Philosophy Now Forum

The Inglorious One wrote:Nothing gives me greater comfort than knowing God's presence in my life is my life.

I think that's beautiful. Truly.

The Inglorious One wrote: When critics compare God to fairies or a flying spaghetti monster, there is little I can do but laugh at their ignorance.

I think they simply do not use the same framework that you do... and their response to it is as extreme as it feels to be told that one must abide by a god that one does not believe in. You wouldn't appreciate being bombarded by constant insistence that you believe in something that you didn't believe in -- and if you were told how bad you were not to. It's really quite cruel. Especially for a religion!

My hope is that everyone finds whatever works for them, to bring them the greatest levels of comfort and joy and inspiration. I do not believe that it can only be accomplished through one belief system.

The Inglorious One wrote:It's funny: the designator "God" is unacceptable and incomprehensible to them, but the idea of a quantum field giving birth to infinite universes is both comprehensible and acceptable even though it shares the same characteristics: both are atemporal, both give birth to contingencies, both are immutable and both are without beginning or end.

Yes. I think it's valuable to focus on what we have in common... not what face or theory we put on it. If it's about the magnificence and connectedness of it all (and possibly even about the sacredness and love of which we can feel collectively a part of), how wonderful is that? Isn't it okay that we have different methods that got us there? Isn't the most important thing that we got there? And for those who have no interest in such things, they're sacred too -- even if we wonder how they could stand to "miss out" on what we experience.

I think what instantly spoils it is when anyone wants to claim that they have the ultimate truth that everyone should agree with. It's just such a disrespectful thing to do when you're looking into the face of another sacred soul. How could any of us claim to have more awareness of what that sacred soul should be or do, than they have of themselves? If we would all just be responsible for ourselves, and what we contribute with our own energy/being, rather than fussing over methodologies and paths and stories, we might actually experience IN A WHOLE NEW WAY, the energy that is BEHIND all of the faces and theories!

Lacewing wrote:Well, my response was very thoughtful and respectful and honest -- even though I could not debate something that doesn't resonate for me (in the way it resonates for you). The fact that you don't see intelligence beyond your view, reveals much. Apparently, anything other than your view is invalid or useless? That is exactly what my response was in reference to: intoxication with an idea, the need to have the definitive answer, thinking that the walls/limits of your bubble are reflecting an ultimate reality and ultimate limits, and not accepting the validity of other people's viewpoints. For me, it doesn't matter WHAT the idea is... it's about what you're doing with it. To me it appears that you are demonstrating much of what I was talking about... and yet you don't see the connections. So I guess we are nonsensical to each other! Ah well... we tried.

I agree, your response was thoughtful respectful and honest. However it was very safe as most of your posts are, borderline spiritual claptrap, it totally avoided addressing any points in my OP so i don't consider it particularly intelligent.

The Inglorious One wrote:When critics compare God to fairies or a flying spaghetti monster, there is little I can do but laugh at their ignorance. There is nothing I can say or do that will convince them that the word "God" designates a living presence that is ontologically distinct from the material universe but not apart from it. It's funny: the designator "God" is unacceptable and incomprehensible to them, but the idea of a quantum field giving birth to infinite universes is both comprehensible and acceptable even though it shares the same characteristics: both are atemporal, both give birth to contingencies, both are immutable and both are without beginning or end.

Well said, finally an intelligent post.

attofishpi wrote: I agree, your response was thoughtful respectful and honest. However it was very safe as most of your posts are,

Safe? Hardly. I put myself out there for all kinds of snickering and ridicule. And if you could see some of the threats that have come my way for simply speaking of how I see things... if I were being timid or safe, I wouldn't be posting at all.

attofishpi wrote:borderline spiritual claptrap, it totally avoided addressing any points in my OP so i don't consider it particularly intelligent.

That's because you find your own view so supremely intelligent -- which others may not agree with. So if "not addressing your points as you present them", is the measuring stick for intelligence... have fun with that. I don't see people rushing forward to do it your way, so why do you put the blame on everyone else, instead of considering that maybe you're a bit too much on your own trip? Isn't that a good question for any of us to ask ourselves... or do we just always blame other people for not thinking as we do?

