Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12
[#] Sun May 02 2021 07:31:49 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Or if we are not even real and just a simulation of some sort.

Sun May 02 2021 06:20:00 AM EDT from darknetuser
Atheists would be right if the only option is a God, gods or animus that is focused on mankind specifically.

Imagine if Zork the skullcrusher build the Universe in order to deploy his favourite pets, the three winged gigantic octopuses, which are to be deployed in a million years, and that everything that happens before that is just Zork preparing the Earth for the arrival of the octopuses. Maybe Zork is planning our extinction because we are a byproduct that stands in the way of his pets.

 



[#] Sun May 02 2021 07:33:20 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Wait, its not made of coke?



[#] Sun May 02 2021 08:24:19 EDT from darknetuser

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

WHA?!? Why? None of the atheists have answered me or been able to

dispute this. That is the game atheists play with Pascal's wager.

WHY?!?  


Another consideration:

According to a big bunch of Abrahamists, claiming to worship God and living accordnig to the dogma is NOT sufficient.

Somebody who is convinced that the Pascal Wager is reasonable may take it without conviction, go to mass, play the rites and donate to charity. Then off to Gehena he goes anyway because, acording to dogma, he didn't have God in his heart. FOr that to work, you have to believe, and belief is beyond reason (as described above).

An aside consideration: a lot of people define themselves as CHristians and believe themselves to be great Christians. They manage and plan their lives following Christian principles for the most part. However, I have noticed that a lot of these people only accepts the parts of the dogma that don't conflict with their interests. They masturbate, have tattoos, have sex pre-marriage, and do all kind of things that are socially acceptable but frowned upon by the hand who wrote the Scriptures. Worst yet, I can tell these ones don't repent because they are sure God will understand anyway.

If God is anything as the Bible hints, off to Gehena they are gonna go.


I think these people are playng the worst of hands. They are paying the price of devoting their time and resources to the dogma in such a way that if the dogma is right, they are hosed anyway. And this includes people who laughes at other people who won't take Pascal's stance.

[#] Sun May 02 2021 13:38:16 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Religion is silly.  There is *no* difference between a parent telling their children to be good or Santa won't bring them anything, and a parent telling a child be good or you will spend your afterlife in hell.

You're right.  Predication on "being good" is irrelevant.  Nothing short of a real relationship with the true and living God will assure a favorable outcome in the afterlife.  "Being good" won't.  Nor will any church, not even mine, at least not on its own.

PD paints a picture of all possible religions, including atheism, and also lack of religion (which isn't the same thing as atheism) as spots on a roulette wheel.  I choose not to play, but instead serve the One who *made* the roulette wheel, the casino, and the surrounding universe.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  [John 3:16]

Yes, it really is that simple.  But if you have to have it spelled out, few have done it better than Jack Chick:

 


Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23


[#] Sun May 02 2021 14:03:38 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

In which case, you've still LOST the wager. There is an afterlife - there is intelligent design, there is a purpose, it wasn't all random - and atheists were wrong. 

EVEN if we're all fucked. 

You still lost the wager. Your bet was the worst bet you could make. 

 

Sun May 02 2021 06:20:00 EDT from darknetuser
THAT would also tend to prove atheism, too. If we went entirely
extinct without an "end of the world armageddon/revelations" kind of

2nd coming/Tribulation. If we just wink out - then that is probably
it. Nothing after - we were just a random result of the universe and

there was no special reason for us.  

If the Atheists end up being right - I wish I had dedicated myself to

being a shittier, more selfish, more hedonistic person. 

Atheists would be right if the only option is a God, gods or animus that is focused on mankind specifically.

Imagine if Zork the skullcrusher build the Universe in order to deploy his favourite pets, the three winged gigantic octopuses, which are to be deployed in a million years, and that everything that happens before that is just Zork preparing the Earth for the arrival of the octopuses. Maybe Zork is planning our extinction because we are a byproduct that stands in the way of his pets.

 



[#] Sun May 02 2021 14:04:09 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

To the NPC in Skyrim, the coder is GOD - the unknowing hand that controls his life. 

Sun May 02 2021 07:31:49 EDT from Nurb432

Or if we are not even real and just a simulation of some sort.

