Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,488 comments
- 1,140,200 views
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
Hold up!
That is the exact opposite of his point ("his" referring to either Arthur C. Clarke or @Famine, take your pick). You're trying to argue that magic-like stuff is evidence of God here. His point was there are technological explanations for things would would otherwise appear to be magic but which are not. This was the exact point made to you with the iron man suit.
It's not evidence of God!
What the actual...
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Thank you. I stand corrected. If you haven't grokked the connection by now, you never will. So I am ceasing posting in the magic/god-like/god/God/Higher Intelligence thread for now, and back to the UFO thread where I belong. Hopefully, you will have something to contribute there and we can continue our conversation.
But perhaps inevitably, larger external events are (IMHO) going to bring us back here again.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
In the Heinleinian sense the past tense is "grokked", I think. "Groked" would be "stared at hungrily", at least in the northern marches of Britain. Anyway, I guess this will carry on in the UFO thread where I imagine you residing in an elderly off-grid Winnebago stacked with surveillance gear and fencing equipment. That's probably the best place (imo) for the idea that advanced technologies might be perceived as supernatural (or extra-natural).
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Actually, I think I'm going to try to keep the UFO thread anchored in mainstream reporting and physical science. That's what differentiates it from the Aliens thread.
As always, thanks for your erudite, apposite and entertaining comments.
However, in order to deal with the "supernatural", i.e., the omniscience, time travel, precognition, etc. that are adjunct to the phenomena, we will require a new thread. I intend to entitle it "Para", or "Paranormal". Please review the video of Luis above.
- 30,002
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Someone ask me if I'm surprised to find that Dotini has made an outlandish claim, has been solicited repeatedly--and respectfully--to substantiate it in a meaningful way and has subsequently played the victim repeatedly due to an inability to provide substantiation. I mean it. Ask me.
What the...
Among the perils of using thesaurus words--those that aren't common in everyday use--to add interest to remarks that are otherwise lacking it, as Dotini so often does, is the potential for them to not be actual words.
That. Was. Awesome.
What the...
Hot.
I think this is correct.
Among the perils of using thesaurus words--those that aren't common in everyday use--to add interest to remarks that are otherwise lacking it, as Dotini so often does, is the potential for them to not be actual words.
- 4
- England
There is no god, only man and his wild imagination
Groundfish
(Banned)
- 4,363
- United States
Ha. That’s cute.
There’s not enough choices in the poll.
The conclusion of the video was basically eliminate religion, because the video was based on an anthropomorphic conception of ‘god’ like a superhuman projection.
There’s another potential option though as humanity continues to evolve, another perspective that’s possible. Synthesis of religion, into some form of ideology that integrates science and healthy spirituality.
Yes and No, and not two.
The real question ultimately becomes what ideology is useful?
I mean any child asks the question who made God?
The whole video is just that question put into entertaining form.
Really I think many atheists love postulating that religious people ‘need’ this belief that god exists as a superhuman entity (anthropomorphic conception of god)
They then pretty easily make like the video and conclude it’s childish. The problem in doing that though, is that it’s sort of a misunderstanding of religion imo.
My answer relative to the poll is YES and NO.
. Really to me it comes down to how a person deals with the sort of event horizon of scientific knowledge and the limitations our minds have, as well as what experiences they’ve had in life.
I’m just not sure the best way forward for humanity is atheism, I’m not sure that ideology has the most utility for the majority of the world.
Yes AND no.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
Atheism is not an ideology. So before we get into why it lacks utility, let's clear that up first.
Atheism is a simple lack of faith in any deity. As a word, it describes the lack of something (faith, belief, theology, whatever), but not the presence of anything, especially not any coherent set of ideas that could be called an "ideology."
Groundfish
(Banned)
- 4,363
- United States
I should have said way of thinking.
Jmo but imo it’s not the best option in relating to reality that’s available, in terms of choosing from the cornucopia of available possibilities.
It’s got nothing to do imo with some silly idea of having consequences AFTER DEATH rofl.
It’s just about mental health. I think a more Eastern viewpoint has more utility but again that’s jmo
YES AND NO exist as a possibility AND without contradiction or literal interpretations of religious writings.
SYNTHESIS OF SCIENCE AND HEALTHY SPIRITUALITY IS IMO what is needed, but I’m not dumb enough to expect anything but further hatred for attempting to express that here.
Go ahead with hatred upon me what I’ve written etc.
It’s what some are good at.
Jmo but imo it’s not the best option in relating to reality that’s available, in terms of choosing from the cornucopia of available possibilities.
It’s got nothing to do imo with some silly idea of having consequences AFTER DEATH rofl.
It’s just about mental health. I think a more Eastern viewpoint has more utility but again that’s jmo
YES AND NO exist as a possibility AND without contradiction or literal interpretations of religious writings.
SYNTHESIS OF SCIENCE AND HEALTHY SPIRITUALITY IS IMO what is needed, but I’m not dumb enough to expect anything but further hatred for attempting to express that here.
Go ahead with hatred upon me what I’ve written etc.
It’s what some are good at.
Last edited:
- 2,541
- Netherlands
- Denur; GTP_Denur
What hatred? Maybe the correction regarding atheism @huskeR32 posted?
And what do you mean with healthy spirituality?
Groundfish
(Banned)
- 4,363
- United States
First-no system of deities or spirits or astrology or silly systems of prescriptions for people, not intellectual defined by logic and words, I don’t know exactly what it would be or how it would be, don’t think it would include rituals of any sort, I’m thinking it would be something of an experience maybe more than anything...
Maybe sort of embracing a childlike sense of wonder and scientific curiousity.
I dunno tbh.
