The joy of religion - part xxxxxxxxx

[WelshBloke]

That's all well and good but in your case you don't know something and you don't know you don't know it, nor do you want to because you have no need but a considerable amount of conceit, thinking you know when you don't know something.

Theres little comparatively that I know that I know, slightly more that I dont know that I know, theres plenty that I know that i dont know and even more that I dont know that I dont know.

Don't get mad. Imagine how lucky you are to now have something new to find out the reason and truth of. Of course you can still decide that what I'm saying is just too hard and must be magic.

I aint mad though. The problem is that religion is impervious to reason. No matter how long you look at it you end up with a black box marked magic.

 

[WelshBloke]

Then that should be your first clue...that there is no "rational" reason.

Well that certainly give me an insight into your thinking anyway.

I'm not pretending anything....but you apparently don't see this because you're unable to understand anything outside the paradigm you live in.

Youre still doing the "Theres totally meaning to it, I just cant explain it because you don't believe in it" thing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well that certainly give me an insight into your thinking anyway.

I somehow imagine that this "insight" you perceive is more of a dismissive nature than something that might actually reflect a glimmer of understanding. But I get it.

Youre still doing the "Theres totally meaning to it, I just cant explain it because you don't believe in it" thing.

No, I'm not doing the "Theres totally meaning to it, I just cant explain it because you don't believe in it" thing. I'm doing the "There's totally meaning to it, I just can't explain it in a way you can understand because you're incapable of perceiving what you cannot rationalize" thing.

I'm horrible at analogies, but here goes. A blind man from birth has heard people say many, many times during his lifetime that rainbows are beautiful. He can use every ounce of his intellectual capacity to reason what they must look like after hearing all the various descriptions of rainbows during his life...but he will never really know that rainbows exist and are truly beautiful until his blindness is cured and he actually sees one.

You're trying to understand how something tastes by looking at it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The problem is that religion is impervious to reason. No matter how long you look at it you end up with a black box marked magic.

Don't conflate God and religion. Religions are man-made constructs...and, as such, are not even remotely close to being immune from the imperfections inherent with human nature.

 

[WelshBloke]

I somehow imagine that this "insight" you perceive is more of a dismissive nature than something that might actually reflect a glimmer of understanding. But I get it.

Not totally dismissive, but dismissive from a pov of getting an explanation that doesn't need belief.

No, I'm not doing the "Theres totally meaning to it, I just cant explain it because you don't believe in it" thing. I'm doing the "There's totally meaning to it, I just can't explain it because you're incapable of perceiving what you cannot rationalize" thing.

That still sounds like you have to believe before you can understand.

I'm horrible at analogies, but here goes. A blind man from birth has heard people say many, many times that rainbows are beautiful. He can use every ounce of his intellectual capacity to reason what they must look like after hearing all the various descriptions of rainbows during his life...but he will never really know that rainbows exist and are truly beautiful until his blindness is cured and he actually sees one.

Aesthetics are one thing but you can explain the process by which a rainbow forms still.

You're trying to understand how something tastes by looking at it.

But I can see that the thing exists regardless of its flavour.

 

[MagickMan]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! What are you, 8 years old?

If I were I'd still be still be ahead of you by at least 4, you inbred twat. :\

Y'know what would shut me up right quick? A refutation of my argument.

This is a lot more fun.

But... since you don't have one, I'm just gonna keep on pointing it out, over, and over, and over, and over.

I'm counting on it.

It's also fun to point out that your first few attempts at rebutting the argument were straight-up air balls. "4D space." "G is external." "Relativistic quantum mechanics."

Why should we believe that you're anything more than just a sore loser?

Only a stupid son-of-a-bitch, like you, would believe you can prove the non-existence of a deity with remedial logic.

What part of that is confusing to you?

Nothing really, you're just too stupid to have this discussion. :\

That's fantastic. Now, about that alleged rebuttal that you're lying about having...

Well, we've been wanting to tell you for a while now, but your father is actually a baboon.

 

[WelshBloke]

Don't conflate God and religion. Religions are man-made constructs...and, as such, are not even remotely close to being immune from the imperfections inherent with human nature.