Sun May 02 2021 06:20:00 AM EDT from darknetuser
Atheists would be right if the only option is a God, gods or animus that is focused on mankind specifically.

Imagine if Zork the skullcrusher build the Universe in order to deploy his favourite pets, the three winged gigantic octopuses, which are to be deployed in a million years, and that everything that happens before that is just Zork preparing the Earth for the arrival of the octopuses. Maybe Zork is planning our extinction because we are a byproduct that stands in the way of his pets.

 



 



[#] Sun May 02 2021 15:10:47 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

This is why I'm kind of bullish on the vaccine OR the virus seriously
thinning the herd. 

I'm in favor of anything that destroys Bill Gates.

[#] Sun May 02 2021 17:06:16 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

You can't argue for a meaningless universe created with random chance with *no* purpose and then argue "natural" or "moral" law. 

That is just bullshit. If it is a meaningful unvierse created by random chance and there is no purpose - then we exist solely for our own amusement, for whatever is the most personally rewarding life we can live - and the concept of "morality" is just as artificial of a construct as God. The lion doesn't distinguish between the old gazzelle, the young gazelle, the sick gazelle or the strong gazzelle - it eats the one it catches and is unconcerned with the morality of the life it took. It lives in the moment, and it dies when something else indifferently kills it - and *that* is the *entire* purpose of all life, even human sentience that can comprehend abstract concepts of good, evil, morality and amorality. The lion is the ACTUAL atheist. You've just replaced God with your concept of "natural law and morality". 

The logic holes in atheism are as legion as the logic holes in Flat Earth Theory. In a universe without higher purpose, meaning and creation - there is no reason to be moral. There is no reason to be amoral either. There are *no* reasons to be anything but whatever is most rewarding to each individual organism. That is the *inescapable* of *actual* atheism. If you believe in natural law as an atheist, you've simply replaced one artificial construct of humanity that people believe in on faith with another one. 

 

 

Sun May 02 2021 07:25:09 EDT from Nurb432

Most ( but not all ) Atheists just do the right thing out of nature, because its right.  We dont need to be threatened with endless bad stuff to be good. 

Not saying you do ( or dont ), just the way its worded, that would be one interpretation .

Sat May 01 2021 11:55:53 AM EDT from ParanoidDelusions

.  
If the Atheists end up being right - I wish I had dedicated myself to being a shittier, more selfish, more hedonistic person. 

 



 



[#] Sun May 02 2021 17:26:41 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

have to disagree on that one.  At least as a concept, perhaps not at an individual level for everyone.

Personally I know i do the 'right thing', as i just treat people as i would like to be treated ( not so much an abstract moral code, just "how would i want to be treated".  I dont expect anything in return, i just do what i feel is right. I have fully accepted my insignificance in the larger picture of the universe, i dont need anything else to justify it.  

Sun May 02 2021 05:06:16 PM EDT from ParanoidDelusions

You can't argue for a meaningless universe created with random chance with *no* purpose and then argue "natural" or "moral" law. 



[#] Sun May 02 2021 19:19:07 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Well, I'm simplifying it for the slower kids at the table, Ig - because the point I'm trying to make is that *purely* from the perspective of Pascal's Wager - atheism is a bad bet. 

But you know... they've responded by making their model more and more complex in order to try and illustrate why that isn't the case. Just like geocentric orbit proponents in the time of Galileo. 

I know what those who continued to support geocentric orbit after it was clearly proven to be silly had on the table. 

I wonder why these guys are so committed to arguing everything but the foundation point. As a wager, atheism is a stupid bet in the terms of Pascal's Wager. 

 

But... it is like arguing with a fundie about *proof* of God (as opposed to faith in God). Their arguments are circular and based on metaphysical faith they mistake for truth, and at some point, it is a waste of effort to try and reason with such as that. 

 

I've reached that point. 

 

Sun May 02 2021 13:38:16 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

 

Religion is silly.  There is *no* difference between a parent telling their children to be good or Santa won't bring them anything, and a parent telling a child be good or you will spend your afterlife in hell.

