Nigels fread in Or Kill Me got me thinking - wouldn't it be funny and potentially flamefesty to put our cards on the table and define what we really believe. So I'll set the ball rolling...
"God" to me is a point of view. Verthaine wrote an amazing piece (iirc it made an intermittens) which, essentially boiled down to the fact that human consciousness was an emergent property of the universe. That we, in essence, were the universe looking at itself. That's god to me. God is the point of view you have when you are trully aware of this.
God is what created the ineffable part of my psyche that experiences the whole shooting match from "my" point of view. It's the cumulation of billions of years of big-bang aftermath. Added to that the billions of years of the cumulative effect of the machinery of evolution. Suddenly, and for no good reason, a bunch of self replicating genetic mulch closed it's eyes and marvelled at the sheer awesomeness of it's existence.
God is the staggeringly convoluted and strangled path that led to something, which the law of averages declares is so highly unlikely it's practically impossible, taking place. But it did take place. Ultimately it's one huge big chain of events and, at the point where you join the dots and see yourself in this context, you are face to face with god.
Do I believe in god?
Belief doesn't even enter into it.
and neither does faith.
God is what I see in anything outside or inside of me that is worth encouraging, developing, or respecting. Sort of a social / naturalistic sense of arete / Tao. From my observation, I've yet to see anything else worth calling "God".
I don't know... but I occasionally invoke them anyway.
I don't believe in God.
God is an inherently abstract and large-scale idea that most humans seem to run into at some point in their lives.
What no one realizes is that it's an idea with a will of its own, which takes a gleeful pleasure in our consistent failures to verbally compress it into something universally understandable and agreed upon.
Cainad,
Bein' a spag ITT
God is the creative universal metaforce. God is emergence. It is not personal and it does not answer prayers. It is not divine, or real in any physical sense.
"The greatest thing, of which nothing greater can be concieved of."
Quote from: Cain on March 09, 2009, 08:40:25 PM
"The greatest thing, of which nothing greater can be concieved of."
conceived by man? or the greater thing?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 09, 2009, 08:42:45 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 09, 2009, 08:40:25 PM
"The greatest thing, of which nothing greater can be concieved of."
conceived by man? or the greater thing?
That depends on how good the Greatest Thing is a conceiving I guess. One might suppose it would be the 'greatest' at conceiving, thus being able to conceive of something greater than 'the greatest thing that humans can conceive of'. Unless he's really, really egotistical...
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18194.0
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 09, 2009, 08:42:45 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 09, 2009, 08:40:25 PM
"The greatest thing, of which nothing greater can be concieved of."
conceived by man? or the greater thing?
Yes.
God is a hallucination which humans are genetically predisposed towards as an escape route from the brute seriousness of reality.
Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 09:12:12 PM
God is a hallucination which humans are genetically predisposed towards as an escape route from the brute seriousness of reality.
You
believe this?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 09:50:07 PM
Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 09:12:12 PM
God is a hallucination which humans are genetically predisposed towards as an escape route from the brute seriousness of reality.
You believe this?
It's an idea I entertain more often than others.
For the purposes of discussion, let's say I do.
Also, if god is ineffable shouldn't you just STFU about it like Taoists about the Tao?
Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 09:50:07 PM
Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 09:12:12 PM
God is a hallucination which humans are genetically predisposed towards as an escape route from the brute seriousness of reality.
You believe this?
It's an idea I entertain more often than others.
For the purposes of discussion, let's say I do.
Also, if god is ineffable shouldn't you just STFU about it like Taoists about the Tao?
Because I don't believe in the "brute seriousness of reality". I've seen primates who take it seriously but that makes me laugh so hard I find it really difficult to join in with them.
There is no should and shouldn't in my book, Just what you can get away with. Telling me I shouldn't do something is a surefire way to have no effect on the outcome whatsoever :lulz:
Quote from: Cramulus on March 09, 2009, 08:55:14 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18194.0
True. Furthermore:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=19892.0
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18255.0
Quote from: Richter on March 09, 2009, 10:21:25 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 09, 2009, 08:55:14 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18194.0
True. Furthermore:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=19892.0
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18255.0
I like where this thread complex is going.
"God" is comfort food for the mind. It allows the believer to have peace when they reach a point in their life when nothing can be explained by logic, reason, science, etc.
Prayer may not actually create miracles and change things, but inevitably all it is is a self-fulfilling prophecy, you're asking for help for something that may not make sense to you, but in the end it can subconsciously motivate you to solve your problems or answer your questions.
I actually DO believe in deities myself, but I don't go through the painstaking prayer and rituals needed to "speak" or "bond" with them. They don't have the fucking time to give a fuck about my petty problems, they'll be there when they are needed. Like Dionysus on my couch talking me out of suicide in August. Yes, most likely it was a manifestation of my drunken subconscious, but again, it gave me the answer I needed at the time. Therefore, he did his job, real god, hallucination, what have you. That was "god" at work.
Quote from: Kai on March 09, 2009, 10:25:42 PM
Quote from: Richter on March 09, 2009, 10:21:25 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 09, 2009, 08:55:14 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18194.0
True. Furthermore:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=19892.0
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18255.0
I like where this thread complex is going.
This thread has epic potential.
