Like Tim I believe our species lives in a natural universe without any metaphysical or supernatural myths. The basis for my humanism is in one simple sentence: Help whenever I can, and avoid hurting if possible. You shouldn't fear scientists because they are merely working to learn how the universe works. It's the power-hungry who may put scientific discoveries to damaging uses. OccamIf that isn't the pinnacle of "clarity through succinctness" I don't know what is....
It's just redundant. The definition of potential includes the terms 'inherent' and 'not separable'.Write4U - Then you have not understood a word I have said and whatâs worse you have not checked out David Bohm, or you would understand that Bohm speaks in terms of Wholeness and Holomovement., exactly the opposite of what you are positing here.Bohm - (latent excellence which may become reality, Potential)My apologies then. Would saying, 'Latent Excellence/Potential not separable', carried my point better? Probably not.
Maybe the problem is the question of Existence. Can "Universal Wholeness" actually be said to exist. Existence, in the usual sense of the word, requires it's opposite. Non Existence. How can evidence be gathered in such a case????
The Way that can be told of is not an unvarying way; The names that can be named are not unvarying names. It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang; The named is but the mother that rears the ten thousand creatures, each after its kind. (Tao Te Ching; chap. 1, tr. Waley)It has a name and it is clearly manifest, The Universe. You keep trying to name something which does indeed not exist, Heaven.
Write4U - It has a name and it is clearly manifest, The Universe. You keep trying to name something which does indeed not exist, Heaven.Sorry, at this point you're being deliberately obtuse to serve your own agenda. I will rest my case and let others find the meaning.
Actually it was in response to someone who declared that heaven is where the stars are. I could have added that of course our sun is a star and we are were the stars are, thus we are already in heaven.
Write4U - Actually it was in response to someone who declared that heaven is where the stars are. I could have added that of course our sun is a star and we are were the stars are, thus we are already in heaven.What, you just keep doing it until they go away and you declare yourself the winner? You are welcome to all those non-existent gods, myths, heavens and hells. Not my bag. ----- I will summarize one more time: The question of God existing or not existing, is irrelevant. This is beyond the realm of scientific proof. The only reasonable definition of God is the Emergent Property of Infinite Potentiality. Existence/Non-Existence not separate. A paradox. As a human being my concern with this, is a personal quest for expression of my humanness within the paradox. What this will be, will be it's own proof.
Write4U,
Seems people ask me which way I am going and it must sound like I am saying right & left.
My thoughts are clear to me, my method or communication is mud.
It would be easier if I could use labels that people understood.
Example;
Christian Jesus, Gnostic Jesus, Jewish Jesus, Islamic Jesus.
Christian Heaven, Vedic Heaven, Egyptian Heaven, Gnostic Heaven, Scientific Heaven.
Same thing for God, atheist, sprite, and on and on.
The people back then had trouble understanding to. Well maybe not the Vedic or Egyptians they really had it together. But most of the history we are dealing with.
What I see is they needed to understand things like calendars and spent time and effort on them. Things like heaven they didnât deal with, most of the time they just updated older stories.
So to answer you question about heaven, Scientific Heaven, is where the stars are.
Gnostic Heaven, well youâre here, buddy.
Vedic Heaven, the planets.
Egyptian Heaven, islands in the Mediterranean Ocean.
Jewish Heaven, not clear.
Christian Heaven, not clear.
Zoroastrianism had the first man that was able to visit heaven and hell and return.
I myself have been to heaven; it is located in downtown Los Angeles on the twentieth floor. It has it own elevator and nice too. The door opens and you are met by a couple of really beautiful models, one is handing you a glass of champagne the other will take you to who you want to meet. I canât remember the name of the modeling agency, but it sure seemed like my idea of heaven.
Brmckay,
God, irrelevant. I couldnât agree more.
As a personal quest, for me that was over years ago.
My interest now is in trying to stop the damage from Christian and other movements.
They can keep their Christianity for all I care. But we need to knock Christianity down to its knees and kept them out of political movements. They are ruining the country.
My only purpose is to show Theists that there is not either God or Nothing. There is a scientifically based alternative to God with all the functional properties of God but without motivated intelligence.
The problem lies in providing a logical alternative. Donât forget that, especially here in the US, few people know anything about the state of science.
I am not quarrelling with atheists, I am one myself.
M.Y, Same thing for God, atheist, sprite, and on and on.In the list above you lump in Atheists. IMO, that is incorrect.
Absolutely the atheist fit into the category of words that have different meaning to different people or groups.
As atheists we have meanings and the Christians have meanings.
One is that God exists, we know that because man created god. But God is irrelevant.
Two is that God never existed and is a made up story.
Three is that we are all part of God so you cannot have mankind without God.
Four the Christian view, God exists and Atheists are just non-believers in God.
Mike, Your point #3 doesnât compute with me, and seems to contradict your point #1.
And it should. The reason is that you have one understanding and definition for God. And if you look, God is also on the list of more that one meaning.
