Understanding the religious mindset

[seeds]

Ah, but by sheer unspoken default, atheists do indeed believe in something. They believe in the "chance hypothesis."

I don't know that that's true. I don't necessarily think that what is manifested, or what we're experiencing, is by chance. It seems to me that there is awareness and perfection... perhaps moving throughout all.

Lacewing, please describe for me what aspect of "awareness and perfection" is responsible for shaping the fabric of reality into a hundred billion galaxies of suns and planets.

I respect the fact that you may be reluctant to believe that the universe could be a higher mind with a centralized consciousness (or "Agent") who is capable of willfully transforming its own mental essence into anything it desires...

...(just like we can do within the inner-context of our own minds, so this isn't without precedent).

However, if it is indeed true that the universe has no controlling agency, then you need to provide a plausible explanation as to how the "machine-like" workings of the universe came about through what you are calling "awareness and perfection."

In other words, you need to point to the specific feature of "awareness and perfection" that literally possesses control over the material fabric of the universe in such a way that not only allowed it to shape the fabric into the unfathomably stable setting of the earth and its perfect source of heat, light, and bio-powering energy,...



...but also allowed it to "equip" (furnish/outfit) the earth with every possible ingredient necessary to awaken us into existence.

My point is that you simply cannot attribute the manifestation of the vast and intricately detailed workings of the universe to something as nebulous and indistinct as "awareness and perfection" and expect that to be a satisfying resolution to the mystery.

The point is that atheism is indeed a "mindset" just like all the rest

I'm not sure how. Atheists are not typically following beliefs of anything in particular.

But they are following a particular belief.

Clearly, if they (the hardcore atheists) completely reject the possibility of a higher (transcendent) consciousness being responsible for the creation of the universe, then, again, by DEFAULT, they believe in (follow) "materialism."

They are under the thrall of a materialistic mindset that comes with its own array of cheerleaders and preachers (such as Richard Dawkins, for example) who mistakenly believe that evolution somehow rules-out a universal Creator.

the "...not believing in something..." defense offered by atheists comes with some unspoken (yet profound) implications.

Such as??

The statement was merely a re-affirmation of my initial assertion...

Ah, but by sheer unspoken default, atheists do indeed believe in something. They believe in the "chance hypothesis."

Again, Lacewing, hardcore atheists are, in essence, "materialists" who worship a god called "Chance" that somehow managed to "stumblebum" its way into creating a context of order that defies our comprehension.

All of which (to me) is pure and utter nonsense.
_______

[Age]

If you think it seems useful to be OPEN to the naturally divine, dynamically flowing, in ever present moment, then WHY do you NOT try BEING Truly OPEN some time, when LOOKING AT the words under the label of "age", just to SEE what ACTUALLY HAPPENS and OCCURS?

I certainly have done that, Age...

Okay.

and I continue to do that.

Even BETTER.

However, you have shown (and continue to show) that you are often in error or missing things...

Being Truly OPEN does NOT ALLOW PRESUMPTION.

You are OBVIOUSLY PRESUMING things BEFORE CLARITY is GAINED.

Now, ONCE AGAIN, you are making a CLAIM that I OFTEN am in ERROR or MISSING things.

Will you PROVIDE a LIST of just SOME of those OFTEN times where I have ACTUALLY been in ERROR or MISSING things.

If yes, then GREAT. You have backed up and supported YOUR CLAIM, and so we then, at least, have some thing now to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

But if you will not, then WHY NOT?

Also, and let us NOT FORGET that 'you', "yourself", "lacewing", are ALSO OFTEN in ERROR and MISSING things, correct? Or, are you NEVER in ERROR nor MISSING things? Or, are you in ERROR and MISSING things only VERY RARELY?

and that you are intoxicated with your beliefs and projections to the point of delusion.

And here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of when is COMPLETELY and utterly NOT able to SEE nor HEAR what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, BECAUSE of their currently HELD ONTO ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which they have NOT YET been able to ESCAPE. This one here is, literally, STUCK in its OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

You do not hear/understand what is being said,

And, 'you', "lacewing", have CLEARLY SHOWN and COMPLETELY PROVEN that 'you' are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY INCAPABLE of HEARING and UNDERSTANDING what has been CONTINUALLY SAID here.

and you are generally closed to anything except the same endless and repetitive loop you appear to be in...

And, 'you', "lacewing" are ACTUALLY CLOSED to ANY thing except what 'you' BELIEVE is true.

which is not expansive or dynamic... and is too full of your separatist ego.

