The End

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Why the defense mechanism???

If you died, you wouldnt be talking to me. Death has no brain function. Unless you say you can live forever by being revived from clinical death, I dont see your point.

I have my own list of medical stuff Ive gone through. I am grateful and I know I will die. My brain will stop functioning. My heart will stop pumping. Most likely, I will be cremated.

We will all die.

We're just flemzy mortals who some of us take for granted that fact until something serious happens and a light flashes maybe in teen or young adult we dont live forever. I think the earth changing seasons, etc will someday kill us all. The more I understand death, the more I realize religon is for the living not for the dying.

I dont see any other way we would go all at one time. If we dont kill ourselves in the mean time, Mother Nature will.

I dont understand your point?​

Hey, if you want to do that, I'm not trying to stop you! It just sounds all rather inconvenient to me, so I'm opting out.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hey, if you want to do that, I'm not trying to stop you! It just sounds all rather inconvenient to me, so I'm opting out.

Being uncomfortable with death is normal. You dont need to get defensive over it, though. Unless you can prove we live forever both body and brain, Im at a lost at what exactly you believe.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Planning to die (suicide) is different than your body finnally shutting down (heart and brain) both turning to ash. I know its uncomfortable; and, if you are grateful for your life in my opinion this shouldnt bother you. At least not to take offense.

I wouldnt be here without my surgery. Ive learned a lot from close calls at death. Ive had insight over my last surgery early this year when they knocked me out. Death isnt negtative. Its just a part of life.

If you feel you will continue on in spirit, thats your belief. Why get defensive? To each his own.

Being uncomfortable with death is normal. You dont need to get defensive over it, though. Unless you can prove we live forever both body and brain, Im at a lost at what exactly you believe.

I'm not getting defensive. I'm just comenting that all available evidence indicates I'm functionally immortal,and, as such, I'm not planning on dying. I mean come on, it'd pretty irresponsible to only save enough retirement money to last a couple of years, and just go on living! Not to mention embarrassing.

 

[Quintessence]

Naaaah. Two words. Giant. Bats.

I know you're not being serious, but as an FYI, bats, like many other species, aren't doing so hot under the sixth mass extinction humans have inflicted on the planet. Furthermore, during mass extinction events, the size of organisms generally decreases because large animals require too much caloric maintenance to survive.

I suppose this means we might see an increase in dwarves.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not getting defensive. I'm just comenting that all available evidence indicates I'm functionally immortal,and, as such, I'm not planning on dying. I mean come on, it'd pretty irresponsible to only save enough retirement money to last a couple of years, and just go on living! Not to mention embarrassing.

Okay.....speak for yourself is a defensive comment.

Everyone has their own belief etc. I disagree that we are immortal. Of course, I am uncomfortable with death because our bodies try to survive to the last minute as well as our brain; but, gradually, coming to terms with non-exisiting is easier as I simplify my life, possessions, and have clarity among other values and goals.

But, yeah, if you dont have a purpose to live despite death, of course it sounds senseless. If living is for the purpose of living (a journey) then death wouldnt make living useless. You learn how to curve your purpose for this life. Its hard; thats why people want to live forever etc.

Im not one to save for retirement. I have savings; and, the purpose is to help me in the here and now. Ive never liked money; but, I need it. It just depends on your chosen perspective.

It sounds like you need a eternal purpose to have meaning in life. That is fine. I feel we will die and there is no inherit purpose in life only but what we make of it.

What about you is immortal?

Not many people plan to die unless they commit suicide for whatever chosen or nonchosen reason. Just because it isnt planned, doesnt mean it wont happen to you. Our planning or not has nothing to do with our body aging and dying.

 

[nPeace]

God is just a word, though. Hindus use god just as Pagan use the word god when talking about something faily common to all those involved in the conversation. I dont have a word for god; but, since thats a word we (since I live among christians) know, and I understand the general concept of it whether Hindu or Abrahamic, or Taoist, or Pantheist, etc. I stick with that term.

