|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 25, 2005 12:27:23 GMT -5
Sooooo Where does clear-headed cognition fit in? I guess there's no place. *Please note rhetorical intent above* It has to fit within the parameters that they limit themselves in. However, I'm not a sure that "clear-headed cognition" would be applicable when one is manipulating the means to fit the end.
|
|
GodsAreUs
Seasoned Citizen
If you fail to question anything, you may be had by everything.
Posts: 215
|
Post by GodsAreUs on Apr 25, 2005 13:06:45 GMT -5
It has to fit within the parameters that they limit themselves in. However, I'm not a sure that "clear-headed cognition" would be applicable when one is manipulating the means to fit the end. So we could call it parameter-specific cognition (a non-sequitur?). Or perhaps even Godnition: where all synaptic activity leads to God. Man we're in big trouble.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 25, 2005 14:38:13 GMT -5
So we could call it parameter-specific cognition (a non-sequitur?). Or perhaps even Godnition: where all synaptic activity leads to God. Man we're in big trouble. Heheh, possibly. I'm of the personal opinion that cognitive dissonance and other social influences play a heavy part and only amplify whatever physiological/genetic predispositions may be there.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Apr 27, 2005 22:27:28 GMT -5
Sooooo Where does clear-headed cognition fit in? I guess there's no place.
I had a talk about this with my mother a rather unplesant one I might add. You see she did not want to hear about reason (reason being the only thing that makes humanity different.) When ever you say something to a person of the church or the cloth reguarding reason you will get the same answer. Any thing along the line of "You Just have to have faith", or "it is a matter of faith". I belive this way they dont have to think about the situation but instead put it off on their God. btw historicly most people have said this about Gods their for it is not just christianity though they are just as guilty of it.
Either way i think it would be realy nice to be here when it crumbles like every other ancient religion in history.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 27, 2005 22:49:08 GMT -5
Either way i think it would be realy nice to be here when it crumbles like every other ancient religion in history. Another one will replace it...they always do.
|
|
|
Post by godslayer on Apr 28, 2005 22:30:15 GMT -5
I think that “God” is more of an event than a physical or existential being that’s omnipresent. “God” is what makes plants grow, what makes the sun shine, what makes beer taste good, etc… seems like youre describing god=nature, Hinduism and Budhism has similar beliefs if I remember corectly.. theres as many religions as theres nations/races it seems,thats why such confusion about whos god is right they are all imaginary imo www.godchecker.comwww.beliefnet.com
|
|
|
Post by godslayer on Apr 28, 2005 22:33:53 GMT -5
holy fk ...its just like a walk thru an insane asylum
|
|
GodsAreUs
Seasoned Citizen
If you fail to question anything, you may be had by everything.
Posts: 215
|
Post by GodsAreUs on Apr 29, 2005 10:05:28 GMT -5
holy fk ...its just like a walk thru an insane asylum Yes, but at the same time, it's a frightening representation of what's out there. Welcome to the world, check your brain at the door. I'll be here all week. Try the veal. Tip your waitress.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Apr 29, 2005 18:40:11 GMT -5
If you'd like to stare into the abyss, go to www.raptureready.com and look at their bulletin board.
OKAY now this link was freeky and im sorry to the faithful out their but any one who would take a word like Supercalifragilisticexpialidociousism (which by the way i think they just toped the longest word there) and use it to discribe a topic of their religious belifes have to be laughed at.
|
|
|
Post by NeutronStar on May 1, 2005 10:15:11 GMT -5
I’ve pondered the existence of God to hell and gone. While the conclusions I’ve reached may be wrong, they seem as close to truth in my mind as I’ve been able to find from any external source. [/color]
This statement puzzels me. You are trying to find truth in your mind from an external source. Not sure if that can be done. We create are own reallity. The reallity we create only decribes this so called phyical world, it may have nothing to do with the overall truth.
