Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 05-05-2018, 03:40 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Though you might be hard-pressed to find a picture of Life, as opposed to "things that are alive," there is no shortage of pictures of God.
Nope. You don't get to have it both ways. If you won't accept a picture of a living thing as representing the concept of life, then you don't get to say that a picture of a god represents the concept of a god.

BTW, which one of these do you mean?

Last edited by Darren Garrison; 05-05-2018 at 03:43 PM.
  #302  
Old 05-05-2018, 04:11 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
We got it-You Can't Take A Picture Of A Concept.



Next point, please?


And yet many thousands of people throughout history have. There are oodles of pictures of God. That's the point. What does that tell you about people? That perhaps people see what they want to see? Or believe what they want to believe? There is strong evidence for that here in this thread, myself included.
  #303  
Old 05-05-2018, 04:14 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
No problem. So can you produce a picture of life?
Easy.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #304  
Old 05-05-2018, 04:14 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Nope. You don't get to have it both ways. If you won't accept a picture of a living thing as representing the concept of life, then you don't get to say that a picture of a god represents the concept of a god.

BTW, which one of these do you mean?


Exactly. There are many depictions of God; none has a monopoly on the truth. There are also many depictions of life. I prefer vast swatches of rainforest or a fetus in the womb. All I was proposing is that both God and Life are abstract nouns. It would appear you agree.
  #305  
Old 05-05-2018, 04:15 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Though you might be hard-pressed to find a picture of Life, as opposed to "things that are alive," there is no shortage of pictures of God. And every single one of them, drawn by a human, seems to appear humanoid somehow. Can't imagine why that might be.
or not
  #306  
Old 05-05-2018, 04:17 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post


Nice. There is also this.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=life&...h5nd1M950joHM:
  #307  
Old 05-05-2018, 04:18 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post


You have been touched by his noodly appendage, I see.
  #308  
Old 05-05-2018, 04:18 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
And yet many thousands of people throughout history have. There are oodles of pictures of God. That's the point. What does that tell you about people? That perhaps people see what they want to see? Or believe what they want to believe? There is strong evidence for that here in this thread, myself included.
How does this pertain to your own OP, that "Life" is "God" and vice versa? And don't tell me to see that video again-This is your thread, not his.
  #309  
Old 05-05-2018, 04:25 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
How does this pertain to your own OP, that "Life" is "God" and vice versa? And don't tell me to see that video again-This is your thread, not his.

I wouldn't tell you to see that video again. I'd say check out one of his books. In any event, for me, if God is Life and Life is God, it simplifies matters immensely. First, there is no need for that Catholic guilt I grew up with. Second, it doesn't matter whether I worship or not, because we're all going to the same place when we die. And I have no idea what that entails—probably good for worms or ashes scattered on the wind. But this thread was not created to dissect what I think; it was created to spark a discussion on a rather unorthodox idea, both in the field of religion and the field of science. And I am getting the gist of what you believe, Czarcasm. It seems you believe this is all rather silly. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  #310  
Old 05-05-2018, 04:41 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
All I was proposing is that both God and Life are abstract nouns. It would appear you agree.
It would appear that you are wrong. As I have mentioned, when I say "life", I mean "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of undergoing evolution by natural selection." That is not abstract--that is a description of a real, tangible thing.
  #311  
Old 05-05-2018, 04:53 PM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
But this thread was not created to dissect what I think; it was created to spark a discussion on a rather unorthodox idea, both in the field of religion and the field of science.
Neither mainstream religion, nor science, espouses the idea that: Life=God. So how would you characterize the field of thought related to this concept?

Fiction literature?... New-age Spirituality?... Pseudo-Science?...
  #312  
Old 05-05-2018, 04:59 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
It would appear that you are wrong. As I have mentioned, when I say "life", I mean "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of undergoing evolution by natural selection." That is not abstract--that is a description of a real, tangible thing.


I'm sure you can find a picture of an example of life, something that's alive, but not life itself. So could I.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #313  
Old 05-05-2018, 05:03 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Neither mainstream religion, nor science, espouses the idea that: Life=God. So how would you characterize the field of thought related to this concept?



