This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.

[Brakeman]

In the queer world of statistics, it's unlikely that a unlikely event won't occur frequently.

Anyway. There is no mechanism to "supernaturally" predict a future event. Any mechanism that would be able to affect your brain enough to give you a thought would require a finite amount of energy and there is no pathway for that energy to affect you in a non-chaotic fashion that could not be detected.

[jetson]

On the other hand I nearly lost my life in an accident I never saw coming so who knows? No one will ever convince me that just because one can not prove or even replicate extrasensory experiences they do not exist period. I can not close my mind to my own mind.

Humans are great at making connections between seemingly related things that are not related, or merely coincidental.  There are also a great many incidents recorded, however honestly recollected, that go unexplained.  The only thing you are connecting here is a dream that occurred before an incident that seemed similar to the dream.  Everything else in the story is normal stuff.  People drive on highways, accidents happen, etc. 

The biggest problem with this particular story, is the fact that you are the one relating your dream to everyone who hears the story.  Which means there is no way to validate, or verify any of it.  And while there is no reason to consider that you would make stuff up, there is plenty of scientific evidence that humans do such things very well, and in many cases, completely within the subconscious - or at least not on purpose, necessarily.

Look up a phenomenon called "false memories".  It is a fascinating area of human psychology where it appears that we are most excellent at filling in chunks of time, within a story, that never actually happened.  Especially in memories of an incident.  The further we get from the actual incident, the more the "false memory" fills in gaps with incidental information that keeps the timeline and events intact, but no longer relates the actual facts.

Welcome to the forum, by the way!

[Alzael]

To my eyes, the sentiment being expressed there is simply, "YY, I think you're insane". Alzael may insist that he means something more nuanced, but as I said to him in my last post, You're accusing him of being a lunatic (or, you're saying his beliefs are indistinguishable from those of a lunatic - which frankly, is much the same thing).

First, let me preface this by saying this.

Don't presume to tell me what I mean. If I had been calling him a lunatic, I would have outright said so.

No, it is not the same thing as calling him a lunatic. Just because you don't see a difference, does not mean there isn't one. Your limitations do not apply universally.

And as I also said to Alzael, trying to win an argument by ignoring the content of it and instead trying to demonstrate that your opponent is insane or delusional is a poor rhetorical strategy. As this thread demonstrates, it's a massive derail and a red herring.

It's a good thing that I was never trying to demonstrate that then.

And I'd ask, why bother introducing the concepts of mental illness and insanity into a discussion in the first place, if not to attack your opponent? As the saying goes, it adds heat but not light.

Because the question was relevant,and still is. The dialogue between YY and myself was in regards to his assertions that his beliefs should be held as valuable and worthy of consideration even though they lack evidence, and even though he has completely created his own series of definitions to accomodate them.

As I said to him on several occasions. "What I said was that those things are needed to differentiate fantasy from reality. Without these, anything you say is utterly subjective (ie. effectively made-up)."

The two-part issue that I raised at that point was 1) if his beliefs have no evidence to back them up, how can one tell the difference beween his claims being true, or the claims of someone who suffers from delusion (or someone who just made them up) since both have an equal amount of evidence to support them and 2) if there is no way to verify their truth, why should anyone care about them besides him?

The reason for the use of insanity/delusion was very simple. Because it is another set of beliefs that is on the same level of his in terms of its adherence to reality and likelihood of truth. However it is a set of beliefs that he (like most people) would normally make fun of or dismiss, precisely for the exact same reasons that we reject his. Hence, the attempt to provoke a thought about his beliefs by pointing out that they are on the same level of evidence and truth as the beliefs of a group of people that he would normally deride and dismiss.

I then asked him how the two differ in order to give him a chance to present a means of demonstrating how his beliefs can separate fantasy from reality and prove me wrong.

By the way, it has occurred to you that we call theists delusional all the time on this forum for the same reasons. Why do you suddenly need clarification on why it was said this one time?

As for the imagined slight. It most certainly does seem to be imagined. He was perfectly able to argue with me on other points previously, we had even been discussing the point of the issue above (granted he was mostly dodging, but still). And while he had been coming up with his claim that I was calling him insane before now, he only locked onto it as the only point he was going to argue within the last few pages after I backed him into a corner in regard to his previous responses and how they failed to address the actual issues. Furthermore he has been creating Strawmen out of my other points, dodging and evading, and creating other imagined slights since the beginning. Such as his previous assertions about myself claiming that every single argument must be backed up by objective evidence to have any meaning. Or his constant "ego" claims.

The lunatic thing is just furthering a pattern of behaviour on his part.

If you still don't grasp the difference of what I'm talking about, that's fine. Feel free to partake in the conversation, or just PM me and ask me for clarification.

However.....if you ever feel the need to tell me, or others, about what I mean to say (especially when I've already said the exact opposite) don't.

[Gnu Ordure]

Alzael:

First, let me preface this by saying this. Don't presume to tell me what I mean...  snip... if you ever feel the need to tell me, or others, about what I mean to say (especially when I've already said the exact opposite) don't.

1. You don't have the authority to issue orders to me about what I can say or not say on this Forum. Not even if you write them in bold.

2. And I didn't do that anyway. I told you how I interpreted your comments, using the phrases to my eyes, and that's not how it reads to me.

It takes two to communicate effectively; it depends on the writer's power of articulacy and the reader's power of comprehension, both of which are variable.

In this case, the failure to communicate lies partly with you. Graybeard says that "He does not say you are a lunatic". Now look at post 97, where you said (my bold):

I'm simply trying to relay to you my understanding of God and how this affects my life and this is totally independent of what anyone else on this board does with their life.

And the question that I asked which was why you would bother? Without evidence you're no different than a ranting lunatic.

Given that at this point YY hadn't given any evidence, you appear to be calling him a ranting lunatic (because he is "no different" to one).

In the same post, you go on to say (my bold):

This is what I meant about you considering what people are saying. You are failing to understand this. You are simply one more person with a tenuous grasp of reality, trying to tell us about what colour the sky is in your little world. Why should we care?

In my opinion, saying that someone has a tenuous grasp of reality amounts to calling them crazy, and I'm not surprised that YY took it that way.

You say that we have misunderstood you; my feedback to Graybeard is that the blame for that lies partly with you.

[YY]

YY, I think the problem here is one of deflection. Alzael makes the point that you have provided no proof, simply opinion, or “because that is what I believe.”

Hello Graybeard. I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure why I have to submit to Alzael's incessant line of questioning (but do) when, on the very first post I made in response to the OP, I said:

# # # #

Let me preface this by saying that this might not be "Proof" per say, but by your definition, spag. So get your replies ready. . .

This was what I wrote in a previous thread:

Is there a possibility that "God" does not exist according to your definition? Might I have a different definition that you possibly don't understand or agree with?

Personally, I believe that God is everything -- I mean everything. I think God is the seen, unseen, inanimate, subatomic stuff that makes up our universe and beyond.

# # # #

This post answers my lack of providing "proof" - at least in the traditional sense. Alzael's questioning falls beyond the scope of this conversation, although very valid in any other setting. Even despite my initial disclaimer, I tried to be a good sport and provide reasoning -- not proof, as to why I believe the way that I do. I feel that his line of questioning, the negative feedback I received for my answers, and my watched status have all been ill warranted (in this conversation).



You give the impression that rather than answer the question/respond to the point, you choose to invent a slight and react to that.

Alzael flat out calls me names. I quote it. Others try to defend or interpret what he "really meant". I am reacting to true allegations, not imagined slight. I am also answering his repeated line of questioning (the same question). If Alzael is frustrated that I'm not answering to his liking, he should say that I am incorrect or at least, he doesn't agree and offer his reasons. Instead, he simply asks the question again and again.


Alzael is looking for answers. He does not say you are a lunatic, only that a belief in the supernatural without any evidence seems delusional as, for example, a belief in a flat earth might.

Clearly, you are persuaded of a spiritual realm. Could you please share with us, without going off at a tangent or assuming accusations, the evidence that led you to your belief?

GB Moderator

The line I have taken introduces the disclaimer that the proof I present will not be that of the traditional sense. I ask that we consider the possibility that God might exist in a form that is not of your (plural) agreement or understanding. I then go into an extremely long explanation of MY personal belief in this God. I've offered "evidence" to support my claims although this evidence does not have traditional proof.

I'm not sure where we go from here, but I think we're beating a dead horse if neither of us can suspend disbelief. I think it's time we put one last bullet into this dead horse and work on other threads.

[YY]

Joe, I agree that humans experience things that they cannot explain. I don't doubt that you experienced those dreams, just as I experienced my dreams. My point was that I hope you won't try to guess too much (especially about God or the supernatural), because that can change your entire life, and not necessarily for the best.

I think that Joe is taking a very healthy attitude toward his premonitions. There is a risk/reward variable that can be easily applied without ever having to name the source of these premonitions.