Understood.

If I talk about the christian god, either A. people think Im christian because Im not sola scriptura and go by my own experiences and knowlege rather than having to confirm things verbatum. Id get a headache trying to study the bible in its many forms just to say on RF, Im right and youre wrong.

But the word/concept god isnt christian, jewish, nor muslim. If youre looking to talk about god of christianity, we would need to use that as a basis of conversation. Since I dont know what a god is (whati s a spirit), how do we go about that?

Understood.
That's why I usually try to be specific about which I am referring to.

The thing is, you set yourself up as a them vs. me. If they dont understand, thats not my problem (to put it blunt). In conversations, both parties at least have to be on the same ground in concept. Two people can speak different languages, but if there is a translator, they could be saying the same thing just in their own language. But the key is to have the same language to which both parties understand.

Understood.

Saying "they dont know my language/my god" doesnt help unless we know what you mean by the term in your experiences not people who died thousands of years prior to your birth.

Not sure I follow you here.

But, yes, it is your god. Its the god of your understanding. Its not my god. Its not Joe Smith. Its specific to your belief and how you see or interpret who god is based on what you use to confirm that belief and experience. Aka. we are not you.

Understood.

Not many people are trinune believers. I dont see multiple gods regardless how you all interpert scripture. Its a strict monotheistic religion. How protestants and catholics try to define jesus and his father is so wide range from the JW to one side and Roman Catholics on another that its terribly difficult to know what you say is a fact. Maybe historic details, yes, but not of god.

Understood.

If you dont believe in god of the bible, we wouldnt know what god you are referring to. Since we only have the English version of the bible, if you say god, it says god, you quote the bible, and even believe in christian concepts, we would assume the bible is your authority. Going by that, if any non-christian were to use the bible, I wouldnt blame him unless you are clear that the bible doesnt confirm your faith.

Understood.

Unless you are clear that you dont use the bible as your guiding princple as a christian (right?), we will go by the bible to understand your belief. Unless you tell us by your experiences what else can we use if you dont want to take our opinions into consideration?

Understood.
It's not a matter of not taking opinions into consideration. It's more about having a reason for taking your opinions into consideration.
For example, if someone said to you, that they saw a dinosaur fall out the sky, would you take it into consideration, especially if you are not prone to just accept things without question - aka gullible?
If however, the person could provide you with some kind of evidence that could be verified, or even considered credible, you might be inclined to consider the information as having value. Isn't that true?

That is wrong. Thats like saying because I dont like math when I read two plus two, you see it as four but you think I read it as five even though I tell you otherwise. All because I dont have a passion for math.

Youre judging my accuracy in interpretation by my belief system. That is very, how can I say, I cant think of a good phrase, but.

Understood.
I see it more as, not that you don't have a passion for math, but you don't have a mechanism for working out the math. So you arrive at what seems like five to me, but because you can't physically do the math, that I can see how you arrived at the answer with a mathematical equation, I have two options - just believe everything you say makes sense, or dismiss it as some made up stuff.
The latter seems to me, the more sensible choice.

If god isnt your god then there is no them vs. you. There are different interpretations and concepts of gods. You feel is outside source. Some say its all things. Some say everything is a reflection of one god. Some treat each individualt thing as god. Some dont believe god interacts. Others dont even use the term god but the concept is the same.

Not to mention christians having their own plethora of interpretations falling back on jesus because they cant describe his father without him.

We all created our concept of god-you as well. Some of us dont see that as negative or bad. Different. Yes. Wrong or misguided. No.

Understood.
I think I am now getting to understand you a lot better.
So is that why you said on a number of occasions that you don't believe in god?

If you are using your definition and concept, whatever we say would most likely be something you disagree with. If you are open to understand how we see god to answer your question, you can compare and contrast your views but at least you give us our view without saying we are redefining your god because of it.

