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.
Sounds more like something when Man first discovered fire and thought it was a gift of the god's. He didn't understand the properties of lightning and what it can do.
In a limited way you are correct . . . but it is our differing perspective on what reality IS that separates us, Jaymax. For me reality IS God (everything that exists) . . . and you would be hard-pressed to say that we have no evidence for THAT. Thus, God exists . . . but the task then becomes discerning what the attributes are.
Moderator cut: delete
Well, anyway...to qualify "God", by requiring the possession of attributes by which the exhibition of those attributes would certainly determine that which had them to be "God"...is not tantamount to just calling "everything that exists" some off-the-wall ridiculous name you chose to call it.
That argument is completely bogus.
No matter...as I have said before: "God is as God does...and by any other name would still be God".
It would seem Constructivism in general would certainly consider the collective sum of mankinds spiritual and theological contemplation over time (the Spiritual Fossil Record) as a window to how we have learned about "God".
As respects the evolution of what man has come to know about God...if that knowledge is to be put under consideration in its totality...in as is referred to as an "integrated whole"...what you refer to as the "Spiritual Fossil Record" would not be something to be dismissed.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 03-04-2013 at 05:07 AM..
Reason: off topic
In a limited way you are correct . . . but it is our differing perspective on what reality IS that separates us, Jaymax. For me reality IS God (everything that exists) . . . and you would be hard-pressed to say that we have no evidence for THAT. Thus, God exists . . . but the task then becomes discerning what the attributes are. Everything we have learned to date enters the inventory of attributes for God . . . not evidence against God as you assert. I do not rely on gaps . . . you do. Apparently you are missing evidence, not I.
I was driven to this position by my completely unexpected experiences in deep meditation. They eliminated my atheism instantly and literally drove me intellectually back to square one as stated in my second sentence. My odyssey of 40+ years since the first experience has led me intellectually to my current stance . . . but it was a long and winding road. It would be wrong to assume my current stance was my starting one. It all began with that second sentence. That was why I was so focused on the formation of the concepts of God as represented in our peculiar language phenomenon known only to consciousness (Word). "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God . . ."
I find this quite a hopeful development for you, Jaymax. If you pursue the meditation route diligently and assiduously . . . you may reach the same state I did and "know" the truth.
Mystic, if your intention in your post was to 'teach' me something you think you know and that I don't, you might want to reflect on the way you try to put across your ideas first. You might also want to reflect on the assumptions you make about the knowledge and experience of others.
What is your motivation for posting your ideas about your 'truth' on a forum?
What has changed in your life since you started to believe that you 'know' "The Truth'?
How does telling others about your 'truth' help them in their lives?
How has telling others about your 'truth' improved your interactions with other people?
How often do you ask other people questions about their ideas rather than just telling them yours?
How often do you reflect on why many people don't seem to want to listen to your ideas about your 'truth'?
How pissed off do you get when rigid thinking fundamentalists tell you they 'know' 'the truth' and you don't?
Reading your posts help me to reflect on whether my own posts sometimes come across as a know-it-all, condescending a-hole. So thanks.
I do not think your little linguistic relabeling tricks are what Jay is talking about.
You're right. That's not what I was referring to at all. Mystic brought up the topic of human learning processes and tried to connect them to his ideas about what he labels as a 'spiritual fossil record' in his OP. I posted some ideas about the human learning process from an evolutionary/ relational /attachment/ neurobiological point of view which also ties in with the constructivist theory of learning. What I was exploring was an analogy of early humans as a species creating 'parental' Deities, being similar to babies and young children needing a secure safe attachment to a parent figure in order for them to learn and for their brain systems to develop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
If you want to call "all there is" "god" then so be it. It is ponitless but there is nothing essentially wrong with it. You could as easily call it all "porridge" or "Spuds" or "oooogleybooogley-lalala".
I agree, as long as someone explains what meanings they are attaching to a label and doesn't start attaching a different meaning midstream, then I don't mind what labels they use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
What Jay is referring to however I feel - is your need to assume the attributes first and work backwards from there. Such as this "god" being consciouss - having moral opinions or judging us morally after death - or that it manifested itself in human form in Jesus Christ and so forth.