Lacewing wrote: I think they simply do not use the same framework that you do... and their response to it is as extreme as it feels to be told that one must abide by a god that one does not believe in. You wouldn't appreciate being bombarded by constant insistence that you believe in something that you didn't believe in -- and if you were told how bad you were not to. It's really quite cruel. Especially for a religion!

Noted, but it goes both ways. Is it any less cruel to deprive people their livelihood because of their religious beliefs? Indeed, the pendulum has swung the other way.

My hope is that everyone finds whatever works for them, to bring them the greatest levels of comfort and joy and inspiration. I do not believe that it can only be accomplished through one belief system.

I agree, but I do not think being a smart-ass (e.g., Hobbes) brings much joy or inspiration to oneself or others.

Yes. I think it's valuable to focus on what we have in common... not what face or theory we put on it. If it's about the magnificence and connectedness of it all (and possibly even about the sacredness and love of which we can feel collectively a part of), how wonderful is that? Isn't it okay that we have different methods that got us there? Isn't the most important thing that we got there? And for those who have no interest in such things, they're sacred too -- even if we wonder how they could stand to "miss out" on what we experience.

To quote from book out there on the fringe: "It matters little what idea of the Father you may entertain as long as you are spiritually acquainted with the ideal of his infinite and eternal nature.”

I think what instantly spoils it is when anyone wants to claim that they have the ultimate truth that everyone should agree with. It's just such a disrespectful thing to do when you're looking into the face of another sacred soul. How could any of us claim to have more awareness of what that sacred soul should be or do, than they have of themselves? If we would all just be responsible for ourselves, and what we contribute with our own energy/being, rather than fussing over methodologies and paths and stories, we might actually experience IN A WHOLE NEW WAY, the energy that is BEHIND all of the faces and theories!

I saw this in another forum and it gave me a lot of food for thought: "A human being is the relating of a relation -- a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, eternal and the temporal, freedom and necessity -- relating to itself." I imagine this would have not made any sense a hundred years ago, but given what we know today, there is nothing at all to say this is not the case.

The Inglorious One wrote: Is it any less cruel to deprive people their livelihood because of their religious beliefs? Indeed, the pendulum has swung the other way.

I can see that... and I do think things are getting a bit tough for theists. Again, I go back to, we have to stop telling each other how to be. It's just too disrespectful. Everyone can worship the god of their choice... or none at all... and it's all perfect. If there are theists who do not honor that, then they are as much of the problem as anyone. That's my viewpoint anyway. And I have very dear theist friends... but they know not to preach to me, or it will ruin our relationship. We just focus on the "spirit" that we connect on. So I know it's possible.

The Inglorious One wrote: I do not think being a smart-ass (e.g., Hobbes) brings much joy or inspiration to oneself or others.

I think it's kind of a lame demonstration of what one is capable of. There are times that I can really get a giggle out of intelligent smart-assery (?) -- but I don't like mean-spiritedness. When I joined online discussions 2 years ago, I was horrified at how people spoke to each other. But it has helped me to refine and challenge my own thoughts about the full scope of "human creative potential"... and my ability to accept it all as part of the whole. Even when it's really dark and ugly... I've been practicing NOT separating it out... but trying to dance with it in a useful way. Otherwise I would be controlling what I accept/love of the whole, and I'm not sure that's really the purest/truest way for me to see.

Lacewing wrote:

attofishpi wrote: I agree, your response was thoughtful respectful and honest. However it was very safe as most of your posts are,

Safe? Hardly. I put myself out there for all kinds of snickering and ridicule. And if you could see some of the threats that have come my way for simply speaking of how I see things... if I were being timid or safe, I wouldn't be posting at all.

attofishpi wrote:borderline spiritual claptrap, it totally avoided addressing any points in my OP so i don't consider it particularly intelligent.