Fiction literature?... New-age Spirituality?... Pseudo-Science?...


Probably New Age. Definitely not mainstream religion. Or mainstream science. Given the rather predictable arguments between theists and atheists (science types) that I have read in other threads on these boards, I was wondering if there was any overlap in the fields of religion and science. There's not a lot, but both fields seem to deal with life, though they come at it from very different directions.
  #314  
Old 05-05-2018, 05:06 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
I haven't forgotten, Begbert: post #248. Still thinking about it.
  #315  
Old 05-05-2018, 05:39 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
I'm sure you can find a picture of an example of life, something that's alive, but not life itself. So could I.
But you are the only one who thinks that statement is in any way pertinent, useful, meaningful, or deep.
  #316  
Old 05-05-2018, 05:39 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
I'm sure you can find a picture of an example of life, something that's alive, but not life itself. So could I.
I can take a picture of a rainbow (and have), but it is not a real, tangible thing.

The difference between abstract and concrete is not binary but continuous. 17 is abstract: you could take a picture of 17 tomatoes, but it is a picture of tomatoes, not of 17, and if you crop it, it becomes 12 tomatoes, but not a picture of 12.

Then there is x, which is abstract in a different way from 17. We can establish a fixed value for 17 + 4, but the value of 17 + x is not fixed. This does not mean that x is more abstract than 17, just abstract in a different way.

Cement is concrete. We can touch it, manipulate it, study it, take pictures of it. Wind is also in the concrete realm. We cannot take direct pictures of it, but we can study it, feel it, create it artificially. It is not less concrete than cement, just concrete in a different way.

Actions are also not abstract, but they are not quite concrete. We can take a picture (or video) of someone running, we can study running and its effects. Actions are a sort of extancy that lie on the boundary between abstract and concrete, but mostly on the concrete side.

Abstract things do not directly enter the cause-effect chain but exist outside it. Life is not abstract because it lies within the cause-effect chain. A deity might exist somewhere within the chain, or on the end of it, but so far, it has provided no evidence that it exists, no and justification for its existence. It is not even a theory but a putation that is, quite frankly, so irrelevant that it does not even qualify for being abstract.

If you want to worship life, go for it, but I would not expect life to offer you anything in return for you adoration.
  #317  
Old 05-05-2018, 06:00 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
But you are the only one who thinks that statement is in any way pertinent, useful, meaningful, or deep.


Well, me and the author of the book, for starters. So that's at least two.
  #318  
Old 05-05-2018, 06:14 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Well, me and the author of the book, for starters. So that's at least two.
Unless the author of the book said that life is an abstract that can't be photographed and you have failed to mention that you are copying all of this from him, then the author of the book has nothing to do with it, because that is the statement that I was talking about.

As for the author, he is either an addle-minded new-age flake (like Deepack Chopra) or a cynical conman who knows how to run a lucrative con (like L. Ron Hubbard.) Either way, I have not the slightest trace of respect for him or his writing.
  #319  
Old 05-05-2018, 06:16 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
I can take a picture of a rainbow (and have), but it is not a real, tangible thing.



The difference between abstract and concrete is not binary but continuous. 17 is abstract: you could take a picture of 17 tomatoes, but it is a picture of tomatoes, not of 17, and if you crop it, it becomes 12 tomatoes, but not a picture of 12.



Then there is x, which is abstract in a different way from 17. We can establish a fixed value for 17 + 4, but the value of 17 + x is not fixed. This does not mean that x is more abstract than 17, just abstract in a different way.



Cement is concrete. We can touch it, manipulate it, study it, take pictures of it. Wind is also in the concrete realm. We cannot take direct pictures of it, but we can study it, feel it, create it artificially. It is not less concrete than cement, just concrete in a different way.



Actions are also not abstract, but they are not quite concrete. We can take a picture (or video) of someone running, we can study running and its effects. Actions are a sort of extancy that lie on the boundary between abstract and concrete, but mostly on the concrete side.