If your fear is that people acting on the voices in their head might cause you to climb a watchtower with a high powered rifle, keep in mind that SANE people know when their premonitions cross the line. In Joe's case, simply reducing his speed by 5mph is clearly the better alternative even if there were no white car careening into the side of the highway bursting into flames. It's highly likely that Joe takes a lot of his premonitions as "friendly reminders" of what could be.

Now, if his premonition said to drive his car off a cliff and he'll fall onto a delivery truck of pillows full of cash, Joe would obviously dismiss that dream, no matter how often he dreams it.

[curiousgirl]

YY, I was merely advising Joe not to jump to conclusions regarding the source of his dreams, since that would be illogical. Let's not go off on some tangent.

[Joetruth2]

I got to tell you Jetson that the dreams (two) I have had with this vision crap were both vary vivid and recurring. More vivid than any dream I may normally have, and I seldom dream or seldom remember them if I do.

 In the case discussed I told my mother and wife about the dream in detail. Including the detail that a white car would strike us in the rear quarter panel causing us to spin and roll over. So your premise that only I knew is wrong. Whatever happened was just as in the dream save for the part of us being struck. The reason we were not it seems, is that I saw the white car and kept my speed below the recurring speedometer vision in the dream. I can't explain any of it.

There was another incident in my life that I could never explain. I was involved in some complex litigation from the accident I was nearly killed in. (a high speed chase incident in California many years ago). I was out of town for Christmas and delivering Christmas baskets to needy families. On one stop the wife touched my arm, looked right into my eyes and said " everything is OK the lawsuit was settled this morning". She freaked me out like no other. How could she possibly know of the law suit I was involved in? The look of shock on my face must have been awesome as the husband chimed in " it's OK she does that stuff all the time".

I do not believe in this stuff but it did happen. She was right on the suit had been settled by attorneys that AM. I never saw her again and never wanted to, because in truth, she scared the crap out of me. So unnatural!

[jtp56]

Ohhhhh.  So evolution is fact?   

Yes.

Proof? 

Here's a good place to start:
Evidence of Common Descent

The evidence is overwhelming and comes from decades of work in various scientific fields. Here are a few examples of scientific fields which have produced supporting evidence:

• Genetics: DNA sequencing, DNA ancestry, chromosomes, mitochondrial ancestry ... observable micro-evolution in bacteria and viruses, etc.
• Biology: Vestigial structures, comparative anatomy between species, etc.
• Paleontology: The fossil record showing progressive transitions from one species to another.

The list goes on and on ...  I suggest you educate yourself on the subject.

What is evolution from a scientific prospective since you are so knowledgeable of how life began?

Evolution says nothing about how life began. That would be abiogenesis^Wiki. This alone shows exactly how ignorant you are on these topics.

Evolution explains how simple organisms developed through billions of generations over billions of years leading to the vast diversity and complexity of life we see today. It explains how the process of natural selection works. Again, do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the subject. Otherwise you just look like an ass topping it off with a shitty attitude.

You guys linking to Wiki cracks me up.  And you say I should educate myself.  Hahahahahaha  That is if you still are beholden to the Miller–Urey experiment [In Wiki's definition of abiogenesis anyway as linked to by one of you geniuses] and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory (Key word hypothetical....meaning scientific fact to you guys I guess). 

Pardon me if I use your old complaint....why do I need to go over this again?  Very briefly: The amino acids manufactured under the Miller experiment (a well designed and controlled experiment, that is, the test and the apparatus did not form by chance) were 50/50 right hand/left hand amino acids.  Only left hand amino acids are found in living things.  When your body rots in the ground you get closer to a 50/50 mix.  What they simulated was death.

Do you ever wonder why they don't carry these experiment further?  I mean, to really scientifically prove life happened by chance?  Oh, I forgot, thinking is required when considering science.

Oh but wait a minute, now they use cloning....I know you heard about Dolly's birth.  Did you hear about her death?

[RaymondKHessel]

Hey. Hey guy. Hey.

I think it's really cool how you completely ignored the actual meat of plethora's post (genetics,biology,etc.), and then proceeded to do your little pompous St. Nick chuckle about the validity of a wiki article (you do know there are links at the bottom so you can verify stuff, right?), and then went on to talk to yourself about things like cloned sheep... I have no idea how that relates to evolution, but it demonstrates your fear of science quite nicely.

Do I get to lol now at the fact that you've been eating cloned apples your entire life? Or would that be too saucy of me?

Anyway, that post you just made? That was smoooooth. You're really, really good at this. <thumbs up> 

[kin hell]

You guys linking to Wiki cracks me up.  And you say I should educate myself.  Hahahahahaha 

Why do I hear that as demented and hysterical laughter?

The last time I pointed you to Wiki what did you do?  Rather than admit the stupid claim you'd made was demonstrably and obviously false, you ran away like some "cannot face reality" coward.

The reasons people here point you to Wiki are probably as simple as, firstly, why waste any real time and effort on trying to educate someone who chooses to be ignorant?
Secondly jtp56, it is not as if you are going to change your stupid thinking, nor admit your errors even when they are made plain to you and the world.


When they describe someone being "thick", it's a slur commenting upon that person's inherent idea-resistance
 It is directly addressing the inability of anything to penetrate the subject's impenetrable reality.

So why should anyone here bother to sharpen any argument for you. You are too proudly impervious. Dense.

Wiki may seem like a blunt instrument to you, but it is more than enough to flay your thick-skinned obtuseness, to skewer your stupid lies with fact, and expose your internal workings as formless, rotten, and lacking backbone.

Wiki certainly was more than enough to shut you up elsewhere, or perhaps it was a topic you'd just chosen to "drop".....

Note to you scientists out there:  One drop is not an internationally recognized unit of mearure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_(unit)

The drop is a unit of measure of volume, the amount dispensed as one drop from a dropper. It is often used in giving quantities of liquid drugs to patients, and occasionally in cooking.
The volume of a drop is not well-defined: it depends on the device and technique used to produce the drop and on the physical properties of the fluid.
There are several exact definitions of a "drop":
the "metric" drop, 1/20 mL (50 ?L).
the medical drop, 1/12 mL (83? ?L).
the Imperial drop, 1/36 of a fluidram (1/288 of an Imperial fluid ounce, or 1/1440 of a gill) (approximately 99 ?L).
an alternate, possibly apocryphal, definition of the drop is 1/1824 of a gill (approximately 78 ?L).
the U.S. drop, 1/60 of a US fluidram, 1/80 of a teaspoon or 1/480 of a U.S. fluid ounce (approximately 62 ?L).
an alternate definition of the U.S. drop is 1/96 of a teaspoon or 1/576 US fl oz (approximately 51 ?L).
According to Webster dictionary, "drop" indicates the smallest volume of a liquid that may be measured.[1] Drop size varies according to gravity, the density and the surface tension of the liquid. [2]
In the past, a drop was another name for a minim. This meaning was used in Pharmacy to describe a volume equal to one 60th of a fluid dram or one 480th of a fluid ounce. This is equal to about 61.6 ?L (U.S.) or 59.2 ?L (Britain). Pharmacists have since moved to metric measurements, with a drop being rounded to exactly 0.05 mL (that is, 20 drops per milliliter). In hospitals, intravenous tubing is used to deliver medication in drops of various sizes ranging from 10 drops/mL to 60 drops/mL. A drop is abbreviated gtt, with gtts used for the plural. These abbreviations come from gutta, the Latin for drop.[3]
A drop can also be used less formally as a unit of volume in recipes. According to some older kitchen references, 24 drops = ¼ teaspoon. Using U.S. definitions, this makes the drop equal to about 0.051 mL, making it quite comparable to the pharmacist's drop.[3]

....no matter how hard you squeeze that intellect through that self inflicted wringer you call your thunk organ, no matter what internationally recognised unit of measurement you choose with which to read the measure of your wit, why do you only ever register half?

The reason some people are so sadly affected by their brainwashing is they were probably already victimised inheritors of pre-shrunk genes.

And when you hang yourself in public what sound does the drip make?


...................................derp derp derp

[Graybeard]

YY,
It may help you to understand that the definition of insanity does not include those who have a “normal” level of religiosity. However, religion is still considered a delusion as it does not conform with observed facts. Religion is given a pass not because it is outside the way we measure insanity, but because levels of delusion vary in societies. The Jews and Moslems are deluded because they think pork is unclean. We are deluded because we think rat meat is unclean. Polynesians eat both and not deluded at all in this respect.

YY, at this point, it will be helpful to see what you have said. You have(and I must say it took you long enough) stated what you believe and what effect that belief has on you.

What you have singularly failed to do is to offer any proof whatsoever that your belief is nothing more than a self-induced delusion (i.e. not insanity but a totally irrational thought that is wilful ignorance and denial of what you must have observed or what others can show is fact.)

You repeat many times that you want us to see your POV from an unbiased stance. This is confusion in your mind. An unbiased stance would be one in which the observer could make his own conclusions based on facts. You give no facts. You give no evidence and you revel in “just believing” and not needing any proof. An unbiased view is what you are getting but your delusion prevents you from seeing this.

You introduce your beliefs:

Let me preface this by saying that this might not be "Proof" per say, but by your definition, spag. So get your replies ready. . .