Religion is easy to explain and quite obviously exists, it's gods that are non provable and irrational.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Not totally dismissive, but dismissive from a pov of getting an explanation that doesn't need belief.

I'm doing my best. You're misunderstanding what I'm saying...belief is not a prerequisite to perceiving. I'm telling you to the exact opposite....belief comes from perceiving.

That still sounds like you have to believe before you can understand.

No.

Aesthetics are one thing but you can explain the process by which a rainbow forms still.

So what? My point is that analysis and "aesthetics" are two completely different things.

But I can see that the thing exists regardless of its flavour.

Yet you cannot taste and wonder why.

 

[bshole]

Religion is easy to explain and quite obviously exists, it's gods that are non provable and irrational.

Gods give external meaning and hope and are therefor not irrational. They fill an EMOTIONAL NEED that is present in all humans.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Religion is easy to explain and quite obviously exists, it's gods that are non provable and irrational.

Sigh. It now appears that we can spend an eternity talking past each other. I'm not very articulate and don't think I can help you much more than I already have attempted. Good luck in your quest for understanding.

 

[shira]

Has it ever occurred to you that you may not know nearly as much as you think you do?

Actually, no one can think they know remotely as much as they actually know. So I in fact know much more than I think I know.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Actually, no one can think they know remotely as much as they actually know. So I in fact know much more than I think I know.

Bully for you! /golfclap

 

[WelshBloke]

I'm doing my best. You're misunderstanding what I'm saying...belief is not a prerequisite to perceiving. I'm telling you to the exact opposite....belief comes from perceiving.

But there's nothing concrete to perceive. Where can I perceive God without a belief that he exists?

No.

So take my starting point. I have no belief that God exists, so what is there for me to perceive?

So what? My point is that analysis and "aesthetics" are two completely different things.

A painting objectively exists, it's aesthetics are intangible.

God does not objectively exist, his aesthetics are irrelevant to his (non) existence.

Yet you cannot taste and wonder why.

I can taste things that don't exist in the way that you believe in a God that doesn't exist.

Sigh. It now appears that we can spend an eternity talking past each other. I'm not very articulate and don't think I can help you much more than I already have attempted.

Meh. You're doing pretty well, it's more that forums are a crappy place to discuss this. A few pints in a good pub with an open fire and a storm blowing outside is the best place.

 

[shira]

Bully for you! /golfclap

If you you may not like the answer to a question you're considering asking, maybe you shouldn't ask the question.

 

[Moonbeam]

Gods give external meaning and hope and are therefor not irrational. They fill an EMOTIONAL NEED that is present in all humans.

What emotional need?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If I were I'd still be still be ahead of you by at least 4, you inbred twat. :\

Oh boy. The "YOU'RE a BIGGER poophead" comeback. How original. I hope you didn't hurt yourself coming up with that one.

This is a lot more fun.

I admit, I don't understand what's so "fun" for you about simultaneously destroying your own dignity and credibility, but hey I know masochism is a thing. Get down wit'cher bad self.

{snip}

Only a stupid son-of-a-bitch, like you, would believe you can prove the non-existence of a deity with remedial logic.

But that's just false. Reductio ad absurdum can demonstrate the non-existence of an alleged god whose definition is inconsistent or incoherent. That's precisely how my argument works. I can equally confidently say that any god who is alleged to make circles have corners does not exist, or that any god which allegedly knows the largest prime number does not exist. Inconsistent or incoherent ideas cannot be instantiated in reality.

You really don't get it, do you?

Nothing really, you're just too stupid to have this discussion. :\

That's hilarious. :awe:

Well, we've been wanting to tell you for a while now, but your father is actually a baboon.

Just another stellar response from you. I'm sure everybody is really impressed.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I thought most of your replies were comments rather than questions, and I read it all. If I left questions unanswered then it wasn't intentional and my apology.

Well, my last response hasn't disappeared. It's still there if you want to go back and learn which questions I meant.

Honestly I'm lost here.
Intelligence-wise, a human peer had never existed.

Totally unsubstantiated claim, and I do not agree to it.

A simple look over the animals living conditions and behavior reveals a severely restricted mindset.

