whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => General Religious Discussion => Topic started by: Greatest I am on September 11, 2013, 06:14:46 PM

Title: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 11, 2013, 06:14:46 PM
Does God get a fail in the love category?

All will agree that in loving someone, that love must be shown in works, deeds and actions. This allows for reciprocity which is what makes what would be a one way corrupted love a true two way love. 

Believers see God as the greatest lover of mankind yet he does no works or deeds to show us that he loves us.   

Love, like faith, without works and deeds is dead. That’s scripture. Love, to be true love, must be shown by works, deeds and actions. The fact that God does not show his love by works, deeds and actions at a personal or collective level means that God does not love us. Some are going to point to the notion that God created them but remember that that is not a provable claim so please do not offer it. Remember that way too high of a percentage of us are born with defects.

Do you believe that God loves us?

Why or why not?

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

God is also said to love us unconditionally. Yet if we do not love, honor, obey and believe in him, we are condemned and punished. Those are all conditions we must meet to get his love returned to us.

Does God love us unconditionally?

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

Love and morals developed to enhance interaction and living within groups of people and perhaps other entities.
God was alone and did not need to develop morals and could not love anyone because he was alone for untold millennia.

Is God even able to love?
 
Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Nick on September 11, 2013, 08:32:22 PM
God is imaginary so my answer is based on something that does not exist.

OK here goes..."God is love...God loves us more than life...God wants us to be in a personal relationship with Him...God has given us free will.........But (there is always a "but") pick incorrectly and you burn forever in pain and fire and all that really bad stuff.  That is what a loving God does.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on September 11, 2013, 10:01:12 PM

Believers see God as the greatest lover of mankind yet he does no works or deeds to show us that he loves us.   


The bold above is why I changed from a believer to a non-believer.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on September 12, 2013, 07:44:55 AM
I love Bo Derek, yet there are no signs, works, or deeds to prove it ;D
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Mrjason on September 12, 2013, 08:12:44 AM
I love Bo Derek, yet there are no signs, works, or deeds to prove it ;D

This quote is a sign, possibly a work and I would argue the act of positing it is a deed ;)
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: rev45 on September 12, 2013, 09:49:03 AM
Quote
1 Corinthians 13:4-7
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
The Christian god is the very opposite of love.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 12, 2013, 10:00:07 AM
God is imaginary so my answer is based on something that does not exist.

OK here goes..."God is love...God loves us more than life...God wants us to be in a personal relationship with Him...God has given us free will.........But (there is always a "but") pick incorrectly and you burn forever in pain and fire and all that really bad stuff.  That is what a loving God does.

Seems most men and women have better morals than God.

When most of us are looking for love and are rejected we just lick our wounded egos and renew the seeking without wishing endless torture on the one who rejected us.

I do not quite agree with your first but do agree that the God's on offer are not real.

I think the old shaman did find something but religions took over and the pissing of the Gods began and continued till they invented a God who was the highest , if impossible, form.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 12, 2013, 10:07:29 AM

Believers see God as the greatest lover of mankind yet he does no works or deeds to show us that he loves us.   


The bold above is why I changed from a believer to a non-believer.

Many point to the hell doctrine or the punishing of the innocent instead of the guilty but yours shows deeper thought as well.

FMPOV we all have a spiritual side and if you do then you might look into what this guy has to say. I believe in apotheosis and his methods are the closest I have found to what I experienced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

If you no longer have a spiritual itch to scratch, then please fight the evils of religions as militantly as you can.
 
Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 12, 2013, 10:10:27 AM
I love Bo Derek, yet there are no signs, works, or deeds to prove it ;D

This quote is a sign, possibly a work and I would argue the act of positing it is a deed ;)

But without reciprocity, it is like peeing in black pants. You get a good feeling but no one notices.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Mrjason on September 12, 2013, 10:27:00 AM
I love Bo Derek, yet there are no signs, works, or deeds to prove it ;D

This quote is a sign, possibly a work and I would argue the act of positing it is a deed ;)

But without reciprocity, it is like peeing in black pants. You get a good feeling but no one notices.

Regards
DL

which is precisely why the trivial and mundane are used to "evidence" reciprocity by your common or garden believer
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on September 12, 2013, 11:14:08 AM
Mock all you will,   But this morning I left my house and was delayed 2 seconds by my dog walking in front of me.   I got to the light and was proceeding through with the green when a guy flew through the intersection.

coincidence?   I don't think so.   This was obviously the work of a loving god who wanted me to live.





Story is true,   the conclusion is not:)
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: neopagan on September 12, 2013, 01:31:04 PM
^^^it is the work of a loving dog...  :)
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: freakygin on September 12, 2013, 08:05:59 PM
^^^it is the work of a loving dog...  :)

DOG when reversed became GOD.
Coincidence?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Star Stuff on September 12, 2013, 09:40:24 PM
God is also said to love us unconditionally. Yet if we do not love, honor, obey and believe in him, we are condemned and punished. Those are all conditions we must meet to get his love returned to us.

(http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t172/Paddywacked/Letmein_zpsc375345a.jpg) (http://s160.photobucket.com/user/Paddywacked/media/Letmein_zpsc375345a.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on September 13, 2013, 04:02:10 AM
^^^it is the work of a loving dog...  :)

DOG when reversed became GOD.
Coincidence?

Do geese see god?

Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: stuffin on September 13, 2013, 06:55:36 AM
Mock all you will,   But this morning I left my house and was delayed 2 seconds by my dog walking in front of me.   I got to the light and was proceeding through with the green when a guy flew through the intersection.

coincidence?   I don't think so.   This was obviously the work of a loving god who wanted me to live.


Story is true,   the conclusion is not:)

That is what is wrong with believers, they see all actions in life as god's handiwork.

If God really loved you, he would have let you get blasted by the guy who flew through the intersection and brought you to heaven. 






Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 13, 2013, 06:59:09 AM
I love Bo Derek, yet there are no signs, works, or deeds to prove it ;D

This quote is a sign, possibly a work and I would argue the act of positing it is a deed ;)

But without reciprocity, it is like peeing in black pants. You get a good feeling but no one notices.

Regards
DL

which is precisely why the trivial and mundane are used to "evidence" reciprocity by your common or garden believer

No argument.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 13, 2013, 07:04:18 AM
^^^it is the work of a loving dog...  :)

DOG when reversed became GOD.
Coincidence?

Do geese see god?

Only when flying.

That is the only time they can see A holes in front of them.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on September 13, 2013, 08:14:12 AM
God is also said to love us unconditionally. Yet if we do not love, honor, obey and believe in him, we are condemned and punished. Those are all conditions we must meet to get his love returned to us.

(http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t172/Paddywacked/Letmein_zpsc375345a.jpg) (http://s160.photobucket.com/user/Paddywacked/media/Letmein_zpsc375345a.jpg.html)

I love this picture.

It is near perfect.   The funny thing is that I do not know if would love God.  It is like asking me to love somebody I have never met and have only heard about second hand. 

Asking you to love god with the information available is like telling someone they will love liver, although my father told me liver was good I tried it and found it foul.  I do not hate god, I do not love god, I simply don't have any experience that says god actually exists.  My F'd up human brain interprets inputs and evaluates life experience and extrapolates evidence thus far I find god to be neither someone I would like or dislike.

hell If he knocked on my door that would be something concrete.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Iamrational on September 14, 2013, 09:13:36 AM
hell If he knocked on my door that would be something concrete.

Problem is... how would you ever know it is the real god?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 15, 2013, 01:19:27 PM
hell If he knocked on my door that would be something concrete.

Problem is... how would you ever know it is the real god?


If one suffers apotheosis, one cannot help but know it thanks to feeling the pain and pleasure of it. Trust me I know of these things. Been there and done that.

Those who wait for God to knock at their door will wait forever. Those who do the knocking are the ones whom the  Godhead will open to.

The place to knock is inside of you. Where else would a God live?

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 15, 2013, 02:05:09 PM
If one suffers apotheosis, one cannot help but know it thanks to feeling the pain and pleasure of it. Trust me I know of these things. Been there and done that.

Those who wait for God to knock at their door will wait forever. Those who do the knocking are the ones whom the  Godhead will open to.

The place to knock is inside of you. Where else would a God live?

Regards
DL

Just a note: Looking for something that doesn't exist and finding it is not a good thing.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: junebug72 on September 16, 2013, 05:08:02 AM
I think the largest problem people have finding the Love of God is because they seek it in religions.  They expect too much. It's all give me give me give me w/o realizing there are 7.5 billion of us and growing.  I feel God's love every day, some days more than others, those are the days I need God most!  I feel God's presence the most when I am in my darkest hours,  this is an action.  People need to accept that these bodies are a temporary vessel and whatever happens to them are not dictated by God.  It is dictated by the individual and their surroundings.  God keeps our spirits alive not our flesh, IMO.

I just find it fascinating that so many here have drawn such strong conclusions when there is not enough knowledge to do so.  Religions are so obviously fake there is no wonder so many of you don't believe in a Loving Creator.  Our existence proves there is something extraordinary at work in the universe.  Something we are not even close to understanding.  I mean we don't even know what 75% of the universe is; we call it dark matter. So until then this mind will stay open to all the possibilities.  To me w/o a creator in the equation life has no meaning or purpose.  Humans did not create intelligence, it is a gift.  One so often that is not used wisely.

In conclusion I will have to say it is not God that fails at Love it is mortals.  God is not going to make us Love each other we have to make this decision on our own or it has no worth.  The difficulty I find is how to convince those that are selfish to think of others as well as yourself.  To think about how your actions involve every living thing on this planet so stop being selfish.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Add Homonym on September 16, 2013, 05:37:29 AM
In conclusion I will have to say it is not God that fails at Love it is mortals.

+1.

God can't fail at love, because he doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Add Homonym on September 16, 2013, 05:40:29 AM
The place to knock is inside of you. Where else would a God live?

In fish, or on another planet.

If one suffers apotheosis, one cannot help but know it thanks to feeling the pain and pleasure of it. Trust me I know of these things. Been there and done that.

Many who have schizophrenia, or have taken hard drugs have also "suffered" apotheosis, yet it's likely to be a delusion. How do you know your own apotheosis is not delusion?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on September 16, 2013, 06:36:46 AM
I think the largest problem people have finding the Love of God is because they seek it in religions.  They expect too much. It's all give me give me give me w/o realizing there are 7.5 billion of us and growing.  I feel God's love every day, some days more than others, those are the days I need God most!  I feel God's presence the most when I am in my darkest hours,  this is an action.  People need to accept that these bodies are a temporary vessel and whatever happens to them are not dictated by God.  It is dictated by the individual and their surroundings.  God keeps our spirits alive not our flesh, IMO.

I just find it fascinating that so many here have drawn such strong conclusions when there is not enough knowledge to do so.  Religions are so obviously fake there is no wonder so many of you don't believe in a Loving Creator.  Our existence proves there is something extraordinary at work in the universe.  Something we are not even close to understanding.  I mean we don't even know what 75% of the universe is; we call it dark matter. So until then this mind will stay open to all the possibilities.  To me w/o a creator in the equation life has no meaning or purpose.  Humans did not create intelligence, it is a gift.  One so often that is not used wisely.

In conclusion I will have to say it is not God that fails at Love it is mortals.  God is not going to make us Love each other we have to make this decision on our own or it has no worth.  The difficulty I find is how to convince those that are selfish to think of others as well as yourself.  To think about how your actions involve every living thing on this planet so stop being selfish.

I said this in another thread, and they basically poo pood it.  But if you don't believe in religion, and religion is based upon books from antiquity, isn't the root of your religious belief based those false religions?  If so why do you believe in god?  If there is a real god who does not reveal himself to us in any tangible way and we exclude the biblical evidence since it is false, how does one believe in him.

I contend that your roots of your religion are the very texts that you display scorn for.

To me it would be akin to believing in Zeus even though the writings about Zeus have been discredited. 

had we never found a text about god at all I believe you would not believe in a god that looks anything like the one you imagine now based on those texts.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on September 16, 2013, 08:41:29 AM
The place to knock is inside of you. Where else would a God live?

Mount Olympus?

Of course, the answer to this question entirely depends on how you define "god".  Most definitions there have been of god throughout history have been external to the human body (albeit able to store aspects of themself within those bodies). 

Looking inside oneself to find god seems like an impossibility.  Looking deep inside myself, I will ultimately find.....me.  And while I am indeed shockingly incredible, I am not quite so without humility as to regard myself as god - not in any definition of "god" I've ever encountered.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jaimehlers on September 16, 2013, 09:17:26 AM
The place to knock is inside of you. Where else would a God live?
So, how do you distinguish this from SPAG, self-projection-as-god?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Graybeard on September 16, 2013, 01:13:08 PM
Does God get a fail in the love category?
It depends on what you mean by "love". If it is the general understanding, then "Yes"; if it is some weird definition of "love" hemmed about with exceptions and unlikely explanations, then "No."

Quote
Do you believe that God loves us?

Not in the same way that I love my family and dog. Apologists say what God does and then they call that "love".

Quote
God is also said to love us unconditionally. Does God love us unconditionally?

Who says that? I suspect it is deluded "fluffy-bunny, cafeteria Christians, who pick and choose the nice bits in the Bible, and who chant out this sort of garbage in a mindless manner. God does not love us unconditionally! What sort of god would that be?

2 Chronicles 15:13 Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

John 15:6 "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

2 Thessalonians 1:8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"


Also, those who work on the Sabbath, even collecting sticks, those women who try to tell men what to do, and a whole host of others are damned eternally. Keep to every one of His 623 commandments and you might, just might, experience some love after you are dead and there are no witnesses about.

Quote
Love and morals developed to enhance interaction and living within groups of people and perhaps other entities. God was alone and did not need to develop morals and could not love anyone because he was alone for untold millennia.

The fault here is that you have no idea what Christianity is saying, do you? God was not alone. He had created the Host of Heaven (inc. the Devil and Jesus) way before he made the Earth and the firmament and the little holes where the rain comes in, and the fountains of the deep and seas and Malaria and polio, and smallpox and cripples, etc.

Quote
Is God even able to love?

Yes but not "love" as we know it, Jim.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: junebug72 on September 17, 2013, 05:09:53 AM
In conclusion I will have to say it is not God that fails at Love it is mortals.

+1.

God can't fail at love, because he doesn't exist.

That is your opinion and you can not prove it.  Life offers too many gifts to say God fails at love.  We have an awesome planet, everything we need to survive and all I believe our creator has ever wanted was for us to realize that our actions affect more than just you so use your gift of freewill to chose to be kind to others.  Don't be selfish!  All the pain and suffering is self inflicted.  All of it. 
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on September 17, 2013, 07:43:21 AM
In conclusion I will have to say it is not God that fails at Love it is mortals.

+1.

God can't fail at love, because he doesn't exist.

That is your opinion and you can not prove it.  Life offers too many gifts to say God fails at love.  We have an awesome planet, everything we need to survive and all I believe our creator has ever wanted was for us to realize that our actions affect more than just you so use your gift of freewill to chose to be kind to others.  Don't be selfish!  All the pain and suffering is self inflicted.  All of it.


Well,  I don't know what love is apparently.  earth has wonders this is true, but with no alternative it seems like even kids suffering malnutrition in sub saharan africa fine ways to think their days are fun.  but their frame of reference is one of watching their friends die of starvation and any day they don't see one of their friends die is considered a pretty fun day.  Take a kid from America or europe and have them miss 2 meals and their life is a horror show.  Our frame of reference on earth only has our experience to evaluate.  The people kicked out of eden may have found earth to be a horror show when compared with Eden.

I absolutely love my children.  But I don't set them up to fail by introducing virtually insumountable obstacles, and when my children fail I still love them.  For me to stop loving my children would take a far greater crime than one of failure to believe in something I said.  If my child failed to honor and respect me I would not torture them FOR ETERNITY


Truth be known I would not torture Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin... for eternity and I certainly don't even love them.  That is just human decency/empathy. 
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: neopagan on September 17, 2013, 08:46:03 AM
All the pain and suffering is self inflicted.  All of it.

JB,
Could you clarify what you mean by this?  By self-inflicted I assume you mean the actual person being affected, not a general "self" as in all humanity.  For example, if a child is raped/killed/starved/gets leukemia... I do not see that pain and suffering as self inflicted. 
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Graybeard on September 17, 2013, 10:00:35 AM
That is your opinion and you can not prove it.  Life offers too many gifts to say God fails at love.  We have an awesome planet, everything we need to survive and all I believe our creator has ever wanted was for us to realize that our actions affect more than just you so use your gift of freewill to chose to be kind to others.  Don't be selfish!  All the pain and suffering is self inflicted.  All of it.

If we leave God out of the above, it reads:

Life offers so many gifts.  We have an awesome planet, everything we need to survive and we should realize that our actions affect more than just you so use your life to chose to be kind to others.  Don't be selfish!  All the pain and suffering is self inflicted.  All of it.

You see, that makes just as much sense: there is no reason to drag in a non-existent god, is there? And you said it without having to call on the authority of "God". I am much more likely to believe things you say than things you say that God says.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Add Homonym on September 17, 2013, 10:13:20 AM
It's true that the pain is self inflicted. If I committed suicide at age 1, there would be no pain. I choose to live. My fault.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: One Above All on September 17, 2013, 10:15:53 AM
Allah (or "God", for those who don't know The Truth), being an imaginary being, gets a fail in every category; not just love. If it's imaginary, it can't participate in any category. However, if we were to allow what people think of an imaginary being as evidence of its qualities, then Allah still gets a fail in the love category.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on September 17, 2013, 10:16:48 AM
another thought on gods absolute love.

With my children I will allow them to fail but I usually warn them of the pitfalls, discuss the pro's and cons with them personally and when asked a question I tell them the truth as I see it.  In other words I am not an invisible super dad hiding from sight and hoping my kids don't fail the tests I set before them.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Star Stuff on September 17, 2013, 10:20:36 AM
...

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: screwtape on September 17, 2013, 11:04:51 AM
all I believe our creator has ever wanted was for us to realize that our actions affect more than just you so use your gift of freewill to chose to be kind to others. 

That is your opinion and you can not prove it.[1]

Really, jb, it is bad form to chastise someone for making unsupported statements and then make one yourself the very next sentence.
 1. quoted from junebug, in the very same post I quoted
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: junebug72 on September 18, 2013, 07:58:42 AM


Well,  I don't know what love is apparently.  earth has wonders this is true, but with no alternative it seems like even kids suffering malnutrition in sub saharan africa fine ways to think their days are fun.  but their frame of reference is one of watching their friends die of starvation and any day they don't see one of their friends die is considered a pretty fun day.  Take a kid from America or europe and have them miss 2 meals and their life is a horror show.  Our frame of reference on earth only has our experience to evaluate.  The people kicked out of eden may have found earth to be a horror show when compared with Eden.

I absolutely love my children.  But I don't set them up to fail by introducing virtually insumountable obstacles, and when my children fail I still love them.  For me to stop loving my children would take a far greater crime than one of failure to believe in something I said.  If my child failed to honor and respect me I would not torture them FOR ETERNITY


Truth be known I would not torture Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin... for eternity and I certainly don't even love them.  That is just human decency/empathy.

I am very sure you know what love is epidemic.  The bible isn't God's words, it belongs to mankind not God.  There are clues all around of God's love and intelligence.  We have the gift of conscience to know right from wrong, that is how we know religion is bad.

I look at it like this.  The Christians came along and interpreted God in a way that made all other interpretations less appealing.  That's how you improve their interpretation.   That's how you change the world.  You change the current interpretation of our Creator/ Force/Source.  In other words we need 1 God and no religion. 1 God that loves with gifts like life, abundance of resources, family.  Agree that we have no idea what happens when we die except that our spirits are free.  Something real simple we can all agree on.   I think reincarnation is the perfect way to punish a corrupt human being.

All the problems in the world are completely man made.  poverty, murder, lack of freedom it's all self inflicted. 
 



















Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Add Homonym on September 18, 2013, 08:06:06 AM
Agree that we have no idea what happens when we die except that our spirits are free.  Something real simple we can all agree on. 

Christians believe in resurrection, which requires no spirit. They were a bit split on the issue, owing to the Greeks believing in duality.

We only believe that we have a spirit, owing to our inability to comprehend how consciousness could work, sans magic ether. Thus we defer the process to another magic level. However, consciousness is probably not what we think it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLa2WZPkQls
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: junebug72 on September 18, 2013, 08:13:24 AM
all I believe our creator has ever wanted was for us to realize that our actions affect more than just you so use your gift of freewill to chose to be kind to others. 

That is your opinion and you can not prove it.[1]

Really, jb, it is bad form to chastise someone for making unsupported statements and then make one yourself the very next sentence.
 1. quoted from junebug, in the very same post I quoted

It says "all I believe" which is not a fact.^^This is bad form screw.  I guess you missed the part where I said this was my belief, I did not state it as fact like add homonym did.  There is not proof in either directions there are clues.  I believe that there are more clues that we were created than we were just so lucky.

Y'all bash a lot on religion and I'm right here with you on that.  It just seems to me that focusing on the religion has you not focusing on the truth of our existence.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: stuffin on September 18, 2013, 08:39:10 AM
all I believe our creator has ever wanted was for us to realize that our actions affect more than just you so use your gift of freewill to chose to be kind to others. 

That is your opinion and you can not prove it.[1]

Really, jb, it is bad form to chastise someone for making unsupported statements and then make one yourself the very next sentence.
 1. quoted from junebug, in the very same post I quoted

It says "all I believe" which is not a fact.^^This is bad form screw.  I guess you missed the part where I said this was my belief, I did not state it as fact like add homonym did.  There is not proof in either directions there are clues.  I believe that there are more clues that we were created than we were just so lucky.

Y'all bash a lot on religion and I'm right here with you on that.  It just seems to me that focusing on the religion has you not focusing on the truth of our existence.

I may be reading this wrong, please set me right if I'm wrong, but; I think screwtape said it was "your opinion" he did not say you were qouting a fact. Please double check me, thanks...
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: screwtape on September 18, 2013, 08:40:46 AM
all I believe our creator has ever wanted was for us to realize that our actions affect more than just you so use your gift of freewill to chose to be kind to others. 

That is your opinion and you can not prove it.[1]

Really, jb, it is bad form to chastise someone for making unsupported statements and then make one yourself the very next sentence.
 1. quoted from junebug, in the very same post I quoted

It says "all I believe" which is not a fact.^^This is bad form screw.  I guess you missed the part where I said this was my belief, I did not state it as fact like add homonym did.

No, jb, I did not miss it.  In fact, those are the very first three words of yours I quoted.  "All I believe."  I left the nested quote so you could see it with your own eyes. 

Then I went on to characterize it as "your opinion".   The first four words I wrote.  "That is your opinion..."  Which does not change my point in the least.  He said sumpthin, you said sumpthin.  Unless we have a way of knowing who said sumpthin right, who cares?  You end up with "Uh-huh"  "nuh-uh"  "uh-huh" "nuh-uh"  ugh.