Abstract things do not directly enter the cause-effect chain but exist outside it. Life is not abstract because it lies within the cause-effect chain. A deity might exist somewhere within the chain, or on the end of it, but so far, it has provided no evidence that it exists, no and justification for its existence. It is not even a theory but a putation that is, quite frankly, so irrelevant that it does not even qualify for being abstract.



If you want to worship life, go for it, but I would not expect life to offer you anything in return for you adoration.


And that's precisely the point: Life expects nothing from you (I really enjoyed your post, by the way). It has no commandments, no judgement, no necessity for worship or adoration. No sacred books, no sacred language, no sacred rituals. It does not require you to take sides. It has no special day of the week. There is nothing you have to offer or give up in order to be alive. Life is what you have from the second your heart starts beating until it stops at the end of your life. Some would say you are not alive until you take your first breath, but I would disagree. In fact, defining exactly when life begins is a tricky prospect because semantics don't really do life justice. We have a pretty good idea what life is, even if we can't exactly draw it on a chalkboard, and we certainly feel the effects of life. I don't think there's anyone who denies the existence of life. Maybe on other planets.

I find life fascinating. I'm sure you do too, especially when you stop to examine the beauty of nature. I also find God fascinating, but not quite the same God I grew up with. My views of God have evolved, and I see myself much more of an atheist these days. However, I'm not ready yet to abandon the concept of God as a creative force in the universe. I figure there must be something that inspires so many people throughout mankind's history. For me, God as Life—or something like it—just works. I'm not really writing this for someone to tell me I'm wrong; I'd just like to see if anyone else has insights to offer about Life. Or God. Or both. It doesn't matter to me if you don't agree.
  #320  
Old 05-05-2018, 06:20 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Unless the author of the book said that life is an abstract that can't be photographed and you have failed to mention that you are copying all of this from him, then the author of the book has nothing to do with it, because that is the statement that I was talking about.

As for the author, he is either an addle-minded new-age flake (like Deepack Chopra) or a cynical conman who knows how to run a lucrative con (like L. Ron Hubbard.) Either way, I have not the slightest trace of respect for him or his writing.


And so you have said. But why does it matter so much to you if someone else appreciates what he has to say? I think you are being a little dismissive of certain ideas that don't fit your world view because it's easier for you that way. Why does it matter to you what I believe? Why should it matter to me what you believe? Surely two people with differing viewpoints can still have a civil conversation.
  #321  
Old 05-05-2018, 06:30 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
But why does it matter so much to you if someone else appreciates what he has to say?...Why does it matter to you what I believe? Why should it matter to me what you believe?
I think that the concept of "debate" is sort of slipping past you. And--as I pointed out before--fighting ignorance. Although by now I have realized that you haven't even the slightest interest in gaining any actual scientific knowledge here--I'm not blind, just stubborn.
  #322  
Old 05-05-2018, 08:53 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
I think that the concept of "debate" is sort of slipping past you. And--as I pointed out before--fighting ignorance. Although by now I have realized that you haven't even the slightest interest in gaining any actual scientific knowledge here--I'm not blind, just stubborn.


And a tad bit rude, I might add. Not sure why you choose to be that way. I've been very polite to you. Your karma, I guess.
  #323  
Old 05-05-2018, 11:17 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Your karma, I guess.
But Karma is Life.
  #324  
Old 05-06-2018, 12:10 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
But Karma is Life.

Funny how that works.
  #325  
Old 05-06-2018, 01:17 AM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
...
You don't need to offer up anything more mystical on my account, and the ideas you've proposed so far give me much to ponder. So thank you for that.
The trouble is, you're turning out to be a person who doesn't ponder. Anything, ever. You obviously came here to make some sort of one-sided presentation rather than to discuss anything, expecting to be - I don't know... lauded? Dude, it's not happening.

If you pondered some of the things that people are writing to you, you'd notice that a few of your current thoughts are out of touch with reality, and you'd say to yourself "Hmmm, it's very clear that this 'God Equals Life' idea is complete horseshit - Walsch turns out to be dead wrong on this one - I wonder what next?"
  #326  
Old 05-06-2018, 02:17 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
The trouble is, you're turning out to be a person who doesn't ponder. Anything, ever. You obviously came here to make some sort of one-sided presentation rather than to discuss anything, expecting to be - I don't know... lauded? Dude, it's not happening.



