The problem with atheism.

[dank]

Just need to interject to point out that unconditional love is not actually love, and is meaningless. When you love someone regardless, that's not really love, that's just you not caring about what they do.

This is not true.  Fly.  Do something impossible.  Why can't you?  Negative energy, doubt, it resides on earth, it resides in you.  In a world of unconditional love, you could fly, you could do anything at whim.  I've done it, I've seen it, I know it's true.

So, what you're saying is, the act of loving, caring, and taking care of someone, even at expense to yourself, is maifested in breaking physics and levitating? To love is to be able to fly? I'm going to take a really crazy guess here: you're single, right?

Universal truth - everything just is.  You can describe it from the left perspective or the right, but what your describing still just is.

That is the most worthless, useless, and lazy conclusion in the world, ever, and is no better than the answer "God did it." Lazy stupid idiots say "It is what it is" or "God did it" and end it at that. People who actually like to use their heads don't stop at what it is, they ask WHY it is.

Yes, but when are you going to stop asking why and start affirming some beliefs?

[1715243676]

1715243676

[1715243676]

1715243676

[1715243676]

1715243676

[the joint]

Just need to interject to point out that unconditional love is not actually love, and is meaningless. When you love someone regardless, that's not really love, that's just you not caring about what they do.

This is not true.  Fly.  Do something impossible.  Why can't you?  Negative energy, doubt, it resides on earth, it resides in you.  In a world of unconditional love, you could fly, you could do anything at whim.  I've done it, I've seen it, I know it's true.

So, what you're saying is, the act of loving, caring, and taking care of someone, even at expense to yourself, is maifested in breaking physics and levitating? To love is to be able to fly? I'm going to take a really crazy guess here: you're single, right?

Universal truth - everything just is.  You can describe it from the left perspective or the right, but what your describing still just is.

That is the most worthless, useless, and lazy conclusion in the world, ever, and is no better than the answer "God did it." Lazy stupid idiots say "It is what it is" or "God did it" and end it at that. People who actually like to use their heads don't stop at what it is, they ask WHY it is.

Yes, but when are you going to stop asking why and start affirming some beliefs?

To take the middle ground, I think it's important to recognize both perspectives.

Is there "arbitrary phenomena"?  Yes.  What happens when people study isolated, arbitrary phenomena?  You get arguments for and arguments against some position.

Is there some absolute truth that supersedes arbitrary phenomena?  Yes.

Is there something we can lean from this?  Yes.  Definitely.  And it can lend itself to utility. 

Personally, I treat arbitrary phenomena practically.  I use inference as anyone else to make decisions on the fly and to navigate the world.

But when I get home, I reflect upon everything.  In recognizing isolated phenomena as arbitrary, it simply makes it easier to go with the flow of things, to enjoy the uncertainty and unpredictability in life, and to remember that if I'm having a shitty day, it was only due to some arbitrary phenomena that has come and gone, or will go.  But, I also remember that there is an absolute truth that is anything but arbitrary, and this is where I build my foundation.  If I build my foundation upon conditional phenomena, then that foundation is going to be weak because it too will be conditional.  If I build my foundation upon absolute truth, then I will be stronger, tougher, and more capable of dealing with the bullshit that comes and goes in life.

There is benefit in recognizing that, as dank said, things just "are" is that, if you recognize this enough, you will become much more relaxed and comfortable and satisfied with life. 

Ever sit in a room without a friend or family member to talk to?  Without radio, without tv, without the Internet, without a book, without food or water...without any distraction at all.  What happens?  Well, you probably start to get fidgety and bored and you wish you had some distraction nearby to remove the monotony.

But...wtf?  Why is virtually every person a walking ADD case without distractions?  Why can't the vast majority of people just be with themselves and be content with that? 
Well, if your focus is on arbitrary, conditional phenomena and you think that's all reality has to offer, then it makes sense that you would seek comfort through distraction.

