Is morality proof of god.

[bertatberts]

It isn't done with the intention to persuade, it is done with the intention of educating. Huge difference, lookup the actual meaning of the word "Convert."  No semantics here.

Education isn't persuasion, it's giving you the info to make your own mind up.

[jaimehlers]

bertaberts, education is a form of persuasion.  Or are you suggesting that teachers aren't working to convince their students that the information they give is correct?  That they let students make up their own minds as to whether that information is correct?

No.  Teachers do have to use persuasion in order to be effective teachers.  The kind of teacher who simply put information down in front of their students and said, "here, now make up your own mind", would not be doing their job effectively.  Among other things, a teacher has to persuade their students that they're knowledgeable about the subject they're teaching, that they're worth listening to, and that the information is actually correct.

[Greatest I am]

It isn't done with the intention to persuade, it is done with the intention of educating. Huge difference, lookup the actual meaning of the word "Convert."  No semantics here.

Education isn't persuasion, it's giving you the info to make your own mind up.

Semantics again. It causes self-persuasion.

Knowing more than on language may give me a larger window semantic wise. I do not get as specific as some but this language you and I are arguing is definitely close and I am not going to argue semantics with you.

I am French and if will not argue English definitions.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

bertaberts, education is a form of persuasion.  Or are you suggesting that teachers aren't working to convince their students that the information they give is correct?  That they let students make up their own minds as to whether that information is correct?

No.  Teachers do have to use persuasion in order to be effective teachers.  The kind of teacher who simply put information down in front of their students and said, "here, now make up your own mind", would not be doing their job effectively.  Among other things, a teacher has to persuade their students that they're knowledgeable about the subject they're teaching, that they're worth listening to, and that the information is actually correct.

+  1

Regards
DL

[bertatberts]

bertaberts, education is a form of persuasion.  Or are you suggesting that teachers aren't working to convince their students that the information they give is correct?  That they let students make up their own minds as to whether that information is correct?

No.  Teachers do have to use persuasion in order to be effective teachers.  The kind of teacher who simply put information down in front of their students and said, "here, now make up your own mind", would not be doing their job effectively.  Among other things, a teacher has to persuade their students that they're knowledgeable about the subject they're teaching, that they're worth listening to, and that the information is actually correct.

Seriously!  A good teacher, gives you the tools to use to make up your own mind. A good teacher does not indoctrinate or inculcate it's pupils, that is the way of the religious.
However is it also the way it is done in America. If you want sheep you enforce your opinion.
If you want people you teach.
You do understand what the word teach means don't you, it doesn't mean persuade, indoctrinate, inculcate, it means to impart knowledge to or instruct a person as to how to do something, and it's up to them to decide whether to use that information. There is no hint of persuasion in meaning of the word.

[bertatberts]

It isn't done with the intention to persuade, it is done with the intention of educating. Huge difference, lookup the actual meaning of the word "Convert."  No semantics here.

Education isn't persuasion, it's giving you the info to make your own mind up.

Semantics again. It causes self-persuasion.

If So, then it is self conversion also, which is what I said in the first place.

Knowing more than on language may give me a larger window semantic wise. I do not get as specific as some but this language you and I are arguing is definitely close and I am not going to argue semantics with you.

Yes it probably means something entirely different where you come from. I'm using the Oxford English Dictionary. 

Oh by the way I speak Spanish, Greek, and a little Italian.
Try not to be so cocky!

[Greatest I am]

It isn't done with the intention to persuade, it is done with the intention of educating. Huge difference, lookup the actual meaning of the word "Convert."  No semantics here.

Education isn't persuasion, it's giving you the info to make your own mind up.

Semantics again. It causes self-persuasion.

If So, then it is self conversion also, which is what I said in the first place.

Knowing more than on language may give me a larger window semantic wise. I do not get as specific as some but this language you and I are arguing is definitely close and I am not going to argue semantics with you.

