Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Speaking as an atheist I have to say that this thread has not actually threatened my position in any way whatsoever and has in some respects actually strengthened it. The argument seems to have descended into baseless name-calling.

So? Then you don’t believe in good or evil?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

The argument seems to have descended into baseless name-calling.

I tried to resist name calling.
Really I did.

But yeah, I did go ahead and name God - Manuela.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Speaking as an atheist I have to say that this thread has not actually threatened my position in any way whatsoever and has in some respects actually strengthened it. The argument seems to have descended into baseless name-calling.

So? Then you don’t believe in good or evil?

*Pinches bridge of nose in frustration* Personally speaking I prefer to be nice to my fellow members of the species Homo Sapiens, as I despise people who are cruel. I do not believe that a big book of Iron Age cruelties and historical revisionism and Early Roman Empire myths should be the guiding rule for modern life in the age of technology.
But that is not the point I was trying to make. Finger-pointing and general silliness is not a way to carry out what might have been an interesting topic to observe.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

To be completely honest.

My beef with a specific individual started in the flat earth form, for..... well. Trolling.

And I do believe in a spherical earth. And I do believe in a heliocentric solar system.

And much of my touchiness comes from the 9/11 forum. Something about being repeatedly called a shill and a liar for stating the truth about lies of Richard Gage, the truth movement, and AE.

Have a chip on my shoulder. Yes. With my experience, easy to spot innuendo, the intellectually dishonest, false authority, and people obviously trolling. Yes.

I apologize for the ugliness with dealing with the ugly on ATS. But its never wrong to stand up for yourself. And yes, you should turn the other cheek. So figure out how to resolve that. And let me know what’s your insight.

Now.....

Do you believe in good and evil.

Hitler and Stalin were not of the Iron Age.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Do you believe in good and evil.

Hitler was Stalin were not of the Iron Age.

A difficult question to answer. The legacy of the religion I discarded at the age of 15 do still touch me and I am a sucker for a good story that sees good battle evil and triumph. However, I am also adult enough to know that things are never that simple and that the world is not a matter of white and black. Instead there are many shades of grey. Do I believe that people are capable of what might be described as 'good' and 'evil'? Yes, of course. I do not believe in going out and hurting people. Frankly those that do are psychologically damaged.
How you can define people like Hitler and Stalin, who both had unrealistic goals that they nevertheless believed in to the point where they did not care how much blood and bone those goals were built on, I do not know. Let us simply say that no person can be beyond redemption - just as no person can be beyond selfishness and cruelty.
Strictly speaking I think that that makes me a Jungian.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

A little more on the “open mindedness” of the ATS 9/11 forum. I had an open mind, still do. But you question everything including there bring no logic and no science fact in claims like nukes at the WTC, you get call shill.

Shrugs.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I apologize in that I do see the world in black in white In this regard. If there is only evolution, then there is neither condemnation or acceptable in terms of someone like Hitler. And there is no need of redemption.

But yes. I know people I would trust with my kid’s life, but not my money. But there are people I would never let my kid be around, but would trust with my money and all my stuff.

What’s it called? The duality of humankind?:

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Willtell

Don't count on it.

The Op has some positive thoughts and ideas. People change and often evolve to a higher understanding. I believe we all will in time or out of time.

...and the way the world looks
we may be out of time!

of course
Time,

WillTell

Dear Willtell, you are one of three(?) posters here who accept my No. 1 step in the resolution of the issue God exists or not.


Here is the No. 1 step again:

"1. You and I and he she it, we all exist, do you accept that?"


Yesterday before I left here I asked you all three to volunteer to be first to explain why you concur with me on my No. 1 step, for resolving the issue God exists or not, this morning I notice that not one of you have volunteered to be first to explain why you concur with me on my No. 1 statement.

So I will now take the initiative to explain why I am certain that my No. 1 statement is beyond rebuttal, namely, that you and I and every he she and it we all exist, and the reason is because we all have consciousness - can you understand that, or you Willtell and others here are not accustomed to do honest intelligent productive thinking at all?


It is with consciousness that you and I and every he she it are conscious of their respective existence, and also the existence of everyone here who are into posting messages in my thread here - we everyone interacting among ourselves, by our consciousness we are certain of our existence and the existence of everyone among whom we are mutually or communally comumunicating with and among ourselves.


Think about that, with honest intelligent productive employment of your brain matter, okay?


Annex

Pachomius posted on Aug, 9 2020 @ 07:13 AM
.

Dear everyone, here is my exposition proving from evidence the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

.

1. You and I and he she it, we all exist, do you accept that?

2. You and I and he she it, we came from our parents, do you accept that?

3. Our parents came from their parents, do you accept that?

4. We all humans make up the human race, can you accept that?

5. The human race had a beginning in the universe, can you accept that?

6. Scientists tell us the universe had a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, can you accept that?

7. There has been the domain of existence prior to the beginning of the universe, can you accept that?

8. In that domain of existence prior to the beginning of the universe, there has got to be an entity, which created or caused the coming to the beginning of the existence of the universe, can you accept that?

9. Evidence is anything existing which leads man to ascertain the existence of another thing, can you accept?

10. Wherefore, man and the universe and everything with a beginning are the evidence to the existence of an entity, which created or caused them to come to existence, can you accept that?

11. And therefore we can call that entity in concept and in name, as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, can you accept that?

12. If you cannot or will not accept that God exists, are you not then either irrational or dishonestly stubborn against the existence of God?

.


Dear everyone, please point out what Number 1 to 12 you have difficulties with, okay?

