GOD

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

Navigator, when will you be talking about GOD?

Basted in the SOURCE.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter
Navigator, when will you be talking about GOD?

Originally Posted by dafydd

Basted in the SOURCE.

I have read said many a skeptic proclamation that they don’t need a big invisible delusion called GOD in order to be loving, kind hearted, compassionate, understanding.

I agree.

Perhaps I am being too hasty in that?


From the responses to WIN as I have posited in this thread, the reasons given why a skeptic cannot participate in such has to do with something external preventing them from enabling loving, kind hearted, compassionate, understanding to activate from the their individual experience and into the environment.

It seems the hidden meaning behind the proclamation is that “There is no GOD so there cannot be those things!”

Which of course, is saying something different.

Look out for that python Monty!

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Navigator

From the responses to WIN as I have posited in this thread, the reasons given why a skeptic cannot participate in such has to do with something external preventing them from enabling loving, kind hearted, compassionate, understanding to activate from the their individual experience and into the environment.

I have a delicious sesame dressing you could use on that salad

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Navigator

From the responses to WIN as I have posited in this thread, the reasons given why a skeptic cannot participate in such has to do with something external preventing them from enabling loving, kind hearted, compassionate, understanding to activate from the their individual experience and into the environment.
!

Thats offensive and unsupportable, its akin to claiming that Atheists don't have morals or that Black people don't have souls

It also says a lot more about you than it does about anyone else
Arrogance and Narcissim is not attractive

[Krikkiter]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Originally Posted by Krikkiter
Navigator, when will you be talking about GOD?


I have read said many a skeptic proclamation that they don’t need a big invisible delusion called GOD in order to be loving, kind hearted, compassionate, understanding.

I agree.

Perhaps I am being too hasty in that?


From the responses to WIN as I have posited in this thread, the reasons given why a skeptic cannot participate in such has to do with something external preventing them from enabling loving, kind hearted, compassionate, understanding to activate from the their individual experience and into the environment.

It seems the hidden meaning behind the proclamation is that “There is no GOD so there cannot be those things!”

Which of course, is saying something different.

Look out for that python Monty!

Navigator, it would be obvious to you that I have struggled throughout this thread to understand what it is you're trying to actually get at but I really think this is a reflection of your shortcomings rather than mine. In every serious(ly) woo thread I've ever read or been involved in, the claimant is always very careful to avoid getting to the point of their OP (or comments) quickly (if ever) but also makes a very serious effort to use obfuscation to that end. In my opinion, this is what you've done in this thread.

Now, would you be willing to admit that clear, concise language and logical arguments make for a better understanding on both sides of a debate? If so, maybe you could work towards that because obfuscation is certainly not an endearing or valuable method of communication.

Regarding the substance (I'm not sure that's the correct term) of your above post, the point you seem to be making is that, as has been pointed out already, you feel that people who don't believe in or have awareness of this SOURCE are completely unable to interact with others in a "loving, kind hearted, compassionate" manner. To clarify (and I understand that you've said already in this thread that you're not trying to make a point but I suppose I'll have to ignore that for the sake of communication), is this what you're saying? If it is, as has also been pointed out, that's just insulting.

What an amazingly arrogant judgement to make of individual members of this forum and atheists in general.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Navigator
From the responses to WIN as I have posited in this thread, the reasons given why a skeptic cannot participate in such has to do with something external preventing them from enabling loving, kind hearted, compassionate, understanding to activate from the their individual experience and into the environment.

Originally Posted by Marduk

Thats offensive and unsupportable, its akin to claiming that Atheists don't have morals or that Black people don't have souls

It also says a lot more about you than it does about anyone else
Arrogance and Narcissim is not attractive

Rubbish - you are blowing things out of proportion. As well as taking things out of context...Shadup and love already.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

Navigator, it would be obvious to you that I have struggled throughout this thread to understand what it is you're trying to actually get at but I really think this is a reflection of your shortcomings rather than mine. In every serious(ly) woo thread I've ever read or been involved in, the claimant is always very careful to avoid getting to the point of their OP (or comments) quickly (if ever) but also makes a very serious effort to use obfuscation to that end. In my opinion, this is what you've done in this thread.

Now, would you be willing to admit that clear, concise language and logical arguments make for a better understanding on both sides of a debate? If so, maybe you could work towards that because obfuscation is certainly not an endearing or valuable method of communication.

Regarding the substance (I'm not sure that's the correct term) of your above post, the point you seem to be making is that, as has been pointed out already, you feel that people who don't believe in or have awareness of this SOURCE are completely unable to interact with others in a "loving, kind hearted, compassionate" manner. To clarify (and I understand that you've said already in this thread that you're not trying to make a point but I suppose I'll have to ignore that for the sake of communication), is this what you're saying? If it is, as has also been pointed out, that's just insulting.

