The concept of God

[NaturaNaturans]

21 hours ago, Nungali said:

Any 'natural principles of reality'  would relate to nature , various forms of physics ,  the four fundamental powers , things like that . I dont see that those things need a God  and i think any atheist / materialist  would not have trouble accepting these natural forces of order and balance  .

I find this intruging, care to expand? And also, you mentioned that satan is often seen as a twin in many traditions. What is the symbolism of this?

 

Quote

Again, i agree. However there is a whole lot of concepts people call 'natural law and order' that are not really , they are actually based on human needs and comfort and the way we philosophically prefer to live *   (but not in reality , eg. when we see the world situation throughout history and the present  ) , usually extremely modified by our own culture .

Again i agree. Thats why i loved that hymn to Zeus. But what «natural law» is, is not that simple in my opinion. Do you have anysuggestion? Reading a little bit in Auraliues «meditation,» and he use worlds like all-nature, prime mover, universal logos and so on. Only read a little, but it is fascinating.

 

 

[Sanity Check]

23 hours ago, wandelaar said:

The idea that people should take the form of their genitals as defining for how they should live is absurd.

 

(You're reciting the ideology behind trans men competing in women's sports)

 

Thanks for sharing your views which lean towards chaos and disorder.

 

Have a nice day.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Sanity Check

[Daniel]

7 hours ago, Sanity Check said:

Thanks for sharing your views which lean towards chaos and disorder.

 

Chaos and disorder are useful.  Random genetic mutations are an important evolutionary survival advantage.

[Nungali]

On 11/20/2023 at 6:47 PM, Sanity Check said:

 

 

 

If a recap of ideological content atheists were most known for over the last decade was undertaken.

 

What would the strongest correlations be? Maybe it would go something like...

 

1.  Moral relativism. Atheists reject the concept of the world having a natural order of good and evil. Atheists claim morality is subjective with objective morality being impossible to know.

 

2.  Gender relativism. Atheists reject the concept of the world having a natural order of gender roles or gender being defined by genitalia. 

 

BUT ... maybe it wouldn't .

 

 

On 11/20/2023 at 6:47 PM, Sanity Check said:

These examples provide a framework for virtually every atheist stance and position over the past 10 years.

 

Where atheism has encouraged society to cast aside traditional perceptions of natural order, to embrace chaos and disorder instead.

 

Natural order:  only women can have periods and get pregnant.

 

Chaos and disorder:  men can have periods and get pregnant, too.

 

While I'm not suggesting all atheists subscribe to these views. Or that any of you support these things.

 

These are the things atheism is most known for in this day and age.

 

 

Known for .... by who  ? 

 

In other words ... 'sez who '  ?   In my observations atheists who proselytize  (    )   clearly support order , just look at how they postulate life started on earth . Its all about the inherent properties in matter / chemicals  and compounds , and that goes on across the board ... ie, they 'replace God with science ' .

 

I think people that deny that are thinking  'God '  created everything  due to his 'power of Godness '  is chaos and disorder ....  and  'God' seems a product of the human mind that cannot perceive , or has trouble perceiving , the huge complexity of order  required for the atheist view .

[Nungali]

11 hours ago, Sanity Check said:

 

(You're reciting the ideology behind trans men competing in women's sports)

 

Thanks for sharing your views which lean towards chaos and disorder.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Hmmmm ....

 

Now I think of a recent advert on tv here ;   'women's soccer ' .  A women comes on " Its not 'women's sport ... it's  SPORT . ... Its not 'women's  ......   it is .... "  and so on .

 

- even without a sex change .

 

Then the advert ends with a huge banner   "  Women's world cup soccer "     and 'The Australian National Women's Soccer Team "

 

 

It used to be called the 'W-League' , but now changed names to  'A-League '  , which consist of  ;  TAS Women's Summer Cup; PSC Championship; Victoria Women's State Knockout Cup; Victoria Women's Community Shield; Western Australia Women's State Cup; South Australia Women's Premier & State Cup; Tasmania Women's Statewide Cup ... and so on .

 

is that disorder or order ? 