On the other hand, if you shift your focus to the ever-present 'being' of existence, then you can become content and satisfied simply 'being'.  The utility this provides is limitless.

[yogi]

So the universe only consists of two things, the ever-present 'being' of existence and arbitrary phenomena?

While I agree the universe is full of arbitrary phenomena, I have no idea what the ever-present 'being' of existence is, and so can't comment on it.

[the joint]

So the universe only consists of two things, the ever-present 'being' of existence and arbitrary phenomena?

While I agree the universe is full of arbitrary phenomena, I have no idea what the ever-present 'being' of existence is, and so can't comment on it.

I didn't say that there are only two "things" in the Universe, I'm saying that when it comes to isolated, conditional phenomena, that phenomena is arbitrary to the extent that there are many, perhaps even an infinite number of possible and valid explanations for that phenomena depending upon the context you place it in.

Placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of absolute truth is more difficult, but it's fun because that's when you get to resolve paradoxes.

[yogi]

You said, instead of focusing on arbitrary phenomena, we should focus instead on the ever-present 'being' of existence. But what is the ever-present 'being' of existence and how is it distinct from any other arbitrary phenomena?

I didn't say that there are only two "things" in the Universe, I'm saying that when it comes to isolated, conditional phenomena, that phenomena is arbitrary to the extent that there are many, perhaps even an infinite number of possible and valid explanations for that phenomena depending upon the context you place it in.

Yes, this is obvious. If all phenomena had only one possible explanation then there would be no need for science.

Placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of absolute truth is more difficult, but it's fun because that's when you get to resolve paradoxes.

Placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of absolute truth is more difficult than what? What are you comparing this too?

[the joint]

You said, instead of focusing on arbitrary phenomena, we should focus instead on the ever-present 'being' of existence. But what is the ever-present 'being' of existence and how is it distinct from any other arbitrary phenomena?

I didn't say that there are only two "things" in the Universe, I'm saying that when it comes to isolated, conditional phenomena, that phenomena is arbitrary to the extent that there are many, perhaps even an infinite number of possible and valid explanations for that phenomena depending upon the context you place it in.

Yes, this is obvious. If all phenomena had only one possible explanation then there would be no need for science.

Placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of absolute truth is more difficult, but it's fun because that's when you get to resolve paradoxes.

Placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of absolute truth is more difficult than what? What are you comparing this too?

The "being" is with you always, and if you quiet your mind down you'll experience it more fully.  It's non-empirical because it isn't anything you observe, and to that extent it isn't a thing.

Placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of absolute truth is more difficult than placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of a specific discipline.  For example, we might see a white guy rob a black guy on the street and a social worker may explain it in the context of "oppression" or "social injustice" while a neuroscientist might explain it in the context of "neurochemicals and electrical signals."  The problem with this is that all of a sudden you have concepts being overextended and being applied to things where they have no business being applied to (e.g. I'm dating my girlfriend because of "neurochemicals and electrical signals"...or maybe it's because I just fucking want to).  People get away with being careless when theorizing from these disciplines specifically because the overextension of these concepts often goes ignored, undetected, or unchallenged.

[dank]

To believe in god is to believe in consciousness.  You are conscious, right?

[yogi]

The "being" is with you always, and if you quiet your mind down you'll experience it more fully.  It's non-empirical because it isn't anything you observe, and to that extent it isn't a thing.

Are you talking about the fundamental nature or essence of ones self? e.g I felt it was wrong in the core of my being?

Placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of absolute truth is more difficult than placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of a specific discipline.

To my mind the absolute truth 'I think therefore I am' is easier to arrive at than the disciplined truths of thinking from a neurological perspective.

For example, we might see a white guy rob a black guy on the street and a social worker may explain it in the context of "oppression" or "social injustice" while a neuroscientist might explain it in the context of "neurochemicals and electrical signals."  The problem with this is that all of a sudden you have concepts being overextended and being applied to things where they have no business being applied to (e.g. I'm dating my girlfriend because of "neurochemicals and electrical signals"...or maybe it's because I just fucking want to).