Yes, you read me correctly. I felt that he made some rather large assumptions. Starting from the point that a God exists 'because he says so', kind of shuts down any exchange of ideas. Perhaps he doesn't realise that deep meditation techniques have been around a long long time, and that the 'experiences' he has described in past posts are not that uncommon. If he wants to call that communing with "God" and that it feels like "the truth" to him, whatever. That doesn't mean that it is "fact" or that it is 'the truth' for everyone. Or that there is a sentient, all knowing, all powerful being who created everything and will reward you if you are nice and punish you if you are naughty.
He refers to constructivist learning theory, but the main tenet of that theory is that people construct their own 'truth' and it's different to other peoples' 'truth'. To me, not being able to differentiate that, shows poor development of empathy. I guess he missed the point of what I was saying about people's gods being just like them because they never really developed a sense of themselves as differentiated from 'other' and 'we'. Everything is all about "Me" and everyone is (or needs to be) like "Me". And if they aren't, then they are 'dangerous' or 'scary' or 'evil' or 'weird' or... 'dumb'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
Sticking labels pointlessly on things is one problem but not a large one - but the vast baseless assumptions you invent to feed your need to believe that what you felt decades ago while sitting around doing nothing was actually a conscious entity. Your "odyssey" of experience appears to be nothing more than an "odyssey" of feeding a confirmation bias towards a conclusion you want to be true.
Our brains seem to love confirmation bias. From what I understand, it's part of the effects of the Reticular Activating System. We see what we want to see because that is what we have 'instructed' our brain to be on the alert for. Sort of like deciding to buy a green Volkswagon. We start to notice green volkswagons everywhere, when we never really noticed them before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
But your post did say one true thing. We are indeed missing the evidence. Mainly because you prefer to talk about how much of it there is without moving to give any of it. That or telling us that you do not need any evidence because you just "know" it is true.
Kind of getting into 'fundamentalist' territory. They all know "The Truth" for everyone too.
Mystic, if your intention in your post was to 'teach' me something you think you know and that I don't, you might want to reflect on the way you try to put across your ideas first. You might also want to reflect on the assumptions you make about the knowledge and experience of others.
Sorry, but I disavow the role of teacher, period. I believe we are all looking at the same world . . . so there is value in the way we see things. That is why I witness to my understanding. My driving motivation is a "love for God and each other". . . that's all.
Quote:
What is your motivation for posting your ideas about your 'truth' on a forum?
See above
Quote:
What has changed in your life since you started to believe that you 'know' "The Truth'?
Absolutely everything.
Quote:
How does telling others about your 'truth' help them in their lives?
See above.
Quote:
How has telling others about your 'truth' improved your interactions with other people?
It hasn't.
Quote:
How often do you ask other people questions about their ideas rather than just telling them yours?
Frequently.
Quote:
How often do you reflect on why many people don't seem to want to listen to your ideas about your 'truth'?
Not often.
Quote:
How pissed off do you get when rigid thinking fundamentalists tell you they 'know' 'the truth' and you don't?
Very . . . but only when they promote and perpetuate ignorance, hate, cruelty, savagery, and barbarity as from God.
Quote:
Reading your posts help me to reflect on whether my own posts sometimes come across as a know-it-all, condescending a-hole. So thanks.
You are welcome. The thing that is so frustrating for me is not that "I am a know-it-all, condescending a-hole." I do not know-it-all (but I know a hell of a lot) and I am not condescending (but I suffer ignorant fools badly). The truly frustrating thing for me about those who choose to debate with me is the utter unwillingness (or perhaps incapacity) to release preconceptions about "God" or "No God" . . . or whatever. You asked above what changed most for me. It was the requirement to abandon ALL my preconceptions and start from scratch to re-perceive and try to understand our reality. I had to vet everything from scratch.
You're right. That's not what I was referring to at all. Mystic brought up the topic of human learning processes and tried to connect them to his ideas about what he labels as a 'spiritual fossil record' in his OP. I posted some ideas about the human learning process from an evolutionary/ relational /attachment/ neurobiological point of view which also ties in with the constructivist theory of learning. What I was exploring was an analogy of early humans as a species creating 'parental' Deities, being similar to babies and young children needing a secure safe attachment to a parent figure in order for them to learn and for their brain systems to develop.