[wandelaar]

As I said before Sanity Check is not interested in what atheists actually think or promote but only in bashing them on the basis of his own unfounded preconceptions. I don't know of any "official" atheist position on women's sports but here's what I think. Women's sports and men's sports are separated because of the different build of a men's and a woman's body. This separation is reasonable and legitimate from the perspective of equal opportunities. A person with a man's body calling himself a women to be able to participate in a women's tournament would thus be foul play. For physical sports what is relevant is the body (and it's capabilities) of the participant and not the whether the person feels him- of herself a man or a woman or whatever. Now according to this reasoning there would be no possibility for persons with a body that is neither fully male nor fully female, or with a body that doesn't corresponds to what the person feels him- or herself to be to participate in sports tournaments, and this admittedly is a problem. I don't know a simple solution to that. Maybe introduce a third category for sports-persons who don't fit in with the already existing man's or women's category?

Edited November 21, 2023 by wandelaar

[Maddie]

How did we end up on trans people in sports?

[Nungali]

see 'sanity check's '   post above .

[Nungali]

.. when discussing people's concept of God .... one can end up anywhere .

 

I think God is like      sports people on trains

 

 

[Maddie]

3 minutes ago, Nungali said:

see 'sanity check's '   post above .

 

I saw the post but I still don't understand LOL 😹

[Maddie]

On 11/20/2023 at 1:47 AM, Sanity Check said:

Natural order:  only women can have periods and get pregnant.

 

Chaos and disorder:  men can have periods and get pregnant, too.

 

1. Are prepubescent girls and women who have gone through menopause not women?

 

2. Who said that? LOL. I mean granted some of the men here seem like they PMS sometimes but still....

[wandelaar]

Sanity Check is trying to blame atheists for all kinds of things he/she/it doesn't like. One of those things is this:

 

On 11/21/2023 at 9:26 AM, Sanity Check said:

(You're reciting the ideology behind trans men competing in women's sports)

 

Thanks for sharing your views which lean towards chaos and disorder.

 

Have a nice day.

 

After some hesitation I decided to give my opinion on the subject to show what an atheist (I'm not speaking for all atheists on the planet) might think about it. Discussions with true believers are generally useless so I don't expect Sanity Check to alter his/her/its silly claims, but some other readers might be interested in what I had to say.

[Maddie]

33 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Sanity Check is trying to blame atheists for all kinds of things he/she/it doesn't like. One of those things is this:

 

 

After some hesitation I decided to give my opinion on the subject to show what an atheist (I'm not speaking for all atheists on the planet) might think about it. Discussions with true believers are generally useless so I don't expect Sanity Check to alter his/her/its silly claims, but some other readers might be interested in what I had to say.

 

From one atheist to another I appreciate it!

[Jadespear]

On 11/19/2023 at 1:36 AM, Sanity Check said:

Some believe the world is organized around fundamental principles of law and order. There is a certain consistency about reality which lends itself towards some overriding purpose. Those who feel this way are typically believers in God.

 

On the flip side there is another demographic who believe order and natural principles of reality do not exist. They believe there is no purpose or grand design present in the universe. Only chaos and disorder. Those who feel this way are usually atheist.

 

Where these two trends meet in the middle, would traditionally be described as agnostic.

 

 

Anyone who believes in chaos and disorder as the answer to what existence is, are largely mistaken.  It's really simple to see why they are wrong...that's why science is a great tool to use in the pursuit of the truth.  Certain things can only occur under the right circumstances, just as certain things cannot occur under the certain circumstances.  Simple things like childbirth, etc.  the act of biological life being created must adhere to certain circumstances or (laws), there is no alternative.  

 

I don't believe your description of "agnostic" is true. It ha nothing to do with chaos or order.  An Agnostic is someone who posits the existence of a higher power but does not subscribe to any dogmatic definition of it.  They simply believe in "something" greater than themselves without forming religious ideas about it, or ideas of any kind about it.  They don't really hold a belief as much as they do simply hold an observation.  Hence why the term "agnostic" is also used in secular terms to describe someone who is "indifferent".  