Quote from: Suu on March 09, 2009, 10:28:31 PM
"God" is comfort food for the mind. It allows the believer to have peace when they reach a point in their life when nothing can be explained by logic, reason, science, etc.
Prayer may not actually create miracles and change things, but inevitably all it is is a self-fulfilling prophecy, you're asking for help for something that may not make sense to you, but in the end it can subconsciously motivate you to solve your problems or answer your questions.
I actually DO believe in deities myself, but I don't go through the painstaking prayer and rituals needed to "speak" or "bond" with them. They don't have the fucking time to give a fuck about my petty problems, they'll be there when they are needed. Like Dionysus on my couch talking me out of suicide in August. Yes, most likely it was a manifestation of my drunken subconscious, but again, it gave me the answer I needed at the time. Therefore, he did his job, real god, hallucination, what have you. That was "god" at work.
I like this post. :)
Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 09:50:07 PM
Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 09:12:12 PM
God is a hallucination which humans are genetically predisposed towards as an escape route from the brute seriousness of reality.
You believe this?
It's an idea I entertain more often than others.
For the purposes of discussion, let's say I do.
Also, if god is ineffable shouldn't you just STFU about it like Taoists about the Tao?
Humans being fairly social animals, it makes sense that we find it easy to generalize random happenstance into a social paradigm.
If an outgrowth of this is assuming that there's an incoroporeal will(s) outside of our own head or anyone else's head that's doing it's own thing, for / against / neutral to us, it's still an idea that helps us deal with it all.
If it provides meaning, protection, or support to the person, it works. Even if ONLY an elaborate falsehood, it can still be a valid and useful idea for navigating life, as useful as: "Glowing red things might burn you, don't try to grab them"
"Why when I talk about faith, do you always assume I'm talking about God?"
I find it interesting how people will discount "spiritual visions" as "hallucination" as if that somehow negates the experience. Like you're telling me that I didn't see this figure or that figure and it didn't say this or that to me? And the "fact" that it was actually a part of my own mind reaching out and projecting this into my consciousness isn't equally impressive?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 10:48:18 PM
I find it interesting how people will discount "spiritual visions" as "hallucination" as if that somehow negates the experience. Like you're telling me that I didn't see this figure or that figure and it didn't say this or that to me? And the "fact" that it was actually a part of my own mind reaching out and projecting this into my consciousness isn't equally impressive?
Exactly. God/dess[Deity] is the 3rd circuit code for the ineffable. The artist/mystic takes the ineffable and brings it creatively and mysteriously into our language/symbol systems.
Deity, for me, serves as a lens through which to view a reality tunnel (shades of 6th C meta-programming function). On the other hand, I can use the model of Deity as a lens to view models.... to view Deity as an expression of communal-meta-narrative within a society of domesticated primates (7th C hive-mind/egregore/DNA-recursive-intelligence... shades of Rastafarian's use of "I and I" instead of 'We' to denote the body of the community).
Deity is also a hallucination that the mind creates when thought tries to examine thought. The One Who Reads the Meta-Narrative is the One Who Writes the Meta-Narrative.
Some random philosophical-physicists once said there are two ways for the universe to observe/feel/perceive itself, and we are capable of both. One as an embodied observer looking 'out' at the universe, and one as what it
feels like to be made of the stuff of the universe, i.e. the emergent intelligence of a random blotch of hydrogen in complex arrangement with some other crap.
Quote from: Kai on March 09, 2009, 10:32:48 PM
Quote from: Suu on March 09, 2009, 10:28:31 PM
"God" is comfort food for the mind. It allows the believer to have peace when they reach a point in their life when nothing can be explained by logic, reason, science, etc.
Prayer may not actually create miracles and change things, but inevitably all it is is a self-fulfilling prophecy, you're asking for help for something that may not make sense to you, but in the end it can subconsciously motivate you to solve your problems or answer your questions.
I actually DO believe in deities myself, but I don't go through the painstaking prayer and rituals needed to "speak" or "bond" with them. They don't have the fucking time to give a fuck about my petty problems, they'll be there when they are needed. Like Dionysus on my couch talking me out of suicide in August. Yes, most likely it was a manifestation of my drunken subconscious, but again, it gave me the answer I needed at the time. Therefore, he did his job, real god, hallucination, what have you. That was "god" at work.
I like this post. :)
Me too.
Anyway, if I wasn't an atheist, I'd be a pantheist, and believe that every single thing in the universe had an equal amount of divinity in it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 10:48:18 PM
I find it interesting how people will discount "spiritual visions" as "hallucination" as if that somehow negates the experience. Like you're telling me that I didn't see this figure or that figure and it didn't say this or that to me? And the "fact" that it was actually a part of my own mind reaching out and projecting this into my consciousness isn't equally impressive?
People who refuse to admit these experiences were in any way hallucinatory, as though that needs to take away from them, generally have trouble making other key distinctions as well. Such as when to take their kid to a medical doctor and why gays have fuck all to do with their shitty marriage.
Your own mind reaching out and projecting fucked up shit into your consciousness is not impressive, that's par for the course.
Learning how to minimize that or control that is remarkable.
Learning how to come to terms with horrible events without resorting to the supernatural is remarkable.