Not all opinions are equal, and some are better than others.  The thing of interest we do here is voice opinions and then make a case for why one is better than another.  Simply announcing one's opinion is... boring and pointless. And this is not a megaphone just for spouting opinions.

It just seems to me that focusing on the religion has you not focusing on the truth of our existence.

I disagree.  I am very interested in truth.  I'm fanatical about it.  In what way do you think I am not focused on truth, and what do you think truth is?


Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: junebug72 on September 19, 2013, 04:28:30 AM
I did not chastise anybody I'm just holding y'all to the same standards y'all hold for me.  If you can't prove it you should not state it as a fact.

You've made a much bigger deal out of it than was meant.

God does not exist is an opinion.  God does exist also an opinion.

Religion is fake= proved and unanimously agreed upon here.

IMO, the circumstances of this world is human failure to God not God's failure to us!!!  It is our failure to whatever Power created us!!! :)
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: junebug72 on September 19, 2013, 05:10:16 AM
It just seems to me that focusing on the religion has you not focusing on the truth of our existence.

I disagree.  I am very interested in truth.  I'm fanatical about it.  In what way do you think I am not focused on truth, and what do you think truth is?

I believe your hatred for religion clouds your judgement. 

Truth is truth.   

You will never convince me that this magnificent thing called life is just some random event.  That this beautiful planet that has avoided all kinds of dangers for billions of years is still here by chance. 

My spirit will soar when it departs these bars of bones!!!!  ;) IMO.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on September 19, 2013, 08:14:16 AM
It just seems to me that focusing on the religion has you not focusing on the truth of our existence.

I disagree.  I am very interested in truth.  I'm fanatical about it.  In what way do you think I am not focused on truth, and what do you think truth is?

Truth is truth.   

You will never convince me that this magnificent thing called life is just some random event.  That this beautiful planet that has avoided all kinds of dangers for billions of years is still here by chance. 

My spirit will soar when it departs these bars of bones!!!!  ;) IMO.


Why?

For just one moment try to eliminate all your religious indoctrination.  Now look at the world and explain to me where you see a god?  Please describe said god.

Why is it absolutely impossible for the universe to have spawned naturally from a big bang and subsequent dust to become us.  Our world is full of abundance and is beautiful because of evolution,  it seems taylored to our needs because we are taylored to the environment we have at this moment in geological time.  When the next ice age happens much of the world will appear to be a shere hell.  Only about 15% of earth is habitable,   only 10E-1000000000000... of the universe appears to be habitable. 

Eliminating the big bangs source could one not conclude that the world was formed by natural processes and we as indicated by scientists formed by evolution. 

How would the world be different in the absence of a god.

As for reincarnation being a perfect punishment for transgressions???  How the hell do you conclude that?  With out memories of your former life you will randomly either be good or bad over and over till chemistry and lifes lottery allows you to be good.

Maybe in 30 lifetimes I might end up on the right side of Karma, brought up in the right house, correct moral lessons of my parents, correct financial standing, an uncle who did not rape me and all things coming together to make me a good person. 

But absent memory we are subject to pure random nature of our lot in life.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Boots on September 19, 2013, 08:38:42 AM
You will never convince me that this magnificent thing called life is just some random event.  That this beautiful planet that has avoided all kinds of dangers for billions of years is still here by chance. 

1) you have just declared that you are not open to alternate ideas ("You will never convince me...").  May I make a humble recommendation: don't declare that you're closed-minded in this crowd?  You're opening yourself up to some hardcore ridicule if you do.

2) what kind of understanding of probability do you have?  Let me present two examples.

a. Shuffle and deal out a pack of 52 cards face up.  The probability of having just dealt that particular order of cards is astronomically small: 1:52! (for those who don't know, that's "52 factorial", or 52 * 51 * 50...*1)  But you just did!!  But some hand of cards had to be dealt, didn't it?

b. Imagine you're a blade of grass on a fairway.  A golf ball that someone drove just landed on YOU!!  Out of the hundreds of millions--maybe even billions--of blades of grass on this fairway, YOU got landed on by the ball!!  Wow, that's a one in hundreds of millions, or one in billions, chance.  But it had to land somewhere, didn't it?

The chances of something having happened, that happened, is 1:1

Stating that you can't believe something because you can't imagine it is the definition of the Argument from Ignorance (logical fallacy)

Quote
My spirit will soar when it departs these bars of bones!!!!  ;) IMO.

No it won't!!  ;) IMO.  *shrug*
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Graybeard on September 19, 2013, 08:51:00 AM
There are clues all around of God's love and intelligence. 
 

No. There are people all around who interpret normal behaviour and ordinary occurrences as if some invisible power had a hand in them. These people lack critical thinking skills and often revel in their own ignorance -> they do not even look for the real reason, they just say, "God did it."
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 19, 2013, 09:20:19 AM
If one suffers apotheosis, one cannot help but know it thanks to feeling the pain and pleasure of it. Trust me I know of these things. Been there and done that.

Those who wait for God to knock at their door will wait forever. Those who do the knocking are the ones whom the  Godhead will open to.

The place to knock is inside of you. Where else would a God live?

Regards
DL

Just a note: Looking for something that doesn't exist and finding it is not a good thing.

I agree.
If you viewed that clip, you will know that it is all a myth and esoteric renderings. Unless you have an apotheosis.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 19, 2013, 09:26:09 AM
I think the largest problem people have finding the Love of God is because they seek it in religions.  They expect too much. It's all give me give me give me w/o realizing there are 7.5 billion of us and growing.  I feel God's love every day, some days more than others, those are the days I need God most!  I feel God's presence the most when I am in my darkest hours,  this is an action.  People need to accept that these bodies are a temporary vessel and whatever happens to them are not dictated by God.  It is dictated by the individual and their surroundings.  God keeps our spirits alive not our flesh, IMO.

I just find it fascinating that so many here have drawn such strong conclusions when there is not enough knowledge to do so.  Religions are so obviously fake there is no wonder so many of you don't believe in a Loving Creator.  Our existence proves there is something extraordinary at work in the universe.  Something we are not even close to understanding.  I mean we don't even know what 75% of the universe is; we call it dark matter. So until then this mind will stay open to all the possibilities.  To me w/o a creator in the equation life has no meaning or purpose.  Humans did not create intelligence, it is a gift.  One so often that is not used wisely.

In conclusion I will have to say it is not God that fails at Love it is mortals.  God is not going to make us Love each other we have to make this decision on our own or it has no worth.  The difficulty I find is how to convince those that are selfish to think of others as well as yourself.  To think about how your actions involve every living thing on this planet so stop being selfish.

Yet it is that God created selfish gene that causes all the evil we see.

As evolving creatures we cannot help but do evil and thus God has no right t punish any of us as we are exactly what he created. FYPOV that is.

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

These links speak to theistic evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9

If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.

If the above is not convincing enough for you then show me where in this baby evil lives or is a part of it’s nature and instincts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Regards
DL 
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 19, 2013, 09:28:57 AM
The place to knock is inside of you. Where else would a God live?

In fish, or on another planet.

If one suffers apotheosis, one cannot help but know it thanks to feeling the pain and pleasure of it. Trust me I know of these things. Been there and done that.

Many who have schizophrenia, or have taken hard drugs have also "suffered" apotheosis, yet it's likely to be a delusion. How do you know your own apotheosis is not delusion?

How does any one know anything?

They evaluate what they think is real and form an opinion.
In this, I do the same as all of us.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 19, 2013, 09:34:51 AM
The place to knock is inside of you. Where else would a God live?

Mount Olympus?

Of course, the answer to this question entirely depends on how you define "god".  Most definitions there have been of god throughout history have been external to the human body (albeit able to store aspects of themself within those bodies). 

Looking inside oneself to find god seems like an impossibility.  Looking deep inside myself, I will ultimately find.....me.  And while I am indeed shockingly incredible, I am not quite so without humility as to regard myself as god - not in any definition of "god" I've ever encountered.

Is knowing thyself not something that is held as a high ideal by most great thinkers?

If you know yourself then you know God as you create him in your image.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

The guy in this last link has the right idea of calling God our highest ideals but then falls into idol worship himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SkZg1ZflpJs

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 19, 2013, 09:39:14 AM
The place to knock is inside of you. Where else would a God live?
So, how do you distinguish this from SPAG, self-projection-as-god?

I guess one has to recognize when we are self-projecting and when we are looking at something that is not so.

If one can self-delude at all, then one likely will never find our God within.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: screwtape on September 19, 2013, 09:41:29 AM
I believe your hatred for religion clouds your judgement. 

I do not deny I have biases.  Everyone does.  It is a result of our poor brains that evolved for many purposes other than making rational conclusions.  That is why people developed science and methods of rationality, of which I am a student.

But just because I have biases does not mean I am disinterested in the truth.

Truth is truth.   

That's not really useful.

You will never convince me that this magnificent thing called life is just some random event.

Is this to lead me to believe you are interested in truth?  If so, it did not start off well.  People who are interested in believing what is true never say things like "you will never convince me..."  That kind of thinking is antithetical to finding wrong beliefs and correcting them.  If you want to know the truth, you should be able to be convinced by new information. 

Your statement tells me you want your beliefs to be true, which is a whole different ball of wax.  It is antithetical to knowing truth.

For the record, I don't think life is random either.  Random means a process whereby there are no rules.  It means outcomes have no connection to prior conditions.  I think the progress of life follows rules. Everything follows rules.  Except maybe nuclear decay.


My spirit will soar when it departs these bars of bones!!!! 

You spelled "sour" wrong.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 19, 2013, 09:43:24 AM
Does God get a fail in the love category?
It depends on what you mean by "love". If it is the general understanding, then "Yes"; if it is some weird definition of "love" hemmed about with exceptions and unlikely explanations, then "No."

Quote
Do you believe that God loves us?

Not in the same way that I love my family and dog. Apologists say what God does and then they call that "love".

Quote
God is also said to love us unconditionally. Does God love us unconditionally?

Who says that? I suspect it is deluded "fluffy-bunny, cafeteria Christians, who pick and choose the nice bits in the Bible, and who chant out this sort of garbage in a mindless manner. God does not love us unconditionally! What sort of god would that be?

2 Chronicles 15:13 Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

John 15:6 "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

2 Thessalonians 1:8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"


Also, those who work on the Sabbath, even collecting sticks, those women who try to tell men what to do, and a whole host of others are damned eternally. Keep to every one of His 623 commandments and you might, just might, experience some love after you are dead and there are no witnesses about.

Quote
Love and morals developed to enhance interaction and living within groups of people and perhaps other entities. God was alone and did not need to develop morals and could not love anyone because he was alone for untold millennia.

The fault here is that you have no idea what Christianity is saying, do you? God was not alone. He had created the Host of Heaven (inc. the Devil and Jesus) way before he made the Earth and the firmament and the little holes where the rain comes in, and the fountains of the deep and seas and Malaria and polio, and smallpox and cripples, etc.

Quote
Is God even able to love?

Yes but not "love" as we know it, Jim.

Yes and that makes it something that is not love at all.

More like hate in fact.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 19, 2013, 09:45:11 AM
In conclusion I will have to say it is not God that fails at Love it is mortals.

+1.

God can't fail at love, because he doesn't exist.

That is your opinion and you can not prove it.  Life offers too many gifts to say God fails at love.  We have an awesome planet, everything we need to survive and all I believe our creator has ever wanted was for us to realize that our actions affect more than just you so use your gift of freewill to chose to be kind to others.  Don't be selfish!  All the pain and suffering is self inflicted.  All of it.

Hogwash.

We have no choice but to do evil to those we compete against.

I await your answer to my longer post to you.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on September 19, 2013, 09:56:48 AM
GIA,

I am not sure I really understand Gnostic Christian's postion on what god is?

Is God a hands on God is all powerful, all knowing, who speaks to people, Smites them, and wants worship, is vane, angry, jealous, and generally riddled with the same flaws as us?

Is God a hands off god who creates a universe and leaves it alone?

Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 19, 2013, 10:19:36 AM
GIA,

I am not sure I really understand Gnostic Christian's postion on what god is?

Is God a hands on God is all powerful, all knowing, who speaks to people, Smites them, and wants worship, is vane, angry, jealous, and generally riddled with the same flaws as us?

Is God a hands off god who creates a universe and leaves it alone?

I can only give my personal view of the Godhead I believe in.
It is real while I do not believe in the other Gods on offer. The thing is that the right way to think of God is to set aside whichever God is found otherwise it becomes idol worship and a useless stagnant God or set of rules to live by.

The final view of God should always be unknown to those who seek.

The Godhead I know was born of man and not some alien creator and sure, it would have all of our flaws. It seems to have them under control better than what we do here. Not too surprising as it cannot lie to itself.

If you do not recognize a spiritual side to your psyche, then God should end up meaning the best rules to live by for you. That is all that you can follow and even if you had a God, that is still all that you can know without an apotheosis.

Regards
DL





Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on September 19, 2013, 10:29:19 AM
I can only give my personal view of the Godhead I believe in.
It is real while I do not believe in the other Gods on offer. The thing is that the right way to think of God is to set aside whichever God is found otherwise it becomes idol worship and a useless stagnant God or set of rules to live by.

The final view of God should always be unknown to those who seek.

The Godhead I know was born of man and not some alien creator and sure, it would have all of our flaws. It seems to have them under control better than what we do here. Not too surprising as it cannot lie to itself.

If you do not recognize a spiritual side to your psyche, then God should end up meaning the best rules to live by for you. That is all that you can follow and even if you had a God, that is still all that you can know without an apotheosis.

Regards
DL

So god is born of man, as such did not create the universe?  What is gods relevance?

are you saying that god is just a manifestation of man, and that we should just be good people because that is what is good for people.  Or are you saying man created a supernatural being with super powers who must be worshipped.....  I am so confused.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 19, 2013, 02:32:27 PM
I can only give my personal view of the Godhead I believe in.
It is real while I do not believe in the other Gods on offer. The thing is that the right way to think of God is to set aside whichever God is found otherwise it becomes idol worship and a useless stagnant God or set of rules to live by.

The final view of God should always be unknown to those who seek.

The Godhead I know was born of man and not some alien creator and sure, it would have all of our flaws. It seems to have them under control better than what we do here. Not too surprising as it cannot lie to itself.

If you do not recognize a spiritual side to your psyche, then God should end up meaning the best rules to live by for you. That is all that you can follow and even if you had a God, that is still all that you can know without an apotheosis.

Regards
DL

So god is born of man, as such did not create the universe?  What is gods relevance?

are you saying that god is just a manifestation of man, and that we should just be good people because that is what is good for people.  Or are you saying man created a supernatural being with super powers who must be worshipped.....  I am so confused.

Many are.

The God you are thinking of has no relevance here because he is not here and was definitely created by men. Men with poor morals by todays standards.

No God worth the title would need, demand or want anything from man.

Let me repeat.

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.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Star Stuff on September 19, 2013, 02:39:38 PM
I was a skeptic till the age of 39.

Ouch.  If you've ceased to be skeptical, you've hung yourself.


The term 'skeptic' does not mean one who doubts, but one who investigates or researches, as opposed to one who asserts and thinks that he has found.  (Miguel De Unamuno)
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on September 19, 2013, 03:17:50 PM
I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
Having no proof is also always the way with "made up things", fantasy, fiction, story telling, delusion, and hallucination.  So be careful there.
Quote
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.

Regards
DL
I'll then go ahead and ask what some of the characteristics of this 'cosmic consciousness' are, because so far all I've gathered are some things that this 'cosmic consciousness' is not and what this 'cosmic consciousness' doesn't need.  That doesn't help at all.  Flgar'stabab also has no need for love, adoration, or obedience.  He has no needs.  He is also irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do.  The same goes for Qskenalan, Boris the Cosmic Bullet Dodger, Aslan, and, of course, absolutely anything that doesn't exist.

I guess my point is...is there anything more to this belief in yours that goes beyond saying the sentence 'The cosmic consciousness does exist' is true?  Is there any content to this belief of yours?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 19, 2013, 04:59:31 PM
I was a skeptic till the age of 39.

Ouch.  If you've ceased to be skeptical, you've hung yourself.


The term 'skeptic' does not mean one who doubts, but one who investigates or researches, as opposed to one who asserts and thinks that he has found.  (Miguel De Unamuno)

I am still skeptical of many things but not on the issue of the existence of God. I was correct on his non-existence before and I am still right today.

Regards
DL





Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 19, 2013, 05:02:23 PM
I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
Having no proof is also always the way with "made up things", fantasy, fiction, story telling, delusion, and hallucination.  So be careful there.
Quote
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.

Regards
DL
I'll then go ahead and ask what some of the characteristics of this 'cosmic consciousness' are, because so far all I've gathered are some things that this 'cosmic consciousness' is not and what this 'cosmic consciousness' doesn't need.  That doesn't help at all.  Flgar'stabab also has no need for love, adoration, or obedience.  He has no needs.  He is also irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do.  The same goes for Qskenalan, Boris the Cosmic Bullet Dodger, Aslan, and, of course, absolutely anything that doesn't exist.

I guess my point is...is there anything more to this belief in yours that goes beyond saying the sentence 'The cosmic consciousness does exist' is true?  Is there any content to this belief of yours?

Nothing that would satisfy me if I was in your shoes so I doubt that I can give you what would satisfy you.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on September 19, 2013, 06:35:52 PM
Nothing that would satisfy me if I was in your shoes so I doubt that I can give you what would satisfy you.

Regards
DL
Well I don't have an argument against that.  There is no 'that' to discuss, analyze, or consider.  There is no 'that' to measure or evaluate against other ideas or concepts.  So, I certainly can't provide you with any argument or additional information that would modify your position.

Just to be clear: at this point in time, I would take your statement "God (or Godhead or cosmic consciousness) exists" to be EXACTLY EQUIVALENT TO statements such as:

"Qskenalan exists."
"Boris the Cosmic Bullet Dodger exists."
"Aslan exists."
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists."
"(The Artist who was never formerly known as) the Artist formerly known as Prince exists."
"<insert any random arrangement of identifiable symbols, sounds, or other quanta of some method of communication> exists."

I mean, go for it.  Whatever floats your boat.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on September 20, 2013, 03:36:10 AM
Nothing that would satisfy me if I was in your shoes so I doubt that I can give you what would satisfy you.

Regards
DL
Well I don't have an argument against that.  There is no 'that' to discuss, analyze, or consider.  There is no 'that' to measure or evaluate against other ideas or concepts.  So, I certainly can't provide you with any argument or additional information that would modify your position.

Just to be clear: at this point in time, I would take your statement "God (or Godhead or cosmic consciousness) exists" to be EXACTLY EQUIVALENT TO statements such as:

"Qskenalan exists."
"Boris the Cosmic Bullet Dodger exists."
"Aslan exists."
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists."
"(The Artist who was never formerly known as) the Artist formerly known as Prince exists."
"<insert any random arrangement of identifiable symbols, sounds, or other quanta of some method of communication> exists."

I mean, go for it.  Whatever floats your boat.

Doesn't this mean that any discussion of issues we face in the real world should either (a) not mention ANY god, cosmic-con, Aslan, or any other theorised but unproven entity, or (b) consider all of them equally and (as jdawg points out) give them all equal consideration?

I'd have to vote for (a), otherwise things will get insanely complicated, as (in this thread alone) we would need to look at thousands of entities and ask "does X get a fail in the love category?"
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 20, 2013, 06:51:05 AM
jdawg70

Now you are talking like a Christian.

Links to the bibles for those God's please.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Nam on September 20, 2013, 07:54:17 AM
jdawg70

Now you are talking like a Christian.

Links to the bibles for those God's please.

Regards
DL

So, if a "god" doesn't have a "bible", it's not a "god"?

Idiotic.

-Nam
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on September 20, 2013, 10:39:50 AM
Now you are talking like a Christian.
I think I need more clarity insofar as how I'm talking like a Christian.  I mean...one of us here is espousing knowledge about the objective existence of an entity that has exactly zero coupling to reality and is only known as true through subjective means, and it isn't me.  So I'm a little confused about this here.
Quote
Links to the bibles for those God's please.

Regards
DL
Not sure of the relevance of the request here, unless, of course, your 'cosmic consciousness' has some bible or bible-equivalent?

Perhaps I'm not clear on what my criticism to you is.  So far as I can tell, your belief has no content.  When you say 'there is a cosmic consciousness', I do not see any information to separate that statement from 'alkjrhtpoihjoafjidloif89768643ji65##%$jhkfgjhkgjl;kifjal;dkjfu8', or 'there is a fuguajdibbald', or 'colorless green ideas sleep furiously'.  What I was hoping to get from you was some bit of information or whatever that differentiates 'there is a cosmic consciousness' from making no statement or claim at all.

Define 'cosmic consciousness'.  Define it more than simply saying 'cosmic consciousness is cosmic consciousness'.  Define it in terms of what it is rather than what it is not.  Otherwise, there is no difference between claiming 'the cosmic consciousness exists' and incoherent babble.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Star Stuff on September 20, 2013, 10:47:19 AM
Reminds me of those who use the term "Transcendence".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvmrfa8tIAI
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on September 20, 2013, 10:50:43 AM
Doesn't this mean that any discussion of issues we face in the real world should either (a) not mention ANY god, cosmic-con, Aslan, or any other theorised but unproven entity, or (b) consider all of them equally and (as jdawg points out) give them all equal consideration?

I'd have to vote for (a), otherwise things will get insanely complicated, as (in this thread alone) we would need to look at thousands of entities and ask "does X get a fail in the love category?"
I'd vote for (a) as well.

Seeking knowledge by assuming any and all claims regarding something are true and lopping off the untrue bits until reality emerges seems...inefficient at best, and mathematically impossible at worst.  I mean, the set of 'all things that might be true', I think, is infinitely large.  Seeing as how it's an uncountable set, there is no confidence that can be established by simply starting with this infinite set and pulling crap out of it.  That why we have to wrap constraints around things when seeking knowledge.  For example, 'must coincide with other sh*t in reality' seems like a pretty damn good starting point for constraining the infinite set of 'all things that might be true'.

<slight tangent> That's why I have major problems with people who say dumb crap like 'but science is limiting' and all that jazz.  Of course it's limiting - we're trying to limit the sh*t we put in our bucket of 'crap we think is true' to just the things that are actually true.</slight tangent>

That's why describing something strictly in terms of what it isn't doesn't really get you all that far.  Seriously, the set of things that are 'not irrelevant to this world for all that it does not do' is literally infinite.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 20, 2013, 11:07:29 AM
Now you are talking like a Christian.
I think I need more clarity insofar as how I'm talking like a Christian.  I mean...one of us here is espousing knowledge about the objective existence of an entity that has exactly zero coupling to reality and is only known as true through subjective means, and it isn't me.  So I'm a little confused about this here.
Quote
Links to the bibles for those God's please.

Regards
DL
Not sure of the relevance of the request here, unless, of course, your 'cosmic consciousness' has some bible or bible-equivalent?

