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

[Nick_A]

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.

Nonsense! You too can be helped. Never underestimate the power and goodwill of the government to make you normal. It was explained to winston in 1984:

“You are a slow learner, Winston."
"How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Once you are finally indoctrinated into the acceptable belief in relative pragmatism you will immediately feel normal and sane. You will be grateful to your government for the gift of normalcy and sanity until you pass away

[Greta]

people don't like agnosticism

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

Yes, what people?

Reflex is speaking as though beliefs are a choice. Does he truly believe in the claims of his preferred faith/s or is he as unsure about the nature of reality as we are and simply choosing a religio-political side?

The feigning of belief is a choice - the choice of a "tribe" - but actual belief is surely simply what seems most likely to you or what you believe you can create. Reflex and Nick sound to me more like lay politicians, not lay mystics.

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.

Cheers LW. I would say that none of us know where we are coming from - life is very strange, confusing and complex - although some seem to find that idea to be intolerably disempowering. Fear of humility?

Still no explanation of the "higher mind", rather just a rather childish "onward Christian soldiers" theme.

Nick's claims in the "intelligence" thread comes down to what Sagan and Einstein and so many scientists have said for so long - there's a lot more going on in reality than the little dramas on the surface of Earth. Plato called the small worldview shadows on the cave wall, which has become Nick's mantra. Ironically, Nick loves little Earthly fights and rhetorical gaming. Hence, he's not engaged in "higher" - just mucking around in the basement with the rest of us slobs. The poor schmuck takes himself much too seriously

The way he speaks, it's as if you and I haven't banged on about the marvels of nature and the cosmos - for years, mind! So he clearly doesn't read or absorb our posts, and rather just cherry picks "hot" words to play games with.

It would be great to have input from calm, sensible believers who can state their case in a mature manner, without trying to elevate themselves by pulling others down, without oozing the reflexive Republican/Democrat schism.

[Reflex]

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.

Nonsense! You too can be helped. Never underestimate the power and goodwill of the government to make you normal. It was explained to winston in 1984:

“You are a slow learner, Winston."
"How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Once you are finally indoctrinated into the acceptable belief in relative pragmatism you will immediately feel normal and sane. You will be grateful to your government for the gift of normalcy and sanity until you pass away

LOL! They better hurry. I'm already in my 60's.

Unless they are only kidding, I think Lacewing's and Greta's comments are very telling. I mean, saying "Case closed" in response to "Of course I promote hatred and division" (taken out of context, of course) and Lacewing saying, "Stop pretending that you speak for the Universe," is indicative of a shallowness akin to college students so terrified of discussion that they shut their ears to opposing views and feel compelled to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being racist, dogmatic, intolerant, hateful, etc. Those kinds of comments have absolutely nothing to with what is actually being discussed; i.e., human nature in general.

Greta said, "Reflex is speaking as though beliefs are a choice." No, I'm not. I'm saying making a genuine effort to correlate one's sentiment and philosophy is a choice (assuming, of course, the person has a philosophy the wherewithal to make the effort).

Greta also said, "Still no explanation of the "higher mind", rather just a rather childish "onward Christian soldiers" theme." This is interesting and somewhat bewildering since Greta knows exactly what it means.

[Lacewing]

Lacewing saying, "Stop pretending that you speak for the Universe," is indicative of a shallowness akin to college students so terrified of discussion that they shut their ears to opposing views and feel compelled to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being racist, dogmatic, intolerant, hateful, etc. Those kinds of comments have absolutely nothing to with what is actually being discussed; i.e., human nature in general.

YOUR OWN RESPONSE has absolutely nothing to do with what I was referring to.

You told a story and then equated it to a broad meaningless statement suited for your own purposes: "people don't like agnosticism because there's no clarity". No, YOU think there's no clarity and YOU don't like it. You can't just assign your limited awareness into broad sweeping statements... as Trump does... and expect it to be true because you put the words together and want to believe it. Such shallowness is easily representative of someone who is racist, dogmatic, intolerant, hateful, etc., and so terrified of A BROADER TRUTH which their ego-driven pea-brains cannot expand to accept, that they shut their ears to opposing views and feel compelled to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of whatever lies and lame-ass insults they can childishly think up. And if you try to impose your religious beliefs at the same time, you compound the level of idiocy a hundred-fold.

