence is hilarious.
Without objective evidence that this supposed god character of yours exists,
your assumption that it does exist is what is hilarious.
Why don't you believe in leprechauns? There's exactly as much evidence that
they exist as for your god character.....zero!
turtoni
(snip)
> Yet you keep replying to me, a supposedly non-existent person!
"It is said by some that for an individual to talk about, explain,
understand or judge oneself is linguistically impossible, since it
requires the self to understand its self. This is seen as
philosophically invalid, being self-referential, or reification, also
known as a circular argument. Thus, if actions arise so that the self
attempts self-explanation, confusion may well occur within linguistic
mental pathways and processes."
Smiler
QED.