Are you suggesting that looking at things from a different perspective will blind you to the truth? I would suggest the opposite is true.

People get away with being careless when theorizing from these disciplines specifically because the overextension of these concepts often goes ignored, undetected, or unchallenged.

And your theories are impervious to this I suppose?

[the joint]

The "being" is with you always, and if you quiet your mind down you'll experience it more fully.  It's non-empirical because it isn't anything you observe, and to that extent it isn't a thing.

Are you talking about the fundamental nature or essence of ones self? e.g I felt it was wrong in the core of my being?

Placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of absolute truth is more difficult than placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of a specific discipline.

To my mind the absolute truth 'I think therefore I am' is easier to arrive at than the disciplined truths of thinking from a neurological perspective.

For example, we might see a white guy rob a black guy on the street and a social worker may explain it in the context of "oppression" or "social injustice" while a neuroscientist might explain it in the context of "neurochemicals and electrical signals."  The problem with this is that all of a sudden you have concepts being overextended and being applied to things where they have no business being applied to (e.g. I'm dating my girlfriend because of "neurochemicals and electrical signals"...or maybe it's because I just fucking want to).

Are you suggesting that looking at things from a different perspective will blind you to the truth? I would suggest the opposite is true.

People get away with being careless when theorizing from these disciplines specifically because the overextension of these concepts often goes ignored, undetected, or unchallenged.

And your theories are impervious to this I suppose?

1)  Basically, yes.  The nature of the self is what underlies our practical conception of it, and this includes its relationships with other, stratified selves and the 'network' of non-stratified, global consciousness.  The stratified "selves" occupy various swathes of spacetime.  You would be one of those 'selves' at this moment, and another 'self' at this moment, and another at this moment, and another at...you get the idea.

2)  I think so too.

3)  Not at all.  I've said many times on this forum "ratio is the root word of rationale" and it applies here as well.  More perspective gives you better information and knowledge, but it's important that this 'truth of knowledge' so to speak is distributed to...well...multiple perspectives.  For example, in trying to describe reality, you could look at a set of empirical data and formulate a series of valid hypotheses about it.  These valid hypotheses will give you more perspective into your data than if you had only one valid hypothesis.  However, there are other ways to hypothesize and theorize about reality that aren't empirical but are completely valid.  Knowledge of this 'ratio' of valid approaches gives you perspective into the limitations of each one.  After exploring discipline after discipline for valid approaches to valid hypotheses and theories about reality, you might come to the conclusion that in order to minimize the overextension of concepts that occurs when arguing against one discipline while taking stakehold in another, you not only need to speak from the 'discpline of all discplines' (as it turns out, this is language itself, and philosophy is its closest academic relative), but you need to talk about it in a language whose rules supersede those of all other languages, or in what Christopher Langan calls a 'metalanguage.'

4) I overextend concepts like crazy, but less so when I stay particularly mindful about my language, such as in these conversations.  Invariably, it still happens quite often, mostly because I'm still refining my ideas (it's taken me about 12 years to get this far; literally thousands of hours of researching, hypothesizing, mathematical modeling, analysis, and meditation), because it's habit, and because I haven't completely mapped the boundary between 'typical' language and the metalanguage.

[hawkeye]

That is why I try my best to read the entire Bible and instead of reading into it what I want to say, I use exegesis and read it for what it really does say.  It does not make me popular in some Christian circles though because the Bible is really clear on many things some of which is not politically correct nowadays.

I'm fairly sure you don't follow everything the bible tells you to do either, otherwise you'd be posting this from the inside of a jail cell. But, luckily for you, preachers and religious scholars have reinterpreted many parts of the bible to conform more closely to the culture of the times  

I am assuming you are referring to things in the Old Testament such as polygamy, animal sacrifice, war and such?  Just because the Bible give a historical account of what people did does not condone what they did.  

