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.
For your info every emotion and thought you have including your belief in whatever, is a chemical reaction in your brain.
Brain chemistry is the sum of all the chemical messaging that takes place in the brain, which allows it to carry out its daily functions, such as generating movement, speaking, thinking, listening, regulating the systems of the body, and countless others. Brain Chemistry (Neurochemistry) - body, causes, Out of Balance
Very nice tirade but you didn't answer the question:
If it is wrong for "me to label *" reality "GOD" when we have a "very good term for it," i.e., reality, than it should also be wrong for you to label the chemical reaction in your brain as "love" when we have a perfectly good term for it, i.e., a chemical reaction.
*But of course I am not labeling anything, I am simply using a definition that goes back to the Tao te Ching, the Upanishads, the Gnostic Gospels etc. But than again, according to the Dawkin's Worshipers on this forum I am still "just making it up" and hence must have used Dr. Who's time machine to write those ancient scriptures to make myself look good.
Speaking of "evasive" and "deceitful", that is exactly what you do with the majority of your posts on the subject.
Should anyone have the temerity to dispute what you say you start to bob and weave, claim that what you say is so superior that no one but yourself could possibly understand your meaning so you just have to be the only viable authority on any subject you post on.
Of course, after making your statement denying the existence of this god you demand that others offer you evidence to support your true belief, that there is such an entity.
You are (at best) a very confused individual on this subject who just won't admit it even to yourself.
Everything Mystic is saying makes perfect sense to those of us who have studied Comparative Religion or any other topics in mysticism, non-Abrahamic religions etc. What he is saying is the same thing Joseph Campbell said, and he was for the study of religion and Mythology what Darwin was for the study of biology and Einstein was for physics.
If you can't understand his arguments that speaks less about the validity of said arguments and more about the philosophical capacity of the person reading the arguments...
Everything Mystic is saying makes perfect sense to those of us who have studied Comparative Religion or any other topics in mysticism, non-Abrahamic religions etc. What he is saying is the same thing Joseph Campbell said, and he was for the study of religion and Mythology what Darwin was for the study of biology and Einstein was for physics.
If you can't understand his arguments that speaks less about the validity of said arguments and more about the philosophical capacity of the person reading the arguments...
But then again, the person who is defending this type of post by Mystic would appear to be partaking of the same style of BS as he is.
Your argument says less about his argument than it does about the naiveté of the person doing the defending.
Equally as valid as your assertions. But some will never admit the possibility, will they?
Very nice tirade but you didn't answer the question:
If it is wrong for "me to label *" reality "GOD" when we have a "very good term for it," i.e., reality, than it should also be wrong for you to label the chemical reaction in your brain as "love" when we have a perfectly good term for it, i.e., a chemical reaction.
*But of course I am not labeling anything, I am simply using a definition that goes back to the Tao te Ching, the Upanishads, the Gnostic Gospels etc. But than again, according to the Dawkin's Worshipers on this forum I am still "just making it up" and hence must have used Dr. Who's time machine to write those ancient scriptures to make myself look good.
If that is even part of your intent, you failed again. IMO, of course.
But then again, the person who is defending this type of post by Mystic would appear to be partaking of the same style of BS as he is.
Your argument says less about his argument than it does about the naiveté of the person doing the defending.
Equally as valid as your assertions. But some will never admit the possibility, will they?
BS? So saying that GOD can be seen as a metaphor for reality and our own higher thoughts, the super-ego, is BS?
Ohh...so Alan Watts Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, etc are all "full of it" and don't know anything about religion (despite being some of the authorities on the subject)
Why bother labeling this as "god" knowing the term carries with it a massive baggage train? It causes a lot of confusion and has people ascribing to a "god" properties that "gods" normally have.
If "reality" is simply "god," then there is a big problem. It suggests that reality has intelligence, that the things that happen to us are imposed upon us by a more powerful source - that being reality or nature or the universe or whatever else you wish to include in your "god" definition.