You're right.  Predication on "being good" is irrelevant.  Nothing short of a real relationship with the true and living God will assure a favorable outcome in the afterlife.  "Being good" won't.  Nor will any church, not even mine, at least not on its own.

PD paints a picture of all possible religions, including atheism, and also lack of religion (which isn't the same thing as atheism) as spots on a roulette wheel.  I choose not to play, but instead serve the One who *made* the roulette wheel, the casino, and the surrounding universe.

 



[#] Sun May 02 2021 21:27:08 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Well, that is kind of the Catch-22 of this. 

If being selfless is what rewards you in the short time you are given - if you would be miserable being a self-absorbed prick - then that is the life you need to live from an atheist perspective to enjoy *your* life, individually to the fullest. 

But - in a grand cosmic theme sense - Bill Gates may be enjoying life more - leading a more fully realized life, and certainly is achieving more *personally* with his same lifespan, by being the opposite - and there will be NO day of reckoning for him at the end. It is literally a game of "he who dies with the most toys, and farms, and subjects... wins..." 

There is no judgement at the end - there is just "what did I get out of MY life." 

And Bill Gates quantifiably has gotten more out of life than any of us here on this BBS, by the standard of the Atheist who believes in no judgement, no day of reckoning, that only what happens to you between the day you were born and the day you die matters. 

Selfless, altruistic people are doomed to only live a fully realized life if they sacrifice and live up to their moral code in an Atheist system. Machiavellian, self-absorbed, self-promoting people who can focus solely on themselves without any concern for anyone else are gifted to get the most out of life as long as they avoid any kind of repercussion, punishment or other unpleasant side-effects, during their lifespan. Because the morality doesn't *matter*. 


Especially if the selfish and self absorbed can rewrite history and create a myth and legend about how noble and sacrificial and concerned with humanity's welfare they were. They end up with statues and people still talking about them 1000 years later - meanwhile, you - their stable boy, are forgotten even in your own family history after mere decades, and no one outside of that circle even knows you ever existed, once you wink out. 

Atheism is gloomy. 




Sun May 02 2021 17:26:41 EDT from Nurb432

have to disagree on that one.  At least as a concept, perhaps not at an individual level for everyone.

Personally I know i do the 'right thing', as i just treat people as i would like to be treated ( not so much an abstract moral code, just "how would i want to be treated".  I dont expect anything in return, i just do what i feel is right. I have fully accepted my insignificance in the larger picture of the universe, i dont need anything else to justify it.  

Sun May 02 2021 05:06:16 PM EDT from ParanoidDelusions

You can't argue for a meaningless universe created with random chance with *no* purpose and then argue "natural" or "moral" law. 



 



[#] Mon May 03 2021 02:22:47 EDT from arabella

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

For my part it is not complex.

There is no God, or god's.

Everything I read about religion tells me that a supposed omnipresent, omnipotent being demands our obedience, or worship, or both, and non-compliance damns us for eternity. To me that is very petty for so powerful an entity.

 

The religious seem to do as they do not to please  their deity, but to avoid a hell, that cannot (in my view) exist, and they do this because they follow a set of scriptures which at best, frequently contradict themselves.

 

We no longer sacrifice virgins to volcanoes, to appease Kraak, when his anger spews forth lava. We know there is a geological process at work. One day the religious will realise that they are sacrificing themselves to a modern Kraak, for no better reason than they don't want personal a "volcano" to erupt.

 

Simple. No?

 



[#] Mon May 03 2021 07:13:46 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I do see a difference between belief and religion.

One is a personal thing ( that i have described before ) and the other is a form of organized crime, ultimately created to prey off those who believe.

While i may disagree with the first, its ones right to believe however you feel.    Most of the cartels, i do have a fundamental problem with.

 

 



[#] Mon May 03 2021 07:52:58 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

And i have a curiosity question for the formal religious types.  I have asked this to others and few ever took me seriously and blew it off, including a priest, which got offended id even ask such a thing.   The couple that did, had no answers. One even questioned their position entirely. They are serious questions, not making fun of things.

 

Paraphrasing slightly of course: " You must commit your soul to your god, or you dont get the magic carrot when you die".   Given that requirement, are there exceptions, or is it black and white and your god is just a militant dick-head with no wiggle room for his creations that dont conform?.

