Silancing theists:

On the first question, I’m not hearing voices if that’s what you’re asking. I don’t know the answer to either of the latter questions; I believe the answer to the last one is ineffable from our current perspective.

Existence is a part of God; matter/energy can behave uniquely, but within that framework. Similarly, we give ourselves purpose, but within the framework of the universe and thus God.

What I basically meant by justify was “to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable”; without predictability, something can’t be reasonable (which is a fundamental necessity of ‘right’ or ‘just’ imo), because it doesn’t depend on constants.

I have a vague sense of what you’re asking, but what is defining the action here? For example, if order descends, is it doing so over time? Over value? In terms of complexity? I think my answer is that it descends, i.e. everything is fundamentally important because of its place in the universe, and thus because of the nature of the universe, and thus God.

It’s also different for humans though because we have self-awareness, and thus our own perspective. I believe the perspective is defined according to natural rules, but we can’t see through anything besides it; we can’t accurately decide what God’s purpose is and thus follow it directly. So, we have to base what is “right” or “purposeful” or “valued” on our own awareness; as far as humans are concerned, structure orders ascend and descend from humanity, because there is no other place we can start in our view.

Consider how arrogance makes consciousness smaller by creating rifts, by moving understanding outside of the one; then maybe holiness is a movement toward humility? And maybe God did make man in his image; the way the brain moves toward truth, successive iterations moving toward ‘success,’ is what ‘religion’ means (a rereading, a reevaluation, with an eye to moving toward the truth.)

The success of deconstructionism has created an environment where the disolution is clearly visible; the clay crumbles. The place of self before there was ego-consciousness, the cognition of ritual and the consciousness of ecological fecundity, make adamantium.

Yes.

You could have just as easily used the words “nature” or “reality” instead of the word “God”, so tell me, why does the word “God” seem more proper when fitting the concept you describe here?

Why are movies such as star-wars, and books such as Harry-Potter so popular and enjoyable to so many people, if they are not real, made up fantacies, and all-be-it, they are “lies”.

I do not think “the truth” is even half as sensual as a lie and a dream touching each other.

~

It would appear as though the word “religion” and the word “God”, these words have become so personal and so subjective, that their entire meaning is nolonger what I wanted to undo.

(* Waves white flag *)

If this is no longer about submission and praise unto Zues, it’s not even half-as-bad as I thought…

What I have a problem with is… something like this:

“I have no proof of God, my God is perfect and right, I have never experienced or even seen my God, but I know my God and I put this [false] “knowledge” above all reality. Insanity is fun.”

Dan~ wrote:

I know this wasnt geared towards me, but Im bored too.

Semantics, whats the deal with that? At first glance Id say it doesnt make any difference what kind of word you use, whether it be God or reality, etc. But then, I think a little more about it. And I say to myself, let me see if I can answer Dan’s question, like really answer it. And I came up with something. First of all, the word doesnt matter, of course its only the meaning. With that said, the proper word that appears to fit the concept our dear friend described above should not only be what can be defined as reality or nature, but also that which is beyond it. Something that is the Source of these things, and is also infinitely more than these things, something so vast and incomprehensible. The term “God”, if defined in that way of course, seems more proper or fitting, because its so much more than just earthly perceptions of something (ie. reality or nature). On the contrary, earthly perception falls so short of attaining to this ineffible and infinite concept that we have to entertain opposing sides of argument for such an existence, that is ultimately and utterly impossible to prove either yay or nay. Why? Because we aint ready yet! Not ready you say, ready for what? Well, fact of the matter is, and here is my unsupported proof that this type of concept can exist and be actual; we havent all derived to the point to where we can know beyond our limited reason with its pre existant propositions which could be wrong and of course our fallacious sense datum which is filtered through these propositions, so we just argue and fight and never win. Seems like we cant win! But, were lucky! Becuase life exist and it evolves and it moves and it is everchanging, and there are so many possibilities, some already have been and some will be! So wonderful and great I know. Now, heres the good stuff, why is this so? How can this be so? How is this life stuff possible, I mean, how can it be like that? The answer must be preceded with a drum roll…dadadadadadadadadadada… Because it just is! Trying to explain it is useless, but if somebody says, God did it, or its just natures course, then so be it. Why cant they both be right, different name, same thing.