Yes it probably means something entirely different where you come from. I'm using the Oxford English Dictionary. 

Oh by the way I speak Spanish, Greek, and a little Italian.
Try not to be so cocky!

I can't help it. Being able to screw up in three languages and having few arguments on semantics  or the way I use language make me that way


"Semantics again. It causes self-persuasion.[/quote]If So, then it is self conversion also, which is what I said in the first place."


Self-conversion based on information given by someone else means that that person is the cause of the conversion as they supplied the information used.

Give credit where credit is due.

Regards
DL

[jaimehlers]

Seriously!  A good teacher, gives you the tools to use to make up your own mind. A good teacher does not indoctrinate or inculcate it's pupils, that is the way of the religious.

And where do you get this idea that persuasion is only indoctrination or inculcation?  For that matter, I wouldn't define either of those as persuasion to begin with - those are more akin to coercion than anything.  A good teacher doesn't simply put information before their students and hope they will make up their own minds.  They persuade the student to understand that what they're trying to teach is important, valuable, and useful, among other things, and they generally try to help the student come to the correct answers - not just so the student can pass the class, but so that they also have access to the information later on rather than dismissing it as useless trivia.

However is it also the way it is done in America. If you want sheep you enforce your opinion.
If you want people you teach.

Granted.  But you can persuade someone without trying to force your opinion on them.  Surely you understand that much, at least.

You do understand what the word teach means don't you, it doesn't mean persuade, indoctrinate, inculcate, it means to impart knowledge to or instruct a person as to how to do something, and it's up to them to decide whether to use that information. There is no hint of persuasion in meaning of the word.

I understand it a lot better than you do, apparently, since you seem to think that persuasion, indoctrination, and inculcation are analogous.  In order to impart knowledge to someone, you have to persuade them to listen and to respect what you say.  You also have to persuade them that the subject is useful to them, or at least will be useful.  No doubt there are other things you have to persuade them of as well.  One of the problems with the public school system is that primary and secondary school teachers don't attempt to persuade their students of anything - they simply present it as something to be learned so that the student can pass their course and move on.

[Schizoid]

I have never come across an atheist, who has ever tried to convert anybody, they all know that it is up to the theist to come to his senses.
No amount of prodding or pulling will make him change his mind he is the only person that can do that.
Atheists merely answer the questions posed by theist in a logical coherent way, there is no attempt to convert.
If the theist feels that his beliefs are foolish after reading a reply from an atheist then he will convert himself.

Now we're getting caught up with the meaning of "convert".  I am sure there have been many atheists who have attempted to convince a theist that the atheist's point of view concerning religion is correct.  The atheist may not be trying to "convert" the theist but it comes down to the same thing.

No atheist tries to persuade someone to change their religious faith or other belief with the intention of converting them. So no it doesn't come down to the same thing.
But on the converse it is in religious doctrines to try to persuade people to convert to their way of thinking. All the atheist wants is for people to live and let live, without imposing there beliefs on others.  The only thing atheists have in common is there lack of belief in gods.

First you say, "I have never come across an atheist, who has ever tried to convert anybody..." and then you say, "No atheist tries to persuade someone to change their religious faith or other belief..."  So which is it?  The atheists you have come across or "no" atheist because "no atheist" means "none, not one"?

My guess is that you don't know all atheists.  I would also guess that there are more than a few atheists who delight in trying to prove to a theist  that their beliefs are stupid and foolish in the hope that the theist will see the error of their ways and come around to the truth.  The theist in the same way tries to convince the atheist that to not believe in god is foolish in the hopes that the nonbeliever will become a believer.

Obviously nobody can change the mind of someone else, but all of advertising and much of religion and politics is about convincing someone to change to mind to agree with the intended point of view.

Atheists are just people, people who do not believe in any god.  That certainly does not mean that they are all noble and pure and only desire to live and let live, at least not on this planet or in this dimension.

[bertatberts]

Self-conversion based on information given by someone else means that that person is the cause of the conversion as they supplied the information used.