If you pondered some of the things that people are writing to you, you'd notice that a few of your current thoughts are out of touch with reality, and you'd say to yourself "Hmmm, it's very clear that this 'God Equals Life' idea is complete horseshit - Walsch turns out to be dead wrong on this one - I wonder what next?"

You seem rather closed-minded yourself, if you don't mind my saying so. I ponder plenty. Some of the ideas that people have written here are certainly thought-provoking. Others are—what's the expression?—complete horseshit. But everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I will take the narrow minded views along with the more inspirational ones and weigh them and consider them for myself. The discussion itself in this thread can be anyone with anyone. My blessing is certainly not required. And if you don't like some of the ideas presented or if you feel I need to ponder more, well, DavidwithanR, that's alright too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #327  
Old 05-06-2018, 02:55 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I disagree that there is some supernatural mechanism that shares "a great many" of our personal experiences with other humans - if that were happening then it seems basically inevitable that some small percentage of this knowledge would have found its way into my brain and forced me to be aware of everybody's underwear sizes from all of history. (Yeah, I'd get the underwear sizes. That's how things generally go for me.)

Because I have not been crammed full of underwear size knowledge, I can safely conclude that there's not a supernatural firehose piping the sum total of human knowledge back into individual people.
I don't believe all human knowledge becomes available to everyone all of the time; I think some of it does, and it may come to us in a dream or a flash of intuition. Being aware of everybody's underwear sizes would probably not be all that helpful in most situations, though are probably some situations where that kind of knowledge could be a lifesaver. I can't think of any though.

Quote:
Which is not to say that all human knowledge vanishes with death; as you note humanity has developed various cultural habits of retaining various kinds of accumulated knowledge, both passing them along directly via speaking to others or indirectly by writing stuff down. There's nothing supernatural about this, though, and the only things retained are the encoded and transferred messages of communication. By all available evidence, no part of a person's actual mind or personal identity persists after death. (Common sense supports this opinion as well - dead people rot. They just break down into generic unremarkable particles and in any individual sense just vanish.)
I think the influence we have on others in our lives certainly gets passed on, but not genetically. Call it the wisdom of the ages. With the internet today, I suspect we have a far too large and cluttered pool of knowledge to pass on, where the important and not so important ideas kind of get jumbled altogether. Still, our own knowledge gets passed on to whomever we decided to share it with while we are alive.

Quote:
But in any case that's what reality does - I'm actually curious about your mythos. Despite all the prior posts I still don't understand it. Let me explain, and ask for clarification.

As best I can tell you posit that humans all have souls or something which are composed of some sort of metaphysical matter - a substance which is not destroyed on death. (These souls are presumably stored in the appendix; people who have their appendixes removed are demons.) This substance records and retains something of human experience, and is capable of sharing these recorded experiences with others. It can do this while everybody's still alive, even, through telepathy/connectedness/wireless internet/whatever (ie: just telepathy), but also comes loose when people die to glom onto other soulstuff and transmit the recorded experiences directly. You call this soul substance, or at least the collected set of all such soul substance, capital-L-"Life", or "God".

This is what I've gotten from your posts. Am I close so far?
All I can honestly say is I don't know. I'd like to think that we have souls that carry on after our physical death. That could also be fifty years of Catholicism that I'm afraid to completely let go of. I like the idea os a soul, so I'm going to with it for now, even if it's not scientific.
Quote:

In any case, questions.

1) You posit that having your Life/God/Soul part removed removes your life (by the identity property of puns, it seems), and thus if you had your soul removed would be immediately fatal. But does soul-stuff do anything for you beyond that? Is it an integral part of consciousness? Emotions? Memories? Sensations? Does your optic nerve require it to function? And of course the flipside of this is, how much work is left for the brain to handle? Does a person need a brain? Could it be charitably donated to the zombie food bank?