Understood.
I don't consider it redefining my God. That can't happen, because I didn't created my God. I believe the writers of the Bible had true experiences with the true God.
I don't believe this through gullibility. I believe, based on the evidence I see - what I see in nature, past, present, and even though I haven't seen it yet... I am confident... future. What I experience personally and impersonally. All the evidence tell me the true God dealt with people in the past, continues to do so today, and will do so in the future.
Of course I used my mind to reason on, and test the evidence, so maybe this is what you call concept.
In that case, everything is a concept - including the thought that you are actually living in a house where you sleep in a comfy bed at night, while some sleep on the streets. Sounds right?

The second part, we know. You know. You are asking us for evidence as if your critiera for its validity is universal to define the right god verses a mind-constructed one.

If you use our criteria, then you will see evidence. If you are asking us to provide evidence but you are using your critiera to prove the validity of that evidence, that doesnt make sense.

I kinda repeated this so I can get the right wording.

Understood.
Quite interesting.
Okay. I'll give you an opportunity. How about you give me the concept, and run the evidence by me.
I'll take time to read it. Just don't make it five pages long.

The Dharma IS the Truth. It IS the meaning of life. People search by following The Dharma. They search for the meaning using The Dharma. Once they practice and have understanding, they know the meaning of life. But, unlike abrahamics, it doesnt need to be a cosmic question. The Buddha actually talked against seeing meaning of life in that manner.

Let's you and I have a talk about Dharma then.
Let begin with its origin. I like to use, and see source material, so please provide when answering.
What's the origin of Dharma?

I live in a christian area. God concept (force, pattern, spirit, origin, sustainer, energy, and so forth) are all the same. Just the word god is the only word Im familar with to summarize these concepts. I also know more christian culture than I do Pagan, Hindu, NewAger, and so forth. God is not a christian concept.

Understood. Cool.

Some people need that. My issue is why do you (all) feel this should be the same for other people? Why ask us for evidence just because you needed evidence to confirm your gods truth?

All of you have the same thing. All opinions. Interpretations. Drawing variousc onclusions and I doubt majority of you arent even historians (degreed and studied etc) to varify if your interpretations are based on real evidence or someone elses translation of it. That and historians too have their own interpretations, so where does one start?

Who should I believe?

(I personally dont care about concrete credible evidence. I rather hear your guys experiences because thats how we come to faith-ideally-is how they connect to us and we to that given faith, religion, philosophy, or practice.)

Understood. You do have a point.
I think though, evidence still account for something, though not perfect.
It allows our reasons for believing to have substance, rather than seeming gullible.

Thanks for this post. It has helped me understand your view much cleaner.

 

[nPeace]

For what we can gather from evidence, God seems to be a meme generated by brains configurations.

Now, dependng on the brain location is space time, this meme looks like Jesus, Apollo, the Great Juju at the bottom of the sea, Kali or Allah. Just to name a few of thousands and thousands of brain configurations we experienced in history.

Unfortuately, evidence does not suggest much more than that.

Ciao

- viole

What is the evidence you are referring to?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Understood.


Understood.
That's why I usually try to be specific about which I am referring to.


Understood.


Not sure I follow you here.


Understood.



Understood.


Understood.


Understood.
It's not a matter of not taking opinions into consideration. It's more about having a reason for taking your opinions into consideration.
For example, if someone said to you, that they saw a dinosaur fall out the sky, would you take it into consideration, especially if you are not prone to just accept things without question - aka gullible?
If however, the person could provide you with some kind of evidence that could be verified, or even considered credible, you might be inclined to consider the information as having value. Isn't that true?


Understood.
I see it more as, not that you don't have a passion for math, but you don't have a mechanism for working out the math. So you arrive at what seems like five to me, but because you can't physically do the math, that I can see how you arrived at the answer with a mathematical equation, I have two options - just believe everything you say makes sense, or dismiss it as some made up stuff.
The latter seems to me, the more sensible choice.


Understood.
I think I am now getting to understand you a lot better.
So is that why you said on a number of occasions that you don't believe in god?