Totally unsubstantiated claim, and I do not agree to it.

Sorry but, I can't grasp our disagreement here.

You believe things which are not based on evidence, and I am not accepting those beliefs as true.

The vast human advances can't be possible related to evolution process (speaking of DNA), as basically the biological structure is same for current humans and those who lived since thousands of years ago (albeit they were much stronger than us).

Argument from incredulity.

With all due respect, I believe you're trying to twist the facts in order to support your case.

Is it not a fact that we survived until the present without the ability to fly?

Why aircraft was invented in the first place, to bombard your enemies? deliver nukes? or greatly shortening travel times?

Do you not understand the difference between things necessary to our survival as a species and things which are merely convenient or advantageous for the members of the species?

That was Ardi, the female human found near Ethiopia and estimated dead since four million years ago.

Great. So what?

 

[Victorian Gray]

First of all, I hope you do realize that it's Evolution theory vs. God existence. So lets not portray that theory as innocent-scientifically-driven one because it isn't. Whether its defendants like it or not, it's clearly motivated by atheism agenda.

Since when? What does evolution have to do with the idea of a god or gods? Answer: absolutely nothing.

You might find this interesting:

Religious Groups’ Views on Evolution

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-groups-views-on-evolution/

 

[Moonbeam]

But there's nothing concrete to perceive. Where can I perceive God without a belief that he exists?




So take my starting point. I have no belief that God exists, so what is there for me to perceive?




A painting objectively exists, it's aesthetics are intangible.

God does not objectively exist, his aesthetics are irrelevant to his (non) existence.




I can taste things that don't exist in the way that you believe in a God that doesn't exist.




Meh. You're doing pretty well, it's more that forums are a crappy place to discuss this. A few pints in a good pub with an open fire and a storm blowing outside is the best place.

Einstein spent weeks in a depression despairing over the fact that he could not solve the paradox of how the speed of light could be a constant and the fact that people in different frames of reference would see one event in two different ways. He gave up but had a vision of what one would see if one flew away from a clock at the speed of light. All in an instant he got it. The solution appeared in his head. This was an intuitive flash of vision, not a product of reason. Einstein had tremendous focus and a burning need. The existence of a paradox he could not explain drove him crazy.

I don't know the particulars of what DSF may have gone through to arrive at his personal salvation, but I see the signs that it was real all over the place in the things that he says. I do know my own story, however, and all I can tell you is that the way that you frame the problem of God in your head will lead you nowhere. You are blocked in your search, or lack thereof,by the belief that some people are willing to believe anything, magic, to relieve their pain. My pain was caused by unwillingness to believe anything. I was fucking pissed off that God had tricked me into believing that He exists in a different way than He does. I had to die to my hope to find Him because I was completely wrong about what hope is. I was looking for God's love in all the places it doesn't exist. My assumptions completely blinded me, just as Einstein was blind for a long time by the notion that time is the same in every frame of reference. I agonized over the source of my pain in a world where everything is meaningless, and then I saw it. In one split second of realization I went from misery to peace. I would give that to you if I could.

You look for a proof of God via reason and you will never have it just as you will never know what an organism is by reason. But if you experience God realization or it's other thousand names, you will know it as surely as you know when you're knowledge of an orgasm changes from hearing about them to having one yourself. It's magic. Hahahahahahhahaha

 

[WelshBloke]

Einstein spent weeks in a depression despairing over the fact that he could not solve the paradox of how the speed of light could be a constant and the fact that people in different frames of reference would see one event in two different ways. He gave up but had a vision of what one would see if one flew away from a clock at the speed of light. All in an instant he got it. The solution appeared in his head. This was an intuitive flash of vision, not a product of reason. Einstein had tremendous focus and a burning need. The existence of a paradox he could not explain drove him crazy.

Thing is that Einstein then went back and worked out the mechanics of his beliefs, he didn't just have an idea and go "yeah, that's true cos I want it to be", he had an idea and worked on that idea till he got a truth.