TL;DR: Is the soul your mind, or not?
Good question. I don't think a soul, if it exists, resides anywhere in the body. Neither does the mind, to my way of thinking. I have no proof of this, but rather just a hunch that our souls inhabit our bodies for as long as we're alive and breathing on this planet. Have you ever wondered what exactly you see when you dream? All you're actually seeing are the insides of your eyelids, yet in a dream, you can see all kinds of places and people and go on all kinds of adventures. Are these things real? They sure can seem real at the time. I believe there are dimensions beyond what is physical and obvious to our senses that are just as real as anything else we might experience in this life and that can affect us in profound ways.
Quote:

2) Putting aside what Life does for you while it's inside of you, does Life do anything else? Does it store knowledge independent of the knowledge stored in the minds all the individual people? (Like historical underwear sizes?) Does it have feelings independent of individual people's minds? Does it have a mind independent of other people's minds? Is the collective pile of soulstuff have a conscious mind of its own? Is it an actual singular entity of its own?

TL;DR: Is there a God?
Again, a good question. I don't know. I can only conjecture, just like you. I think that the consciousness that is inside of me or you or anyone is God. Not the God of the Old or New Testament so much, but rather the life force that created us and created everything in the universe as well. Not the typical notion of God, I know, but it makes sense to me. The life force within me is the same life force within you. Our separateness is the illusion.

That's about all I can come up for one evening. Have a good night.
  #328  
Old 05-06-2018, 03:04 AM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,996
Biffster: It's clear that you have developed the habit of stalling every idea that you don't plan to engage with by calling it "interesting", "a good question", "something to ponder", or similar hand-waving phrases. You're not pondering, not in the slightest, at all. You're not even skimming or lightly considering. More like avoiding contaminating yourself with any idea that you didn't arrive with.
  #329  
Old 05-06-2018, 07:22 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
Biffster: It's clear that you have developed the habit of stalling every idea that you don't plan to engage with by calling it "interesting", "a good question", "something to ponder", or similar hand-waving phrases. You're not pondering, not in the slightest, at all. You're not even skimming or lightly considering. More like avoiding contaminating yourself with any idea that you didn't arrive with.


I don't understand what your point is. You seem to want to be adversarial no matter what I say. What is it exactly that you want to hear?
  #330  
Old 05-06-2018, 09:24 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
I don't understand what your point is. You seem to want to be adversarial no matter what I say. What is it exactly that you want to hear?
For me, it's irritating/annoying to hear someone try to invent an entire belief structure out of pure fancy. I hear you say it gives you comfort and on one level, I can see that it does. I can also see that what you're trying to rationalize for your own peace of mind is essentially harmless. Trouble is, you identify your belief system with New Age philosophy. That is no longer small scale or harmless, imo. New Age woo ranges from harmless to extreme nuttiness that verges on threat to society, ie. homeopathy, anti-vax, etc. I'm not accusing you of engaging in these practices. But to the extent that your fantasy based belief system may be contributing or embracing alternative realities and thus running in opposition to more rational, science-based evidence of reality - well, that's problematic for me. Because it's a short walk from Walsch (Life=God), to the kind of pseudo-scientific nonsense that Deepak Chopra preaches to the credulous, to the rise of New Age Religion. Frankly, speaking for myself only, substituting traditional religion with some new age horse-shit is not nearly good enough to call progress in human thought and development. It's just more of the same lies in a new wrapper being peddled by liars and opportunists (Walsch, Chopra et al).

Science and evidence based thinking doesn't have all the answers. Far from it. But it doesn't try to fill in the gaps of knowledge with magical thinking. It's honest about saying "We don't yet know ______", or, "We got it wrong before about ______, and here's what we think we know now." That, to me, is satisfying. That, to me, is rational. That, to me, is mystery and wonder enough to fill a lifetime of questions to which I may never know the answer. Questions I have not even thought to ask. And I'm okay with not having all the answers without having to resort to making stuff up just to fill the gaps.

