God's Will

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#41
de·ism

n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

Source:
"deist." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 23 Sep. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deist>.


Really? You're a deist now?
It's not a case of being a deist now. It's a case of me actually coming more to really understand my perspective of the world. A lot of times I've said God is not coming to save people, and that Jesus isn't coming back to save people like some Christian people believe. I've said a lot of this stuff before I left and very little since I've been back because I haven't even made 50 posts since I've been back.

Basically, we're playing catch up, and any revelation or supernatural event that we may encounter/experience is something that was already planned to happen and doesn't actually mean God is doing it right then and there.
 
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
42
www.facebook.com
#42
It's not a case of being a deist now. It's a case of me actually coming more to really understand my perspective of the world. A lot of times I've said God is not coming to save people, and that Jesus isn't coming back to save people like some Christian people believe. I've said a lot of this stuff before I left and very little since I've been back because I haven't even made 50 posts since I've been back.

Basically, we're playing catch up, and any revelation or supernatural event that we may encounter/experience is something that was already planned to happen and doesn't actually mean God is doing it right then and there.
I don't think what you've described qualifies as deism. But in any case, we can always say that there is a plan, given an omniscient God.
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#43
I don't think what you've described qualifies as deism. But in any case, we can always say that there is a plan, given an omniscient God.
You don't know anything about deism so how would you know what I say does or doesn't qualify as deism? There are several branchs of Deism just as there are different branches of atheism, christianity, buddhism, hinduism, islam, etc, etc, etc.


There are many definitions.

Deism: Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.

Deism is the belief that by rational methods alone men
can know all the true propositions of theology which
it is possible, necessary, or desirable for men to know.


Deism is the theistic belief that a supreme God exists and created the physical universe, but shall not intervene in its normal operation.

Concerning prayer:


Some contemporary deists believe (with the classical deists) that God has created the universe perfectly, so no amount of supplication, request, or begging can change the fundamental nature of the universe.

Some deists believe that God is not an entity that can be contacted by human beings through petitions for relief; rather, God can only be experienced through the nature of the universe.

Some deists do not believe in divine intervention but still find value in prayer as a form of meditation, self-cleansing, and spiritual renewal. Such prayers are often appreciative (i.e., "Thank you for ...") rather than supplicative (i.e., "Please God grant me ...").[48]

Some deists, usually referred to as Spiritual Deists, practice meditation and make frequent use of Affirmative Prayer, a non-supplicative form of prayer which is common in the New Thought movement.


That came from WIKI *shudders* but if anyone wants links to real deist sites I'll post em.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#44
I'll keep my mouth shut on this one and let the readers chew on that one.
I am not afraid to speak my mind and I am proud of it

The world would be a much better place if more people were like that


No one has to be admired. Part of the reason why this world is in shambles now is because people go admiring people for the fuck of it or because they have some emotional attachment they can't shake.

Anyway, I said I was going to touch on something earlier so I'll do it now. You know how people say, "religion is used to control the masses" and things like that? Well, anything can be used to control the masses as long as the masses are receptive to it or predisposed to being controlled and this will bring me to your statement again.

What you said can be applied to any agent of socialization, or anything that requires a person to think and act, not just religion. Your entire premise is - science good, religion bad - but you're failing to realize the same thing you're applying to religion can be applied to science because it's a very general statement.

I'll give you an example. If thatguy said: "belief in a GANG makes them feel as if their goals are possible, which puts them on a road to reaching these goals." your statement of "It also forces them into completely irrational behavior and predisposes them to totally inadequate worldview, both with detrimental consequences to society and nature" would still be applicable. This is NOT a distortion of your view nor is it saying your view is wrong. I'm simply saying your view is a hasty generalization that can be applied to anything.
Absolutely wrong

Science can not be used to control the masses because the very essence of science is being able to think objectively and independently from any outside influence, based purely on logic and facts (whether all scientists are following the scientific method is, again, a topic of another discussion)
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#45
you are one ignorant mother fucker.
rather than trying to view the objective world subjectively, you should spend a quarter of the time wasted on that and study yourself subjectively, and you will see how limited a perception on either,or a perception in its own essence as a Perception is.

congratulations to man for landing on the moon,so now all thats left is for man to learn to live with his self....



