Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?

[Nick_A]

“Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” Socrates

Nick, you stole this notion of projection from me. Ever since I accused you of projecting, you have accused me of it numerous times - but never once before I pointed out your projecting self deception did you accuse me of projection.

I also shaped your language as regards secularists. For years on the other forum you spoke only of "atheists". It was only when I told you that I was not an atheist and so your insults didn't apply to me that you switched to "secularist". I remember being amused at the time. I think it was a matter of months before you got yourself banned.

Greta, you are not that important. I discuss ideas and unlike you, am not obsessed with people like Donald Trump. The reason I was banned is because I discuss ideas which are poison for secularism. They have the same effect on you as they did on those responsible for killing Jesus and Socrates. Questioning the supremacy of the state as a whole is simply intolerable for the secular mind which is content to battle over societal opinions. That is why you are limited to dualistic secular philosophy. The ancient ideas introduced by those like Plato and Plotinus have the effect of reconciling contradiction through the experience of a higher conscious perspective already existing within a person as apriori knowledge. As a secularist you must condemn such ideas. Banning for me by someone with your beliefs is a badge of honor. It puts me in good company. At least I wasn’t crucified or condemned to drinking the hemlock as I would have been in former times.

I actually don't doubt this "higher" (or different state), I just don't believe that you have experienced it or much know what it is. Why do I think this? Because you never seem to take the wise option or the high road. Not once in years! The only times I've not seen you take the low road is when you are called out, after which you behave for a post or two before returning to BAU.

What is the “wise option” or the high road? What is this low road you accuse me of taking? For secularism the high road is the expression of the PC lie. What good is it for the seekers of truth attracted to awakening philosophical ideas? You would be incapable of participating in a Socratic dialogue since it discourages the lie.

A person who is in touch with higher values would not behave as you do. Nor me, but I don't make such claims. You are more of a religious theorist. The tenets of the religion - love, compassion, empathy, understanding, appreciation of diversity and individuality - remain abstract to you, not much put into practice.

You know nothing about me. I haven’t made any claims. I prefer to discuss the ancient awakening ideas reflective of the purpose of philosophy with those whose minds and hearts have not been swallowed up by secularism. These ideas are poison for you.

Don't direct me to this or that post, not to a reference, nor do a quote. Rather, you can either explain simply and clearly in your own words what you mean by the higher levels of consciousness, and without metaphor or vague prose, or you show yourself to be just parrotting Weil's and Needleman's words without comprehension.

A higher level of consciousness is a higher level of conscious inclusion. As we are in Plato’s cave we fight amongst the trees. A higher level of consciousness experiences the life of the forest. Your emotional devotion to secularism prevents you from experiencing the forest for the trees or the distinction between higher mind and lower mind. The transcendent Source concept must be meaningless for the secular mindset because Man is considered supreme so its God is the Great Beast. To need other than what the Great Beast offers is an intolerable sin against God.

[Greta]

“Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” Socrates

It's about time you admitted it after hitting me with major ad hominem attacks nonstop for years!

I actually don't doubt this "higher" (or different state), I just don't believe that you have experienced it or much know what it is. Why do I think this? Because you never seem to take the wise option or the high road. Not once in years! The only times I've not seen you take the low road is when you are called out, after which you behave for a post or two before returning to BAU.

What is the “wise option” or the high road? What is this low road you accuse me of taking?

Even you know what taking the high road is - and you pretty well never take it.

See above for the obvious example - not once has it occurred to you to try to find a circuit breaker to halt this toxic interaction. Rather, when I attempt to break off the pointless fighting you will start striking out at me unprovoked, even after an absence from a forum to get things going again.

That is (part of) the low ground that you so often chose while claiming to be privy to higher consciousness. If you think that being ugly towards those you detest is doing God's will, then you are just a child.

A person who is in touch with higher values would not behave as you do. Nor me, but I don't make such claims. You are more of a religious theorist. The tenets of the religion - love, compassion, empathy, understanding, appreciation of diversity and individuality - remain abstract to you, not much put into practice.

You know nothing about me. I haven’t made any claims. I prefer to discuss the ancient awakening ideas reflective of the purpose of philosophy with those whose minds and hearts have not been swallowed up by secularism. These ideas are poison for you.

I know far too much about you because you have talked about yourself online incessantly for years. Anyone who has seen you in action knows that you are a promoter of hatred and division.

Don't direct me to this or that post, not to a reference, nor do a quote. Rather, you can either explain simply and clearly in your own words what you mean by the higher levels of consciousness, and without metaphor or vague prose, or you show yourself to be just parrotting Weil's and Needleman's words without comprehension.

