Do you believe in God and why

[WalkingOrders]

On 1/24/2020 at 9:31 PM, sirineou said:

Not sure if i understand the first sentence but here it goes, please forgive me if I misunderstood.

"

con·jec·ture

noun

an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

  ".

so according  to the above definition any conjecture would be based on incomplete evidence.

     As to the Historical Jesus I am sure that you must know there is a debate concerning his existence  , thus "Jesus if he ever existed " I am not taking sides in this debate  thus the "IF"

     I do not presume anything, I am sure you would agree that some people are more socially conscious than others and and can independently govern themselve where others need some convincing. The means of convincing differ from people to people, some are motivated by reward. (carot) others are motivated by fear (stick). 

    Reading books does not make people smarter, only makes them better informed, Being smart is the ability to process that information and put it to good use. 

  

 

I believe you were asking me about what evidence I had for existence of God not specific to existence of Christ. You don't seem have an understanding of what evidence there might be, even if attempting to lay out the other side of the argument, as if mearly explaining what those arguments might be. Nothing in the above post touches on that. Interesting. Again, I contend I have evidence, and dont want to spend time going through it, nor have I claimed proof of God or Jesus. Only evidence that speaks to me, and is nothing new in such debates.

[WalkingOrders]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Good point and something I have experienced first hand. Thankfully, my atheist friends are open-minded enough to listen to other views. We have a silent agreement that we don't evangelize each other, but we do have very interesting discussions.

If you think about it, the possibility that there might be more to life than what science or your 5 senses can show you, is indeed a threat to the strict materialistic worldview. What if everything you've been told and taught up to now has been a lie, or at best, only a small fraction of what life really is? This is was my first thought was after I had the kundalini experience. "Why has nobody told me about it?" "How comes this isn't common knowledge?" "Why on earth is this not the common goal of all of humanity?". I found out that the knowledge has always been there, but it's hidden in plain sight and it takes a conscious first step of the seeker for the truth to gradually reveal itself.
The truth is threatening only to those minds that are too rigid in the illusory conviction, that they already have all the answers. 
 

What is truth? And why would it matter to someone who isn't interested? Or someone otherwise happily occupied enough not to be threatened?

[WalkingOrders]

10 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

That's not really fair to Hendrix. If they were both chef's Hendrix made a 3 star meal with limited ingredients while Eddy had the use of a fully stocked Michelin restaurant.

I don't think EVH sounded anthing at all like Jimi. Why is one better then the other? And neither of them played like Dick Dale, and I could go on and on....each are unique stylists.

[WalkingOrders]

On 1/24/2020 at 7:43 PM, partington said:

 

A lack of belief in God is not the same as claiming there is no God, although one could believe both as true I suppose, but that requires the second declaritive statement.

[WalkingOrders]

10 hours ago, sirineou said:

But you have some corroborating evidence, right? if she disrespected you, lied to you, did mean hurtful things, or run around with other man, you might believe otherwise, would you not?

Perhaps but it doesn't neccessarilly negate the original statements does it? The original evidence still exists?

[WalkingOrders]

9 hours ago, luckyluke said:

I did the Annapurna trekking, but except being in admiration for the nature, I didn't resent/encounter anything "supernatural".

Of course except the rope suspension bridges it wasn't that dangerous.

But that's me.

Other people other situations.

We are all different and we give all different justification to our experiences.

Perhaps all that was needed was a bit more oxygen depravation for the visions to begin.

[Sunmaster]

9 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

What is truth? And why would it matter to someone who isn't interested? Or someone otherwise happily occupied enough not to be threatened?

What is truth?
Something that has to be explored, with all available tools.

And why would it matter to someone who isn't interested?
Because knowing yourself and your place in the universe makes you whole, it completes you. Being whole gives you a range of new opportunities. When you know yourself, you cease to be a slave of your emotions and your thoughts. You stop identifying with your little despotic ego, which is the source of all kinds of problems (sins?). Children are forced to study math at school for example, whether they like it or not, whether they'll use it in the future or not. Why not teaching them about themselves as well, which is infinitely more useful than knowing how to calculate a function.
I think meditation (free from any religious dogma) should be taught in every school, because it's fundamental in helping man growing up to be a healthy individual, more so than any physical exercise could do.
 

If, after learning these basic principles, you're otherwise happily occupied with other things, fine, but at least you've learned the fundamentals and you never know when they'll become handy again. 

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

Agreed, that's my main argument against present day Christianity. That the politics have eclipsed the philosophy 

 

Your first paragraph indicates the opposite.