Quote from: Suu on March 09, 2009, 10:28:31 PM
"God" is comfort food for the mind. It allows the believer to have peace when they reach a point in their life when nothing can be explained by logic, reason, science, etc.
Prayer may not actually create miracles and change things, but inevitably all it is is a self-fulfilling prophecy, you're asking for help for something that may not make sense to you, but in the end it can subconsciously motivate you to solve your problems or answer your questions.
I actually DO believe in deities myself, but I don't go through the painstaking prayer and rituals needed to "speak" or "bond" with them. They don't have the fucking time to give a fuck about my petty problems, they'll be there when they are needed. Like Dionysus on my couch talking me out of suicide in August. Yes, most likely it was a manifestation of my drunken subconscious, but again, it gave me the answer I needed at the time. Therefore, he did his job, real god, hallucination, what have you. That was "god" at work.
I think you may be using the Christian definition of "God" when you say it's "comfort food for the mind". What about people whose concept of "God" is less benevolent... or just doesn't give a shit? Or multiple layers of "God", ranging from "doesn't give a shit" to "overtly malevolent"? Having a "God" whose attention you hope to evade whenever possible isn't terribly comforting.
What about a sense of "God" simply as that which is? Usen, which (or who, call it whatever) is essentially existence itself? You may give thanks to it, out of gratitude to be part of it.
I don't really pray to my gods... I pray to my ancestors, and they don't have any supernatural powers. They only power they have is to bring me knowledge that might be useful for my situation.
I gave up the whole concept of God in favor of the divine, it helps remind me that I really have no fucking clue what form God, the gods, or whatever else is really right.
It also avoids the fun conversations where people are utterly convinced there is no other concept of God than theirs try to tear down my faith with arguments that really really don't apply to anything I'm talking about. :argh!:
If there is no God then what was the box that Indiana Jones found in Raider's of the Lost Arch and what was that cup he drank in the 3rd in the series?
To deny this is to deny reason itself!!!
:argh!:
God is force.
father, sun and holy shit what was that
I don't believe there are sentient forces that can alter the rules of the physical world, and do so at the behest of humans.
I believe in the trancendental experience; the occasional mindset that can't ever be explained, and where art is born trying to describe it.
If I tried to describe it I'd get it wrong, so I won't.
I don't believe in any kind of personified deity. If there was one I think it would be closer to Eris then some jolly bearded fellow lounging on a Lazy-Cloud. I think there's still quite a bit of "stuff" we don't understand. And this "stuff" does "stuff" that we can't seem to always explain. Thousands of years ago people thought the stars were like little chandeliers hanging from a dark ceiling. Now we know better. Or, we think we do. Maybe someday we fly out and find out it's gigantic space sloths holding flashlights.
Anyway, the closest thing I come to in terms of religious experiences is when I'm playing my music. There are these energies that seem to only be able to be accessed through the maniacal strumming of a guitar. But the access to that energy is fleeting and can't really be put down in words. I don't think when I die I'll wake up before some gates with this beardo asking me if I should get in. However, I'm preparing just in case. I'm saving my A-game puns for Mr. St. Peter. :wink:
Supposing for a second that there is an Eris entity
and we don't totally piss her off by misconceptualizing her
I bet she sends her minions to troll this board ALL THE TIME.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 10, 2009, 01:20:23 PM
Supposing for a second that there is an Eris entity
and we don't totally piss her off by misconceptualizing her
I bet she sends her minions to troll this board ALL THE TIME.
That would seem self-evident, if you ask me...
also I really like Roger's concept of God as a TOTAL MALEVOLENT DICK.
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2009, 06:02:51 PM
also I really like Roger's concept of God as a TOTAL MALEVOLENT DICK.
I like the Gnostics' idea of God, it's similar, except with the added bonus of him being completely insane. It explains a lot.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 10, 2009, 01:20:23 PM
Supposing for a second that there is an Eris entity
and we don't totally piss her off by misconceptualizing her
I bet she sends her minions to troll this board ALL THE TIME.
I agree... I even wrote a poem about it ;-)
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=12970.0 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=12970.0)
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2009, 06:02:51 PM
also I really like Roger's concept of God as a TOTAL MALEVOLENT DICK.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Maltheist
http://maltheism.blogspot.com/
I couldn't think much of that blog simply because the whole "Atheist pretending to be a Maltheist in order to mock religion" is so trite. I just can't get interested in insincere parody religions these days... they're very 1990's rebel hipsterish and don't go deep enough to hold my attention for long.
Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 12:45:07 PM
I don't believe there are sentient forces that can alter the rules of the physical world, and do so at the behest of humans.
besides breaking their own BIP, i dont see them having any uses for humans other then slaves.
Quote
I believe in the trancendental experience; the occasional mindset that can't ever be explained, and where art is born trying to describe it.
pictures worth a thousand words kinda thing?
problem, or maybe the most fun part, of symbols is they can often mean many things
could the complex reside in the larger outside world. cavemen drew pictures is where language was born wasn't it?
i assume everyone here has watched the movie 'the gods must be crazy'
This is less of a theistic perspective than a semantic one, but when I hear god I either think of something along the Greek conception of a god as a super-person, who may or may not be the only one or be actually omniscient/omnipotent as opposed to just being able to fuck with reality in more limited ways, or one of the many Abrahamic flavours where God is the being to which any given human is utterly worthless by comparison, and optionally defines a set of objective values either by existing or by having the magic ability to define right and wrong. I'm an atheist with respect to the second kind, and alternate between atheism and suitheism with respect to the first.