Understood.
I don't consider it redefining my God. That can't happen, because I didn't created my God. I believe the writers of the Bible had true experiences with the true God.
I don't believe this through gullibility. I believe, based on the evidence I see - what I see in nature, past, present, and even though I haven't seen it yet... I am confident... future. What I experience personally and impersonally. All the evidence tell me the true God dealt with people in the past, continues to do so today, and will do so in the future.
Of course I used my mind to reason on, and test the evidence, so maybe this is what you call concept.
In that case, everything is a concept - including the thought that you are actually living in a house where you sleep in a comfy bed at night, while some sleep on the streets. Sounds right?


Understood.
Quite interesting.
Okay. I'll give you an opportunity. How about you give me the concept, and run the evidence by me.
I'll take time to read it. Just don't make it five pages long.


Let's you and I have a talk about Dharma then.
Let begin with its origin. I like to use, and see source material, so please provide when answering.
What's the origin of Dharma?


Understood. Cool.


Understood. You do have a point.
I think though, evidence still account for something, though not perfect.
It allows our reasons for believing to have substance, rather than seeming gullible.

Thanks for this post. It has helped me understand your view much cleaner.

I will definitely come back to this. Thank you for taking the time to read and understand my points (and addressin them, mind you). I give leave way since I write long posts but others it gets annoying.

But thanks.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's not a matter of not taking opinions into consideration. It's more about having a reason for taking your opinions into consideration.

I can see that offline, but on RF? We have stupid reasons to put reasons and logic to what we feel makes no sense. For example, a child may think there is santa claus (not an god-analogy) but I know how she came upon that conclusion and probably curious how in her view she thought it made sense. Im not a children person, but I bet people who take care of children do that in one way or another. I think. Adults are just grown up children

For example, if someone said to you, that they saw a dinosaur fall out the sky, would you take it into consideration, especially if you are not prone to just accept things without question - aka gullible?

If however, the person could provide you with some kind of evidence that could be verified, or even considered credible, you might be inclined to consider the information as having value. Isn't that true?

On RF, probably. I dont mind entertaining the idea even though its not my belief. For me its looking into the logic behind the belief. The psychological make up that brought a person from Z to 1 without realizing the equation doesnt make sense.

But I get what youre saying. If you see it as entertaining the idea rather than consideration as fact that may make the question more clear and sane to consider?

I don't consider it redefining my God. That can't happen, because I didn't created my God. I believe the writers of the Bible had true experiences with the true God.

I don't believe this through gullibility. I believe, based on the evidence I see - what I see in nature, past, present, and even though I haven't seen it yet... I am confident... future. What I experience personally and impersonally. All the evidence tell me the true God dealt with people in the past, continues to do so today, and will do so in the future.

Of course I used my mind to reason on, and test the evidence, so maybe this is what you call concept.

In that case, everything is a concept - including the thought that you are actually living in a house where you sleep in a comfy bed at night, while some sleep on the streets. Sounds right?

I love to hear about experiences but everyone I speak to stops short when I ask them the logic behind it. Kinda like asking you why you got four from two and two (from your view) and you look up to me and say its common sense as if our method of criteria of truth is universal.

I know its a generalization; but, its a human thing not specific to religion.

Quite interesting.
Okay. I'll give you an opportunity. How about you give me the concept, and run the evidence by me.

I'll take time to read it. Just don't make it five pages long.

haha.

Like language. If I wanted to know how to say how-are-you in spanish, I wouldnt consult the english phrase dictionary (my source) to translate it. Id use the spanish dictionary (your source) in order to understand what you said and i can answer the question (Im fine) from your view (bien) not my own (Im fine).

Took me abit.

Thanks for this post. It has helped me understand your view much cleaner.

You're welcome. I dont confuse people on purpose, honest.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Missed your questions

Of course I used my mind to reason on, and test the evidence, so maybe this is what you call concept.

In that case, everything is a concept - including the thought that you are actually living in a house where you sleep in a comfy bed at night, while some sleep on the streets. Sounds right?