Perhaps I'm not clear on what my criticism to you is.  So far as I can tell, your belief has no content.  When you say 'there is a cosmic consciousness', I do not see any information to separate that statement from 'alkjrhtpoihjoafjidloif89768643ji65##%$jhkfgjhkgjl;kifjal;dkjfu8', or 'there is a fuguajdibbald', or 'colorless green ideas sleep furiously'.  What I was hoping to get from you was some bit of information or whatever that differentiates 'there is a cosmic consciousness' from making no statement or claim at all.

Define 'cosmic consciousness'.  Define it more than simply saying 'cosmic consciousness is cosmic consciousness'.  Define it in terms of what it is rather than what it is not.  Otherwise, there is no difference between claiming 'the cosmic consciousness exists' and incoherent babble.

My belief has no content and yet you expect I will give you more.

I do not have the time to waste.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on September 20, 2013, 01:39:24 PM
My belief has no content and yet you expect I will give you more.

I do not have the time to waste.

Regards
DL
Look - it's no skin off my back.  I'm not the one who believes it.

If you don't have the time to waste to, you know, even consider if the thing you believe to be true actually is true, or consider if the thing you believe actually means anything, that's your call.  I just think that associating yourself with a statement such as 'the cosmic consciousness exists' when such a statement is absolutely meaningless is kinda silly.  But people think I'm silly for wearing a jacket in the spring, so whatever.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Boots on September 20, 2013, 01:55:32 PM
My belief has no content and yet you expect I will give you more.

I do not have the time to waste.

GIA, jdawg said "as far as he can tell, your belief has no content."  AS FAR AS HE CAN TELL, based on what you've presented so far.  That's why he's asking you to give more.

Sorry to butt in, feel free to ignore if I'm overstepping bounds and what what...
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 20, 2013, 02:42:39 PM
He opined that there was no content and I accepted it as stated.

I will not waste my time on such.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on September 20, 2013, 02:53:35 PM
Junebug,

You indicated that re-incarnation sounded like it was a good system for punishing evil doing.

Could you please tell me your take on the following:

Quote
As for reincarnation being a perfect punishment for transgressions???  How the hell do you conclude that?  With out memories of your former life you will randomly either be good or bad over and over till chemistry and lifes lottery allows you to be good.

Maybe in 30 lifetimes I might end up on the right side of Karma, brought up in the right house, correct moral lessons of my parents, correct financial standing, an uncle who did not rape me and all things coming together to make me a good person. 

But absent memory we are subject to pure random nature of our lot in life.
 

Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: junebug72 on September 21, 2013, 05:43:14 AM
Junebug,

You indicated that re-incarnation sounded like it was a good system for punishing evil doing.

Could you please tell me your take on the following:

Quote
As for reincarnation being a perfect punishment for transgressions???  How the hell do you conclude that?  With out memories of your former life you will randomly either be good or bad over and over till chemistry and lifes lottery allows you to be good.

Maybe in 30 lifetimes I might end up on the right side of Karma, brought up in the right house, correct moral lessons of my parents, correct financial standing, an uncle who did not rape me and all things coming together to make me a good person. 

But absent memory we are subject to pure random nature of our lot in life.


All I can say on the subject is that it seems a lot more appropriate than eternal hell fire. 

I hope your uncle did not really rape you.  If so I'm sorry to hear it.  More than likely also a victim. 

I don't think the afterlife is so much about punishment or rewards but more about rest and peace.  Yes I believe even the Hitlers of this world deserve rest and peace. :)

Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on September 23, 2013, 03:52:09 AM
He opined that there was no content and I accepted it as stated.

I will not waste my time on such.

Sorry, have I got this right?  Your beliefs have no content, and no evidence.  You accept this, and don't wish to waste your time discussing them.

I can't see there is any problem with that.....provided that you cease talking about them.  If you have a theory that you cannot prove, cannot define, and do not intend to try to expand upon, I'd question the rationale behind introducing it on a forum primarily used for debate?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on September 23, 2013, 07:04:28 AM
Junebug,

You indicated that re-incarnation sounded like it was a good system for punishing evil doing.

Could you please tell me your take on the following:

Quote
But absent memory we are subject to pure random nature of our lot in life.


All I can say on the subject is that it seems a lot more appropriate than eternal hell fire. 

I hope your uncle did not really rape you.  If so I'm sorry to hear it.  More than likely also a victim. 

I don't think the afterlife is so much about punishment or rewards but more about rest and peace.  Yes I believe even the Hitlers of this world deserve rest and peace. :)

We I agree eternal hell fire is a punishment that exceeds any crime.  But reincarnation is  about as useless as tits on a bull. We have a person who is bad,  we erase his brain and then punish him for the next lifetime, we don't tell him why, nor allow him to learn from his mistakes.  This does not appear to be a great training aid.  It is like mini hells, that you randomly are subjected to by the whims of a god?  How bout this, you die, god says here is what you did wrong, and you are now going to live out your years in a famine plagued area as punishment.

No my uncle did not rape me,  I have lead a reasonably good life, solid middle class, caring extended family,  loving parents and sibling.

wouldn't ceasing to exist be the ultimate rest and peace?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on September 23, 2013, 07:48:51 AM
....reincarnation is  about as useless as tits on a bull. We have a person who is bad,  we erase his brain and then punish him for the next lifetime, we don't tell him why, nor allow him to learn from his mistakes. 

If you've never seen it, try to catch the episode of Black Mirror titled "White Bear". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Black_Mirror_episodes)

Definitely try to see it before reading the article.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on September 23, 2013, 10:59:36 AM
GIA, jdawg said "as far as he can tell, your belief has no content."  AS FAR AS HE CAN TELL, based on what you've presented so far.  That's why he's asking you to give more.

Sorry to butt in, feel free to ignore if I'm overstepping bounds and what what...
I tend to be overtly verbose and probably less than clear in my posts, so by all means butt in if-n-when the mood strikes you to help clarify crap I post :)
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on September 23, 2013, 11:06:09 AM
Sorry, have I got this right?  Your beliefs have no content, and no evidence.  You accept this, and don't wish to waste your time discussing them.

I can't see there is any problem with that.....provided that you cease talking about them.  If you have a theory that you cannot prove, cannot define, and do not intend to try to expand upon, I'd question the rationale behind introducing it on a forum primarily used for debate?
See, that's the thing that's confusing me.  I cannot differentiate what he says from someone saying nothing at all.  I'm not convinced that's actually the case though - I suspect that his beliefs do entail some kind of content...the alternative, that what he actually believes amounts to the statement 'The cosmic consciousness exists' and absolutely nothing more just seems so preposterous to me.

But, Greatest I am, we don't have to go into any discussion about that if you don't want to (be it if it really doesn't have any content or if it's simply something that, for one reason or another, is utterly uncommunicable or cannot be articulated).

I would like some additional clarity on your claim that I was talking like a Christian.  Could you expand on that a bit?  As I alluded to before, I really didn't follow what you were saying there.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 23, 2013, 01:37:18 PM
He opined that there was no content and I accepted it as stated.

I will not waste my time on such.

Sorry, have I got this right?  Your beliefs have no content, and no evidence.  You accept this, and don't wish to waste your time discussing them.

I can't see there is any problem with that.....provided that you cease talking about them.  If you have a theory that you cannot prove, cannot define, and do not intend to try to expand upon, I'd question the rationale behind introducing it on a forum primarily used for debate?

You have got it wrong.

I accepted it as an opinion. Opinions are not facts or knowledge.

I accepted that he say no content. Not that there was no content.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 23, 2013, 01:49:03 PM
Sorry, have I got this right?  Your beliefs have no content, and no evidence.  You accept this, and don't wish to waste your time discussing them.

I can't see there is any problem with that.....provided that you cease talking about them.  If you have a theory that you cannot prove, cannot define, and do not intend to try to expand upon, I'd question the rationale behind introducing it on a forum primarily used for debate?
See, that's the thing that's confusing me.  I cannot differentiate what he says from someone saying nothing at all.  I'm not convinced that's actually the case though - I suspect that his beliefs do entail some kind of content...the alternative, that what he actually believes amounts to the statement 'The cosmic consciousness exists' and absolutely nothing more just seems so preposterous to me.

But, Greatest I am, we don't have to go into any discussion about that if you don't want to (be it if it really doesn't have any content or if it's simply something that, for one reason or another, is utterly uncommunicable or cannot be articulated).

I would like some additional clarity on your claim that I was talking like a Christian.  Could you expand on that a bit?  As I alluded to before, I really didn't follow what you were saying there.

Nope. Too far off topic. If it bothers you so much, I recant.

Move on. I have.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on September 23, 2013, 03:43:10 PM
Sorry, have I got this right?  Your beliefs have no content, and no evidence.  You accept this, and don't wish to waste your time discussing them.

I can't see there is any problem with that.....provided that you cease talking about them.  If you have a theory that you cannot prove, cannot define, and do not intend to try to expand upon, I'd question the rationale behind introducing it on a forum primarily used for debate?

You have got it wrong.

I accepted it as an opinion. Opinions are not facts or knowledge.

I accepted that he say no content. Not that there was no content.

Regards
DL
So...that's a little frustrating I suppose.

"He has made a claim that is incorrect.  Rather than telling him that he is incorrect and explaining why, I'm just going to accept his claim so I don't have to be burdened with the accountability of my own words." <--- that's how you're coming off right now.

The actual content of your beliefs may or may not fall under the category of opinion, but your belief actually having content is an objective question of fact.  Apparently I got that fact wrong; correct me please.

Nope. Too far off topic. If it bothers you so much, I recant.
That's fair enough, but also frustrating.  Are you under the impression that I was insulted by what you said?  I wasn't; I was (and am still) just genuinely confused.  What bothers me is that your comment that 'I was talking like a Christian', so far as I can tell, makes no sense.  We can drop it, but don't recant the statement just to be nice.  Recant it if you disagree with the statement; recant it if you think it will only serve to derail other relevant conversation, but if you really do feel like I was talking like a Christian, I'd sincerely like to understand where that's coming from.  Because as it stands right now, I just plain don't understand it.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 24, 2013, 06:20:45 AM
Sorry, have I got this right?  Your beliefs have no content, and no evidence.  You accept this, and don't wish to waste your time discussing them.

I can't see there is any problem with that.....provided that you cease talking about them.  If you have a theory that you cannot prove, cannot define, and do not intend to try to expand upon, I'd question the rationale behind introducing it on a forum primarily used for debate?

You have got it wrong.

I accepted it as an opinion. Opinions are not facts or knowledge.

I accepted that he say no content. Not that there was no content.

Regards
DL
So...that's a little frustrating I suppose.

"He has made a claim that is incorrect.  Rather than telling him that he is incorrect and explaining why, I'm just going to accept his claim so I don't have to be burdened with the accountability of my own words." <--- that's how you're coming off right now.

The actual content of your beliefs may or may not fall under the category of opinion, but your belief actually having content is an objective question of fact.  Apparently I got that fact wrong; correct me please.

Nope. Too far off topic. If it bothers you so much, I recant.
That's fair enough, but also frustrating.  Are you under the impression that I was insulted by what you said?  I wasn't; I was (and am still) just genuinely confused.  What bothers me is that your comment that 'I was talking like a Christian', so far as I can tell, makes no sense.  We can drop it, but don't recant the statement just to be nice.  Recant it if you disagree with the statement; recant it if you think it will only serve to derail other relevant conversation, but if you really do feel like I was talking like a Christian, I'd sincerely like to understand where that's coming from.  Because as it stands right now, I just plain don't understand it.

I am here to give facts. Not analyse them to death. I am a generalist and not a specialist.

I have even forgotten why I used the statement and am not the type to re-read what is past and like to deal with whatever post is at hand. I hide in logic and reason because I have a poor memory and usually speak to whatever word or issues are in front of me. I offered the recant only because I could not remember why I said what I did and it was a comment in passing, so to speak, and an aside to whatever we were speaking of.

I tend to move forwards and not back. Let's do so.

Regards
DL



 
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on September 24, 2013, 06:45:24 AM
I am here to give facts. Not analyse them to death. I am a generalist and not a specialist.

I have even forgotten why I used the statement and am not the type to re-read what is past and like to deal with whatever post is at hand. I hide in logic and reason because I have a poor memory and usually speak to whatever word or issues are in front of me. I offered the recant only because I could not remember why I said what I did and it was a comment in passing, so to speak, and an aside to whatever we were speaking of.

I tend to move forwards and not back. Let's do so.

Unfortunately, this reads a bit like "I speak off the cuff, don't strive for consistency, have no desire to present a coherent picture of my thoughts and beliefs".  Which you are more than welcome to do, but I suspect people will swiftly lose interest in engaging with you.

"Moving on" is, I would agree, in general a good thing to do.  Unfortunately, especially in politics, it is too often used as code for "I screwed up - lets not examine what I did too closely but try to forget it ever happened".

BTW, while you are here giving facts, what exactly ARE the facts behind the "cosmic consciousness"?  Indeed, what exactly do you mean by it?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 24, 2013, 07:15:19 AM
I would define what I call the cosmic consciousness as a consolidation of many human minds.

That is what I found but almost any other description I would add is speculation as it is impossible to describe it from inside it. It would be like blindfolding you, putting you into a house and asking you to describe the outside of that house without ever seeing it.

I did look at how wiki and others defined it in the past but cannot agree with much of it as some looks speculative or unknowable to me.

Imagine yourself on the phone and suddenly you recognize that you have somehow patched into what we used to call a party line. However you would describe that party line is my basic definition of a cosmic consciousness.

Regards
DL


Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on September 24, 2013, 08:26:37 AM
I would define what I call the cosmic consciousness as a consolidation of many human minds.

That is what I found but almost any other description I would add is speculation as it is impossible to describe it from inside it. It would be like blindfolding you, putting you into a house and asking you to describe the outside of that house without ever seeing it.
But you could always try some other senses to describe the house.  You could feel around to see if it were large or small, determine the texture of the exterior, determine if it has a porch, etc.  You could throw things at it to listen to if the house is north of you or south of you.  You could smell the house to determine if it is moldy.
Quote
I did look at how wiki and others defined it in the past but cannot agree with much of it as some looks speculative or unknowable to me.

Imagine yourself on the phone and suddenly you recognize that you have somehow patched into what we used to call a party line. However you would describe that party line is my basic definition of a cosmic consciousness.

Regards
DL
Well the way I'd describe being patched into a party line would be that, in the midst of what I thought was a one-to-one conversation, I begin to hear multiple other conversations that have no bearing to my current conversation.  I don't suspect that you claim to hear voices; well, I guess I may as well ask - do you?  Or what is it that you "hear"?  Is it more like a sensation of other peoples' thoughts?

Does your belief share anything in common with the concepts found in the Global Consciousness Project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_consciousness
http://www.scientificexploration.org/edgescience/edgescience_01.pdf
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: screwtape on September 24, 2013, 08:28:11 AM
I am here to give facts. Not analyse them to death. I am a generalist and not a specialist.

1. If your facts are in dispute, I would think you would want to discuss them.
2. that sounds discouragingly like you are just here to preach to us.  Please don't preach.

Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on September 24, 2013, 08:29:51 AM
I would define what I call the cosmic consciousness as a consolidation of many human minds.

That is what I found but almost any other description I would add is speculation as it is impossible to describe it from inside it. It would be like blindfolding you, putting you into a house and asking you to describe the outside of that house without ever seeing it.

I did look at how wiki and others defined it in the past but cannot agree with much of it as some looks speculative or unknowable to me.

Imagine yourself on the phone and suddenly you recognize that you have somehow patched into what we used to call a party line. However you would describe that party line is my basic definition of a cosmic consciousness.

Regards
DL

Does anyone have access to this party line on demand.  Because they would be up for the million dollar prize from several skeptic societies.  To date I have not seen anything Psychic, telekinetic, telepathic, or supernatural.  No one seems to be able to do these things under scientific scrutiny.  What makes you feel your telepathic experience indicates more than an ability two people in close proximity to each other to share feelings.  What makes you feel that the entire human population is in some sort of giant group consciousness?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on September 24, 2013, 08:29:59 AM
I've got no interest in how any others define it, just how you do it.  And I'm afraid that all I'm seeing at the moment is "cop out".

"consolidation of many human minds"...."party line".  What do you mean?  Do you mean that you could hear thoughts of 6 billion people?  That you "felt" 6 billion people?  What?

Is the "cosmic consciousness" anything more than the sum of its parts?  Are we constantly/occasionally "dialling in" to it when we have ideas, for example? 

The house analogy is very poor.  You HAVE "seen the outside", so to speak.  So come on, have a stab at it.  YOU know what you mean when you speak of it, so have a go at putting it into words.  We'll let you take it slowly - just stop dressing it up in all the woo.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 24, 2013, 08:49:21 AM
I would define what I call the cosmic consciousness as a consolidation of many human minds.

That is what I found but almost any other description I would add is speculation as it is impossible to describe it from inside it. It would be like blindfolding you, putting you into a house and asking you to describe the outside of that house without ever seeing it.
But you could always try some other senses to describe the house.  You could feel around to see if it were large or small, determine the texture of the exterior, determine if it has a porch, etc.  You could throw things at it to listen to if the house is north of you or south of you.  You could smell the house to determine if it is moldy.
Quote
I did look at how wiki and others defined it in the past but cannot agree with much of it as some looks speculative or unknowable to me.

Imagine yourself on the phone and suddenly you recognize that you have somehow patched into what we used to call a party line. However you would describe that party line is my basic definition of a cosmic consciousness.

Regards
DL
Well the way I'd describe being patched into a party line would be that, in the midst of what I thought was a one-to-one conversation, I begin to hear multiple other conversations that have no bearing to my current conversation.  I don't suspect that you claim to hear voices; well, I guess I may as well ask - do you?  Or what is it that you "hear"?  Is it more like a sensation of other peoples' thoughts?

Does your belief share anything in common with the concepts found in the Global Consciousness Project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_consciousness
http://www.scientificexploration.org/edgescience/edgescience_01.pdf

If physically in a house, sure one could get some information but if you are in an a room and cannot get to the others, as is my case where I was, then your impressions would be all wrong. That is why anything I say of it is pure and likely wrong speculation.

I guess that there is a bit that I have in common with those links you gave but no more or less that I have in common with Edgar Casey and his Akashic records.

I can't land on any of those theories till one of them proves to be true.

Right now, my best guess would go with that Sudbury lab that speculates that the cosmic consciousness is a part of our magnetic field.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 24, 2013, 08:53:17 AM
I am here to give facts. Not analyse them to death. I am a generalist and not a specialist.

1. If your facts are in dispute, I would think you would want to discuss them.
2. that sounds discouragingly like you are just here to preach to us.  Please don't preach.

I want to and must discuss from a speculative POV as that is the only way to discuss this since I lack the required proofs to make anything I say not just speculation to the listener.

If the facts I give are disputed, I have to live with it as I cannot refute the dispute.

Is That good English mon ami?

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Graybeard on September 24, 2013, 08:58:23 AM
I would define what I call the cosmic consciousness as a consolidation of many human minds.

That is what I found but almost any other description I would add is speculation as it is impossible to describe it from inside it. It would be like blindfolding you, putting you into a house and asking you to describe the outside of that house without ever seeing it.

I did look at how wiki and others defined it in the past but cannot agree with much of it as some looks speculative or unknowable to me.

Imagine yourself on the phone and suddenly you recognize that you have somehow patched into what we used to call a party line. However you would describe that party line is my basic definition of a cosmic consciousness.

Regards
DL

So basically, cosmic consciousness are just two words stuck together that look as if they might mean something? But they don't.

Anyway, how do we go about consolidating "many human minds"?

I think that if you are honest, you will admit that you have no idea what is going on in your theory and that is because you have violated the law of logic that says, "Just because you don''t understand something, you are not permitted to make things up."
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 24, 2013, 09:11:24 AM
Quote
I would define what I call the cosmic consciousness as a consolidation of many human minds.

That is what I found but almost any other description I would add is speculation as it is impossible to describe it from inside it. It would be like blindfolding you, putting you into a house and asking you to describe the outside of that house without ever seeing it.

I did look at how wiki and others defined it in the past but cannot agree with much of it as some looks speculative or unknowable to me.

Imagine yourself on the phone and suddenly you recognize that you have somehow patched into what we used to call a party line. However you would describe that party line is my basic definition of a cosmic consciousness.

Regards
DL

Does anyone have access to this party line on demand.

If the conditions I met or produced are met and produced I would say yes. I am just a normal guy.

I would not say on demand though because there may be some cooperation going on between minds, a protocol if you will, so I would say request more than demand. 

Quote
  Because they would be up for the million dollar prize from several skeptic societies.


The Sudbury lab has more proof and ability to replicate telepathy than I think I have. I hope they go for it. This is shown in this link if you have yet to see it. Check at about the 20 min. mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHZXnIhGOSg


Quote
To date I have not seen anything Psychic, telekinetic, telepathic, or supernatural.  No one seems to be able to do these things under scientific scrutiny.


Neither have I except for my own telepathic experiences.

Quote
What makes you feel your telepathic experience indicates more than an ability two people in close proximity to each other to share feelings.


Person to person, and person to a cosmic consciousness is all I claim to be real.

I don't know if a person can do it with multiple living people but it does sound like it would work.

I do not think proximity matters any more than you proximity to the radio station of your choice.

Quote
What makes you feel that the entire human population is in some sort of giant group consciousness?

I did not indicate this and do not think we are. I think we can all access each other but do not think we are all connected all the time or even some of the time. If we were, because of the emotional content of the experience, I do not think we could function as a species or as individuals.

Regards
DL

Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on September 24, 2013, 09:26:00 AM
If physically in a house, sure one could get some information but if you are in an a room and cannot get to the others, as is my case where I was, then your impressions would be all wrong. That is why anything I say of it is pure and likely wrong speculation.
So I guess the next question is...how do you know that you're even in a house?  I mean, you think you're in a house...it feels like you're in a house...but do you actually have any other reason to believe that you actually are in a house?
Quote
I guess that there is a bit that I have in common with those links you gave but no more or less that I have in common with Edgar Casey and his Akashic records.

I can't land on any of those theories till one of them proves to be true.

Right now, my best guess would go with that Sudbury lab that speculates that the cosmic consciousness is a part of our magnetic field.

Regards
DL
So...what is it that you have in common with Edgar Casey and the Akashic records?  Like, that you believe there exists an astral plane?  Some level of specificity please.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 24, 2013, 09:27:45 AM
Quote
I've got no interest in how any others define it, just how you do it.  And I'm afraid that all I'm seeing at the moment is "cop out".

"consolidation of many human minds"...."party line".  What do you mean?  Do you mean that you could hear thoughts of 6 billion people?  That you "felt" 6 billion people?  What?

I had no time to count them. The impression was of many.

All I can do is try to give you an analogy. Let's say you are a P C. You inadvertently wirelessly connect to a mainframe that contains many other P C programs/entities that are all interacting and accessing each others programs as well as the original mainframe program.

How much do you think you will glean in about 6 seconds?

Quote
Is the "cosmic consciousness" anything more than the sum of its parts?


I do not think so.


Quote
Are we constantly/occasionally "dialling in" to it when we have ideas, for example?
 

