Talking with God

[highangle]

Food for thought: Why is it that it's always God telling people to do good things, and the devil telling them to do bad things? What if it's all the same voice and the Big Guy's just mixing it up? Kids get cancer all the time, so maybe the same guy saying "Go to Africa and save people" is also saying "Hey, it's me- the dog... Kill the Prime Minister of Malaysia" and the crazies really DID hear God too...

Who made the Devil?

[Jer]

Kick ass!!! Yet another multi-page thread where a bunch of superior morons endlessly rip on people who believe in a higher being. That's never happened here evar!

Hey - I don't believe in god either, but I'm not a complete asshole about it.

[highangle]

if it makes you feel better, i guess you could start a thread called: "jer's Preferences", and talk all you want about your preferences

[Rasputin]

You are not doing anything of the sort. You are judging the language used in another culture by the same standard you would use if someone from your own culture(non religious) had used that same language.

This is precisely the kind of blindness and egocentric world view that lead to the imperialism and carnage you, and most other anti religious nuts on here, point to as one of the cardinal sins of religion.

You have replaced the demand that everyone accept a religious orthodoxy with the demand that everyone accept a secular one, and you denigrate everyone who does not adhere to your secular view of the world as "crazy", which is the secular equivalent of "heathen".

If you want to be different from the religious folk, you have to accept heterodoxy in society and not denigrate those who believe differently from you. Regardless of how correct or superior or enlightened you believe your beliefs are.

Very well reasoned and spoken Rubicon, however I doubt reason is any part of Hutash's motivation for posting this thread, he's hunting witches, and holding his own version of the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition:

[highangle]

i see, it's ok for christians to have an Inquisition, but no one else

[Rasputin]

i see, it's ok for christians to have an Inquisition, but no one else

Silly goose, Catholics perpetrated the inquisition, and true Catholics don't call themselves Christians.

[hutash]

Kick ass!!! Yet another multi-page thread where a bunch of superior morons endlessly rip on people who believe in a higher being. That's never happened here evar!

Hey - I don't believe in god either, but I'm not a complete asshole about it.

No, you are just a complete asshole

[Jer]

No, you are just a complete asshole

I suppose you'd know.

[hutash]

Very well reasoned and spoken Rubicon, however I doubt reason is any part of Hutash's motivation for posting this thread, he's hunting witches, and holding his own version of the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition:

I love how I am the one accused of not using reason, while others can say it is okay to listen to voices in their heads and accept what they tell you are perfectly reasonable and rational.

Please give me an example where my posts have not used reason and rational thought.

My motivation for posting in this thread, and for starting it in the first place is to point out how unreasonable it is to believe in the "voice" of god.

If people act on that voice in a way that is detrimental to society they are considered insane, but if they act for the common good they are considered pious. I find that inconsistent.

Like I posted at the start...am I missing something?

So far none of the response tell me that I am missing anything. So, I will continue with the my conclusion that people who "hear voices" are all nuts. Some are pious nuts, but nutters just the same.

[Rasputin]

I love how I am the one accused of not using reason, while others can say it is okay to listen to voices in their heads and accept what they tell you are perfectly reasonable and rational.

Please give me an example where my posts have not used reason and rational thought.

My motivation for posting in this thread, and for starting it in the first place is to point out how unreasonable it is to believe in the "voice" of god.

If people act on that voice in a way that is detrimental to society they are considered insane, but if they act for the common good they are considered pious. I find that inconsistent.

Like I posted at the start...am I missing something?

So far none of the response tell me that I am missing anything. So, I will continue with the my conclusion that people who "hear voices" are all nuts. Some are pious nuts, but nutters just the same.

Yes you are missing something, and the angst which prompts you to press this issue is evidence of it. If you were really so secure in your perceptions, you wouldn't be so strident in maligning those of others.

Calling another crazy is not a position of reason, it is a dismissal of their validity, and one that is based in an emotional response to being unable to understand something that is beyond one's experience. It is easier to ridicule and dismiss than it is to broaden one's scope of acceptance.

It seems like you are searching for something while refusing to consider the guidance that leads there, it must be frustrating. Oh well, if I'm wrong, and you are really satisfied with your perspective, good for you. Rest easy.