Guess it depends. There is a philosophy on that. Its not idealism, I have to look it up. But, our interpretations of reality is based on concepts. The abstract part. I have to go back to what I said.

Let's you and I have a talk about Dharma then.

Let begin with its origin. I like to use, and see source material, so
please provide when answering.

What's the origin of Dharma

There isnt any. Its life and practice. The Buddha awakened to the fact of suffering and its nature. Through X practices that all can take up, he realized these specific practices and levels of insight lead to no suffering.

Its a cycle rather than a beginning and end. The (buddha) Dharma is circular in reasoning.

edit

I think I am now getting to understand you a lot better.
So is that why you said on a number of occasions that you don't believe in god?

I didnt know what a god/deity was until I became catholic four or so years ago. I only knew god as jesus in the physical Eucharist. In other protestant Churches and abrahamic (and many other religions) god-faith that there is no physical connection with god, Im at a lost. So, if you asked who christ's father is, I wouldnt know.

The "god" concept is easier to understand because, as we are all human, the single thread or so is understanding and interacting with ones place in life. There are different concepts and cultures and definitions, etc, that define it. God also is said to be a spark of life and others an essence f some sort. For some reason, no one can define it yet a the same time say it exists. So, the paradox is confusing.

I believe in the god concept but as a deity (spirit, being, dont know how to define it other than what I see in movies and read in books), I dont believe because I had no personal nor observant experience in it. No one has defined a deity, just their version of god.

Many use god and deity interchangably. Going by religions rather than the dictionary, that isnt so.

 

[nPeace]

I can see that offline, but on RF? We have stupid reasons to put reasons and logic to what we feel makes no sense. For example, a child may think there is santa claus (not an god-analogy) but I know how she came upon that conclusion and probably curious how in her view she thought it made sense. Im not a children person, but I bet people who take care of children do that in one way or another. I think. Adults are just grown up children

Good analogy though.
So we can trace with accuracy where Santa Clause originated.
https://www.history.com/topics/christmas/santa-claus
Santa Claus - Wikipedia

That is not the same with God, as described in Genesis 1:1
One can only claim that God does not exist, or is a myth, but these claims have no accurate trace record.
So in this case, the "grown up children" are like those genius children that put grown up to shame.

On RF, probably. I dont mind entertaining the idea even though its not my belief. For me its looking into the logic behind the belief. The psychological make up that brought a person from Z to 1 without realizing the equation doesnt make sense.

But I get what youre saying. If you see it as entertaining the idea rather than consideration as fact that may make the question more clear and sane to consider?

I'm sorry. This one hurt my head. Could you clarify a bit please?

I love to hear about experiences but everyone I speak to stops short when I ask them the logic behind it. Kinda like asking you why you got four from two and two (from your view) and you look up to me and say its common sense as if our method of criteria of truth is universal.

I know its a generalization; but, its a human thing not specific to religion.

The experience I speak of may not be what you have in mind.
My experience is like, for example, watching ants at work for an entire day, and then relating what I saw.
That's my experience, which I can then put with others who also sat at watched ants all day, which we can then put alongside what experts in the study of ants have observed.
If both the experiences, and the expert observation agree... voilà! Our experiences are real, and valid.

haha.

Like language. If I wanted to know how to say how-are-you in spanish, I wouldnt consult the english phrase dictionary (my source) to translate it. Id use the spanish dictionary (your source) in order to understand what you said and i can answer the question (Im fine) from your view (bien) not my own (Im fine).

Took me abit.

Huh?

You're welcome. I dont confuse people on purpose, honest.

That's nice to know.

Missed your questions

Guess it depends. There is a philosophy on that. Its not idealism, I have to look it up. But, our interpretations of reality is based on concepts. The abstract part. I have to go back to what I said.

So is there reality, or is there only an interpretation of it, and can an interpretation of reality be reality? Repeat unlimited times.