Defining "God" to mean something else seems kind of weird to me, because (to me anyway) it implies all the sorts of things that go along with a more traditional Western concept of God. Calling a state of mind "God" might provide a nice answer to "Do you believe in God?" but I don't get how you can build a theology out of it. I question the usefulness of muddying up an already complicated word with even more definitions. If you have a novel concept, use a novel word or phrase. Language will thank you later.
Quote from: Felix on March 10, 2009, 05:17:23 AM
God is force.
and four-part His holy name is EFF-EKWALLS-EMM-AY.
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 06:04:31 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2009, 06:02:51 PM
also I really like Roger's concept of God as a TOTAL MALEVOLENT DICK.
I like the Gnostics' idea of God, it's similar, except with the added bonus of him being completely insane. It explains a lot.
That's not the Gnostic concept of God, thats the Gnostic concept of the crazy dick who took over/created the world and *pretends* to be God.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 10, 2009, 01:20:23 PM
Supposing for a second that there is an Eris entity
and we don't totally piss her off by misconceptualizing her
I bet she sends her minions to troll this board ALL THE TIME.
That's why I'm here, when I'm not doing work for the White Devil Conspiracy.
Quote from: Felix on March 10, 2009, 05:17:23 AM
God is force.
God = mass X acceleration.
As to the OP: Don't ask me, I'm an Ignostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism). :wink:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on March 11, 2009, 04:44:27 AM
Quote from: Felix on March 10, 2009, 05:17:23 AM
God is force.
God = mass X acceleration.
Maybe...
Mass = All the mass in the Universe (multiverse/universes/branes/whatthefuckever)
Acceleration = Movement of all that mass from point of Big Bang or ? or Whatthefuckever started all this shit.
Mass x Acceleration = What makes existence possible = God?
If God is force, and force is calculated by the mass of the universe times the acceleration from the big bang, then...
God was created after the big bang.
"self begotten" does tend to lead to that chicken and egg-ish kinda paradox.
GOD:
(http://doctorfuckwit.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/screaming-jay-hawkins.jpg)
... and the guy with the bone up his nose?
Quote from: LMNO on March 11, 2009, 02:43:01 PM
If God is force, and force is calculated by the mass of the universe times the acceleration from the big bang, then...
God was created after the big bang.
Maybe... God (as defined above) in potentia would have existed before the Big Bang (or Big Collision if the Brane theory is more correct). However, God in action would have existed at the MOMENT of the Big Bang.
Of course, this sort of God would still just be a metaphor for "Stuff".
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 11, 2009, 02:50:14 PM
... and the guy with the bone up his nose?
Screamin Jay Hawkins!!!!
Jesus Harold Christ...
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 11, 2009, 02:50:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 11, 2009, 02:43:01 PM
If God is force, and force is calculated by the mass of the universe times the acceleration from the big bang, then...
God was created after the big bang.
Maybe... God (as defined above) in potentia would have existed before the Big Bang (or Big Collision if the Brane theory is more correct). However, God in action would have existed at the MOMENT of the Big Bang.
Of course, this sort of God would still just be a metaphor for "Stuff".
If Acceleration is Zero before the big bang, then God would be Nothing (if G=m*a)
You seem to be implying that God may, however, be energy. Which is another bag of fish.
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on March 11, 2009, 02:51:38 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 11, 2009, 02:50:14 PM
... and the guy with the bone up his nose?
Screamin Jay Hawkins!!!!
Jesus Harold Christ...
So THAT'S what the "H" stands for...
Quote from: LMNO on March 11, 2009, 02:53:35 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 11, 2009, 02:50:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 11, 2009, 02:43:01 PM
If God is force, and force is calculated by the mass of the universe times the acceleration from the big bang, then...
God was created after the big bang.
Maybe... God (as defined above) in potentia would have existed before the Big Bang (or Big Collision if the Brane theory is more correct). However, God in action would have existed at the MOMENT of the Big Bang.
Of course, this sort of God would still just be a metaphor for "Stuff".
If Acceleration is Zero before the big bang, then God would be Nothing (if G=m*a)
You seem to be implying that God may, however, be energy. Which is another bag of fish.
Well, I don't think this is god at all, I was just going with the God Is Force idea to see where it went.
So if God is the Force of the expansion of the Universe after *the big whatever*, then God would have come into existence at the moment of the *insert phenomenon here*.... Unless, of course the singularity or whatever was NOT static before that point. Was it contracting before it expanded? If so, there would be mass and acceleration there...
However, its still just seems like a bad metaphor to me.
QuoteThere are always a few who find me after class and want to pin me down. They ask me point-blank: "Do you believe in God?"
And I tell each of them, "Yes."
Puzzled, they ask: "What kind of God?"
Over the years I have struggled to come up with a simple but precise answer to that question. And, eventually I found it. I believe in Darwin's God.
Dr. Ken Miller
Shades of God the Watchmaker ITT.