Personally, I believe that God is everything -- I mean everything. I think God is the seen, unseen, inanimate, subatomic stuff that makes up our universe and beyond. I see that we are all a part of God, I see a unified connection between you and me and the world as a whole. I believe that God is everything. Proof is that there is anything here at all.

I was led to this conclusion by reading different versions of what other people believed was God and then felt that this version is the one that most resembles my understanding of God. […]This reinforces my decision that I've chosen a belief that supports my life rather than one that limits my outlook on life.

if something is real to me, doesn't make it real (to you). I understand what you are trying to say, but at this point, we simply disagree. If I can't prove something to your liking, there's no need to continue.

You are not going to offer any proof, or even fundamental reasons. So when people ask, you will not reply.

Anyway, in probably one of the longest posts ever, 7 pages of A4 at size 10 font, here is what you said. (I have omitted irrelevant arguments and those in insanity.)

You have not given one single fact in it. Only personal opinion – i.e. opinion that your mind has created in a vacuum.

I will leave you and others to read it. Your answers are in black (as are my comments) other posters appear in blue.

Azael: I believe the issue here is whether you can prove it at all. You do realize that there are certain standards for evidence that exist, right?

This is where we have disconnect. You are looking for a measurable answer. If you're prying for a canned answer so that you can deliver another canned comeback, you won't get that from me. I'm just trying my best to relate to you why I believe in God and how it impacts my life.

The proof is real enough for me, but it isn't for you. I get that. I get that you don't even see it as proof. I have more circumstantial evidence on display in the way my life plays out. Circumstantial evidence is submissible so there you go.

True, but I'm not (normally) trying to prove why I believe in God to anyone else. The only person it really matters to is me. From that point, I choose to believe in God or I choose to redefine my understanding of God, or I release that altogether. I think it all boils down to the effect God has on your life.  At this point in the history of mankind, you won't get an answer you like.

MMcNealy: As far as I can read, you haven't given any evidence to the existence of god.  Circumstantial or not.  Just a generic statement that god=everything because I believe it to be true.

My belief goes back to God being the source. Before there was anything, there was God. With the absence of duality, God could not know itself and thus created everything. We are extensions of the whole and have our own personal experiences which we bring back to the collective after death.

That's what I believe and it makes sense. I prefer this version of my understanding of life.

 [/quote]
[It takes 40 posts to this point]

What if you removed all of your atheist understanding and just try to understand what I am saying from an unbiased pov? You can try that or not. Maybe if you take a different perspective, you'll be able to see what I'm talking about whether or not you agree.

This is asking for an unbiased POV, but itself is of a closed-minded nature – It asks the readr to suspend logic and their own knowledge.

Hypo: Let's say that the ocean is God. Let's then say that you go swimming and drown in the ocean. Or, you go swimming and get eaten by a shark. Do you really think God Ocean really has any energy into the actions and or results? No.

Conversely, if you go scuba diving and find sunken treasure, see the most brilliant colors and life forms, have sex with a hot chick underwater, God Ocean does not put any energy into your judgement of those actions.

You are the one who projects judgement on the actions that happen in God Ocean.[/quote]

I would suspect that this would make more sense. God was aware of his omnipresenece, but that was it, only aware of it. The Universe was created so that God could become an experiential being.

Pure speculation

All I can say to this is I'd rather believe in my God than some other. Personal preference of course.

Velkyn: As far as I can determine, YY is not a pantheist, but a Christian who doesn't like all of what his god is purported to be, so God gets made vaguer and vaguer so no one can ask YY the hard questions of what his god is like and why the bible shows such a primitive god typical of the Bronze/Iron Ages.

At this stage, #61 you reply:

You've asked the hard questions and I've answered them. Unfortunately, I haven't answered them in such a way that you can spring back with another tired, canned BibleGod response.

Indeed, YY has never stated he supports the Judeo-Christian God

Now you move on a little:

Well, I believe our thoughts are things and we create our reality based on our thoughts. I've already cited an exampler to Ad Hom about terrorists flying a plane into a building and how my thoughts would differ if I didn't have this understanding of a God that is the source that we are all a part of. I hope that answer suffices.

2. If you take the strongest tool we have to see the tiniest particle of said tire, you'd see life happening. You'd see the flurry of activity that makes up the reality that we know of as the tire. You'd see the work involved in the life of this rubber that was cultivated and shaped and molded. The human labor involved to bring this molded rubber to market. The utility of this object and the miracle of travel in vehicles hurtling at incredible speeds all due in part to a simple "tire". There's my God in this tire.

Answering backwards - I don't think of Salvation in the traditional sense. Honestly, I don't think anyone needs to be "saved". If anything, salvation could be referring to salvation from our own limiting thoughts. If someone comes by and teaches me techniques that allow me to live my life to my fullest potential, I'm a believer!

I define highest truth as the thing that allows me the most beneficial experience in life - like living my passion, living a life worth living, helping others to do the same, making the life experience the best for the most possible.

First, I don't "worship" God. That is such a dated term that carries so much weight! Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

I am grateful and thank God on a daily basis for all of the blessings in my life. This prayer of thankfulness is akin to acknowledgement that there is life, there are others to interact with, at this particular time in the eternity of my existence, I feel joy for things like being able to post on message boards and discuss different points of view with others.

As previously stated, I believe that I gain more blessings and great things with God in my life rather than without. I believe this is similar to karmic fortune. I try at all times to give out love and empowerment and surround myself with those types of people and I am enjoying my life immensely because of it. Obviously, I am not perfect and need constant reminders, but I have God as a signpost or beacon to keep me on the right path to "my highest good".

I hope that explains why I feel I gain from believing in my God.

but it's just a wonderful guide to keep me on track. You're reading all of my posts with your own personal filters. Please try to remove those filters and see what I'm trying to say from an unbiased pov. Please also remove judgement as you seem to have a lot of that in your responses also.

YY here again asks for an unbiased POV. Yet he himself has given no evidence at all that there might be anything at all supporting his opinion. He is not asking for an unbiased POV, he is looking for blind faith.

This was when there was a vacuum and before the universe existed. Also, this is just my version of the story. It's the one I choose to believe. It makes sense. Why not?

When I'm in the "zone", I try to look at all decisions and actions in my life looking for the win-win. I try to speak with empowering words rather than limiting ones. The signposts are reminders of how I can continue looking for inspiration rather than oppression.

As I believe that God is everything, I believe that everything had a part to play in my success and thank "God" for everything in my life. […] I don't take for granted all of the good (and bad) things in my life and I am thankful and constantly remind myself with my prayer of gratitude.

I try to maintain the dialog as "my" God or "my belief" in God. I know it's just one of many thousands of interpretations.

I'm just trying to explain why there is suffering in the world, especially when it can be said to be caused by "God". God just "is" . . . without judgement.

Now follows your version of the meaning of life (around #106 IIRC)

No - My version, the one I'm most comfortable, made up of a few versions combined goes like this. God is, was, always has been and always will be the all, omnipresent, omnipotent being. But, there was a time when the Universe, or anything physical for that matter, did not exist. In order for God to know itself, it had to create duality and thus, created the universe and everything in it. Now, imagine source energy or God if you will extending itself into every different thing we comprehend. So, God energy is in the individual people on the planet, any other life form that exists, planets, mountains, plants, the ocean, everything! Once this energy is transformed from source, to thing (or person), and then dies or transforms back to source, it gains experience. God is constantly knowing himself through the experience of the everything.

This is something personal to me. it may be different for others. As I stated previously, there are signposts in my life that keep reminding me of the oneness of all. The messages I get from God can be in the form of a beautiful sunset, animals, a song I hear on the radio etc. I feel that my perspective on life, as everyone being from the same source, leads me to live a fun and fulfilling life. These are my messages from God. Even though I can understand that God has no investment in my happiness, I have an investment in my own happiness and thus, see these as signs from God. The fact that there's anything here at all is the easiest reminder of our unity on a source level.

You can be completely unaware of it just as you are unaware of anything that happened to you before you were born. On this plane, we process data with our 5 senses. Before you had ears to hear, eyes to see etc, you only had consciousness - which gave you a different means to process data (awareness).

If you were a citizen of the United States, you and all of the other citizens could be classified as "American". It would be just as logical that you were grateful to your country and thanked the USA every day for the opportunities and blessings it provides.

when you say that you're responsible for ANYTHING, there are so many supporting factors working together in the past, present, and future that allow you to live the life you do today. I don't think it's such a bad thing to be grateful and say a prayer of thanksgiving to God (everything) for all of the good in my life.

Gnu offers moral support but little else

Gnu:I was a pantheist when I joined WWGHA three years ago, and having engaged in hours and hours of religious and philosophical discussions since then... I'm still a pantheist. Sorry.

Then, a question that has been bothering many:
Avatar of Belial: Ok, YY, I've read through the thread... and I still have no clue why you believe in this god. What purpose does it serve? Anything aside from making you feel like you're a better person? Why can't you do that without this... vague... thing-god you've proposed? How is it any different from everything being just "everything"? What does "God is everything" add to it?