On a personal note: It's irritating for someone like me to have these conversations with someone who thinks like you. I have a close relative who has the same tendency to redefine meaning of common words to fit his own reality. So I'm very familiar with the frustration of two people being separated by a common language, let alone what should be a common set of well established facts.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 05-06-2018 at 09:29 AM.
  #331  
Old 05-06-2018, 10:05 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
For me, it's irritating/annoying to hear someone try to invent an entire belief structure out of pure fancy. I hear you say it gives you comfort and on one level, I can see that it does. I can also see that what you're trying to rationalize for your own peace of mind is essentially harmless. Trouble is, you identify your belief system with New Age philosophy. That is no longer small scale or harmless, imo. New Age woo ranges from harmless to extreme nuttiness that verges on threat to society, ie. homeopathy, anti-vax, etc. I'm not accusing you of engaging in these practices. But to the extent that your fantasy based belief system may be contributing or embracing alternative realities and thus running in opposition to more rational, science-based evidence of reality - well, that's problematic for me. Because it's a short walk from Walsch (Life=God), to the kind of pseudo-scientific nonsense that Deepak Chopra preaches to the credulous, to the rise of New Age Religion. Frankly, speaking for myself only, substituting traditional religion with some new age horse-shit is not nearly good enough to call progress in human thought and development. It's just more of the same lies in a new wrapper being peddled by liars and opportunists (Walsch, Chopra et al).

Science and evidence based thinking doesn't have all the answers. Far from it. But it doesn't try to fill in the gaps of knowledge with magical thinking. It's honest about saying "We don't yet know ______", or, "We got it wrong before about ______, and here's what we think we know now." That, to me, is satisfying. That, to me, is rational. That, to me, is mystery and wonder enough to fill a lifetime of questions to which I may never know the answer. Questions I have not even thought to ask. And I'm okay with not having all the answers without having to resort to making stuff up just to fill the gaps.

On a personal note: It's irritating for someone like me to have these conversations with someone who thinks like you. I have a close relative who has the same tendency to redefine meaning of common words to fit his own reality. So I'm very familiar with the frustration of two people being separated by a common language, let alone what should be a common set of well established facts.


Thank you for explaining your misgivings in some detail. I also have limited patience for quack philosophies. I don't think that's what this is, however, but I respect your right to equestion it. As for the "someone who thinks like you" part, I'd suggest you try to be more open-minded. I'm not suggesting you should agree with things that rub you the wrong way, but as you say, what harm does this particular belief do to you? I find it annoying to lay on the line something I hold dear to have it picked apart by someone I don't even know. I appreciate science as much as the next guy, but it's only useful to a point. And the word Life has a ton of metaphorical meanings beyond the scientific one. Maybe try not being so literal in coming to understand what someone else is trying to say.

"Lighten up, just enjoy life, smile more, laugh more, and don't get so worked up about things."
– Kenneth Branagh

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/k...629?src=t_life
  #332  
Old 05-06-2018, 10:45 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Thank you for explaining your misgivings in some detail. I also have limited patience for quack philosophies. I don't think that's what this is, however, but I respect your right to equestion it. As for the "someone who thinks like you" part, I'd suggest you try to be more open-minded. I'm not suggesting you should agree with things that rub you the wrong way, but as you say, what harm does this particular belief do to you? I find it annoying to lay on the line something I hold dear to have it picked apart by someone I don't even know. I appreciate science as much as the next guy, but it's only useful to a point. And the word Life has a ton of metaphorical meanings beyond the scientific one. Maybe try not being so literal in coming to understand what someone else is trying to say.
Like I said, what you believe does not have any direct impact on me, save the irritation I feel with respect to your inclination to redefine words to suit your own ends. In my defense, you chose to came here to share your thoughts. I didn't knock down your door and demand that you do so. In short, you came here for an argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
"Lighten up, just enjoy life, smile more, laugh more, and don't get so worked up about things."
– Kenneth Branagh

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/k...629?src=t_life
I'm a fan of KB, and I'm a little sorry I didn't see him perform live in London. But it was down to him or Patrick Stewart & Ian McKellen. So when you see him, pass on my sincere regrets and tell him not to worry about me not enjoy life well enough - I'll try and catch him next time I'm in town.
  #333  
Old 05-06-2018, 11:05 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Like I said, what you believe does not have any direct impact on me, save the irritation I feel with respect to your inclination to redefine words to suit your own ends. In my defense, you chose to came here to share your thoughts. I didn't knock down your door and demand that you do so. In short, you came here for an argument.







