Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 241 to 255 of 255

Thread: Religion is Everything

  1. #241

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,330
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This entire concept of Religion being "just" a crutch is so preposterous and really under represents the entire phenomena altogether.

    Its like the most passively arrogant and misinformed things a person could even say on the topic. Its like the assessment from a small child.

    I swear to God eat an entire bag of magic mushrooms and you won't be so sure anymore of anything. Even if there is no God, there is still a lot going on under the surface and its pretty silly to say that you know the answers here. I think the same way of a person like Richard Dawkins. Its like there still is no proof of abiogensisis, nor even actual speciation beyond micro changes. I mean you can build as many logical projections on your computer as you want, we still can't see evolution in real time, even bacteria revert back to original states after the pressure is removed. Things don't get more sophisticated because they mutated if those mutations had no purpose in the intermediate steps getting there.

    I know it sounds irresponsible to suggest people eat a hallucinogenic fungus, but it seriously is necessary to even understand what taking your sandals off before a burning bush even mean in real time, "for you". Not as some intellectual masturbatory session of one idea versus another.

    Even if there was no God and organized religion is like some massive historical cultural psychosis systemic mechanism of establishment control, it still has to be pointing at something fundamental for people and saying "its people's need to have a higher authority power" or other such bargain basement college philosophy class explanation you can come up with, is pretty pathetic and barely scratches the surface of "what is going on".

    I think people of this type of thinking are kind of like immature, like small children. Its like the opposite of the Santa Claus delusion, its like the new belief in the Void of which our scientific apparatus will eventually unwind the entire clock work for, all while assuming that the measure of all things is man anyway. Its like no wonder China will win someday. Nothing being sacred means nothing is treated as sacred (but not actually because the ideal of nothingness and biological imperative is held up as the supreme truth). Its like since when did science even prove there was no God? LOL, watch you epsitomology in the first place.
    Last edited by timber; 04-03-2021 at 08:08 PM.

  2. #242

  3. #243

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,330
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Until "God" qualifies as a hypothesis, "science" does not need to prove there is no "God".
    Not yet because science is still hoping to fill every gap with a natural answer and might even succeed, but getting there is going to require they turn back the clock and question their foundations that were once required to move knowledge forward during the Enlightenment.

    There is a massive failure and disservice to the the cause to say there is no "x" so don't even try.

    Its this same type of indoctrination of graduates currently that allows WHO's directive to not explore the lab leak theory because "its highly unlikely". lol.

    *arf arf arf* jump through the hoop Seals. *arf arf arf*

    This is also part of the connection problem between micro quantum level and macro physics. Currently you have problematic concepts being touted as solving some of these issues such as many worlds.

    Its like basically we will solve these issues but its not going to be by the current paradigm. Its going to require another novel type thinker and that thinker is going to be able to thread our intuitive feeling of God and wisdom of thousands generations that the current age of "smart atheists" are not properly trained for.

    Like, two chemicals independently arising in evolution in different plant species by different pathways *by chance, by fluke, by coincidence* is wishful thinking at best and down right retarding to our understanding of life at worst.

    Basically, do you think the cargo ship blocking the Suez canal and further exacerbating the current globalized trade issues due to covid is some kind of a-casual event? No bud, there is no such thing as coincidence. That ship was jinxed by 7 billion worries and manifested by our fears of what is currently going on. Its called dependent arising and its a thing.

  4. #244
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,435
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    Not yet because science is still hoping to fill every gap with a natural answer and might even succeed, but getting there is going to require they turn back the clock and question their foundations that were once required to move knowledge forward during the Enlightenment.

    There is a massive failure and disservice to the the cause to say there is no "x" so don't even try.

    Its this same type of indoctrination of graduates currently that allows WHO's directive to not explore the lab leak theory because "its highly unlikely". lol.

    *arf arf arf* jump through the hoop Seals.
    I'm not saying there is no "God", I'm saying that "God" does not qualify as a hypothesis. A hypothesis must be based on observation.

  5. #245

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,330
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I'm not saying there is no "God", I'm saying that "God" does not qualify as a hypothesis. A hypothesis must be based on observation.
    I guess you are saying there is no Universally held observation of any phenomena by the majority of sane adults that would qualify as possibly being explained by god and not some other commonly known principle of nature, correct?

    I think the issue here is that you are asking the wrong questions. I get the sense you don't even know what you are talking about, given some of the history of what I've seen you write and how you deride and mock it all as being "just silly fundamentalism and deluded belief".

    I get the sense that to you belief is a kind of joke anyway and faith is like some type of deluding yourself as well. I get the sense actually that all of this is totally personal to you as a person. Its like you are a walking talking Richard Attenborough or, Dawkins, some man of English reason. Shmarm Shmarm Shmarm. You are so smarmy. If only we could have the exacting and scientific mind like you. Then we would see that the data doesn't lead either way, and certainly not towards a mysterious power outside ourselves.