EDIT: " The very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive."
since you wont reply, i will add on to this from an excerpt from a page i read tonight that might enlighten you to the fact that science is no different than your view of 'religion'.

before i do that, you still havent answered my question from over a month ago, so... if it was scientifically valid for you to blow yourself up killing others for a greater good, would you?
1. I don't see a question that has to be answered there

2. Remind me what the question from more than a month ago was. I was away from the boards for a while and I honestly admit that I don't remember what you're talking about
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#46
"The multifarious forms around us, says he, are constituted of the five
elements. They are transient, and in a state of perpetual flux.
Also they are governed, by the law of causation. All this applies
to the body and the mind also, both of which are transient and
subject to birth and death. We know that only by means of the
bodily senses and the mind can the world be known. As in the
Kantian view, it is a correlate of the human knowing subject,
and, therefore, has the fundamental structure of our way of
knowing. This means that time, space and causality are not
‘objective’, or extraneous entities, but mental categories in
which everything is moulded. The existence and form of all
things depend upon the mind. Cognition is a mental product.

And the world as seen from the mind is a subjective and private
world, which changes continuously in accordance with the
restlessness of the mind itself.
In opposition to the restless mind, with its limited categories —
intentionality, subjectivity, duality etc. — stands supreme the
limitless sense of ‘I am’. The only thing I can be sure about is, that
‘I am’ not as a thinking ‘I am’ in the Cartesian sense, but without
any predicates. Again and again Maharaj draws our attention to
this basic fact in order to make us realize our ‘I am-ness’ and thus
get rid of all self-made prisons. He says: The only true statement
is ‘I am’. All else is mere inference. By no effort can you change
the ‘I am’ into ‘I am-not’.
Behold, the real experiencer is not the mind, but myself, the
light in which everything appears. Self is the common factor at the
root of all experience, the awareness in which everything hap-
pens. The entire field of consciousness is only as a film, or a
speck, in ‘I am’. This ‘I am-ness’ is, being conscious of con-
sciousness, being aware of itself. And it is indescribable, be-
cause it has no attributes. It is only being my self, and being my
self is all that there is. Everything that exists, exists as my self.
There is nothing which is different from me. There is no duality
and, therefore, no pain. There are no problems. It is the sphere of
love, in which everything is perfect."
This stuff is 2500 years old and it begins with a completely ad hoc assumption (the five elements) which might be irrelevant to the point that you're making but it is worth noting what kind of thinking produced these ideas

Again, I can only tell you that science has proved itself as the only valid method for studying the world (man including), because it is the only method that works and has been successfully applied over and over for centuries
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#47
unless they are intensely radical i dont see any irrational behavior, the inadequate world view is an opinion.... that world view doesnt hurt you in any way besides being pestered by door to door church people. detrimental consequences.... i see what your saying here, with war and shit, but if we didnt fight over religion you know damn well it would be something else, thats a part of human nature
You only see the surface of it. I've been an atheist ever since I can remember, but I did not feel any negative feeling toward religion that could be classified as hate until a few years ago.

When I was, say, 10 year-old, I viewed religion as a funny thing that nobody really takes seriously, yes, people go to church for Christmas and Easter, but other than that it isn't really play a significant in their life at all. I've had a lot of debates with other kids that were religious, I was just laughing at their ignorance but I did not see any danger in it.

At some point however, you grow up and you begin to think deeper about the world around you, and then you see how destructive religion really is to everything in this world. It is absolutely scary.

Everything wrong (man-made, of course) with the world around us is usually due to our own inability to sit down, assess the situation rationally and come up with the most optimal solution. I will not list example because this includes really everything, from social inequality and poverty to climate change.

The reason for our inability to think rationally is religion, actually the two are the same thing. Whether you follow an Abrahamic religion or you believe in Manitou, what is a invariant characteristic of your mentality is the acceptance of things that the rational person can only classify as fairy tales, with no evidence to support them. Religions vary, but this irrationality is the most persistent feature of all of them.