A higher level of consciousness is a higher level of conscious inclusion. As we are in Plato’s cave we fight amongst the trees. A higher level of consciousness experiences the life of the forest. Your emotional devotion to secularism prevents you from experiencing the forest for the trees or the distinction between higher mind and lower mind. The transcendent Source concept must be meaningless for the secular mindset because Man is considered supreme so its God is the Great Beast. To need other than what the Great Beast offers is an intolerable sin against God.

You take neither a big picture view, nor a long term one.

Your reply seems robotic, always using the same cliches and stock phrases, suggesting that you don't understand what you are writing, just parrotting, hence the incoherence of your response here.

A tip: explaining a concept involves something other than attacking the other. Now try again to explain the higher consciousness without crapping on me or "secularists" - if you can, which I doubt. No quotes - your own language. As I say, I suspect that you don't understand your source material, just a parrot, and I don't think you have the depth of thought or character to express yourself in positive terms.

Prove me wrong, if you can.

[Belinda]

The concept of "God" exists in many forms, whether necessary or not, it seems to me. Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is to define the terms of discourse. How might I define this concept, "God", in order to start a discussion that might be useful, if not necessary?

The concept that appeals to me is: "God" is a metaphor for "goodness", which may include other ideas, such as love, compassion, forgiveness, kindness, and respect. It is a concept of what are the best things about human beings. It doesn't have to be a concept of a supernatural, divine being or a super-intelligent alien that is manipulating earthlings.

It can be argued that human beings have an instinct, perhaps through evolution, to cooperate in order to survive as a species. Taken as a metaphor, then, "God" is an idea that can "save" human beings, in the sense of maximizing the probability of the survival of Homo sapiens by preventing the self-destruction of this species through human violence or careless use of the environment. This saving idea can be taken as the golden rule -- to treat oneself and others with kindness and respect.

The two greatest commandments depicted in the New Testament (to love God and to love neighbor) may be interpreted as: (1) to want to do what's good (i.e., the Golden Rule), and (2) to follow that rule.

Of course, Homo sapiens may still fail to survive due to events such as an incurable world-wide epidemic, or a massive asteroid hitting the earth, or the dying of the sun. But if human beings learn to work together on life-affirming activities, humanity might be better able to prevent human disease, detect and destroy threatening asteroids, or colonize other areas of the universe before the sun swallows up the earth.

You present ideas of God and the Golden Rule very lucidly and simply.You update traditional language for the benefit of moderns without losing any of the simplicity of the original. I agree with all you write. Do please repeat all of what you write above in the other philosophy forum within the thread about criticisms of the Golden Rule.

[Nick_A]

The concept of "God" exists in many forms, whether necessary or not, it seems to me. Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is to define the terms of discourse. How might I define this concept, "God", in order to start a discussion that might be useful, if not necessary?

The concept that appeals to me is: "God" is a metaphor for "goodness", which may include other ideas, such as love, compassion, forgiveness, kindness, and respect. It is a concept of what are the best things about human beings. It doesn't have to be a concept of a supernatural, divine being or a super-intelligent alien that is manipulating earthlings.

It can be argued that human beings have an instinct, perhaps through evolution, to cooperate in order to survive as a species. Taken as a metaphor, then, "God" is an idea that can "save" human beings, in the sense of maximizing the probability of the survival of Homo sapiens by preventing the self-destruction of this species through human violence or careless use of the environment. This saving idea can be taken as the golden rule -- to treat oneself and others with kindness and respect.

The two greatest commandments depicted in the New Testament (to love God and to love neighbor) may be interpreted as: (1) to want to do what's good (i.e., the Golden Rule), and (2) to follow that rule.

Of course, Homo sapiens may still fail to survive due to events such as an incurable world-wide epidemic, or a massive asteroid hitting the earth, or the dying of the sun. But if human beings learn to work together on life-affirming activities, humanity might be better able to prevent human disease, detect and destroy threatening asteroids, or colonize other areas of the universe before the sun swallows up the earth.

IYO why have we proven our collective selves incapable of goodness? Regardless of the finest speeches having been spoken all over the world, everything remains the same. Why then IYO is humanity incapable of the golden rule if it seems to benefit all?

[Nick_A]

Greta

I know far too much about you because you have talked about yourself online incessantly for years. Anyone who has seen you in action knows that you are a promoter of hatred and division.

The fact that you would assert that I talk about myself as something special is just silly. You write without thinking but just automatic expressions of loyalty to the secular progressive agenda.

Of course I promote hatred and division. Anyone supporting the essential non secularized teachings of Jesus and Socrates will do the same.

Jesus was killed for rocking the boat and questioning the results of the supremacy of dominant religious hypocrisy. This attitude made Jesus a promoter of hate and divisiveness in the eyes of those in power so had to be killed.

Socrates was killed for impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens. He proved his hatred and divisive nature by introducing common sense which is simply intolerable. What could be worse than questioning the dictates of the god of the Great Beast.