    I guess you could say that something like electromagnetism or other such x-natural phenomena is directing "all this". Actually lets spend our time breaking it down even further in to cubits of datum and like, build our cosmology up from there.

    All hail Degrass Tyson.

    Thank God we escaped our superstitious past and are now super logic beings of the Nu-Future. Hook us up to the internet ONE MIND (lol also an expression of God by another name) and like give us our pfizer shots for extra system over-weave.

  6. #246
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,435
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    I guess you are saying there is no Universally held observation of any phenomena by the majority of sane adults that would qualify as possibly being explained by god and not some other commonly known principle of nature, correct?

    I think the issue here is that you are asking the wrong questions. I get the sense you don't even know what you are talking about, given some of the history of what I've seen you write and how you deride and mock it all as being "just silly fundamentalism and deluded belief".

    I get the sense that to you belief is a kind of joke anyway and faith is like some type of deluding yourself as well. I get the sense actually that all of this is totally personal to you as a person. Its like you are a walking talking Richard Attenborough or, Dawkins, some man of English reason. Shmarm Shmarm Shmarm. You are so smarmy. If only we could have the exacting and scientific mind like you. Then we would see that the data doesn't lead either way, and certainly not towards a mysterious power outside ourselves.

    I guess you could say that something like electromagnetism or other such x-natural phenomena is directing "all this". Actually lets spend our time breaking it down even further in to cubits of datum and like, build our cosmology up from there.

    All hail Degrass Tyson.
    I don't need to ask any questions here. You need to present a hypothesis if you have made a relevant observation.

    If your "God" is not phenomenal, for all intents and purposes, it is as though it does not exist.

    You say "Nothing being sacred means nothing is treated as sacred"...but if the thing you most treat as sacred cannot be observed, how is that any different?

    It seems in your posts that you are overly fond of attacking the person rather than the argument.

  7. #247

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,330
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I don't need to ask any questions here. You need to present a hypothesis if you have made a relevant observation.

    If your "God" is not phenomenal, for all intents and purposes, it is as though it does not exist.

    You say "Nothing being sacred means nothing is treated as sacred"...but if the thing you most treat as sacred cannot be observed, how is that any different?

    It seems in your posts that you are overly fond of attacking the person rather than the argument.
    just because science can't observe it doesn't mean its not happening. Science can't directly observe consciousness for instance. Can you observe love between a mother and child beyond the obvious, or chemical? Prove it. Maths also cannot describe consciousness, because the observer is outside the systems themselves. Even quantum data says the same thing. lol, how can you not know this experientially?

    You can't and that is the entire issue. Just because logic can't wrap itself around God doesn't mean that there isn't something there. Sorry if you need that ability. I actually find you somewhat sad and also I get the sense I'm outside your quadra group because I feel the same type of older bother annoyance that I've observed with others similar to you. I just want to give you an extra big dose of magic mushrooms to blast you out of your circuits and into something greater, deeper, and more meaningful than this surface shit.

    I think the issue is you want light to be shone on every superstition shadow and you think we as a collective humanity have already reached that point with our instrumentation. If you are asking me for the corner where the phenomena of God can be found that is both a conversation for another time and also impossible to convey because partly it would rely on personal revelation and you are, predictably, the type of man who thinks lowly of individual observation because it can't be independently verified by a third party. LOL, the Age of Independent Third Party authority. Your instincts are flawed and all you need is to sign up for google Health and wrist monitoring to correct your actions to greater functionality and ONE MIND.


    Its funny because the North American Indian understand what I am talking about and I would know I work with them professionally and have had several encounters with Infinity myself, first recognized under the influence of a magic mushroom.

  8. #248
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,435
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    just because science can't observe it doesn't mean its not happening. Science can't directly observe consciousness for instance. Can you observe love between a mother and child beyond the obvious, or chemical? Prove it. Maths also cannot describe consciousness, because the observer is outside the systems themselves. Even quantum data says the same thing. lol, how can you not know this experientially?

    You can't and that is the entire issue. Just because logic can't wrap itself around God doesn't mean that there isn't something there. Sorry if you need that ability. I actually find you somewhat sad and also I get the sense I'm outside your quadra group because I feel the same type of older bother annoyance that I've observed with others similar to you. I just want to give you an extra big dose of magic mushrooms to blast you out of your circuits and into something greater, deeper, and more meaningful than this surface shit.

    I think the issue is you want light to be shone on every superstition shadow and you think we as a collective humanity have already reached that point with our instrumentation. If you are asking me for the corner where the phenomena of God can be found that is both a conversation for another time and also impossible to convey because partly it would rely on personal revelation and you are, predictably, the type of man who thinks lowly of individual observation because it can't be independlty verified by a third party. LOL, the Age of Independent Third Party authority. Your instincts are flawed and all you need is to sign up for google Health and wrist monitoring to correct your actions to greater functionality and ONE MIND.