I think that “God” is more of an event than a physical or existential being that’s omnipresent. “God” is what makes plants grow, what makes the sun shine, what makes beer taste good, etc… [/color]
I agree except for the event statement. Event tells me there was a beginning and so to an end. I believe God has no beginning and no end. Event is like the big bang which could have a beginning and also an end, but it is not all that God is, but only a small part.
I worry that religion, or any manner of theism, attempted a long time ago to try and explain things that are far beyond our scope of understanding in our current evolutionary state. By that I mean, have a look at “miracles.” You show pre-historic man a Bic lighter and he freaks. You show a bunch of superstitious folks any event beyond their scope of personal experience, and they’re more often than not flummoxed into genuflection. [/color]
I agree with that, but there are things in this world today that we do not understand, but seem to exist. Remote viewing, levatation, miraculus healings, Buddist monks who can turn water into wine just like what jesus did, must I go on. We do not understand these things so what do we do? We crizise these people and say they are crazy or misleading us in some way. We cannot do it ourselves so no one else can do it either.
Quanum Machanics teaches us that anything is possible if only we believe. The problem is we have been programmed to believe that anything is not possible. At least most of us have. There are some people that say they can do these things. Maybe instead of blowing them off as crack pots we should have an open mind and atleast listen to what they have to say.
I feel that all theism is nothing more than an easy answer to something we are just not capable of understanding yet. The vast schisms and endless interpretations of all manner of scriptures points to this. [/color]
Maybe substitute capable for willing. But agree 100%
|
|
GodsAreUs
Seasoned Citizen
If you fail to question anything, you may be had by everything.
Posts: 215
|
Post by GodsAreUs on May 1, 2005 11:44:46 GMT -5
I’ve pondered the existence of God to hell and gone. While the conclusions I’ve reached may be wrong, they seem as close to truth in my mind as I’ve been able to find from any external source.
[/color] This statement puzzels me. You are trying to find truth in your mind from an external source. Not sure if that can be done. We create are own reallity. The reallity we create only decribes this so called phyical world, it may have nothing to do with the overall truth.[/quote] That’s exactly what I said, my reality dictates the possibility of what I perceive to be truth. I also said I may be wrong. I concede I don’t have the answer. Remember, it is the question that drives us. Welcome to the board. [/color] I agree except for the event statement. Event tells me there was a beginning and so to an end. I believe God has no beginning and no end. Event is like the big bang which could have a beginning and also an end, but it is not all that God is, but only a small part.[/quote] I use “event” as a matter of cause/effect; a happening. There’s no accounting for event duration, nor do I mention one. [/color] I agree with that, but there are things in this world today that we do not understand, but seem to exist. Remote viewing, levatation, miraculus healings, Buddist monks who can turn water into wine just like what jesus did, must I go on. We do not understand these things so what do we do? We crizise these people and say they are crazy or misleading us in some way.[/quote] Sure, and I’m talking about a specific manner of event perception. You yourself said we create our own reality. In that reality we perceive events. I’m merely making an assumption about the perceptions of a particular segment of the population, not making a blanket statement against the possibility of currently indefinable miracles. You’re talking about the quest for the easy answer (and the lack of merits of said quest). The manners of theism I have a problem with do not encompass the realm of possibility; they are limited to the scope of believers that are exclusionary and elitist. Having an open mind implies the willingness to think without limitation. It’s the search for truth. Or at least the desire to ensure there’s never an intellectual stone left unturned. [/color] Maybe substitute capable for willing. But agree 100% [/quote] We’re working on the willing. Thanks.
|
|
thehack
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 16
|
Post by thehack on May 9, 2005 17:38:16 GMT -5
I've been postulating this theory...
In almost all (except budhist) beliefs and nearly all creationism stories across the world, there's always a constant theme: god created man in his own image. This, is clearly a hidden/subliminal message in all creationist stories. God did not create man. Man created god. It's a simple reflection of the fact, that man can not accept the reversal of role in god and man, and religion can not survive or exist if the supreme being is nothing but a creation of man...So they flipped the image subconsciously, instead of man creating god in his own image, god created man in his own image.