So much for 'your' CLAIM that you are Truly OPEN.

You have and are PROVING OTHERWISE.

None of that reflects any kind of naturally divine, dynamically flowing, present moment, compelling truth.

If you say and BELIEVE SO.

And, what do you BELIEVE that you were, supposedly, Truly OPEN to here EXACTLY?

'you', "lacewing", are SHOWING that you are NOT OPEN, but instead you are SHOWING and PROVING that you continually make unsubstantiated CLAIMS, BELIEVE that 'I' am, and do, some things, and PROJECT what 'you', "yourself", do. So, THANK YOU.

[Age]

Papa Oscar

If this was to 'me', then;

'I' accepted what 'you' said three times.

'I' asked 'you' four questions, in order to gain more clarity. And,

'I' expressed what 'you' appear to have.

And the BEST 'you' can do is just say, "papa oscar".

[Lacewing]

...

As usual, your response is childishly defensive with reactive accusations. Not worth responding to.

[Age]

Yeah typical, in my country people don't receive lots of money after they hallucinate. Btw you are SO SPECIAL and far-sighted for having hallucinations, ffs I also had many for decades. Almost always saw through them (kinda).

Do you actually have a reasonable point to make?

Do you? You described a pretty standard psychotic break, with flames and God talking and voices shouting etc. There are at least 4-5 users on this forum with various forms of psychosis.
My original point btw was that no matter how unlikely our world is, adding some form of God to it seems to make it even unlikelier, unless the world works by magic and we can throw all reason out the window.

And YET here 'we' are where it is 'you', "atla", who is CONTINUALLY adding God to "our world".

[Atla]

If say, 1 in 10^500 worlds can produce little humans who can create computers, then a world which produced a Berkeleyan God is more like 1 in 10^500^500.

It only has to have happened just one time in the infinite depths of past eternity. After that, the creation of a Berkeleyan God (such as you, for example) can be achieved through the simplicity of one ecstatic moment in the backseat of a Chevy Impala at a drive-in theatre.

Btw, while we are on the subject of 10^500 worlds, please describe for me the purpose of the existence of a universe that is completely devoid of any trace of life and consciousness. What would its inner-workings consist of?
_______

Why would a world need to have any purpose in order to exist? And why wouldn't one Berkeleyen God world need 10^500^500 other worlds void of Berkeleyen Gods, to exist?

Again: the Berkeleyen God is a being that probably requires a world with an order that's even far more unfathomably unlikely, than our world is. So your whole argument shoots itself in the foot, it tries to explain unlikelihood with even much more unlikelihood.

[Age]

It cannot be since Hund backwards does not spell Gott, it spells Dnuh

Gott
Ttog
Tag - day, daylight

The glorious light of day shines through all who embrace the chosen language; while the English heretics can roll with the dogs in the dirt.

You clearly talk illogical shit so roll in it.

The Europeans, when the English seemed always to get the upper hand in battles across the vast oceans, referred to them as Insidious Albion, they believed God somehow had some hand to play in the affairs of the English.

BRITAIN ....breaks down to....BR__IT__AIN

The IT in the middle, once removed ..could be the AI component of the God system...leaves BRAIN. ...and let's face it, without God's hand in the minds of the British that formulated the world into its current state, would be a far worse shithole of corruption as in what the gold hungry non scientific that of Spain and Portugal, indeed France would have rendered it.

Do you SERIOUSLY BELIEVE that the 'current world', in the days when this is written, is better because of "british" people?

So yeah, the righteous God fearers on the whole were reincarnated through British stock. And yes through the synapses of those folk derived from from many languages, natural language etymology was left to wither in the face of the LOGIC God insisted on the language that was destined to be THE common protocol for communication across the globe.


I'd truly be interested in the phonetics of the alphabet that homophonically can translate as actual words in other LAN_gauges.

,..and I do hope U understand Y I use LAN (a Local Area Network) as a gauge. It is where our uniqueness ace began, indeed our RACE == R_ace.

Y do humans have a RACE?

Y = why?
U = you, yew, ewe
O = owe, oh
R = ah, our
I = eye
G = gee
C = see, Sea, = sin waves = the light.


The above may seem like wack job material to you, but it has far more rationale than the bollocks U just posted.

GOD = gee OD.

And, if 'you', "attofishpi", were brought up in and with ANY other language could you then NOT be able to SEE things like this in those languages?