I don't know.

I do know that occasionally, before that particular experience, I would wake up with a word in mind that I would have to go to a dictionary to get the definition of because it was a word I did not recognize. That is the closest I have come to anything else that I cannot fully explain. I have never attributed that to the cosmic consciousness and just thought that my subconscious mind might have just picket it up somewhere. 

Quote
The house analogy is very poor.  You HAVE "seen the outside", so to speak.  So come on, have a stab at it.  YOU know what you mean when you speak of it, so have a go at putting it into words.  We'll let you take it slowly - just stop dressing it up in all the woo.

I have been saying that there is no woo involved but seems that you just do not want to listen.

Look above at the mainframe analogy but realize that I was inside and not outside.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on September 24, 2013, 09:36:46 AM
I have been saying that there is no woo involved but seems that you just do not want to listen.
And I've been saying that my bottle of pig's blood is 100% vegan.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 24, 2013, 09:37:36 AM
Quote
I would define what I call the cosmic consciousness as a consolidation of many human minds.

That is what I found but almost any other description I would add is speculation as it is impossible to describe it from inside it. It would be like blindfolding you, putting you into a house and asking you to describe the outside of that house without ever seeing it.

I did look at how wiki and others defined it in the past but cannot agree with much of it as some looks speculative or unknowable to me.

Imagine yourself on the phone and suddenly you recognize that you have somehow patched into what we used to call a party line. However you would describe that party line is my basic definition of a cosmic consciousness.

Regards
DL

So basically, cosmic consciousness are just two words stuck together that look as if they might mean something? But they don't.

Anyway, how do we go about consolidating "many human minds"?


The internet or any group of people communicating does just that at the superficial level and that is the only level we can reach from our usual conscious state.

As to how the cosmic consciousness does it, I don't know.

I speculate that it does not know either any more than any living entity knows how it's own consciousness began.

Quote
I think that if you are honest, you will admit that you have no idea what is going on in your theory


I have admitted to not having proof of anything in my theory.

Quote
and that is because you have violated the law of logic that says, "Just because you don''t understand something, you are not permitted to make things up."

Sure we are as long as we know it is made up. Many myths and allegory etc. help people finish theories or show some information or moral position is a simple way.

Don't you remember Mother Goose?

Knowing fantasy from reality is all the theorist has to remember.

Regards
DL

Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 24, 2013, 09:54:39 AM
Quote
If physically in a house, sure one could get some information but if you are in an a room and cannot get to the others, as is my case where I was, then your impressions would be all wrong. That is why anything I say of it is pure and likely wrong speculation.
So I guess the next question is...how do you know that you're even in a house?  I mean, you think you're in a house...it feels like you're in a house...but do you actually have any other reason to believe that you actually are in a house?

Just that I am nowhere else.
Quote
Quote
I guess that there is a bit that I have in common with those links you gave but no more or less that I have in common with Edgar Casey and his Akashic records.

I can't land on any of those theories till one of them proves to be true.

Right now, my best guess would go with that Sudbury lab that speculates that the cosmic consciousness is a part of our magnetic field.

Regards
DL
So...what is it that you have in common with Edgar Casey and the Akashic records?  Like, that you believe there exists an astral plane?  Some level of specificity please.

Just that I claim to have found a source of information that most have yet to find and the words Ashikic record might be connected to it. Pure speculation that.

An astral plane is usually associated with religions and God and I do not see the cosmic consciousness as having anything to do with God or religion in other than it may have been what the shaman found and wrongly gave it attributes that it does not have. That or it is a lot more than what I saw/felt. I did get an impression, just an impression, that it was pondering or seeking further information on God but that it was not a huge priority or the main focus of it's thoughts. It definitely did not believe in the supernatural as it confirmed my paradigm and it does not contain anything supernatural.

I came away from the whole thing thinking of God, the word God that is, as just the best set of rules to live by.

I do not know if that came from my own thinking or that of the cosmic consciousness. It is possible that it is not looking at all for a God as we think of God and is just into philosophy as opposed to what we call theology.

Regards
DL


Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on September 24, 2013, 03:20:10 PM
Just that I claim to have found a source of information that most have yet to find and the words Akashic record might be connected to it. Pure speculation that.
Presumably you can make the claim that you've discovered some 'source of information' because you've extracted some manner of information from this source.  Care to elaborate on what some of that information is?

I don't understand what relationship your source of information has to the Akashic record, outside of you simply saying that it is sorta/kinda like the Akashic record or it fills in the same kind purpose as the Akashic record.  If you could provide any more detail here that would be helpful.
Quote
An astral plane is usually associated with religions and God and I do not see the cosmic consciousness as having anything to do with God or religion in other than it may have been what the shaman found and wrongly gave it attributes that it does not have. That or it is a lot more than what I saw/felt. I did get an impression, just an impression, that it was pondering or seeking further information on God but that it was not a huge priority or the main focus of it's thoughts. It definitely did not believe in the supernatural as it confirmed my paradigm and it does not contain anything supernatural.
So...'it'.  Are you referring to 'the cosmic consciousness'?  If that's the case, are you saying that you think 'the cosmic consciousness' is a sentient (i.e. willful) entity of some kind?  Words like 'pondering' and 'seeking' seem to indicate such a belief.
Quote
I came away from the whole thing thinking of God, the word God that is, as just the best set of rules to live by.

I do not know if that came from my own thinking or that of the cosmic consciousness. It is possible that it is not looking at all for a God as we think of God and is just into philosophy as opposed to what we call theology.

Regards
DL
Again, is this 'it' 'the cosmic consciousness'?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on September 25, 2013, 02:35:15 AM
I have been saying that there is no woo involved but seems that you just do not want to listen.

Sure I don't.

"There is a cosmic consciousness that I believe I connected to for a few seconds a few years back when I got the impression of loads of minds!  I can't tell you anything about it but I appear to have built a whole philosophy on it - certainly I reference it in every conversation I have on this forum.  No, no evidence for any of it at all apart from the tiny 'experience' that I cannot replicate or adequately explain".

No woo, no indeed.  Definite science, backed up by evidence.  Sorry I got that so wrong.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on September 25, 2013, 02:38:58 AM
.....I do not see the cosmic consciousness as having anything to do with God or religion in other than it may have been what the shaman found and wrongly gave it attributes that it does not have. That or it is a lot more than what I saw/felt. I did get an impression, just an impression, that it was pondering or seeking further information on God but that it was not a huge priority or the main focus of it's thoughts. It definitely did not believe in the supernatural as it confirmed my paradigm and it does not contain anything supernatural.

I had no time to count them. The impression was of many.....How much do you think you will glean in about 6 seconds?

Amazing how definite GIA can be on some question, when on others he prefers the "it was all so quick I have no idea" response.  But it's not woo.  We know its not woo as GIA has told us it isn't woo.  The cosmic consciousness isn't woo either, the cosmic consciousness doesn't even believe in woo.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 25, 2013, 08:53:03 AM
Just that I claim to have found a source of information that most have yet to find and the words Akashic record might be connected to it. Pure speculation that.
Presumably you can make the claim that you've discovered some 'source of information' because you've extracted some manner of information from this source.  Care to elaborate on what some of that information is?

I don't understand what relationship your source of information has to the Akashic record, outside of you simply saying that it is sorta/kinda like the Akashic record or it fills in the same kind purpose as the Akashic record.  If you could provide any more detail here that would be helpful.
Quote
An astral plane is usually associated with religions and God and I do not see the cosmic consciousness as having anything to do with God or religion in other than it may have been what the shaman found and wrongly gave it attributes that it does not have. That or it is a lot more than what I saw/felt. I did get an impression, just an impression, that it was pondering or seeking further information on God but that it was not a huge priority or the main focus of it's thoughts. It definitely did not believe in the supernatural as it confirmed my paradigm and it does not contain anything supernatural.
So...'it'.  Are you referring to 'the cosmic consciousness'?  If that's the case, are you saying that you think 'the cosmic consciousness' is a sentient (i.e. willful) entity of some kind?  Words like 'pondering' and 'seeking' seem to indicate such a belief.
Quote
I came away from the whole thing thinking of God, the word God that is, as just the best set of rules to live by.

I do not know if that came from my own thinking or that of the cosmic consciousness. It is possible that it is not looking at all for a God as we think of God and is just into philosophy as opposed to what we call theology.

Regards
DL
Again, is this 'it' 'the cosmic consciousness'?

Yes. The (it's) are referring to the cosmic consciousness. Must shorter to write.

The only things that I learned from that source other than the fact that it was real was that my basic paradigm for religions and life were on the right path and it chastised me to think more demographically. There was more but I was not able to catch it because as I stated, I was crying through the whole episode.

" If that's the case, are you saying that you think 'the cosmic consciousness' is a sentient (i.e. willful) entity of some kind?'.

It is definitely sentient and aware.

In discussing this, and primarily because of the Sudbury information, the thought did come to mind that what I found was not the remnants of those that had passed on. It is possible that what I found was just other conscious and live minds like mine who just happened to be there at that time. I would have no way of knowing this without one of them stating it and that did not happen not even from me.

This goes against what I gleaned from my experience but I recognize that what I gleaned was speculation that has yet to be confirmed.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 25, 2013, 08:55:40 AM
I have been saying that there is no woo involved but seems that you just do not want to listen.

Sure I don't.

"There is a cosmic consciousness that I believe I connected to for a few seconds a few years back when I got the impression of loads of minds!  I can't tell you anything about it but I appear to have built a whole philosophy on it - certainly I reference it in every conversation I have on this forum.  No, no evidence for any of it at all apart from the tiny 'experience' that I cannot replicate or adequately explain".

No woo, no indeed.  Definite science, backed up by evidence.  Sorry I got that so wrong.

Is that my words. It does not sound like my pattern or word I usually use?

Regards
DL
 
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on September 25, 2013, 12:39:13 PM
Yes. The (it's) are referring to the cosmic consciousness. Must shorter to write.

The only things that I learned from that source other than the fact that it was real was that my basic paradigm for religions and life were on the right path and it chastised me to think more demographically. There was more but I was not able to catch it because as I stated, I was crying through the whole episode.

" If that's the case, are you saying that you think 'the cosmic consciousness' is a sentient (i.e. willful) entity of some kind?'.
That's a bummer.  Basically, 'the cosmic consciousness', in essence, told you (through speech?  Just in internal feeling?) that 'it' is real, and then chastised you to think more demographically.  The latter is somewhat confusing - could you better elaborate what you mean by 'chastised'?  Did it speak to you in an angry voice?  What does 'think more demographically' mean?  Did it explicitly say words like 'think more demographically', or are you extrapolating that information from some 'feeling'?
Quote
It is definitely sentient and aware.
Wonderful!  An actual property of the label 'cosmic consciousness'!  Got any more?
Quote
In discussing this, and primarily because of the Sudbury information, the thought did come to mind that what I found was not the remnants of those that had passed on. It is possible that what I found was just other conscious and live minds like mine who just happened to be there at that time. I would have no way of knowing this without one of them stating it and that did not happen not even from me.
It's also possible that you suffered a temporary psychotic episode.
It's also possible that you had a cognitive hallucination.
It's also possible that you had an extraordinary emotional event, and you've pieced together a rationalization to fit around that emotional event that is completely decoupled from anything real.
Quote
This goes against what I gleaned from my experience but I recognize that what I gleaned was speculation that has yet to be confirmed.
Fair enough.

Sure I don't.

"There is a cosmic consciousness that I believe I connected to for a few seconds a few years back when I got the impression of loads of minds!  I can't tell you anything about it but I appear to have built a whole philosophy on it - certainly I reference it in every conversation I have on this forum.  No, no evidence for any of it at all apart from the tiny 'experience' that I cannot replicate or adequately explain".

No woo, no indeed.  Definite science, backed up by evidence.  Sorry I got that so wrong.

Is that my words. It does not sound like my pattern or word I usually use?

It's called paraphrasing, though with a particularly sarcastic tone.  The tone and the words are different, but is the content?  If so, please elaborate on what Anfauglir has incorrect.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 25, 2013, 06:23:57 PM
" I appear to have built a whole philosophy on it"

This is garbage. I mostly ignore what I found, raised my bar of expectation and morality and seek anew.

I am continually trying to improve my theology and philosophy. If not, I would just be another idol worshiper.

I am surprised that you could not dither out that it was sentient when telepathy is what we were talking about.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on September 26, 2013, 03:20:23 AM
I am surprised that you could not dither out that it was sentient when telepathy is what we were talking about.

Possibly because you said:

Is the "cosmic consciousness" anything more than the sum of its parts?

I do not think so.

And yet now you say:

It is definitely sentient and aware.

This is the problem, DL, and why I and others have been pushing you for a coherent and detailed explanation of just what the hell it is you DO believe, because (just like normal woo-believers do) your statement appear to shift and mutate depending on what facet you are trying to defend at the current time.

As I said before, I also find it intriguing how you can switch from only getting a glimpse, and being unable to describe it in any way, to being able to make such definite statements.  Again, I call to mind the theists who are simultaneously positive about Yahweh's desires on minutiae of life, yet in the next breath claim how ineffable and unknowable it all is.

You're not saying anything new - scratch that, you're not saying anything at all, so far as I can see.  Just spouting a whole load of woo that you are unwilling and/or unable to back up.  Or indeed keep straight.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on September 26, 2013, 09:42:50 AM
To answer the topic question bluntly.
Yes.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 26, 2013, 04:27:07 PM
I am surprised that you could not dither out that it was sentient when telepathy is what we were talking about.

Possibly because you said:

Is the "cosmic consciousness" anything more than the sum of its parts?

I do not think so.

And yet now you say:

It is definitely sentient and aware.

This is the problem, DL, and why I and others have been pushing you for a coherent and detailed explanation of just what the hell it is you DO believe, because (just like normal woo-believers do) your statement appear to shift and mutate depending on what facet you are trying to defend at the current time.

As I said before, I also find it intriguing how you can switch from only getting a glimpse, and being unable to describe it in any way, to being able to make such definite statements.  Again, I call to mind the theists who are simultaneously positive about Yahweh's desires on minutiae of life, yet in the next breath claim how ineffable and unknowable it all is.

You're not saying anything new - scratch that, you're not saying anything at all, so far as I can see.  Just spouting a whole load of woo that you are unwilling and/or unable to back up.  Or indeed keep straight.

I see no conflict or error in my response and think you are looking for some and just want to whine.

You are right that we are getting nowhere and it is not my language or answers.

I think were done here.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 26, 2013, 04:28:18 PM
To answer the topic question bluntly.
Yes.

Simple and precise. Nice.

I agree.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on September 27, 2013, 03:26:15 AM
Is the "cosmic consciousness" anything more than the sum of its parts?

I do not think so.
But:
It is definitely sentient and aware.


I see no conflict or error in my response and think you are looking for some and just want to whine.

You are right that we are getting nowhere and it is not my language or answers.
[/quote]

Sorry to "whine", but how can the CC be "sentient and aware", if it is NOT more than the sum of its parts?

To draw an analogy: it appears that you are saying something comparable to "the internet is sentient and aware".  And I'm not sure how that would gel with "the internet is no more than the sum of its parts".
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 27, 2013, 10:17:19 AM
All of it's parts are individually aware so we can say that it is aware but that does not make it more than the sum of it's parts. I guess we could say that the more minds you add the brighter the whole gets but at no time can it be brighter than what is there.

What kind of greater than it's sum are you thinking of?
It suddenly growing legs or developing the ability to do the supernatural?

I do not accept your analogy as the internet is not aware of itself. As far as we know.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on September 28, 2013, 12:57:24 AM
So you are saying then that the Cosmic Con is NOT sentient as an individual entity, is NOT aware of itself as a discrete entity? 

Put a dozen people in a room to talk about an issue, and we could say that "the meeting" has an opinion on something.  But the meeting is not sentient or aware.  You said "the cosmic con is sentient and aware", I'm trying to grasp what you meant by that.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 28, 2013, 08:37:05 AM
So you are saying then that the Cosmic Con is NOT sentient as an individual entity, is NOT aware of itself as a discrete entity? 

Put a dozen people in a room to talk about an issue, and we could say that "the meeting" has an opinion on something.  But the meeting is not sentient or aware.  You said "the cosmic con is sentient and aware", I'm trying to grasp what you meant by that.

Let me use an analogy for clarity.

You will know that this is all speculation on my part and could easily be all wrong.

In the beginning or birth of the C C,  the first consciousness of the first true man to die, ---- that we will say is a P C in this scenario,  found himself somehow uploaded into the hardware and software of a mainframe computer. The software of the mainframe was blank and the first P C in that reality now becomes the proud owner of the C C/mainframe and becomes the mainframe as there is no one else there to take ownership.

From there, when the second P C to upload joins, merges and or melds with it, --- while still maintaining it's own individuality, they can now both say that in effect, they are the mainframe as they are completely equal. And so on and so on as more P Cs come in.

The mainframe without our consciousness within it is not sentient. With even one of us there it becomes sentient.

If I recognized your exact question, this should be quite clear. I hope.  :)

Regards
DL

 


Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on September 29, 2013, 02:39:05 AM
In the beginning or birth of the C C,  the first consciousness of the first true man to die, ---- that we will say is a P C in this scenario,  found himself somehow uploaded into the hardware and software of a mainframe computer. The software of the mainframe was blank and the first P C in that reality now becomes the proud owner of the C C/mainframe and becomes the mainframe as there is no one else there to take ownership.

From there, when the second P C to upload joins, merges and or melds with it, --- while still maintaining it's own individuality, they can now both say that in effect, they are the mainframe as they are completely equal. And so on and so on as more P Cs come in.

So you not only felt all living minds, you also felt all the billions of deceased minds throughout history as distinct individuals?

And actually, you didn't answer my question.  Is the Cosmic Con itself sentient?  To put it another way, is there a "thought" that the Con can have, that is not generated by the sum of the parts?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 29, 2013, 03:04:48 PM
In the beginning or birth of the C C,  the first consciousness of the first true man to die, ---- that we will say is a P C in this scenario,  found himself somehow uploaded into the hardware and software of a mainframe computer. The software of the mainframe was blank and the first P C in that reality now becomes the proud owner of the C C/mainframe and becomes the mainframe as there is no one else there to take ownership.

From there, when the second P C to upload joins, merges and or melds with it, --- while still maintaining it's own individuality, they can now both say that in effect, they are the mainframe as they are completely equal. And so on and so on as more P Cs come in.

So you not only felt all living minds, you also felt all the billions of deceased minds throughout history as distinct individuals?

And actually, you didn't answer my question.  Is the Cosmic Con itself sentient?  To put it another way, is there a "thought" that the Con can have, that is not generated by the sum of the parts?

I did not have time to count them. There were many is all I can say.

This is an assumption on my part.

To your last. Not that I know of from what I gleaned. The mechanism that houses the C C is not a thinking machine without man's consciousness to inhabit it. Like a house with no one living in it.

Seems I should revise what I said earlier of the mainframe having hardware and software. It would have been more like just hardware waiting for the software that was the first man or woman to reach it.

Regards
DL

Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on September 30, 2013, 06:55:51 AM
Is the Cosmic Con itself sentient?  To put it another way, is there a "thought" that the Con can have, that is not generated by the sum of the parts?
To your last. Not that I know of from what I gleaned. The mechanism that houses the C C is not a thinking machine without man's consciousness to inhabit it. Like a house with no one living in it.

Seems I should revise what I said earlier of the mainframe having hardware and software. It would have been more like just hardware waiting for the software that was the first man or woman to reach it.

So your statement
It (the CC) is definitely sentient and aware.

is not correct?
It is definitely sentient and aware.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 30, 2013, 07:55:13 AM
Without man/the software, the hardware was not thinking or sentient. After the first human consciousness reached it and melded with it, it changed to a thinking sentient entity.

This is an assumption based on my perceptions while there. I was not there at the beginning and could be all wrong.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on September 30, 2013, 08:17:36 AM
So does the CC has thoughts of its own independant from the brains inside it?

I feel like I'm going round in circles here - does the CC have thoughts and goals independant of the minds allegedly contained within it?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on September 30, 2013, 08:37:01 AM
Okay, I am a tad bit confused, what is this...Cosmic conscience?

Greatest, can you explain?

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 30, 2013, 08:57:31 AM
So does the CC has thoughts of its own independant from the brains inside it?

I feel like I'm going round in circles here - does the CC have thoughts and goals independant of the minds allegedly contained within it?

Not that I know of. I think it activated only after the first human consciousness found itself there.

If it had software at the beginning then the answer would be yes but if it had blank software or none at all, which is what I assume, then no; it never had independent though or sentience on it's own.

If we go in circles it is because you want exact information that I do not have.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 30, 2013, 08:58:50 AM
Okay, I am a tad bit confused, what is this...Cosmic conscience?

Greatest, can you explain?

Thanks in advance.

Start reading at about page 2.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on September 30, 2013, 09:10:05 AM
Aha, so this CC is a consolidation of every human mind?
Dead?
Alive?
Both?

What exactly is this CC for?
What does it do?
How does this mean god?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 30, 2013, 09:25:14 AM
Aha, so this CC is a consolidation of every human mind?
Dead?
Alive?
Both?

What exactly is this CC for?
What does it do?
How does this mean god?

Initially I believed that they were a consolidation of those that had passed. If you say that Wormhole clip, it seems to point to the consciousness or subconsciousness if there is such a thing of the living.

Because the people in that experiment did not feel the pain and pleasures I did, I do not think that they are finding what I did.

The C C is not God but I think it is what the shaman found and then gave it all kind of attributes that I did not find. Omni this and Omni that to me is just the old churches having their Gods having a pissing contest.

That is why I use the word Godhead and not God. The word God has been corrupted and is now too stupid to use.

It does not do anything but think from what I can see and does not initiate contact but only waits for use to find it while alive or join it when dead.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: William on September 30, 2013, 10:01:25 AM
The word God has been corrupted and is now too stupid to use.

That is remarkable! That the God (or whatever) would do nothing to repair its own reputation except leave it to a few special humans to decide it needs a clean slate.  While providing no clear unambiguous guidance.  Just a vague plee for a fresh start to more make-believe.

I'm not saying I've got the ultimate "I've been there" story GIa - your personal experience is probably entirely different to mine. But after my crisis of faith within a religion I went through a phase of clinging white-knuckled to the concept of deity that might be divorced from the stupidity of religion. I prayed and begged for contact, for a sign, that I might know.  Nothing came!  I searched for physical evidence of a deity - perhaps something that might be right under my nose if only I open my eyes to it - but found the exact opposite in copious amounts!  Random suffering. Errant scriptures containing vile morals and inconsistent versions of God. Liars and charlatans parasiting off the faithful in every religion. People faking faith. Pascals Wager. Excusiology. Fear. Exploitation. No evidence.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on September 30, 2013, 10:06:59 AM
Aha, so this CC is a consolidation of every human mind?
Dead?
Alive?
Both?

What exactly is this CC for?
What does it do?
How does this mean god?