[Jadespear]

On 11/20/2023 at 1:47 AM, Sanity Check said:

 

 

 

If a recap of ideological content atheists were most known for over the last decade was undertaken.

 

What would the strongest correlations be? Maybe it would go something like...

 

1.  Moral relativism. Atheists reject the concept of the world having a natural order of good and evil. Atheists claim morality is subjective with objective morality being impossible to know.

 

2.  Gender relativism. Atheists reject the concept of the world having a natural order of gender roles or gender being defined by genitalia. 

 

These examples provide a framework for virtually every atheist stance and position over the past 10 years.

 

Where atheism has encouraged society to cast aside traditional perceptions of natural order, to embrace chaos and disorder instead.

 

Natural order:  only women can have periods and get pregnant.

 

Chaos and disorder:  men can have periods and get pregnant, too.

 

While I'm not suggesting all atheists subscribe to these views. Or that any of you support these things.

 

These are the things atheism is most known for in this day and age.

 

 

 

Nicely put... and in the rational view, chaos and disorder as described above are entirely wrong.  Biological human men are born and do not contain biological organs and biology to have periods or become impregnated.  The facts remain.  Men are men and women are women as defined by their biology.  Chaos and disorder are words to describe perceptions of life, not actual life itself.  No surgery or hormonal therapy will ever fully convert a man into a woman or vice versa.  People who try and distort the actual true meaning of words and facts of life have been around ever since we have existed.  They are seen as heretics because they are.  They hold no objective purpose besides attempting to prove themselves against what is already real, an ignorant and selfish attitude and attempt that history has shown usually loses against the actual truth that wise people embrace, know, extoll, and promote to the rest of the world.  The voices of such misguided and sick people should never be taken seriously, as all they are are cries for attention and self validation from fools who mistakenly believe their own viewpoint defines existence itself.  

 

...in case you missed it - I'm really tired of these kind of people.  All they do is pollute the world with confusion and lies.  Cast aside natural order?  For what?  So they can act all clever and run around in mental circles attempting to prove their nonsense is what.  Pretty pathetic.  Get a life, don't be an atheist.  

[stirling]

On 11/18/2023 at 11:36 PM, Sanity Check said:

Some believe the world is organized around fundamental principles of law and order. There is a certain consistency about reality which lends itself towards some overriding purpose. Those who feel this way are typically believers in God.

 

On the flip side there is another demographic who believe order and natural principles of reality do not exist. They believe there is no purpose or grand design present in the universe. Only chaos and disorder. Those who feel this way are usually atheist.

 

Where these two trends meet in the middle, would traditionally be described as agnostic.

 

There is (at least) a 3rd (4th?) order: 

 

There are those who realize that this moment is the only REAL moment (and that "time", "self" and "space" are conceptual only) and that what occurs in this moment happens without any purpose except what it arises with right NOW, and don't project a delusion of a past or future on to it. 

Edited December 11, 2023 by stirling

[old3bob]

No "God" , then no historic Buddha that evolved through time and space to reach beyond time and space.

[old3bob]

I'm somewhat surprised you posted a like on my last post Striling since some Buddhists are very big on denial of "God"....and also seemingly contradictory in general because many Buddhists do recognize their temple and or local Devas but not "God" or MahaDeva...

 

"it's a strange, strange world Master Jack"

[NaturaNaturans]

On 20.11.2023 at 8:47 AM, Sanity Check said:

1.  Moral relativism. Atheists reject the concept of the world having a natural order of good and evil. Atheists claim morality is subjective with objective morality being impossible to know.

But even with the existence of god, what makes gods sense of morality objective? Does he even have a sense of morality? The people who claim to have divinley inspired scriptures about gods morality, differs wildley

[old3bob]

16 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

But even with the existence of god, what makes gods sense of morality objective? Does he even have a sense of morality? The people who claim to have divinley inspired scriptures about gods morality, differs wildley

 

thought that "God" exists or does not exist is still just a thought, and yes thoughts can and do vary wildly.  When reason recognizes its definite limits based on thoughts then "God" as mystery beyond thought may open up and come into play.