In addition, you say you act this way (like a better person) because you assume everything is "connected" and you think that if everything is separate you'd have no problem being a selfish bastard, right? Why don't you think you'd be capable of empathy without it?

Also, if you aren't a Christian, why is church one of your "roadsigns"? What purpose does it serve if you don't share the same beliefs?[/quote]

You reply

Not so much that I'm incapable without it, but more that life's routines get in the way. I know that there are some who can keep themselves constantly motivated or keep their eye on the ball. I'm not one of them. My problem is that life is comfortable if I just keep working and paying the bills. If I don't actively focus on things like looking for the win-win, reminding myself that we are all one, looking for ways to inspire myself to inspire others, bring out the best in myself and others, I can easily fall into the rut of mediocrity. I can give in to the ego and lash back at the name callers who aren't asking legitimate questions (like you do), but merely hear the key word from the theist and go off with their bullet proof arguments.  I can forget to live life doing what I'm passionate about and just get to the next weekend.

Like I said, I'm not perfect and I benefit from knowing that although we are one, the individualized forms of self are trying their best to reach their highest good. Sometimes, this means that we have conflicting ideas, we share them, sometimes with passion, and we learn. Sometimes the routine of life gets in the way and I forget to strive for my highest good.

I don't go to Christian Church. We still call the place we hold services church. And, as I previously stated, when I don't go to church for long stretches of time, I find the routine of life taking over. Going to church re-energizes me. It's like if you were to go to a Real Estate seminar and you hear Trump and Kiyosaki speak. You get all this new insight and strategy and want to get out there and put your new knowledge into action. You have a list of things to do and start out gung ho on day 1. After day 10 or 14, you're getting a little laxed on returning phone calls and by day 40, you've basically put that on the back burner. Plus, by going on a weekly basis, I sometimes pick up new techniques or hear something phrased in a different way that allows me a deeper understanding of the idea.

I've learned that I need to convince atheists with proof. I almost need to argue as if I were a lawyer, except that lawyers can have a human jury which takes into account factors beyond scientific proof and sometimes come to a conclusion using emotion, and probably just as often come to incorrect conclusions with concrete data.

So, when discussing an intangible like "God", your requirement for Statistics, data, evidence and proof (SDEP) will more likely fall into the gray area than the black and white. If you don't allow for gray, there's no sense going any further.

Based on your responses, you don't understand what I'm trying to say.

If I may use your words: I've learned that I need to convince atheists with proof. No. What you have not learned is that everyone should require proof – including you.

I'm trying to say that the point of no sale when atheists and theists talk is when the atheist demands SDEP - which is really not something I'm trying to say to support an argument of mine or not. I'm merely trying to explain why theists can believe without needing SDEP.

I believe religion is just as much a human invention as democracy. And in it's most superficial understanding, yes, religion is what you describe, but theists would disagree that it's nonsense. It is my belief that the largest religions of the world are used FOR regulating behavior. The harm caused is a side effect of individuals or small groups using religion for their personal gain.

 Avatar of Belial I disagree. Religious and supernatural claims are the only ones that people give special undeserved liberties to when it comes to "proof". – there follows a good discourse on statistics

jdawg70: I'm in agreement with Alzael here insofar as your beliefs do not appear to be compatible with objective reality.  Focus on that part.  Focus on the concept that Alzael and likely many of us posting on this topic think that some of your beliefs are not compatible with reality and therefore unreasonable.

In a technical sense, yes, there is no proof that 'god exists'. It's a sticking point that has been the achille's heel of religion. So, I'll agree to surrender that point - I believe there is no clinical proof that God exists.

Insofar as objective reality, I've been trying my hardest to explain WHY theists don't need evidence to incorporate God into their objective reality. God is an important part of millions of people's lives and probably the first person they turn to in the most critical times of their lives. There is definitely an amount of fear in place with going to God first, but for many, there is incredible comfort knowing that there is a supportive force that is with them in what may be their last breathe on this earthly plane.

Our ETERNAL selves can only fathom ourselves in this Universe when we experience life and separate our ETERNAL selves by limiting this consciousness with time and space, thus becoming physical form. Life is a prison (from our eternal selves into the physical form)

We have no desires or needs as the eternal, unified, one. It is our physical form that limits us to personal desires and the affection for those we come to know in this lifetime.

As far as calling it God, that is what I'm more comfortable with and I also believe that our Universe is just one of many, so God is bigger than the Universe. Also, for me, the name God also encapsulates the relationship between all things in the universe. When you say Universe, you're talking about individual items contained in a bowl called "Universe". When I say God, I see these items in the bowl, but I also see their interconnectedness, unity, and relationships to each other in a sense that when there is an action, there is a reaction. I think God is a very different term than Universe.

Conclusion
1.   I had to correct the word ‘separate’ in both your and others' writings so many times, I think it is worth showing the correct spelling.
2.   How do you feel about believing in something supernatural, something for which you don’t have the slightest evidence?
3.   You have more-or-less said what you believe, and what effect belief has on you. The thing you do not say is why you should chose a figment of your imagination to have such a hold on you, nor what caused you to conclude that your thoughts are correct. (Where you think you have given reasons, I am afraid you simply haven't. Nothing you have said stands up to any scrutiny.

[velkyn]

If I say that I see God in my mind, is this a self-evident truth or a delusion?

Knowing you to be an atheist, Velks, I'd say it was a lie. 

  Heh. but if I weren’t, what would your “diagnosis” be?  I’m trying to suss out the definition of delusional and ‘self-evident truth”.  That’s it. 

And it would of course depend on what you (or anyone else) meant by 'God' in that sentence. (I'd also point out that I haven't used the word 'god' in this thread, and I don't intend to).

I’m not sure why since this is rather pertinent to the discussion.   If I said “I see fairies in my mind” is this any different than saying “God”?   I find that religion gets a unearned “bye” when looked at psychologically. 

So... where do you want to go with this? Do you have another question for me? I don't mind answering questions about my pantheist worldview, but I'm not pushing it on anyone and I make no claims and I offer no 'proof' of anything.

Just looking for an answer to the question “If I say that I see God (and I mean an existential deity) in my mind, is this a self-evident truth or a delusion?”  I’m not trying to be Socratic, or abusive, just following a line of thought.    You are welcome to answer or not. 

[YY]

Since I agree with most of your post, I'll just respond to some parts . . .

What you have singularly failed to do is to offer any proof whatsoever that your belief is nothing more than a self-induced delusion (i.e. not insanity but a totally irrational thought that is wilful ignorance and denial of what you must have observed or what others can show is fact.)

Yes, it is wilful ignorance, but I like to see it as wilful not-understood-yet-ness. Seriously, WHY are we still asking for me to produce the burden of proof when we've beaten that dead horse? I start off by saying that you won't get undeniable proof from my responses!

An unbiased stance would be one in which the observer could make his own conclusions based on facts.

Perhaps you are correct and I was asking for blind faith. I will retract on asking for the above to convince of my point, but I will ask for this to understand my pov.

You are not going to offer any proof, or even fundamental reasons. So when people ask, you will not reply.

I believe I have offered my reasoning. You even reiterated in your posts. My reasoning for believing in God is because this is the name/power/energy that properly describes (to me) the items that makeup our existense (that reaches beyond our universe) and their relationship to each other. The universe or multiverse is a collection of items. God (to me) is what describes the unity and connectedness of these items, how they began, how they continue to exist, their purpose, and their relationship to each other.


Azael: I believe the issue here is whether you can prove it at all. You do realize that there are certain standards for evidence that exist, right?

I know the standards for evidence and proof. I said up front that I will not be able to comply with those standards.


MMcNealy: As far as I can read, you haven't given any evidence to the existence of god.  Circumstantial or not.  Just a generic statement that god=everything because I believe it to be true.

At the point MMcNealy posted this, maybe I didn't. I hope my statement above answers this a little more clearly.

If I may use your words: I've learned that I need to convince atheists with proof. No. What you have not learned is that everyone should require proof – including you.

I was talking about outside of this thread. I sanction this thread, since it was addressed to me, as a proof-not-necessary zone. All other threads will require said proof.

Conclusion
1.   I had to correct the word ‘separate’ in both your and others' writings so many times, I think it is worth showing the correct spelling. thank you
2.   How do you feel about believing in something supernatural, something for which you don’t have the slightest evidence?  I feel fine. As I've stated, I believe that my life is enhanced by this belief. I feel that my belief offers many more answers to questions than the alternative of not believing or having a different religion. I enjoy the way we discuss world views and think it works in my life. I feel my religion inspires and always pushes me to strive beyond my limiting thoughts.
3.   You have more-or-less said what you believe, and what effect belief has on you. The thing you do not say is why you should chose a figment of your imagination to have such a hold on you, nor what caused you to conclude that your thoughts are correct. (Where you think you have given reasons, I am afraid you simply haven't. Nothing you have said stands up to any scrutiny.You are calling it a figment of my imagination. I see it as something very real due to the measurable effect it has on my life. I conclude that my thoughts are correct because I enjoy my life the way it is. I base this on a comparative observation of others' lives and the misery they TRULY experience whether they are rich or poor, in a relationship or not, employed or not, black or white, (some right here on this message board) etc.

