Religion is Everything

[timber]

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.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

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.

[timber]

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.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

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.

[timber]

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.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

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?