[Lacewing]

Lacewing, please describe for me what aspect of "awareness and perfection" is responsible for shaping the fabric of reality into a hundred billion galaxies of suns and planets.

Obviously it is difficult to describe concepts beyond human models. I do not believe human stories can encompass that which is beyond the human reality and its limitations of senses and understanding. Throughout nature, I see a kind of awareness and perfection that "knows what it's doing", as it explores, expands, perfects, and dances. It also appears to be connected, all throughout. I see no reason to think that there's a puppet-master for such a thing -- rather, the creative force drives itself from within.

I respect the fact that you may be reluctant to believe that the universe could be a higher mind with a centralized consciousness (or "Agent") who is capable of willfully transforming its own mental essence into anything it desires...

I don't see how that is much different from what I just said. I'm just considering that there is no division or separateness.

However, if it is indeed true that the universe has no controlling agency

It directs itself... not in human terms.

The point is that atheism is indeed a "mindset" just like all the rest

I'm not sure how. Atheists are not typically following beliefs of anything in particular.

But they are following a particular belief.

I don't agree. There is nothing to follow if something simply hasn't been demonstrated to exist.

Again, Lacewing, hardcore atheists are, in essence, "materialists"

That's your belief. I do not agree with it. I see more potential than "this is this" and "that is that". Such extreme definitions are human products for control -- they do not fit the vast potential of the Universe.

All of which (to me) is pure and utter nonsense.

Well, it's your own opinion.

[Age]

...

As usual, your response is childishly defensive with reactive accusations. Not worth responding to.

You CLAIM, just like "immanuel can" does, that my posts are "not worth responding to" or "not going to bother responding to" BECAUSE 'you' BOTH CAN NOT. if 'you', just like the "other", DID ACTUALLY ANSWER my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS Honestly, then you CONTRADICT what you have PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN. And, because BOTH of 'you' CAN NOT substantiate YOUR CLAIMS you use the, "not worth responding to", EXCUSE.

'you', 'lacewing", OBVIOUSLY can NOT back up and support YOUR OWN CLAIMS. So, let us just leave it as THIS.

Or, do you have MORE CLAIMS, which you want to MAKE here, but will NOT substantiate, because you can NOT?

[Age]

If say, 1 in 10^500 worlds can produce little humans who can create computers, then a world which produced a Berkeleyan God is more like 1 in 10^500^500.

It only has to have happened just one time in the infinite depths of past eternity. After that, the creation of a Berkeleyan God (such as you, for example) can be achieved through the simplicity of one ecstatic moment in the backseat of a Chevy Impala at a drive-in theatre.

Btw, while we are on the subject of 10^500 worlds, please describe for me the purpose of the existence of a universe that is completely devoid of any trace of life and consciousness. What would its inner-workings consist of?
_______

Why would a world need to have any purpose in order to exist? And why wouldn't one Berkeleyen God world need 10^500^500 other worlds void of Berkeleyen Gods, to exist?

Again: the Berkeleyen God is a being that probably requires a world with an order that's even far more unfathomably unlikely, than our world is. So your whole argument shoots itself in the foot, it tries to explain unlikelihood with even much more unlikelihood.

WHY do 'you', human beings, TRY TO "argue" over if 'something' or if 'nothing' created the Universe, as though the Universe ACTUALLY BEGAN, especially considering the FACT that thee ACTUAL PROOF of what ACTUALLY OCCURS is HERE-NOW before ALL of 'you' to PLAINLY OBSERVE and SEE?

[Age]

Lacewing, please describe for me what aspect of "awareness and perfection" is responsible for shaping the fabric of reality into a hundred billion galaxies of suns and planets.

Obviously it is difficult to describe concepts beyond human models.

And OBVIOUSLY you have NOT got ANY concepts beyond human models?

I do not believe human stories can encompass that which is beyond the human reality and its limitations of senses and understanding.

And the reason WHY 'you', "lacewing", 'try to' BELITTLE ANY one who even just attempts to EXPLAIN things, or tell a STORY, about what is beyond what little old 'you' already know is because 'you' BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that this is an IMPOSSIBILITY

And WHY EXACTLY could a word like 'God', and a story about 'God', NOT be what ACTUALLY encompasses and explains BEYOND what 'your' own little limited brain BELIEVES is true, and which can NOT even envision what could POSSIBLY be ACTUALLY True?