No wrong, the person who supplied the information is not culpable, It is up to you to decide whether to use that information. 

And where do you get this idea that persuasion is only indoctrination or inculcation?  For that matter, I wouldn't define either of those as persuasion to begin with

They are synonyms. To indoctrinate is teach with an objective a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. To inculcate is to instil with an objective an idea, attitude, or habit by persistent instruction. To persuade is to cause with an objective someone to believe something, especially after a sustained effort I.E to convince.

those are more akin to coercion than anything.

Coercion is persuasion though force or fear.

   A good teacher doesn't simply put information before their students and hope they will make up their own minds.  They persuade the student to understand that what they're trying to teach is important, valuable, and useful, among other things, and they generally try to help the student come to the correct answers - not just so the student can pass the class, but so that they also have access to the information later on rather than dismissing it as useless trivia.

Not the teachers I had. Even my parents when they imparted knowledge only ever gave me the information to act on. I was never enforced with anybody else opinion.

Granted.  But you can persuade someone without trying to force your opinion on them.  Surely you understand that much, at least.

I can agree that someone can impart information to you without enforcing their opinion on you, but I would not call that persuasion. When a teacher impart information he usually does that for a basis of evidence, he has no need to persuade when the evidence is there, he only would need to persuade if he had no evidence to back himself up.
 

First you say, "I have never come across an atheist, who has ever tried to convert anybody..." and then you say, "No atheist tries to persuade someone to change their religious faith or other belief..."  So which is it?

I don't understand! They both mean the same thing.  I.E the atheist is not trying to convert thus is not trying to persuade. 

Example: if a religious person said they didn't believe in evolution, I would lead them to a source of information and leave them to make up there own mind.  It is up to them to either accept or reject the evidence, if they think reasonably they will accept it.

In England schools are multi cultural, teachers here are not allowed to enforce the views, they are only allowed to impart the evidential knowledge base they have, then those children[1] decide whether to accept that knowledge.

1.	((and there families) because of faith based school and the like)

[jaimehlers]

They are synonyms. To indoctrinate is teach with an objective a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. To inculcate is to instil with an objective an idea, attitude, or habit by persistent instruction. To persuade is to cause with an objective someone to believe something, especially after a sustained effort I.E to convince.

No, actually, indoctrinate and inculcate are not synonyms of persuade (at least according to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary).  Indoctrinate is a synonym of both educate and teach; inculcate isn't a synonym of either persuade or indoctrinate.  The point is that they are different words with different meanings, rather than different words with the same meaning (synonyms).

Coercion is persuasion though force or fear.

I know what coercion means.

Not the teachers I had. Even my parents when they imparted knowledge only ever gave me the information to act on. I was never enforced with anybody else opinion.

Persuasion is about someone convincing you that something is worth adopting.  Naturally, it is possible to use force or fear to 'persuade' (coerce) someone.  It is also possible to persuade them through sound, logical arguments.  I hope you are not seriously going to claim that there is no difference between persuading someone through sound, logical arguments and persuading someone through force or fear.

I can agree that someone can impart information to you without enforcing their opinion on you, but I would not call that persuasion. When a teacher impart information he usually does that for a basis of evidence, he has no need to persuade when the evidence is there, he only would need to persuade if he had no evidence to back himself up.

Except that persuasion isn't necessarily about someone 'enforcing' (forcing) something on you.  There's a reason we describe that as coercion rather than persuasion.  It seems to me that you're working from a rather narrow set of definitions here; you might want to think about that before you continue with this line of argument.

Let me put it to you another way.  In this argument, I am trying to convince you of something.  Yet I am not trying to convert you (in the sense you mean), or otherwise trying to force my position on you.  I am making statements that I believe are accurate and advancing arguments to support them.  In other words, I am trying to impart information to you, with the intention of convincing you of something.  Thus, one way to persuade someone is to present them with information that supports a position.