[Jer]

Yes you are missing something, and the angst which prompts you to press this issue is evidence of it. If you were really so secure in your perceptions, you wouldn't be so strident in maligning those of others.

Calling another crazy is not a position of reason, it is a dismissal of their validity, and one that is based in an emotional response to being unable to understand something that is beyond one's experience. It is easier to ridicule and dismiss than it is to broaden one's scope of acceptance.

What Grig said ^^^^.

Anybody who claims to have the universe all figured out is crazy. For example - I don't believe in god, but I'm also willing to entertain the fact that I'm dead wrong. This is why I don't go around looking down my nose like an assface at everybody who does believe.

[highangle]

Yes you are missing something, and the angst which prompts you to press this issue is evidence of it. If you were really so secure in your perceptions, you wouldn't be so strident in maligning those of others.

doesn't that depend on the particular perceptions that others hold?
i mean, if someone perceives that his gods tell him its ok to shrink your head in a pot of crab boil, it's not a sure sign of insecurity if you object

moreover, to intimate that someone is insecure because he enables bridge firewalling wrt supernatural claims is, in itself, more than a little insecure

Calling another crazy is not a position of reason, it is a dismissal of their validity, and one that is based in an emotional response to being unable to understand something that is beyond one's experience. It is easier to ridicule and dismiss than it is to broaden one's scope of acceptance.

you seem to disregard the very many good reasons for keeping a high threshold of "acceptance" to bullshit

It seems like you are searching for something while refusing to consider the guidance that leads there, it must be frustrating. Oh well, if I'm wrong, and you are really satisfied with your perspective, good for you. Rest easy.

it must be fun to feign wisdom when
in actuality,
you are defending a decision to

reject reality

[spanghew]

the differeince between those who claim god is their guide and those who don't, is that the god-people aren't open to any discussion beyond what they think the scriptures tell them. the bible is the definitive answer; if they had their way, all laws would conform to biblical principles, and the laws of man are irrelevant. kind of like those in teh middle east in favor of Sharia law.

at least those secular humanists are capable of believing there's evidence to consider when making a decision, there are points of discussion and disagreement, and there is a process to try to approximate truth, i.e. science.

Which is why philosophy is fundamentally more interesting than theology . . . although academic theology is interesting as opposed to the lobotomized fundamentalists who think they know what the bible sez, therefore there's no room for discussion.

[neck beard]

I have a high threshold for bullshit as well. But I don't deride someone as crazy if their preferences falls below my acceptance threshold, even if I don't understand their preferences. Sometimes it seems more than half the world are crazy anyway, so live and let live. Among many other things, I think it is crazy to believe in a god, to drink Coca Cola, to cross dress, or to become a slave to debt. I have no idea why anyone would choose to do any of those things. But everyone is crazy in one way or another.

It is however quite unfortunate that some preferences have a negative impact on humanity. That is a serious issue. This is where I differentiate between cross dressing and faith based religions. I understand neither, but I'd gladly see every superstition-believing-faith-based-religious-person replaced with a cross dresser.

the differeince between those who claim god is their guide and those who don't, is that the god-people aren't open to any discussion beyond what they think the scriptures tell them.

I agree. It is close to impossible to have a discussion based on reason with a religious person as in the end they attempt to conclude their higher position with an intangible, like 'god moves in mysterious ways'. To which there is no come back besides one that struggles to avoid expressing despair and redicule. And then you have lost.

[Rasputin]

I agree. It is close to impossible to have a discussion based on reason with a religious person as in the end they attempt to conclude their higher position with an intangible, like 'god moves in mysterious ways'. To which there is no come back besides one that struggles to avoid expressing despair and redicule. And then you have lost.

With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Is it possible your despair comes from finding that there are places that are beyond the limits of what you define as reason, and hence, in finding the limits of your mind, you become frustrated at one who is not limited in such a manner?

Do you not conclude that their conclusions, which do not require something "tangible" as defined by you, are inferior to the tests that you hold to, to qualify things as valid or invalid? It seems like a double standard.

Personally, I have seen that science, and the "rational" minds that hold to it, are very good at explaining reality, as long as it is physical. However once it comes to examining anything that cannot be measured or plugged into a math equation, they revert to prejudices, and the denial of the emotions present that give birth to them.

