Let it Go!

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 44
--> @SkepticalOne
Why? I mean, we might allow this assumption for the sake of an argument, but you are proselytizing rather than making a logical argument.
Not at all what a silly claim, I'm prepared to argue, why would you think otherwise. But for this topic, why not change the rules a little bit? Is no one interested in discussing God apart from religion? on one hand, atheists hate religion. But when pressed to engage in this topic without it it's complete silence. Why come here day after day, year after year to just remind people how dumb there are to hold Theistic beliefs just because you can find errors within scriptures lol? what is the point? do you want to know about God or do you have no interest in that at all?
That being said, I challenge the requested assumption. Let's not assume a god until it can be legitimately established with verifiable evidence.
It has been, but again this is about perspective and perception. To deny there is evidence is simply intellectual dishonesty. Before you respond go google what evidence is defined as please. Then again if you're not interested in this topic see ya son. Actually you didn't even need to comment at all. 

--> @Stronn
First, do you mean that there is just no Bible, or that there is no religious texts of any kind?
Either way, I'm just trying to stimulate people beyond the defects of the "Holy"Bible or the mistakes of any religious cultures or religious beliefs. My point in doing so is to move the conversation beyond that why? because the relevance between the individual and the Creator goes beyond that.
If you mean no Bible, then some other religion would have the place of Christianity. If you mean no religious texts at all, well, I doubt
that is possible given human nature. If there were no religious texts, someone would come along and write some
to fill the void. So in that sense you question is academic, since such a state could never exist without a
fundamental change in human nature.
Maybe you should reread the OP. All I'm asking, is if you are offended by the Bible let it go, let's discuss God without it. Very simple.
But if for some reason there were no religious texts, and no world religions, yet God really did exist, then I would
approach the question of the nature of God the same way as any other inquiry of nature. I would ask what we
could infer about the nature of God from observing how the universe works.
This is simple and you should understand this real easy, observe the nature of energy and how it operates within creation. This takes more than the conditioning of the mind and what you have been led to believe or accept.
You should be looking at how the universe has unfolded and asking questions not accepting baloney. If energy acts as intelligence, meaning that it creates things through processes right in front of our faces, then why is it so absurd to consider that an intelligent Source uses energy to create what we observe in the universe?
Why does energy exist at all? why does it produce intelligence at all? here's the answer to the first question, energy exists because conscious activity exists.
Wow, what an assertion huh? lol. not really think about it just for a moment.... when you look at everything involved it fits perfectly. We know for a fact that conscious activity produces energy, we know that energy acts as intelligence in what it produces. Energy is proposed it's neither created or destroyed, we know that God is claimed to be neither created or destroyed. But...if energy is present with conscious activity then once again it fits perfectly.
 For one thing, we would
probably infer that he does not take a very active role in events, given that so much in nature seems random and
capricious.
It's the nature of creating things, it's still all a process. Common sense point to the fact that processes occur with the mind or intelligence. Otherwise your out in space again making up impossible scenarios. What we see are processes, not randomness. But either way creation doesn't have to be perfect, this is the outskirts of God's creation. This realm is ruled by physics and chemistry, by death and life. As you move into the inner planes, there's less imperfections because there is less of the material worlds which dissipates in "time".
We would conclude (if anyone would think to pray) that God either does not hear prayers or does not
care to answer them
This is the big misconception about prayer and God. God doesn't sit around answering prayers and not, that's absurd. Prayer is an individual element, and it's based on principle like natural laws. Meaning you can say it's impersonal, because the relationship is based between the individual and spiritual laws, Not God per say. Just like natural laws, they work only by principle or application. Same thing with prayer. That's why the studies of it are inconsistent. Of course they would be, because one can't pray they be healed of cancer when they smacked their kid around a few days prior. Just as an example of course, all things must align in order for that principle to work. You can get this in the Gospels as well if you pay attention.

 given that they are no more effective than non-prayers. There would be no reason to think that God wants our worship.

I never said anything of the sort, that is why I made this topic to discuss this without religious dogma. Come on man...

We would likely conclude that God does not care to alleviate suffering, or forestall death. As for the latter, we could conclude nothing about life after death due to lack of evidence. There would be no reason to expect God to provide everlasting life.

This is the lowest part of creation, it's not meant to be perfect. There's many reason why this plane exists the way it does, but I'll let us get on some common ground before I proceed.

--> @Deb-8-a-bull
Nice post man FULL STOP

Ok Now i have to act the fool.
I did what was asked in your post. Playing pretendy's is my thing. You know its my thing.hey?
Ok so. ' takes deep breath ' 
Gone.  no bible.
No bible 
No bible .
And bammmmmmm ,  No religious groups 
No religious groups.
Everyones the same .
All are the same 
Nothing 
Nothing .
Andddddddddddddd.