Nick has chosen to be master of his fantasy realm, and that agenda drives him without regard for sanity. What's your excuse for disregarding sanity?

[Reflex]

Lacewing saying, "Stop pretending that you speak for the Universe," is indicative of a shallowness akin to college students so terrified of discussion that they shut their ears to opposing views and feel compelled to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being racist, dogmatic, intolerant, hateful, etc. Those kinds of comments have absolutely nothing to with what is actually being discussed; i.e., human nature in general.

YOUR OWN RESPONSE has absolutely nothing to do with what I was referring to.

You told a story and then equated it to a broad meaningless statement suited for your own purposes: "people don't like agnosticism because there's no clarity". No, YOU think there's no clarity and YOU don't like it. You can't just assign your limited awareness into broad sweeping statements... as Trump does... and expect it to be true because you put the words together and want to believe it. Such shallowness is easily representative of someone who is racist, dogmatic, intolerant, hateful, etc., and so terrified of A BROADER TRUTH which their ego-driven pea-brains cannot expand to accept, that they shut their ears to opposing views and feel compelled to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of whatever lies and lame-ass insults they can childishly think up. And if you try to impose your religious beliefs at the same time, you compound the level of idiocy a hundred-fold.

Nick has chosen to be master of his fantasy realm, and that agenda drives him without regard for sanity. What's your excuse for disregarding sanity?

You answered your own question.

Look, i have no problem with what you believe, but allow me to draw lessons from life’s experiences. Whether it’s “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth,” the experience at my workplace or even the things said in this forum, experience confirms that agnosticism’s lack of clarity and consistency is not appreciated by most people. You may disagree with my conclusion and call names, but that’s okay. I won’t take it personally.

Agnosticism is the principle says that it is wrong to say that one knows or believes that a proposition is true without logically satisfactory evidence. That’s fine, but what counts as evidence and correlations are subjective. Something as simple as a bee seeing colors differently than we do is not evidence enough for some to conclude that not everyone is equipped with the same tools. Making it a point can be offensive and saying we all have those tools in different stages of development can also be offensive.

[Lacewing]

experience confirms that agnosticism’s lack of clarity and consistency is not appreciated by most people.

Does your experience acknowledge the lack of clarity and consistency in theism? Or are you skewed by your filters/agenda... so how reliable/truthful is that?

[Reflex]

experience confirms that agnosticism’s lack of clarity and consistency is not appreciated by most people.

Does your experience acknowledge the lack of clarity and consistency in theism?

Of course it does. That’s why I eschew commonly held beliefs.

[Lacewing]

experience confirms that agnosticism’s lack of clarity and consistency is not appreciated by most people.

Does your experience acknowledge the lack of clarity and consistency in theism?

Of course it does. That’s why I eschew commonly held beliefs.

So, if you see both, what is the significance of claiming one view's lack of clarity and consistency in the obvious shadow of another view's lack of clarity and consistency?

It seems that theists (moreso lately) have begun trying to accuse non-theist platforms of the very faults that theism is so full of. It's very strange... like an unconscious type of deflection that just doesn't land.

[Reflex]

Does your experience acknowledge the lack of clarity and consistency in theism?

Of course it does. That’s why I eschew commonly held beliefs.

So, if you see both, what is the significance of claiming one view's lack of clarity and consistency in the obvious shadow of another view's lack of clarity and consistency?

Reality is not a concept. Everything we say and believe (or don’t believe) is an interpretation and falls short of “Truth.” Rational thought does not demand “Truth,” but it does demand structure and lawfulness. But structure and lawfulness are interdependent; neither can exist without the other. Agnosticism, because it has no foundation, must rest its laurels on sentiments which are arbitrary end easily misplaced.

“God” and “no-God” each have logical and sociological consequences with effects measured over generations, and we ignore that at our own peril.

It seems that theists (moreso lately) have begun trying to accuse non-theist platforms of the very faults that theism is so full of. It's very strange... like an unconscious type of deflection that just doesn't land.