 Don't know what the internet has to do with  any of what we are talking about, it is simply a means of communication, I am sure the same was said about books as they dances around the fires. 

 

well, the apparent contradiction depends on the fact that we can see the same issue from the point of view of the rulers, or from the point of view of an ordinary citizen.

Nobody likes to be controlled, but it's necessary from the point of view of the rulers.

Internet is like the script, the print , the books.

A mean of communication, a tool of knowledge, and, from the point of view of the rulers, a tool of mass indoctrination and control.

[WalkingOrders]

8 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, my point was, the things we see in our minds, are they existing somewhere, or are they born out of our imagination ?

I think there can be countless, different cases, and it's not easy to give a straight answer.

This is an interesting question. Especially in light of the amount of artificial, or virtual reality fed into the minds of human beings in this day and age. 

 

"The things we see in our minds, are they existing somewhere or borne out of our imagination."

 

Someone in the 15th century, a peasant, what did he dream of? Or what was the function of his dreams? To reherse his farming skills? To contemplate his interpersonal relationships? How different from someone who plays video games all day, and dreams of his gaming skill.. Humanity is being reprogrammed I assert.

[partington]

23 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

A lack of belief in God is not the same as claiming there is no God, although one could believe both as true I suppose, but that requires the second declaritive statement.

You have to read what's there.

 

 

By the way, in case it's not obvious, this is just two representative paragraphs quoted from a 5 page research article and not of course the whole thing. Therefore people who claim to have read the article carefully may be under a bit of a misapprehension.

Edited January 27, 2020 by partington

[StreetCowboy]

25 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

A lack of belief in God is not the same as claiming there is no God, although one could believe both as true I suppose, but that requires the second declaritive statement.

I don’t know what I’ll have for lunch tomorrow; I believe it will be mutton curry with rice. I don’t believe it will be a chicken sandwich, and I strongly don’t believe that I’ll go to the Japanese restaurant for sushi.  But I’ve been there for lunch before

[WalkingOrders]

18 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

What is truth?
Something that has to be explored, with all available tools.

And why would it matter to someone who isn't interested?
Because knowing yourself and your place in the universe makes you whole, it completes you. Being whole gives you a range of new opportunities. When you know yourself, you cease to be a slave of your emotions and your thoughts. You stop identifying with your little despotic ego, which is the source of all kinds of problems (sins?). Children are forced to study math at school for example, whether they like it or not, whether they'll use it in the future or not. Why not teaching them about themselves as well, which is infinitely more useful than knowing how to calculate a function.
I think meditation (free from any religious dogma) should be taught in every school, because it's fundamental in helping man growing up to be a healthy individual, more so than any physical exercise could do.
 

If, after learning these basic principles, you're otherwise happily occupied with other things, fine, but at least you've learned the fundamentals and you never know when they'll become handy again. 

Are you pasting this from somewhere, or taking time for title fonts?

 

As for the answer that "Truth is something to be exlored" I'm not impressed says Pilate.

 

The "something" remains undefined here.

 

A man who spends his entire life bent over in a field  harvesting food, so you and I can eat, who never meditates, and never ponders the meaning of his existance, I would argue, will also die whole, and at one with his Universe, although it wouldn't matter to him, one way or the other, nor do I have any idea of what the concept of being whole means, from my experience.

[WalkingOrders]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I am convinced that the rulers of the 'empire' chose monotheism over polytheism to create a unity among different races and tribes, so it was a political choice.

Unity in the empire made it easier for the rulers to impose coins and notes as useful tools to simplify the trade.

Materialism disguised as the voice of reason is turning the masses into useful idiots, who work relentlessly for the gain of a few.

Now the internet, together with other technologies, is further eroding all freedoms.

In the end it's all about controlling the masses.

Vladimir Putin is on video, and evidently it is part of his regular life to receive what is understood by Russian Orthodox Christians to be the body and Blood of Christ. The bread dipped in wine and considered transubstantiated into the real body and blood by the blessing of the Priest. (lets not debate the theological reality of this please)

 

I bring this up in with regard to your point about "Rulers" of the Holy Roman Empire choosing monotheism. Some say Putin is simply faking his Orthodox belief, say he is far to evil or coniving to be a real Russian Orthodox Christian. Lets assume for a moment that he perhaps is truthful. He recognizes his sins (as he perceives them) and is coming to Christ for healing.

 

So what's my point? I think its difficult to pull off a faked profession in Christianity, even for appearances for a good while. Today, and over 2000 years ago too.

 

I think in general terms Christian thought and belief slowly invaded the empire. As is generally held true. 