What an amazingly arrogant judgement to make of individual members of this forum and atheists in general.

My posts are clear enough. That is the truth.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Navigator

My posts are clear enough. That is the truth.

Unfortunately, no, they are not, as evidenced by the passage I quoted above

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Unfortunately, no, they are not, as evidenced by the passage I quoted above

Dear kerikiwi.

That is not evidence that is opinion. You are among a handful who for whatever reason cannot understand me.
That is quiet alright. It is part of the process. Not everyone understands everyone.

There might be a blockage of some sort preventing this. You are free to claim it is my inability to communicate the way you are used to or for whatever other reason you can come up with.
It is likely transference, but whatever it is, there is really no need for you to to read anything into it.

Its not your 'cup of tea' or 'Marmite sandwich' Whatever!

I am sure there a far more interesting threads you can get your teeth into.

Peace out!

[Nay_Sayer]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Dear kerikiwi.

That is not evidence that is opinion. You are among a handful who for whatever reason cannot understand me.
That is quiet alright. It is part of the process. Not everyone understands everyone.

There might be a blockage of some sort preventing this. You are free to claim it is my inability to communicate the way you are used to or for whatever other reason you can come up with.
It is likely transference, but whatever it is, there is really no need for you to to read anything into it.

Its not your 'cup of tea' or 'Marmite sandwich' Whatever!

I am sure there a far more interesting threads you can get your teeth into.

Peace out!

If you speak in coherent sentences in the english language I will wager anyone with moderate literacy will be able to understand you.

However you are not making your claims and or beliefs very clear.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Navigator

It is likely transference, but whatever it is, there is really no need for you to to read anything into it.

Transference? Seriously?
All that I am reading into is that your communications skills are inadequate.

[Krikkiter]

Originally Posted by Navigator

My posts are clear enough. That is the truth.

I disagree but as I'm sure you're aware, I've been making a big effort to understand what your points of discussion are supposed to be and I've had more help in that regard from members other than yourself.

Now, can you answer my question? You could even respond to my objections as well - that's how discussion works if my understanding is correct.

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

Regarding the substance (I'm not sure that's the correct term) of your above post, the point you seem to be making is that, as has been pointed out already, you feel that people who don't believe in or have awareness of this SOURCE are completely unable to interact with others in a "loving, kind hearted, compassionate" manner. To clarify (and I understand that you've said already in this thread that you're not trying to make a point but I suppose I'll have to ignore that for the sake of communication), is this what you're saying? If it is, as has also been pointed out, that's just insulting.

What an amazingly arrogant judgement to make of individual members of this forum and atheists in general.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Dear kerikiwi.

That is not evidence that is opinion. You are among a handful who for whatever reason cannot understand me.
That is quiet alright. It is part of the process. Not everyone understands everyone.

There might be a blockage of some sort preventing this. You are free to claim it is my inability to communicate the way you are used to or for whatever other reason you can come up with.
It is likely transference, but whatever it is, there is really no need for you to to read anything into it.

Its not your 'cup of tea' or 'Marmite sandwich' Whatever!

I am sure there a far more interesting threads you can get your teeth into.

Peace out!

I'm reasonably sure that you are simply blaming other people for your own shortcomings.

[gambling_cruiser]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Snip
You are among a handful who for whatever reason cannot understand me.
That is quiet alright. It is part of the process. Not everyone understands everyone.
Snip

What large hands you must have!
Almost nobody understands you!

[Navigator]

Everyone gets annoyed at other people, groups, cultures, politics, religion, etc…and that just seems to be a part of the human experience.

People enjoy drama because it lifts them from the mundane. Entertainment for some types…often if one steps back and observes, one can see good points and bad points from any argumentative interaction, and even some similarities in the offensive mannerisms noted about the ‘other side’ which is just as evident in expression coming from complainant during argument.

I have even witnessed people – religious and atheists - make false accusations and even when the object of their complaint moves to avoid confrontation, they are hassled and harangued as if the attacker is only interested in bullying their victim into the ground.

Hitler was good at that.

Myriad mentioned the Jehovah’s witnesses and I mentioned ‘understanding’ as a virtue.
I know many people are extremely hateful toward them when they knock on the door – abusive and threatening.
I don’t agree with JWs either, but there really is no need to react abusively or even to talk down at them (or anyone else) – I understand what Myriad was saying in a previous post about people feeling betrayed and discouraged and how this feeling can spill over and out onto the perceived ‘problem’ but I also understand intolerance is an excuse for bad choices. We all have to take responsibility for our own choices and there is no need to hate or treat someone badly or allow ones mind to believe they are the blame for the world’s problems.

I understand.


I mention how I understand people and their beliefs. Myriad mentioned sceptics who are disillusioned. I mentioned that believers too are disillusioned and I think that there is something calling itself ‘good’ but is being abusive and even thinking it is doing the world a favour with its abusive behavior, and that this is definitely not just a 'religious' problem but goes across the board...and certainly not all religious people are like this.