[old3bob]

 

Btw, if we except that Om is real and not just a concept then in way Buddhists (led by their gurus, lamas, scripture, etc.) are chanting to "God" all the time with their major mantras!   Thus it can be said that Om or Aum is not just the idea of "old man in the sky lording it over on everything"  but as a fundamental, undeniable force, including the silence of Om before its all pervading roar which can be followed either way - back to or out from said Silence.

[NaturaNaturans]

53 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

Btw, if we except that Om is real and not just a concept then in way Buddhists (led by their gurus, lamas, scripture, etc.) are chanting to "God" all the time with their major mantras!   Thus it can be said that Om or Aum is not just the idea of "old man in the sky lording it over on everything"  but as a fundamental, undeniable force, including the silence of Om before its all pervading roar which can be followed either way - back to or out from said Silence.

Like concepts of «all-nature» or «cosmic law»? Makes perfect sense to me, i even think it is undeniable. Trying to quiet the mind or meditate on a higher power does as well.

[Jadespear]

IF Y'all want to get down into it, why is it so hard?

 

The word "divine" means cause.  The causal principle.  The place/thing/space that all other formed things come from to have an existence.  The source of creation is all around us all the time.  The tao is beyond time and space and is undiscriminating in its deepest sense - it is impersonal in the sense that it is not a "person" but it is personal in the sense that it has traits or thing by which one can know and understand it.  Existence itself is ultimately it - as all life simply procreates itself moment by moment in the temporal (finite_ world through the means and mechanisms of determined law to bring about infinite forms into existence.  God is the source of reality behind reality, dee within reality.  Everyone and everything is always connected to it beyond their choice.  

 

[Nungali]

On 11/23/2023 at 8:59 AM, Maddie said:

 

1. Are prepubescent girls and women who have gone through menopause not women?

 

2. Who said that? LOL. I mean granted some of the men here seem like they PMS sometimes but still....

 

Okay .... you asked for this   :

 

Me ;  " How dare you !   How dare you judge me  and infer that my highly personal bodily functions have somehow interfered with my intelligent observation and my  reaction to things .... that makes me sooo mad , it boils my blood !    "

 

Maddie ;  ''Okay  but  do you  have PMS  ? "

 

Me;  " Well ...... yes  .   But that has nothing to do with it !  " 

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Jadespear said:

IF Y'all want to get down into it, why is it so hard?

 

The word "divine" means cause.

 

Nah .  It comes from PIE , simply = 'God'  from a root of  - 'shining' . By extension ;

 

divus	Latin (lat)	God, fairy Godlike, godly. Of or belonging to a deity; divine.
divinus	Latin (lat)	Divine, of a deity, superhuman, supernatural.
divinare	Latin (lat)
deviner	Middle French (ca. 1400-1600) (frm)
divine	English (eng)	(transitive) To foretell (something), especially by the use of divination.. (transitive) To guess or discover (something) through intuition or insight.. (transitive) To search for (underground objects or water) using a divining rod.. To render divine; to deify.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 The causal principle.  The place/thing/space that all other formed things come from to have an existence.  The source of creation is all around us all the time.  The tao is beyond time and space and is undiscriminating in its deepest sense - it is impersonal in the sense that it is not a "person" but it is personal in the sense that it has traits or thing by which one can know and understand it.  Existence itself is ultimately it - as all life simply procreates itself moment by moment in the temporal (finite_ world through the means and mechanisms of determined law to bring about infinite forms into existence.  God is the source of reality behind reality, dee within reality.  Everyone and everything is always connected to it beyond their choice.  

 

That depends on whether  this 'God' of yours  is a self defined 'tag' that you put on your  own description ; " the source of reality behind reality, dee within reality.  "  ( dont understand the  second bit ? )    OR   some other preconceived idea about God , yours or others'  ,  that has been projected and elevated  to this 'source behind reality' .

 

It just possible that 'God's  source'  resides within the human mind  - depending on ones concept and 'understanding'  of God .

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by Nungali