I'm a fan of KB, and I'm a little sorry I didn't see him perform live in London. But it was down to him or Patrick Stewart & Ian McKellen. So when you see him, pass on my sincere regrets and tell him not to worry about me not enjoy life well enough - I'll try and catch him next time I'm in town.

And on that note, have a great Sunday.
  #334  
Old 05-06-2018, 11:07 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Peace.Out.
  #335  
Old 05-06-2018, 03:59 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
I don't understand what your point is. You seem to want to be adversarial no matter what I say. What is it exactly that you want to hear?
I want to hear your own reconsidered, revised, changed opinions about the content of your original post, in light of all the information and knowledge that various people on the thread have provided for you over the past few days.
  #336  
Old 05-06-2018, 04:09 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
God and Life

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
I want to hear your own reconsidered, revised, changed opinions about the content of your original post, in light of all the information and knowledge that various people on the thread have provided for you over the past few days.

Sorry to disappoint you, but my own opinion has not really changed very much, any more than I'm sure yours has. This thread wasn't meant to change people's minds so much as consider the concepts of God and Life from a different viewpoint. Most of the arguments I've read are semantic ones, dealing with the definition of Life in biological terms rather than metaphorical ones, like when someone is the life of the party. Eternal life certainly has no scientific basis, unless one proposes that life has always existed, no beginning and no end, yet it is a pretty central tenet of my religious upbringing. I don't think anyone has a monopoly on the definition of Life. Or God, for that matter. I have seen the more atheistic types here become dismayed when I have not abandoned my beliefs, and I have seen others become dismayed that I dare to redefine God. Or Life. What this tells me is that people like to hold fast to their views, and I am no different. But the discussion of beliefs, as long as it is respectful, can be very helpful and helps me clarify my own.

Last edited by Biffster; 05-06-2018 at 04:12 PM.
  #337  
Old 05-06-2018, 04:19 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
I have seen the more atheistic types here become dismayed when I have not abandoned my beliefs, and I have seen others become dismayed that I dare to redefine God. Or Life.
The problem I have is that your definitions aren't internally consistent. Life has properties that God doesn't, unless you completely redefine God and you've been unwilling to do that. I could care less what you believe; but if you're going to post in Great Debates then you should be prepared to defend your logic.
  #338  
Old 05-06-2018, 04:29 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
The problem I have is that your definitions aren't internally consistent. Life has properties that God doesn't, unless you completely redefine God and you've been unwilling to do that. I could care less what you believe; but if you're going to post in Great Debates then you should be prepared to defend your logic.

This is a further excerpt from the same author I posted in the first post in this thread.

Quote:
A huge part of that process is our renewed exploration of this whole idea of God, and of our thoughts about What God Wants. If in fact the words "God" and "life" are describing the same thing...well, we have some major, major theological implications here.

Do we need more evidence of the existence of life than life itself? No. And what does life want? Nothing. Life simply is.
Again, it's not my idea, but I think it has great merit. Looking at God from a different perspective is going to upset the apple cart, but it could also yield greater understanding and awareness. For one, God becomes something we need not fear, any more than we need fear life. God is not going to judge us, any more than life is going to judge us. God requires nothing from us, any more than life requires anything from us. We shift from thinking of God as the Invisible man/parent figure in the sky to God as part of everything we do in this life. I find that notion far more inviting than the hellfire and brimstone God I learned about when I was much younger.

As an aside, here's a question: if the devil punishes wrongdoers, doesn't that make the devil God's helper? Wouldn't that make the devil essentially good?
  #339  
Old 05-06-2018, 05:41 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post

As an aside, here's a question: if the devil punishes wrongdoers, doesn't that make the devil God's helper? Wouldn't that make the devil essentially good?
What's your own personal opinion on it?
  #340  
Old 05-06-2018, 06:50 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Again, it's not my idea, but I think it has great merit.
And I don't. It's similar to the mystical folks like talking about Quantum Dynamics as if it's something similar to God, but only if you completely ignore everything we know about QD and everything we agree about God.