When you boil it down, all of this comes to perspective rather than physical substance. If my belief in God helps me to have a better perspective on life, that would be the only offering of "proof" that I will be able to provide. I've tried in many pages to convey this thought but apparently, I'm not a good communicator. I may have blamed this miscommunication on the "proof" obstacle, but I know others have effectively said something like this in a page or less. I will try to be more efficient with my words in the future.

[Alzael]

Alzael:

First, let me preface this by saying this. Don't presume to tell me what I mean...  snip... if you ever feel the need to tell me, or others, about what I mean to say (especially when I've already said the exact opposite) don't.

1. You don't have the authority to issue orders to me about what I can say or not say on this Forum. Not even if you write them in bold.

2. And I didn't do that anyway. I told you how I interpreted your comments, using the phrases to my eyes, and that's not how it reads to me.

It takes two to communicate effectively; it depends on the writer's power of articulacy and the reader's power of comprehension, both of which are variable.

In this case, the failure to communicate lies partly with you. Graybeard says that "He does not say you are a lunatic". Now look at post 97, where you said (my bold):

I'm simply trying to relay to you my understanding of God and how this affects my life and this is totally independent of what anyone else on this board does with their life.

And the question that I asked which was why you would bother? Without evidence you're no different than a ranting lunatic.

Given that at this point YY hadn't given any evidence, you appear to be calling him a ranting lunatic (because he is "no different" to one).

In the same post, you go on to say (my bold):

This is what I meant about you considering what people are saying. You are failing to understand this. You are simply one more person with a tenuous grasp of reality, trying to tell us about what colour the sky is in your little world. Why should we care?

In my opinion, saying that someone has a tenuous grasp of reality amounts to calling them crazy, and I'm not surprised that YY took it that way.

You say that we have misunderstood you; my feedback to Graybeard is that the blame for that lies partly with you.

I notice that in all of this you chose to not pay any mention to all of the numerous times that I made attempt to clarify the point. Or the innumerable times I explained what I meant. Instead latching onto only those two statements to try and make a point.

You've also ignored other aspects as well. Such as how I pointed out that theist beliefs are equated to being similiar to mental illness all the time around here. It's a connundrum why you are latching onto this one.

1. You don't have the authority to issue orders to me about what I can say or not say on this Forum. Not even if you write them in bold.

Actually that's not entirely accurate. While you don't have to do it, I do actually have every right to tell you not to come into a conversation that you had previously had no real part in, and start telling everyone else about what I am saying, when I have said the exact opposite.

" You're accusing him of being a lunatic (or, you're saying his beliefs are indistinguishable from those of a lunatic - which frankly, is much the same thing), and asking him to prove that he's not. "

In your initial post this is what you said. You outright said that I was accusing him of being a lunatic. You only added "To my eyes" in a later post. So then, out of curiousity, how were you not telling me and everyone else what I meant?

Now, it is possible that this was simply an oversight on your part the first time and you forgot to add the "To my eyes" qualification. In which case I should probably overlook it and assume that such a thing is what you meant the first time.

However note the similiarity here in that this is exactly what you are doing in regards to my posts. You are taking what you feel to be one or two statements of mine which you think say something other than what I say I am saying, then using them to claim that I mean that other thing. Even though I have repeatedly clarified and expanded on the point and what I meant over and over again.

If you really want to continue with this, do it via PM, so as not to disrupt the thread.

[jtp56]

Hey. Hey guy. Hey.

I think it's really cool how you completely ignored the actual meat of plethora's post (genetics,biology,etc.), and then proceeded to do your little pompous St. Nick chuckle about the validity of a wiki article (you do know there are links at the bottom so you can verify stuff, right?), and then went on to talk to yourself about things like cloned sheep... I have no idea how that relates to evolution, but it demonstrates your fear of science quite nicely.

Do I get to lol now at the fact that you've been eating cloned apples your entire life? Or would that be too saucy of me?

Anyway, that post you just made? That was smoooooth. You're really, really good at this. <thumbs up> 

I did not ignore his post.  I went to Wiki and soon found out that part of the hypothetical (ah, er, I mean fact) they discuss is the Miller experiment, which, I immediately debunked.  You know;  the "meat of plethora's post".  I criticized Wiki because I heard Wiki talking, not plethora.  Instead you respond to my rudeness, which my rudeness is only a back-at-you because of your demeaning rants against creationists.  Petty I know, but it "feels" good.

Now if you got past that; here is a response to the rest, plehtora states that some of the "overwhelming" evidence for evolution is:

    * Genetics: DNA sequencing, DNA ancestry, chromosomes, mitochondrial ancestry ... observable micro-evolution in bacteria and viruses, etc.
    * Biology: Vestigial structures, comparative anatomy between species, etc.
    * Paleontology: The fossil record showing progressive transitions from one species to another.

I have not seen any evidence and ask you to provide it concerning bacteria being observed evolving into a higher life form.  I agree, bacteria has been able to adapt (I think there is confusion here because this is called evolution) to environments containing higher doses and different types of antibiotics, but they are STILL BACTERIA!  Unfortunately for me, even creationists have adopted the term "micro-evolution", which, to all scientists means changes within a species, not a new one.  To plethora, it obviously means we came from a primordial gooz by chance.

DNA, which is basically information or blueprints in code (how did that evolve?), is unique to a species.  Just because there are similarities doesn't make it the same.  My Chevy is kinda like my Ford.

Comparative anatomy.  And that PROVES evolution how?  Does a creator have to redesign the wheel?  Think!!!! about this one.  Modern day environmentalists go ballistic about saving habitat.  So the habitat had to be evolving, by chance, at the same rate as the critter, by chance.  Just think a little about your beliefs in this.  What came first, the critter or the habitat?

The fossil record does not show progressive transitions.  Only distinct forms.  They haven't found the missing link.  Do I need to post references from your guys admitting this to convince you?  You should know this by now. 

[jdawg70]

You are not going to offer any proof, or even fundamental reasons. So when people ask, you will not reply.

I believe I have offered my reasoning. You even reiterated in your posts. My reasoning for believing in God is because this is the name/power/energy that properly describes (to me) the items that makeup our existense (that reaches beyond our universe) and their relationship to each other. The universe or multiverse is a collection of items. God (to me) is what describes the unity and connectedness of these items, how they began, how they continue to exist, their purpose, and their relationship to each other.

When you boil it down, all of this comes to perspective rather than physical substance. If my belief in God helps me to have a better perspective on life, that would be the only offering of "proof" that I will be able to provide. I've tried in many pages to convey this thought but apparently, I'm not a good communicator. I may have blamed this miscommunication on the "proof" obstacle, but I know others have effectively said something like this in a page or less. I will try to be more efficient with my words in the future.

I'm confused about your use of the word/name 'God'.

I go back to my earlier point of semantics.  I think that we both agree that the totality of existence exists (seems pretty tautological).  I will go ahead and call that 'the sum total of reality'. 

Hydrogen atoms?  Part of 'the sum total of reality'.

The mechanism of gravity?  Part of 'the sum total of reality'.

The emergent property of consciousness?  Part of 'the sum total of reality'.

Well, you get the idea.  Now, what I am understanding is that you are simply labeling 'the sum total of reality' as 'god'.  Is this an accurate depiction of your beliefs?  If this is indeed the case, then we're arguing about labels and nothing more.  Sort of like arguing if a widget should be called 'Carl' or 'Carlton'...aesthetics aside, there is actually nothing to really argue over.  Or is there more to your beliefs?  Because from the sounds of it, there is more to your beliefs than simply 'all that exists exists'.  Your belief in god influences your perspective on life.

I'd like you to explain that - how does your belief in god influence your perspective?  If you're talking about appreciation for the interconnectedness of all things, exactly what does that have to do with the label 'god'?  Why does one need to invoke the label of 'god' to find the utility in understanding that one's actions have consequences that affect others?

I guess I'm still trying to nail down what your beliefs in regard to god actually are.  In a sense, my questions boil down to this:
What, to you, is the difference between saying 'all of reality exists' and 'god exists'?

[Gnu Ordure]

Alzael:

1. You don't have the authority to issue orders to me about what I can say or not say on this Forum. Not even if you write them in bold.

Actually that's not entirely accurate. While you don't have to do it, I do actually have every right to tell you not to come into a conversation that you had previously had no real part in

I didn't say you had no right to issue orders; I was pointing out that your orders carry no authority, and that I feel no obligation to obey you, so you are wasting your breath. But do continue to issue orders, as you wish.

Oh, you do:

If you really want to continue with this, do it via PM, so as not to disrupt the thread

No, I won't. I have no desire to discuss this privately.

And I'm not disrupting this thread. I wanted to make a point to GrayBeard in defence of YY, which I've done. I don't call that a disruption.
 