I don't know the particulars of what DSF may have gone through to arrive at his personal salvation, but I see the signs that it was real all over the place in the things that he says. I do know my own story, however, and all I can tell you is that the way that you frame the problem of God in your head will lead you nowhere. You are blocked in your search, or lack thereof,by the belief that some people are willing to believe anything, magic, to relieve their pain. My pain was caused by unwillingness to believe anything. I was fucking pissed off that God had tricked me into believing that He exists in a different way than He does. I had to die to my hope to find Him because I was completely wrong about what hope is. I was looking for God's love in all the places it doesn't exist. My assumptions completely blinded me, just as Einstein was blind for a long time by the notion that time is the same in every frame of reference. I agonized over the source of my pain in a world where everything is meaningless, and then I saw it. In one split second of realization I went from misery to peace. I would give that to you if I could.

You look for a proof of God via reason and you will never have it just as you will never know what an organism is by reason. But if you experience God realization or it's other thousand names, you will know it as surely as you know when you're knowledge of an orgasm changes from hearing about them to having one yourself. It's magic. Hahahahahahhahaha

You seem to labouring under the false idea that I'm searching for god. I'm not. I'm quite content living in a logical universe that doesn't have random entities that ah heck up any laws of nature that we might try to work out.

 

[shira]

I do know my own story, however,. . . My pain was caused by unwillingness to believe anything. I was fucking pissed off that God had tricked me into believing that He exists in a different way than He does. I had to die to my hope to find Him because I was completely wrong about what hope is. I was looking for God's love in all the places it doesn't exist. My assumptions completely blinded me, just as Einstein was blind for a long time by the notion that time is the same in every frame of reference. I agonized over the source of my pain in a world where everything is meaningless, and then I saw it. In one split second of realization I went from misery to peace. I would give that to you if I could.

Let me guess: This statement about your own experience is as clearly stated as you could possibly make it. It would not be possible to be more specific, more concrete. Everything you went through was metaphysical. Unlike, say, someone addicted to sex or alcohol, who could tell us about specific bad experiences that they survived. Unlike someone in a very unhealthy love relationship, who could tell us specific stories about the abuse. Unlike every other person I'm aware of who has suffered, who can give totally concrete examples of their pain.

But not you. Your life has been just too outre, too amazingly complex.

"I was looking for God's love in all the places it doesn't exist."

Wow, heavy, dude.

"I had to die to my hope to find Him because I was completely wrong about what hope is."

Wow. Super-natural.

Keep up the good work. I'm sure Einstein, whose own experience struggling with relativity you tell us you can closely relate too, was totally unable to say something clear like "The math doesn't work" or "How come I can't see why the laws of physics seem to be the same everywhere in the universe?" Instead, his papers are all filled with phrases like "I had to die before everything was revealed."

Maybe someday you'll learn what it means to actually be honest and open about your life, rather than hiding behind cosmic mind games.

 

[Moonbeam]

WelshBloke: Thing is that Einstein then went back and worked out the mechanics of his beliefs, he didn't just have an idea and go "yeah, that's true cos I want it to be", he had an idea and worked on that idea till he got a truth.

M: No, he knew he was right and he went immediately to his friend and told him he had figured out everything. What he worked on later was the mathematics that proved he was right.

WB: You seem to labouring under the false idea that I'm searching for god. I'm not. I'm quite content living in a logical universe that doesn't have random entities that ah heck up any laws of nature that we might try to work out.

M: No I can see you're asleep. That is why I said, "You are blocked in your search, or lack thereof" by assumptions you happily accept. You do not feel your need. But you will notice, I hope, that you butt into conversations with notions like magic. Your disinterest is not what you think. You have unconscious motivations and are not neutral at all.

 

[Moonbeam]

Let me guess: This statement about your own experience is as clearly stated as you could possibly make it. It would not be possible to be more specific, more concrete. Everything you went through was metaphysical. Unlike, say, someone addicted to sex or alcohol, who could tell us about specific bad experiences that they survived. Unlike someone in a very unhealthy love relationship, who could tell us specific stories about the abuse. Unlike every other person I'm aware of who has suffered, who can give totally concrete examples of their pain.

But not you. Your life has been just too outre, too amazingly complex.

"I was looking for God's love in all the places it doesn't exist."

Wow, heavy, dude.

"I had to die to my hope to find Him because I was completely wrong about what hope is."