Just because one human being, which is, ALREADY ADMITTED, to be LIMITED of senses and understanding BELIEVES OTHER human beings could NEVER POSSIBLY KNOW ANY thing beyond that 'one' human being does, does NOT mean that that 'one' human being is even close to A truth, let alone being close to thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Human beings 'stories' CAN, and HAVE ALREADY, ENCOMPASSED what which is BEYOND the one human being labelled "lacewing" here, in this forum, and that one's OWN VERY LIMITED senses and understanding.

What this appears to KEEP FORGETTING is the FACT that human beings KEEP EVOLVING.

Throughout nature, I see a kind of awareness and perfection that "knows what it's doing", as it explores, expands, perfects, and dances.

And, this 'kind of awareness and perfection' CAN BE explained in just one word, known as 'God', of which the story OF, CAN explain FULLY EXACTLY HOW and WHY this kind of Awareness and PERFECTION ACTUALLY EXISTS, in the FIRST PLACE.

You even keep REPEATING that you SEE an 'awareness and perfection', so then that means, to you, there is ACTUALLY One, so WHY can you NOT just accept that this One, Awareness and PERFECTION, COULD BE the One KNOWN by the name 'God'?

Obviously the STORY OF this One, has NOT YET been formulated in a way so that 'it' has been FULLY EXPLAINED YET, in the days when this was written, in a way so that 'it' is FULLY UNDERSTOOD, but this in NO WAY means that 'it' is being formulated and will be EXPLAINED in a way that does ENCOMPASS ALL.

It also appears to be connected, all throughout. I see no reason to think that there's a puppet-master for such a thing -- rather, the creative force drives itself from within.

Which is EXACTLY what I have BEEN SAYING. But you consistently keep fooling and convincing "yourself" that I have been SAYING OTHERWISE.

Is it at all POSSIBLE to you that the Creative Energy, is NOT actually forcing ANY thing, but is ACTUALLY driving and Creating EVERY thing, which is JUST Itself, from within, Itself.

To you could there just be a Natural Energy within EVERY thing just driving Everything, from within.

Could the "puppet-master" term, just be referring to 'That', which is WITHIN, which is just driving/controlling ALL?

In other words could the "puppet-master" term just be referring to what you call the creative force driving Itself from within?

You are ALL just 'trying to' DESCRIBE the EXACT SAME Thing, just in your own words and language, which you have all, INDIVIDUALLY, grown up to use and say.

I respect the fact that you may be reluctant to believe that the universe could be a higher mind with a centralized consciousness (or "Agent") who is capable of willfully transforming its own mental essence into anything it desires...

I don't see how that is much different from what I just said. I'm just considering that there is no division or separateness.

You have also explained 'this' MORE SUCCINCTLY by describing how the 'Awareness and PERFECTION', driving/mastering/puppeteering ALL-OF-THIS, is from WITHIN, instead of how some BELIEVE this controlling/creating has happened, from BEYOND.

However, if it is indeed true that the universe has no controlling agency

It directs itself... not in human terms.

Again, thee One controlling/puppeteering/creating/energy Agency, which is Directing ALL-OF-THIS, is just WITHIN EVERY and ALL 'things', which, in turn, ultimately DIRECTS Itself - thee Whole.

I'm not sure how. Atheists are not typically following beliefs of anything in particular.

But they are following a particular belief.

I don't agree. There is nothing to follow if something simply hasn't been demonstrated to exist.

What "atheists" follow is the BELIEF that God does NOT exist.

They FOLLOW this IDEA/BELIEF by ONLY LOOKING FOR evidence for this BELIEF/IDEA, and thus also ONLY SEEING 'that', which is, again, BELIEVED to be 'evidence' for the BELIEF, IDEA, and CLAIM that God does NOT exist.

Again, Lacewing, hardcore atheists are, in essence, "materialists"

That's your belief. I do not agree with it.

Do you class 'yourself" as a "hardcore atheist"?

I see more potential than "this is this" and "that is that". Such extreme definitions are human products for control -- they do not fit the vast potential of the Universe.

Well, OBVIOUSLY, IF, and WHEN, what 'this is' IS FULLY UNDERSTOOD, then 'this is this'. And, WHEN how 'that is' IS FULLY UNDERSTOOD, then 'that is that'.

What EXACTLY do you envision and/or BELIEVE human beings are 'trying to' control here? (I, AGAIN, suggest NOT letting one's OWN personal Past Experiences get in the way of how they LOOK AT and SEE things, NOW).

And, if you KNOW there IS a 'vast potential of the Universe', WHY is it NOT POSSIBLE that that 'vast potential' is BEING 'somewhat' ACTUATED WITHIN a species, which is EVOLVING to be able to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY and EVERY thing?