Initially I believed that they were a consolidation of those that had passed. If you say that Wormhole clip, it seems to point to the consciousness or subconsciousness if there is such a thing of the living.

Because the people in that experiment did not feel the pain and pleasures I did, I do not think that they are finding what I did.

The C C is not God but I think it is what the shaman found and then gave it all kind of attributes that I did not find. Omni this and Omni that to me is just the old churches having their Gods having a pissing contest.

That is why I use the word Godhead and not God. The word God has been corrupted and is now too stupid to use.

It does not do anything but think from what I can see and does not initiate contact but only waits for use to find it while alive or join it when dead.

Regards
DL

So this "CC" is a deity, no?
Is it capable of anything?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 30, 2013, 11:13:33 AM
The word God has been corrupted and is now too stupid to use.

That is remarkable! That the God (or whatever) would do nothing to repair its own reputation except leave it to a few special humans to decide it needs a clean slate.  While providing no clear unambiguous guidance.  Just a vague plee for a fresh start to more make-believe.

I'm not saying I've got the ultimate "I've been there" story GIa - your personal experience is probably entirely different to mine. But after my crisis of faith within a religion I went through a phase of clinging white-knuckled to the concept of deity that might be divorced from the stupidity of religion. I prayed and begged for contact, for a sign, that I might know.  Nothing came!  I searched for physical evidence of a deity - perhaps something that might be right under my nose if only I open my eyes to it - but found the exact opposite in copious amounts!  Random suffering. Errant scriptures containing vile morals and inconsistent versions of God. Liars and charlatans parasiting off the faithful in every religion. People faking faith. Pascals Wager. Excusiology. Fear. Exploitation. No evidence.

You might want to change your focus from opening your eyes to it to opening your single eye to it if you feel you have a spiritual side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

If it was easy my friend, I would not be the only one I know who claims apotheosis. I would like to give you the key to it but I am not even sure of why I was able to do it. There is nothing special about me except for my desire those many years ago now.

Regards
DL

Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 30, 2013, 11:15:18 AM
Aha, so this CC is a consolidation of every human mind?
Dead?
Alive?
Both?

What exactly is this CC for?
What does it do?
How does this mean god?

Initially I believed that they were a consolidation of those that had passed. If you say that Wormhole clip, it seems to point to the consciousness or subconsciousness if there is such a thing of the living.

Because the people in that experiment did not feel the pain and pleasures I did, I do not think that they are finding what I did.

The C C is not God but I think it is what the shaman found and then gave it all kind of attributes that I did not find. Omni this and Omni that to me is just the old churches having their Gods having a pissing contest.

That is why I use the word Godhead and not God. The word God has been corrupted and is now too stupid to use.

It does not do anything but think from what I can see and does not initiate contact but only waits for use to find it while alive or join it when dead.

Regards
DL

So this "CC" is a deity, no?
Is it capable of anything?

Deity. No.

It is capable of thought. If anything else, I was not made aware of it.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on September 30, 2013, 11:18:56 AM
Deity. No.

It is capable of thought. If anything else, I was not made aware of it.

Regards
DL

So this CC.
Where does it reside?
What thoughts does it have?
Is it sentient, sapient?
Does it have emotions?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 30, 2013, 11:36:05 AM
Deity. No.

It is capable of thought. If anything else, I was not made aware of it.

Regards
DL

So this CC.
Where does it reside?
What thoughts does it have?
Is it sentient, sapient?
Does it have emotions?

That clip from The Wormhole seems to indicate it might be in our electro magnetic shield.

It is sentient, sapient, has emotion and thinks whatever it likes. I did not get it's itinerary.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: screwtape on September 30, 2013, 12:59:00 PM
That clip from The Wormhole seems to indicate it might be in our electro magnetic shield.

Our what?


edit:

Will we have to use proton torpedoes to get through it, or will our blasters work?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on September 30, 2013, 01:13:28 PM
That clip from The Wormhole seems to indicate it might be in our electro magnetic shield.

Our what?


edit:

Will we have to use proton torpedoes to get through it, or will our blasters work?

http://vimeo.com/26318064

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 01, 2013, 07:43:28 AM
So does the CC has thoughts of its own independant from the brains inside it?

Not that I know of.

It is capable of thought.

Contradictory, much? 

THIS is why we are going in circles, because you flip from one opinion to the other every couple responses.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 01, 2013, 02:23:03 PM
You are getting lost in your own questions.

"So does the CC has thoughts of its own"

As a single entity, the correct answer is I do not know.

As a coalition it is.

You are just busy trying to find flaw. Thank you for the interest.

Only new questions shall I field. I do not have time for your games.

Regards
DL

 
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on October 01, 2013, 07:42:29 PM
You are getting lost in your own questions.

"So does the CC has thoughts of its own"

As a single entity, the correct answer is I do not know.

As a coalition it is.

You are just busy trying to find flaw. Thank you for the interest.

Only new questions shall I field. I do not have time for your games.

Regards
DL

Why must this CC exist?
Why is it there?
What made it?
Did it make itself naturally?
How do you know it exists?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 02, 2013, 03:14:05 AM
You are getting lost in your own questions.

"So does the CC has thoughts of its own"

As a single entity, the correct answer is I do not know.

As a coalition it is.

Only new questions shall I field. I do not have time for your games.

GIA, there isn't a single game going on here.  I'm just trying to understand your point of view.  You've said that the CC is "sentient" - I'm trying to establish what you mean by that - I honestly don't know what you mean. 

I'm sorry if you are feeling under pressure, but you've made some claims here that do not appear to make sense.  I'm trying to narrow down what exactly you mean.  If the answer to everything really is "I don't know" then that's fine.  But if you are claiming you DO know something, then I think it is only reasonable for me to try to understand what exactly it is that you are claiming as knowledge, yes?

"As a coalition it has thoughts of its own" - what does that actually mean?  Do you mean that there are thoughts produced by the CC that are not being thought by any of the individuals within it?  Or do you mean that the thoughts coming out of the CC are simply echoes of individual thoughts being thought by the individuals within it?  If the latter, what (if anything) is the CC adding to the process?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on October 02, 2013, 08:13:50 AM
GIA,

I am not sure if you answered this.

How do you leap from your ESP experience to the CC?

What makes you feel as if this CC is an entity not some natural ability some humans have.

you go from (I felt what my woman was feeling in the other room and she sensed it as well)  to (the universe is intelligent)

If ESP is real, why do you feel it is not just some innate capability created by evolution, and no bigger than the individuals with this ability?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 09, 2013, 10:19:42 AM
You are getting lost in your own questions.

"So does the CC has thoughts of its own"

As a single entity, the correct answer is I do not know.

As a coalition it is.

You are just busy trying to find flaw. Thank you for the interest.

Only new questions shall I field. I do not have time for your games.

Regards
DL

Why must this CC exist?
Why is it there?
What made it?
Did it make itself naturally?
How do you know it exists?

1. I see no reason why the C C (must) exists. It just does.
2. I don't know. Why not?
3. It was created inadvertently by nature.
4. Yes. One could say that. I would say it was more nature that did the creating.
5. I found it.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 09, 2013, 10:29:42 AM
You are getting lost in your own questions.

"So does the CC has thoughts of its own"

As a single entity, the correct answer is I do not know.

As a coalition it is.

Only new questions shall I field. I do not have time for your games.

GIA, there isn't a single game going on here.  I'm just trying to understand your point of view.  You've said that the CC is "sentient" - I'm trying to establish what you mean by that - I honestly don't know what you mean. 


The individuals within it all have sentience. I do not think it can be said that the C C has sentience as a single entity. I think I could have said yes when there was only the one mind within it.

Quote
I'm sorry if you are feeling under pressure, but you've made some claims here that do not appear to make sense.  I'm trying to narrow down what exactly you mean.  If the answer to everything really is "I don't know" then that's fine.  But if you are claiming you DO know something, then I think it is only reasonable for me to try to understand what exactly it is that you are claiming as knowledge, yes?

Sure. Recognizing that I was there for only seconds.

Quote
"As a coalition it has thoughts of its own" - what does that actually mean?

It means that it can form a consensus and have that consensus become a part of the collectives belief system.

Quote
  Do you mean that there are thoughts produced by the CC that are not being thought by any of the individuals within it?
 

No. The C C does not have an over-mind.
If I can call it that.
No one mind is running the C C.
 
Quote
Or do you mean that the thoughts coming out of the CC are simply echoes of individual thoughts being thought by the individuals within it?


Yes.

Quote
If the latter, what (if anything) is the CC adding to the process?

It adds nothing. It is a house so to speak and it is the minds inside who do the adding.

It is like us and the web. We can get info from others in it but the web itself does nothing on it's own.

Regards
DL

MODEDIT - sorted quotes.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 09, 2013, 10:40:47 AM
Quote
GIA,

I am not sure if you answered this.

How do you leap from your ESP experience to the CC?

I was forced to by finding the C C. Before that experience the only telepathy I was aware of was one mind to one mind. I had no belief in a C C until I found it.


Quote
What makes you feel as if this CC is an entity not some natural ability some humans have.

I gave it it's own reality because it had it's own information that was independent from my own.

Quote
you go from (I felt what my woman was feeling in the other room and she sensed it as well)  to (the universe is intelligent)

At no time have I given the universe any intelligence. Like nature, it does what it does without the ability to think. From what we know right now in any case.

Quote
If ESP is real, why do you feel it is not just some innate capability created by evolution, and no bigger than the individuals with this ability?

I think it is just one of our natural and innate capabilities. We just seldom use it and I attribute that to privacy.

Being able to do this does not make one larger than anyone else. While in the C C one could say he is larger but only n the sense that larger information can be had while there.

In that sense, I can be larger than some by just walking around with an encyclopedia under my arm.
 
Hardly a boost for the ego that.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on October 09, 2013, 10:49:51 AM

Believers see God as the greatest lover of mankind yet he does no works or deeds to show us that he loves us.   


The bold above is why I changed from a believer to a non-believer.

Me too, among other reasons. There simply is no good reason for thinking there is a loving God anywhere. The universe is exactly as we would expect it to be if there was no loving designer doing anything.

Regarding God's "nature" (and the alleged unconditional love), if one says God's nature is love they are immediately thrown into a logically vapid tautology because when we point out the massive Hitler type killings God allegedly commanded - when we note the genocide, infanticide, rape, and human sacrifice this deity was OK with, the deity promoter must then lump-in those actions into "God's loving nature" (aka - No matter what God does, God is God). Thus, the meaning of the statement, "God is love" is fundamentally synonymous with "God is God" - and this statement tells us nothing about anything. It is no different from saying, "Blark is Blark"

The vicious circle of religion and God belief must be broken if we are to have peace.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on October 09, 2013, 11:08:35 AM
1. I see no reason why the C C (must) exists. It just does.
2. I don't know. Why not?
3. It was created inadvertently by nature.
4. Yes. One could say that. I would say it was more nature that did the creating.
5. I found it.

Regards
DL

How did you find this "CC"?
What type of presence did you feel. see etc?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 09, 2013, 12:30:55 PM
1. I see no reason why the C C (must) exists. It just does.
2. I don't know. Why not?
3. It was created inadvertently by nature.
4. Yes. One could say that. I would say it was more nature that did the creating.
5. I found it.

Regards
DL

How did you find this "CC"?
What type of presence did you feel. see etc?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

A type of meditation is a good analogy to what I did. The link above shows what I recommend.

It was found by my using telepathy and what I felt/heard at the mental level were many minds.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on October 09, 2013, 12:34:03 PM
Telepathy ehh?

As in talking via your mind to other things, no?

(Also, i honestly do not want to watch 20 minutes of bible meanings...)
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 09, 2013, 12:37:27 PM
Quote
Telepathy ehh?

As in talking via your mind to other things, no?

Yep.

If you would have viewed that other Wormhole link you would have known this.

Quote
(Also, i honestly do not want to watch 20 minutes of bible meanings...)

You asked the method. I showed it.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on October 09, 2013, 01:14:55 PM
So, this "telepathy".

What is its purpose with the "CC"?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Nam on October 09, 2013, 01:16:19 PM
"closed caption". ;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on October 09, 2013, 01:17:20 PM
I was suggesting "Close combat".

Or maybe "Crowd control".

Then again...i play too many video games...
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Nam on October 09, 2013, 01:19:15 PM
I was suggesting "Close combat".

Or maybe "Crowd control".

Then again...i play too many video games...

The ;) indicated I was joking.

-Nam
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on October 09, 2013, 01:28:22 PM
The ;) indicated I was joking.

-Nam

I was joking too... :|
I should of used an emoticon.

Anyway, Greatest I am, what has the "CC" got to do with the thread topic ;D.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 09, 2013, 02:01:33 PM
So, this "telepathy".

What is its purpose with the "CC"?

Telepathy is a way of communicating.

It uses it for internal  communication and external communication when found.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 09, 2013, 02:02:58 PM
The ;) indicated I was joking.

-Nam

I was joking too... :|
I should of used an emoticon.

Anyway, Greatest I am, what has the "CC" got to do with the thread topic ;D.

Nothing. We went off topic.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: nogodsforme on October 09, 2013, 06:06:16 PM
"Greatest I Am" sounds like Yoda on weed. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Nam on October 09, 2013, 06:58:28 PM
"Greatest I Am" sounds like Yoda on weed. Just sayin'.

Garja?

j/k

-Nam
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 10, 2013, 03:42:34 AM
…. what (if anything) is the CC adding to the process?

It adds nothing. It is a house so to speak and it is the minds inside who do the adding.

It is like us and the web. We can get info from others in it but the web itself does nothing on it's own.
 

Okay - I think I'm getting there now.  The "Collective Consciousness" has no independant existence.  Has no sentience in and of itself.  It could perhaps be thought of as a library, with each book representing an individual mind.  Someone browsing the shelves could gain an understanding of what each mind thought, and could (by processing of "counting titles") come away with a sense of what the prevailing attitudes were on a particular subject.  But the library does not have its "own" book, in any sense.

Okay, I'm with you now.  I think the problem was when you claimed the CC was "sentient", with the implication (at least for me) that there was somehow something independent there.  I believe we are on the same page now.

Possibly though you may need to modify then the language you use to describe it?  For example, in this quote that I find interesting:

"As a coalition it has thoughts of its own" - what does that actually mean?
It means that it can form a consensus and have that consensus become a part of the collectives belief system.

The "it can form a consensus" part implies that it is actively and independently doing something, that the CC somehow is thinking and directing.  A more accurate phrasing might be: "the sum total of thoughts in the collective lead to a consensus that becomes a part of the collectives belief" - eliminate the personal pronoun, and there is less potential confusion as to whether the collective itself has an independent thought.

So far as ""the sum total of thoughts in the collective lead to a consensus that becomes a part of the collectives belief" goes, I could dig that.  I only have to go to a public meeting with a few persuasive speakers to see how a thought or a meme can spread through a population. 

What you seem to be implying with your sentence there is that when a thought becomes the majority in the CC, it will begin to influence all the minds thinking something different?  If that's the case, then I have to ask - how does a minority thought get to become the majority, if the process of collective grouping "seeds" majority thought into the others?

Of course, if all you were saying is that "looking at the CC we can see what the current majority thought is, and take that as 'the' thinking of the world", then fine, I can go with that.  Like saying "most books in the library are about cars, so cars are the most popular thing" - makes sense.  That there is a structure that can be accessed that can provide something like the results of an ultimate opinion poll…..well, maybe.  I'd have a whole raft of questions about how such a thing came to be, though, and what actual purpose it served/serves.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 10, 2013, 07:40:48 AM
"Greatest I Am" sounds like Yoda on weed. Just sayin'.

Recognize knowledge and wisdom, you do.

I try. Oh wait.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4yd2W50No

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 10, 2013, 08:06:39 AM
Quote
…. what (if anything) is the CC adding to the process?

It adds nothing. It is a house so to speak and it is the minds inside who do the adding.

It is like us and the web. We can get info from others in it but the web itself does nothing on it's own.
 

Okay - I think I'm getting there now.  The "Collective Consciousness" has no independant existence.  Has no sentience in and of itself.  It could perhaps be thought of as a library, with each book representing an individual mind.  Someone browsing the shelves could gain an understanding of what each mind thought, and could (by processing of "counting titles") come away with a sense of what the prevailing attitudes were on a particular subject.  But the library does not have its "own" book, in any sense.

Okay, I'm with you now.  I think the problem was when you claimed the CC was "sentient", with the implication (at least for me) that there was somehow something independent there.  I believe we are on the same page now.

Possibly though you may need to modify then the language you use to describe it?  For example, in this quote that I find interesting:

"As a coalition it has thoughts of its own" - what does that actually mean?
It means that it can form a consensus and have that consensus become a part of the collectives belief system.

The "it can form a consensus" part implies that it is actively and independently doing something, that the CC somehow is thinking and directing.  A more accurate phrasing might be: "the sum total of thoughts in the collective lead to a consensus that becomes a part of the collectives belief" - eliminate the personal pronoun, and there is less potential confusion as to whether the collective itself has an independent thought.

So far as ""the sum total of thoughts in the collective lead to a consensus that becomes a part of the collectives belief" goes, I could dig that.  I only have to go to a public meeting with a few persuasive speakers to see how a thought or a meme can spread through a population. 

What you seem to be implying with your sentence there is that when a thought becomes the majority in the CC, it will begin to influence all the minds thinking something different?  If that's the case, then I have to ask - how does a minority thought get to become the majority, if the process of collective grouping "seeds" majority thought into the others?

This is what I gleaned and I could be wrong.

Let us say that Einstein dies and reaches the C C. His thinking becomes available to all and all can and will understand it. Here I assume that all souls or consciousness' can learn all that the whole knows. He does not have to convince anyone as all can see his logic trail and automatically recognize it's soundness. The meme there does what you show above as it spreads through the population.

Quote
Of course, if all you were saying is that "looking at the CC we can see what the current majority thought is, and take that as 'the' thinking of the world", then fine, I can go with that.  Like saying "most books in the library are about cars, so cars are the most popular thing" - makes sense.  That there is a structure that can be accessed that can provide something like the results of an ultimate opinion poll…..well, maybe.  I'd have a whole raft of questions about how such a thing came to be, though, and what actual purpose it served/serves.

Life is tenuous and I don't think a purpose can be given to it. Life lives because that is what life does.

Life will go to every possible niche and will always go to the best possible end for itself. I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.
 
Regards
DL



EDIT: MODFIXED QUOTES
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: stuffin on October 10, 2013, 12:49:24 PM
"Greatest I Am" sounds like Yoda on weed. Just sayin'.

Made this mental note (see below) after readings about 10 responses by GIa


http://www.churchoffreethought.org]

As a suspicious entity, I see that web site as an attempt by some to label atheism a religion. It feels so real it screams bogus. It sets itself up too perfectly. Maybe they are real; maybe you had a real telepathic experience? 

I also notice you speak in tongues using remarkable vernacular. Kinda reminds me of an old western where a preacher comes to town and amazes the ordinary citizens with words (scripture) from the bible.

Please excuse my skepticism.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Azdgari on October 10, 2013, 01:04:43 PM
"As a coalition it has thoughts of its own" - what does that actually mean?  Do you mean that there are thoughts produced by the CC that are not being thought by any of the individuals within it?  Or do you mean that the thoughts coming out of the CC are simply echoes of individual thoughts being thought by the individuals within it?  If the latter, what (if anything) is the CC adding to the process?

Anfauglir, GIA is free to correct me, but I think what he means is something akin to a colony organism having a consciousness distinct, yet made up of, the conscious units that make it up.

Let's say hypothetically that our bodies' cells were conscious entities, albeit with a very low level of consciousness.  Would that necessarily have anything to do with the consciousness we feel as whole human individuals?  Not necessarily.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Graybeard on October 10, 2013, 02:04:24 PM
I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy,
In future, please do not use non-standard acronyms.

I say this as it requires a member to search through the entire thread to find out what (in this case) CC means. This is unfair on two grounds:

(i) It is the use of "Private Language"[1] and (ii) it allows you to control the terms of the discussion by forcing others to accept what is otherwise alien to them and on your terms. This is a common ploy for those of a controlling nature who often wish to mislead (I cannot say that you wish this, but it is a point to bear in mind.)

I have made an attempt to find out what you mean by this term but gave up. It may be something quite simple, but please appreciate the problem you are causing.

GB Mod
[/color].
 1. see Wittgenstein's private language argument"
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 10, 2013, 02:20:43 PM
"Greatest I Am" sounds like Yoda on weed. Just sayin'.

Made this mental note (see below) after readings about 10 responses by GIa


http://www.churchoffreethought.org]

As a suspicious entity, I see that web site as an attempt by some to label atheism a religion. It feels so real it screams bogus. It sets itself up too perfectly. Maybe they are real; maybe you had a real telepathic experience? 

I also notice you speak in tongues using remarkable vernacular. Kinda reminds me of an old western where a preacher comes to town and amazes the ordinary citizens with words (scripture) from the bible.

Please excuse my skepticism.

That is just the French in me.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on October 10, 2013, 02:27:40 PM
I thought CC was "Collective Consciousness."  At least that is what I think GIA had defined it as.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 10, 2013, 02:30:22 PM
"As a coalition it has thoughts of its own" - what does that actually mean?  Do you mean that there are thoughts produced by the CC that are not being thought by any of the individuals within it?  Or do you mean that the thoughts coming out of the CC are simply echoes of individual thoughts being thought by the individuals within it?  If the latter, what (if anything) is the CC adding to the process?

Anfauglir, GIA is free to correct me, but I think what he means is something akin to a colony organism having a consciousness distinct, yet made up of, the conscious units that make it up.

Let's say hypothetically that our bodies' cells were conscious entities, albeit with a very low level of consciousness.  Would that necessarily have anything to do with the consciousness we feel as whole human individuals?  Not necessarily.

Not quite. Sticking to the mainframe computer analogy.

The mainframe had no software or consciousness until one of us P Cs reached it and uploaded to it.

It had no consciousness till that point in time. That first P C would have had the whole mainframe to itself until the second soul/P C found it and melded with the first P C without either of them losing their individuality. They do seem to have lost any privacy though. I did not sense that they cared after their initial lose of all privacy and what we might call personal thoughts or space.

Regards
DL 
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 10, 2013, 02:32:48 PM
I thought CC was "Collective Consciousness."  At least that is what I think GIA had defined it as.

I call it a cosmic consciousness but collective works just as well and may even be more accurate thanks to that Sudbury scientist bringing the earths magnetic field into my thinking as the possible location of the C C.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 10, 2013, 02:36:05 PM
I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy,
In future, please do not use non-standard acronyms.

I say this as it requires a member to search through the entire thread to find out what (in this case) CC means. This is unfair on two grounds:

(i) It is the use of "Private Language"[1] and (ii) it allows you to control the terms of the discussion by forcing others to accept what is otherwise alien to them and on your terms. This is a common ploy for those of a controlling nature who often wish to mislead (I cannot say that you wish this, but it is a point to bear in mind.)

I have made an attempt to find out what you mean by this term but gave up. It may be something quite simple, but please appreciate the problem you are causing.