Most of the popular theological conceptions of God stem from an era where physics wasn't that well understood. God "The Prime Mover" is a faulty metaphor based of the Aristotelian premise of "the heavens as nested crystal spheres" and the old, faulty conception of momentum (which is that movement doesn't happen unless an active force is push/pulling it, and stops when said force is removed).
Without Newton's F=MA (2nd law) and previous to any conception of "acceleration" or the imparting of force to an object, along with the lack of the corresponding 1st and 3rd Laws... well, that's the conception of the universe and God that was used to discuss theology. So, within the Aristotelian conception of Deity, the Universe was created as a static object of nested complexity, and then was "Pushed", all at once, into motion by the "Prime mover", who would then serve as the ActiveForce to drive all of the observable universe.
Our knowledge of physics today shows how this conception of Diety is LAUGHABLE (and not in the good way). Unfortunately, it has buried itself deep, deep within the memetic structure of the Christian churches. This, I think, was the Malevolent Demiurge that the Gnostics recognized. The false conception of Deity based on the false conception of Universe.
NO U.
Quote from: Telarus on March 11, 2009, 04:20:24 PM
Shades of God the Watchmaker ITT.
I sincerely doubt Dr Ken Miller falls into that camp
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 11, 2009, 04:32:57 PM
Quote from: Telarus on March 11, 2009, 04:20:24 PM
Shades of God the Watchmaker ITT.
I sincerely doubt Dr Ken Miller falls into that camp
True, that was mostly a comment to the stuff previous to your post.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on March 11, 2009, 04:44:27 AM
Quote from: Felix on March 10, 2009, 05:17:23 AM
God is force.
God = mass X acceleration.
As to the OP: Don't ask me, I'm an Ignostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism). :wink:
Oh wow, how did I miss this? Ignosticism quite thoroughly describes my views of God and divinity.
Quote from: Cainad on March 11, 2009, 05:04:10 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on March 11, 2009, 04:44:27 AM
Quote from: Felix on March 10, 2009, 05:17:23 AM
God is force.
God = mass X acceleration.
As to the OP: Don't ask me, I'm an Ignostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism). :wink:
Oh wow, how did I miss this? Ignosticism quite thoroughly describes my views of God and divinity.
Ok, I admit defeat. That is a brilliant term.
It's better than saying "I'm agnostic" and adding qualifiers like "I'm agnostic towards all gods and definitions of god(s)."
Although, it would help to have a concise soundbite for the definition of "ignostic"
First you'd have to have a clear idea of what ignosticism was referring to though.
I was talking to a friend last night and it turns out that she's an ancestor-worshipper too.
That was cool.
I think there's a word for it, but I'd have to go look it up.
Not that it has anything to do with this conversation at all.
Quote from: Nigel on March 11, 2009, 07:37:38 PM
Not that it has anything to do with this conversation at all.
So as I understand Ancestor worship, its rather different than Deity Worship, correct? Like the English word 'worship' is probably not all that correct?
Isn't that Filial Piety?
Quote from: LMNO on March 11, 2009, 07:40:42 PM
Isn't that Filial Piety?
Maybe, if its like Confucian beliefs.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on March 11, 2009, 04:44:27 AM
Quote from: Felix on March 10, 2009, 05:17:23 AM
God is force.
God = mass X acceleration.
Not like that.
I meant it in the same sense as that quote "In the kinetic energy of a moving fist..." in that was in Dirtytime's signature for a while.
ETA: For those that don't know it, the quote is
"In the kinetic energy of a moving fist lies the birth machine of a parallel universe."
The Great Person from time past
Had no fixed abode,
In famed mountains his traces hid,
As they grew old amid wind and frost.
From afar, I know your
White-rock hermitage,
Hidden in a haze
Of evergreen trees.
When the moon sets,
Mind-watching passes time;
Clouds arise
In your closed eyes.
Just before dawn, temple bells
Sound from neighboring peaks;
Waterfalls hang
Thousands of
Feet
In
Emptiness.
Moss and lichen
Cover the cliff face;
A narrow, indistinct path
Leads to you.
- Chia Tao (779-843)
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 11, 2009, 07:40:31 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 11, 2009, 07:37:38 PM
Not that it has anything to do with this conversation at all.
So as I understand Ancestor worship, its rather different than Deity Worship, correct? Like the English word 'worship' is probably not all that correct?
Yep.
Quote from: LMNO on March 11, 2009, 07:16:25 PM
Although, it would help to have a concise soundbite for the definition of "ignostic"
Well how about this?
Strong Atheism: There's no such thing as god.
Weak Atheism: There's probably no such thing as god.
Agnosticism: There is no way of knowing if there is a god or not.
Ignosticism: Who the fuck is this "god" character everyone keeps talking about?
Also:
Maltheism: God is a bastard.
Apatheism: Whoooo fucking cares?
Rogerism: There is no Rain God but the Rain God, and he is your Rain God.
Quote from: Requia on March 11, 2009, 12:10:11 AM
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 06:04:31 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2009, 06:02:51 PM
also I really like Roger's concept of God as a TOTAL MALEVOLENT DICK.
I like the Gnostics' idea of God, it's similar, except with the added bonus of him being completely insane. It explains a lot.
That's not the Gnostic concept of God, thats the Gnostic concept of the crazy dick who took over/created the world and *pretends* to be God.