Something that embraces lack of disconnectedness of everything that exists.
Something reflecting what many have pointed to when having peak experiences, something unifying across ideologies, I don’t know what it would be but it would be something it’s impossible to disconnect from??? I dunno...
Something that can be expressed as Yes and No at the same time, timeless I guess...
Something somehow acknowledging the limits of what we can conceive and embracing scientific knowledge.
I doubt it would be anything concrete. So maybe it’s pointless to write about....
Instead of a deification of science an acceptance of the cutting edge of knowledge and the unexplained aspects of the universe.
I dunno what it would be maybe just Nature itself.
Imo if you go Randian objectivist materialist egoist atheistic and see everything as independent pieces of matter and chemistry and electricity the endgame or outcome of thought of that perspective goes a certain way.
I dislike the way it ends up in many, but not all cases, definitely the majority of cases imo.
I guess if I had to say anything it would be it’s needed that we evolve our way of thinking, into a more unified way, but not in a way that’s necessarily prescribed by some book like a religious text.
It’s easiest just to say a healthy spirituality.
::::shrug::::
It’s not something I could formulate an argument on maybe something of an experience more than anything.
Indefinable? Definitely.
I dunno the only thing I could say bout it is that...
I’m sure the hatred and contradiction will come forth in short order. Something embracing quotes like this maybe...
- 7,621
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
What way is that?
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,734
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Not all atheists are of this ilk at all, the majority that I know of certainly wouldn't fit that rather limited mould.
I'm, as an example, a Humanist, and would not identify with any part of that apart from being an atheist.
The following sums-up humanism quite well in my view.
"Modern humanists, such as Corliss Lamont or Carl Sagan, hold that humanity must seek for truth through reason and the best observable evidence and endorse scientific skepticism and the scientific method. However, they stipulate that decisions about right and wrong must be based on the individual and common good, with no consideration given to metaphysical or supernatural beings. The idea is to engage with what is human.[82] The ultimate goal is human flourishing; making life better for all humans, and as the most conscious species, also promoting concern for the welfare of other sentient beings and the planet as a whole.[83] The focus is on doing good and living well in the here and now, and leaving the world a better place for those who come after. In 1925, the English mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead cautioned: "The prophecy of Francis Bacon has now been fulfilled; and man, who at times dreamt of himself as a little lower than the angels, has submitted to become the servant and the minister of nature. It still remains to be seen whether the same actor can play both parts".[84]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
- 2,541
- Netherlands
- Denur; GTP_Denur
You certainly list quite a few statements of what healthy spirituality could and couldn't mean. That, to me, is a start to getting a definition.
I'm still not sure why you are expecting hatred though.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
That's essentially the definition of "ideology," so no, you shouldn't have. You've not moved anywhere.
What's the "it" here? You still haven't established what you're arguing against. Knowing that I'm an atheist tells you nothing about my "way of thinking." I could subscribe to objectivism, humanism, solipsism, materialism, or any of a number of things, while also incidentally being an atheist (or a non-theist, or an agnostic).
Also, what does "reality that's available" mean? Are you limiting that statement to questions of theology, such as why we're here, or where we came from? Or are you speaking more broadly than that?
So far, your ramblings are far too vague for me to know how to engage with them.
--
Okay, one post later, and now you've decided that your target is a combination of objectivism and materialism. I'm not sure why, because as Scaff pointed out, I don't think anyone here has ever staked out that particular stance.
Groundfish
(Banned)
- 4,363
- United States
Well you put up quite a long post considering that.
@Scaff I’ve no problem with any of what you put up regarding humanism.
I’m not advocating or positing the existence of supernatural beings in any way shape or form.
I’m not making an argument. I’m just saying imo we need to evolve our thinking.
We need to evolve it in some way that’s like a zen koan or something-I can’t specifically lay it out in words-
I will leave my position as it stands with respect to the question in the OP.
My response is yes and no.
It’s honest maybe seems flippant to many...
I’m ok with that.
“The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao”
I dunno for me that quote from Lat Tzu or Tzi (you know the guy) pretty much sums it up.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
Okay...?
You did, though. Right here:
As an atheist, I'm very interested in discussing this. I do think that atheism is the "best way forward," at least as far as questions of theology go. But since it's not an ideology, I can't begin to understand what utility it does (or does not) offer for the majority of the world, or in contexts other than "do gods exist?"
As such, I'm trying to get you to understand that your language is too vague to meaningfully have such a discussion. And I was hoping you'd respond by incorporating what I'm telling you, and clarifying your thoughts into a coherent position.
From what to what? There are almost innumerable ways that people think. Which one needs changing? Why? What should it be changed to? Why?
Speaking for myself, nothing you've said seems flippant. Rather, it's confusing stream-of-thought rambling that you've not made any effort to refine into an idea that anybody other than you can meaningfully engage with.
Groundfish
(Banned)
- 4,363
- United States
I’m going to give this example of different. It’s just an example-an actual change in the brains electrical state from normal day to day writing an email type stuff. This is melodramatic but lots of good science here.
So to me, I think that this is as close to any in terms of something tangible to describe the issue.
It’s well known in Athletics...Great athletes enter a zone. They are just concentrated at a higher level- their brain is “thinking differently” at those times.
We know tons about this, and these states are objectively measurable.
I’d say that IN a state like this your perceptions about yourself change-there’s a momentary absence of something-at any rate however you describe it it’s a psychological change over some temporary time period.
Great artists etc etc etc have a different perspective many times...
So what does any of this have to do with the topic?
Not much except to say that’s thinking differently.
Ultimately it’s what I said before Yes AND No. That’s jmo.
Similar threads