Oh, and as far as the ascending/descending matter… Descending first, then ascending. But in all actuality, neither is occuring. The descension only appears to be so because an already completely and full infinite power is being manifested and expressed in a physical reality. Something subtle is being expressed grossly. Thats all there is to descension. Ascension is the same way and is the back end of the apparent descension process. This now gross manifestation of the subtle (the descended stuff), appears to now ascend or evolve. Its the same full and complete infinite power, lets just call it consciousness for fun, that is being expressed in this physical gross matter that is evolving and apparently making way for this physical stuff to become more like it, but on a gross level, making for the apparent acension. Hope that makes sense.

illativemindindeed, okay, thank you for that.

I think that I am very frustrated about earth and civilization right now, and it effects what I talk about.

It almost makes sense. As i see it, you fail to recognize the mirroring; when you don’t recognize the mirroring, the titanic snakes turn you to stone. When you recognize the mirroring, and act in the image, you render the secret groups impotent.

In plain language, you’re not seeing the distinction between consciousness and cognition. The cognitive self is the light-bringer; if the fundamentals of self are offended by what the light shows, the mandala that is the light-bringer’s ground will disintegrate. Perhaps this is the case with Danbecomekirmitbecomeluke?

Everything the light shows is based on what the light has already revealed, either in an earlier life or species group. Everything we know or see is a reflection, I agree, but this reflection is based on itself. Its a reflection of what already is or has been, but to the point to where the physical counterpart of consciousness has come to recognize itself as that. Its really complicated, and my ommision of mirroring or reflection in no way expresses that Im missing something. The basic tenants of consciousness are there, and the reflection actually implied though if the one reading isnt familiar with these ideas, then it would be hard to comprehend such a concept or recognize the inherent process by which this occurs. Furthermore, I dont recognize a difference between consciousness and cognition because one is only a limited form of the other. Thats the only distinction I find to be important considering my progressive outlook that focuses on the flowering development of consciousness at hand.

I can definetely feel your frustration. When I read your post, there is always an inherent understanding that is way beyond what is written, and it speaks of truth. Of course it comes out in your own little way, but I know that you see things, just a different comprehension of the same things.

dan, I understand that theists can be annoying when they try to force feed their views or beliefs on people. But, athiests can be just as annoying when they are pushing their views as well. Just how theists often want to silence the evil whoremongers of the planet, so do some athiests want to silence those who don’t subscribe to their camp. It is annoying from BOTH sides and get us nowhere in understanding human belief and existence.

Yes it can be annoying to explain to a die hard thiest some basics in logic, but making fun of them does not help them, patience and discussion might . . .or might not. But telling them they are stupid is just plain . . . stupid if you want to get something accross. All it does is retards communication, and therefore any progress in making people understand and respect each other.

I have asked you before Dan, and I really hope you’ll answer me this time; What do you have against theists if they DON’T push their ideas? (we all know it is annoying when theists, athiest or anyone with a view or ideology push their ideas, but I am interested in the former question)

So you’re in no position to discuss the light? That’s fine, just to be clear.

I appreciate your focus; it does seem to be popular and, it allows one to ignore the troubles. I don’t think it helps to futher the discussion, which is entirely understandable given the perspective.

I think that, if you claim to understand something, you should be willing to discuss and delineate in order to demonstrate said understanding. In the case of the mirroring; i think it’s important to understand that what appears in the greek as a mirroring appears in the hebrew as a functional shift of left and right, which is a change from masculine to feminine and vice versa. Maybe; this is all, ofcourse, open to discussion.

I don’t see a flowering, i see an intense constipation by which innocent people are dying; but hey, whatever.