I read the words of Jesus and try to follow them.  I can understand God's relationship with man based on the stories in the Old Testament as well.  But I won't pick and choose the parts I don't like.  In understanding other cultures I can get a glimpse into why things were allowed (polygamy because so many men were killed in war at that time).  Jesus was our ultimate sacrifice for our sins so the animal sacrifices are not necessary anymore thankfully!

And what about the flood with Moses to take one arbitrary example?  Is that not mass murder and genocide?  Who forgives God his sins?  

[BitChick]

That is why I try my best to read the entire Bible and instead of reading into it what I want to say, I use exegesis and read it for what it really does say.  It does not make me popular in some Christian circles though because the Bible is really clear on many things some of which is not politically correct nowadays.

I'm fairly sure you don't follow everything the bible tells you to do either, otherwise you'd be posting this from the inside of a jail cell. But, luckily for you, preachers and religious scholars have reinterpreted many parts of the bible to conform more closely to the culture of the times  

I am assuming you are referring to things in the Old Testament such as polygamy, animal sacrifice, war and such?  Just because the Bible give a historical account of what people did does not condone what they did.  

I read the words of Jesus and try to follow them.  I can understand God's relationship with man based on the stories in the Old Testament as well.  But I won't pick and choose the parts I don't like.  In understanding other cultures I can get a glimpse into why things were allowed (polygamy because so many men were killed in war at that time).  Jesus was our ultimate sacrifice for our sins so the animal sacrifices are not necessary anymore thankfully!

And what about the flood with Moses to take one arbitrary example?  Is that not mass murder and genocide?  Who forgives God his sins?  

The flood was with Noah.  Is it wrong for God to judge us when we disobey?  How bad was the world that he decided to have a world-wide flood to destroy it?  Perhaps we do not have any idea how far humanity had degenerated to at that time.  I do know it grieved Him to flood the world though but I imagine a cruel and evil world where there was human sacrificing, raping of women, brutal murders and so on.  The groups of people that were "judged" or God allowed to be killed by war or by His hand were non-repentant and often involved in very evil practices such as child/human sacrifices in the Old Testament. 

As for you question "Who forgives God his sins?" God has no sin.  We can question His decisions but we are not omniscient and we do not know all things like He does.  The one thing I do know is that I do not want to get on His "bad side" though! What shocks me is that people have no regard for Him but the Bible predicts this too.  It says that the the last days "will be just like the time of Noah—everyone carrying on as usual, having a good time right up to the day Noah boarded the ship. They suspected nothing until the flood hit and swept everything away."  Who fears and respects God anymore?  God is loving and kind and wants all of us to repent but He is also not to be trifled with and if we do not repent He will judge us.

[hawkeye]

 

And what about the flood with Moses to take one arbitrary example?  Is that not mass murder and genocide?  Who forgives God his sins?  

The flood was with Noah.  Is it wrong for God to judge us when we disobey?  How bad was the world that he decided to have a world-wide flood to destroy it?  Perhaps we do not have any idea how far humanity had degenerated to at that time.  I do know it grieved Him to flood the world though but I imagine a cruel and evil world where there was human sacrificing, raping of women, brutal murders and so on.  The groups of people that were "judged" or God allowed to be killed by war or by His hand were non-repentant and often involved in very evil practices such as child/human sacrifices in the Old Testament.  

As for you question "Who forgives God his sins?" God has no sin.  We can question His decisions but we are not omniscient and we do not know all things like He does.  The one thing I do know is that I do not want to get on His "bad side" though! What shocks me is that people have no regard for Him but the Bible predicts this too.  It says that the the last days "will be just like the time of Noah—everyone carrying on as usual, having a good time right up to the day Noah boarded the ship. They suspected nothing until the flood hit and swept everything away."  Who fears and respects God anymore?  God is loving and kind and wants all of us to repent but He is also not to be trifled with and if we do not repent He will judge us.