[bertatberts]

In this argument, I am trying to convince you of something.  Yet I am not trying to convert you (in the sense you mean), or otherwise trying to force my position on you.

Yet you are trying to convert me to your way of thinking. Note the bolded.

I am making statements that I believe are accurate and advancing arguments to support them.

Exactly you believe, whereas I don't, my knowledge base tells me different. However I'm not trying to persuade nor convince you to accept my knowledge base, you either do or you don't it is your prerogative.

In other words, I am trying to impart information to you, with the intention of convincing you of something.

Yes you are trying to enforce your opinion without evidence to back it up. 

Thus, one way to persuade someone is to present them with information that supports a position.

Had you done that I would have no other recourse than to accept it as fact.   
Oh by the way I'm not arguing, for my position as I'm not trying to persuade you,  I'm disagreeing with your opinion, and expressing my own for you to take or leave.

[jaimehlers]

Yet you are trying to convert me to your way of thinking. Note the bolded.

This is incorrect.  Convincing someone is not the same as converting them.

Exactly you believe, whereas I don't, my knowledge base tells me different. However I'm not trying to persuade nor convince you to accept my knowledge base, you either do or you don't it is your prerogative.

This is a strawman argument based on pure semantics.  It is nothing more than an attempt (and not a very good one) by you to make my argument seem like an attempt at conversion based on 'belief'.  I did not think I would have to be so pedantic about my phrasing, but you have demonstrated that it is necessary.  So, in order to thoroughly demolish your strawman, let me rephrase:  I am making statements that my knowledge and experience tells me are correct, and presenting them to you in a persuasive manner.

Yes you are trying to enforce your opinion without evidence to back it up.

Incorrect.  I am not trying to 'enforce' anything.  Indeed, this claim comes very close to an outright lie, since I have no means to force you to accept anything I say.  As for your claim that I have no evidence, this is solely based on your strawman just before.  I have evidence based on my own knowledge and experience.

Had you done that I would have no other recourse than to accept it as fact.

Given your opinionated nature (which you've demonstrated on several occasions), I sincerely doubt this.  On top of that, the way you define terms is suspect, such as declaring that by trying to convince you, I am actually trying to convert you, not to mention your strawman of attempting to insinuate that my use of the word belief means I have no evidence to support it.  The verb believe simply means that one accepts something as true or genuine, to have a firm conviction about something, and to hold an opinion about something.  By itself, it has nothing to do with evidence or lack thereof.

Oh by the way I'm not arguing, for my position as I'm not trying to persuade you,  I'm disagreeing with your opinion, and expressing my own for you to take or leave.

Yep, you're disagreeing with my opinion and presenting your own to counter it.  That's what's called arguing - to give reasons for or against something, to contend or disagree with words, and to persuade by giving reasons.  By the mere act of giving reasons to support your position and to disagree with mine, you are attempting to persuade me of something, in this case that persuasion is the same thing as conversion, coercion, and indoctrination.

Incidentally, that is provably not true.  Not just by dictionary definitions; persuasion is a general term that just refers to the act of trying to convince someone of something.  Conversion, coercion, and indoctrination can all be considered as specialized forms of persuasion (which does not mean that persuasion in general has those meanings); conversion has religious connotations, coercion refers to using force or fear, and indoctrination refers to teaching someone to accept something without question.

[12 Monkeys]

How can you prove something real that has no concrete evidence......the Bible is flawed and therefore not concrete.

 We have photo's,video's,cast footprints,hair samples and there is still people out there who are convinced Sasquatch is not real. The evidence brought forward for Sasquatch's existence far outweighs that of evidence for Jesus and God,still people think Sasquatch is a myth.

[Greatest I am]

How can you prove something real that has no concrete evidence......the Bible is flawed and therefore not concrete.

 We have photo's,video's,cast footprints,hair samples and there is still people out there who are convinced Sasquatch is not real. The evidence brought forward for Sasquatch's existence far outweighs that of evidence for Jesus and God,still people think Sasquatch is a myth.