I agree, as long as someone explains what meanings they are attaching to a label and doesn't start attaching a different meaning midstream, then I don't mind what labels they use.
Yes, you read me correctly. I felt that he made some rather large assumptions. Starting from the point that a God exists 'because he says so', kind of shuts down any exchange of ideas. Perhaps he doesn't realise that deep meditation techniques have been around a long long time, and that the 'experiences' he has described in past posts are not that uncommon. If he wants to call that communing with "God" and that it feels like "the truth" to him, whatever. That doesn't mean that it is "fact" or that it is 'the truth' for everyone. Or that there is a sentient, all knowing, all powerful being who created everything and will reward you if you are nice and punish you if you are naughty.
The bold would be some of the preconceptions that people seem unable to relinquish when discoursing with me. I not only followed your notion but agree with it . . . to a degree. But what you see as "natural". . . I see as established by the existence and procreation of God. I see a DNA template with RNA activators driven by the necessities of God's procreation (not Will). All life evolves (changes) . . . both through growth and procreation. Our God is a living God so both processes are at work. I see in the "spiritual fossil record" an evolving spiritual DNA template producing our understanding of God and affecting the cognitive constructs in the consciousness we produce.
Quote:
He refers to constructivist learning theory, but the main tenet of that theory is that people construct their own 'truth' and it's different to other peoples' 'truth'. To me, not being able to differentiate that, shows poor development of empathy. I guess he missed the point of what I was saying about people's gods being just like them because they never really developed a sense of themselves as differentiated from 'other' and 'we'. Everything is all about "Me" and everyone is (or needs to be) like "Me". And if they aren't, then they are 'dangerous' or 'scary' or 'evil' or 'weird' or... 'dumb'.
More intractable preconceptions . . . very annoying. The requirement to discern for ourselves is inescapable. It is the proclivity to impose our understanding on others that constitutes the major problem that is 'dangerous' or 'scary' or 'evil.' We have to impose certain societal requirements if we are to live in harmony with each other. But understanding God should NEVER be imposed. It would make no sense to do so anyway. Understanding God is a personal matter, period.
Quote:
Our brains seem to love confirmation bias. From what I understand, it's part of the effects of the Reticular Activating System. We see what we want to see because that is what we have 'instructed' our brain to be on the alert for. Sort of like deciding to buy a green Volkswagon. We start to notice green volkswagons everywhere, when we never really noticed them before.
Nothing here to disagree with.
Quote:
Kind of getting into 'fundamentalist' territory. They all know "The Truth" for everyone too.
there seems to be a need to lock on with an idea of god that will answer many many multi faceted questions and so on. Not talking about usual curiosity's and questions but great equation style conclusions. With this thread idea and not arguing the thread, just following along the thinking ... it was the early and wild Vikings that honorably shewed and scowled the wolf moon eclipse away from their idea in Sun -God...The early figurines of women Gods found up to 25,000years ago sculpted out by very early apparently conscious people. These would be passionate suggestions that without man and his fantastic idea of god and trying to live alongside the idea, with himself...a sound and very 'pure idea' of what I think is a natural conscious consideration and belief in a God could be worth approaching in this style of contemporary translating and expectations... The more man 'seeds the idea of God alongside perseverance, experience, failure and success-history-expectations and told idea's.., the irrefutable would seem to also suggest some potential veering away from what would be the natural conscious or natures intended to freely understand such a thing is so, including its nature in a pure way... Moreover if there is a God which I believe would be, the last thing a person would think is that a God would have any definite expectation that people would in life, seriously worry that he exists. IOW....it would seem to be a given...history shows a natural lean towards the idea insofar as a setting, un-obstructed by our management of ourselves in the difficulties and time and history, including expectations and so on....so here we have a possible value in simplicity....simplicity and complexity are interesting in many ways, and would suggest contrast. Consequence out of contrast would be what creation is all about, balance and symmetry, all that....order. Everything defining boundary or laws. So simplicity possibly a little left outside sometimes ...ease may have a contributing and natural value.
Last edited by stargazzer; 03-04-2013 at 01:46 PM..
Reason: wording-afterthought
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.