Hitler is probably the most used example as to ‘the most evil human’ and I have seen sceptics using a claim that ‘Hitler was a Christian’ as if to say all Christians therefore are supporting Hitler, which I am fairly sure – or would like to think most skeptics would not agree with.

People can call themselves ‘whatever’ – this is well known. Jehovah’s witnesses were among the millions who perished at the hands of that mad-man. Do skeptics really believe he was a “Christian” just because it is believed he claimed to be?

I don’t really understand why people use such irrational argument. I think it has something to do with hypocrisy and the desire to create drama even by using false accusation to make them selves look better.



In the end, whatever people call there own self, or other people, their real motives come through in their behaviour. It is the behaviour which shows those who can observe what people are, regardless of their proclamations.

The proof is in the pudding.

I too have asked individuals questions in this thread and my questions have not been answered. I allow for this and accept it and get on with being happy.

I am interested in what sceptics want to have done in regard to what they see is the ‘problem’ with the world…which seems to be ‘religion’.

[Krikkiter]

Navigator, can you answer my question? You could even respond to my objections as well - that's how discussion works if my understanding is correct.

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

Regarding the substance (I'm not sure that's the correct term) of your above post, the point you seem to be making is that, as has been pointed out already, you feel that people who don't believe in or have awareness of this SOURCE are completely unable to interact with others in a "loving, kind hearted, compassionate" manner. To clarify (and I understand that you've said already in this thread that you're not trying to make a point but I suppose I'll have to ignore that for the sake of communication), is this what you're saying? If it is, as has also been pointed out, that's just insulting.

What an amazingly arrogant judgement to make of individual members of this forum and atheists in general.

I have a feeling that you were attempting to address my concerns regarding your previous postings in your above post. I will get to that later, however, this is a matter of relevance and observing the forum rules by keeping on topic. Could you answer the question?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Navigator

I am interested in what sceptics want to have done in regard to what they see is the ‘problem’ with the world…which seems to be ‘religion’.

You are the one calling it a problem. I just see it as a primitive superstition.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Navigator

My posts are clear enough. That is the truth.

That is not the truth. Your posts are waffle.

[Malfie Henpox]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Hitler was good at that.

Nine pages of religious debate and we finally get to the crutch of Navigator's beliefs. Despite anything anyone else says, God wins.

[Krikkiter]

Originally Posted by Malfie Henpox

Nine pages of religious debate and we finally get to the crutch of Navigator's beliefs. Despite anything anyone else says, God wins.

Oh I'm sure there are more "points" to come

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Malfie Henpox

Nine pages of religious debate and we finally get to the crutch of Navigator's beliefs. Despite anything anyone else says, God wins.

It's a GOD_WIN system.

[Malfie Henpox]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

It's a GOD_WIN system.

He Sourcewinned the thread.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Malfie Henpox

He Sourcewinned the thread.

Very good!

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Malfie Henpox

He Sourcewinned the thread.

What's SOURCE for the goose is SOURCE for the PROPAGANDA.

[Navigator]

I live next door to a couple who are atheists. They live next door to a Christian couple. I don’t call myself anything apart from a ‘human being’

We all get along with each other. We treat each other respectfully. We help each other with whatever we need assistance with.

It doesn’t matter what people call them selves. It only matters how they actually treat each other.

We don’t all express ourselves the same way but it seems just natural – we understand even when language could become a barrier, it does not need to be.

Simple.

Is Love That Hard To Know?

Nothing to do with having to adhere to big invisible creators
Nothing to do with having to adhere to the skepticism.


Everything to do with our true success as a specie.

Elementary.

[Marduk]

double post

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Rubbish - you are blowing things out of proportion. As well as taking things out of context...Shadup and love already.

you just claimed that sceptics are incapable of love, you said that at a sceptic forum inhabited by sceptics
you said it, I responded to your words, in response you dismissed my opinion of what I said with further insults
that is the behaviour of an arrogant narcissist

would you like to see if anyone else here agrees with me ?
opinions please folks

[Astreja]

Originally Posted by Marduk

you just claimed that sceptics are incapable of love, you said that at a sceptic forum inhabited by sceptics
you said it, I responded to your words, in response you dismissed my opinion of what I said with further insults
that is the behaviour of an arrogant narcissist

would you like to see if anyone else here agrees with me ?
opinions please folks

I concur, Marduk. Navigator has made an extremely insulting and completely unsupported assertion. I doubt very much that Navigator has access to any of our subjective inner worlds and is therefore not in a position to comment on any of them. I feel that Navigator owes us all an unqualified apology.

Disclaimer: I have a personal stake in this, as I was once told "You don't know how to love" by an abusive ex-spouse.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Navigator

<Snip>


Everything to do with our true success as a specie.