It is true that the book has flaws and that bible God likely does not exist but we can still analyse what is written from a moral POV and give our verdict as to what is written while ignoring the reality that God does not exist.

We can also pull the morals out of Mother Goose while knowing it is a fairy tale.

Who is it that said something like, men of intelligence can discuss things they do not believe in.

Regards
DL

[epidemic]

How can you prove something real that has no concrete evidence......the Bible is flawed and therefore not concrete.

 We have photo's,video's,cast footprints,hair samples and there is still people out there who are convinced Sasquatch is not real. The evidence brought forward for Sasquatch's existence far outweighs that of evidence for Jesus and God,still people think Sasquatch is a myth.

It is true that the book has flaws and that bible God likely does not exist but we can still analyse what is written from a moral POV and give our verdict as to what is written while ignoring the reality that God does not exist.

We can also pull the morals out of Mother Goose while knowing it is a fairy tale.

Who is it that said something like, men of intelligence can discuss things they do not believe in.

Regards
DL

with the bible being the springboard for where faith starts how can you not believe the bible and simultaniously still have faith in a god?  The bible is the source of our knowledge of god, we learn his rules, the moral code we should follow, all from it.  If someone seriously believes the bible is not devine in nature, what does one base the source of their belief in god.

You may say your source for religious inspiration is not ultimately the bible, but absent the bible, where did you get your inspiration?  Your mom told you about god, your friend told you about god, and somewhere along the line someone actually finds the source of that information being the pages of the bible. 

The bible itself, specifically the old testament seems rooted in heathen traditions and  mysticism going back to when peoples used observation and imagination to explain away the unknown. 

If the bible did not exist do you feel your belief would be anything like it is? 

If you want proof of this look at any tribe of africans untouched by christianity,  Their religions look nothing like it.  The book as practiced by the people around you formed your beliefs, even if you don't follow it to the letter the book is the source.

[William]

If the bible did not exist do you feel your belief would be anything like it is? 

I can't speak for GIa, but in my case I was brought up in a Christian (Catholic) household, which still has subtle influences over me, and in a Christian dominated society that has considerable control over me.  The cultural, political, and legal systems I live in are definitely not free of Christian influence.

I've been deeply affected by 'morals' in the Bible - and it has taken great effort to shake some of them off.  I was homophobic till my early twenties, and generally quite prudish on most sexual matters right into my forties.  I even thought divorce was somehow morally wrong   

It has taken a couple of decades to identify, examine, and jettison most of the garbage put in my brain by Christianity - and I'm quite sure I'm not done yet    This forum keeps shining the spotlight on dark little corners of my thinking, and I'm regularly surprised about what I find to clean out through that process 

[Greatest I am]

How can you prove something real that has no concrete evidence......the Bible is flawed and therefore not concrete.

 We have photo's,video's,cast footprints,hair samples and there is still people out there who are convinced Sasquatch is not real. The evidence brought forward for Sasquatch's existence far outweighs that of evidence for Jesus and God,still people think Sasquatch is a myth.

It is true that the book has flaws and that bible God likely does not exist but we can still analyse what is written from a moral POV and give our verdict as to what is written while ignoring the reality that God does not exist.

We can also pull the morals out of Mother Goose while knowing it is a fairy tale.

Who is it that said something like, men of intelligence can discuss things they do not believe in.

Regards
DL

with the bible being the springboard for where faith starts how can you not believe the bible and simultaniously still have faith in a god?  The bible is the source of our knowledge of god, we learn his rules, the moral code we should follow, all from it.  If someone seriously believes the bible is not devine in nature, what does one base the source of their belief in god.

You may say your source for religious inspiration is not ultimately the bible, but absent the bible, where did you get your inspiration?  Your mom told you about god, your friend told you about god, and somewhere along the line someone actually finds the source of that information being the pages of the bible. 