So yes, the ideas which I support and discuss must be expressions of hatred and division. It is the nature of these ideas questioning the supremacy of secular intelligence. At least I haven't been killed yet which is at least partial compensation for annoying the Great Beast.

[Reflex]

“Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” Socrates

It's about time you admitted it after hitting me with major ad hominem attacks nonstop for years!

From what I’ve seen, this is a classic example of the pot calling a kettle black.

[Nick_A]

“Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” Socrates

It's about time you admitted it after hitting me with major ad hominem attacks nonstop for years!

From what I’ve seen, this is a classic example of the pot calling a kettle black.

Be careful reflex or you will be accused of racism for insinuating that something is wrong with "black." You will be followed by the thought police and reeducated if necessary. It will be for your own good since the secular progressive experts will have you back on the road to balance and normalcy.

[Reflex]

It's about time you admitted it after hitting me with major ad hominem attacks nonstop for years!

From what I’ve seen, this is a classic example of the pot calling a kettle black.

Be careful reflex or you will be accused of racism for insinuating that something is wrong with "black." You will be followed by the thought police and reeducated if necessary. It will be for your own good since the secular progressive experts will have you back on the road to balance and normalcy.

Normalcy? Nah. I'm too far gone for that to ever work.

[Greta]

“Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” Socrates

It's about time you admitted it after hitting me with major ad hominem attacks nonstop for years!

From what I’ve seen, this is a classic example of the pot calling a kettle black.

You did not see his all-out assault on me here for months before I fought back. This is a lot like like school. The girl next to you keeps pinching you but the moment you fight back you are the one blamed for disruption. It's an old game. Some can see through it, some can't.

[Greta]

Of course I promote hatred and division.

Thank you. Case closed.

Do you consider acts of violence against secularism and/or secularists in the current social setting to be acceptable for the sake of your cause?

You appear to just be self-indulgently expressing their hostility under the guide of truth telling. Yet has anyone changed their mind on a forum because someone was showing hatred towards them? What are you really wanting to achieve?

[Reflex]

You did not see his all-out assault on me here for months before I fought back. This is a lot like like school. The girl next to you keeps pinching you but the moment you fight back you are the one blamed for disruption. It's an old game. Some can see through it, some can't.

A true story:

When I was working, I asked an associate whether he, a black man, was more comfortable with the race situation in Louisiana where his was from and often visited, or here in California. He must have seen the surprise on my face when he said Louisiana was better because he went on to explain that in Louisiana he knew how people felt about him as a black man. If they didn't like him because he was black, there was never any doubt because they'd let him know up front. But here in California, people are more subtle about their prejudice so there is often a lack of clarity.

The moral of the story is this: people don't like agnosticism because there's no clarity; they don't know where they are coming from — especially when their sentiments and and philosophy are incongruent.

P.S. Don't pretend innocence. How many times have you associated iron-age gods with theism?

[Lacewing]

people don't like agnosticism

What people? Stop pretending that you speak for the Universe.

because there's no clarity

Own it. Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it's not real for someone else. You ought to know this better than anyone!

they don't know where they are coming from

Who is "they", and what the fuck do you know?

It is clear to many people here that Nick is a ding-dong, and Greta speaks with intelligence. Just because you want to be contrary... you end up looking pretty stupid too.

[Nick_A]

Of course I promote hatred and division.

Thank you. Case closed.

Do you consider acts of violence against secularism and/or secularists in the current social setting to be acceptable for the sake of your cause?

You appear to just be self-indulgently expressing their hostility under the guide of truth telling. Yet has anyone changed their mind on a forum because someone was showing hatred towards them? What are you really wanting to achieve?

Yes, even though the teachings of Jesus and Socrates which question the secular assertion that it supplies human meaning and purpose promote violence and division to the point that some may be killed as were Jesus and Socrates, I still support and defend them as essential philosophy. It is an ancient struggle. I side with Jesus and Socrates while you side with the Great Beast and join in its condemnation of those who doubt the supremacy of the Beast.. We have chosen our paths.

[Lacewing]

I side with Jesus and Socrates

You don't even know who Jesus and Socrates are!!! Stop making up shit so that you can feel good about siding with it.

[Nick_A]

It's about time you admitted it after hitting me with major ad hominem attacks nonstop for years!

From what I’ve seen, this is a classic example of the pot calling a kettle black.

You did not see his all-out assault on me here for months before I fought back. This is a lot like like school. The girl next to you keeps pinching you but the moment you fight back you are the one blamed for disruption. It's an old game. Some can see through it, some can't.

Don't feel bad, I didn't see this all out assault either. What we have learned is that Greta considers philosophical ideas of a certain quality to be an assault by definition. They simply cannot be tolerated. Just be happy you aren't a kid in school having to endure these negative reactions as soon as you express meaningful questions. For many of these unfortunates it is easier to give up and just become a mindless snowflake rather than endure this condemnation.