Elementary.

Ah. So it all comes down to money? I thought so.

Here, have a pony:

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by Navigator

I live next door to a couple who are atheists. They live next door to a Christian couple. I don’t call myself anything apart from a ‘human being’

We all get along with each other. We treat each other respectfully. We help each other with whatever we need assistance with.

It doesn’t matter what people call them selves. It only matters how they actually treat each other.

We don’t all express ourselves the same way but it seems just natural – we understand even when language could become a barrier, it does not need to be.

Simple.

Is Love That Hard To Know?

Nothing to do with having to adhere to big invisible creators
Nothing to do with having to adhere to the skepticism.


Everything to do with our true success as a specie.

Elementary.

I think you're confusing 'saying nothing and never being wrong', with 'saying intelligent things and being right'.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Hi Myriad.

For some reason you are focused upon religion as if it owns the rights to or is the only channel for love, compassion understanding etc.

Not at all, though perhaps it came through otherwise in my last post. The point was contrasting between attempts at global solutions for everything (that are dubious at best) versus patient local efforts that accept necessary moral compromises to nibble away at some particular problem in a barely perceptible way. I happened to use two religious examples (the "Brothers of Kindness" service to eight individuals versus the Jehovah's Witnesses grandiose expectations of the end of all suffering on earth forever) to illustrate the point, but I just as easily could have used secular ones. For example, someone volunteering at a local library, versus a conspiracy theorist "waking up" the public to "what's really going on" (e.g. ongoing treason by Illuminati, Neocons, Jews, or whoever) so the villains can be overthrown and everything set right again. Or the United Way funding fresh water supplies for impoverished villages, one pipe and one pump and one bribe at a time, versus Pol Pot's all-encompassing plan for turning Cambodia into an agrarian paradise.

Quote:

Can I ask. As a skeptic are you wanting in that department? Has the fact that religion has failed so miserably convinced you it is thus not possible?

Way off the mark. For one thing, I'm a theist and I practice a religion. This makes me a poor skeptic by some correspondents' estimation (just as I'm a poor Christian by many Christians' estimation).

What does a religion being "not possible" even mean? Narratives, practices, and experiences. Of course experiences are possible; they happen. Of course practices are possible; people do them. Of course narratives are possible; people tell them. Whether the narratives are true or not is a separate question.

Quote:

Do you think that religion is the field in which such expression must come through and thus since it apparently has failed, then the truth of such expression can be crossed off the list as being an irrelevant or unnecessary part of the overall recipe for WIN?

Again, looking at religion as narratives, practices, and experiences should clarify that question and make the answer obvious. Only the narrative portion is even capable of distinguishing between a religion and any other system, and even that's dicey.

Quote:

I cannot tell you that the brothers you mentioned are ‘doing it all wrong’. You appear to think this is the case because you also mention that they are funded by the Roman Catholic institution which is a LOSE system (on account of the things you mentioned).

Perhaps in this the brothers are doing it wrong. They are expressing compassion from a LOSE system.

I phrased my description of the Brothers' activities to be fairly neutral, rather than reflecting my own judgment, so your conclusion about my opinion is reasonable. However, my actual opinion is that the Brothers are doing excellent work and are one of the better moral examples in my life, though of course their path is not suitable to be emulated by everyone.

Quote:

The WIN system which can be built could be built using Science. At the moment science is being used by LOSE to create prisons for those that are using and being used by those systems…they are paying for the prison and they are funding its creation. Science could just as easily be used for the purpose of building a paradise.

Before you declare that project easy, let's see the plan.

Please note in advance that if step 1 or step 2 (or any step) in any plan is "get everyone to agree with me," then the plan is in no way easy, as it requires a step that has never been accomplished in history by any means by anyone. Have you come up with a way to use Science (or even better, regular uncapitalized science) to get everyone to agree with a plan?

Quote:

I remember some JWs knocking at my door. They wanted to talk about their beliefs. It is kinda sad and also kinda understandable that some religions and new agers are expecting some being or beings to come down from their hiding in the heavens and put right which was put wrong.

It is sad because we don’t actually need some Galactic super-specie AI exobot artefacts to solve our specie problem.

But like you seem to be expressing of your own self, these believers also have lost heart – have lost hope in the human ability to raise itself out of its self created situation.

I can't speak for the JW's as to whether their expressed hopes and expectations are sincere or not. The weight of the evidence appears in favor of sincerity.

Speaking for myself, I don't regard ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics or the lethal processes of evolution as valid forms of optimism, nor acknowledgment of the laws of thermodynamics and the lethal processes of evolution as expressions of pessimism. If you want to convince me that you can help solve a problem, show me that you have respect for the nature and dimensions of the problem. Showing blind wishful optimism is more likely to convince me of the opposite. Han Solo said "never tell me the odds," but he didn't close his eyes and fly; he paid close attention to the asteroids!