.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Post from Willtell

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Willtell

Don't count on it.

The Op has some positive thoughts and ideas. People change and often evolve to a higher understanding. I believe we all will in time or out of time.

...and the way the world looks
we may be out of time!

of course
Time,

WillTell

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

The argument seems to have descended into baseless name-calling.

I tried to resist name calling.
Really I did.

But yeah, I did go ahead and name God - Manuela.

If naming is the mother of all things : what is below, beyond, deeper, more essential, than the concept of 'God - Manuela' ?

Now that we are certain of our existence with accepting my No. 1 step, namely:


"1. You and I and he she it, we all exist, do you accept that?" (Answer = Yes)



Please posters here, now study my No. 2 step in resolving the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, okay?

"2. You and I and he she it, we came from our parents, do you accept that?"



Whether you accept No. 2 or not, take the honest intelligent productive task to EXPLAIN why yes or why no.

.

a reply to: Nothin

I don't know.

ETA

Wait. I have to look at this closer.

If naming is the mother of all things : what is below, beyond, deeper, more essential, than the concept of 'God - Manuela' ?

deeper than the concept.
the reality itself.
Herself

These two have the same origin but differ in name.
That is the secret, the secret of secrets, the gate to all mysteries.

Now if I were to discard the graffiti
and

I would have to change the definition of ()
() would have the same origin
() and Manuela together
neither without the other
not the same
two together
like married
but only the one knowable

something like that.

a reply to: pthena

Me neither.

Wouldn't 'pointing' to it, naming it 'Herself' : still be 'naming' concepts ?

a reply to: Nothin

Wouldn't 'pointing' to it, naming it 'Herself' : still be 'naming' concepts ?

Not exactly ?
I added some more.

Maybe thinking is thinking and 'naming' is interacting.
yeah, that sounds good.

ETA

Naming is an act; a transaction.
generic names for things are abstractions.
Giving a proper name to an individual is a recognition of the concrete reality.
------------------------
My late Katy K did not always have the name Katy K
I called her kitty.
but she didn't mind
because she knew that I wasn't calling anyone else kitty.

That's why I didn't have more than one kitty.
Life was simple.

a reply to: pthena

Perhaps as 'placeholder' names ?
Might all names be : 'placeholder' names ?

( Recalling the post yesterday, by Itisnowagain, about how we are word-junkies, and how we have come to believe in words, and think that names describe perfectly the concept that has been named. )

Is not thinking : conceptualizing ? Naming ? ( Creating a 'thing' ? )

Below, beyond, deeper, more essential, than the concept; than conception and perception; than interpretation ?

a reply to: Nothin

Let me find something to quote:

Itisnowagain wrote:

This is a fundamental mistake, due to the fact that ALL experience is in actuality an infinite, constantly changing, non-repeating, indefinable (in any final way), unpatterned field of miraculously appearing Radiantly Present "energies" existing nowhere else than IN experience, perceived by unknowable, miraculously appearing "consciousness". But our use of words implies that objects and actions may actually exist in the way we refer to them, as knowable, definable objectively existing "beings", "things" and "situations".

This is actually NOT the case.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is not thinking : conceptualizing ? Naming ? ( Creating a 'thing' ? )

No. The naming is not the creating.

Each of those three girls who persuaded me to go into their apartment is a separate being, even that morning when they woke up.

Did I name them?
No.

Did we experience without naming?
Yes.

Whether I name them, or the experience is not relevant to the reality of that night.



That quote from Itisnowagain was him quoting Peter Brown.

That story vaguely told actually proves the point that words convey an approximation of transference of experience. The image that the story elicits in your mind, no doubt, bears no resemblance to what is in my memory/mind.

I'll have to think about this more.

What is man that God is mindful of him?

a reply to: Nothin

Below, beyond, deeper, more essential, than the concept; than conception and perception; than interpretation ?

I will quote Peter Brown:

Finally in a quiet moment in 1997, recovering from cancer at the time, on a sunny February afternoon, sitting alone in my living room, a tiny opening of realization gently flowed into appearance, the entire universe fractally crystalizing around it in instantaneous virtual ripples, eating all separation, all event, even all Being, into absolute indescribable Radiance, of me/it/everything/nothing laughing/crying/wonder, as it ever was and ever will be...

The accumulation of perspectives that were acquired over the course of all that (unnecessary?) exploration of traditional philosophies enables me to correlate ideas from within those traditions, when useful, in the context of a more direct, pragmatic, non-jargon-laden presentation of the direct discovery of the mystery of what YOU are, that I have named the Yoga of Radiant Presence.
www.theopendoorway.org...

a tiny opening of realization gently flowed into appearance,

Here he is having a direct experience, a vision.

the entire universe fractally crystalizing around it in instantaneous virtual ripples,

This is his attempt at describing the vision.

eating all separation, all event, even all Being, into absolute indescribable Radiance, of me/it/everything/nothing laughing/crying/wonder, as it ever was and ever will be...

This is his interpretation, put into words.

Each step is a step removed from the experience/vision itself.

The experience/vision is a seeing as a picture the accumulation of 20 odd years of direct experience and experience of study.

I would say that the reality is the 20 years of experience. And there is no way for that 20 years to be transferred into someone else's mind/memory.

His attempt to teach to others provide a link-back, feed-back, which redefines, reorganizes the 20 years, the vision, the description, and interpretation. Linking intensifies. Exaggerates.

Hyperbolic language serves an important function when it comes to communicating. Speak hyperbolically and maybe the normal actually gets across.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

What is man that God is mindful of him?

Just one of those things.