 

Examples:

  • Animals ( mainly pets, but wild animals too ).  According to what i have been told, they dont have souls since they 'cant choose', so are outta luck. And so are their owners.  Personally if i'm wrong and there is a after-life, but my pets are not there too, then its hell as far as i'm concerned and want no part in it.
  • Stillborn, or super young humans.  They never had a chance to 'learn the way', so never committed. Are they just screwed?  Is the child i lost there waiting? ( and as a side question, do children grow while there, or are they still children when you get there? I see a consistency issue here )
  • Hidden from 'the true god'.. what if you are only taught one way, and never had the chance to learn anything else. Are you going to be punished for worshiping Allah and killing people, when you never were told it was 'wrong', according to the 'true' book instead?
  • Born before the 'true book' was written.  Countless generations existed before the 'rules' were documented. Are they also screwed or did they get an automatic pass?

 

If all those are granted exceptions, then where does it stop?

And why would such a 'powerful, all knowing being' be so demanding and cruel in the first place? Why not "do  your best and i accept  you no matter what and you get the magic carrot in the end anyway" instead of "do as i say, as i say it, when i say it, or ill punish you forever with the magic stick" ( sounds more like an abusive boyfriend than some all knowing and caring deity that created everything and everyone ).



[#] Mon May 03 2021 10:29:55 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Let me address that part, arabella. 

Today we believe *science* - but most of us don't fully comprehend how little science knows. We are all in agreement that paranoid-schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder is a brain disorder. It also seems clear that it was an affliction that in the past was perceived as "demonic possession." 

But the truth is, despite what we *think* about the disorder, how we've learned to treat it, and the comfort we take from the promise that medical science is the one true path to salvation from this terrible thing that has always plagued mankind... 

We still know very little about its cause, aren't very close in particular to a *cure* or prevention, and get our information from very knowledgeable people who spend their lives learning the arcane skills associated with understanding it - people who assure us that we're not capable of understanding the complexities of making it so difficult to actually understand and that we must trust in them to interpret the special knowledge they have on this topic - in faith. 

It *works*, in this regard - not much different than it ever has in human history - a LOT like a religion. Religion makes a good analogy for the process in this case - because it *is*. 

And what we've done, in my opinion, is replace ONE thing that you MUST believe in absolutely to have salvation with *another* one. Unsurprisingly, both sides are all-in that their way - *solely* is the ONE true path to salvation and that all other solutions *must* be rejected or you risk retarding and delaying or even completely missing salvation and ending up in a world of unnecessary suffering and grief. The model is virtually the same in both cases... down to the "either you're with us, or you're against us," bottom line. 

But - other studies, such as quark theory and string theory - approach the *scientific* concept of a much more complex, multi-dimensional world of infinite timelines and possibilities - of simulated universes where we either do not exist as we perceive ourselves or do not exist at all - we are *just* a simulation. In this area of science - many of the ideas approach and even exceed the fantastic claims of metaphysical theism and even begin to imply things about the possibility of God. Yet as a society - we tend to draw a distinction between quantum science and string theory and metaphysical philosophy. There is some debate among academia on this - but in general - as a society - we accept these disciplines as part of the inner-sanctum of the initiates of the arcane study of wisdom called science - which is more or less sorcery to the rest of us. The way the information is disseminated to the unwashed masses is through the same channels as other edicts of the Temple of Science. Documentaries and magazine articles that dumb it down and interpret it for our feeble, unlearned minds. 

In a universe of infinite multiple dimensions where every possible thing that could happen has happened - doesn't God implicitly exist in at least ONE of those multiverses? "Well... every possibility but THAT. We just mean, in one multiverse you married your wife, in another, you're gay, in another, you never got married, in one you had a son, in one you had a daughter... not that in one there is a GOD! Don't be silly!" 

Bringing this back to Multiple Personality Disorder vs. demonic possession - why couldn't it be BOTH? We're simply in the process of reverse engineering the code of creation by which, if God exists, He executes the reality we perceive. Why couldn't Multiple Personality Disorder be both a brain disorder that we have the ability to decode, understand, and possibly prevent or reverse - but *also* a part of the underlying code of our creation which malevolent multidimensional beings could exploit? Hell... with enough science and understanding - it could be part of the underlying code of our creation that malevolent beings of our own dimension could exploit. 