Let it go, what do ya want to kno bro???

--> @Imabench
Think you could put on your training pants for this thread instead of your diapers? 
--> @EtrnlVw
[...]we might allow this assumption for the sake of an argument, but you are proselytizing rather than making a logical argument.
Not at all what a silly claim, I'm prepared to argue, why would you think otherwise

Ok...what's the proposition?
Is no one interested in discussing God apart from religion?
Sure, I am, so long as Im not required to assume god just to have the discussion about god.

on one hand, atheists hate religion.
No. That is not a fair statement. I personally think religion is unnecessary. Once we realize religion doesnt justify anything, we'll (hopefully) be able to more easily address innate human deficiencies that are often masked by it. That being said, I don't hate religion. In some places religious institutions are the community. Until a viable alternative exists, hating religion is to hate community itself in many instances. 

In short, "atheists hate religion" is a trope that isn't necessarily true.

do you want to know about God or do you have no interest in that at all?
I'm interested in believing as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. I don't want to believe things other people dubiously hold to be true - that's a good way to end up believing in false things!

To be honest, I don't know what people mean when they say "God". Sometimes, an individual's religious beliefs help narrow a definition down - and there is typically a lot of (legitimate) baggage that comes with this understanding. When someone wants to talk about "God" outside of a religious context, it tends to set off alarm bells for me. Hardly anyone identifies as a deist, so why would so many people want to advocate deism unless they simply wanted to sanitize their beliefs to make them less objectionable?

So, let's ask the burning question here - are you REALLY advocating deism... No heaven, no hell, no 'revealed' deity, no personal god?


That being said, I challenge the requested assumption. Let's not assume a god until it can be legitimately established with verifiable evidence.
It has been, but again this is about perspective and perception. To deny there is evidence is simply intellectual dishonesty. 
I have not denied evidence. I encourage you to re-read my words. If you can show evidence for god, I'd be very interested in it. If not, then intellectual honesty would be admitting subjective evidence without verification is (at best) evidence for one.
--> @EtrnlVw
Lol, you want me to show actual effort in a thread in the religion forum that has 1) Already gone downhill as hard as this one has, and 2) Asks people to put aside their conceptions about Christianity and scriptures to discuss the idea of God in general, with the belief that people will actually do so?

It would be a better use of my time trying to petition people to bring back the Mongol conquests of Japan.  
--> @Imabench
Asks people to put aside their conceptions about Christianity and scriptures to discuss the idea of God

Exactly, if that doesn't interest you buzz off. 
--> @SkepticalOne
Ok...what's the proposition?
To get into a discussion where we could argue the contents, agree or even collaborate. Mainly the proposition was in the OP. You guys are quite boring, makes one wonder why the hell yal visit such a forum. If you're not interested in discovering truths outside your own mentalities and conditioned minds I don't know what to say really. These things interest me greatly, which is why I stay open-minded to whatever is truth, whatever makes sense with the actual evidence.
Sure, I am, so long as Im not required to assume god just to have the discussion about god.
You can keep harping on that but I don't really care whether or not we start with that assumption. It was only to make things more interesting for the participants but it's not a must by any means geeze! When have you ever known me not to be willing to argue my positions?
No. That is not a fair statement. I personally think religion is unnecessary. Once we realize religion doesnt justify anything, we'll (hopefully) be able to more easily address innate human deficiencies that are often masked by it. That being said, I don't hate religion. In some places religious institutions are the community. Until a viable alternative exists, hating religion is to hate community itself in many instances.
In short, "atheists hate religion" is a trope that isn't necessarily true.
Okay I concede and apologize maybe we could move forward anyways, it's just what I observe most of the time, it's just a general attitude mainly. Perhaps hate was the wrong word to use sorry about that.
I'm interested in believing as many true things (and as few false things) as possible.
The we've reached a common grounds, excellent. This should be a great discussion.
I don't want to believe things other people dubiously hold to be true - that's a good way to end up believing in false things!
That you will never hear from me, no sir. Spirituality is all about observations, and of course application. This is your nature and origins, there's nothing that will remain unknown to you. It's just a matter of understanding how to connect with that transcendent reality, be willing to look fairly at all sides and consider. I help you to consider things by engaging in either a discussion or an argument. Spirituality has a science behind it just like the physical world. This isn't about beliefs or imagination there is an objective reality involved, if you understand the difference in the nature of it. In other words this wouldn't be about the physical sense perception.