That's because you find your own view so supremely intelligent -- which others may not agree with. So if "not addressing your points as you present them", is the measuring stick for intelligence... have fun with that. I don't see people rushing forward to do it your way, so why do you put the blame on everyone else, instead of considering that maybe you're a bit too much on your own trip? Isn't that a good question for any of us to ask ourselves... or do we just always blame other people for not thinking as we do?

I'm not blaming anyone for not thinking as i do. Just asking that if someone is going to state that its my own fantasy that they would front up and state the parts they believe i have 'fantasised'.
The word logical anomalies was instructed\initiated to me via a sage. I've had 17 years of experience of God and knowing 100% that it exists. To strike off what i have stated in my OP as a fantasy is shameful at the least. It was from already knowing that God exists that i started looking closer at places upon the globe that might indicate its existence so i could possibly convince others.
Why would i want to convince others? Not entirely sure - perhaps to warn people to think about their actions.

Do you understand any point i'm making with the below image?

attofishpi wrote: Just asking that if someone is going to state that its my own fantasy that they would front up and state the parts they believe i have 'fantasised'.

I explained rather at length as to why I don't think there are specific meanings to anything (that it's ALL made-up by us)... and why I don't think any ONE view is the ultimate truth. I believe I also showed support for whatever has meaning/value to you. It wasn't meant to be hyper-personal or offensive. I was describing my view of all belief systems.

attofishpi wrote: The word logical anomalies was instructed\initiated to me via a sage. I've had 17 years of experience of God and knowing 100% that it exists.

That's wonderful. Many (most?) of us have also had our own incredible (and sacred) life/spirit experiences that have informed and directed us.

attofishpi wrote: To strike off what i have stated in my OP as a fantasy is shameful at the least.

Why is it shameful for me to point out how we assign meanings and make up stuff all the time? People have told me that what I say is fantasy. That's all right for them to think that. It doesn't change what works for me. I don't expect them to see what I see. You asked for people to be straight with you... and that's what I was doing. Then you said you didn't see any intelligence in my response. Okay.

attofishpi wrote:It was from already knowing that God exists that i started looking closer at places upon the globe that might indicate its existence so i could possibly convince others.

So... you took up a quest. There are people on countless different quests. I wonder, is it possible to enjoy our individual quest and find value in it, without it needing to be acknowledged or understood or followed by others? Because when people get on a mission of trying to prove something and get others on board, I think they can get kind of crazy/intoxicated and forget to see/respect what is already at work.

attofishpi wrote:Why would i want to convince others? Not entirely sure - perhaps to warn people to think about their actions.

But your message is not simple. It requires people to dive in and absorb elements that you have found intriguing. Realistically, who has the time and interest to do that... especially when we are being bombarded continually with more to absorb and process every day? Can you distill your learning down to certain "insights" (NOT the symbolism and stories), rather than requiring people to travel your path?

In any belief system... it seems to me that all the "stories" are just a creative framework. What really matters is the essence of the message. I think humans become very swept up in the stories... and then the message is totally missed or mangled. We might even worship the symbolism and stories, as if that somehow makes us one with them. If we're not distilling the message, though, I'm not sure we're getting anything.

attofishpi wrote: Do you understand any point i'm making with the below image?

It seems to represent the area from which humankind was born -- and perhaps it is trying to show an ongoing spinal connection or source of energy (such as kundalini)?

I think you've said that you were inspired by all of this because you were looking around for proof of god. Although I don't believe in a god, I have spent my lifetime trying to be increasingly aware of connections... and I've had countless extraordinary confirmations. I see other people are having them too, on their own paths, so it leads me to believe that all paths have channels to awareness. I see/feel a creative vital force in EVERYTHING. So I don't place significance on any one thing. Does that make sense?

Your quest is clearly sacred for you... and I think that is what is most important. If it evolves and expands you... that will likely impact others very naturally.

Lacewing, judging from your posts, especially your last one, I would venture to guess that The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston would be right up your alley. It's Zen.