There isnt any. Its life and practice. The Buddha awakened to the fact of suffering and its nature. Through X practices that all can take up, he realized these specific practices and levels of insight lead to no suffering.

Its a cycle rather than a beginning and end. The (buddha) Dharma is circular in reasoning.

A cycle that began with Buddha , and continues. Okay.
So it does have an origin. True?

edit
I didnt know what a god/deity was until I became catholic four or so years ago. I only knew god as jesus in the physical Eucharist. In other protestant Churches and abrahamic (and many other religions) god-faith that there is no physical connection with god, Im at a lost. So, if you asked who christ's father is, I wouldnt know.

The "god" concept is easier to understand because, as we are all human, the single thread or so is understanding and interacting with ones place in life. There are different concepts and cultures and definitions, etc, that define it. God also is said to be a spark of life and others an essence f some sort. For some reason, no one can define it yet a the same time say it exists. So, the paradox is confusing.

I believe in the god concept but as a deity (spirit, being, dont know how to define it other than what I see in movies and read in books), I dont believe because I had no personal nor observant experience in it. No one has defined a deity, just their version of god.

Many use god and deity interchangably. Going by religions rather than the dictionary, that isnt so.

I understand confusion exists, and I believe the Bible gives the answer as to why it is so.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Good analogy though.
So we can trace with accuracy where Santa Clause originated.
https://www.history.com/topics/christmas/santa-claus
Santa Claus - Wikipedia

That is not the same with God, as described in Genesis 1:1
One can only claim that God does not exist, or is a myth, but these claims have no accurate trace record.
So in this case, the "grown up children" are like those genius children that put grown up to shame.


I'm sorry. This one hurt my head. Could you clarify a bit please?



The experience I speak of may not be what you have in mind.
My experience is like, for example, watching ants at work for an entire day, and then relating what I saw.
That's my experience, which I can then put with others who also sat at watched ants all day, which we can then put alongside what experts in the study of ants have observed.
If both the experiences, and the expert observation agree... voilà! Our experiences are real, and valid.



Huh?



That's nice to know.



So is there reality, or is there only an interpretation of it, and can an interpretation of reality be reality? Repeat unlimited times.


A cycle that began with Buddha , and continues. Okay.
So it does have an origin. True?


I understand confusion exists, and I believe the Bible gives the answer as to why it is so.

Ha. I'll clarify it all in a bit. Sorry bout that

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That is not the same with God, as described in Genesis 1:1
One can only claim that God does not exist, or is a myth, but these claims have no accurate trace record.
So in this case, the "grown up children" are like those genius children that put grown up to shame.

God does not exist. Saying that he does doesnt make it true. For example, say we go back when the first five humans where around. If god exist a billion years ago, in what manner did he stop communicating directly and at what year. It seems the further back we go, the more authentic religion is. Almost as if time has a glitch in it somehow.

There is no trace record that god does exist. We have testimonies but we dont have actual going-back-in-time proof that anything supernatural existed outside our current frame of reference. I mean twenty years ago our frame of reference was less about electronics and more about people. We change.

God isnt a myth just because he/deity does not exist. He is an experience or spark of life to which people gave him a name, a gender pronoun, culture, and stories based off the individuals personal experience in life. God exist but your definition and frame of reference is only specific to your religion not as a whole.

I'm sorry. This one hurt my head. Could you clarify a bit please?

Entertaining the idea that other religions are true and/or god doesnt exist isnt the same as considering something as illogical as logical.

The experience I speak of may not be what you have in mind.
My experience is like, for example, watching ants at work for an entire day, and then relating what I saw.
That's my experience, which I can then put with others who also sat at watched ants all day, which we can then put alongside what experts in the study of ants have observed.

Thats how you interpret your experience as in we interpret experiences all the time to mean one thing but outside our point of view, it is totaly something else. Heres a good twenty minute video on it about the nature of psychosis. Its for your interest.

My experiences with "god" if I used the term is real and literal but not physical nor something I need to confirm and measure from a book or from physical creation. These things dont have inherit meaning so by themselves, they mean nothing.