 

Far less likely, in my view, are a group of people sitting around a table on an afternoon and choosing a religion.

 

The fact that once Christianity was established it moved to root out all other Gods and heresies, I don't dispute. But this too was the result of a long period of time and many religious councils across the empire, as the theology developed.

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, WalkingOrders said:

Are you pasting this from somewhere, or taking time for title fonts?

 

As for the answer that "Truth is something to be exlored" I'm not impressed says Pilate.

 

The "something" remains undefined here.

 

A man who spends his entire life bent over in a field  harvesting food, so you and I can eat, who never meditates, and never ponders the meaning of his existance, I would argue, will also die whole, and at one with his Universe, although it wouldn't matter to him, one way or the other, nor do I have any idea of what the concept of being whole means, from my experience.

What are you talking about? I answered your questions, didn't copy/paste anything (apart from your questions, obviously).

 

The "something" remains unknown so long as you don't start questioning it. Once you do, you'll know that it's there, but it'll always remain undefinable. That's its nature.

 

There's a pre/trans fallacy here.
A man who dies content, without knowing his true nature, is not the same as a man who dies content, knowing his true self. They are both content, but the quality of the contentment is very different.
------------------------
The following is copy/pasted FYI.
In any developmental sequence, growth will proceed from pre-X to X to trans-X. Because both pre-X and trans-X are, in their own ways, non-X, they may appear similar, even identical. Once these two conceptually and developmentally distinct realms of experience are confused, one tends either to elevate prepersonal events to transpersonal status or to reduce transpersonal events to prepersonal status.



 

The Pre/Trans Fallacy according to Ken Wilber (https://integrallife.com/pre-trans-fallacy/)

Equipped with this new evolutionary understanding, Ken noticed a core confusion that made it very difficult to discern between the lower stages and the higher stages. Trans-rational mystical experiences were often being dismissed as pre-rational fantasy, postmodern values were being erroneously projected onto pre-modern cultures, and pre-modern impulsiveness and hedonism were being celebrated by the postmodern counterculture. Rather than viewing psychology as a developmental process running from pre-rational to rational to trans-rational (or pre-differentiated fusion to differentiation to post-differentiated integration), a person was seen as being either rational or not—resulting in the trans-rational baby getting thrown out with the pre-rational bathwater.

This misconception between “pre-” and “trans-” became known as the pre/trans fallacy, one of Ken’s most popular and profound theoretical contributions, and one that continues to help us make sense of many of the central conflicts and confusions running through Western psychology and academia.

The pre/trans fallacy actually formed one of the major fault lines between two of modern psychology’s greatest founders, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, both of whom stood on opposite sides of this fallacy—Freud would reduce spiritual states to a resurrection of infantile feelings, while Jung would elevate pre-rational mythology to trans-rational glory. The pre/trans fallacy allows us to put the pieces together into a more comprehensive whole, to liberate and integrate the genuine insight offered by these two pioneers, and to detangle their brilliance from the misunderstandings that were so rampant before this developmental view finally emerged.

This reconciliation of seemingly irreconcilable or incompatible ideas is perhaps the defining characteristic of Ken’s entire career and philosophy: finding the patterns that connect, uniting seemingly disparate theories, transcending and including the greatest minds of history into a single integrated model of life, the universe, and everything—a model that would continue to become more inclusive, more comprehensive, and more elegant with each and every step.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Far less likely, in my view, are a group of people sitting around a table on an afternoon and choosing a religion.

Mass control, mass manipulation, social engineering are real.

The 'rulers' employ the best minds to achieve that.

Nothing new under the sun.

[WalkingOrders]

1 hour ago, StreetCowboy said:

I don’t know what I’ll have for lunch tomorrow; I believe it will be mutton curry with rice. I don’t believe it will be a chicken sandwich, and I strongly don’t believe that I’ll go to the Japanese restaurant for sushi.  But I’ve been there for lunch before

Sounds like you have never heard of tacos, what a shame, but trust me, they exist, and are delicious, unbelievably so!

[WalkingOrders]

45 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

What are you talking about? I answered your questions, didn't copy/paste anything (apart from your questions, obviously).

 

The "something" remains unknown so long as you don't start questioning it. Once you do, you'll know that it's there, but it'll always remain undefinable. That's its nature.