Well, yeah, when I said "God" there I meant the guy in the Old Testament. Obviously the Gnostics don't think he is the REAL God. And IIRC, he didn't create the world, Sophia (his mother) stuffed him in there to hide him away, and he assumed he created it. I don't actually know all that much about Gnosticism, though, I admit.
He or she is called the Demiurge if memory serves correctly.
The world is the Demiurge's insane fantasies in at least one of the stories, (explains a lot really, only a madman would dream up humanity).
This may help:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf
Or if you've got a lot of time to kill:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6740202/Gnosticism-The-Gnostic-Bible
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4016936/The-Nag-Hammadi-LibraryThe-Definitive-Translation-Of-The-Gnostic-Scriptures
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7328436/Elaine-Pagels-The-Gnostic-Gospels
I personally enjoyed the first half of "On the Origin of the World". The second half is as boring as the Old Testament though.
copratheisem: you know its a pile of shit but you follow it anyway.
coprophagiatheisem: you are a true believer and eat up every piece of shit idea your religion offers you.
Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 12:45:07 PM
I don't believe there are sentient forces that can alter the rules of the physical world, and do so at the behest of humans.
I believe in the trancendental experience; the occasional mindset that can't ever be explained, and where art is born trying to describe it.
If I tried to describe it I'd get it wrong, so I won't.
Coming here kinda late in the game & walking my mind thru this thread ...
"I believe in the trancendental experience; the occasional mindset that can't ever be explained, and where art is born trying to describe it" comes closest to how I feel when reading the responses here. I am unabashedly bowled over, knocked out, unleashed, mind blown et cetera. A veritable feast for the mind! What more can I say?
Oh
all that & Screamin' Jay Hawkins too?
I Put A Spell On Youhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clryRK5lZCc
Let's stick to subjectivity when talking about this "god" guy.
Also, right now, god is this chocolate soy milk. And god is good. Amen.
The first time I said it was written off because it was brief, but I still say God is force; And not the kind you deal with in physics, but the kind you deal with in life.
Quote from: Felix on March 19, 2009, 04:17:00 AM
The first time I said it was written off because it was brief, but I still say God is force; And not the kind you deal with in physics, but the kind you deal with in life.
As in coercion, authority, political power, et cetera?
Quote from: Automaton on March 19, 2009, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: Felix on March 19, 2009, 04:17:00 AM
The first time I said it was written off because it was brief, but I still say God is force; And not the kind you deal with in physics, but the kind you deal with in life.
As in coercion, authority, political power, et cetera?
That, military might, really athletic people, or just situational factors that 'force' a decision.
Force.
Quote from: Felix on March 19, 2009, 05:43:57 AM
Quote from: Automaton on March 19, 2009, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: Felix on March 19, 2009, 04:17:00 AM
The first time I said it was written off because it was brief, but I still say God is force; And not the kind you deal with in physics, but the kind you deal with in life.
As in coercion, authority, political power, et cetera?
That, military might, really athletic people, or just situational factors that 'force' a decision.
Force.
Focault's idea of power?
Quote from: Kai on March 19, 2009, 12:26:46 PM
Quote from: Felix on March 19, 2009, 05:43:57 AM
Quote from: Automaton on March 19, 2009, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: Felix on March 19, 2009, 04:17:00 AM
The first time I said it was written off because it was brief, but I still say God is force; And not the kind you deal with in physics, but the kind you deal with in life.
As in coercion, authority, political power, et cetera?
That, military might, really athletic people, or just situational factors that 'force' a decision.
Force.
Focault's idea of power?
I saw the statement the first time, and I'm still chewing on it. Whether you mean force as a function of physics, or force as an interpersonal thing, it seems to come back to God being the ability to effect change. This happens contstantly by the nature of things, we can't STOP physics, but depending we can apply it more where we like.
It's an interesting view on Pantheism + "Thou art God"
I think a subtler definition of "force" is needed, to divorce it from direct connections to physics.
Else, you run into the same problems as when madgyeeeshuns use the word "energy".
"God = Pressure"
Can't remember if it was Fortune or Gray.
One of the first QBL books I read
I'm having a little trouble parsing the sentence "God is force."
In what sense are you using the word "God" ? Do you mean to say that 'force' has qualities that are usually considered god-like? Or are you just making a definition?
I figure it's close to the phrase, "God is a Verb."
That's even worse! I can't make burnt offerings to a part of speech!
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 03:10:52 PM
I figure it's close to the phrase, "God is a Verb."
Thanks for clarifying.
I God it.
:cramstipated:
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 03:10:52 PM
I figure it's close to the phrase, "God is a Verb."
For YHVH that's literal:
I AM
or
He Causes To Become
For the Jews, God was a verb.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 19, 2009, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 03:10:52 PM
I figure it's close to the phrase, "God is a Verb."
For YHVH that's literal:
I AM
or
He Causes To Become
For the Jews, God was a psychotic, jealous, misogynistic, xenophobic, bloodthirsty thundergod.
Fixed for literal accuracy
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 19, 2009, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 03:10:52 PM
I figure it's close to the phrase, "God is a Verb."
For YHVH that's literal:
I AM
or
He Causes To Become
For the Jews, God was a verb.
