How to truly Love God

[sthitapragya]

Why do you assume unity and diversity are mutually exclusive? As Neils Bohr said to Einstein, "Stop telling God what to do." But you are not satisfied telling God what to do; you want also to tell God how to be. Only a dimwit would have the audacity to do that.

P.S.

Read the article, and if you did, it is clearly over your head.

That is exactly what I am saying. If unity and diversity are not mutually exclusive then even in diversity there is unity. So even if God is not there, God is there. So now you still have to explain how God is not everywhere.

And you really need to stop calling God a dimwit. He is everywhere. Including in me. In every atom of me. I don't really exist. It is all God.

I am not telling God how to be. You are just twisting words to evade answering the question. You theists say "God is everywhere". Not my statement. As far as I am concerned there is no such thing. But since you say he is everywhere, So now explain to me how he is not there in a certain sense.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I commend you on a largely lucid post in which, stutteringly perhaps, you barked forth a somewhat coherent statement. I only fail to understand 40% of it. Congratulations!

A couple of brief comments:

The 'establishment clause' was not intended as you think it was. The Federal government was to be limited from establishing a national church of some sort, or favouring one church or sect over another. But it was understood from the beginning that the republic was to be in many different ways a republic of religious (Christian) people. This is a straight fact.

• The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another; which tends to allow for a greater harmony amongst all of the many denominations in the United States. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, still it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

No comparison is possible between the Soviet state, the Chinese Maoist state, and the American Republic. None. Thus, your argument falls flat. When this happens time and time again do you begin to feel frustrated?

As an atheist or otherwise I see nothing of merit in Stalin's Russia, nor Maoist China, as I share nothing in common with their moral stance nor their aims. Furthermore, I'll also say, as a socialist - exactly the same thing.

That is what they all say. But as a socialist you have to come to terms with the clear links that exist 'in reality'. Despite your own desires.

My point is larger, and wider, than you are able to register or assimilate, much less to understand.

Sadly what I see is a waste of a potentially good brain.

I lament the sad waste of your high-speed Internet connection.

Please do not insult my intelligence by entering quotes from sources not stated.
However...
The comparison is hard and clear. Both Mao and Stalin reserved the right to mobilise;" the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practice". And there examples where those governments did just that. So run along back to your cave!
The US, China and Russia are atheistic.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Hobbes, I feel that you insult your own intelligence with your weak, exclusively reactive, badly phrased and often only partially coherent posts. You need no help from me or anyone. I forgot to include an attribution of the quote that's all.

For you, Stalinist Russia and Moist China and the Republic of the United States are 'atheistic states'. Truth and fact are irrelevant. If this is so here, in this example, I surmise it is possible anywhere in your discourse. I suggest this is why we do not have, and will never have, a platform for conversation.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes, I feel that you insult your own intelligence with your weak, exclusively reactive, badly phrased and often only partially coherent posts. You need no help from me or anyone. I forgot to include an attribution of the quote that's all.

For you, Stalinist Russia and Moist China and the Republic of the United States are 'atheistic states'. Truth and fact are irrelevant. If this is so here, in this example, I surmise it is possible anywhere in your discourse. I suggest this is why we do not have, and will never have, a platform for conversation.

You are a pedestrian. When you drive a car you are a road user. Your mistake is to think that ANY adjective could ever be exhaustive.
Atheist describes the US, Russia, and Maoist China - not exclusively but nonetheless accurately. Such an adjective could not be directed at the UK, as the church is established within the institutions of the state.
This is used as an illustration os how stupid you are to try to assert that atheism is some sort of system of belief.

[The Inglorious One]

If unity and diversity are not mutually exclusive then even in diversity there is unity. So even if God is not there, God is there. So now you still have to explain how God is not everywhere.

And you really need to stop calling God a dimwit. He is everywhere. Including in me. In every atom of me. I don't really exist. It is all God.

I am not telling God how to be. You are just twisting words to evade answering the question. You theists say "God is everywhere". Not my statement. As far as I am concerned there is no such thing. But since you say he is everywhere, So now explain to me how he is not there in a certain sense.

Clearly, either you did not read the article article about symmetry or it simply went over your head. I say that for two reasons. First, because telling God how he must be in order to be God is exactly what you are doing. Second, because you do not seem to realize just how right you are when you say you don't really exist. If everything is relation, then nothing is concrete and what you call your "self" is nothing more than a tightly defined set of relations with which you identify.