That doesnât clear things up for me. And I am not trying to be obtuse.
No, and I didnât think that.
One is that man created god, therefore he exists, maybe not as the creator but he still exists like Santa Clause & Bugs Bunny exist in the mind. Itâs like a cake. Once you make it, it exists. Eat it and itâs gone, but the fact is it still existed and just by talking about it is proof it exists.
Three is the actual real god in the Gnostic form. You and me and the rest of mankind. You are the son of god.
Now, most of the teachings are still buried or destroyed. But we have gotten more data in the last fifty years than in the last 2000 years on Gnostic teachings.
Now do people pray to god? And how much of what we know was just in a conversion stage and not meant to be the finial or whole religious thought.
The answer would be yes, you pray to god. But you are the son of god. So you are praying to your father. Ever heard that before, like in church. The father of all mankind.
Seems a little out there, I know. But look at the older religions like the Rig Veda. They were also self-managing religions that had self judgment of good and bad. And an upper figure head. For the most part they were reborn to try and move up the Cass system to the upper levels of rebirth. You had levels of heaven too. Some of the Jewish think that way, that god has a special place in heaven for them. Years ago it was a special heaven. But they gotten away from that.
To some atheists the only God is the one who created heaven and earth.
That makes many of todayâs religions all atheists. Do we really want to do that and is that in agreement with the thinking of the rest of the world? Or are the atheists turning to self serving thinking?
If this does not answer the question, just ask. More that happy to try again.
Mike Yohe - God, irrelevant. I couldnât agree more.Not what I said.
brmckay - The question of God existing or not existing, is irrelevant. This is beyond the realm of scientific proof.I'm describing the nature of what I call God, and that nature, as the foundation of my interaction with it, is not irrelevant since I exist, at least so it seems, relative to it.
I took it that God in the way as described by atheists is irrelevant, because god showed up in all cultures around the earth in history. Mankind has always had gods of many types.
Therefore to define the definition of âAtheist" to just a narrow few is wrong. Should include all gods.
I took it that God in the way as described by atheists is irrelevant, because god showed up in all cultures around the earth in history. Mankind has always had gods of many types. Therefore to define the definition of âAtheist" to just a narrow few is wrong. Should include all gods.Mike, the majority of people here and in atheist discussion groups already agree with you that atheism extends to all religions. Because we are mostly North American here, and the dominant belief presence happens to be Christianity makes it a target for discussion over others. I think that people just naturally leave out understood conditional clauses that narrow the focus to a subgroup of atheist because it would be too superfluous to have to constantly remind the readers of something we already know. For instance, this is a forum that is mostly American. So it should be granted that if one uses the term, "Christianity" in a context that seems to imply that it is the 'anti-atheist' sole target, you have to give the person using it charity of fairness and assume they truly know there are other theisms out there that exist and deserve just as much attention.
Mike,
Thanks for clarifying.
I think that I understand what you are saying. Just didnât want my last statement to get watered down. Took several weeks to get to it.
Itâs getting harder, the more I talk about this, to consider myself atheistic. Just differently theistic.
Probably donât have much more to contribute to the discussion. But, will follow it for awhile and try not to butt in.
Been nice meeting everyone. Thanks.
Your right, in my mind I am trying to get an understanding on several issues and need to stay focused. One issue is Hindu and Buddha, they are listed as religions. But no god as the way we think of god in Christianity. They do worship idols but not like the Catholics.
What is todayâs atheists message to the world; you can have religion (like Hindu and Buddha), but canât have a religion that worship false gods or any gods because we as atheists do not believe in any gods?
Brmckay,
Thanks for getting involved. I see youâre a senior member, that great. Donât be discouraged because of new guys like me, I am still trying it get the feel of the forum. First time in my life I joined a network group like this. It is really helping my understanding of issues to be able to talk to guys like you.
Thanks, Mike
OP title. âStill just fine with the term âGodâ, butâŚ."
IMO the word Potential is better as it can be defined and does not need 6 pages just arguing about the history of an unknowable god before coming to the conclusion that we have no clue about god, except that we have always believed in âsomething unseenâ.
These discussions always end up with a shrug of the shoulders because using scripture is wholly inadequate to address the question of the âŚâbutâ.
I tried to answer the question (with scientific citation), but of course was rebuked for being obtuse and accused for serving my own agenda?
The OP begins with an agenda of âbeing just fine with the term Godâ. Have at it, end of discussion.
Mike,
I joined after you and only have two green boxes. Not disappointed in anyone.
Write4U,
You really do have to have the last word. I thought I was imagining it.
Iâm not leaving with a âshrugâ. I actually learned lot from this, and the process of writing was as much for me as for any of you.
I consider it a meditational practice and leave feeling some contentment and joy.
The title fit the theme perfectly, though I didnât know where it was going when I started.
Iâm hoping that it will serve others who, like me, are not quite ready or qualified to be scientists, are not willing to let scientists replace priests or, dare I say it, actually come to the same understanding as I have.
Thanks for cluing me to Bohm.
1 Like