OF COURSE the human brain is LIMITED. BUT, the human being IS EVOLVING, including the brain.

All of which (to me) is pure and utter nonsense.

Well, it's your own opinion.

And when 'you' say, "... is pure and utter nonsense", to respond to just what "others" think, then they could also reply with:

'Well, it's your own opinion', also, correct?

[Dontaskme]

SEEDS


A universal Creator

Is unknowable.

If such an idea was real and true, if it was known by sentient life known as human, then this universal creator would be able to recreate itself, which would imply two, the creator and created. Which is impossible for one very good reason, try splitting yourself in two, into subject and object.

You speak nonsense just like everyone else. ITS OK though, to be stupid is that realisation that you believe you finally know everything when you don’t.

[Belinda]

Atla wrote:

Also, if you want to know, you probably see hidden messages in English words because in psychosis, mental content that should be separate, gets mixed together. The brain starts making connections between things that aren't actually connected. We start to see hidden patterns, hidden meanings everywhere, even where there are none.

Only when the subject is paranoid surely? Paranoid delusion means the subject thinks others intend harm. It is not paranoid to see connections between natural events where intentions don't apply.

[Belinda]

Lacewing wrote:

Obviously it is difficult to describe concepts beyond human models. I do not believe human stories can encompass that which is beyond the human reality and its limitations of senses and understanding. Throughout nature, I see a kind of awareness and perfection that "knows what it's doing", as it explores, expands, perfects, and dances. It also appears to be connected, all throughout. I see no reason to think that there's a puppet-master for such a thing -- rather, the creative force drives itself from within.

The force is called entropy and it is the opposite of creative. Creation 'struggles' against entropy and will eventually lose the ' battle'.

It would be nice if we could know that there was a huge Consciousness that loved us all while we lasted and will always remember us.

[Walker]

What the heck is that supposed to mean?
_______

It’s a rich metaphor leaning literal.

Ah, I see. If it's leaning toward "literal," then what you are saying is that you want to eat the elephant for lunch. However, because it is so large, there will be leftovers. Got it. (Is your real name "Chauncey Gardener" by any chance? )
_______

That's one way of looking at it.

*

For humans to exist an aspect of reality is the Smorgasborg of consumption both in the doing and the planning. That aspect can be large, or small.

How significant is consumption in terms of perpetual attention? Not so much for those who produce, for they can always produce, but consumers can’t always consume. All those folks slaving away in Chinese factories spend much of their attention on producing, not consuming, and perhaps while producing dreaming of stuff.

For many who rely on shopping therapy, dialogue about reality and the meaning of life centers around where did you get it and what did it cost. However, the witnessing of this tendency, or recognizing that in many ways folks have the same dispositions and proclivities as Paleolithic ancestors who hunted and ate large, meaty samples of reality such as an elephant, or whatever passed as such in the olden days, does not necessarily mean that the observer has a hankering for an especially large flank steak, or prefers the prospect of a winter chewing on elephant jerky culled from the feast that will live in legend as the good days when “the beer flowed like wine.”

Those hungry cave men probably hunted the little elephants. Toddlers. Those paintings of pelt wearers taking on tons of fighting rage doesn’t make a lot of sense unless the tribe of fightin’ men was huge and willing to sustain heavy losses for the glory of the tribe, or to impress the women-folk with the means to provide the makings for a good meal. When they went fishing they told fishing stories, when they went hunting they told elephant stories. Tall tales. Makes more sense for those folks in olden days to pick off the young, small elephants, because that’s nature’s way. Predators weigh the risk/reward and pick off the easier targets, the old and the young, and a young elephant is obviously less risk than an old elephant, and probably tastier especially if naturally tenderized with a jolt of fear chemicals while still alive and running for its life. With time and with his big brain, nimble fingers and opposing thumbs, the human redefined risk assessment and the meaning of an easy target, so that now human invention has expanded his capacity to prey upon prey in its prime. Thus the world and everything in it, reality, becomes his oyster, a consumable. What varies is the method of hunting and gathering. Some actually prey on elephants. Some prey on knowledge via the neural net of energy transmissions that literally wraps the planet up in an invisible web of frequencies, seeking receivers. Some prey on the system.

The world is the elephant. The elephant is reality. The world is in you. The world is yours.

Think of all those looking to the sky as they walk Norte, seeing all the possibilities in the moon.

So often such prompts brevity.

Gracias for your indulgence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ilr7oLPBnao