What would this something look like?
What would this something look like?
this is not just for atheists…my idea for the model…the god as a PERSON must go…in its place is NATURE[universe/life]…the model would be a working model not a model set in stone…what do you think…
it is not my new church…it is an idea…it is new…it is not a church…I want you to help build a model for this new idea…I am just presenting this idea of reformation…something people can believe in without being non-rational…
[/quote]
What would this something look like?
[/quote]
what do you mean— look like…it is not a church…no money involved
That’s a mechanical universe. There are atoms and energy but no intention and no purpose.
Correct?
mechanical…I don’t know that…what intention and purpose do you see…I need to know what you see
I am throwing around ideas…I don’t know anything…I am a dummy
“I”, in my view, is largely this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
So to speak of “what” “exactly” “I” “am”, is merely to speculate in the here and the now regarding the manner in which all of the existential variables in my life came to predispose me to think of my self in one particular subjective manner rather than another. And [for me] that doesn’t change just because the subject pertains to the relationship between God, religion and the church.
Simple. Yes, that is mr reasonable’s argument too. But, over the years, I have come to discover that when someone speaks of the solution being “simple” [or “objective”] what they really mean is that all I need do is to think of [in this case] God, religion and the church as they do.
And that is when I bring these abstractions down to earth and ask the objectivist to show us how it is “simple” with respect to conflicting human behaviors that revolve around conflicting value judgments.
And here [again from my perspective] “simple” tends to revolve around the objectivists hammering the complexities of human intearctions into their “simple” abstractions. Their definitions and deductions.
Well, it works for them, but it doesn’t work for me. And here I tend to speculate that it works for them because, emotionally and psychologically, it enables them to ground “I” in one or another “whole truth” and it allows them in turn to ground morality in much the same “intellectual contraption”.
It’s just that some use God, religion and/or the church for this and others use philosophy and reason. Anything, in my view, to ward off the dilemma that is dasein.
This doesn’t really work though because different folks with different moral and political agendas always end up insisting that doing things their way is what makes things better. Then they gain power and, in doing things their way, things get worse instead. But, again, only from a particular point of view.
That, in fact, is why folks invented Gods and religions and denominational churches in the first place: In order to insist that their way really is better. Why? Because their God says so. It’s right there in their Bible.
The rest is [among other things] history.
That is, until philosophers [and scientists] came along and introduced the world to Reason. Only they hadn’t quite figured on the limitations of it.
We are not discussing the definition of I here.
imb,
You misunderstood me. That is not what i was trying to say. Perhaps, the shortness of my answer is the cause of confusion as it did not explained enough.
By saying plain and simple, i merely meant that these are the areas those are suppsed to be explored. I did not say that exploration would be simple. These two are different things altogether.
The easy part is only to know where to look for the answers. That does not entail that finding the right answers would be easy also.
How one can know what would be the weather at some km above the sea level?
The simple answer is that one can know that by reaching at the peak of Mount Everst because it is about nine kms above the sea level. But, this does not mean that one can know the weather exactly that easily by climbing at the peak of that mountain.
In that context, i compaired your quest with the that of religions. They also tried to find the same answers, though you seem to be suggesting that their aim was something different or vague. That was all that i was trying to clear.
with love,
sanjay
Why call it a church? Why not call it a Sociology of Religion /Women’s Studies course? We already have those.
we have changed on this thread…it is not a church…it is an idea…no money…no building…no Christian god…but something better
OK, so get a degree in religious philososphy/history and teach a class then? What you are suggesting already exists- it’s just a bunch of non-religious people discussing other people’s religious beliefs and co-opting the parts they like.
Basically… People need to stop living for themselves selfishly; Live for the universe. Embrace life as a whole, because the Fibonacci certainly shows it as whole.
And what does that mean to you?
Fibonacci was not the “whole” … by a long shot.
Everything spirals.
To embrace experience, the seeking of knowledge, expand for the universe, rather than completely for oneself.
Atoms don’t spiral. The crystals they form, such as salt and sand show no signs of any kind of spiral. Bones of animals do not spiral. Rain drops form and fall, seldom spiraling and never without the help of a spiraling wind. Many things spiral, but certainly not “all” and certainly not “the whole”. The data gathered from telescopes does not show any spiraling of the universe as a whole.
A limited perspective - an imaginary, exaggerated “god”. In what way does a turtle or giraffe spiral?
I understand “not merely for oneself”. What I don’t understand is your “live FOR the universe”. In what way does the universe gain by what you do or don’t do? And for what purpose “should” one sacrifice for that cause?
I don’t want to live for the universe…I want to survive and I will try to be helpful to people
Don’t forget “it is cruel to be kind in the wrong measure (or at the wrong time)”.
Or as the Judists put it; “Don’t boil a kid in its mother’s milk”.
… Are those things living?
jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emat6680/par … nature.htm I guess you couldn’t make the simple correlation of which I meant “everything spirals” even with a quote in front of you.
The Universe is not obligated to care or make sense, we are part of it as well, experiencing itself subjectively and individually. By people living so ignorant and misinformed prevents their expansion of it, through knowledge it can expand even greater.
You don’t want to expand your mind through knowledge and open mindedness, you don’t want to experience the unknown? Being helpful to people, you can start by expanding yourself so that they too may learn to expand. Your expansion, is also the universes expansion, as it is for every individual of which is the universe experiencing itself subjectively.
“A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest… a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” - Albert Einstein