Interesting enough, I am not aware of a creationist story with Budhist beliefs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Budhist believes in an eternal life cycle with no beginning and no end. You die and you get reincarnated. I'm not even sure if there's a "god" perse.
I'm often left to wonder, in the vastness of the cosmos, the near infinite numbers of stars, in the eons of time, in the infinitesimally quantas, in the relations of time and space...there is just simply no way that all this is created by one supreme being. It is therefore more plausible, in fact, more logical, that there is no "god" or supreme being, and that our existance is simply a culmination of countless events in the time-stream (or string, in honor of the string theory) and the wonders of the universe is simply a vast expanse of time and space that we humans occupy so little of.
If a supreme being existed, why be interested in an organism so insignificant in time, on a planet in a solar system so insignificant in the vast universe, as to create us specifically? If a supreme being truly existed that transcends time and space, why would our spiritual salvation be so important to him as to send himself as spirit embodied in his son to be sacrificed for our sin?
|
|
GodsAreUs
Seasoned Citizen
If you fail to question anything, you may be had by everything.
Posts: 215
|
Post by GodsAreUs on May 10, 2005 11:32:40 GMT -5
If a supreme being existed, why be interested in an organism so insignificant in time, on a planet in a solar system so insignificant in the vast universe, as to create us specifically? If a supreme being truly existed that transcends time and space, why would our spiritual salvation be so important to him as to send himself as spirit embodied in his son to be sacrificed for our sin? Hear Hear! There does seem to be a cosmic level of arrogance in many religions. Contrariwise, many believers may feel us non-believers are arrogant for thinking they’re wrong. As far as I’m concerned, you can’t find the truth without all options on the table. Whichever options one chooses to live by or believe in is their prerogative. If one truly creates one’s own reality, then we’re all right. Live and Leave Alone.
|
|
|
Post by william on May 12, 2005 4:52:19 GMT -5
And I agree that’s the crux of it all (or at least the lion’s share). I can’t understand how someone would consciously choose to suspend their quest for knowledge. Stop learning, stop living. If you believe God has all the answers, it’s an easy leap to take. Like lemmings I guess. Ok , got to jump in here, I have been more interested in edducating myself since I became a Christian than I ever was befor. the God of the gaps theory is far to simlistic to explain all there is to theism.
|
|
|
Post by william on May 12, 2005 5:02:35 GMT -5
I've been postulating this theory... In almost all (except budhist) beliefs and nearly all creationism stories across the world, there's always a constant theme: god created man in his own image. This, is clearly a hidden/subliminal message in all creationist stories. God did not create man. Man created god. It's a simple reflection of the fact, that man can not accept the reversal of role in god and man, and religion can not survive or exist if the supreme being is nothing but a creation of man...So they flipped the image subconsciously, instead of man creating god in his own image, god created man in his own image. Interesting enough, I am not aware of a creationist story with Budhist beliefs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Budhist believes in an eternal life cycle with no beginning and no end. You die and you get reincarnated. I'm not even sure if there's a "god" perse. I'm often left to wonder, in the vastness of the cosmos, the near infinite numbers of stars, in the eons of time, in the infinitesimally quantas, in the relations of time and space...there is just simply no way that all this is created by one supreme being. It is therefore more plausible, in fact, more logical, that there is no "god" or supreme being, and that our existance is simply a culmination of countless events in the time-stream (or string, in honor of the string theory) and the wonders of the universe is simply a vast expanse of time and space that we humans occupy so little of. If a supreme being existed, why be interested in an organism so insignificant in time, on a planet in a solar system so insignificant in the vast universe, as to create us specifically? If a supreme being truly existed that transcends time and space, why would our spiritual salvation be so important to him as to send himself as spirit embodied in his son to be sacrificed for our sin? what else do you think He should be doing? Its any easy trap to asume that God would think and do what we would think and do, but is that really realistic?
|
|