 

There's a pre/trans fallacy here.
A man who dies content, without knowing his true nature, is not the same as a man who dies content, knowing his true self. They are both content, but the quality of the contentment is very different.
------------------------
The following is copy/pasted FYI.
In any developmental sequence, growth will proceed from pre-X to X to trans-X. Because both pre-X and trans-X are, in their own ways, non-X, they may appear similar, even identical. Once these two conceptually and developmentally distinct realms of experience are confused, one tends either to elevate prepersonal events to transpersonal status or to reduce transpersonal events to prepersonal status.



 

The Pre/Trans Fallacy according to Ken Wilber (https://integrallife.com/pre-trans-fallacy/)

Equipped with this new evolutionary understanding, Ken noticed a core confusion that made it very difficult to discern between the lower stages and the higher stages. Trans-rational mystical experiences were often being dismissed as pre-rational fantasy, postmodern values were being erroneously projected onto pre-modern cultures, and pre-modern impulsiveness and hedonism were being celebrated by the postmodern counterculture. Rather than viewing psychology as a developmental process running from pre-rational to rational to trans-rational (or pre-differentiated fusion to differentiation to post-differentiated integration), a person was seen as being either rational or not—resulting in the trans-rational baby getting thrown out with the pre-rational bathwater.

This misconception between “pre-” and “trans-” became known as the pre/trans fallacy, one of Ken’s most popular and profound theoretical contributions, and one that continues to help us make sense of many of the central conflicts and confusions running through Western psychology and academia.

The pre/trans fallacy actually formed one of the major fault lines between two of modern psychology’s greatest founders, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, both of whom stood on opposite sides of this fallacy—Freud would reduce spiritual states to a resurrection of infantile feelings, while Jung would elevate pre-rational mythology to trans-rational glory. The pre/trans fallacy allows us to put the pieces together into a more comprehensive whole, to liberate and integrate the genuine insight offered by these two pioneers, and to detangle their brilliance from the misunderstandings that were so rampant before this developmental view finally emerged.

This reconciliation of seemingly irreconcilable or incompatible ideas is perhaps the defining characteristic of Ken’s entire career and philosophy: finding the patterns that connect, uniting seemingly disparate theories, transcending and including the greatest minds of history into a single integrated model of life, the universe, and everything—a model that would continue to become more inclusive, more comprehensive, and more elegant with each and every step.

There was more then one Size text used in previous as well, as in headings subheadings, which is why I thought it was cut and pasted. Sorry, as for the above, unless you are the author and posting your own work, I am not interested in commenting as  I prefer to discuss with people contenporaneously expressing their own thoughts unless I am emailing an author or someone about previously written work, or I requested source material. Sorry.

Edited January 27, 2020 by WalkingOrders
Clarity

[WalkingOrders]

46 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Mass control, mass manipulation, social engineering are real.

The 'rulers' employ the best minds to achieve that.

Nothing new under the sun.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am talking about the transition of the Roman Empire to Christianity from Pantheism. 

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

There was more then one Size text used in previous as well, as in headings subheadings, which is why I thought it was cut and pasted. Sorry, as for the above, unless you are the author and posting your own work, I am not interested in commenting as  I prefer to discuss with people contenporaneously expressing their own thoughts unless I am emailing an author or someone about previously written work, or I requested source material. Sorry.

The ideas I express here are all a mix of research and my own experiences. 
When I add material from other sources I always try to make it clear that it's not mine and I only do it to elaborate a topic further or when my writing and explaining skills hit a wall.

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am talking about the transition of the Roman Empire to Christianity from Pantheism. 

If you are american, i understand, enough said.

[WalkingOrders]

9 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

If you are american, i understand, enough said.

I suggest you take these words and print them on a piece of paper, roll it into a tube, bend over, and stick them where the sun don't shine. Then cry to someone to ease the pain you feel about having to fly whatever miserable weak flag you fly, in the country that schooled you into ridiculous conspiracy theory posing as philosopical, or historical argument. Don't ever knock me for being an American again punk!

[Tagged]

11 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

 

 

I think in general terms Christian thought and belief slowly invaded the empire. As is generally held true. 

 

Far less likely, in my view, are a group of people sitting around a table on an afternoon and choosing a religion.

 

The fact that once Christianity was established it moved to root out all other Gods and heresies, I don't dispute. But this too was the result of a long period of time and many religious councils across the empire, as the theology developed.

The christians was seen as a plague, but some policians saw it as a  tool, and from there conquered state and kingdoms. Vikings as well saw their benefits, and even they where not christians in hearth, they where for business. Short comment on a big historical event over 1000´s of years. And still going on

 

Every religion and belief is a huge wealth for those who is in charge, and as for the christian countries as a whole.. 