God as the force which causes existence? That's a very ephemeral concept, by itself, but it's one that bear pondering.
Of course, that leads to the question of, "what caused the existence of God?"
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 06:38:59 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 19, 2009, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 03:10:52 PM
I figure it's close to the phrase, "God is a Verb."
For YHVH that's literal:
I AM
or
He Causes To Become
For the Jews, God was a psychotic, jealous, misogynistic, xenophobic, bloodthirsty thundergod.
Fixed for literal accuracy
That's Biblegod for ya (but you forgot petty. just sayin')
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 06:48:06 PM
Of course, that leads to the question of, "what caused the existence of God?"
Everyone knows it was the time traveling GRR. Where
is that Rain God? I miss him (& how unusual is
that?)
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 06:48:06 PM
Of course, that leads to the question of, "what caused the existence of God?"
God is obviously Cartesian by default.
(Only insofar as cogito ergo sum, though.)
This was a concept we batted around in high school (neverborn, unbegotten). We as humans have only known of life / consciousnesses that are begotten of other consciousness. How would something think / develop / behave if it always WAS?
"Always was" makes no sense whatsoever; it's the equivalent of "just because I say so".
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 07:02:36 PM
"Always was" makes no sense whatsoever; it's the equivalent of "just because I say so".
"What came before that?" always ends in a "just so" story, no matter who the story teller is.
;-)
Sounds like one of the teleological arguments. Which are full of flaws including infinite regression, committees of gods, demons, brains in jars, carrots and theories based on evidence, to name but a few.
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 07:02:36 PM
"Always was" makes no sense whatsoever; it's the equivalent of "just because I say so".
Do you completely reject the idea of "always was"? Is it not even a possibility to you?
It makes sense in a poetic, oxymoronic, paradoxial word-game sort of way, sure.
Does it answer the question? Hell no!
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 07:09:28 PM
It makes sense in a poetic, oxymoronic, paradoxial word-game sort of way, sure.
Does it answer the question? Hell no!
Couldn't a God be "outside" of time?
Do you have any idea of what that's supposed to mean?
Again, it's an interesting poetic term, but it begs explanation.
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 07:17:53 PM
Do you have any idea of what that's supposed to mean?
Again, it's an interesting poetic term, but it begs explanation.
Well, if the universe is a 6D Hypercube (LxWxHxPastxPresentxFuture), then it would mean that Deity was outside of that Cube.
But time is a rate of change.
If Diety acts, it is a change, and therefore, of Time.
Most Judeo-Christian concept of God acknowledge that God can only do that which is logically possible, and there are good grounds to believe that existing out of time is not logically possible.
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 07:17:53 PM
Do you have any idea of what that's supposed to mean?
Again, it's an interesting poetic term, but it begs explanation.
A. No. But that's the point. If I understood it, I would be God. Some of these concepts can't simply be explain in human terms or even thoughts. One analogy I liked what that man contemplating God is like an ant contemplating a fire truck.
B. Even with our limited understanding of things we already know that time is relative, not concrete as previously thought. Why can't something have "no time"?
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 07:22:44 PM
But time is a rate of change.
If Diety acts, it is a change, and therefore, of Time.
To us. See: Dr. Manhattan. It's happening, but also already happened, but also has will happen. Time is our reference, not Gods.
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 07:22:44 PM
But time is a rate of change.
If Diety acts, it is a change, and therefore, of Time.
If the Deity is outside, looking at The Universe in its 6D hypercube on his desk (complete topo features and the nice wooden dowel and stand through Galactic Center, so he can spin it) he would be outside of time in the sense it is referenced in the cube... if however he stuck his fingers into the cube and twiddled with stuff... he would be acting in time (in the sense it is referenced in the cube).
:lulz:
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 19, 2009, 07:27:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 07:17:53 PM
Do you have any idea of what that's supposed to mean?
Again, it's an interesting poetic term, but it begs explanation.
A. No. But that's the point. If I understood it, I would be God. Some of these concepts can't simply be explain in human terms or even thoughts. One analogy I liked what that man contemplating God is like an ant contemplating a fire truck.
B. Even with our limited understanding of things we already know that time is relative, not concrete as previously thought. Why can't something have "no time"?
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 07:22:44 PM
But time is a rate of change.
If Diety acts, it is a change, and therefore, of Time.
To us. See: Dr. Manhattan. It's happening, but also already happened, but also has will happen. Time is our reference, not Gods.
Flatland ITT ;-)
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 07:17:53 PM
Do you have any idea of what that's supposed to mean?
Again, it's an interesting poetic term, but it begs explanation.
As interesting an assertion as saying there IS God in the first place? :wink:
Quote from: Richter on March 19, 2009, 06:43:44 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 19, 2009, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 03:10:52 PM
I figure it's close to the phrase, "God is a Verb."
For YHVH that's literal:
I AM
or
He Causes To Become
For the Jews, God was a verb.
God as the force which causes existence? That's a very ephemeral concept, by itself, but it's one that bear pondering.
"God is a universal creative metaforce of emergence."
YES FLATLAND! Thanks, Ratty.
I was going to reference that, but couldn't remember if anyone on here would know what the fuck I'm talking about.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 19, 2009, 08:13:11 PM
YES FLATLAND! Thanks, Ratty.