Infinite Being (perfect symmetry) implies unity and immutability, but it does not imply immobility nor does it exclude the possibility of self-differentiation and self-limitation. In fact, to deny the possibility of God's volitional self-differentiation and self-limitation amounts to a denial of the very concept of God's volitional absoluteness. (The word "God" is an indicator only, it does not name, describe or define the perfect symmetry to which it points, which is indefinite.)

God can only act upon himself because there is nothing else -- that's what infinite being entails. God's being, then, is a self-referring process, which is exactly how many neuroscientists explain the emergence of consciousness. God's being-ness is the relating of a relation -- a verb, a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and the temporal, Freedom and necessity -- relating to itself. Only when you disengage from being focused on you individual world, the differentiation between you and the rest of the world, can really begin to "hear" what there is to "hear."

Being is meaningless without non-being and non-being is meaningless without being. They are interdependent ideas. That is say, the perfect symmetry of pure being is indistinguishable from non-being. Hence, many theists say God does not exist, but, rather, is existence itself. Human beings are the product of broken symmetry.

In dialogue between God and Abraham, God begins by chiding Abraham, "If it wasn't for Me, you wouldn't exist." After a moment of thoughtful reflection, Abraham respectfully replies, "Yes, Lord, and for that I am very appreciative and grateful. However, if it wasn't for me, You wouldn't be known."

BTW, you still haven't answered why you feel compelled to take things out of context and why you assume unity and diversity are mutually exclusive.

[The Inglorious One]

This is used as an illustration os how stupid you are to try to assert that atheism is some sort of system of belief.

Just as there is no such thing of an "up" without a "down," there is no denying one thing without asserting something else.

Many atheists, it seems, deny that their atheism is itself a kind of belief in order justify their inability to proffer a cogent argument for their alternate belief. It is likely that they are unaware that they even have alternate beliefs. It's a lazy, cowardly, narrow-minded, immature and destructive way of thinking wearing a mantle of the exact opposite.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

This is used as an illustration os how stupid you are to try to assert that atheism is some sort of system of belief.

Just as there is no such thing of an "up" without a "down," there is no denying one thing without asserting something else.

Many atheists, it seems, deny that their atheism is itself a kind of belief in order justify their inability to proffer a cogent argument for their alternate belief. It is likely that they are unaware that they even have alternate beliefs. It's a lazy, cowardly, narrow-minded, immature and destructive way of thinking wearing a mantle of the exact opposite.

The only reason religious nut-jobs think that way is because they can't get their teeny-weeny little pea-brains around the concept of not believing in anything; it's too much for their pathetic little brains to comprehend or even imagine. Hence, non-belief = belief. A square is really round. Black is actually white.

[Lacewing]

Many atheists, it seems, deny that their atheism is itself a kind of belief in order justify their inability to proffer a cogent argument for their alternate belief. It is likely that they are unaware that they even have alternate beliefs. It's a lazy, cowardly, narrow-minded, immature and destructive way of thinking wearing a mantle of the exact opposite.

Are you saying that to have no belief is actually to BELIEVE in the opposite of any thing's existence? So, ALL the things in this universe of which you have NO BELIEF, are actually beliefs in themselves... which you are denying in a lazy, cowardly, narrow-minded, immature, and destructive way?

[The Inglorious One]

This is used as an illustration os how stupid you are to try to assert that atheism is some sort of system of belief.

Just as there is no such thing of an "up" without a "down," there is no denying one thing without asserting something else.

Many atheists, it seems, deny that their atheism is itself a kind of belief in order justify their inability to proffer a cogent argument for their alternate belief. It is likely that they are unaware that they even have alternate beliefs. It's a lazy, cowardly, narrow-minded, immature and destructive way of thinking wearing a mantle of the exact opposite.

The only reason religious nut-jobs think that way is because they can't get their teeny-weeny little pea-brains around the concept of not believing in anything; it's too much for their pathetic little brains to comprehend or even imagine. Hence, non-belief = belief. A square is really round. Black is actually white.

I don't know what's the most appropriate response: or

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I don't know what's the most appropriate response: or

You don't have one because it happens to be true. Not that I would expect a mentally ill religious nut to have any capacity for understanding what is true and what isn't. They really do need to start classifying religiosity as a mental illness. It's so obvious.

