Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sometimes I wonder if some posters really don't understand...or are pretending not to understand simply to be disagreeable.
Obviously, the point of my post, specifically the "legal abortion" example...was that, even though one DOESN'T side with the majority...it is typical to be SUBJECTED to the will of the majority...because anywhere there is a democracy and free enterprise...the vote of the majority will determine the leaders and the laws (what RULES) and dictate what is being supplied based on the majority of the demand.
I didn't say that is how I CHOOSE to live my life...MOF I stated the opposite (even gave a specific example)...I said that is the REALITY OF HOW IT IS.
How someone could read my post (with all it's over-the-top emphasis and example) and respond the way you did...concluding the exact OPPOSITE of what I wrote, is beyond me. I said I had to ENDURE a society where abortion is legal, and portrayed "ad populum" as a big bellowing bully. I guess there is no accounting for reading comprehension, no matter how well you spell it out...oh, well. But...Thank you for showing me exactly how well you understand...it explains sooooo much now.
Correct me if I am wrong, and I really don't think I am based on what you've posted already, and I quote: "popular majority IS KING"....and you've also claimed that the God exists concept is champion based on what the majority think about it...not what is actually proven by real physical scientific evidence. For someone who now claims not to adhere to and live this way...you sure have been posting fervently hard to defend that position...and I'm quite sure everyone else who have read your posts would agree with that assessment.
So we're down to whose speculative opinion is better, are we? I thought we were supposed to be leaving beliefs out of this?
"Known exemplar".. are you referring to consciousness that is found in animals? Clearly there are things that do not have consciousness in our world that would serve as exemplars for "Nature", just as much as conscious animals are exemplars for "God consciousness".
Sorry . . you miss the point yet again. The exemplar has to be a viable and plausible candidate as the Source (universal field).
Quote:
But who cares? This is not evidence for or against "God consciousness", it is speculative opinion.
We have already agreed on that, I believe, logic . . Meta-apple was it? Why not just The Source?
Sorry . . you miss the point yet again. The exemplar has to be a viable and plausible candidate as the Source (universal field).We have already agreed on that, I believe, logic . . Meta-apple was it? Why not just The Source?
You misunderstood.. I was saying your (our) "Known exemplar(s)" were not evidence for or against "God consciousness", they are speculative opinion. So I was wondering why you brought it up right after chastising someone for talking about beliefs (opinion)?
Yes, why not just "the source"? You keep insisting that science proves the position that "the source" can be called "God" yet this is nothing but your opinion based on how you define "God", which is inescapably loaded with beliefs about. You say we have agreed, but you don't show it in your actions.
Correct me if I am wrong, and I really don't think I am based on what you've posted already, and I quote: "popular majority IS KING"....and you've also claimed that the God exists concept is champion based on what the majority think about it...not what is actually proven by real physical scientific evidence. For someone who now claims not to adhere to and live this way...you sure have been posting fervently hard to defend that position...and I'm quite sure everyone else who have read your posts would agree with that assessment.
Yes Christy....popular majority IS KING. And "God Exists" is the "Champion" concept...based on it's status as the theology subscribed to by more people than any other, in the U.S. and worldwide...it is, in fact, the #1 theology.
What does "the reality of what is", have to do with my personal beliefs? Sometimes I will agree with the majority....sometimes I will disagree. But that doesn't change the fact, that...overall, in this world...popular majority RULES...and it rules over what one may feel is right, what one may feel is wrong, logic, reason, or even common sense. That is the ONLY "position I defended"...and it is the real truth as to how things REALLY ARE. I guess you could say I "live my life" and "adhere to", the UNDERSTANDING that THAT IS THE WAY IT IS.
If someone stated the fact, "for most of human history, owning slaves was the most common practice"...would you then necessarily conclude they condone slavery, "adhere to" the concept, and "live their life" that way...simply because they made that statement of factual reality?
Relative to the topic at hand---That the vast majority of the world is of the belief that there exists a "God Consciousness"...blows whether it is "logical and reasonable" out of the water. Anyone can take THAT "factual reality" for whatever they think it's worth...but that won't change the vast power and influence of that "factual reality".
You misunderstood.. I was saying your (our) "Known exemplar(s)" were not evidence for or against "God consciousness", they are speculative opinion. So I was wondering why you brought it up right after chastising someone for talking about beliefs (opinion)?
Yes, why not just "the source"? You keep insisting that science proves the position that "the source" can be called "God" yet this is nothing but your opinion based on how you define "God", which is inescapably loaded with beliefs about. You say we have agreed, but you don't show it in your actions.
Because you REFUSE (and that is all it is) to acknowledge that the EXISTENCE issue is entirely separate from the BELIEFS ABOUT the characteristics. The verified scientific attributes are SUFFICIENTLYall-encompassing and powerfully controlling of us mere humans and everything else that it cannot be called anything else but a God in the most generic sense. You insist on using the extant BELIEFS ABOUT God (including your mindless, purposeless, etc. ones) to try to refute what is irrefutable . . . the existing scientific attributes as PARTIAL EVIDENCE of a God's EXISTENCE that you erroneously attribute to the artifice "Nature" which includes YOUR BELIEFS ABOUT God.
If someone stated the fact, "for most of human history, owning slaves was the most common practice"...would you then necessarily conclude they condone slavery, "adhere to" the concept, and "live their life" that way...simply because they made that statement of factual reality?
Yes, if they used the ad populum the way you are using it here, to prove to us that we should follow the crowd like sheep and believe in a "God consciousness".
Because you REFUSE (and that is all it is) to acknowledge that the EXISTENCE issue is entirely separate from the BELIEFS ABOUT the characteristics. The verified scientific attributes are SUFFICIENTLYall-encompassing and powerfully controlling of us mere humans and everything else that it cannot be called anything else but a God in the most generic sense. You insist on using the extant BELIEFS ABOUT God (including your mindless, purposeless, etc. ones) to try to refute what is irrefutable . . . the existing scientific attributes as PARTIAL EVIDENCE of a God's EXISTENCE that you erroneously attribute to the artifice "Nature" which includes YOUR BELIEFS ABOUT God.
Wow, so now you don't agree that the term "God" is inescapably loaded with belief? Did you lie or are you changing your story?
Wow, so now you don't agree that the term "God" is inescapably loaded with belief? Did you lie or are you changing your story?
NO change . . . just the reality GldnRule keeps talking about. The majority will use the beliefs-loaded "Nature" (whatever we agree about here) . . . and then try to use that as the scientific, logical and rational position (which we agree it is not because of the beliefs it contains) . . . just as Errorquipa and Gulliplex, etc. continually do . . to deny that there is even partial evidence of the EXISTENCE of the Source (a God) . . . (NOT all its characteristics.) A position that is completely untenable scientifically.
NO change . . . just the reality GldnRule keeps talking about. The majority will use the beliefs-loaded "Nature" (whatever we agree about here) . . . and then try to use that as the scientific, logical and rational position (which we agree it is not because of the beliefs it contains) . . . just as Errorquipa and Gulliplex, etc. continually do . . to deny that there is even partial evidence of the EXISTENCE of the Source (a God) . . . (NOT all its characteristics.) A position that is completely untenable scientifically.
My only hypocrisy would be regarding a work-a-week like work-a-day. Some people like Napoleon Bonaparte were not hypocritical about that. Or was it the other way around? He regarded a work-a-week without the work-a-day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