    Its funny because the North American Indian understand what I am talking about and I would know I work with them professionally and have had several encounters with Infinity myself, first recognized under the influence of a magic mushroom.
    If you can describe "consciousness" and "love" in phenomenal terms, then you can observe them. Don't make out that these two things allow the possibility of "God" - they don't. Only observation of "God" itself can allow that.

    I don't think lowly of individual observation. I don't think you have actually refered to any individual observation apart from talking about taking magic mushrooms.

    When you insult others, you are only saying in your way that nothing is sacred.

    You don't improve things by believing without evidence.

  9. #249

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,330
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    If you can describe "consciousness" and "love" in phenomenal terms, then you can observe them. Don't make out that these two things allow the possibility of "God" - they don't. Only observation of "God" itself can allow that.

    I don't think lowly of individual observation. I don't think you have actually refered to any individual observation apart from talking about taking magic mushrooms.

    When you insult others, you are only saying in your way that nothing is sacred.

    You don't improve things by believing without evidence.
    I have evidence, but it can't be shown to you. Only the individual observer themselves can make that journey. I suggest mushrooms because they absolutely get you started. If you want to observe God, try this thing. I implore you, because right now your avatar tagline is just straight up bluffing.

  10. #250
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,435
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    I have evidence, but it can't be shown to you. Only the individual observer themselves can make that journey. I suggest mushrooms because they absolutely get you started. If you want to observe God, try this thing. I implore you, because right now your avatar tagline is just straight up bluffing.
    Why don't you define your "God" observation?

  11. #251
    lkdhf qkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Inferno 13th floor
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp6w5 so/sx
    Posts
    700
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @timber @Subteigh stop the quasi identical ILI-LII bickering. You're replaying the whole epistemological debate between rationalist and empiricist philosophers.

    You just have different assuptions on the source of real knowledge and you won't be able to convince each other.
    Life is soup. I'm a fork.

    IEE-Ne DCNH-C/N

    ELVF(sexta ena) - The "poet" - Andersen
    counter-phobic 6w5 2w1 9w1 - the "Good Samaritan" tritype
    "Darkside" So/SX


    Retired

  12. #252
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,435
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb View Post
    @timber @Subteigh stop the quasi identical ILI-LII bickering. You're replaying the whole epistemological debate between rationalist and empiricist philosophers.

    You just have different assuptions on the source of real knowledge and you won't be able to convince each other.
    I probably don't think that anything is knowable. I just don't think I should be expected to believe in something that cannot be observed or which even has contradictory properties.

  13. #253
    lkdhf qkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Inferno 13th floor
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp6w5 so/sx
    Posts
    700
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I probably don't think that anything is knowable. I just don't think I should be expected to believe in something that cannot be observed or which even has contradictory properties.
    Well, no one forces you or expects from you to believe anything here, so stop playing the rebel. You seem more interested in saying what you think than understanding other points of view. Maybe learn some manners. That applies to @timber too.

    Knowledge is just belief with some additional 'warrants' required. In your case, those are empirical proofs that from timber's point of view are not necessary to be provided to believe in God. Abstract concepts that transcend observation suffice for him. Case closed.
    Life is soup. I'm a fork.

    IEE-Ne DCNH-C/N

    ELVF(sexta ena) - The "poet" - Andersen
    counter-phobic 6w5 2w1 9w1 - the "Good Samaritan" tritype
    "Darkside" So/SX


    Retired

  14. #254
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,435
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb View Post
    Well, no one forces you or expects from you to believe anything here, so stop playing the rebel. You seem more interested in saying what you think than understanding other points of view. Maybe learn some manners. That applies to @timber too.

    Knowledge is just belief with some additional 'warrants' required. In your case, those are empirical proofs that from timber's point of view are not necessary to be provided to believe in God. Abstract concepts that transcend observation suffice for him. Case closed.
    Actually, many theistic dogmas do expect me to believe, and I objected to @timber's offensive remarks directed at people who not believe in "God" and who apparently hold nothing to be sacred.

    I think his problem with people like me is that without God, there is nothing which is sacred, whereas my problem with him is that when he holds "God" to be sacred, he holds nothing to be sacred.

  15. #255
    DeliMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    TIM
    IEI-N 5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    272
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Religion is usually laden with philosophy and ritual, both which are very idiosyncratic. The illusion of it not being idiosyncratic results when people are "on the same page" or people are not equipped with the faculty to engage fully in idiosyncratic thought.
    Reality is amorphous and iridescent, and it is through the tendency to ensnare it in concepts/language and what have you (like religions lol) that purity of comprehension slips through your grasp. I say this because it is the goal of most religions to be attuned to reality.

    In fact, everything I just wrote down is a trap. However, if you naturally pass through my words instead of partake to them, you have purity of comprehension. Whoops, looks like I have placed another trap!

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •