Why do you hate God /leftpol/?
Why do you hate God /leftpol/?
Holla Forums despite common belief is not a totality.
Have a good day.
that's okay, you don't have to speak for everyone. Why do you, specifically, hate God?
I just do, nothin' doin'
God hates us to.
How do I hate something that doesn't exist?
He's sucking our souls and imprisoning us in this material reality.
You deny existence itself?
God clearly does not like us very much.
Your god is a dick.
Why, because he doesn't let you have everything you want?
Not so fast
Because the worldwide revolution did not happen already.
If God is real he could clearly provide us with everything he wanted, yet chooses not to.
I did not agree to be tested, if that's what you're defense is.
That's the Other, the God of the Old Testament, of Islam and Christianity.
If God existed, he would have to be destroyed
He dragged me into this existence without my consent and then has the nerve to demand that I kiss his ass. Fuck you and your shitty god.
YHWH is a fucking porky
A wife-beating, child-molesting, woman-hating, sexually-sadistic porky at that.
You believe you could do a better job? or that in principle it is somehow possible to do a better job?
seems simple given omnipotence
It is very much possible.
so remove free will then? what would be the point?
If I was omnipotent and omniscient? You're goddamn right I could do a better job with my hands tied behind my back. At least I wouldn't create a universe where people would suffer without having some way of guaranteeing them an afterlife, or at least giving them some direct knowledge of my presence.
I don't… except the Abrahamic god. Fuck that guy.
Become a Gnostic. :^)
I'm not a monotheist
Remove mortality. Let adam and eve eat from both trees.
Because there is no other possible logic than to hate him for his tyranny, should he exist. The form he tries to portray, a being both all powerful, yet personal, a being who will do everything and has done everything and is doing everything, yet somehow allows free will, a being who must sustain himself with the ritual sacrifice of himself to himself to cleanse humanity of the "sin" of knowledge, even a child could see these contradictions.
I do not give my devotion to this tyrant Demiurge. I worship the infinite spirit, and spirit alone, for in there is the potential for real power.
How can I hate something that doesn't real?
Why does free will require suffering?
Does free will justifying allowing genocides and wars?
why not remove free will temporarily when someone decides to do something horrible?
Are we simply here to humor God's love of free will?
Are we in a zoo?
Don't you get omnipotence? It literally means he can create any kind of world. He could created an Earth with a marshmallow surface, ending famine forever, and leave your spooky free will intact, yet he chose not to.
This is what you believe in, btw.
Yes, and God is watching you when you poop or masturbate.
This tbh. Stuff makes a lot more sense when you come to the realization that YHWH is a space demon.
It's true though, namefag
To those with gnostic aspirations, I think you will find this text rather enlightening. If you can get passed the faux-gothic font, that is.
Edgy luciferian theosophy has little to do with actual Gnosticism.
Why is there so much Gnosticism shilling in this thread? I don't have anything against it mind you, but is it just one autist or do we actually have a sizable Gnostic population on this board?
Why not just believe in Hinduism, stop going through the phase every dark and edgy teenager goes through where they tell their mom "I'm a gnostic now" or later in life "Yeah, I dabbled in the occult"
Nobody cares. You'll just jump to the next conclusion anyways.
It's teenagers who think they discovered something deep.
Because Hinduism is reactionary as fuck.
So is Gnosticism.
gnosticism is kind of cool but i dont actually believe it
On the contrary, the recognition of Satan as present in the hearts of all men is an important step on the path to gnosis. "Satan" is merely the designation for the enemy of the Demiurge, and the Demiurge would seek to have us shut out entirely what leads man to innovate and have knowledge in the first place (original sin). Thus, taking up the mantle of "Satanism" not only aids in the psychological aspect of separating yourself from tyranny, but also extends into the spiritual.
You are, of course, free to label things as you please and to believe this all to be "edgy", and follow a more tepid variation if it suits you, I will not object.
Depends on its context. Any sort of immenentized eschatology, be it Marxism, Nazism or some other utopian project is on some level Gnostic. That's Voegelin's argument, anyway.
This is the most bullshit thing I've ever read thanks
I don't hate what doesn't exist
But from your low position, without omniscience, you deign to judge God.
As far as direct knowledge of His existence, what is life? Every instant you're receiving tons sensory information, and it's all real information. it comes from reality, i.e. There is a source. How do you even go about disbelieving in that? Or are you just one of those autists who just doesn't like the word "God"?
Why not have a gay knock-off version of free will, rather than the actual ability to effect change in the world? Hmm, I don't know if I can help you there.
Don't you get omniscience?
Never thought I'd live to see the day that there's a worse tripfag than Rebel on Holla Forums
dont bully her
why do you value free will so highly
wrong reply, my bad
OPIUM OF THE MASSES PASSING THRU
I like being alive, I'd rather not be a painting.
Lel, are you implying that God knows the limitations of creation, ergo can't create a world without hunger? That means he can't be omnipotent.
Liberation theology is bad fucking ass. Otherwise the history of early Christianity was one of poor Roman plebs trying to find salvation and purpose in some of the worst conditions for Rome in its history–WITHOUT trying to change things for themselves. Religion should be a personal choice, but too many times has religion and its institutions been used to pacify or oppress individuals.
Religious comrades will be welcome, although I honestly can't say the same about all forms of religious institutions now.
When you get offended someone disagrees with you that everything is fucking Gnosticism
What do you call a person who believes that nonspecific god/gods probably exists, but who does not think they are worth worshiping?
You could have free will in all things that dont cause suffering
Do you really need the ability to murder and rape people?
What makes you so sure we have free will now anyway?
How can I hate what doesn't real?
I don't agree with Voegelin's assessment, i.e. that everything is Gnostcism, as you put it. Regardless, Gnosticism should serve as an interesting intellectual curio to any Marxist if only because of the amount of reactionaries that have historically been drawn to it both positively and negatively. Why are you trying to drown it out of the conversation with your shitty trip?
lel no, it's not about limits of creation, its what he freely chooses to do, in the full light of all knowledge, of which you are not privy to and are therefore presumptuous to think you can judge.
Do I need it? This seems a pointless question, I want it, and God graced me with it.
Again, why make free will if you're going to neuter it and put up guard rails around every causal chain that leads where some communist fag doesn't like? It defeats the whole point. I agree He could've made a shitty elder scrolls world where you cant kill quest characters. Praise be that he didn't.
So your God freely chose to be a dick and let people suffer and I can't judge this because God is the best thing ever.
well isn't that convenient, and yet we must still suffer for the sake of this knowledge of which we are not privy
Nice non answer.
Why believe in the Christian god instead of any other? There's the same amount of evidence (ie none) and some of them are less restrictive
Where is this familiar from? Oh, wait, I know!
Daddy just punished me today. I was a bad boy. I don't really understand why he punished me, but daddy knows best! I deserved it.
yes actually. This is clearing up so much about leftist psychology for me. You want a world where you can eat chocolate bars forever and ever. Big daddy God is a big meanie because he won't let you.
Even if God exists, he is not part of my ego and therefore is infinitely less important than me.
I adore your masochism. Keep collecting those good boy points!
You think everyone who complains is some spoiled little shit and that no complaint is legitimate enough? Why don't you say that to someone dying of lgs, or living with brain damange. Go fuck yourself.
keep banging your head against the wall.
How could you possibly know what complaints are and are not legitimate? You aren't omniscient.
How to "win" a debate, Christian-style:
You say X? But you aren't omniscient!
Neither are you, you have no right to judge.
Reading the gnostic texts will probably actually do you guys some good. God isn't some dude. God is THE ONE. God is REALITY. You are literally arguing that reality is somehow not up to some standard set by some asshole in some small corner of it who can't see beyond his computer screen.
Do you not see how you are ontologically lower than ALL OF BEING, being a small subset of it? Do you not see how a subset cannot possibly judge a superset?
Who have I judged?
That candy remark was pretty judgmental.
We are atheists mostly here and don't have time for your theological shit. The ontology of the One is reactionary hogwash, tbh. Why not read proper philosophy instead?
I'm not a worshiper of gods, but I find Gnosticism infinitely more interesting than Vanilla Christianity and I wish it took it's place as the baseline western religion. That'd be an interesting alternate present history novel, actually.