The Inglorious One wrote:I do get by without alcohol, recreational drugs or finding relief in sexual fantasies.

It's no bloody wonder you pine for an afterlife.

The Inglorious One wrote:That you would say what you did in a philosophy forum, Hobbes, reflects poorly on both your character and your intelligence.

Do answer my question, though. If “yes,” being a “free thinker” is a vice rather than the virtue so many anti-theists claim it to be; if “no,” then the only reason for your post is to be mean-spirited.

I pride myself in honesty. My comments reflect that. Honesty is a necessary component of character and intelligence. It's a pity you've not worked that out. But then, if you were being honest with yourself, you would be able to unpack your own delusions too.
There is nothing mean-spirited about my comments. Maybe if you think that way, then it is you that is mean-spirited?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

I pride myself in honesty. My comments reflect that. Honesty is a necessary component of character and intelligence. It's a pity you've not worked that out. But then, if you were being honest with yourself, you would be able to unpack your own delusions too.
There is nothing mean-spirited about my comments. Maybe if you think that way, then it is you that is mean-spirited?

No, Hobbes. You embarrassed yourself and your post is a feeble attempt to save face. Anyone with the sense God gave a worm can see that.

Nothing is more difficult to see than the lens through which we see. I am comfortable with myself and my core beliefs. They are not hidden from me. They do not need to be validated by what others think. You, on the other hand, didn't answer the question. On the off-chance you were just trying to be "honest," that would imply I should be more concerned with what other people think than what is true; and it further implies you are more concerned with what other people think than being honest with yourself. Fortunately for you -- for all of us -- "Behind the barricades of pre-established structures, the foxes of the intellect may engage in clever clever reasoning, but the lion of Being continues to roar outside the gates."

Anti-theistic schemes are generally in the instinctive stage of thought, where knowledge constitutes no problem and is taken for granted. In this stage any theory whatever may be held, however self-destructive ; and when its suicidal implications are pointed out, the theorist falls back on unreasoned common sense, and repudiates, not his own theory, which is the real offender, but the critic. He sets up natural selection as the determining principle of belief, and then repudiates the great catholic convictions of the race. He shows how the survival of the fittest must bring thought and thing into accord, and then rejects the beliefs which survive. He defines mind as an adjustment of inner relations to outer relations, and forthwith drifts off into nescience. He presents the Unknown Cause as the source of all beliefs, and then rules out most of them as invalid, and, at times, declares them all worthless.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

I pride myself in honesty. My comments reflect that. Honesty is a necessary component of character and intelligence. It's a pity you've not worked that out. But then, if you were being honest with yourself, you would be able to unpack your own delusions too.
There is nothing mean-spirited about my comments. Maybe if you think that way, then it is you that is mean-spirited?

No, Hobbes. You embarrassed yourself and your post is a feeble attempt to save face. Anyone with the sense God gave a worm can see that.

Wow, not only can you tell the mind of god, but you also think you know the mind of others.
I can assure you that I'm not embarrassed. So you being wring about me, maybe you are wrong about something else?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

I pride myself in honesty. My comments reflect that. Honesty is a necessary component of character and intelligence. It's a pity you've not worked that out. But then, if you were being honest with yourself, you would be able to unpack your own delusions too.
There is nothing mean-spirited about my comments. Maybe if you think that way, then it is you that is mean-spirited?

No, Hobbes. You embarrassed yourself and your post is a feeble attempt to save face. Anyone with the sense God gave a worm can see that.

Wow, not only can you tell the mind of god, but you also think you know the mind of others.
I can assure you that I'm not embarrassed. So you being wring about me, maybe you are wrong about something else?

Yes, you are embarrassed, too embarrassed to admit your embarrassment even to yourself. It's obvious. As a result, you avoided answering the question and confirmed the comment regarding anti-theistic schemes.

The Inglorious One wrote: Yes, you are embarrassed, too embarrassed to admit your embarrassment even to yourself. It's obvious. As a result, you avoided answering the question and confirmed the comment regarding anti-theistic schemes.

I've no idea what you are on about.