--> @SkepticalOne
To be honest, I don't know what people mean when they say "God". Sometimes, an individual's religious beliefs help narrow a definition down
Yes of course, again I'm simply moving the discussion away from religion and hopefully just to the Creator, your origins and what all this means within creation. God exists independent of human constructs, religions are just mans interpretations of what we observe outside the physical sense perception mixed in with a bunch of things. Often times I see people discouraged about Theism or God because of the mistakes and complacency of religions/religious people.
- and there is typically a lot of (legitimate) baggage that comes with this understanding. When someone wants to talk about "God" outside of a religious context, it tends to set off alarm bells for me.
Wow, I am all for religions don't you read the things I write lol? My foundation is Christianity I can argue that all day long. But there comes a time to understand that there is a dual reality even in spirituality, that's why you see the misconceptions and cruelty ect ect. I'm just trying to move beyond all that. Spirituality and religions are just a way for souls to find commonality and community.
Hardly anyone identifies as a deist, so why would so many people want to advocate deism unless they simply wanted to sanitize their beliefs to make them less objectionable?
Why don't you ask me what my beliefs are instead of assuming what they are? Let me describe it not you.
So, let's ask the burning question here - are you REALLY advocating deism... No heaven, no hell, no 'revealed' deity, no personal god?
Those things exist but that is not all that exists. Creation is a multiverse, there's more than just a heaven and a hell. Hells are just prisons, just like we have here religion just uses that to control people, they don't really have a precise understanding of what a hell is and what it isn't. God can't be impersonal, God is within all of life and awareness, how could there be no personal element? if you are personal so is the Creator. You can't be something that the Creator is not, whatever you have the Creator has and much more.
I have not denied evidence. I encourage you to re-read my words. If you can show evidence for god, I'd be very interested in it. If
We're talking about the evidence that correlates with the nature of God, spirituality, religions, NDE's, OBE's, spiritual encounters ect ect all fall under the category which indicates a proposition true. We're talking about more evidence for spirituality than any other topic.
then intellectual honesty would be admitting subjective evidence without verification is (at best) evidence for one.
It's not subjective it's objective. Only of a different nature. We loom at the evidence that identifies with Theism.

--> @EtrnlVw


Proposition: (logic) a statement that affirms or denies something and is either true or false

Wanting a discussion is not a proposition, and "atheists are boring, why do they bother?" is much too angsty to be taken seriously.  If you want a discussion, I'm game so long as the pretension of belief is not required.

No. That is not a fair statement.
Okay I concede and apologize maybe we could move forward anyways, it's just what I observe most of the time, it's just a general attitude mainly. Perhaps hate was the wrong word to use sorry about that.
Thank you for that.

Spirituality is all about observations, and of course application. This is your nature and origins, there's nothing that will remain unknown to you. It's just a matter of understanding how to connect with that transcendent reality, be willing to look fairly at all sides and consider. I help you to consider things by engaging in either a discussion or an argument. Spirituality has a science behind it just like the physical world. This isn't about beliefs or imagination there is an objective reality involved, if you understand the difference in the nature of it. In other words this wouldn't be about the physical sense perception.

First thing I notice is that you mean something different than I do by "spirituality". For me, spirituality describes a hyper-awareness of some aspect of the world and the sublime feeling it spawns. A 'spiritual experience' can be derived from a hike in the mountains, wind through the hair, a moving piece of music, art that begs for attention, a child's carefree laugh, etc (triggers vary). There is nothing in my spirituality that calls for a reality beyond detection, but rather it is realized when a particular part of known reality is utterly and blissfully captivating for a moment in time. It is wonderful and ...natural.




--> @EtrnlVw
Hardly anyone identifies as a deist, so why would so many people want to advocate deism unless they simply wanted to sanitize their beliefs to make them less objectionable?
Why don't you ask me what my beliefs are instead of assuming what they are? Let me describe it not you.

If someone wants to talk about god and pretend their personal religious text isn't a thing, then they are functionally advocating deism. That's not me attempting to read your mind so much as reading your words!  I would be interested in knowing your beliefs with as little ambiguity as possible though.

So, let's ask the burning question here - are you REALLY advocating deism... No heaven, no hell, no 'revealed' deity, no personal god?
God can't be impersonal, God is within all of life and awareness, how could there be no personal element? if you are personal so is the Creator. You can't be something that the Creator is not, whatever you have the Creator has and much more.
Would a deistic god be personal? No. Clearly, there are god-concepts which run contrary to your belief in a personal god. Would a tapeworm (like the human) be a lesser version of a creator too? Is the creator the *perfect* parasite? I'm not following your reasoning. 

I have not denied evidence. I encourage you to re-read my words. If you can show evidence for god, I'd be very interested in it. If
We're talking about the evidence that correlates with the nature of God, spirituality, religions, NDE's, OBE's, spiritual encounters ect ect all fall under the category which indicates a proposition true. We're talking about more evidence for spirituality than any other topic.
None of these evidences can be verified or validated by other people. That alone makes these extremely weak evidences. (crap). Pushing crap arguments together doesn't make a stronger case - it only makes a bigger pile of crap.