Wow.  And the babies?  What was their sin?  And children?

How bad was the world that God had to flood it?  Seriously?  This is the all powerful God we are talking about and that's the only solution he can come up with?  And really, how bad could the world possibly be?  This is human society we re talking about.  Yes, it is imperfect, but in all recorded history (not the bible) has there ever been a time when everyone deserved to die by drowning?  Or anyone for that matter?  What crime deserves death by drowning to be inflicted?

It's my belief that the reason governments get away with the crimes that they do is because of beliefs like yours in authority.  That any crime, no matter how foul can be justified if the authority is high enough.  

I don't believe there was a flood that engulfed the world.  That it is just a story.  But there are serious moral problems for those who do believe such a story.  And the mental acrobatics they have to do to justify it.

[Hawker]

 

And what about the flood with Moses to take one arbitrary example?  Is that not mass murder and genocide?  Who forgives God his sins?  

The flood was with Noah.  Is it wrong for God to judge us when we disobey?  How bad was the world that he decided to have a world-wide flood to destroy it?  Perhaps we do not have any idea how far humanity had degenerated to at that time.  I do know it grieved Him to flood the world though but I imagine a cruel and evil world where there was human sacrificing, raping of women, brutal murders and so on.  The groups of people that were "judged" or God allowed to be killed by war or by His hand were non-repentant and often involved in very evil practices such as child/human sacrifices in the Old Testament.  

As for you question "Who forgives God his sins?" God has no sin.  We can question His decisions but we are not omniscient and we do not know all things like He does.  The one thing I do know is that I do not want to get on His "bad side" though! What shocks me is that people have no regard for Him but the Bible predicts this too.  It says that the the last days "will be just like the time of Noah—everyone carrying on as usual, having a good time right up to the day Noah boarded the ship. They suspected nothing until the flood hit and swept everything away."  Who fears and respects God anymore?  God is loving and kind and wants all of us to repent but He is also not to be trifled with and if we do not repent He will judge us.

Wow.  And the babies?  What was their sin?  And children?

How bad was the world that God had to flood it?  Seriously?  This is the all powerful God we are talking about and that's the only solution he can come up with?  And really, how bad could the world possibly be?  This is human society we re talking about.  Yes, it is imperfect, but in all recorded history (not the bible) has there ever been a time when everyone deserved to die by drowning?  Or anyone for that matter?  What crime deserves death by drowning to be inflicted?

It's my belief that the reason governments get away with the crimes that they do is because of beliefs like yours in authority.  That any crime, no matter how foul can be justified if the authority is high enough.  

I don't believe there was a flood that engulfed the world.  That it is just a story.  But there are serious moral problems for those who do believe such a story.  And the mental acrobatics they have to do to justify it.

If the old Testament concept of God were a man and if he were around now, he'd be on trial in the Hague for crimes against humanity.  The massacres at Sodom and Gomorrah alone would get him life sentences.

[hawkeye]

Makes you think the Romans had the right idea putting him on trial.  Although, personally I don't believe in capital punishment.  Though, I guess since God does then I must be wrong...

And Jesus (if he ever lived) wasn't God anyway of course.  Or his son or whatever.

[Aco]

We love to believe in things that give us hope.
We fill that void with whatever we choose to believe in.
Believing in nothing is a belief.  Just as it is when you worship the run.

The Romans were MUCH further developed in their reasoning given their environment, tools, and timing.  Jesus came about after the empire fell. When we hit the dark ages. When illiteracy was rampent. When reason couldn't flourish.

God is inside of YOU. Your ability to reason and apply logic is what makes you human and enables you to look up at night and question things.  Curiosity will drive a man. Content wont.

[BitChick]

 

And what about the flood with Moses to take one arbitrary example?  Is that not mass murder and genocide?  Who forgives God his sins?  