Quote:

The JWs handed me their ‘Watchtower’ propaganda. I noticed on the cover was this appealing picture of a future time where everyone obviously were getting along together and the planet was rich with manicured gardens and the people in the pictures were not of one particular race or culture…

I asked them – the JWs who gave me the mag – if this was what they believed would become a reality on the Earth.
They said yes.
I asked them what they themselves were doing about it. I reminded them that they had made favourable comments on my own garden and asked them how their gardens were.
They replied that in all honesty, they had little time for there gardens between working to pay off the mortgage, bringing up their children and spreading the word of their particular sect.

You show flashes of wisdom and insight. This was one of them.

Quote:

What do these have in common with you Myriad that they are so busy with their lives that there is actually no time to build the world they envision?

Children? Mortgages? Job? Career?

... and then you go off the rails again. What personal connection with me are you trying to imply here? Show me the plan, and I'll tell you whether my time is an issue.

Quote:

Seems to me that religious /new age folk have more faith in their beliefs about being transported to some heavenly ready made planet paradise than they do in the LOSE system which is only interested in controlling and manipulating and taking advantage of the fact that they even exist – to be used only for LOSE systems.

Which is why many skeptics regard faith in magic solutions like being taken to some other planet or finding paradise in the afterlife as an active part of the "lose" system itself, and therefore something to be opposed. Even if you don't agree with them, you do see the logic of that, right?

Quote:

Skeptics would like them to have more than just faith in Science. But to what end? What does Science offer that dramatically changes their situation?

Science is simply seen to be a tool of oppression in the long run.

What is doing the oppressing, that scientists must focus upon their field and forgo silly notions of building freedom and WIN?

Politics?

Do you think it is at all fair for science to be having fingers pointed at its lack of ability to be any better?
I don’t think it matters…fingers are pointed in all directions, blame shifted hither thither.
It is just the problem pointing out the problem without understanding it too is part of the problem.

Such as it is, no wonder most cannot see the woods for the trees.

We are building our own prison and while some might have the positions of guards and other administrator and a hand full as owners, all are still within that LOSE prison system, and none can claim true freedom. Or Sapience.

Let's see the plan.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[dafydd]

This skeptic is a hopeless romantic who is always in love. Navigator hasn't a clue about skeptics.

[Weak Kitten]

Wow Myriad, your patience and calm never cease to amaze me. We really need an award for civilized behavior on this forum, I'd certainly nominate you.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Weak Kitten

Wow Myriad, your patience and calm never cease to amaze me. We really need an award for civilized behavior on this forum, I'd certainly nominate you.

Catch me on a bad day, in the wrong thread, and you might change your mind.

But for what it's worth (and not to try to tell anyone else how to approach this discussion, as long as the MA isn't breached), I thought Navigator was asking some worthwhile questions about the reach of skepticism as (in my terminology) a system of practice.

----------

Navigator, three more comments:

1. Rereading my last response above, I realize that I misinterpreted the second passage I quoted; I read the "it" as "religion" but it was intended to refer to "love, compassion, understanding, etc."

My response wouldn't be very much different that way, though. Those things obviously exist so are not impossible, and religion is often successful in channeling them (just as it is often successful in channeling their negation) so that is not impossible either.

2. If you want to start a discussion of environmental threats and issues (since I invited you to ask in a previous post, and you did ask), it might be best to do so in a new thread. Responding to your question here would have taken the discussion off in too many different directions at once. I meant to mention that earlier, but I forgot to.

3. Earlier you asked me for evidence, when I claimed productive discussion could occur and occasionally was occurring here between people with different systems of practice, when the dialog focuses on experiences and practices, rather than narratives. Here is a current example of such a thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=238089. Note that (so far, as I write this) the discussion has focused on practices (praying, and expressing good wishes in terms of praying) and experiences (what it feels like to be told you're being prayed for, under trying circumstances). Common ground can be found in these practices and experiences. Note that arguing about narratives (e.g. whether or not prayer is actual telepathic communication with an actual deity that might possibly change that deity's mind), where common ground is unlikely, has so far been bypassed.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Navigator]

Page 1:

OP

Various replies which observed that the topic “GOD” wasn’t to be undefined, or that it wasn’t relevant because it didn’t exist so why discuss it.

• *You seem to want to discard the root notion and worship the trappings of ineffability we erected to buttress him over the years.

• Don't sweep everything into the "god pile" I hate that.

• ''I do not believe in the existence of any god or gods''

• *Nice try. Which GOD are you discussing.

• Which God are you talking about?


My reply to these was just as impulsive and acknowledged that the OP had not been carefully read, due to the responses.

“I await the influx of more of this same predictable behaviour before the dust of such stupidity settles and the sensible arrive.”