--> @EtrnlVw
let's get a little deeper in this topic, give me what you got, questions, arguments or ideas about God and the soul that have no relevance to the Bible.
How about starting with proving there is a creator?

I'll wait.

--> @TheRealNihilist
How about starting with proving there is a creator?
I'll wait.
You're going to be waiting until your dead lol. Can't do that Omar and by now you should know some of the reasons why. If you want someone to prove there is a Creator for you start a topic. The idea with this thread is for folks to feel free to talk about the soul and God or the after life without any interference from specific religious views. Something I would assume atheists would find interesting. Maybe Janesix was right.
However, the only way I can prove anything to you, or at least give you things to consider is by discussing Theistic propositions with you until you're satisfied with the information. You guys act like babies when you demand someone prove something to you, it's like you lose all concept of what this platform is for. Debating isn't always about handing you some proof, sometimes we hash things out by DEBATING them, arguing the responses ect ect.
If there was some proof (while there is plenty of evidence) I could hand you we wouldn't even be having this talk. The evidence is about perception, looking at all the available angles and concluding (cross referencing) what it most likely true, add that with my own experiences and we have some things we can discuss. If you want to understand what the evidence is, it's an interpretation of what we see in scientific studies, the propositions of religions and testimonials which of course includes NDE's. Too much to go ever in one post so I'll let you decide if the OP interests you or not, if not sweet dreams.

--> @EtrnlVw
How would we know anything about God?
--> @Wizofoz
How would we know anything about God?
Well part of that answer comes from where you originate, how creation is put together. Another part is just like learning about anything, how would you describe your process of learning? it wouldn't be any different from spirituality, how does a person become academically inclined? can you explain that process in detail? then apply the same thing about God, about spirituality only with different sources.... replace everything single thing you ever learned about with God as the subject instead, same exact thing.
So, what would you like to discuss? what about God would you want to know?

--> @SkepticalOne
First thing I notice is that you mean something different than I do by "spirituality". For me, spirituality describes a hyper-awareness of some aspect of the world and the sublime feeling it spawns. A 'spiritual experience' can be derived from a hike in the mountains, wind through the hair, a moving piece of music, art that begs for attention, a child's carefree laugh, etc (triggers vary). There is nothing in my spirituality that calls for a reality beyond detection, but rather it is realized when a particular part of known reality is utterly and blissfully captivating for a moment in time. It is wonderful and ...natural.
That defeats the role spirituality plays, that is not spirituality, don't care who defined it that way. The purpose behind spirituality belongs to the nature of the soul and it's true origins. What you described needs not the term spirituality. That term is designated for that which is perceived outside the physical sense perception. You can find all kinds of definitions for it probably, but the one that makes sense is the one that correlates with that reality.
Admiring God's creation can be spiritual, but I'm talking about the objective reality of it, not wind in the hair lol. 

--> @EtrnlVw
I understand how you mean the spirituality, but that definition requires there to be a soul. The notion of a soul is dead. (Pun intended)

Split brain individuals can have dueling beliefs such as believer and non believer. Does that mean they developed a second soul with a corpus calloscotomy? Assuming souls are created/granted at conception, what happens if one twin ends up absorbing the other in utero..does the remaining twin has two souls? What about the reverse case where one individual splits into two in utero...does this mean each twin has half a soul? How does an immaterial soul affect a material brain? How can damage to a material brain damage an immaterial soul? 

The notion of a soul raises many more questions than it could possibly answer for me. I'm fairly certain Occam's razor slices it out of a reasonable understanding of reality.


--> @EtrnlVw
"Well part of that answer comes from where you originate, how creation is put together."

ell. there's a physical Universe we can study- where is God in that exactly? What's he made of?

"Another part is just like learning about anything, how would you describe your process of learning?"

I evaluate evidence.

"replace everything single thing you ever learned about with God as the subject instead, same exact thing."

Gibberish.

"So, what would you like to discuss? what about God would you want to know?"

How do I confirm anything you say about God is correct?

--> @EtrnlVw
If there was some proof (while there is plenty of evidence)
Contradicts

You're going to be waiting until your dead lol. 
Do you have evidence or not?

I don't want to talk about feelings because I am not really good at setting good enough standards for them compared to evidence. 
it's an interpretation of what we see in scientific studies, the propositions of religions and testimonials which of course includes NDE's. Too much to go ever in one post so I'll let you decide if the OP interests you or not, if not sweet dreams.
Oh so you are just assuming it leads to God not there is evidence for God and here is the proof.
Since you are provide evidence tailored to God can you logically deduce it?