Without intelligence, without an intent, "god" in the end is no different than dumb luck.
But do you really think that everything that happens occurred for some greater plan? And even if you did, that would imply predestination and completely eradicate the notion of "free will."
Oh, the conundrums and quandaries we invent for ourselves to solve ...
I appreciate the you actually rebut with thoughtful posts, Shirina . . . unlike so many of your cohorts with their knee jerk mantras. I stress the existence of God because it is the existence that underlies the processes that control our reality. Like our own bodies . . . we do not consciously or willfully control the vast majority of the cellular lives and the processes that make us up. It is our existence itself and the requirements for it that provide the process controls. Similarly it is God's existence that provides the process controls for our reality and it is not necessary that God's conscious Will be involved at all . . . but it can be . . . just as we can intervene when our body is in pain or sick or hurt . . . or whatever. The only thing predestined is the type of consciousness we are supposed to produce . . . agape love. Some of us will produce a lot and others not so much . . . but very few if any will produce none, IMO.
You insist on attaching to God all my BELIEFS ABOUT God when you rebut. I know why you do that . . . but you have to know it is evasive, deceitful and reveals your inability to deal with the EXISTENCE issue intellectually. My beliefs have nothing to do with whether or not God exists. That is a science issue and the science about our reality is clear. You have to explain why you do NOT think it qualifies as God . . . and what you think it DOES qualify as.
I can't help but notice that you haven't presented any additional information which would support your claims about the absurdity of purely materialistic explanations for consciousness. Instead, you changed the subject. I guess we all know why that is.
It also seems with this sort of emotional response you're upset that I assumed you find your own beliefs reasonable. So are you admitting that your feelings on this subject don't make sense, or what?
Why label the feelings I have for Cabernet Sauvignon from Red Mountain Washington "love" knowing the term carries with it a massive baggage train? Why label the sight the sunset over the mountains as "beauty" when I use the same word to describe the ideas of Alan Watts and the backside of porn star Riley Reid?
It may carry "baggage" to you, but that's it. I hate family, but if someone says their friends are "like family" I wouldn't bother worrying about the baggage attached to that term.
Because the terms are applicable. I agree that they carry a whole baggage train of other meanings, just as the term 'God' does. This would not be an issue in the normal way. One may love a particular California red. Why then shouldn't you announce in church that Cabernet Sauvignon from Red Mountain Washington will you only drink until the day of your death? If you say that your love of that wine doesn't mean that you can't enjoy the others, isn't that devaluing the whole concept of love of spouse, family and nation? Of course not, because the term 'Love' is used broadly and in a variety of ways. The love opf Wine or food, is only loosely (if at all) connected with the other usages.
In the same way 'God' is used in many ways, metaphorically as a deprecating metaphor for anything that one loves and gives a lot of attention to, or a supposed divine being of one type or another, or a term applies to the workings of nature, metaphorically, or in the belief that it exhibits evidence of being the product of one or more of those divine beings.
That, too, wouldn't be an issue in the normal, or I should say, rational, way, (the irrational is rather the Norm, still ) were it not that the loosely applicable term apparently has a whole train of baggage waiting out of sight, just ready to be trundled on stage apparently validated from drooling muzzle to dangling rear -hook bucket by the rhetorical trick of calling 'nature' 'God', metaphorically.
It seems to be a minor movement for now, but there is definitely potential there. I would definitely attend a 'meeting' if there were one locally. I'm not an atheist, but it still sounds like fun.
It is hypocritical of atheists however, as these are clearly churches/places of worship in all but name. Every normal, healthy human has spiritual yearnings, even if they've been brainwashed by scientistic culture to believe there is no such thing.
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.
) were it not that the loosely applicable term apparently has a whole train of baggage waiting out of sight, just ready to be trundled on stage apparently validated from drooling muzzle to dangling rear -hook bucket by the rhetorical trick of calling 'nature' 'God', metaphorically.