I was going to reference that, but couldn't remember if anyone on here would know what the fuck I'm talking about.
Questioning Reality Old Skool ;-)
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 19, 2009, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 19, 2009, 08:13:11 PM
YES FLATLAND! Thanks, Ratty.
I was going to reference that, but couldn't remember if anyone on here would know what the fuck I'm talking about.
Questioning Reality Old Skool ;-)
:lulz: haven't thought about or read that book in ages
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 19, 2009, 07:12:48 PM
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 07:09:28 PM
It makes sense in a poetic, oxymoronic, paradoxial word-game sort of way, sure.
Does it answer the question? Hell no!
Couldn't a God be "outside" of time?
If there is an outside of time, then there is a perspective from which our subjective idea of what is happening now, what already happened, and what is about to happen is all viewable. Which means that the future (from our perspective) is already "filled in" from this outside-of-time perspective. So if there is an outside of time, then destiny is in full force and the idea of "choice" is illusory (since from the out-of-time perspective our "choices" have already been made.) The only thing that can change what we call "the future" is whatever is outside of time, or God in this case. Which is perfectly acceptable and non-contradictory if you are, say, a Calvinist.
Maybe, maybe not. Again human brain, God concept. As you said "from our perspective."
I definitely don't think that time and choice have to be one way or the other. Back to Dr. Manhattan, he saw what was going to happen and did it anyway, whether or not he liked it was irrelevant. It happened. Period. But that didn't mean when time was on him from our perspective that he didn't have choice. He just already knew what that choice would be.
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 07:02:36 PM
"Always was" makes no sense whatsoever; it's the equivalent of "just because I say so".
I disagree - "Always was" makes perfect sense if things aren't required to have beginnings. The only "problem" with this is that if things aren't required to have beginnings, then there isn't a requirement for there to be a "First Cause" or "Prime Mover" any more.
Note that if some things don't have a beginning, then history would have to stretch backwards to negative infinity. The answer to the question "When did WWI begin?" is a point in time. The answer to the question "When did the pre-WWI time period end?" is a point in time. There is no answer to "When did the pre-WWI time period begin?" in the case of history stretching backwards to negative infinity - the pre-WWI time period always was.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 19, 2009, 09:30:10 PM
Maybe, maybe not. Again human brain, God concept. As you said "from our perspective."
I definitely don't think that time and choice have to be one way or the other. Back to Dr. Manhattan, he saw what was going to happen and did it anyway, whether or not he liked it was irrelevant. It happened. Period. But that didn't mean when time was on him from our perspective that he didn't have choice. He just already knew what that choice would be.
Saying that someone already knows what a choice would be is exactly the same as saying that the choice is predetermined - it is known (determined) ahead of time (pre-).
Quote from: Two Frame Animation on March 19, 2009, 09:42:48 PM
Saying that someone already knows what a choice would be is exactly the same as saying that the choice is predetermined - it is known (determined) ahead of time (pre-).
Not really.
Would you rather: Eat ice cream or get all fingers cut off?
You can be a smart ass and say finger, but you and I both know what you'd pick.
Now to God every choice is that simple for him to see.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 19, 2009, 09:48:51 PM
Quote from: Two Frame Animation on March 19, 2009, 09:42:48 PM
Saying that someone already knows what a choice would be is exactly the same as saying that the choice is predetermined - it is known (determined) ahead of time (pre-).
Not really.
Would you rather: Eat ice cream or get all fingers cut off?
You can be a smart ass and say finger, but you and I both know what you'd pick.
Now to God every choice is that simple for him to see.
That's only an argument for free will and predetermination coexisting if you make the assumption that free will exists in the "decision" to not get all your fingers chopped off.
I tend to look at the freewill issue this way:
We exist in (or under the illusion of) linear time. We make decisions, cause effects, the universe changes. We cut down a tree the tree falls. Millennia later it's a tiny little puddle of oil buried under years of sediment and continental drift and shit.
God sees the oil now.
If we decide not to cut down the tree. God doesn't see the oil.
But, either way, he knows, from the outset. Whether it's going to be worth drilling there or not.
What's wrong with a little circular reasoning? No beginning, no end, just like a circle. We may live sequentially, but that doesn't mean we have to always think in linear, does it?
Maybe God is spinning ad-hoc theories out of his head? & we live there within the paradox? We begin at a new reference point every friggin' day.
God's alright
Its his fucking fans that are idiots
ain't that the truth?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 20, 2009, 12:25:42 AM
God's alright
Its his fucking fans that are idiots
:Mittens:
THIS.
Thurnez nailed that one.
A couple asides: I consider God (at least partially) a linguistic hallucination. Let's get deeper than that a second, tho.... take, "God is a Verb" for example. Let's examine that game-rule by contrasting it with another instance of a Linguistic Hallucination masquerading as "a real thing-noun":
*Holds up a fist* I have a Fist. When I uncurl my fingers, what happens to the Fist?
Oh, and I just ran across an article that addresses that whole "outside of time" dealie....
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16796-fasterthanlight-tachyons-might-be-impossible-after-all.html
There's a huge semantic flaw in the first paragraph of the "Emerging time" section, but other than that, it was an interesting read.
:evil:
god is three tic tacs