Science is *mostly* about, and always has been, asking "What if," and then going on to try and establish how the "what if," you've thought about is possible. 

I had a dream a few years back, where aliens were in orbit, cloaked, around the Earth, working in partnership with Earth governments - to send messages to the population with the intent to teach us the abstract concepts of interstellar travel. The unfortunate side effect was that it was primarily translated and received through people who had suffered a brain injury - in specific, a stroke resulting in the loss of language centers. The "no no no/yes yes yes" or eye blinks or bell ringing of stroke victims that seems nonsensical to the rest of us was actually them trying to communicate their enlightenment in a kind of non-universal binary. The *code* was different for each victim of brain injury - and the scientist who had figured it out was dismissed as a crackpot. Sometimes I dream in full, Hollywood adventure plot cinema. The point to me of that dream was it was a riff on this basic idea, which I've held for a while. Mental disorders can be a physical, scientific thing *and* a metphysical, non-understood thing at the same time - and the part of their treatment and description that eludes science may be the metaphysical dimension of them. This could apply to other things to - like cancer, and entropy and aging in general. A dichotomy of the physical understanding of our reality is we tend to be able to discover the HOW about things like illness that would have been described as the manifestation of evil throughout history - but it is inherent in the nature of reality that we can never describe the *why* of it. 

Science and religion set themselves up at odds with one another early in the history of humanity's quest for understanding our our existence and condition - and have never been able to mend the rift. Science tends to approach things in a silo, without multi-discipline cross pollination even among different studies of *science*, let alone science and theology. This causes situations where for example, "molecular biologists" who study DNA claim that there are no meaningful markers of ethnicity in human DNA - that it is a "social construct," while forensic scientists who study skeletal remains can tell you with incredible accuracy the age, gender, and ethnicity of skeletal remains - and they argue with one another endlessly over this point of contention - which is mostly rooted in an attempt to condition, control and influence social *attitudes* unrelated to the actual science, on these issues. 

Part of this is rooted in simple things like reading Stephen King. King loves to ask, "What if the guy who claims his dog told him to kill his neighbor - what if that dude is the ONE person who has it right, and it is the REST of us who have it wrong? It doesn't mean the guy isn't CRAZY - but by the end of this book, I want you to actually be unsure if it was the guy listening to his dog that was crazy... or if the rest of us thinking it was IMPOSSIBLE is the crazy thing." 

Back when King wrote good - he asked this question a lot of times, a lot of different ways. It is a good question. 

So - Simple, no? No. Maybe on the surface - but when you start dissecting it - there are all kinds of contradictions, unanswered questions, possibilities, and not a lot of supported claims to be so full of hubris on any of the ideas that have been proposed, in my opinion. I think most of humanity, for most of human history - just takes *comfort* in deciding that "A is right, every other answer is wrong," and going with that... on faith. 

Both Ig and Darknet user, despite being on opposite ends of the spectrum on this - are likely to take exception to the ambiguity of what I propose and how the *reasonable* aspect of my position causes cognitive dissonance with their core-foundational beliefs - and instead of focusing on parts that agree with them - will only see the parts of this idea that disagree and focus on those. They both will dislike the "Just because A is right, doesn't mean B is wrong," part of this thesis - because they have a core-belief system that believes that only ONE can be right. 

You manifested that same basic idea when you said, 

"Everything I read about religion tells me that a supposed omnipresent, omnipotent being demands our obedience, or worship, or both, and non-compliance damns us for eternity. To me that is very petty for so powerful an entity."

But it could be a lot more complex than that - and that would take a long time to describe in writing. I have - it is something I've been working on for quite a while, and sometimes feel a calling to work on some more. 

The TL:DR version - I believe in Ancient Alien Astronaut hypothesis to a certain degree - and think we are engineered, if not created. I think there is an element of cargo-cults to most of our world religions - and I think that what we consider PREHISTORY is probably preceded by a period of LOST history. I think our perceived reality is a narrow window or view of ALL of reality - and that Sagan described this very well with his analogy to how multidimensional beings would perceive slices of a higher or lower dimension travelling through their own. We're in a boxed, windowless room we can't see outside of. We can't see or perceive or study higher dimensional realities - but a being outside of our dimension would see our reality in total, not in the narrow present we experience it in. By definition this explanation makes a being from a higher dimension omnipotent, at least, from *our* perception. 