If both the experiences, and the expert observation agree... voilà! Our experiences are real, and valid.

Observation can be real by our confirmed biases. Why do we need observation and concrete evidence to know god is real to you (all)? Why do you need history channels and historical findings if the spirit is by faith and not by sight?

Huh

Ha. If I want to understand your god, I cant use my criteria to prove your god exists or not. I have to use your criteria of truth to understand what you mean about gods existence. I need to use your dictionary/source/criteria to understand you rather than mine. Thats if I want to understand you.

So is there reality, or is there only an interpretation of it, and can an interpretation of reality be reality? Repeat unlimited times.

Reality is separate from our interpretation. God, as an experience is dependent on humans. Outside of that, we can say god is the spark of life or energy of it. It would take a lot of brain hoping for god-believers to think that way, though. Embedded culture and scriptural influence.

The video talks about our interpretation of reality and that, in a sense, we are all experience a psychosis. Just sometimes our brains dont always follow interpretations that the average human being experience. When it becomes detrimental to health, thats a different psychosis (Im talking about the former)

I understand confusion exists, and I believe the Bible gives the answer as to why it is so.

I feel observation of the human psych, our environment, history, philosophy, and religion helps me better understand the nature of god(s) and how we make sense and purpose of the world around us. Its interesting to see the reactions people have here on RF when we talk about god (and politics). Its a very personal topic that to speak of it outside ones point of reality, unless the want to entertain the idea they could be wrong, usually goes no where.

 

[viole]

What is the evidence you are referring to?

What is the evidence you are referring to?

Well, it looks logical.

If it weren’t a meme, then we would not observe this grouping of religions according to time and geographic locations. We should expect Mary appearing in Hindu societies, or Kali appearing in Catholic ones, for example.

But we don’t. Mary appears only in places with the Mary meme. And Kali appears only in areas with the Kali meme.

And this for obvious reasons.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

Well, it looks logical.

If it weren’t a meme, then we would not observe this grouping of religions according to time and geographic locations. We should expect Mary appearing in Hindu societies, or Kali appearing in Catholic ones, for example.

But we don’t. Mary appears only in places with the Mary meme. And Kali appears only in areas with the Kali meme.

And this for obvious reasons.

Ciao

- viole

I agree, that makes sense - usually one thing follows or copies another, and evolves with generations etc. - and what it does is establish the fact that there is an origin of God.
The question is, is it an idea that just popped into some dudes head, or is it an actual experience people had with a real God?

 

[nPeace]

God does not exist. Saying that he does doesnt make it true. For example, say we go back when the first five humans where around. If god exist a billion years ago, in what manner did he stop communicating directly and at what year. It seems the further back we go, the more authentic religion is. Almost as if time has a glitch in it somehow.

I really don't see how method of communication can be used as a factor

There is no trace record that god does exist. We have testimonies but we dont have actual going-back-in-time proof that anything supernatural existed outside our current frame of reference. I mean twenty years ago our frame of reference was less about electronics and more about people. We change.

But we do have a reliable record, at least that's what I find, and believe..
In that record, it specifically states the presence of God, or existence, if you will.

God isnt a myth just because he/deity does not exist. He is an experience or spark of life to which people gave him a name, a gender pronoun, culture, and stories based off the individuals personal experience in life. God exist but your definition and frame of reference is only specific to your religion not as a whole.

I understand you have your beliefs. I have mine.

Entertaining the idea that other religions are true and/or god doesnt exist isnt the same as considering something as illogical as logical.



Thats how you interpret your experience as in we interpret experiences all the time to mean one thing but outside our point of view, it is totaly something else. Heres a good twenty minute video on it about the nature of psychosis. Its for your interest.

My experiences with "god" if I used the term is real and literal but not physical nor something I need to confirm and measure from a book or from physical creation. These things dont have inherit meaning so by themselves, they mean nothing.