GB Mod
[/color].
 1. see Wittgenstein's private language argument"

Noted.

Another started using it and I got lazy.

You have two options just above and I do not care which you use. I will try not to use C C for cosmic consciousness from here on.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 11, 2013, 03:18:33 AM
I do not think it can be said that the C C has sentience as a single entity.

I thought I'd got it…..

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own.  Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored.  Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself.  And once again, I'm lost.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 11, 2013, 03:20:41 AM
In future, please do not use non-standard acronyms.

I say this as it requires a member to search through the entire thread to find out what (in this case) CC means. This is unfair on two grounds:

(i) It is the use of "Private Language"[1] and (ii) it allows you to control the terms of the discussion by forcing others to accept what is otherwise alien to them and on your terms. This is a common ploy for those of a controlling nature who often wish to mislead (I cannot say that you wish this, but it is a point to bear in mind.)

GB Mod
[/color].
 1. see Wittgenstein's private language argument"

Noted.

Another started using it and I got lazy.

You have two options just above and I do not care which you use. I will try not to use C C for cosmic consciousness from here on.

That another was almost certainly me.  CC is a lot faster to type than cosmic consciousness (easier to spell, too).
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on October 11, 2013, 07:50:32 AM
I do not think it can be said that the C C has sentience as a single entity.

I thought I'd got it…..

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own.  Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored.  Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself.  And once again, I'm lost.

I think what is being said, is that the Collective Consciousness is non sentient.  It is sort of the group concensus of all people (and possibly all life)  Sort of like being in a room of people all talking about a subject and the collective counsciousness is the rolling concensus in the room.

Only the room is everyone, and the debate is everything that is thought about.

GIA is that close to what you are suggesting?



Now this is where I expand on it tell me if I still have it,

Since we are all psychically linked in some way to the CC, it is like the source of a moral blueprint, it may be how we know when things are wrong and even how we collectively progress.  Like when all countries around the world began working on radio at the same time, and Electric power generation at the same time.  The CC was perhaps driving the innovation subliminally.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Mrjason on October 11, 2013, 08:05:08 AM
it sounds a bit like the Rudy Rucker books about us all being mentally connected in a 4th dimension
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on October 11, 2013, 08:06:54 AM
it sounds a bit like the Rudy Rucker books about us all being mentally connected in a 4th dimension

I guess, of course I am not a believer in this but I think this is what GIA has expressed.  Maybe the CC is guiding me:)???
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Mrjason on October 11, 2013, 08:09:29 AM
it sounds a bit like the Rudy Rucker books about us all being mentally connected in a 4th dimension

I guess, of course I am not a believer in this but I think this is what GIA has expressed.  Maybe the CC is guiding me:)???

Rucker explained it with maths instead of woo though.

edit after a quick bit of googling Rucker actually refers to Cosmic Conciousness in his blog http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2012/10/24/the-two-mind-modes-telepathy/ (http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2012/10/24/the-two-mind-modes-telepathy/)
GIA are you aware of these books and blog or is this a massive conincidence?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 11, 2013, 08:52:29 AM
I do not think it can be said that the C C has sentience as a single entity.

I thought I'd got it…..

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own.  Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored.  Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself.  And once again, I'm lost.

I think what is being said, is that the Collective Consciousness is non sentient.  It is sort of the group concensus of all people (and possibly all life)  Sort of like being in a room of people all talking about a subject and the collective counsciousness is the rolling concensus in the room.

Only the room is everyone, and the debate is everything that is thought about.

GIA is that close to what you are suggesting?

That's what I thought he was saying.   But just when I thought I'd got it, he was talking about the room, or the debate, becoming unhappy, or bored, or going insane - all of which imply that it is something more than an abstract concensus view.

How can a consensus become unhappy?  The consensus can BE that people are unhappy, but only IF most people are unhappy.  GIA implied that most people were (let's say) enjoying fish, that the consensus would be "people enjoy fish"....and that that would make the consensus itself unhappy.

That's not something a non-sentient thing can be.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on October 11, 2013, 08:53:52 AM
I am honestly not getting this concept of the "CC"...

Nor do i understand its importance or functions.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 11, 2013, 09:13:21 AM
I do not think it can be said that the C C has sentience as a single entity.

I thought I'd got it…..

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own.  Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored.  Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself.  And once again, I'm lost.

Change (it) to (they) and you are there.

You must be a lawyer.

Regards
DL



Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 11, 2013, 09:24:27 AM
I do not think it can be said that the C C has sentience as a single entity.

I thought I'd got it…..

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own.  Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored.  Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself.  And once again, I'm lost.

I think what is being said, is that the Collective Consciousness is non sentient.  It is sort of the group concensus of all people (and possibly all life)  Sort of like being in a room of people all talking about a subject and the collective counsciousness is the rolling concensus in the room.

Only the room is everyone, and the debate is everything that is thought about.

GIA is that close to what you are suggesting?



Now this is where I expand on it tell me if I still have it,

Since we are all psychically linked in some way to the CC, it is like the source of a moral blueprint, it may be how we know when things are wrong and even how we collectively progress.  Like when all countries around the world began working on radio at the same time, and Electric power generation at the same time.  The CC was perhaps driving the innovation subliminally.

You have it dead on friend.

I do think your last might be true but I have nothing concrete to hang it on and that is why I did not introduce the topic.

I mostly think as you do for religious reasons. I have noted that the snake for instance is used about the same way all over the world by religions who had no idea of the existence of other religions on other continents.

Either the history of the world is wrong and there was world wide travel when we think there was not or something else was going on. That information is way too far from normal for it to be a coincidence.

Regards
DL

Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 11, 2013, 09:36:42 AM
[  The CC was perhaps driving the innovation subliminally.

What do you think of that type of behavior modification from a moral POV?

In our T V world, be it possible or not, the practice was condemned by most.

I have tried to picture myself in the cosmic consciousness and I think I would still see myself as a part of the human race and do not think I would have a moral problem in trying to direct it to the consensus of the cosmic consciousness.

I try to control other's thinking even now through words and do not think I would have a problem with subliminal pushes from beyond the grave latter with thoughts.

Thoughts from your moral POV please.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 11, 2013, 09:41:38 AM
it sounds a bit like the Rudy Rucker books about us all being mentally connected in a 4th dimension

I did not read that book but think that all of this happens in this dimension. I do not believe in the multi dimensional or multi-verse notions as yet. They have everything from a few to many of each and until they actually prove something I will reserve my belief.

Physics at the moment is a dogs breakfast and looks like speculative nonsense by a bunch of sci-fi writers.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 11, 2013, 09:48:38 AM
it sounds a bit like the Rudy Rucker books about us all being mentally connected in a 4th dimension

I guess, of course I am not a believer in this but I think this is what GIA has expressed.  Maybe the CC is guiding me:)???

Rucker explained it with maths instead of woo though.

edit after a quick bit of googling Rucker actually refers to Cosmic Conciousness in his blog http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2012/10/24/the-two-mind-modes-telepathy/ (http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2012/10/24/the-two-mind-modes-telepathy/)
GIA are you aware of these books and blog or is this a massive conincidence?

This is new to me but I do know that there is a long history of claims going back to the 18 hundreds and further in some Eastern religions.
 
It is hard to mix then and now though. In the west we have about 4 definitions of consciousness and the East has about 8. This is from my reading and I have forgotten from where I gained it.

I am not getting into those definitions but I will check your link.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 11, 2013, 10:02:47 AM
I am honestly not getting this concept of the "CC"...

Nor do i understand its importance or functions.

Perhaps because I did not say it was important or say what function it had.

FMPOV, it's function is the same as all of us here.

What you do here is what we all do all the time. We try to learn. That is the function of a mind. As to us being important to the universe. Not in the least except for whatever new thought we might contribute to the whole.

As to the concept of the cosmic consciousness, we have used analogies that I guess you are not getting.

Try this. Picture yourself being dumped into a room with millions all talking at the same time. and you being able to focus on whatever the topic is and also able to direct the topic.

That was basically what happened to me and it is up to me to try to express that to those who have not had that experience.

It is like trying to explain the taste of salt to someone who has never tasted salt. Hard as heel.

Regards
DL



Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: stuffin on October 11, 2013, 10:02:49 AM

That is just the French in me.

Regards
DL

I see it not as your Frenchness, but as a preacher who blew into town manufacturing new God Concept. You tell us we should accept your telecommunication with this Collective Entity as the real deal. This new God Concept parallels the old in so many ways, like why just you and maybe a few others. Or, it appears to be a super natural event just like the old God Concept. In any event, I see nothing new to your claim, except you bypass the holy books and their stories.

You say this Collective Entity influences us through some kind of subliminal connection and helps us to form moral standards. Does every conscience get an equal vote or do the stronger among us have more influence over this reasoning non sentient entity?  Like would a Teabagger have a stronger influence over this thing then like say a Downs individual?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 11, 2013, 10:11:12 AM

That is just the French in me.

Regards
DL

I see it not as your Frenchness, but as a preacher who blew into town manufacturing new God Concept. You tell us we should accept your telecommunication with this Collective Entity as the real deal. This new God Concept parallels the old in so many ways, like why just you and maybe a few others. Or, it appears to be a super natural event just like the old God Concept. In any event, I see nothing new to your claim, except you bypass the holy books and their stories.

You say this Collective Entity influences us through some kind of subliminal connection and helps us form moral standards. Does every conscience get and equal vote or do the stronger among us have more influence over this reasoning non sentient entity?  Like would a Teabagger have a stronger influence over this thing then like say a Downs individual?

I did not say that it does anything subliminal.
I speculated on that issue only.

The influence there, ----- I would speculate, ------ is the same as here on earth.

The one with the best argument will get the kudos be he a Teabagger or the most liberal mind.

I try not to check the label one puts on himself and try to analyse what is said and go by that analysis to decide if I agree or not. In some things I land on the right and in others I go left. Being liberal it is generally to that side that I lean but not always.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 12, 2013, 03:33:51 AM
I do not think it can be said that the C C has sentience as a single entity.

I thought I'd got it…..

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own.  Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored.  Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself.  And once again, I'm lost.

Change (it) to (they) and you are there.

You must be a lawyer.

And you must be a politician. 

What does the "they" refer to?  To the individual consciousnesses (including my own) that make up the "cosmic consciousness"? 

It that's the case, then what does your (amended) sentence "I always thought that (the consciousnesses within) the C C would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. (They are) not bored to tears at all."  Why would you think I would be bored, or unhappy - especially since I had no idea that I was a part of any group-mind untl you came along to let me know.

Can you clarify please - with relation to the two sentences of yours I quoted - which "its" should be changed to "theys" - and what those sentences then actually mean?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: nogodsforme on October 12, 2013, 01:56:33 PM
The woo is strong in this one, young Skywalker.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 12, 2013, 03:06:11 PM
Quote
I do not think it can be said that the C C has sentience as a single entity.

I thought I'd got it…..

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own.  Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored.  Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself.  And once again, I'm lost.

Change (it) to (they) and you are there.

You must be a lawyer.

And you must be a politician. 

What does the "they" refer to?  To the individual consciousnesses (including my own) that make up the "cosmic consciousness"? 


The (they) are the permanent residents there. All were here before they died. That statement did not include you as you are here.


Quote
It that's the case, then what does your (amended) sentence "I always thought that (the consciousnesses within) the C C would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. (They are) not bored to tears at all."  Why would you think I would be bored, or unhappy - especially since I had no idea that I was a part of any group-mind untl you came along to let me know.

Again, I never included you in that group mind.

Let me explain that I was assuming that any individual consciousness that would live for hundreds if not thousands of years would seek death badly and would likely go insane if it could. That view comes from my visiting the very old in homes where they are basically warehouse and awaiting death. I have been there in the morning where more than one person complained about not dying in their sleep and having to continue living.

Quote

Can you clarify please - with relation to the two sentences of yours I quoted - which "its" should be changed to "theys" - and what those sentences then actually mean?

I hope I have cleared that up.

Regards
DL



MOD: Fixed quotes (again)
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 12, 2013, 03:13:49 PM
The woo is strong in this one, young Skywalker.

Nothing supernatural unless you want to call this scientist and his work and findings woo as well.

http://vimeo.com/26318064

If that is to be the extent of your input then you might like to know that where I have lived and what my attitude to such as you are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLH2ux9LhFg

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 14, 2013, 03:10:44 AM
I hope I have cleared that up.

To a point.  Although it baffles me why you would post:

 
I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

When you meant:

The (they) are the permanent residents there. All were here before they died.

You originally posted referring to "an entity".  Singular.  You referred to it as "it" - again, singular.  Yet you are now saying that was a complete mispost.  This is where I struggle with you, GIA - where, sorry to say, I see you as no different from the god-botherers who slip and slide and shift the goalposts. 

When you first spoke of the "cosmic consciousness", you were referring to it as a single entity, and (at least) implying sentience to it.  Over the course of many posts we were finally at a stage where you'd agreed the cosmic con. had no sentience in and of itself.

And then….in the next post, you are back to referring to "it" as "an entity", back to making it a singular thing that could think and feel.  A cynic might feel that you are once again trying to imbue your pet theory with sentience and will again, in hopes that it might get missed.

So yeah - sorry to be so "lawyerish", but it reminds me of the same sleight of hand that Christians deal when they talk about "faith", where they try to jump from a singularity at the start of the universe to a deity with sentience and will.

I'm sure I'm wrong.  I'm sure that wasn't your intent at all.  But it would make me a whole lot MORE certain if these accidental lapses where you go back to (apparently) describing the cosmic con. as having thoughts and feelings of its own didn't keep happening.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 14, 2013, 10:20:08 AM
Never have I referred to it as a deity.

You are trying to make me make it a God and I will not because that is not it's description.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on October 14, 2013, 01:03:52 PM

That is just the French in me.

Regards
DL

I see it not as your Frenchness, but as a preacher who blew into town manufacturing new God Concept. You tell us we should accept your telecommunication with this Collective Entity as the real deal. This new God Concept parallels the old in so many ways, like why just you and maybe a few others. Or, it appears to be a super natural event just like the old God Concept. In any event, I see nothing new to your claim, except you bypass the holy books and their stories.

You say this Collective Entity influences us through some kind of subliminal connection and helps us to form moral standards. Does every conscience get an equal vote or do the stronger among us have more influence over this reasoning non sentient entity?  Like would a Teabagger have a stronger influence over this thing then like say a Downs individual?

I am not sure I see any parallels between his description and a god like the judeo god.  It is a non sentient collective concensus that we all are connected to without our knowing and some of us are able to tap it more consciously.  Some people are able to put in a google search into the collective consciousness.  others get spammed by it.

Again I don't buy it for a second, but this is what GIA is kinda expressing.




As for the question of do certain individuals have more say so in the CC,  I don't know but I would say generally speaking it is a democracy or even something akin to the internet.  you can see all points of view and if you searched a topic you could go with the general concensus or you could pick and choose with your own biases what to listen to.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on October 14, 2013, 01:34:43 PM

I am not sure I see any parallels between his description and a god like the judeo god.  It is a non sentient collective concensus that we all are connected to without our knowing and some of us are able to tap it more consciously. 


If we are connected "without knowing it" then he can't claim to know it. The description sounds similar to Spinoza.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 14, 2013, 01:45:17 PM

That is just the French in me.

Regards
DL

I see it not as your Frenchness, but as a preacher who blew into town manufacturing new God Concept. You tell us we should accept your telecommunication with this Collective Entity as the real deal. This new God Concept parallels the old in so many ways, like why just you and maybe a few others. Or, it appears to be a super natural event just like the old God Concept. In any event, I see nothing new to your claim, except you bypass the holy books and their stories.

You say this Collective Entity influences us through some kind of subliminal connection and helps us to form moral standards. Does every conscience get an equal vote or do the stronger among us have more influence over this reasoning non sentient entity?  Like would a Teabagger have a stronger influence over this thing then like say a Downs individual?

I am not sure I see any parallels between his description and a god like the judeo god.  It is a non sentient collective concensus that we all are connected to without our knowing and some of us are able to tap it more consciously.  Some people are able to put in a google search into the collective consciousness.  others get spammed by it.

Again I don't buy it for a second, but this is what GIA is kinda expressing.




As for the question of do certain individuals have more say so in the CC,  I don't know but I would say generally speaking it is a democracy or even something akin to the internet.  you can see all points of view and if you searched a topic you could go with the general concensus or you could pick and choose with your own biases what to listen to.

You have it about right except for your last. The various biases are known to all but the selection because of seeing all available biases and their motivation to the big picture are ignored as the reality of the consensus view is proven. In fact I do not know if a misguided bias is even possible under the conditions there.

One could  I guess, try to slide in another view to stimulate discussion but because even the motives are known to all, all would see the tactic and motive. The point of the group is to find the truth of things and not to pamper one's own ego. If we do that in there, everybody knows it.

Honesty, in that sense, is forced on all because it is apparent to all.

Imagine if politicians in a debate were all hooked up to lie detectors where all could view the honesty. That is the basic situation there in spades.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 14, 2013, 01:50:44 PM

I am not sure I see any parallels between his description and a god like the judeo god.  It is a non sentient collective concensus that we all are connected to without our knowing and some of us are able to tap it more consciously. 


If we are connected "without knowing it" then he can't claim to know it. The description sounds similar to Spinoza.

If we are connected subconsciously to any degree, which I doubt, then we would be some kind of make work project for it. It has no use for information that it already has so to give it to us would be counter productive. It wants new and fresh food to feast on, so to speak, and not just what it already knows.

This above is not fact but speculation on my part.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on October 14, 2013, 03:33:50 PM

If we are connected subconsciously to any degree, which I doubt, then we would be some kind of make work project for it. It has no use for information that it already has so to give it to us would be counter productive. It wants new and fresh food to feast on, so to speak, and not just what it already knows.

This above is not fact but speculation on my part.

Regards
DL


I appreciate the admission that the above is speculation. Yet, I do not know what your "it" is b/c you have not yet defined what "it" is that you mean when you are using that term.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 15, 2013, 07:07:55 AM

If we are connected subconsciously to any degree, which I doubt, then we would be some kind of make work project for it. It has no use for information that it already has so to give it to us would be counter productive. It wants new and fresh food to feast on, so to speak, and not just what it already knows.

This above is not fact but speculation on my part.

Regards
DL


I appreciate the admission that the above is speculation. Yet, I do not know what your "it" is b/c you have not yet defined what "it" is that you mean when you are using that term.

I have tried a number of times already but let me try again with an analogy.

It, the cosmic consciousness, acts like a mainframe computer without software. We entered it and basically became it's software. We individually continue to move our consciousness into it after we die without losing out ego or sense of self. It is a fully open and transparent life for each of us. No secrets held back by any entity or what some call our souls.

I just recently viewed the clip above and it is possible that the cosmic consciousness is located in our magnetic field. I think it is too early for us to know for sure as we do not know all the facts about telepathy nor the cosmic consciousness that I believe in.

Regards
DL

Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 15, 2013, 07:30:13 AM
Never have I referred to it as a deity.

You are trying to make me make it a God and I will not because that is not it's description.

Not MY words, GIA.  Yours.

 
I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

Note the use of the singular there, the personal.  Why would anyone describe a database like that?  Same as your earlier posts, where you said:

It (the CC) is definitely sentient and aware.

It is capable of thought.

Now, I appreciate that in later posts, as we discussed what you were saying, you did indeed move away from any concept of the cosmic con. as an independant and intelligent lifeform capable of decision and action.  And - as I said - I thought we were on the same page.  It's why when you posted this:

 
I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

...I got so confused, because it went back on everything we'd (seemingly) agreed.  I thank you for the clarification of what you meant (though I just cannot understand how you could come to type such a thing in the first place), I'm content we've agreement that your definition of the cosmic is nothing in and of itself - it is a vessel, a container, a database if you like.

So...how do I access it?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 15, 2013, 08:05:13 AM
Telepathically.

How exactly?

I don't know.

If the sages and shaman are right, all you need do is seek it out but from MPOV, it has to be a strong desire and determination.

Religions have tied apotheosis to opening the single eye or third eye. I like this guys way of thinking and think it may be worth looking into but it is all up to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

I agree with him that it is difficult for a mind to go into a thoughtless state and that is likely why I have not been able to do it again.

He speaks of that in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUV_Xtzz3CQ

Regards
DL




Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 15, 2013, 08:56:37 AM
Can't see the videos where I am but I'll try to view them at home - thanks.

I agree with him that it is difficult for a mind to go into a thoughtless state.....

Meh.  I do that at least eight times a day at work..... 
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on October 15, 2013, 02:09:10 PM
Yes, God gets an EPIC F- in the "love" category - or should I say, the asshat credulous bafoons who wrote the Old and New Testaments get an F- (as the God they were all trying to portray is clearly fiction).
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 15, 2013, 02:11:54 PM
Yes, God gets an EPIC F- in the "love" category - or should I say, the asshat credulous bafoons who wrote the Old and New Testaments get an F- (as the God they were all trying to portray is clearly fiction).

You see 20/20.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on October 15, 2013, 02:15:17 PM
Can't see the videos where I am but I'll try to view them at home - thanks.

I agree with him that it is difficult for a mind to go into a thoughtless state.....

Meh.  I do that at least eight times a day at work.....

That is sleep, not meditation and I bet you have dreams that would make us blush so that is hardly a place of no thought you dirty thing you.

If we can get some telepathy going I will show you mine if you show me yours.
Dreams that is. I would not want to shame you Stubs.  ;D

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on November 05, 2013, 10:50:04 AM
Yes, God gets an EPIC F- in the "love" category - or should I say, the asshat credulous bafoons who wrote the Old and New Testaments get an F- (as the God they were all trying to portray is clearly fiction).

Wrong with a Big Fat "W".  They get a total Pass!!!  they were and are able to make people believe centuries after writing this stuff.  They Get a A+ rather than a fail for being bronze age bafoons able to still win convert modern humans in the information age, based on their words.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 05, 2013, 12:22:11 PM
Yes, God gets an EPIC F- in the "love" category - or should I say, the asshat credulous bafoons who wrote the Old and New Testaments get an F- (as the God they were all trying to portray is clearly fiction).

Wrong with a Big Fat "W".  They get a total Pass!!!  they were and are able to make people believe centuries after writing this stuff.  They Get a A+ rather than a fail for being bronze age bafoons able to still win convert modern humans in the information age, based on their words.

I kind of agree because I see them as quite educated and skilled at weaving an excellent con for it's day.

I am not sure why it is still working today though. I thought that our baser tribal natures were no longer in play but it seems that we have not raised our civilization or individual characters that high yet in the case of theists.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on November 05, 2013, 02:47:02 PM
The F- was pertaining the alleged "love" of this proposed/concocted "God" thing. It was not addressing how successful the credulity was spread.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 05, 2013, 03:29:44 PM
Noted. Thanks.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on November 06, 2013, 12:54:48 PM
The F- was pertaining the alleged "love" of this proposed/concocted "God" thing. It was not addressing how successful the credulity was spread.