Other replies followed.

• "Is the concept of god relevant to anything?"

That was part of OP.

“Is love how the invisible becomes visible?”

• God created man in his image. Man is not invisible. Therefore, god, in whose image man was created, is not invisible. Since god is not invisible yet cannot be seen, god does not exist.

This is exactly what was said another way in the OP
“So we need then to remove the masks and costumes that have adorned the god concepts of human beings before we can even begin sensible discussion regarding GOD.”

And:

“What is left once The SOURCE has once more become naked?”

Then the subject of insults arose due to my comment “the dust of stupidity” in regard to behaviour.

• *No need for insults



In the OP Source was mentioned as something which was involved in the creation of this universe.

• *Is this SOURCE anything like the FORCE?

• ''Making the Source of everything visible'' sounds like New Age gibberish.

• And lay off the source everybody.

There was also more evidence that the OP had not been read correctly. The OP stated:

“And now in today’s modern world we understand the vastness evident in the science regarding the universe and its complexities and mysteries and possibilities and “The SOURCE” becomes just as complex and vast while GOD becomes redundant.”

The comments below show that the OP was not understood.

• The standard here is that you must prove that God exists.

• That's the whole problem with the whole question. Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

The OP also stated that “Biological life forms seem to be an anomaly in the Universe.” This also created verbal petitions for ‘evidence’

• Wow there tonto - what do you base this statement on?

• Why would you write that biological forms seem to be an anomaly in the Universe? Have you seen the entire Universe?

More replies trying to focus on proving God exists, which was covered in the OP.

“So we need then to remove the masks and costumes that have adorned the god concepts of human beings before we can even begin sensible discussion regarding GOD.”

• *Nice try. Which GOD are you discussing.

• Which God are you talking about?

Then there was this:

• It's such a simple idea. "Can you prove any god or gods exist?"

• *The most simple disproof of the existence of God is the mere fact that It cannot prove It exists.

Which is put forward as a possibility in the OP:

“What is left once The SOURCE has once more become naked?

Attributes?

Where GOD has been known to be LOVE, this can still apply to The SOURCE.

Is love how the invisible becomes visible?”

The question was asking:
“If God is a human invention, is Love also a human invention?”
The question was also asking:
“If humans love each other, is this an attribute of The Source revealed through creation?”

A music video was linked to the thread as a hint to what the OP was also speaking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekytTpFy96o

A question put forward in the OP:

“Would it thus be fair to suggest that ‘proving there is a Source’ will essentially be the preservation of Life on Earth and ‘proving there is not a source’ will be the destruction of Life On Earth?”

And an answer:

• No.

Edit - The short version is that we have no good reason, whatsoever, to believe that whether there is a Source has anything at all to do with the continuation of life, as it exists on our planet, much less whether such a Source would be benign or malign to said continuation.

This is also quiet close to what the OP was conveying. It would have been good if my question “Why?” was answered, because it is relevant…as is the above comment.
This is worth expanding upon.

Page2:

To which I answered;

“Close. But it is not about belief or non belief. I more than hinted in the OP. While that song is written about a certain religion it speaks of attitudes as being the downfall and 'we have got to make it here' as a simple and to the point 'there are no new frontiers' a deity or belief in a deity is not what causes the decline the song speaks of.”

• One of the reasons people invent gods is that concept of biological life seems too complex to occur without a maker. And it's simply the limitations of the human mind and experience that make it seem like a reasonable conclusion.

Covered in the OP:

“We can understand how human beings experiencing a beginning within and upon something huge would attribute this creation to a creator and build upon the concepts and attribute known qualities to those concepts – as rudimentary as they began and as complex as they became, in line with the natural process of evolution.”



• The truth is you don't know how we got here and no one else does either. So we're right back where we started from. We don't know.

“We know enough...we know more than we once knew. What we have to figure out is how we - the anomaly - are going to maintain and nurture that matter of fact.”

• The OP appears to use life's claimed status as an anomaly to make the point that we have a duty to try to preserve it. I think that most people would hope that life on earth will be preserved irrespective of whether distant planets are teeming with life or not.

The above comment was astute and understands that part of the OP.

From the OP:

“Would it thus be fair to suggest that ‘proving there is a Source’ will essentially be the preservation of Life on Earth and ‘proving there is not a source’ will be the destruction of Life On Earth?”

• So, are you saying that this thread is your attempt to claim that the lack of a belief in a deity of some form will cause the demise of society?

• How about proving it or disproving it has absolutely no relevance towards the preservation of life on earth.


It was a question put forth. It was not a statement of fact. What I was asking was, “If The Source even has attributes which can be defined by human concepts, would these be seen in actions which preserve and nurture Life On Earth’?

I am still undecided weather it has or has no relevance in regards to preservation of life on Earth.