The rules and controls and other edicts we see in our religious scriptures certainly have been controlled and manipulated by mankind to control people and societies. But that doesn't mean there might not be some more important, non-understood or mis-understood *reason* that those edicts exist. Obedience, worship, and the threat of repercussions for failure to do so may be rooted in the unseen and unknown harmonies of the metaverse - especially (in my opinion) that we aren't the meat, or even the sentience itself - but the *frequencies* we operate at and that that signal may be bound to a physical manifestation right now - but that doesn't mean that if that bind breaks that the *frequency* ceases to exist. That part gets pretty new-agey - but it isn't really based in metaphysical claims - it is based in solid scientific theory - as solid as the free-love hippy claim that we are all made of stardust - which is true. Whatever we are now, every part of our being started in a stellar nursery as molecules going through the solar nuclear process. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

I think atheists *and* theists stop *way* short of the answers, with fairly unsophisticated existential views and then demand that everyone else accept that transparent RIGHTNESS of what they believe. 

I personally find atheists more offensive than theists. The atheists have more hubris and arrogance about their faith-based system, and tend to think they've got the deeper existential view, the more educated and rational one. In my opinion - they're the furthest from actually understanding.  



Mon May 03 2021 02:22:47 EDT from arabella

For my part it is not complex.

There is no God, or god's.

Everything I read about religion tells me that a supposed omnipresent, omnipotent being demands our obedience, or worship, or both, and non-compliance damns us for eternity. To me that is very petty for so powerful an entity.

 

The religious seem to do as they do not to please  their deity, but to avoid a hell, that cannot (in my view) exist, and they do this because they follow a set of scriptures which at best, frequently contradict themselves.

 

We no longer sacrifice virgins to volcanoes, to appease Kraak, when his anger spews forth lava. We know there is a geological process at work. One day the religious will realise that they are sacrificing themselves to a modern Kraak, for no better reason than they don't want personal a "volcano" to erupt.

 

Simple. No?

 



 



[#] Mon May 03 2021 10:44:31 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I think *my* answer to your question is in the response above, too, Nurb. I'm talking a much more mind-expanded, multi-discipline idea of existential reality in relation to science and theology that tends to answer these questions. It is why I find it frustrating that the atheists here want to keep bringing it back to *specific* parts of a very narrow slice of an Abrahamic scriptural tradition and why I make the claim, that the Atheists keep providing support for - that you're not so much Atheists as *anti-Christianity*. You all sure seem hyper-focused on Christianity, not the existential question of intelligent creation and omnipotent multi or extradimensional beings.  


What if we're not being told "His rules," but an interpretation we can understand of "THE code" of a larger, multidimensional universe. One that frequently seems very consistent across widely different cultural and spiritual traditions and societies. 


I've been very promiscuous in my life - and I've also often wondered about the focus on marriage, sex only within marriage, and prohibitions on things like homosexuality.  Going back to my claims about our "universal harmonies" - 

What if sexual relations in this perceived reality intertwine YOUR individual harmony's signature with those you engage in that link with - in a way that we can't even *perceive* in this reality? What if the more intertwined with the more frequencies you become - the more like a spaghetti-wired data-center your signal to noise ratio becomes in some HIGHER level of existence, some dimension we can't SEE now but eventually will be revealed to us? 

Now, imagine you exist in reality where you can know and perceive this, and you're trying to explain this to someone that makes a toddler seem like a rocket scientist compared to your knowledge?  

What do you end up with? I know - you're going to ask more "What if questions." Like, "Why wouldn't you update that toddler's knowledge once it grew to the point that it could better understand?" 

Who knows why... stop asking questions that only lead to more UNKNOWING and open your mind to the answers that are *reasonable*. This is the other thing atheists tend to do... they are hostile and combative about thinking up ever more "what about," situations that lead away from the IDEA that causes them discomfort with its reasonableness. It isn't that they want *to know* - it is that they want to *not know*. 