The bronze age bumpkins who wrote the old testament did not say a whole lot about god being benevolent or loving???  Did they?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on November 06, 2013, 03:21:33 PM
The F- was pertaining the alleged "love" of this proposed/concocted "God" thing. It was not addressing how successful the credulity was spread.

The bronze age bumpkins who wrote the old testament did not say a whole lot about god being benevolent or loving???  Did they?


There are some passages in the Psalms that refer to God's 'goodness' ("The Lord is my Shepard..." etc) but it doesn't really square with the nonsense written in Exodus 21, Leviticus 20-25, or 1 Samuel 15 where slavery and mass killing are endorsed. The stuff looks to be far more consistent with a concoction of fearful savagely MEN then some "loving" supreme being who all should strive to mimic.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on November 06, 2013, 03:31:44 PM
The F- was pertaining the alleged "love" of this proposed/concocted "God" thing. It was not addressing how successful the credulity was spread.

The bronze age bumpkins who wrote the old testament did not say a whole lot about god being benevolent or loving???  Did they?



There are some passages in the Psalms that refer to God's 'goodness' ("The Lord is my Shepard..." etc) but it doesn't really square with the nonsense written in Exodus 21, Leviticus 20-25, or 1 Samuel 15 where slavery and mass killing are endorsed. The stuff looks to be far more consistent with a concoction of fearful savagely MEN then some "loving" supreme being who all should strive to mimic.

complete agreement.

the other place where I see god described as kinda nice

For god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son ...


It seems like only about 2 verses out of 31,000 verses describe god as loving.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 06, 2013, 03:35:06 PM
Eh. I would not use that quote for God loving as he could have just forgiven us without having Jesus murdered.

God shows more hate than love in that verse FMPOV.

If he loved us he would not have condemned us.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on November 06, 2013, 03:40:24 PM
Eh. I would not use that quote for God loving as he could have just forgiven us without having Jesus murdered.

God shows more hate than love in that verse FMPOV.

If he loved us he would not have condemned us.

Regards
DL


I agree very much so. But Christians are going to argue that God is the standard of what love is. So we can't judge God. Of course, this gets them into a serious conundrum regarding how they can tell if their God is good or not, but that is another debate. 
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Boots on November 06, 2013, 07:17:25 PM
Eh. I would not use that quote for God loving as he could have just forgiven us without having Jesus murdered.

God shows more hate than love in that verse FMPOV.

If he loved us he would not have condemned us.

Regards
DL


I agree very much so. But Christians are going to argue that God is the standard of what love is. So we can't judge God. Of course, this gets them into a serious conundrum regarding how they can tell if their God is good or not, but that is another debate.

Not at all!!  He's good because the bible says he is!  And we believe the bible because gawd tells us to!  See?  Easy!!!
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 07, 2013, 10:23:06 AM
Eh. I would not use that quote for God loving as he could have just forgiven us without having Jesus murdered.

God shows more hate than love in that verse FMPOV.

If he loved us he would not have condemned us.

Regards
DL


I agree very much so. But Christians are going to argue that God is the standard of what love is. So we can't judge God. Of course, this gets them into a serious conundrum regarding how they can tell if their God is good or not, but that is another debate.

I hear you and yes, they judge their God to be good and if we agree all is fine but if we judge differently, then we are told not to judge. How do you fight such idiocy?

That was rhetorical as we are on the same page and know that logic and reason do not trump faith in the minds of the mentally religiously manipulated.

Regards
DL
 
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 07, 2013, 10:24:42 AM
Eh. I would not use that quote for God loving as he could have just forgiven us without having Jesus murdered.

God shows more hate than love in that verse FMPOV.

If he loved us he would not have condemned us.

Regards
DL


I agree very much so. But Christians are going to argue that God is the standard of what love is. So we can't judge God. Of course, this gets them into a serious conundrum regarding how they can tell if their God is good or not, but that is another debate.

Not at all!!  He's good because the bible says he is!  And we believe the bible because gawd tells us to!  See?  Easy!!!

Yes but you have to judge the words to be true.
See, not so easy.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: nogodsforme on November 07, 2013, 06:17:26 PM
That's where faith comes in. Plus, god touched my heart, so I know.

Or something like that. &)
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on November 07, 2013, 07:05:09 PM
That's where faith comes in. Plus, god touched my heart, so I know.

Or something like that. &)


The alleged "God experience" is indistinguishable from SPAG (self-projection as god), hallucination, over emotionalism, make-believe/imagination, and superstition. 
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: DrPancake on November 07, 2013, 07:25:01 PM
Is this thread in regards to Yahweh specifically?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 07, 2013, 08:40:51 PM
That's where faith comes in. Plus, god touched my heart, so I know.

Or something like that. &)

Telepathy or did he give you the finger, er, use his finger that is?

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 07, 2013, 08:43:46 PM
That's where faith comes in. Plus, god touched my heart, so I know.

Or something like that. &)


The alleged "God experience" is indistinguishable from SPAG (self-projection as god), hallucination, over emotionalism, make-believe/imagination, and superstition.

Wow. That statement is as un-provable as when theist say God is real.

Tsk tsk.

Poor language.

If I am wrong, prove your statement.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on November 07, 2013, 10:54:54 PM
That's where faith comes in. Plus, god touched my heart, so I know.

Or something like that. &)


The alleged "God experience" is indistinguishable from SPAG (self-projection as god), hallucination, over emotionalism, make-believe/imagination, and superstition.

Wow. That statement is as un-provable as when theist say God is real.

Tsk tsk.

Poor language.

If I am wrong, prove your statement.

Regards
DL

Actually it's not unprovable. The question depends upon what one's standards of evidence are and what one's definition of "prove" is. The claim that one has had an "experience" with a God is testable. In these cases God believers believe that their deity actually manifests in reality. If this is the case then we should be able to detect this deity. Yet we don't. And thus, the claim is fundamentally indistinguishable from someone who is fibbing, lying or in error about having said experience. Furthermore, with the mass of examples of human beings being mistaken or in error, stretching the truth, or outright lying about their alleged supernatural experiences the claim requires more than just a "b/c I said so" statement to establish that something real actually occurred in accordance with their claim. I know this might worry you b/c you believe in telepathy but I'm sorry. That hasn't been demonstrated either. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There isn't even ordinary evidence for an alleged "God experience". Lots of people throughout history have attempted to use this "I said so" argument to justify all types of absurd, irrational, or immoral actions. There is simply no sound reason for thinking that other people are somehow "special" and have received some divine accommodation (for one b/c the reasons given to think that a deity exists are either irrational or incoherent). Someone can choose to believe they had some divine experience but those claims are a dime a dozen and without any further method for demonstrating such claims there is a far better chance that said person is (at the very least) in error regarding their interpretation. Again, people are wrong about all sorts of things all the time (on a grand scale) where they attempt to engage in self-diagnosis of one kind or another. Senses fail. Memory fails. Rational/critical thought fails. This is part of the process of evolution. Our cognitive faculties have an uncanny ability to mislead us. On the bright side, that wonderful thing called The Scientific Method (with the use of logic, reason, and evidence) is there to aid us in avoiding mistakes (especially when it comes to extraordinary claims of the supernatural, miraculous, or mystical).

Finally, I can speak from first hand experience that "God experience" claims are no different (aka - indistinguishable) from heightened emotion and SPAG/self-talk. Furthermore, I can also compare that experience with literally hundreds of other ex-Christians who understand this phenomena quite well too - the "hearing/feeling of the Holy Spirit",  the 'speaking in tongues', the "still small voice of God", the "Spirit tugging on the heart" etc. These are all completely natural experiences and there simply is no sound reason for thinking otherwise. Of course, Occam's Razor is an aid here as well. The explanation with the least assumptions is the methodologically natural one (and David Hume's Treatise on Miracles is an aid as well). So, I think it has been "proven" (in as much as we can 'prove' anything) that these alleged experiences of "God" by Christians are indistinguishable from superstition.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 10, 2013, 02:48:15 PM
That's where faith comes in. Plus, god touched my heart, so I know.

Or something like that. &)


The alleged "God experience" is indistinguishable from SPAG (self-projection as god), hallucination, over emotionalism, make-believe/imagination, and superstition.

Wow. That statement is as un-provable as when theist say God is real.

Tsk tsk.

Poor language.

If I am wrong, prove your statement.

Regards
DL

Actually it's not unprovable. The question depends upon what one's standards of evidence are and what one's definition of "prove" is. The claim that one has had an "experience" with a God is testable. In these cases God believers believe that their deity actually manifests in reality. If this is the case then we should be able to detect this deity. Yet we don't. And thus, the claim is fundamentally indistinguishable from someone who is fibbing, lying or in error about having said experience. Furthermore, with the mass of examples of human beings being mistaken or in error, stretching the truth, or outright lying about their alleged supernatural experiences the claim requires more than just a "b/c I said so" statement to establish that something real actually occurred in accordance with their claim. I know this might worry you b/c you believe in telepathy but I'm sorry. That hasn't been demonstrated either. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There isn't even ordinary evidence for an alleged "God experience". Lots of people throughout history have attempted to use this "I said so" argument to justify all types of absurd, irrational, or immoral actions. There is simply no sound reason for thinking that other people are somehow "special" and have received some divine accommodation (for one b/c the reasons given to think that a deity exists are either irrational or incoherent). Someone can choose to believe they had some divine experience but those claims are a dime a dozen and without any further method for demonstrating such claims there is a far better chance that said person is (at the very least) in error regarding their interpretation. Again, people are wrong about all sorts of things all the time (on a grand scale) where they attempt to engage in self-diagnosis of one kind or another. Senses fail. Memory fails. Rational/critical thought fails. This is part of the process of evolution. Our cognitive faculties have an uncanny ability to mislead us. On the bright side, that wonderful thing called The Scientific Method (with the use of logic, reason, and evidence) is there to aid us in avoiding mistakes (especially when it comes to extraordinary claims of the supernatural, miraculous, or mystical).

Finally, I can speak from first hand experience that "God experience" claims are no different (aka - indistinguishable) from heightened emotion and SPAG/self-talk. Furthermore, I can also compare that experience with literally hundreds of other ex-Christians who understand this phenomena quite well too - the "hearing/feeling of the Holy Spirit",  the 'speaking in tongues', the "still small voice of God", the "Spirit tugging on the heart" etc. These are all completely natural experiences and there simply is no sound reason for thinking otherwise. Of course, Occam's Razor is an aid here as well. The explanation with the least assumptions is the methodologically natural one (and David Hume's Treatise on Miracles is an aid as well). So, I think it has been "proven" (in as much as we can 'prove' anything) that these alleged experiences of "God" by Christians are indistinguishable from superstition.

I understand that you think non-believers have proven that , "The alleged "God experience" is indistinguishable from SPAG (self-projection as god), hallucination, over emotionalism, make-believe/imagination, and superstition. no God etc."

The point is that you have not shown the proof of this extra ordinary claim with the extraordinary evidence you demand from those who believe in their extra ordinary claims about a real God.

That makes your claim no more valid than theirs.

I admit that I cannot prove my claim.

Either admit the same for your claim of prove somehow that I was hallucinating or subject to the other qualifiers you put forward.

Regards
DL

Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Boots on November 10, 2013, 04:52:25 PM

I understand that you think non-believers have proven that , "The alleged "God experience" is indistinguishable from SPAG (self-projection as god), hallucination, over emotionalism, make-believe/imagination, and superstition. no God etc."

The point is that you have not shown the proof of this extra ordinary claim with the extraordinary evidence you demand from those who believe in their extra ordinary claims about a real God.

That makes your claim no more valid than theirs.

I admit that I cannot prove my claim.

Either admit the same for your claim of prove somehow that I was hallucinating or subject to the other qualifiers you put forward.

Regards
DL

I had what I believed to be a "god touched me" experience in high school.  It was that experience that kept me from donning the title "atheist" for years as I gradually migrated away from Catholicism, then Xianity, then god-belief.  I did an experiment where I tried to duplicate the feeling/experience, sans worship.  I came extremely close; it wasn't the exact same feeling, but it was definitely a transcendental experience.  And it was that experience that allowed me to finally close the door to god belief.

I don't claim now, and did not then, that being able to experience this type of feeling without worship is evidence of no god.  It *is*, however, evidence that this type of experience requires no worship/religion.  That being the case, I'm comfortable with the leap "they why bother with god?"

While the type of experience I created is not proof-positive of anything, it is equally true that any other type of experience/feeling/emotion is also not proof-positive of anything.  Essentially, claims of god through feelings/tongues/hallucinations can be discarded, IMHO.

The claim that heightened emotional/spiritual/whatever-you-wanna-call-it experiences can be had independent of religion is *not* extraordinary; in fact, it's the opposite.  I know I could replicate this experiment, no gods (or, at least, no worship) required--i'm claiming no supernatural or extraordinary involvement whatsoever.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 10, 2013, 08:27:29 PM
I have no problem with your anecdotal rendering as you are not saying that all others who experience something are hallucinating as a fact.

Our other friend did.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on November 11, 2013, 05:52:15 PM

I understand that you think non-believers have proven that , "The alleged "God experience" is indistinguishable from SPAG (self-projection as god), hallucination, over emotionalism, make-believe/imagination, and superstition. no God etc."

The point is that you have not shown the proof of this extra ordinary claim with the extraordinary evidence you demand from those who believe in their extra ordinary claims about a real God.

That makes your claim no more valid than theirs.

I admit that I cannot prove my claim.

Either admit the same for your claim of prove somehow that I was hallucinating or subject to the other qualifiers you put forward.

Regards
DL

You have missed the point entirely. It is not an extraordinary claim whatsoever to say that alleged religious experiences are indistinguishable from SPAG, self-talk, or otherwise noted things therein. It is quite ordinary and common (and the mistakes, false interpretations, and outright lies are just as common). Second, as mentioned prior, via Occam's Razor we can shave off the claims to the supernatural (as they have no explanatory power and can be psychologically explained without reference to a supposed transcendent realm). Thus, we can explain those alleged miracles with far less assumptions - no need for the miraculous.

If Christians were to admit, "I can't prove my claim to having a supernatural experience. I have no demonstrable evidence of it." we would be having a different discussion b/c then I would be asking what reason they have that anyone should accept the claims of their religion/bible based upon a 'religious experience' (especially since those theological claims are often irrational) and following that I'd be asking why they are interpreting their experience as supernatural. Christians often want us non-believers to follow them into misinterpretation and SPAG (and self delusion). Since their claims are unjustified, and given the ample evidence of human misinterpretation and error, it is correct to reject their claims to the mirculous and explain them in a fashion that is consistent with reason (aka - makes less assumptions, has explanatory power, and is not as susceptible to human interpretive error).

See the below references for more info on the errors of alleged religious experience. I find it quite justified in holding that religious experiences are indistinguishable from natural phenomena.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/experience.html (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/experience.html)

http://dlicorish.hubpages.com/hub/Religious-Experience-An-Analysis (http://dlicorish.hubpages.com/hub/Religious-Experience-An-Analysis)
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 12, 2013, 11:11:34 AM
And if you would admit that you cannot prove your claim then we would indeed be having a different discussion.

Take the log out of your eye.

We have no argument on the spirit of what you said. We do on the way you said it.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on November 12, 2013, 12:11:26 PM
And if you would admit that you cannot prove your claim then we would indeed be having a different discussion.

Take the log out of your eye.

We have no argument on the spirit of what you said. We do on the way you said it.

Regards
DL

You obviously didn't attempt to thoroughly understand my response, did you? And you also contradicted yourself. If you "have no argument" regarding what I stated then it stands that you aren't disagreeing with it. As such then, the argument stands. There is sufficient evidence to "prove" that claims to miraculous 'religious experiences' are indistinguishable from natural occurrences (aka SPAG, self talk, etc). If this makes you uncomfortable b/c of your belief in 'telepathy' then perhaps it would be better to practice skepticism regarding it, rather than defense. There seems to be so much at stake for you regarding this assertion but I'm interested in separating fact from fiction and discovering what is true (and this argument is not meant as an attack on your belief of telepathy, fyi). All of the available demonstrable evidence (and sound reasoning) demonstrates to me quite clearly that claimed alleged religious experiences are not the product of the miraculous, are much better explained in terms of natural phenomena, and are quite identical in nature and appearance (indistinguishable) to events that are common, normal, and natural. 
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 12, 2013, 12:22:36 PM
What I mostly meant was that I was not going to argue about the use of language if you did not already recognize the logical fallacy of your use of it.

I criticise theist for poor speech and do the same with my atheist friends so don't take it personal.
You can always just blame my view as being because I am French.

Regards
DL


Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on November 12, 2013, 12:43:14 PM
What I mostly meant was that I was not going to argue about the use of language if you did not already recognize the logical fallacy of your use of it.

I criticise theist for poor speech and do the same with my atheist friends so don't take it personal.
You can always just blame my view as being because I am French.

Regards
DL


Huh? Poor speech is your accusation now? If you did not understand what was written then perhaps instead of immediately forcing the accusation of 'poor speech'you should have asked for clarification (instead of having a knee jerk reaction to an argument that seemingly threatened your presumption of an alleged 'telepathy' experience). There was no logical fallacy in my response (so far as I articulated) and you did not bother to point one out if you thought there was. You can choose to criticize anyone you like for anything but unless you actually point out specifics or demonstrate such claims, they won't hold any merit or accomplish your intent.


Btw, if your alleged telepathy claims were demonstrable you could make yourself a very rich man (Nobel Prize, sponsorships etc), and in fact I would jump on board and be one of your first investors for further research (were talking thousands of dollars/pounds here). But the way you reacted in defending the non-demonstrable (self-diagnoses) fashion in which you did wasn't helping that case (it was doing the reverse). If you know you can't demonstrate it, why even bring it up here? It's a moot point (and also looks to be indistinguishable from a misapprehension, as is far more common with human beings than any such interpretation). The bottom line is, I'm open to your interpretation but say-so is not sufficient.   
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: nogodsforme on November 13, 2013, 06:55:11 PM
Most cultures have some form of mystical experience. People outside of that culture generally assume that the experiences of yogis, mullahs, vodun priests, santeros, etc. are not real evidence of the supernatural. Research into such phenomena has been conducted for centuries, with no sign that there is any not-natural explanation. 

When a "mystical experience" is indistinguishable to the observer from a lie, a mistake, a common brain phenomena or some form of insanity, why assume that the mystical explanation --the one with the least evidence-- is the real one? :?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Nam on November 14, 2013, 01:45:42 PM
What do you have against Yogi Bear? Huh? Huh?

Or is that Yogi Berra...? I get them confused....

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on November 14, 2013, 02:09:32 PM
Most cultures have some form of mystical experience. People outside of that culture generally assume that the experiences of yogis, mullahs, vodun priests, santeros, etc. are not real evidence of the supernatural. Research into such phenomena has been conducted for centuries, with no sign that there is any not-natural explanation. 

When a "mystical experience" is indistinguishable to the observer from a lie, a mistake, a common brain phenomena or some form of insanity, why assume that the mystical explanation --the one with the least evidence-- is the real one? :?
Because we've been conditioned to be ashamed of phrases like "I don't know" or "I don't have an explanation".  For some, having a made up answer is better than having no answer at all.  All the easier if the made up answer makes you feel good or special.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 17, 2013, 05:19:36 PM
What I mostly meant was that I was not going to argue about the use of language if you did not already recognize the logical fallacy of your use of it.

I criticise theist for poor speech and do the same with my atheist friends so don't take it personal.
You can always just blame my view as being because I am French.

Regards
DL


Huh? Poor speech is your accusation now? If you did not understand what was written then perhaps instead of immediately forcing the accusation of 'poor speech'you should have asked for clarification (instead of having a knee jerk reaction to an argument that seemingly threatened your presumption of an alleged 'telepathy' experience). There was no logical fallacy in my response (so far as I articulated) and you did not bother to point one out if you thought there was. You can choose to criticize anyone you like for anything but unless you actually point out specifics or demonstrate such claims, they won't hold any merit or accomplish your intent.


Btw, if your alleged telepathy claims were demonstrable you could make yourself a very rich man (Nobel Prize, sponsorships etc), and in fact I would jump on board and be one of your first investors for further research (were talking thousands of dollars/pounds here). But the way you reacted in defending the non-demonstrable (self-diagnoses) fashion in which you did wasn't helping that case (it was doing the reverse). If you know you can't demonstrate it, why even bring it up here? It's a moot point (and also looks to be indistinguishable from a misapprehension, as is far more common with human beings than any such interpretation). The bottom line is, I'm open to your interpretation but say-so is not sufficient.

I never expected it to be but that does not mean that in this place full of non-believers, explaining why I can only be 95% atheist does have relevance. At least to me. Reputation.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 17, 2013, 05:24:24 PM
Most cultures have some form of mystical experience. People outside of that culture generally assume that the experiences of yogis, mullahs, vodun priests, santeros, etc. are not real evidence of the supernatural. Research into such phenomena has been conducted for centuries, with no sign that there is any not-natural explanation. 

When a "mystical experience" is indistinguishable to the observer from a lie, a mistake, a common brain phenomena or some form of insanity, why assume that the mystical explanation --the one with the least evidence-- is the real one? :?

I do not think it is insanity so much as our own consciousness or minds at work trying to fill in blanks. They are anomalies though.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on November 17, 2013, 05:33:15 PM

I never expected it to be but that does not mean that in this place full of non-believers, explaining why I can only be 95% atheist does have relevance. At least to me. Reputation.

Regards
DL

This response makes no sense and it does not address what I stated.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: nogodsforme on November 17, 2013, 09:27:51 PM
Most cultures have some form of mystical experience. People outside of that culture generally assume that the experiences of yogis, mullahs, vodun priests, santeros, etc. are not real evidence of the supernatural. Research into such phenomena has been conducted for centuries, with no sign that there is any not-natural explanation. 

When a "mystical experience" is indistinguishable to the observer from a lie, a mistake, a common brain phenomena or some form of insanity, why assume that the mystical explanation --the one with the least evidence-- is the real one? :?

I do not think it is insanity so much as our own consciousness or minds at work trying to fill in blanks. They are anomalies though.

Regards
DL

Like I said, a common brain phenom., etc. would be our "minds at work trying to fill in blanks".  We know that our minds do this kind of thing all the time--look at any book or website on optical illusions. What is the reason for assuming that there is something beyond one of the normal explanations? I am not being sarcastic or rhetorical. I really want to know.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: epidemic on November 18, 2013, 12:16:30 PM

I never expected it to be but that does not mean that in this place full of non-believers, explaining why I can only be 95% atheist does have relevance. At least to me. Reputation.

Regards
DL

I thought you were 95% believer in the cosmic consciousness???  I did not know you were only 5% CC believer?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 19, 2013, 02:35:10 PM
Most cultures have some form of mystical experience. People outside of that culture generally assume that the experiences of yogis, mullahs, vodun priests, santeros, etc. are not real evidence of the supernatural. Research into such phenomena has been conducted for centuries, with no sign that there is any not-natural explanation. 