That is why I answered:

“No - no more important than we choose to think we are in terms of nurturing.
Not 'self important' or 'conceit'
I think - in terms of nurturing we are better equipped with love than we are with hate, as stated in the OP.”




And from the same post:

• I think you wrap yourself way up too much in somehow our place in the universe being important. I think that's what you mean, really. We're important. And um yeah....but not the way you think.


Take a look at this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PN5J...eature=related

Which I did, and it speaks the same message as the OP.

The whole message of the video…not just the part that points out how insignificant we are, but that even in that insignificance, what we are can still be seen as important enough to preserve it.

• If you got your wish and could prove the existence of your Source, but feel the need to scold anyone who calls it God, you'd be in for a busy time.

This comment also misunderstands the OP. It is not about proving the existence of Source. The OP points out that it is not of human creation (like ‘God/Goddess concepts) and that it is unknowable in that it is impervious to the instrument of science.

Some things just are.

• Did you WATCH the Carl Sagan video? Are you very young? If so excuse our responses because you're preaching to the choir here.

This post gave me a sense that perhaps I had been mistaken and was in the right place. This post was saying that people in this forum are very interested in nurturing - very serious about the state of our situation as a specie and recognise that there is a problem which needs serious consideration and a coherent workable plan of action.

The poignant part of my reply was:

“We are in this together so getting on the same page is the key and blahing on about 'god' as if that was really the problem is fallacy.

The problem is you, me and the choir and our attitudes against each other.”

And the reply – which addresses ‘The Problem’ as a skeptic sees it was:

• It is the problem. Do you have any idea how much of a problem God concepts create in the world? Do you have any idea of the way logic and reason are contorted into such a freaking demented way because people can't unbelieve in some fantasy because it has been so ingrained into public consciousness?
And:

• God belief and woo beliefs is an insidious addiction that must be confronted with reality and stopped. Not coddled and understood.

I am open to being corrected that this is NOT the average attitude of a skeptic, but I have not seen anyone step forward as a skeptic and make clear that this is not an attitude held as necessary in order to be a skeptic.

I have asked since this ‘philosophy of scepticism’ was presented, as to ‘what the solution to this problem’ might be if there are any solutions.

No concrete solutions where offered.

The OP comments on this in the last part…which starts off saying:

“We understand hate here being played out on this Planet….”

[Navigator]

Hi Myriad.

Thank You.

I posted the above which I had been thinking about this morning at work, and then read you replies.

I appreciate your wisdom.

I will reread your last two posts again and ponder. It is not that I don't have a sketch of a "plan" I have some ideas which I would like to offer as a way of opening dialog - I have to think about the best way of presenting these. Obviously my approach and style, lack of proper use of the English language and other nuances agitates some members...which doesn't bode well with discussion...I appreciate that you have chosen to overlook most of this and focus on the 'feel' (for want of a better word). However, as basic as I am in my presentation, I am trying (some would and have said 'Very Trying') and will continue to try and to improve.

I think you are correct that the next step is to start another thread in an appropriate forum.

Once again, thank you.

[Navigator]

Quote: Navigator
I asked them – the JWs who gave me the mag – if this was what they believed would become a reality on the Earth.
They said yes.
I asked them what they themselves were doing about it. I reminded them that they had made favourable comments on my own garden and asked them how their gardens were.
They replied that in all honesty, they had little time for there gardens between working to pay off the mortgage, bringing up their children and spreading the word of their particular sect.

Myriad: You show flashes of wisdom and insight. This was one of them.



Quote: Navigator
What do these have in common with you Myriad that they are so busy with their lives that there is actually no time to build the world they envision?

Children? Mortgages? Job? Career?

Myriad: ... and then you go off the rails again. What personal connection with me are you trying to imply here? Show me the plan, and I'll tell you whether my time is an issue.

Perhaps not with you personally Myriad.
You might not be in the same boat as the majority….or use your time working, paying off mortgages, attending to children etc…

Although it would be fair to assume you are on the same planet. So essentially you are able to help ‘build the world’ you envision and are active in this regard.

I would also like to remind you of what I said in an earlier post on the subject of ‘a plan’.

Originally Posted by Myriad

There are various means of doing so, many of them technically intricate, so this is a difficult discipline and must be learned and exercised and cross-checked with other practitioners to verify that one is doing it successfully. Like social life, it requires a lot of effort; unlike social life, the predisposition to do it doesn't appear to be very common. The most common shared experience among skeptics is disillusionment, both in the sense of being freed from illusion and in the sense of disappointment and resentment over having previously been deceived into belief in false narratives, or seeing others so deceived. The other side of the disillusionment coin is appreciation of, both in the sense of knowing-about and in the sense of positive emotional engagement with, the natural world beyond the self.

Nice – so there is emotion attached to being sceptical.
How useful is it to the holistic problem and solution?