Why should I worship reality?
What makes reality God and not just particles and forces ?
Why is the universe so opinionated?
meh, I stand by it. God is infinitely huger than our concerns.
I would be interested to hear how you define theological shit, reactionary hogwash, and proper philosophy.
I honestly can hardly tell the difference between Christianity and Gnosticism. Christianity is just the variant of Gnosticism that became canon.
I never said anything about worship, and I don't really think about it in the way you probably think. But the unity of existence does have implications that affect my behaviour.
It's a matter of metaphysical framing, which you can never escape when doing philosophy, and metaphysically, a single principle is more elegant than a multitude.
I don't think the universe is opinionated outside of it's human bits.
I don't actually know the differences myself, just gnostics have way kookier/more interesting lore. It's like Lord of the RIngs, and Dark Souls, 'n shiet.
What's so edgy about denying vatican?
Are you reactionary christian porky?
if you redefine god so much why even call it god
You should check out some of the apocryphal gospels. Its interesting from the mythic perspective, archetypes and evolved stories, etc. They were basically an esoteric literary clique that wanted to meme the perfect man into existence. Heavily influenced by Plato and the Stoics.
God is bigger than definitions, its inevitable that language will skew and fall short when trying to talk about the infinite. But I honestly don't know what you're referring to and I don't believe I have contradicted myself, but point out where if you think I have.
Some aspects of Hinduism are pretty kvlt admittedly.
Free will doesn't exist. Not in the way you mean. Pretending that the existence of a higher more ultimate authority in the sky isn't absurd and that he is omniscient (knows everything) then he knew the exact outcome of what he created, yet chose to create it anyway. You might make "choices" but because that god knowingly controlled the events that led to you making that choice it was gods choice not yours. All he proposed is that god could have created people who weren't shit. Your religion is a fantasy no different than that of a trans person. I respect you right to live it but I will not indulge you.
Remove God from any religion and it becomes a lot more relatable and interesting. If you ignore all the theological aspects of the Bible, it becomes, local man fights for the emancipation of the common people in a patriarchal society based on an omnipotent God figure. He helps those in need, not because he has to, but because he can. You could interpret Jesus' claim to be the son of God as subversion. Just look at the message and how it changed from the Torah to the Bible. It goes from, worship God or die. To, help your neighbour. It is almost as if Jesus tells us that you don't need God as long as you help the people close to you. Why do you need to pray to some phoney God if you can work together to improve material conditions instead. Jesus even wanted to bring down the established religion which acted as an institution of oppression.
I don't care if you want to believe in God. Just remember that God has been used as a tool of oppression not only if Europe but in almost every corner of the world. Therefore it is usually better to remove religion. An alternative would be to only remove religious institutions. So that their greed won't the corrupt religion any longer.
S T O P
Read theology fam, If you remove god from the picture you don't end up with the truth, you end up in superstition, you lose the line between the world of the cosmic and the material
When this line between the cosmic and material go away, the material negate in a effect becoming the god to be worshiped, the state will be your new god to which you pay the debt of safe existence to.
Where do I start Islamposter? I am an atheist, but I have many religious friends and want to talk them out of classcuckery.
I don't hate a concept I see as largely useful/neutral that represents something other than the thing it claims to be based on.
What "God" represents is the collective moral beliefs of people. It of course feeds right back into the young and morphs the ideas and hopes for some but it is mostly the ideals of individual humans.
Atheism? I see as misguided. Atheism is like the antifa of religion. It gets reactionary to hardcore religionists and otherwise inspires fervent beliefs of its own. Any "God" written about and described by humans won't be anything near a real thing that might be "God", of course. All religions can't be true and it is just as likely the major religions are just as false as some minor ones.
Atheists though are a curious creature. If I don't believe in government as a thing and statism as a goal and answer then I don't go around writing angry rants about how stupid people are who enjoy paying taxes and think government is ideal and good and necessary. I simply avoid interacting with it and resist it whenever I can. So a pragmatic atheist would act good in a way that doesn't necessitate a belief in a deity. Instead quite a few atheists get vocal and attack religionists. For what purpose? It just gives bad feels all around and doesn't solve practical issues.
religion is the opiate of the masses
t. garl margs
have you even read anything about the concept?