The bible itself, specifically the old testament seems rooted in heathen traditions and  mysticism going back to when peoples used observation and imagination to explain away the unknown. 

If the bible did not exist do you feel your belief would be anything like it is? 

If you want proof of this look at any tribe of africans untouched by christianity,  Their religions look nothing like it.  The book as practiced by the people around you formed your beliefs, even if you don't follow it to the letter the book is the source.

The bible is just a plagiarized consolidation of older traditions. Almost nothing in it is original to Christianity.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x84m5k_2007doc-zone-pagan-christ-1-of-3_news

Most of the world professes to have faith and only a % of those are Christians. The rest have faith but no bible so to say the bible is required for faith is quite foolish an inaccurate.

Faith without facts is for fools.

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther “

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
Jonathan Swift

Regards
DL

[epidemic]

The bible is just a plagiarized consolidation of older traditions. Almost nothing in it is original to Christianity.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x84m5k_2007doc-zone-pagan-christ-1-of-3_news

Most of the world professes to have faith and only a % of those are Christians. The rest have faith but no bible so to say the bible is required for faith is quite foolish an inaccurate.

Faith without facts is for fools.

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther “

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
Jonathan Swift

Regards
DL

Ok what is your root source for god and his rules?  if it is a person or group what is their source.


let me put it to you this way,  if you were to take a blank slate,  a person who is somehow raised with no reference to religion either in the affirmative or the negative.   Do you believe they would have faith in a god anything akin to yours?  I usually use the babies on an island analogy.  If you placed babies on an island and somehow they survived to adulthood and became a thriving community,  what religion would they be?

My theory is they would invent a rain god, and a lightning god, a god of war, and a place we go after death slowly over the millenia they would refine those gods.  I am not saying you would not have faith with out the bible,  I am saying you would absolutely have a diffent faith absent the bible. 

the bible is ingrained in our culture,  it is part of your religion whether you like it or not.

[Greatest I am]

The bible is just a plagiarized consolidation of older traditions. Almost nothing in it is original to Christianity.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x84m5k_2007doc-zone-pagan-christ-1-of-3_news

Most of the world professes to have faith and only a % of those are Christians. The rest have faith but no bible so to say the bible is required for faith is quite foolish an inaccurate.

Faith without facts is for fools.

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther “

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
Jonathan Swift

Regards
DL

Ok what is your root source for god and his rules?  if it is a person or group what is their source.

My own standards. Like Jesus says, we must write the laws of God on our hearts.

They look something like this and you will note that they are centered on others while the bibles laws are self-centered, God centered, and inferior.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

let me put it to you this way,  if you were to take a blank slate,  a person who is somehow raised with no reference to religion either in the affirmative or the negative.   Do you believe they would have faith in a god anything akin to yours?  I usually use the babies on an island analogy.  If you placed babies on an island and somehow they survived to adulthood and became a thriving community,  what religion would they be?

Babies are born knowing by instinct that in an evolving world it is better for survival to cooperate. That is self-centered and much like an immature Christianity and it's God.

As they grow, something the Christian God never does, they gravitate to harm/care of the greater good of the tribe or community.

My theory is they would invent a rain god, and a lightning god, a god of war, and a place we go after death slowly over the millenia they would refine those gods.  I am not saying you would not have faith with out the bible,  I am saying you would absolutely have a diffent faith absent the bible. 

the bible is ingrained in our culture,  it is part of your religion wheter you like it or not.

To a small point. Sure. Everything we know has an impact.

The good thing about the bible is that people learn what not to do as they recognize that it is selling a genocidal son murdering prick of a God whose policies should be reversed.

I think you need to look past whatever you are looking at.

Listen. Learn.



Regards
DL

[epidemic]

greatist I am,

I believe I have made a fundamental mistake here.  I thought you were one of the people who believed in god and did not believe the bible was correct.  All my arguments are predicated on this mistake.

So just for clarification,  you are an atheist?