That's why religion is the single most dangerous thing in the world that we should be worried about.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#48
Even Moses, when faced with the destruction of Israel by God after they had built the golden calf to worship, interceded before God and asked Him to CHANGE His will. God heard Moses' plea and relented from what He said He was going to do (Exodus 32:9-14)
and you think this really happened?
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#49
I am not afraid to speak my mind and I am proud of it

The world would be a much better place if more people were like that
Again, I'm not gonna touch on that one man.

Absolutely wrong

Science can not be used to control the masses because the very essence of science is being able to think objectively and independently from any outside influence, based purely on logic and facts (whether all scientists are following the scientific method is, again, a topic of another discussion)
Eugenics and the Nazi party.

Thanks for the exchange pimpin.
 
Jan 31, 2008
2,764
3,360
113
44
#51
This stuff is 2500 years old and it begins with a completely ad hoc assumption (the five elements) which might be irrelevant to the point that you're making but it is worth noting what kind of thinking produced these ideas

Again, I can only tell you that science has proved itself as the only valid method for studying the world (man including), because it is the only method that works and has been successfully applied over and over for centuries
so then you are discluding everything in that excerpt because the guy believes there are 5 elements including ether, which the mayans just so happened to also believe?

thats very scientific of you


and yes, i had already reasked the question in the same reply that i mentioned to you that you didnt answer, "so..."


you arent able to grasp that science is limited to mans mind and senses, and i dont know if you could ever figure out just how limited it really is...
 
Mar 4, 2007
2,678
5
0
#52
hey guys don't forget at the end of the day....
"i love you, you love me, were a happy faaamilaaay, with a great big hug from all of us to YYOOOOU, i love barney and he loves you too" (i think thats how it goes lol wow pedo, muchh?)


even yoouu, ThaG! =)
 
Jan 31, 2008
2,764
3,360
113
44
#53
You only see the surface of it. I've been an atheist ever since I can remember, but I did not feel any negative feeling toward religion that could be classified as hate until a few years ago.

When I was, say, 10 year-old, I viewed religion as a funny thing that nobody really takes seriously, yes, people go to church for Christmas and Easter, but other than that it isn't really play a significant in their life at all. I've had a lot of debates with other kids that were religious, I was just laughing at their ignorance but I did not see any danger in it.

At some point however, you grow up and you begin to think deeper about the world around you, and then you see how destructive religion really is to everything in this world. It is absolutely scary.

Everything wrong (man-made, of course) with the world around us is usually due to our own inability to sit down, assess the situation rationally and come up with the most optimal solution. I will not list example because this includes really everything, from social inequality and poverty to climate change.

The reason for our inability to think rationally is religion, actually the two are the same thing. Whether you follow an Abrahamic religion or you believe in Manitou, what is a invariant characteristic of your mentality is the acceptance of things that the rational person can only classify as fairy tales, with no evidence to support them. Religions vary, but this irrationality is the most persistent feature of all of them.

That's why religion is the single most dangerous thing in the world that we should be worried about.
again, not only are you judging what religion means based on the religions you know(a limitation by your mind/perception), not taking into account that religion and science can co-exist(a limitation by your mind/perception), but you are also judging religion by those who follow it and not by IT(a limitation by your mind/perception).

you should really see the relation between ignorance and man, and not man and religion.
the mind and its limitations are the problem, and as long as that exists, science will not save shit. And this also goes for you too because in actuality you are absolutely no different than fundamentalist worshippers.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#54
so then you are discluding everything in that excerpt because the guy believes there are 5 elements including ether, which the mayans just so happened to also believe?

thats very scientific of you
It shows you how those people were thinking. Once you screw up like this, you lose any credibility you might have (not that they have any to begin with)


and yes, i had already reasked the question in the same reply that i mentioned to you that you didnt answer, "so..."


you arent able to grasp that science is limited to mans mind and senses, and i dont know if you could ever figure out just how limited it really is...
See, your argument is the following:

Science comes from man and mind, therefore it is imperfect.

But you fail to ask yourself the question where do religions, myths and fairy tales come from
 
Jan 31, 2008
2,764
3,360
113
44
#55
It shows you how those people were thinking. Once you screw up like this, you lose any credibility you might have (not that they have any to begin with)
so you discount everything that is logical even scientifically because this guy believes in something that science hasnt discovered yet?
you are more ignorant than i thought!