The flood was with Noah.  Is it wrong for God to judge us when we disobey?  How bad was the world that he decided to have a world-wide flood to destroy it?  Perhaps we do not have any idea how far humanity had degenerated to at that time.  I do know it grieved Him to flood the world though but I imagine a cruel and evil world where there was human sacrificing, raping of women, brutal murders and so on.  The groups of people that were "judged" or God allowed to be killed by war or by His hand were non-repentant and often involved in very evil practices such as child/human sacrifices in the Old Testament.  

As for you question "Who forgives God his sins?" God has no sin.  We can question His decisions but we are not omniscient and we do not know all things like He does.  The one thing I do know is that I do not want to get on His "bad side" though! What shocks me is that people have no regard for Him but the Bible predicts this too.  It says that the the last days "will be just like the time of Noah—everyone carrying on as usual, having a good time right up to the day Noah boarded the ship. They suspected nothing until the flood hit and swept everything away."  Who fears and respects God anymore?  God is loving and kind and wants all of us to repent but He is also not to be trifled with and if we do not repent He will judge us.

Wow.  And the babies?  What was their sin?  And children?

How bad was the world that God had to flood it?  Seriously?  This is the all powerful God we are talking about and that's the only solution he can come up with?  And really, how bad could the world possibly be?  This is human society we re talking about.  Yes, it is imperfect, but in all recorded history (not the bible) has there ever been a time when everyone deserved to die by drowning?  Or anyone for that matter?  What crime deserves death by drowning to be inflicted?

It's my belief that the reason governments get away with the crimes that they do is because of beliefs like yours in authority.  That any crime, no matter how foul can be justified if the authority is high enough.  

I don't believe there was a flood that engulfed the world.  That it is just a story.  But there are serious moral problems for those who do believe such a story.  And the mental acrobatics they have to do to justify it.

So children today do not suffer for the mistakes of the parents?  I am sure the same thing happened then.  Were the kids cast directly into hell for that?  I don't necessarily believe that.  All of us are judged according to what we do though.

Many people today have turned their backs on God.  You can think of Him however you like but I believe He is good, loving, forgiving and cares deeply for all of us.  But at the same time He is God and is to be feared and revered.  There will come a day when He decided to remove His hand and allow the world to suffer again, just like He did with Noah.  If you read the Biblical account the few that feared Him were saved.  It seems wise to be on His side. 

[Schleicher]

I don't believe there was a flood that engulfed the world.  That it is just a story.  But there are serious moral problems for those who do believe such a story.  And the mental acrobatics they have to do to justify it.

Some people think that a flood in the Black Sea region is the source of the story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis

The god in the old testament really has a bad temper sometimes.
But at least he promised to not do this again:

The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."

[Rassah]

Jesus was our ultimate sacrifice for our sins so the animal sacrifices are not necessary anymore thankfully!

Why would animal sacrifices ever be necessary? At what point in time is paying tribute in someone/something else's blood is OK?

[Rassah]

Yes, but when are you going to stop asking why and start affirming some beliefs?

That will happen when I start to think that I know everything there is to know about something, and that I don't want to bother learning anything new about it, regardless of what new information someone else may come up with. So... Probably never.

[Rassah]

Ever sit in a room without a friend or family member to talk to?  Without radio, without tv, without the Internet, without a book, without food or water...without any distraction at all.  What happens?  Well, you probably start to get fidgety and bored and you wish you had some distraction nearby to remove the monotony.

But...wtf?  Why is virtually every person a walking ADD case without distractions?  Why can't the vast majority of people just be with themselves and be content with that? 
Well, if your focus is on arbitrary, conditional phenomena and you think that's all reality has to offer, then it makes sense that you would seek comfort through distraction.

On the other hand, if you shift your focus to the ever-present 'being' of existence, then you can become content and satisfied simply 'being'.  The utility this provides is limitless.

I am very much like that. But I get fidgety, because there is so much to so, read, learn, and explore in the world, and so little time to do everything. So to me, just "being" sounds really lazy