When a "mystical experience" is indistinguishable to the observer from a lie, a mistake, a common brain phenomena or some form of insanity, why assume that the mystical explanation --the one with the least evidence-- is the real one? :?

I do not think it is insanity so much as our own consciousness or minds at work trying to fill in blanks. They are anomalies though.

Regards
DL

Like I said, a common brain phenom., etc. would be our "minds at work trying to fill in blanks".  We know that our minds do this kind of thing all the time--look at any book or website on optical illusions. What is the reason for assuming that there is something beyond one of the normal explanations? I am not being sarcastic or rhetorical. I really want to know.

So do I but some things cannot be known. At least not at this point in time.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: nogodsforme on November 20, 2013, 08:02:42 PM
GIA, I think you missed my point.

I want to know why you assume that you can eliminate the possibility of lie, dream, illusion or mistake, and go with the least possible option-- contact with the Cosmic Consciousness, a real supernatural event. What criteria are you using to judge what you experienced as the real deal CC? How are you ruling out the things that we have lots of concrete evidence for in favor of something with no concrete evidence?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 21, 2013, 09:06:50 AM
GIA, I think you missed my point.

I want to know why you assume that you can eliminate the possibility of lie, dream, illusion or mistake, and go with the least possible option-- contact with the Cosmic Consciousness, a real supernatural event. What criteria are you using to judge what you experienced as the real deal CC? How are you ruling out the things that we have lots of concrete evidence for in favor of something with no concrete evidence?

I follow the evidence.

If my mind lied to me, I would not know it. I do know telepathy is real as I have a victim that will testify to it. My wife.

I do not do supernatural and have explained that this is a natural phenomenon.

If is not the least possible option. A mind lying to itself is more weird than finding another mind.

Your bias is clouding your thinking.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Add Homonym on November 21, 2013, 09:29:12 AM
If my mind lied to me, I would not know it. I do know telepathy is real as I have a victim that will testify to it. My wife.

I find it suspicious that you call her a victim. If I got inside my partner's head, she would not consider herself a victim.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Mrjason on November 21, 2013, 09:46:46 AM
<sinp>
If is not the least possible option. A mind lying to itself is more weird than finding another mind.

Your bias is clouding your thinking...



Making these two statements in such close proximity to each other is even weirder as you appear to readily accept that minds can be confused or mistaken and even attribute the confusion or mistake to the commonplace word "bias" whilst in your former statement you say that it is weird that such an event can occur.

Now I am confused (or possibly mistaken) :o
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Jag on November 21, 2013, 10:03:36 AM
If my mind lied to me, I would not know it. I do know telepathy is real as I have a victim that will testify to it. My wife.

I find it suspicious that you call her a victim. If I got inside my partner's head, she would not consider herself a victim.
I find it even more suspicious that he hasn't gone straight to a research lab and BEGGED for the opportunity to demonstrate this ability.

But I've got him on ignore - maybe he actually explained somewhere why he's here telling US about it (over the internet no less  &)) rather than telling, well, pretty much anyone to whom he could actually prove it.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 21, 2013, 10:28:33 AM
If my mind lied to me, I would not know it. I do know telepathy is real as I have a victim that will testify to it. My wife.

I find it suspicious that you call her a victim. If I got inside my partner's head, she would not consider herself a victim.

Ask her and yourself.

Regardless, an assault is the way my wife described the experience. I can see it as there is both pain and pleasure involved. She would have noted the pain more as there would have been little pleasure for her.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 21, 2013, 10:30:44 AM
<sinp>
If is not the least possible option. A mind lying to itself is more weird than finding another mind.

Your bias is clouding your thinking...



Making these two statements in such close proximity to each other is even weirder as you appear to readily accept that minds can be confused or mistaken and even attribute the confusion or mistake to the commonplace word "bias" whilst in your former statement you say that it is weird that such an event can occur.

Now I am confused (or possibly mistaken) :o

They are both correct.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on November 21, 2013, 10:38:25 AM
I follow the evidence.

If my mind lied to me, I would not know it. I do know telepathy is real as I have a victim that will testify to it. My wife.

I do not do supernatural and have explained that this is a natural phenomenon.

If is not the least possible option. A mind lying to itself is more weird than finding another mind.
That depends on what you mean by lying I suppose.  If you mean that it falsifies information, then your mind (as well as everybody else's minds) lie to themselves constantly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filling-in
That's your mind guessing and making sh*t up to fill in the physiological gap in order to construct a coherent picture.
Quote
Your bias is clouding your thinking.
I did. My wife as my victim to testify.
That is all the evidence I need.
I don't care of the evidence against.
Well, someone definitely has bias that clouds their thinking around here...
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Mrjason on November 21, 2013, 10:40:16 AM

They are both correct.

Regards
DL

They are contradictory.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: nogodsforme on November 21, 2013, 11:32:53 AM
GIA, I think you missed my point.

I want to know why you assume that you can eliminate the possibility of lie, dream, illusion or mistake, and go with the least possible option-- contact with the Cosmic Consciousness, a real supernatural event. What criteria are you using to judge what you experienced as the real deal CC? How are you ruling out the things that we have lots of concrete evidence for in favor of something with no concrete evidence?

I follow the evidence.

If my mind lied to me, I would not know it. I do know telepathy is real as I have a victim that will testify to it. My wife.

I do not do supernatural and have explained that this is a natural phenomenon.

If is not the least possible option. A mind lying to itself is more weird than finding another mind.

Your bias is clouding your thinking.

Regards
DL

But the evidence you cite (of the CC) is something that happened inside your own mind. And we all know that minds play tricks on us all the time. We are evolved to see stuff that is not there and to detect things that are not real. That is why we have to use logic, evidence and the scientific method to figure out what is really real versus what we think is real.

You see something moving out of the corner of your eye and jump, thinking it was a rat. And then you look right at it and see it is a brown leaf blowing along the sidewalk. Now, according to your way of thinking, it might really have been a rat, and then it cleverly turned itself into a leaf when you looked at it. Possible? I suppose. Probable? Not very.

And as for your telepathy, it could really exist. You and you wife think it does. But it is far more likely that you and your wife have what is called a folie a deux, where two people share the same delusion.

I say that because you admit that it only happened one time and there is no way to go to a lab and test for something like that. Also, of all the millions of people who claim ESP powers, none have ever been scientifically demonstrated, even when tested by people who really, honestly want there to be ESP.[1]  However, you can go to a lab and test for a folie a deux, and measure how strongly you and your wife believe in what happened.

Why do people believe in stuff that is not so? There are lots of reasons:

I just read about a local woman who makes money taking tourists around to places where there were horrible crimes, with the idea that the places are haunted with the spirits of the murdered people. She maintains that people's cameras malfunction in these places. I already can tell you that the cameras malfunction at the same rate as random chance, but nobody involved in these tours wants to hear that.  &)
 1. You can see some of these tests online where the people involved are so confused and disappointed when their ESP doesn't work under controlled conditions.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Jonny-UK on November 21, 2013, 11:39:13 AM
I do know telepathy is real as I have a victim that will testify to it. My wife.
And you haven't claimed this prize yet-
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
Theres a million dollars if you and your wife can prove it.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 21, 2013, 01:04:18 PM
I do know telepathy is real as I have a victim that will testify to it. My wife.
And you haven't claimed this prize yet-
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
Theres a million dollars if you and your wife can prove it.

If he ever accepts two positive lie detector tests then I will apply, till then, I will go wanting.

This scientist likely has a better case at the moment.

http://vimeo.com/26318064

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 21, 2013, 01:06:40 PM
[

Why do people believe in stuff that is not so? There are lots of reasons:

Indeed. And one of those reasons would be that some of what is believed to be true, --- is true.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on November 21, 2013, 01:09:24 PM
^^^This is at least the second time that you have posted that video of Persinger. It's funny b/c it really seems to show confirmation bias. You are willing to quote anything that supports your assumption and self diagnosis, even if it is a mere hypothesis that has not been independently confirmed, has not had ample time to go through peer review, and has not been demonstrated to an unequivocal degree. Yet you won't do any critical examination of your interpretation of said "divine" experience. Credulity is really a sickness you know.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Shaffy on November 21, 2013, 01:22:33 PM
God is imaginary so my answer is based on something that does not exist.

OK here goes..."God is love...God loves us more than life...God wants us to be in a personal relationship with Him...God has given us free will.........But (there is always a "but") pick incorrectly and you burn forever in pain and fire and all that really bad stuff.  That is what a loving God does.

Exactly!Isn't he just so "loving"!!!  :o ;D
-Shaffy
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Jonny-UK on November 21, 2013, 01:27:40 PM
I do know telepathy is real as I have a victim that will testify to it. My wife.
And you haven't claimed this prize yet-
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
Theres a million dollars if you and your wife can prove it.
If he ever accepts two positive lie detector tests then I will apply, till then, I will go wanting.
A lie detector simply proves you believe you are telling the truth OR you know how to beat the test.
The test is not evidence I'm afraid.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on November 21, 2013, 01:33:55 PM
Nogodsforme, here's the answer that you seek:

Indeed. And one of those reasons would be that some of what is believed to be true, --- is true.
Claim: <insert any arrangement of letters/numbers/symbols>

e.g.
Claim: Ragomorths exist.

A: It's true because it's true!
B: How do you know it's true?
A: Because it's true!
B: But what makes you think it's true?
A: Because it's true!
B: <counter argument>
That is all the evidence I need.
I don't care of the evidence against.

e.g.
Claim: Flagobarm exists.

A: It's true because it's true!
B: How do you know it's true?
A: Because it's true!
B: But what makes you think it's true?
A: Because it's true!
B: <counter argument>
That is all the evidence I need.
I don't care of the evidence against.

e.g.
Claim: The cosmic consciousness exists.

A: It's true because it's true!
B: How do you know it's true?
A: Because it's true!
B: But what makes you think it's true?
A: Because it's true!
B: <counter argument>
That is all the evidence I need.
I don't care of the evidence against.

e.g.
Claim: An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent entity called god exists.

A: It's true because it's true!
B: How do you know it's true?
A: Because it's true!
B: But what makes you think it's true?
A: Because it's true!
B: <counter argument>
That is all the evidence I need.
I don't care of the evidence against.

With these powers combined, Greatest I am can believe any claim of any kind as true.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 21, 2013, 02:07:55 PM
I do know telepathy is real as I have a victim that will testify to it. My wife.
And you haven't claimed this prize yet-
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
Theres a million dollars if you and your wife can prove it.
If he ever accepts two positive lie detector tests then I will apply, till then, I will go wanting.
A lie detector simply proves you believe you are telling the truth OR you know how to beat the test.
The test is not evidence I'm afraid.

I am not aware of how good and accurate they have become but I recognize that they are not good enough yet.

It will probably be neural science that will perfect lie detection. It all begins in the brain.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Jonny-UK on November 21, 2013, 02:14:00 PM
It will probably be neural science that will perfect lie detection. It all begins in the brain.
Even so it will still only prove you believe you are telling the truth, in other words, you believe your memory of an event is true. It is still not evidence for the actual claimed event.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 21, 2013, 02:56:05 PM
It will probably be neural science that will perfect lie detection. It all begins in the brain.
Even so it will still only prove you believe you are telling the truth, in other words, you believe your memory of an event is true. It is still not evidence for the actual claimed event.

True for finding the cosmic consciousness but not true in communicating with my wife. That confirmation would clinch it in my mind but if others are not convinced by it there in nothing I can do.

Regards
D
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: nogodsforme on November 21, 2013, 05:48:02 PM
It will probably be neural science that will perfect lie detection. It all begins in the brain.
Even so it will still only prove you believe you are telling the truth, in other words, you believe your memory of an event is true. It is still not evidence for the actual claimed event.

True for finding the cosmic consciousness but not true in communicating with my wife. That confirmation would clinch it in my mind but if others are not convinced by it there in nothing I can do.

Regards
D

If you firmly believe something (because it really happened, or because you are crazy, or because someone you really trust says it happened, or whatever reason) any brain test, no matter how sophisticated,  will show that you think it is true. A lie detector won't help if the person does not know they are "lying". That is why lie detectors don't work on sociopaths and con artists. They are so convinced of their own reality that they are not actually lying.

As for you and your wife, there are cases of shared delusions. You can find accounts of groups of people saying they saw an alien spaceship, or bigfoot or the Virgen de la Guadeloupe, or a unicorn. Does not mean that those things really exist. Just means people brains can work in tandem to produce false positives.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Ataraxia on November 22, 2013, 03:04:46 AM
True for finding the cosmic consciousness but not true in communicating with my wife. That confirmation would clinch it in my mind but if others are not convinced by it there in nothing I can do.

There is plenty you can do. If you are convinced that you can communicate telepathically with your wife, then what are you doing just sat there doing nothing about it? If it was me, I'd be hauling myself and my wife down to the nearest university, putting my money where my mouth is and volunteering to become a guinea pig. I could change the world and make one of the biggest discoveries ever. I'd be rich! I'd be famous! But no, you're sat around resting on your laurels. I don't believe you're as convinced as you say you are.

This reminds me of mediums (the ones who are deluded themselves and not the con-artists) who are convinced they can talk to dead people, but do the vast majority of them put themselves forward for testing? - Nope. Why? - Because they know they'll fail. Of course that is not their fault, but the test conditions.[1]
 1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20145664 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20145664)
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: nogodsforme on November 22, 2013, 11:32:50 AM
^^^^What happened in that simple controlled experiment is what always happens. The psychic energy fails to manifest.

And it is always the fault of the scientists, who are so biased and closed-minded that their  skeptical energy blocks that psychic energy of the mediums. "There are skeptics and unbelievers present! My powers will not work. Darn." 

There is a video online of Johnny Carson[1] taking apart a famous psychic on his show. It it quite amazing how a few simple rules made it impossible for the psychic to perform.

The scientists 1)organized this test and 2)invited the mediums to participate and 3)arranged for a group of volunteers and 4)gave the mediums a chance to show their stuff. Really closed-minded, that.

If only the people who believe in this stuff were willing to be as "closed-minded" as the scientists-- who are willing to take the psychic claims seriously enough to examine them for real.
 1. who was trained as a stage magician and who knew all the slight of hand tricks that some psychics employ
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 22, 2013, 12:26:17 PM
True for finding the cosmic consciousness but not true in communicating with my wife. That confirmation would clinch it in my mind but if others are not convinced by it there in nothing I can do.

There is plenty you can do. If you are convinced that you can communicate telepathically with your wife, then what are you doing just sat there doing nothing about it? If it was me, I'd be hauling myself and my wife down to the nearest university, putting my money where my mouth is and volunteering to become a guinea pig. I could change the world and make one of the biggest discoveries ever. I'd be rich! I'd be famous! But no, you're sat around resting on your laurels. I don't believe you're as convinced as you say you are.

This reminds me of mediums (the ones who are deluded themselves and not the con-artists) who are convinced they can talk to dead people, but do the vast majority of them put themselves forward for testing? - Nope. Why? - Because they know they'll fail. Of course that is not their fault, but the test conditions.[1]
 1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20145664 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20145664)

I have contacted researchers and given my story. No takers yet.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: screwtape on November 22, 2013, 02:07:27 PM
I have contacted researchers and given my story. No takers yet.

why do you suppose that is?

Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 22, 2013, 02:31:04 PM
Perhaps its sheer brilliance blew their minds?
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 23, 2013, 09:55:27 PM
I have contacted researchers and given my story. No takers yet.

why do you suppose that is?

I could not say.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Antidote on November 23, 2013, 10:12:03 PM
I could think of a few reasons, insanity being in the top 10.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on November 25, 2013, 04:19:26 AM
I have contacted researchers and given my story. No takers yet.

why do you suppose that is?

I could not say.

My suspicion would be that when someone contacts them and says "I have a completely unverifiable story about something that happened to me that I am unable to replicate" they realise that it would be a total and utter waste of their time to attempt to "research" it.

Seriously - what research would you expect them to undertake? 
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 25, 2013, 08:37:03 AM
Exactly. That is unknown. That is why I leave it in their court.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on November 25, 2013, 11:10:24 AM
Exactly. That is unknown. That is why I leave it in their court.

Regards
DL

Which is exactly why you, yourself, should be skeptical of your own self-diagnosed interpretation of it - since humans are prone to grievous error and you could very well be mistaken about what you think you experienced. Coincidences, false positives, false memories, selective memory, confirmation bias, over-guessing, mistaken self-diagnoses, self-deception, and numerous other known and demonstrated phenomena should cause you to withhold judgment about what you think you experienced.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 25, 2013, 04:13:24 PM
It is a benign belief and I will follow the evidence until something comes against it.

That is not likely to happen and I have already eliminated all the conditions that have been stated as far as mental blips are concerned.

You waste your time.

Regards
DL


Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: nogodsforme on November 25, 2013, 05:19:31 PM
You do realize that you cannot assess your own mind to see if it is malfunctioning. Right?  :?

Do you cut your own hair?  :laugh:
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on November 25, 2013, 05:33:39 PM
It is a benign belief and I will follow the evidence until something comes against it.
Is that so?
I did. My wife as my victim to testify.
That is all the evidence I need.
I don't care of the evidence against.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Greatest I am on November 25, 2013, 07:54:08 PM
Done here gentlemen.

I have no tyime for stupidity and rock throwing.

Regards
DL
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: nogodsforme on November 25, 2013, 08:32:43 PM
I am no gentlemen. I am not even that gentle.  8)
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Nam on November 25, 2013, 08:49:28 PM
I am no gentlemen. I am not even that gentle.  8)

Give the dude a break, he spells "time" with not only the 'i" but also a 'y'.

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Anfauglir on November 26, 2013, 07:40:56 AM
I have contacted researchers and given my story. No takers yet.
Seriously - what research would you expect them to undertake?

I repeat the question.  YOU sent your story to researchers, so presumably you must have SOME idea of what you might expect them to do.  What research WOULD you expect them to undertake? 

You said "no takers yet", so presumably had an expectation that someone would want to research your tale.  How did you expect that to go?



<<edit - fixed quotes>>
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Dante on November 26, 2013, 10:39:00 AM
You waste your time.

As do you. Waste our time, that is.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Ataraxia on November 26, 2013, 10:40:03 AM
Exactly. That is unknown. That is why I leave it in their court.

Regards
DL

What are you leaving in their court? Have you actually demonstrated your Mel Gibson abilities to these researchers? Have they performed tests on you and your wife or have you merely told them about it - akin to doing nothing about it? I fear the latter.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: median on November 26, 2013, 11:12:31 AM
It is a benign belief and I will follow the evidence until something comes against it.

That is not likely to happen and I have already eliminated all the conditions that have been stated as far as mental blips are concerned.

You waste your time.

Regards
DL

No, you have that quite backwards. You have wasted my time!!!! You bring up some nonsense about "telepathy" yet have ZERO evidence for it, can't demonstrate it to anyone, have no good reason for thinking your interpretation is accurate (w/ plenty of evidence to the contrary), and are clearly practicing confirmation bias (as you've stated that you don't care about contrary evidence or argument), and yet you continue to babble on about it (defending it, describing it, posting rebuttals, etc, etc) as if we should change our minds about it - all b/c you would 'take a lie detector test' and that should prove it!? 

Your "I experienced it so I believe it" claims are identical in nature to that of fundamentalist Christians, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists, Astrologers, and New Age cultists. And just like you, these people also post unsubstantiated pseudo-science articles, videos, and webpages in an attempt to support their asinine religious claims. Why would you come here and post such a thing, wasting so much of so many people's time when you knew damn well that you could not support such claims with evidence or sound reasoning? What you've done here is outright inconsiderate, arrogant, and rude.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: xyzzy on November 26, 2013, 02:32:08 PM
No, you have that quite backwards. You have wasted my time!!!! You bring up some nonsense about "telepathy" yet have ZERO evidence for it, can't demonstrate it to anyone, have no good reason for thinking your interpretation is accurate (w/ plenty of evidence to the contrary), and are clearly practicing confirmation bias (as you've stated that you don't care about contrary evidence or argument), and yet you continue to babble on about it (defending it, describing it, posting rebuttals, etc, etc) as if we should change our minds about it - all b/c you would 'take a lie detector test' and that should prove it!? 

Your "I experienced it so I believe it" claims are identical in nature to that of fundamentalist Christians, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists, Astrologers, and New Age cultists. And just like you, these people also post unsubstantiated pseudo-science articles, videos, and webpages in an attempt to support their asinine religious claims. Why would you come here and post such a thing, wasting so much of so many people's time when you knew damn well that you could not support such claims with evidence or sound reasoning? What you've done here is outright inconsiderate, arrogant, and rude.

Not just your time, Median. Have you not noticed how he literally repeats himself by cut 'n pasting his previous responses, redundant signature and all?

Perhaps he's off because he fears he's about to get rumbled, and he has plenty of other people whose time he can waste with untestable claims? Linky (http://goo.gl/0VJKEF)
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: Boots on November 26, 2013, 03:34:54 PM
It is a benign belief and I will follow the evidence until something comes against it.

That is not likely to happen and I have already eliminated all the conditions that have been stated as far as mental blips are concerned.

You waste your time.

Regards
DL

I call shenanigans.  No you haven't.  but you're not here, so I guess you're not going to care about that.  Meh.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on November 26, 2013, 03:36:25 PM
Not just your time, Median. Have you not noticed how he literally repeats himself by cut 'n pasting his previous responses, redundant signature and all?

Perhaps he's off because he fears he's about to get rumbled, and he has plenty of other people whose time he can waste with untestable claims? Linky (http://goo.gl/0VJKEF)
I've perused some of those other forums.

Holy crap-in-a-hat with whipped cream.

Several observations:
1) Greatest I Am has shotgunned this OP to an inordinate number of forums.  Seems to desperately want validation.

2) He doesn't have a damn clue what he believes.  He likes to use big, vague words, and makes damn sure that he isn't caught trying to put together a coherent thought lest he run into the danger of seeing glaring errors in his belief structure (whatever the f**k that happens to be).  Any questions asking for any details on what it is he does believe are met with counter-questions to shift the burden of proof or simply dismissed.

3) He seems to see things in strictly black and white.  I suspect if he ever used the word 'nuance', it would showcase the same butchering of meanings that he gives words like 'apotheosis' and 'demographically' - that is, it will be related to the actual meaning of the word insofar as the spelling is the same, but that's about it.  When pressed for clarity, he'll either feel insulted or turn it around and ask you for clarity on the word that he used.

4) I think he's a shill for Youtube and Vimeo.  He can't ever be bothered to sum up points from a video that he finds compelling.

In short, here's what Greatest I Am believes:
It is more important to sound like Deepak Chopra than it is to actually think.  It's OK to believe unprovable bulls**t.  The more ill-defined and vague the unprovable bulls**t is, the more believable it is.
Title: Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
Post by: jdawg70 on November 26, 2013, 03:38:43 PM
I call shenanigans.  No you haven't.  but you're not here, so I guess you're not going to care about that.  Meh.
Sure he has.  He has The Ultimate Trumpcard:
That is all the evidence I need.
I don't care of the evidence against.
He eliminated them by willfully ignoring them.