I have seen that some cannot tell the difference between what God is saying to them and their own prejudices, and that they then take action on their prejudices with egregious outcomes. However there is no logic to support the premise, that because these instances occur, there is no God, or that a universal deity wouldn't be sending and receiving messages to and from all aspects of its being, human or otherwise.

[spanghew]

[QUOTE=Rasputin;2507226][COLOR="Red"]
Do you not conclude that their conclusions, which do not require something "tangible" as defined by you, are inferior to the tests that you hold to, to qualify things as valid or invalid? It seems like a double standard[QUOTE]


Art, poetry and philosophy are our best instruments for dealing with the ambiguities, the ineffable, the inexplicable . . . which of course gave rise to these things (and religion) in the first place.

And again, I think the difference between art and philosophy on the one hand and religion on the other, are that the former embraces ambiguity and open question, whereas religion purports to produce definitive answers. Religion is anti-ambiguity, which some find reassuring: a bedrock upon which to determine how to act. Poetry, on the other hand, expresses the mental and moral indigestion, explores the options of responses, reveals the price of choices.

[neck beard]

Is it possible your despair comes from finding that there are places that are beyond the limits of what you define as reason

Indeed therefore anything can be conceived and argued so long as there exists belief that negates the need for reason. It just so happened that a god worshiping habit was formed a very long time ago and only exists today because the following are unfathomable in our minds.

- Why the universe is here?
- What is the concept of life and death?

Just because the question can not be yet answered, doesn’t make the superstitious attempt to do so valid. But with the fear and simplicity inherent in all human minds, religious superstition becomes a powerful force.

I simply can not get my nut around the vastness of the Universe. It is literally incomprehensible for me. Introducing the concept of god does not help in my comprehension. Yet the concept has been so popular for so long that I am forced by society to entertain it as possibly valid. I conclude that there probably is no god at all. Regardless, I understand not why it should be feared and worshipped. Even if you could prove there was one, I still would not worship it. I’d think “cool, well that’s one or two very huge questions finally answered. Next topic please”. There is probably not a planet of green cats in the next galaxy either, but you never know. The only reason god worship remains powerful today is that it gives power via unity to groups of people who can then defeat others who are less united through their superstitious beliefs, or lake there of.

I know a person who believes that NYC will be utterly destroyed in our lifetimes, specifically NYC, it has been foreseen. There is no discussing the matter besides agreeing with them. If you disagree, you don’t believe and you can never possibly understand. They have no reason for their position other than superstitious belief and they adopt your quated argument to make it real. Other support this prediction as well. This superstition will eventually fade as it does not relate to the two very difficult questions above and nor does it create power via unity.

Edit: I like Ms Thrope's answer better than mine.

[highangle]

Silly goose, Catholics perpetrated the inquisition, and true Catholics don't call themselves Christians.

smelly peasant, Catholics, Roman and Orthodox, most assuredly do call themselves christians, as a casual perusal of the Nicene Creed will demonstrate


you of course are free to define true Catholics any way you wish

please feel free to transcend fact and reality in any way that seems useful,
because verbal assurances and word salad
occupy the same place in the mind of a subjectivist like yourself
as empirical evidence does in mine

[Rasputin]

[quote=ms ann thrope;2507234][QUOTE=Rasputin;2507226][COLOR="Red"]
Do you not conclude that their conclusions, which do not require something "tangible" as defined by you, are inferior to the tests that you hold to, to qualify things as valid or invalid? It seems like a double standard

Art, poetry and philosophy are our best instruments for dealing with the ambiguities, the ineffable, the inexplicable . . . which of course gave rise to these things (and religion) in the first place.

And again, I think the difference between art and philosophy on the one hand and religion on the other, are that the former embraces ambiguity and open question, whereas religion purports to produce definitive answers. Religion is anti-ambiguity, which some find reassuring: a bedrock upon which to determine how to act. Poetry, on the other hand, expresses the mental and moral indigestion, explores the options of responses, reveals the price of choices.

Religion, and hearing God, are not the same thing. One is spirituality, and the other is an attempt of people to institutionalize and steer the direction of the beliefs of other people, sometimes toward spirituality, and sometimes away from it, depending on their motives.