See, your argument is the following:

Science comes from man and mind, therefore it is imperfect.

But you fail to ask yourself the question where do religions, myths and fairy tales come from
no, any comprehension is limited by the mind, including science and religion and myths, hence, me telling you that you are absolutely no different than a false fundamentalist christian with a limited world view.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#56
again, not only are you judging what religion means based on the religions you know(a limitation by your mind/perception),
Well, those are the religions that >90% of people adhere to (most of the other <10% do not adhere to any) :ermm::confused:

And what I say is a feature of all and any religions, because it is the definition of religion

not taking into account that religion and science can co-exist(a limitation by your mind/perception),
They can't

There is a continuum between using your head all the time (being a scientist) and not using it at all (being an evangelical christian/muslim fanatic, you name it), however real scientists sit only on the very extreme of the science side. You move a little bit from it and you completely leave the area of science.

These are completely different and absolutely excluding modes of thinking.

A religious person might think scientifically from time to time, a scientist can never think irrationally

but you are also judging religion by those who follow it and not by IT(a limitation by your mind/perception).
By what am I supposed to judge it? Isn't IT the way it is practiced by people???

you should really see the relation between ignorance and man, and not man and religion.
I see it - man was ignorant enough to make up religion out of thin air, then the religion feedback kicked in and reduced any chance of man overcoming ignorance to close to zero


the mind and its limitations are the problem, and as long as that exists, science will not save shit. And this also goes for you too because in actuality you are absolutely no different than fundamentalist worshippers.
Again, everything you know about things "outside of the mind" comes from the mind of somebody, which is a ocean-sized hole in your argument
 
Jan 31, 2008
2,764
3,360
113
44
#57
Well, those are the religions that >90% of people adhere to (most of the other <10% do not adhere to any) :ermm::confused:

And what I say is a feature of all and any religions, because it is the definition of religion
and since the majority of followerers follow a flawed corrupt interpretation of something, suddenly everything that adheres to aspects of what they mistakingly interpretted is complete bullshit?

depending on your interpretation of what Religion and Science means.

There is a continuum between using your head all the time (being a scientist) and not using it at all (being an evangelical christian/muslim fanatic, you name it), however real scientists sit only on the very extreme of the science side. You move a little bit from it and you completely leave the area of science.

These are completely different and absolutely excluding modes of thinking.

A religious person might think scientifically from time to time, a scientist can never think irrationally
this statement shows your automatic assumption that

1. using your head all the time is the only way to go
2. religion = not using your head at all
3. that science suddenly means straight up S-C-I-E-N-C-E italicized


By what am I supposed to judge it? Isn't IT the way it is practiced by people???
no, people are also limited by their minds and will interpret the same thing differently. Abide by that and you might as well be a muslim.

I see it - man was ignorant enough to make up religion out of thin air, then the religion feedback kicked in and reduced any chance of man overcoming ignorance to close to zero
yet you think that this ignorance and limitations of the mind suddenly stops when it comes to mans interpretation and standards and importance of what science is and what science does?
are you seriously this limited in comprehending what i am saying? dont answer that because it is written in every single statement you make.


Again, everything you know about things "outside of the mind" comes from the mind of somebody, which is a ocean-sized hole in your argument
there is a difference in imposing what you are, and actually stating "the only thing i do know is that i dont know anything", same as saying "the only desire i have is to be desireless"
that alone evolves the concept into a completely different concept that doesnt adhere to the prior conclusion i have come to, so dont be tryin that shit out with your limited ass comprehension skills.
 
Jan 31, 2008
2,764
3,360
113
44
#59
that is just a chemical reaction you are having, therefore it really means nothing more than 3-(19-amino-13-sec-butyl-7-
(carboxymethyl)-4-(2-(1-(carboxymethylamino)-5- guanidino-1-oxopentan-2-ylcarbamoyl) pyrrolidine-1-carbonyl)-16-(4-hydroxybenzyl)- 6,9,12,15,18-pentaoxo-1,2-dithia-5,8,11,14,17- pentaazacycloicosan-10-yl)propanoic acid