[WalkingOrders]

10 minutes ago, Tagged said:

The christians was seen as a plague, but some policians saw it as a  tool, and from there conquered state and kingdoms. Vikings as well saw their benefits, and even they where not christians in hearth, they where for business. Short comment on a big historical event over 1000´s of years. And still going on

 

Every religion and belief is a huge wealth for those who is in charge, and as for the christian countries as a whole.. 

Christianity spread throughout various parts of the Empire, with different creeds and beliefs, that over time were codified, and or rejected. This did not happen in a single day by any secret group meeting somewhere deciding what was going to play out over some 300 year period.

 

As for your post,  you assert some specific facts as to words spoken by someone characterizing how Christians were viewed as a plague without giving who it is that said this, where it was said, or when. You then mention "some politicians" again without giving name  where or when.

 

You then mention Vikings which perhaps speaks to my earlier post on Putin and his religiosity. My point being that if it is difficult today to gauge to truth of one's faith, it most certainly is difficult to gauge if a Viking King was faking it for political or economic purpose despite what a history channel television program might say.

[Tagged]

Short told from history I have read from various sources

 

Christians played a major role for poor people and showed no violent cruisade, as well many showed their willingness to suffer martyr death. 

 

Constantin is believed to be the major key for the massive turn around for the christianity among many others, but the transformation from their old gods to new god, tok time. 

 

Enough for the morning rant on bad language, and no sources. Have a good morning. 

 

Politics turned Christianity to world religion. 

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

I suggest you take these words and print them on a piece of paper, roll it into a tube, bend over, and stick them where the sun don't shine. Then cry to someone to ease the pain you feel about having to fly whatever miserable weak flag you fly, in the country that schooled you into ridiculous conspiracy theory posing as philosopical, or historical argument. Don't ever knock me for being an American again punk!

I never knock you, and i will forgive your silly words, and your flooding my posts with silly emoticons.

I know it's not your fault if you think you are very smart.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/24/2020 at 2:14 PM, sirineou said:

I am sure you are a lot more than your religion.

That wouldn't be hard as I've spent many hours explaining why I don't have a religion. Seems that no matter how many times I say I don't believe in religion, someone comes along and tries to make it about religion.

 

On 1/24/2020 at 2:14 PM, sirineou said:

But you come to this Thread and it seems to me you do want to talk about it. so we do

Yes, some of us want to debate it, and to learn, but some posters just want to insult and mock. No interest in being open minded. I'm not referring to you, but to the troll(s).

 

On 1/24/2020 at 1:38 PM, sirineou said:

That's why there is no such thing as the Science of God. there is only belief.  

Some of us have been saying that for 367 pages.

 

On 1/24/2020 at 1:38 PM, sirineou said:

There is no 'science" there is the science of a particular discipline dependant on the scientific process of verification. 

Given science is incapable of proving or disproving the existence of "God", I see no point in bringing science into the discussion. Humans are too primitive to even begin to understand God.

I believe in the existence of God because the evidence is everywhere. However, if one has a closed mind, one will not see it.

On 1/24/2020 at 2:14 PM, sirineou said:

I couldn't care less what you believe.no skin off of my nose. 

Likewise.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am talking about the transition of the Roman Empire to Christianity from Pantheism. 

The Romans co opted Christianity as they could see it was the coming thing and wanted to use it to control the masses. It worked for a very long time too.

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The Romans co opted Christianity as they could see it was the coming thing and wanted to use it to control the masses. It worked for a very long time too.

Apparently it is still working, the empire moved from the middle east to Greece, to Rome, to France, England and America.. How some people fail to see the pattern is beyond my comprehension abilities.

 

I am not criticizing the empire or the rulers btw, somebody HAS to rule, because the world works that way.

It is what it is.

[luckyluke]

54 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I believe in the existence of God because the evidence is everywhere. However, if one has a closed mind, one will not see it.

So that is your opinion.

Fine.

 

I don't believe in the existence of God because the evidence is nowhere.

The ones with an imaginative mind are pretending otherwise.

 

Well at least that is my opinion.

 

The only factual thing here is =

 

We have different opinions.

[Tagged]

2 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

So that is your opinion.

Fine.

 

I don't believe in the existence of God because the evidence is nowhere.

The ones with an imaginative mind are pretending otherwise.

 

Well at least that is my opinion.

 

The only factual thing here is =

 

We have different opinions.

I do tend to aggree with both, but have created my own view on it. Right here right now! Nature is great, good and bad, rich and poor! 
 

Yin Yang do say alot mor than anything else! 
 

Dualism is the keyword