I always find it amazing that people who purport to be rational cannot, or seemingly make no effort to, grasp this distinction. One is an internal experience of connection to the source of life, and the other is as mundane as politics and government. I expect they intend, at least subconsciously, to frame the conversation into a closed system they can have mastery over.

The difference between my perspective, and that of rational empiricists, is that I understand why they believe what they do. There is a tremendous shared perspective based on quantifiable material existence, I don't deny that scientific theory does a fairly good job of explaining what it has chosen to explain, namely physical phenomena. There is no denying that compelling arguments can be made to discount experience that is not derived from the scientific evidentiary process.

I see that clearly, but I have had experiences that are not dispelled by the arguments of science, even though there were times I really wanted to put the genie back in the bottle, because it would be so much simpler for me if I was just an intelligent beast seeking to maximize my power base and distribute my seed as broadly as possible. I however, have seen the light, and am unable to divorce myself from the awareness it connected me to, and no amount of scientific theory, no matter how well posited and supported by data, has been able to bring me completely down to earth.

I don't expect anyone to understand, or to believe me either. I won't try to convince anyone here through sharing my experiences either, as there are a preponderance of individuals here who have no openness, and I am not inclined to open my heart to those who only seek to mock what they don't understand, as was the case with the OP.

Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

[Rubicon]

I love how I am the one accused of not using reason, while others can say it is okay to listen to voices in their heads and accept what they tell you are perfectly reasonable and rational.

OK, somewhere in the back of my mind I still want to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that you genuinely believe what you are saying. So, here goes.

When the average Christian says that god speaks to them, they are not talking about a voice they audibly hear in their head in the same way someone who is schizophrenic hears voices. They are talking about the urges and desires that every human experiences, only they have come to associate those drives with the guidance of god. They have personified their emotions.

When you see someone in pain and feel a tug at your heart, many religious traditions would say that that tug is god speaking to you. When you have an argument with your wife or a close friend and feel like things were not resolved or you were an ass and feel the need to apologize, they would say that what you feel is god guiding you to give more of yourself or guiding you to the resolution that would be best for you and your family. When you become dissatisfied with your job, or the town you live in and begin wishing you were somewhere else, they would say that is god speaking to you and telling you that he wants you to live somewhere else.

To better understand this you need look no further than the wiring in our head. Emotions prompt us to act. The word 'emotion' can be traced back to French and Latin words associated with action. Also, the auditory centers of our brain are linked to the motivational centers of our brain. So verbal commands are capable of producing the same kind of urge to act(or not act) that emotions are capable of producing.

Putting on your junior anthropology hat, it takes no stretch of the imagination to understand how people thousands of years ago, who were just becoming conscious as a species, would experience urges they normally associate with verbal commands from other humans, when no verbal commands had been given by other humans, and believe that someone, or something, was speaking to them. Naturally they would attribute it to whatever spiritual being they believed in.

As societies grew more complex and sophisticated, this awareness and personification of emotions grew correspondingly more complex and sophisticated and you end up with religion.

I'm not offering this as a definitive explanation of what every religious person means when they claim that god speaks to them. Obviously there are thousands of different traditions so there will be thousands of different nuances and experiences among the faithful. Nor am I rulering our genuinely spiritual experiences, but IMO, most of what people label as "religious" experiences are actually products of culture and the very physical human experience.

So when you say that religious people who claim guidance from a higher power are "hearing voices in their head", you are mis characterizing something you simple don't(didn't) understand.

[highangle]

[COLOR="Red"]
Do you not conclude that their conclusions, which do not require something "tangible" as defined by you, are inferior to the tests that you hold to, to qualify things as valid or invalid? It seems like a double standard


Religion, and hearing God, are not the same thing. One is spirituality, and the other is an attempt of people to institutionalize and steer the direction of the beliefs of other people, sometimes toward spirituality, and sometimes away from it, depending on their motives.

I always find it amazing that people who purport to be rational cannot, or seemingly make no effort to, grasp this distinction. One is an internal experience of connection to the source of life, and the other is as mundane as politics and government. I expect they intend, at least subconsciously, to frame the conversation into a closed system they can have mastery over.