I notice that in all of this you chose to not pay any mention to all of the numerous times that I made attempt to clarify the point. Or the innumerable times I explained what I meant. Instead latching onto only those two statements to try and make a point.

And I notice that you ignore my point, that your initial presentation of your position was just as I said - you called him a raving lunatic in #97, as I just quoted. Yet in your last but one post you say:

If I had been calling him a lunatic, I would have outright said so.

As I pointed out, you did: "Without evidence you're no different than a ranting lunatic."

You appear to be contradicting yourself...

[Alzael]

If I had been calling him a lunatic, I would have outright said so.

As I pointed out, you did: "Without evidence you're no different than a ranting lunatic."

You appear to be contradicting yourself...

No, it is not a contradiction. But I am certain that you want to believe it is.

I said that without evidence to support what he says, that he was no different from a ranting lunatic. The same evidence that I've been consistently asking him to provide.

This does not constitute making the positive claim that he is a lunatic.

If you think that it is the same, then clearly the sky is a totally different colour in "Gnu's World".

[YY]

What, to you, is the difference between saying 'all of reality exists' and 'god exists'?

I apologize in advance for this quick reply as I'm very short on free time. You're doing quite a good job at reiterating my belief and I understand why many ask why I choose to call it God rather than an existing term. Besides what I've already written, here's the best way to explain the feeling I get about the interconnectedness of our lives and experiences by having God as the unifying power.

It would be best explained of the feeling you get in the relationship with your own child (or immediate family member) vs. that of a stranger. They are both "people", but there's obviously more effort given in the parent/child relationship than the person/stranger relationship. 

So it's not merely a matter of semantics. There is feeling behind the word.

[Gnu Ordure]

Velkyn:

Heh.    but if I weren’t, what would your “diagnosis” be?  I’m trying to suss out the definition of delusional and ‘self-evident truth”.  That’s it. 

OK... but I'm not sure why you're asking me...
 

If I said “I see fairies in my mind” is this any different than saying “God”?

There's a difference between saying "I see fairies in my mind", saying "I see fairies at the bottom of my garden", or saying "I see fairies in my dreams". Imagination, hallucination, dream - three different kinds of reality. Maybe we should define 'reality' and its many forms?
 
If you see a rainbow at the bottom of your garden (let's say you have a very big garden), how real is that? Science says that those glorious colours of the spectrum are only in your head - there are no colours 'out there' in the world. And science also says that no two people see the same rainbow (because every rainbow is centred on the eyes of each observer)- so there is no 'objective' rainbow at all.

So is a rainbow a hallucination, or an example of how each mind creates its own reality?

This isn't solipsism, by the way. We don't create our subjective realities out of thin air; there is something 'out there' on which we base our constructions. And that something is One Thing, which cannot be described, only experienced. The universe can only be described from the perspective of a Hypothetical Observer, who necessarily creates its own view of the universe and the words with which to describe it.

For example, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity explicitly requires the existence of Hypothetical Observers:

Relativity of simultaneity: Two events, simultaneous for one observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion.
Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock.
Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.

The One Thing, Ultimate Reality, doesn't depend on observers, and so cannot be spoken about, only experienced. So as Wittgenstein concluded in the final sentence of his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Perhaps I should take his advice... 


Does that help, Velkyn?

[Graybeard]

There's a difference between saying "I see fairies in my mind", saying "I see fairies at the bottom of my garden", or saying "I see fairies in my dreams". Imagination, hallucination, dream - three different kinds of reality. Maybe we should define 'reality' and its many forms?

Nevertheless, you recognise the differences.

Reality is the commonly shared experience. This is why (to my disappointment) I have to accept that people with a belief in the supernatural (to a ‘normal’ level) are not mad.
 

So is a rainbow a hallucination, or an example of how each mind creates its own reality?

Your rainbow is absolutely no different from the way I can see one thing here and you see another thing somewhere else. The light is affecting our eyes I differing ways, we would not expect the same result, would we? We would not because we are agreed that we will have different results, this is normal reality; nothing mysterious at all.

An example: you and I share a cup of tea from the same pot. You may well drink yours and continue with our conversation. I would have the strongest gagging reflex and be quite unable to continue. What we both experience as subjects and observers is normal and reality. (I cannot drink tea.)

This isn't solipsism, by the way. We don't create our subjective realities out of thin air; there is something 'out there' on which we base our constructions.

Really? Pix or it didn’t happen.

Are you suggesting that something exterior to us gives us ideas upon which we might build, and that this “something” gives us all the same information and we assimilate it in more or less the same way?

How would that differ from just living life and learning?

And that something is One Thing, which cannot be described, only experienced.

Really?

The universe can only be described from the perspective of a Hypothetical Observer, who necessarily creates its own view of the universe and the words with which to describe it.

It is not necessary to describe the universe in this manner. It is sufficient for humankind to have a well-documented set of observations for our common understanding to be supported and considered normal.

It might be very interesting to have the view of the universe from some creature from Alpha Centauri but if it differed and was unsupported, we would still hold to our collective reality; if it differed and was supported we would accept it into our cannon of reality.

The One Thing, Ultimate Reality, doesn't depend on observers, and so cannot be spoken about, only experienced.

I fail to see what you mean by “experienced” could you define that term for the board? If you could explain why most people experience much the same things and thus understand one another, that would be great.

You said,

And that something is One Thing, which cannot be described, only experienced.

So, it looks as if ultimate reality does not exist. But we do not need ultimate reality – we have our collective reality, by which we function most successfully. Our present reality serves our needs.

So as Wittgenstein concluded in the final sentence of his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

It certainly covers your “experience only.”

If you are going to say that you and I perceive things differently, may be only slightly so, but differently, then that is simply a question of weight placed upon various aspects and conditioned personal preferences. We agree on what we see, this is the important thing. I pull a few things from my drawer and a blue ball. Your reality is going to be the same as mine.

If you then say that justifies a delusion about supernatural beings who defy time and space, who can flick their fingers and create galaxies…

[velkyn]

I yanked this over here since this is where it should have been.  I'll address it in a bit:

And of course, still nothing to back up your claims that the bible and other holy books have more about how the respective deities love people than they have about hate. (my bold)

Here you go twisting again. Below was my exact quote. Somehow, you interpret this into a discussion about the actions of the respective deities to prove your biased, anti-Yahweh point.

If you can prove that holy books have more instances of hatred than love, then I'd agree with your point. If you can't show that, then you are merely projecting your atheist bias.

My point was that there are a ton of great teachings in the Bible and other holy books. Personally, I discard the bad stuff and keep the good. Why not? It's all fiction anyway right? I'm just fast forwarding past the part of the movie I don't like.

So here is my short submission of passages that can be positive, beneficial, impactful teachings. There are more examples of loving teachings like these in the holy books than of hateful ones.

[EDITED BY MODERATOR: Green boldface is for moderator instructions only.  Please use another color when highlighting.  Thank you.]


Matthew 5:43-48  “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,  so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.  For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?  You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 5:9  “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Romans 13:8  Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.

Galatians 5:13  For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

Ephesians 4:2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,

1 Peter 1:22  Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,

1 John 4:7  Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

Matthew 6:24-25  ”No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.  “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

John 15:9-17 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.  If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8  Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.  Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

Ephesians 4:2-3 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

1 John 3:18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

Proverbs 10:12 Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.

Proverbs 17:17  A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.

John 14:27  Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.

John 20:19  On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them,  “Peace be with you.”

Romans 14:19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

2 Corinthians 13:11  Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.

Mark 9:50  Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”

Luke 6:27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

Romans 12:17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

James 3:18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

Numbers 6:25-26 the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (not prince of hate).

Romans 8:6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.

Colossians 3:15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful.

Proverbs 22:24-25 Make no friendship with a man given to anger, nor go with a wrathful man, lest you learn his ways and entangle yourself in a snare.

1 Corinthians 15:33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.”

Romans 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Out do one another in showing honor.

Ephesians 4:29-32 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

Colossians 3:12-14 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

Proverbs 17:17 A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.

Proverbs 24:20 for the evil man has no future; the lamp of the wicked will be put out.

Proverbs 24:14 Know that wisdom is such to your soul; if you find it, there will be a future, and your hope will not be cut off.

Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

1 Corinthians 15:19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

2 Corinthians 4:16-18  So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.

Romans 12:12  Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.

Romans 15:13  May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.

Matthew 7:7,8 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

2:190 Allah loveth not transgressors

2:195 do good; for Allah loveth those who do good.

2:205 When he turns his back, his aim everywhere is to spread mischief through the earth and destroy crops and cattle. But Allah loveth not mischief.

2:276 Allah will deprive usury of all blessing, but will give increase for deeds of charity: For He loveth not creatures ungrateful and wicked

3:57 "As to those who believe and work righteousness, Allah will pay them in full their reward; but Allah loveth not those who do wrong."

3:76 Nay. -- Those that keep their plighted faith and act aright, -- verily Allah loves those who act aright.

3:103 And hold fast, all together, by the Rope which Allah stretches out for you, and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favor on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the Pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be guided.