Observation can be real by our confirmed biases. Why do we need observation and concrete evidence to know god is real to you (all)? Why do you need history channels and historical findings if the spirit is by faith and not by sight?



Ha. If I want to understand your god, I cant use my criteria to prove your god exists or not. I have to use your criteria of truth to understand what you mean about gods existence. I need to use your dictionary/source/criteria to understand you rather than mine. Thats if I want to understand you.



Reality is separate from our interpretation. God, as an experience is dependent on humans. Outside of that, we can say god is the spark of life or energy of it. It would take a lot of brain hoping for god-believers to think that way, though. Embedded culture and scriptural influence.

The video talks about our interpretation of reality and that, in a sense, we are all experience a psychosis. Just sometimes our brains dont always follow interpretations that the average human being experience. When it becomes detrimental to health, thats a different psychosis (Im talking about the former)



I feel observation of the human psych, our environment, history, philosophy, and religion helps me better understand the nature of god(s) and how we make sense and purpose of the world around us. Its interesting to see the reactions people have here on RF when we talk about god (and politics). Its a very personal topic that to speak of it outside ones point of reality, unless the want to entertain the idea they could be wrong, usually goes no where.

I understand what you are saying, and I am content to leave it as that.
We will all get the opportunity to see reality - pleasant or unpleasant. That what I believe.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I really don't see how method of communication can be used as a factor


But we do have a reliable record, at least that's what I find, and believe..
In that record, it specifically states the presence of God, or existence, if you will.


I understand you have your beliefs. I have mine.



I understand what you are saying, and I am content to leave it as that.
We will all get the opportunity to see reality - pleasant or unpleasant. That what I believe.

I do have a lot to say but no means to be strict about my side over another. I do think a lot about this; but, never get far in conversations unfortunely.

But I do enjoy talking about differences. If everyone only talked indepth with people who shared their opinions, life would be boring, right?

 

[nPeace]

I do have a lot to say but no means to be strict about my side over another. I do think a lot about this; but, never get far in conversations unfortunely.

But I do enjoy talking about differences. If everyone only talked indepth with people who shared their opinions, life would be boring, right?

I agree. The Bible encourages us to reason together, and I enjoy doing that. After we have reasoned, and realize that each person hold a different view from which neither will budge, then we move on to a different topic, otherwise the conversation does become boring and meaningless, and we don't get to explore other important things.

One thing I have learned, is that sometimes our views change over time, so we may find ourselves agreeing at a later time.
If that doesn't happen, we go on living until...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I agree. The Bible encourages us to reason together, and I enjoy doing that. After we have reasoned, and realize that each person hold a different view from which neither will budge, then we move on to a different topic, otherwise the conversation does become boring and meaningless, and we don't get to explore other important things.

One thing I have learned, is that sometimes our views change over time, so we may find ourselves agreeing at a later time.
If that doesn't happen, we go on living until...

The point isnt to change each others views. We disagree there. I learned a lot and still learning on RF. My views havent changed on most of the things discussed but I have learned a lot and open to learn it.

Why would you think conversation and debate needs each other to change our views? Understand, yes. change, no.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end." - Semisonic

"Everything that has a beginning has an end..." - The Oracle


It is generally agreed upon both in scripture and in science that there is a beginning (no, this thread isn't about EvC) and that there will be an end. The human race began and like many other species, will ultimately become extinct.

It is commonly known in the scientific community that the sun will become a red giant and will ultimately envelop the earth. But I think it's quite likely that the human race will become extinct long before this occurs.

Scientifically or religiously, how do you think will we meet our end? What lies beyond?

Maybe you are not thinking broadly enough. Rather than suppose that things "begin" and "end," why not accept what seems pretty obvious -- that in some sense, everything is changing, all the time?

I'm suggesting that you think of all of reality as a continuum, in constant flux. Thinking continuously, everything is changing but nothing really "begins" or "ends." That requires you to observe at intervals, which is not quite how reality actually works, and thus you misperceive that reality, very subtly if your intervals are small, enormously if your intervals are large.
.