[The Inglorious One]

Many atheists, it seems, deny that their atheism is itself a kind of belief in order justify their inability to proffer a cogent argument for their alternate belief. It is likely that they are unaware that they even have alternate beliefs. It's a lazy, cowardly, narrow-minded, immature and destructive way of thinking wearing a mantle of the exact opposite.

Are you saying that to have no belief is actually to believe in the opposite of that thing's existence? So, ALL the things in this universe of which you have NO BELIEF, are actually beliefs in themselves... which you are denying in a lazy, cowardly, narrow-minded, immature, and destructive way?

How many "ups" do you know of without a corresponding "down"?

Many, if not most, of the things you say are in reference to perspective. It would be nice if you gave some thought into what you say rather than just emoting. However, I don't think that's gonna happen.

Perspective is a defining moment, a break in the symmetry of our existence. Implicit in every perspective is something other than the perceived object; implicit in every definition is something other than the defined object; implicit in every disbelief an unstated belief in something different. Vegetariantaxidermy's post is an ideal example of the contradictions and utter incoherence of belief in disbelief without a corresponding belief. It represent a symmetry that is broken without an attempt to unify the "big picture." It is, therefore, "a lazy, cowardly, narrow-minded, immature and destructive way of thinking wearing a mantle of the exact opposite."

[Hobbes' Choice]

This is used as an illustration os how stupid you are to try to assert that atheism is some sort of system of belief.

Just as there is no such thing of an "up" without a "down," there is no denying one thing without asserting something else.

Many atheists, it seems, deny that their atheism is itself a kind of belief in order justify their inability to proffer a cogent argument for their alternate belief. It is likely that they are unaware that they even have alternate beliefs. It's a lazy, cowardly, narrow-minded, immature and destructive way of thinking wearing a mantle of the exact opposite.

There is no symmetry here.
With theism an atheist you do not have tow opposites. It is a case of yes or no. It is not a dichotomy. It's case of presence or non-presence.
Your analogy is false. A dichotomy exists between happiness and sadness; between up and down. But tell me what is the opposite of a lemon?
Such is the case with Theism. Some accept the existence of god, and have a lemon; others do not believe in god- they have no lemon.

What is the opposite of a Catholic? Muslim? Rats. Buddhist? Where is the dichotomy here - there is none. You are either a Catholic or not. I din't have to believe anything for me to not be something,

Atheism does not involve me in any system of belief. In fact it involves me in no belief at all.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Many atheists, it seems, deny that their atheism is itself a kind of belief in order justify their inability to proffer a cogent argument for their alternate belief. It is likely that they are unaware that they even have alternate beliefs. It's a lazy, cowardly, narrow-minded, immature and destructive way of thinking wearing a mantle of the exact opposite.

Are you saying that to have no belief is actually to believe in the opposite of that thing's existence? So, ALL the things in this universe of which you have NO BELIEF, are actually beliefs in themselves... which you are denying in a lazy, cowardly, narrow-minded, immature, and destructive way?

How many "ups" do you know of without a corresponding "down"?

Many, if not most, of the things you say are in reference to perspective. It would be nice if you gave some thought into what you say rather than just emoting. However, I don't think that's gonna happen.

Perspective is a defining moment, a break in the symmetry of our existence. Implicit in every perspective is something other than the perceived object; implicit in every definition is something other than the defined object; implicit in every disbelief an unstated belief in something different. Vegetariantaxidermy's post is an ideal example of the contradictions and utter incoherence of belief in disbelief without a corresponding belief.

Oh right, and the constipated pretentious pseudo-intellectual bullshit you just wrote is REALLY coherent. Don't tell me what I believe, just because you feel like an idiot for believing garbage.

[The Inglorious One]

Oh right, and the constipated pretentious pseudo-intellectual bullshit you just wrote is REALLY coherent. Don't tell me what I believe, just because you feel like an idiot for believing garbage.

I'm pretty sure a third-grader thinks the same thing when he or she hears sees complex mathematical equations.

[Hobbes' Choice]

This sort of bullshit is typical of the religious idiots that lurk in the Internet.

They have a scintilla of reason left in their minds enough to know that belief is inadequate. Due to this they seek to protect themselves by pretending that Atheism is just another belief system as inadequate and useless as all belief systems.

Despite this scintilla of reason they are still not smart enough to realise they are shooting themselves in the foot.