3:134 Those who spend freely, whether in prosperity, or in adversity; who restrain anger, and pardon all men; -- for Allah loves those who do good

3:140 Allah loveth not those that do wrong.

4:36 Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good -- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the Companion by your side, the wayfarer ye meet, and what your right hands possess: For Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious

4:107 Contend not on behalf of such as betray their own souls; for Allah loveth not one given to perfidy and crime;

4:148 Allah loveth not that evil should be noised abroad in public speech, except where injustice hath been done; for Allah is He who heareth and knoweth all things.

5:14 Forgive them, and overlook their misdeeds: For Allah loveth those who are kind.

5:45 They are fond of listening to falsehood, of devouring anything forbidden. If they do come to thee, either judge between them, or decline to interfere. If thou decline, they cannot hurt thee in the least. If thou judge, judge in equity between them. For Allah loveth those who judge in equity.

5:67 Allah loveth not those who do mischief

5:90 O ye who Believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess: For Allah loveth not those given to excess

5:96 On those who believe and do deeds of righteousness there is no blame for what they ate in the past, when they guard themselves from evil, and believe, and do deeds of righteousness, -- or again, guard themselves from evil and believe, -- or again, guard themselves from evil and do good. For Allah loveth those who do good.

6:141 It is He who produceth gardens, with trellises and without, and dates, and tilth with produce of all kinds, and olives and pomegranates, similar in kind and different in variety): Eat of their fruit in their season, but render the dues that are proper on the day that the harvest is gathered. But waste not by excess: For Allah loveth not the wasters

7:31 O Children of Adam! Wear your beautiful apparel at every time and place of prayer: Eat and drink: But waste not by excess, for Allah loveth not the wasters.

7:55 Call on your Lord with humility and in private: For Allah loveth not those who trespass beyond bounds

7:189 It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her in love. When they are united, she bears a light burden and carries it about unnoticed. When she grows heavy, they both pray to Allah their Lord, saying: "If Thou givest us a goodly child. We vow we shall ever be grateful."

8:58 If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back their Covenant to them, so as to be on equal terms: For Allah loveth not the treacherous

9:4 But the treaties are not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term: For Allah loveth the righteous.

14:37 So fill the hearts of some among men with love towards them, and feed them with Fruits: So that they may give thanks.

16:23 Undoubtedly Allah doth know what they conceal, and what they reveal: Verily He loveth not the arrogant

19:96 On those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, will Allah Most Gracious bestow love.

21:90 So We listened to him: And We granted him Yahya: We cured his wife's barrenness for him. These three were ever quick in emulation in good works: They used to call on Us with love and reverence, and humble themselves before Us.

28:76 "Exult not, for Allah loveth not those who exult in riches.

28:77 "But seek, with the wealth which Allah has bestowed on thee, the Home of the Hereafter, nor forget thy portion in this world: But do thou good, as Allah has been good to thee, and seek not occasions for mischief in the land: For Allah loves not those who do mischief."

30:21 And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your hearts: Verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.

31:18 "And swell not thy cheek for pride at men, nor walk in insolence through the earth; for Allah loveth not any arrogant boaster.

38:32 And he said, "Truly do I love the love of Good, with a view to the glory of my Lord,"

42:23 That is the Bounty whereof Allah gives Glad Tidings to His Servants who believe and do righteous deeds. Say: "No reward do I ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin." And if any one earns any good, We shall give him an increase of good in respect thereof

42:40 The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto in degree): But if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: For Allah loveth not those who do wrong

49:9 If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: But if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye all against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: For Allah loves those who are fair and just.

57:23 In order that ye may not despair over matters that pass you by, nor exult over favors bestowed upon you. For Allah loveth not any vainglorious boaster

60:7 It may be that Allah will grant love and friendship between you and those whom ye now hold as enemies. For Allah has power over all things; and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for your Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: For Allah loveth those who are just

76:9 Saying, "We feed you for the sake of Allah alone: No reward do we desire from you, nor thanks.

[velkyn]

Okay, YY, I have time now to go over your list.   I find it hilarious that you have decided to broaden the discussion to all sorts of things that have nothing to do with showing love, and have removed the context of other verses that show that this “god love” is only for believers.   

To bring it back to what was said initially: I said:

I dont’ care what theists disagree about since reality shows them to be wrong.  As for your claim that harm is only a “side effect”, why not say that any beneficial effect is a “side effect” and that harm is the intent of these religions.  We see genocide commanded by various gods because the gods *want* it.  The Christian god wants all other gods ignored, and anyone who doesn’t believe in it killed. Same with the Jewish god and the Muslim god.  The Aztec gods wanted blood sacrifice.  Laws for behavior apply to their “chosen people” but everyone else is a candidate for the slaughterhouse.

you replied

If you can prove that holy books have more instances of hatred than love, then I'd agree with your point. If you can't show that, then you are merely projecting your atheist bias.

Now you claim that

My point was that there are a ton of great teachings in the Bible and other holy books. Personally, I discard the bad stuff and keep the good. Why not? It's all fiction anyway right? I'm just fast forwarding past the part of the movie I don't like.

BS, see above on what you originally claimed.  I never said that the various holy books didn’t have good things in them(nice goalposts moving there).  I said that there were more thing about hate than love.  You have yet to prove me wrong, and with your list full of things not about love at all, “love” limited to believers, etc, it’s more than obvious.  Because YY, I actually looked at what you listed. You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face but it doesn’t make it true, especially when you have to resort to such pathetic chicanery.  It *is* very amusing that now you say you simply ignore what you don’t like since it’s “fiction”.  Gee, since it’s “all fiction”, none of it must be true, right?  And we’re back to YY and his very own personal religion. 

Matthew 5:43-48  Good one

Matthew 5:9  ah, where’s the love here? 

Romans 13:8,  Matthew 22:37-40 Talking about Christians loving each other, no one else. Neighbor is never expanded to everyone, only those in a certain community.  If God wanted everyone to love their neighbor, defined as those who live near them, why the genocides when those neighbors worshiped other gods and had land that the Israelites wanted? Why the disparaging of the Samaritan woman? Why say that one should not associate with non-Christians?  Also is a very good example of how JC didn’t say that Christians should ignore his father’s commandments back in the OT.  In fact we have again that Christians should be following them, which does get into that problem with how the OT is full of killing non-believers.  I’ll file that for later use. 

Galatians 5:13, Ephesians 4:2, 1 Peter 1:22, Ephesians 4:2-3, 1 John 3:18 again talking to only Christians

1 John 4:7 Again, more Christian on Christian love, and a lovely false claim that only those who love are of God. Easy to show as false, and indeed what does a being that loves need to lie for?

Matthew 6:24-25  Nice one with how people can love without this god at all, and showing the one above to be wrong.  Doesn’t show that God loves anyone or anything. Did you just cut and paste without actually reading these things?

John 15:9-17 This would also be a good one, but for the problem that it also indicates that love is only for a chosen few, and that obedience is required before love is given.  It also shows that there is no free will, another one that can be filed for later.  This qualification of “love” I addressed back in my other post: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20171.msg447480.html#msg447480

1 Corinthians 13:4-8  The “love” definition in the bible.  Always good to see it, and point out that this god does nothing of the kind.   So, if this is how love should be defined, YY, and I think it’s a pretty good definition, does your bible have this kind of love in it? 
Proverbs 10:12 Hatred stirs up conflict,  but love covers over all wrongs.
Another good one, but it’s pretty ironic considering how God stirs up conflicts left and right. It seems that God encourages hatred. 
Proverbs 17:17  Another good one, but doesn’t’ show that god is necessary at all.  That’s the problem with a lot of Proverbs, Ecclesiates, etc.  Some more in that chapter:

18 One who has no sense shakes hands in pledge, and puts up security for a neighbor. 19 Whoever loves a quarrel loves sin; whoever builds a high gate invites destruction.  20 One whose heart is corrupt does not prosper; one whose tongue is perverse falls into trouble.21 To have a fool for a child brings grief; there is no joy for the parent of a godless fool.

See all of the love there
John 14:27,  John 20:19, Again, where’s the love here? I see “peace” but no love.

Romans 14:19,  2 Corinthians 13:11 Mark 9:50 More for Christains only and doesn’t mention “love”, except in calling on the “god of love and peace” which is nice but is not shown to be the case. 

Luke 6:27, Matthew 7:12   Good one, classic golden rule, which has been around far longer then Christianity. 

Romans 12:17 No mention of “love” and further on in the chapter says that you are just waiting for God to get his revenge, so you shouldn’t step on his toes.  Again, the love here, even just shown and not written out as “love”?

1 Corinthians 7:15  Again the love here?  and just above it where it says that anyone who doesn’t believe in god is “unclean”? 

James 3:18,  Numbers 6:25-26, Isaiah 9:6 Romans 8:6 Colossians 3:15 YY, do you think love equals peace?  You do know that they are separate words and totally separate meanings, right? Simply moving the goalposts again.

Proverbs 22:24-25  “Make no friendship with a man given to anger, nor go with a wrathful man, lest you learn his ways and entangle yourself in a snare.”  but I guess gods who are wrathful and given to anger get a pass? 