The difference between my perspective, and that of rational empiricists, is that I understand why they believe what they do. There is a tremendous shared perspective based on quantifiable material existence, I don't deny that scientific theory does a fairly good job of explaining what it has chosen to explain, namely physical phenomena. There is no denying that compelling arguments can be made to discount experience that is not derived from the scientific evidentiary process.

I see that clearly, but I have had experiences that are not dispelled by the arguments of science, even though there were times I really wanted to put the genie back in the bottle, because it would be so much simpler for me if I was just an intelligent beast seeking to maximize my power base and distribute my seed as broadly as possible. I however, have seen the light, and am unable to divorce myself from the awareness it connected me to, and no amount of scientific theory, no matter how well posited and supported by data, has been able to bring me completely down to earth.

I don't expect anyone to understand, or to believe me either. I won't try to convince anyone here through sharing my experiences either, as there are a preponderance of individuals here who have no openness, and I am not inclined to open my heart to those who only seek to mock what they don't understand, as was the case with the OP.

Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

if your position wasn't so inconsistent, people would have less problem following

you say,

"Religion, and hearing God, are not the same thing. One is spirituality, and the other is an attempt of people to institutionalize and steer the direction of the beliefs of other people.....I always find it amazing that people who purport to be rational cannot, or seemingly make no effort to, grasp this distinction."

yet then go onto say,

"...but I have had experiences that are not dispelled by the arguments of science, even though there were times I really wanted to put the genie back in the bottle, because it would be so much simpler for me if I was just an intelligent beast seeking to maximize my power base and distribute my seed as broadly as possible."


which is:
1. asking your version of science to explain all things, right now, in a way that you can grasp


and is thus


2. even more stupid than failing to see the distinction between an emotional desire interpreted as spirituality and the public institutions of religion, something you decry in your first paragraph



"Physician, heal thyself"

[Rasputin]

Indeed therefore anything can be conceived and argued so long as there exists belief that negates the need for reason.

I said nothing about negating the need for reason, however I did suggest that the way reason is defined can limit one's ability to perceive, understand, and communicate.

Just because the question can not be yet answered, doesn’t make the superstitious attempt to do so valid. But with the fear and simplicity inherent in all human minds, religious superstition becomes a powerful force.

One could equally see the need to answer those questions, in a way that presupposes that we are not subordinate aspects of a greater living being, to be superstitions embraced to avoid the fear that there is a greater force than is marshaled by one's isolated faculties.

The only reason god worship remains powerful today is that it gives power via unity to groups of people who can then defeat others who are less united through their superstitious beliefs, or lake there of.

Well that is a stretch, as if the only reason for unity is to overcome the less unified. The function of unity is to incorporate disparate elements, and find an accord amongst them, not to overcome them.

I know a person who believes that NYC will be utterly destroyed in our lifetimes, specifically NYC, it has been foreseen. There is no discussing the matter besides agreeing with them. If you disagree, you don’t believe and you can never possibly understand. They have no reason for their position other than superstitious belief and they adopt your quated argument to make it real. Other support this prediction as well. This superstition will eventually fade as it does not relate to the two very difficult questions above and nor does it create power via unity.

Yeah, and I knew a group that believed that mispronouncing the names in the Bible would defile one's soul. They had a limit to their reasoning that prevented unity, as their hearts were hardened against others rather than seeking an appreciation of their value.

I wouldn't be surprised if NYC gets destroyed, either in an earthquake, as there is geological evidence to support that possibility, or by a nuclear blast, as it has to be one of the highest risk targets in the world, being the home of the UN.

[highangle]

"I AM that I AM, sayeth the LORD"

"me too" - highangle




in a lot of texts in the Bible, God speaks from the 1st person point of view, I.

i would like to know how this came to be, how it works
literary freedom?
divine transcription of a voice heard?
literary tradition?
the people who wrote God in the 1st person must have done so for a reason...

[Rasputin]

"I AM that I AM, sayeth the LORD"

"me too" - highangle

Well, I suppose that is better than "I AM not".

[highangle]

Well, I suppose that is better than "I AM not".

which would be impossible

existence precedes consciousness

i am that i am