Sho nuff! lol your right Jeffl Im in no position to discuss the light, especially considering it is only based on theory and what not. Furthermore, I appreciate you appreaciating my perspective. Im not here to discuss understanding and all that good stuff, I just like to state a point for the hell of it, and see how people respond to it. Im through with actually caring about what I say on this site in order to cater to my ego and attempt to prove something, you know the good stuff. So, I just write when I feel moved, and I felt moved to talk to my friend Dan. Im really not interested in delineating anything further about my understanding of consciousness unless Im moved, currently Im lacking the motivation. My bad. But God bless you all the same, and I hope you enjoy yourself on the site. And by the way, constipation calls for relief, some kind of facilitating addition, to soften or loosen, maybe get the muscles gyrating better. Everybody’s not so constipated that they cant shit something productive out, those individuals arent focusing on the backed up shit but on getting it out.

I like to think that’s me; laxative, with caffeine.

My father has been know to say something along the lines of, ‘we’re all the same boy, if your asshole’s plugged you’re in shit.’

Thanks IAMI, keep moving as you are moved (motion and rest?).

lawl, u guyz r fun.

SomeHow i knew you were coming to that in the meantime ~Dan.

The word “God” usually implies transcendence; there’s a difference between the mechanisms of the universe’ operations, and the totality of the universe; coming a system up in view gives it solidarity. Furthermore, the word “God” almost by definition implies reverence.

The burden of proof does not lay in disproving god’s existence, but proving it. Thats how it should be anyways.

From reading most of this most of you are arguing wether or not God is an entity/does, does not exist. If God is a metaphysical entity which contains all of existance then the hole in your theory above is what is outside of this entity? It is an entity as you classify it and therefore must exist within something therefore not being everything in existance.

Also capitalizing it makes it a name of somthing. I would say the same as above with the exception so as not to confuse or misinterpreted I would use “Universe” This word in itself has many diferent definitions and can be used to explain many in a singular form. Just samantic here but Saying that God is everything is incoreect especialy if you believe this is a being in itself and creatred in itself everything in existance.

Is it not much simpler to look and say it exists, it is and understand that rather than to explain why it does not?

Merely the thought of the argument of something existing not existing makes it so and brings it into existance. If only in the believers mind and their own universe. It exists for them because they believe it does. The mistake occures when that individuals tries to convince others that the being they have created exists for them also when in fact it exists only for that person. In this the individuale will drag another into there belief which for everyone but the individuale who created it is unrealistic or false. Many variations of God exists because every person who believes in him gives him the main qualities and yet adds and takes some away so as to suit there own likeing and belief comfort zone.

Example: Put 2 Christians from the same denomination of the same belief in a room and start an argument between them. I garantee you will find there is at least one thing they disagree on concerning God. This is the change that makes these created beings important in so many lives.

They are not one supreme god but many created by and tailored to each individuale. They are thought created, nothing more.

God exist’s You humans just think in to much of an inclosed space, everything you do must have a physical proof. The metaphysical is rarely capable of being expalined in physical form. If you would ask Dan~ to explain a Metaphysical being in physical terms he would talk about waves and psyonics, chaos modulation and string theory, Information/data, input output. Maybe you should ask him what “he” Thinks god is. Because to him that is what he is. Nothing else.

The faster you humans learn “You” “are” God in itself the sooner you will progress on a metaphysical evolution not hindered by oppinions and discusions such as these that you never come to a conclusion about anyway and leave the thread hanging.

What enlightenment you seek only you can give. You, yourself.

Dan~

I told you this seperation in realities and your humanity would occure if you continued your studies. Sometimes it is best to create another self capable of acting as a human would. So as not to completely inanimate your understanding of them. They are constantly changing haveing a psycreature based on them (or fragmentation of ones human spirit) merged with you is not such a bad idea as it will change and keep track of their evolutionary process.

You will also find that by doing so you will feel more pity than frustration with them. And blend better. As no matter what you are they own this realm and somtimes blending is better than standing out. I told you about atracting attention once…

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=149801
Watcher, see here^. One of the reasons why I take monotheism so lightly.

The state of being produces all thought, action and feeling. The state of being consists of views and beliefs. I’d not be surprised if bible writers were on the bong. This drugged state of being produced a certian sort of mentality, which produced a certian sort of writing.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … ce#1769654
and if you feel up for some unorthadox theory^
I replied at the bottom of this thread, talking about matter-based life having more structural complexity potential then energy-based life, and the “physical” eventually being able to become superior to the “metaphysical”, theoretically.