[Greatest I am]

greatist I am,

I believe I have made a fundamental mistake here.  I thought you were one of the people who believed in god and did not believe the bible was correct.  All my arguments are predicated on this mistake.

So just for clarification,  you are an atheist?

No but I have many friends that are and have accepted that I cannot be one.
No average is about 95% acceptance and 5% who reject me as delusional.

Lend me your ear.

The Godhead I know in a nutshell.
I was a skeptic till the age of 39.
I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats.
This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals.

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar and seek further.

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

-------------------

Just so you know my more exact reason for being in religious forums.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists as well as those who do not believe. They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief or not. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic are evil.



They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus


Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48b_1185215493

Death to Gays.


For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

If anything, I am more militant than militant atheists and I am always after atheist to do more.

Regards
DL

[jaimehlers]

Sounds much like you're saying that there's ultimately no difference between the universe and God, Greatest I am.  I don't mean that in a literal sense, though.  More like, it simply exists, rather than being a being who does things.

[12 Monkeys]

As far as moral man("good men") doing nothing to stop evil....is it because they don't actually believe in an afterlife,God or his premise of heaven? 

  The desire to stay alive because of the unknown existence that God and the afterlife are actually real,I would think stop most (not all) "good men" from sacrificing themselves to stop evil. Then again could they not just pray to God to stop "his plan"?

 God seems powerless to stop evil,theists claim it is because Satan is "God of the earth" at this moment. God seems either not all-powerful or he cares not for his loyal subjects. How else can you explain God ignoring the helpless at the hands of greed-pigs that exploit their brothers and sisters for profit?

[Greatest I am]

Sounds much like you're saying that there's ultimately no difference between the universe and God, Greatest I am.  I don't mean that in a literal sense, though.  More like, it simply exists, rather than being a being who does things.

I do not like to call the cosmic consciousness God but yes, it just exists just as you and I do.

It is the next evolutionary step for all of us.

Again. I do not expect anyone to believe this on just hearsay. You will disappoint me if you do.

Regards
DL

[Nam]

The next step in evolution is to believe in god, say huh?

-Nam

[Greatest I am]

As far as moral man("good men") doing nothing to stop evil....is it because they don't actually believe in an afterlife,God or his premise of heaven? 

  The desire to stay alive because of the unknown existence that God and the afterlife are actually real,I would think stop most (not all) "good men" from sacrificing themselves to stop evil. Then again could they not just pray to God to stop "his plan"?

 God seems powerless to stop evil,theists claim it is because Satan is "God of the earth" at this moment. God seems either not all-powerful or he cares not for his loyal subjects. How else can you explain God ignoring the helpless at the hands of greed-pigs that exploit their brothers and sisters for profit?

Not believing in the Gods on offer and thinking of all of them as myth, except for the cosmic consciousness who is basically powerless in terms of breaching the laws of physics and nature,  --- all I could give would be speculative nonsense about those Gods.

As to why good men do nothing and let evil grow, most would not if it was close at hand. Unfortunately, much of it is not.

Take the 10 million children under 10 years old who starve or die of preventable causes yearly.

If we could somehow play with logistics and have them pop up in cities in the developed world, there is no way that we would tolerate their deaths. Because they are not close and we cannot do something in a direct way, we ignore them.

This does not mean that we are not charitable. We are and we give plenty. Just not quite enough and by giving indirectly, much of what is given is lost to corruption in the various systems.

It is the same situation with most of the evils that we recognize.

To my way of thinking, and many do not like it, we need a world government with strong local representation.

It is about another 30 years away.

Regards
DL
 

[Greatest I am]

The next step in evolution is to believe in god, say huh?

-Nam

No. It is to put the Abrahamic God in the place he has rightfully earned. Hell.

Then we, as the ancient scribes knew would happen, we will elect ourselves a new God.

He will be a man just as all the Gods with real power in history have been.

Regards
DL
 

[Nam]

Sounds like complete nonsense.

-Nam