Wow. Super-natural.

Keep up the good work. I'm sure Einstein, whose own experience struggling with relativity you tell us you can closely relate too, was totally unable to say something clear like "The math doesn't work" or "How come I can't see why the laws of physics seem to be the same everywhere in the universe?" Instead, his papers are all filled with phrases like "I had to die before everything was revealed."

Maybe someday you'll learn what it means to actually be honest and open about your life, rather than hiding behind cosmic mind games.

I hope you're not embarrassed that you misunderstood the nature of Einstein's streetcar and continued to maintain a stance that was ridiculous even after that was pointed out by several people.

 

[shira]

I hope you're not embarrassed that you misunderstood the nature of Einstein's streetcar and continued to maintain a stance that was ridiculous even after that was pointed out by several people.

All you've accomplished with this complete non-answer to my previous post is to demonstrate that when you're not writing about your own personal experience you're very capable of constructing clear sentences, devoid of any reference to the mystical.

So I'm confident you have the wherewithal to actually provide clear answers to questions. So I'll repeat the ones I asked previously:

How come you ALWAYS avoid providing concrete, down-to-earth examples of your personal experiences?

How come you ALWAYS descend into mystical, supernatural, Zen-speak when writing about your personal experiences?

Edit: Some "hints" on how to answer.

You could say, "I'm too embarrassed to provide examples." Or "I can't remember the details of my previous life." Or "I was viewing the world through psychosis, and had no actual experiences." Or even, "I have a real problem revealing my true self." I could sympathize with any of those answers. But please - PLEASE - don't play diversionary games (like you always do).

 

[Moonbeam]

shira: All you've accomplished with this complete non-answer to my previous post is to demonstrate that when you're not writing about your own personal experience you're very capable of constructing clear sentences, devoid of any reference to the mystical.

M: You assume that I am not clear and at times mystical. The unexamined assumption you make is that you have the capacity to do this. You create your own barriers that prevent you from understanding, project them on me and blame me for them. You also believe that a lack of clarity and being mystical are problems. What is clarity? What is mysticism? How did you come by the notion that you understand either and know when and where they should be applied. I offer you the thought that you are spiritually blind and you want me to speak to you in a way that you can see. You want me to tell you the conditions in which you can learn. It is of no importance to me whether you want to try to understand what I am saying or not. I got mine, as it were. I only maintain that I understand you better than you understand yourself. I have something to offer, in my opinion, and I offer it in the best way I can according to me. Sorry about that.

s: So I'm confident you have the wherewithal to actually provide clear answers to questions. So I'll repeat the ones I asked previously:

M: I require a different kind of confidence.

s: How come you ALWAYS avoid providing concrete, down-to-earth examples of your personal experiences?

M: Not so. I have told my story here so many times I am sick of it. What you need to see is that it's your story that matters to you, not mine. I found what I sought. My story is over. You are what matters now.

s: How come you ALWAYS descend into mystical, supernatural, Zen-speak when writing about your personal experiences?

I told you it was Zen that saved me. The story of the strawberry was my streetcar and clock tower.

Edit: Some "hints" on how to answer.

You could say, "I'm too embarrassed to provide examples." Or "I can't remember the details of my previous life." Or "I was viewing the world through psychosis, and had no actual experiences." Or even, "I have a real problem revealing my true self." I could sympathize with any of those answers. But please - PLEASE - don't play diversionary games (like you always do).

What is the purpose of a Koan? I googled it and found this:

http://terebess.hu/english/zen.html

I am not a student of Zen, I read a book on it at a time when the ideas in it caused me to feel tremendous rage. How could these fuckholes be happy in a meaningless world? What was this fucking strawberry. Why were these Zen fold at peace and I was in misery? I asked myself over and over is it this, no this, no this that causes me to suffer. I went very far out in single minded focus on this question. A blast of wind hit the house and I suddenly knew everything. My suffering vanished and I went blissfully to sleep. When thought stops what is left is being. I leave you to figure out what that means. Here is a Koan for you. Where does love go when God dies? Does it go to the same place that it did when God exists? What does it mean that the lover and the beloved are one. Don't think. Its a diversion.