IMO, it's meaningless mental masturbation, providing no insights into the spiritual and no guidance on how to better live your life. If you benefit from it, more power to you. But you've made no convincing case for it, and frankly neither has the author and I'm not inclined to read any more of his stuff if you think what you've presented is a good sample.
  #341  
Old 05-06-2018, 07:01 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,330
When I read that this wooster Biffster keeps pushing on us ("I'm not saying this-He is!") also a pushes that "Indigo child" crap, the chance that I would take him as any sort of authority on this topic went right out the window.
  #342  
Old 05-06-2018, 07:27 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
What's your own personal opinion on it?


I like it. I think it makes sense. I think the reason the God concept came about in the first place was because humans were trying to describe a feeling they had that they were somehow connected to the universe. This turned into the various mythologies that have existed pretty much since the beginning of recorded time, but somewhere along the line, the mythologies were misinterpreted as actual history. I think that initial feeling—that we're all connected somehow, whether or not we realize it—is what religion should really be about. We might treat each better as a result.

As far as Life goes, well I definitely believe in it. And if it helps me or anyone else to think of Life and God as being different names for ultimately the same phenomena, then great. I think we humans have a habit of anthropomorphizing God too much—remaking Him or Her or It in our own image. If we watch and learn from the life cycle, I think we'd be on a better track as a species.

If that's too "flakey" for you, so be it. It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
  #343  
Old 05-06-2018, 07:29 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
When I read that this wooster Biffster keeps pushing on us ("I'm not saying this-He is!") also a pushes that "Indigo child" crap, the chance that I would take him as any sort of authority on this topic went right out the window.


And that's your right to feel that way. I'm not asking you to agree with me.
  #344  
Old 05-06-2018, 07:30 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
And that's your right to feel that way. I'm not asking you to agree with me.
No, you just want people who disagree with you to take it elsewhere.
  #345  
Old 05-06-2018, 07:35 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
What's your own personal opinion on it?


Sorry, I answered the wrong question. Since I believe that both the devil and the traditional concept of God are mythical, it's really just word game. It came from the philisoraptor meme. I'm a fan of Mr. Deity, so I'm inclined to think God and Lucy/Lucifer work together on a lot of things.
  #346  
Old 05-06-2018, 07:36 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
No, you just want people who disagree with you to take it elsewhere.


Not at all. Keep it here, by all means. Just try to be respectful. I'm trying to be.
  #347  
Old 05-07-2018, 04:30 AM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
I like it. I think it makes sense. I think the reason the God concept came about in the first place was because humans were trying to describe a feeling they had that they were somehow connected to the universe. This turned into the various mythologies that have existed pretty much since the beginning of recorded time, but somewhere along the line, the mythologies were misinterpreted as actual history. I think that initial feeling—that we're all connected somehow, whether or not we realize it—is what religion should really be about. We might treat each better as a result.

As far as Life goes, well I definitely believe in it. And if it helps me or anyone else to think of Life and God as being different names for ultimately the same phenomena, then great. I think we humans have a habit of anthropomorphizing God too much—remaking Him or Her or It in our own image. If we watch and learn from the life cycle, I think we'd be on a better track as a species.

If that's too "flakey" for you, so be it. It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
It's not flakey in the least. It's disingenuous and idiotic.
  #348  
Old 05-07-2018, 09:27 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
It's not flakey in the least. It's disingenuous and idiotic.


Glad you're doing your best to be respectful.
  #349  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:05 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Glad you're doing your best to be respectful.
I'll take intellectual honesty over respect any day of the week.
  #350  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:15 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Glad you're doing your best to be respectful.
Is this your way of avoiding responding to the arguments presented? Could you possibly tell us what is wrong with the opposing arguments, instead of just saying that none of it changes your mind? If you don't say why you are not swayed by any of the arguments, then one may assume that you intend to dismiss out of hand any opinions/theories/facts that differ from your own. The fact that you are "polite" when you do so doesn't excuse this.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017