1 Corinthians 15:33 No mention of love at all. 

Romans 12:10 More Christian limited love.  Also, this is also in the chapter “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Love one another with brotherly affection. Out do one another in showing honor.”  evil and good are defined how in the bible? By God, yes?  We see hate being advocated here.

Ephesians 4:29-32, Colossians 3:12-14 more Christian limited love.

Proverbs 17:17 A repeat of the same one used above.

Proverbs 24:20, Proverbs 24:14 Nothing to do with love.

Jeremiah 29:11  Limited to the “exiles”, no mention of love, and again, a nice one to show no free will.  Also, in the chapter, God says he’s going to destroy some city for being what seems to be part of his plan.  They did what he supposedly wanted and now he’s going to blast them. We also have God damning someone’s descendents for what the progenitor did.  Where’s the love here, YY?   

1 Corinthians 15:19 “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.”  Really, this is what you put to show incidences of love in the bible?  Did you think I wouldn’t read your list?   It is rather funny, since yep, they should be pitied since nothing supports their claims.

2 Corinthians 4:16-18,  Romans 12:12, Romans 15:13, Matthew 7:7,8,  Matthew 5:16Again, no love.  Just repetitions of baseless claims. 

And now for the Qu’ran. 

2:190, 2:205, 2:276, 3:57, 3:140, 4:107, 4:148, 5:67, 5:90, 6:141, 7:31, 8:58, 28:76, 16:23, 28:77, 31:18, 57:23   YY, do you realize that “loveth not” doesn’t mean that Allah loves these things but the exact opposite?   These are quite repetitive too but if you posted them you can have them.

2:195,  3:76, 3:134, 5:14, 5:45Good ones.

3:103,  4:36, 49:9  Now we have Muslim on Muslim love. 

5:96, 7:55, 19:96 Love dependent on belief

7:189, 30:21 Repetition of the A&E creation myth and about human love between them.

9:4  This is quite a surah.  I’d suggest reading all of it to see all of the “love” there: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/9/   Let’s look at the verse right after this one to see how context changes things:

9:4 Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).
9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

  Be nice as long as a contract is in place but when it’s not then kill them. 

Same with sura 14.  Lovely examples of no free will, and how 14:37 has nothing to do with love. 

21:90 The context is Zacharia asking Allah for a child.  He gets his prayers answered and thus loves his god.  I suppose this would be true if prayers were ever answered.

38:32 And he said, "Truly do I love the love of Good, with a view to the glory of my Lord,"

Or: 38:32 And he said: Lo! I have preferred the good things (of the world) to the remembrance of my Lord; till they were taken out of sight behind the curtain. http://quran.com/38/32-32   always pleasant to see that the Muslims have the same problems that other theists have.


60:7  and verses after those two? 
   

60:8 Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers.    
60:9 Allah forbiddeth you only those who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that ye make friends of them. Whosoever maketh friends of them - (All) such are wrong- doers.

   

76:9 Saying, "We feed you for the sake of Allah alone: No reward do we desire from you, nor thanks.

And this shows love how?  We only feed you for our god’s sake is saying what?  Not out of love but out of what?  Obediance? Fear?

now, I responded initially with this to demonstrate all of the hate in the bible: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20171.msg447480.html#msg447480 and I also posted a link to things in the Qu’ran, http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/short.html .  I’ve had no response from you, YY, about these except for you trying to ignore them and evidently being unable to find them in your bible    Genesis has god playing favorites over an altar full of meat and one of vegetables and inciting murder over it (he didn’t know what he was doing? helluva thing to claim for an omniscient being, eh?) We have every genocidal war that god commanded against those who did not worship him. The entire OT is full of them, and how many books and verses is that, YY?  We have the flood that, other than simply being nonsense, shows a murderous god that hates and kills everyone and everything except a few (who then promptly get drunk and start cursing people for other’s sins). Exodus is all about God playing with the Egyptians to the point of murder and war, and then we get laws on who believers are supposed to hate and kill. We have Job where God allows people to be killed for a bet.  We have the prophet books where God constantly threatens destruction and causes destruction. In the days right after the whole Exodus thing, we have God throwing a fit and killing men women and children for daring not to blindly accept Moses as being better than them.  It goes on and on, to the point of committing genocide on tribes that have already supposedly been annihilated . Anyone who has read the bible knows this.  We have the gospels where JC says that people are intentionally damned for no good reason by this god, that they intentionally kept from accepting God. IS this love, YY?  We have Paul and his screeds against homosexuals, and women who don’t act a certain way.  Then we have the entire book of Revelation which has murder, murder and more murder, capping it off with this supposedly loving god, intentionally allowing the “beast” back onto the earth to corrupt more people.  Is this loving, YY?  Actually, if you could define love for me, YY, that would probably end this discussion since I ‘d see just what you think is acceptable for a loving being.

Now, I could list ever single verse and chapter that shows this hatred that this god demands and causes and demand that YY address each one like I have his. I’ve already listed some and he hasn’t done anything of the sort.  He has moved the goalposts to expand his list beyond love and hate into good and evil etc and this sort of rather silly deceit isn’t worth bothering with.     

[velkyn]

There's a difference between saying "I see fairies in my mind", saying "I see fairies at the bottom of my garden", or saying "I see fairies in my dreams". Imagination, hallucination, dream - three different kinds of reality. Maybe we should define 'reality' and its many forms?

funny how reality has it's own definition and dreams, etc have their own.  No, they aren''t reality, not by a long shot.   Do you realy have to resort to trying to redefine words, gnu?
 

If you see a rainbow at the bottom of your garden (let's say you have a very big garden), how real is that? Science says that those glorious colours of the spectrum are only in your head - there are no colours 'out there' in the world. And science also says that no two people see the same rainbow (because every rainbow is centred on the eyes of each observer)- so there is no 'objective' rainbow at all.

Where in teh world does "science" say that?  Water droplets split sunlight and light has various frequencies depending on color (or vice versa).  They do exist. Seeing rainbows depends on physical orientation to the sun and droplets.  They certainly are not hallucinations nor are they subjective experiences. 

This isn't solipsism, by the way. We don't create our subjective realities out of thin air; there is something 'out there' on which we base our constructions. And that something is One Thing, which cannot be described, only experienced. The universe can only be described from the perspective of a Hypothetical Observer, who necessarily creates its own view of the universe and the words with which to describe it.

I'm sorry, gnu, but it certainly seems like solipcism.  You seem to wish to claim that there is some "out there" that we can't know about, which is simply nonsense.  Unless you'd like to take my challenge about holding a white hot piece of iron.  Take the chance, you might be right and it might not burn your hand off. Maybe.

[Finntroll]

This isn't solipsism, by the way. We don't create our subjective realities out of thin air; there is something 'out there' on which we base our constructions. And that something is One Thing, which cannot be described, only experienced. The universe can only be described from the perspective of a Hypothetical Observer, who necessarily creates its own view of the universe and the words with which to describe it.

I'm sorry, gnu, but it certainly seems like solipcism.  You seem to wish to claim that there is some "out there" that we can't know about, which is simply nonsense.  Unless you'd like to take my challenge about holding a white hot piece of iron.  Take the chance, you might be right and it might not burn your hand off. Maybe.

My view is something akin to relativism, pragmatism, zen or whateverthehell you call it.

I think there is many "truths", that is an infinite number of ways to split the world. How we split the world into pieces both creates the world and does not create the world. Without splitting the world we could not perceive it. And btw the "I" that perceives is just one of those pieces. No mythical force does this, but pragmatic need, which is different in different situations.

There are many truths (ways to split the world) and they are equal. Different cultures and languages split the world differently, and even more so do different species. What is a book to me is food for a termite, and we are both right. There is nothing "out there" to say the other way is untrue or impossible. The worst mistake of classical western philosophy was to claim that there is something solid knowledge of THE Truth "out there". Even if there was, it would be equal to other world views.

However, i think while there are many "truths", there is only one set of "facts". If we agree on the question, we certainly can know what is the answer. If we agree, what is called dog and what is called cat, then the two of us can know and agree whether the animal we see is a dog or a cat.

Religions tend to make factual claims about science and history and extraordinary happenings. When they do this, they are coming to the area of science using the same questions science asks, and they almost invariably get busted, and rightly so.

[RaymondKHessel]

^^^^ I split the world once.

Another time, I was standing next to a mountain? And I chopped it down with the edge of my hand.

It was so fucking boss.

[Finntroll]

^^^^ I split the world once.

Another time, I was standing next to a mountain? And I chopped it down with the edge of my hand.

It was so fucking boss.

Well,  if you mean by "mountain" the same I call a mountain, I think you are talking contrafactual bullshit or you are the Incradible Hulk. However, if your you or your culture classifies even sandcastle-size formations as mountains, then that is the way you "split the world", it is acceptable and you might be telling the truth.

[RaymondKHessel]

Congratulations. You're officially a square. 

It's alright though. Somebody out there is bound to pick up what I'm puttin' down.