How useful is it to the shared reality of life on Earth?

Certainly I am not saying ‘of what use is scepticism?’ so much as ‘what useful workable logical plan of action is being presented by this model which would show that this model is THE model to adopt and follow and give ones support through money and energy?’

It is noted that the model does have many adherents and is adding to its ranks daily. How – for example are those newbies instructed in turning disillusion into appreciation from the ‘example’ of those who have been practitioners for a long time – are in leadership roles and hold the respect of those new adherents?

Is preservation/nurturing the fact of life on Earth and understanding of the holistic potential of human beings a primary and priority for the skeptic?

Is a WIN_WIN system even seen as something worthwhile to promote and co-create as essential to being or identifying oneself as a ‘skeptic’?

Originally Posted by Navigator
Humanity is in its infancy? I would say it is in its late teens myself.
I question your data quality that we have a long. long way to go which suggests also that with our present LOSE systems, that these will grant us ‘a long, long time’ in order to get our **** together.

Sounds like faith.

Originally Posted by punshhh

Wisdom more like.
Just give it some thought. What degree of technological control of our environment would be required to secure our long term survival?.

That would suggest that science has secured this future or at very least has a plan – a very long term plan.
Rather than me giving it some thought…just share what you know even in your own words …

It would also suggest that you have access to that plan if as you say, you base your support in wisdom rather than faith.

I think you could agree that a ‘plan’ and ‘wisdom’ are what I have been saying and that this will require many minds contributing and that those minds will need to be on the same page.

Me: (in this thread) As explained, those attacking the perceived problem while overlooking the hypocritical aspects of their own motives and bias, does not constitute a viable alternative to the complaint mentioned.
It is same old same old in different format.

Learn and accept that, and we might all eventually get on the same page. Get on the same page and we have greater chance to create a better system.

[Navigator]

Navigator:The WIN system which can be built could be built using Science. At the moment science is being used by LOSE to create prisons for those that are using and being used by those systems…they are paying for the prison and they are funding its creation. Science could just as easily be used for the purpose of building a paradise.

Myriad: Before you declare that project easy, let's see the plan.

Please note in advance that if step 1 or step 2 (or any step) in any plan is "get everyone to agree with me," then the plan is in no way easy, as it requires a step that has never been accomplished in history by any means by anyone.

Navigator: Myriad…I said “Science could just as easily be used for the purpose of building a paradise.”!

I was not implying that it would be easy. It hasn’t been easy using it to build a prison.
What I was saying was that ‘if we ca make a prison we can make a paradise.”

Myriad: Have you come up with a way to use Science (or even better, regular uncapitalized science) to get everyone to agree with a plan?

Navigator:Was it necessary to include “(or even better, regular uncapitalized science)”?

I have some ideas. In regard to ‘getting everybody to agree with a plan’ I think the most important thing to identify is that which everybody has in common and work from that reality.

What are everybody’s immediate needs?

Myriad: Let's see the plan.

Navigator: Lets see if we can get on the same page and from their build the plan together.

As I say – I will give some thought as to how I should proceed with this. Obviously part of the ‘plan’ is to see if I can’t interest others into contributing – and I understand what you are referring to here:

Myriad: 3. Earlier you asked me for evidence, when I claimed productive discussion could occur and occasionally was occurring here between people with different systems of practice, when the dialog focuses on experiences and practices, rather than narratives. Here is a current example of such a thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=238089. Note that (so far, as I write this) the discussion has focused on practices (praying, and expressing good wishes in terms of praying) and experiences (what it feels like to be told you're being prayed for, under trying circumstances). Common ground can be found in these practices and experiences. Note that arguing about narratives (e.g. whether or not prayer is actual telepathic communication with an actual deity that might possibly change that deity's mind), where common ground is unlikely, has so far been bypassed.

Navigator:Common ground.

Being on the same page:

So I need to come up with some kind of outline…avoid overuse of narrative while conveying an idea which can in principle be understood enough to attract contribution and growth.

Critical analysis would be expected and will contribute to the whole project – even having an underlying principle attached to it.

Transforming an intelligent specie into a sapient specie for example.

“Intelligence without wisdom is like a swimming pool without water.”

Myriad: The plan is in no way easy, as it requires a step that has never been accomplished in history by any means by anyone.

Navigator: Agreed

[Tricky]

Navigator, PLEASE learn to use the quote function. It's really quite easy, and it will mean that more people read what you have to say. I'm not going to even bother because it is too much work to figure out who's saying what.

If you need some help, there are many here (including me) who will be glad to give you some tips.

[yog_sothoth]

Crom sits in his mountain of power and laughs at this argument. We are talking about Crom, right?

Cthulhu maybe? Azathoth perhaps?

I think that when people debate the existence of a god, they need to specify which one. We should start at the Hindu gods in alphabetical order.