What else do you expect? The new atheists are the spittle of a bygone age and the bite back should be not be unexpected.

[Lacewing]

Reality is not a concept.

It isn't?

Everything we say and believe (or don’t believe) is an interpretation and falls short of “Truth.”

Does it? What is "Truth"?

Rational thought does not demand “Truth,”

It doesn't?

but it does demand structure and lawfulness. But structure and lawfulness are interdependent; neither can exist without the other.

Oh really?

Agnosticism, because it has no foundation, must rest its laurels on sentiments which are arbitrary end easily misplaced.

If it exists as a thought, it can be said to have a foundation. Whether or not you think it's a valid foundation, is your trip.

“God” and “no-God” each have logical and sociological consequences with effects measured over generations, and we ignore that at our own peril.

What peril?

The new atheists are the spittle of a bygone age and the bite back should be not be unexpected.

Nonsense you're making up.

[Nick_A]

Greta wrote

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 3:16 pm

Of course I promote hatred and division.

Thank you. Case closed.

Secularist assert human values are the result of the intelligence of the Great Beast so anyone questioning this brilliance must be promoting hatred and division. Case closed.

Is Jesus promoting hatred and division in this biblical passage? How are we to understand it? A secularist will call it meaningless and egoistic. Is there another perspective, a perspective essential to truly understand the necessity of a God concept?

Matthew 10:

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

[Greta]

Greta also said, "Still no explanation of the "higher mind", rather just a rather childish "onward Christian soldiers" theme." This is interesting and somewhat bewildering since Greta knows exactly what it means.

I am asking Nick to explain in his own words because his conduct makes clear that he is regurgitating without actual experience with that which he speaks about - a theoretician, and an ungrounded one.

You can rationalise his spread of division and hatred. I see that as completely at odds with the idea of accessing the "higher mind". Promoting hatred is the very most base possible behaviour. I am surprised that you accept and support that.

I thought you were better than that. My bad.

Look at his gaming now. After explicitly, and proudly, admitting that he promoted hatred and division - in those very words - now he's claiming that that is only an interpretation. Yet it was only a few posts ago - and you think this is credible behaviour?

You cannot possibly have missed that Nick is always trying to foster hatred and division.

Why do you close your eyes to it? Why do you believe that his fostering of hate is a good and positive thing, which you clearly do, given your unwavering support?

[Greta]

The new atheists are the spittle of a bygone age and the bite back should be not be unexpected.

Nonsense you're making up.

He couldn't resist the rhetorical flourish, but it's embarrassing nonsense, yes.

The "new atheists" (who detest that moniker) performed an invaluable service to society in reducing religion's hold on people through fear of damnation. They have probably saved millions of children from suffering the fear of hellfire and thus promoted human wellbeing, undoing a little of the damage done by the church in its hubris as unchallenged moral authority.

Religions in history have played an important role, but for modern theists to deny the ugly remnants in the church of more savage times and resent remedies for the damage religious superstition has caused, makes clear that the church still cares more about itself and its reputation than doing the right thing. It is that very closed tribal approach and resistance to secular influence that allowed churches to house, protect and promote paedophiles in their ranks until forced to account for their crimes by ... secular society.

Seemingly the Great Beast had to storm into God's house to rescue the children from being porked by paedo priests. Maybe the Great Beast isn't so bad after all? Certainly better than hypocritical theists.

If religions are to play a non-destructive role in modern societies, they need to accept that religions are not sole authorities on morality and the nature of reality - each faith is just one particular approach to problems of existence and organisation.

[Nick_A]

John 15:18

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.

Anything doubting the supremacy of secularism in the world must be hated. Jesus led the way. His teaching promoted hatred and division. I support them so expect to receive the same hatred. No surprise there.

[Greta]

John 15:18

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.

Anything doubting the supremacy of secularism in the world must be hated. Jesus led the way. His teaching promoted hatred and division. I support them so expect to receive the same hatred. No surprise there.

You are boorish, rude, patronising, dishonest, projecting, manipulative and you happily admit that you promote division and hatred and have no interest in building bridges or fostering understanding, only causing harm to those whom you believe deserve it.

In other words, you are a troll. End of story.