Although I also know that theists tend to have biblical scripture that addresses most of your questions. There is an exemption to "those who have never heard the Good word," and that basically covers the remote tribe or the stillborn infant.  Studying a lot about world religions was important to developing the more unified, broader hypothesis and philosophies about existentialism that I've barely touched on here. 


Mon May 03 2021 10:29:55 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

Let me address that part, arabella. 



[#] Mon May 03 2021 10:48:53 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

And the things I've said are neither easily understood, digested, or accepted - and easily dismissed as "the ramblings of someone who has dropped too much acid," by people who don't want to confront the possibility of having the comfortable veil of "cosmic ignorance" pulled back on them - so fair warning - I don't care if you accept what I've said here or not, if you think about it or just cast it away. That is *your* burden, your head-trip - not mine. I've presented it to you, you can think about it and decide for yourself, and think about me what you want after reading it. But if you answer almost immediately that I've convinced you OR that you think I'm a fruitcake - I'll dismiss you instantly as not having thought about it long or hard enough to have responded with a meaningful introspection of what I've said. 

I'm ok with almost EVERYONE being a blue-pill on this. It is another factor that just *is* - regardless of what I or anyone else *wishes* it would be. 

 



[#] Mon May 03 2021 10:54:34 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

There is a comedian who describes his early sexual experiences and exploits and then he has a kid with his wife... and he says, 

"I thought the stuff was just like confetti lying around after a party. I didn't know you could MAKE something with it!" 

But - what if it is even more than that? What if the exchange of body fluids, of DNA, the creation of a new life in the womb, what if all of that has multi-dimensional implications we can't even conceive of? 

What if it isn't just puritanical obsession with "not touching your dirty bits". 

What if it is one of the things we're most obsessed with and one of the most rewarding and sought experiences in our existence because it is one of the most important aspects in *all* of our transitions of awareness as energy, as signals, as harmonic patterns that define us? 

Is that actually such an outrageous idea to consider? It is an idea that can totally be conceptualized *devoid* of specific theological traditions - from a purely hypothetical and scientific perspective. 

Yet - I bet almost everyone reading this idea here is distinctly discomforted by the very concept. Probably even moreso then simply being told, "Don't touch your dirty bits or spill your seed because it displeases the Creator and is a sin." 

 

 



[#] Mon May 03 2021 10:59:11 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

"What if it is one of the things we're most obsessed with and one of the most rewarding and sought experiences in our existence because it is one of the most important aspects in *all* of our transitions of awareness as energy, as signals, as harmonic patterns that define us? "

Or maybe part of all the energy, the harmonic balance - of the entire *universe*. You can't destroy energy, right - it just transfers. We were once stars, and until the heat-death of the universe, we'll just continue to become other things for all eternity. In *this* universe. What if, in a multi-dimension universe as described by Sagan and Hawking and others - there are wormholes and bridges and links and they're all connected and all the energy in this universe is intrinsically linked in all those other parallel, infinite other universes and dimensions? 

What if the scriptures try to relate to us how our behavior in this existential reality has ripples across *all* existential reality - in a manner that we can grasp? 

Easier just to accept that Oz is a real wizard than to peek behind the curtain? You might be an Atheist. 




[#] Mon May 03 2021 11:07:58 EDT from darknetuser

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

2021-05-02 14:03 from ParanoidDelusions
In which case, you've still LOST the wager. There is an afterlife -
there is intelligent design, there is a purpose, it wasn't all random

- and atheists were wrong. 

EVEN if we're all fucked. 

You still lost the wager. Your bet was the worst bet you could
make. 

 
Sun May 02 2021 06:20:00 EDT from darknetuser


THAT would also tend to prove atheism, too. If we went entirely
extinct without an "end of the world armageddon/revelations" kind
of

I was talking about the fact that, if the Universe proved itself not to be human-centric, it would not necessarily mean there is no God.

Still if you spent your resources in life worshipping Allah and I spent my resources in life having parties, we would be all sent to hell by virtue of not being Zork's octopuses, but I would have achieved a "less worse" result.

Go to page: First ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12