I think the proletariat of the 19th century would like a word with you. If your material needs aren't fulfilled, you will die. The entire point of anarchism and communism is not to worship the state. It is to create a commune/state in which our material needs are fulfilled. You don't need a God to have a connection with the cosmos. The reason God has no place in communism is because God is a being/existence above humans. Humans can't be equal to God, so there is no point to believe in such a cosmic being. It would be more beneficial to believe in a human consciouses, which cosmically binds all of us together. Or go beyond that and believe that the universe is tied together with a consciousness.
Catholic "socialist in denial" theology
Humanist materialist theology
These are my favs
Thank you famrade.
Enough to know that you're putting a spook on an altar, so your autonomy is compromised.
He's provided no reason for me to like him - and if he exists (which, there is no reason to think he does), he has produced an incredibly vile world for which I am supposed to navigate. To be thankful or approving of such a being would to be a slave.
What if the spook is believing "things just happen lol" ?
Descartes' Evil Demon
Because things don't "just happen". I'm not the one shoehorning God into gaps in human knowledge.God as a phenomenological experience is one thing, thinking your phenomenological experience created the universe is a spook.
Fuck off. Don't try to evangelize us, shitposter. I hate your kind in real life enough.
Then what is the point in believing in God? We can't comprehend it, so why even bother believing in it at all? If we can't understand God, how do we understand his will? What is the point?
If God is the universe itself, then why should we worship it? That would mean we are part of God. So why worship ourselves.
If God created the universe, then why should we worship it? He has shown to not interfere at all. Why worship something which won't listen.
If God does interfere, then it seems like prayers won't work at all. Why bother praying or believing?
Is it because you want entry to heaven. Is it because you want to believe in something greater than lowly humans. Is it because your life is so shallow that you can't go on without God. Is it because not believing in God makes you depressed. Is it because you want to be part of something greater.
Instead of lying to yourself, and laughing at others, try to come to terms with your beliefs, instead of ridiculing others.
I haven't ever heard a good rebuttal to this, any religionfag want to argue against it?
What if something created the universe?
Most people can't comprehend a lot of rather decades old knowledge. Should they "disbelieve" it?
Why are there still people on this board that try to reconcile their retarded and ancient spooks with socialism?
Now you are just being sneaky and take my words out of context. This isn't the same as people not being able to comprehend electrodynamics so we should stop making electronic equipment.
If you want to believe go ahead. But don't go and act like religion is a science based on deduction. We can't comprehend why gravity works. But we can still measure its effects daily. The fact that we stand on this earth proofs it. That isn't the same as an individual experiencing God. Since there are plenty who aren't experiencing God.
I'm only having a discussion with you.
Something being extremely difficult to fully understand does not mean the attempt should not be made.
Then how would you go about understanding it? Would you do it as a scientist? The point of faith is to believe in something, not to proof it. And so far there has not been anything pointing towards a true God. As in either a being, spirit, consciousness, the universe or whatever else you might image it as.
Even if you would claim that the universe is God. It would still be pointless. If the universe is God or not, makes no difference. Since it doesn't interact with us actively. You might as well call a rock God. No one would care because the rock doesn't interact with us.
I might be biased. I think that the universe, our planet, the animals and everything else was created by some insane odds. I think that is the beauty of nature. That everything up to this point has been the product of chance within the bounds of natural laws.
How did natural laws come about?
What if unicorns created the universe?
Do you have a point?
And this why no one likes discussing these subjects. You just answered a question with a question. If you don't know, then just say so. There are things you can't prove because of our current conditions. Certain natural laws are one of them. We aren't smart enough to understand them. What most people do is just call it Gods work. But isn't that is just ignorant? Even if it was Gods work, how would you prove that it was Gods work? If you can't and still claim it to be Gods work, it is called faith.
Simple natural laws are based on physical properties of matter. Which then can be understood by examining how that matter consists of and how it is formed. Problem is that we can't recreate the early universe, so we have no way of testing how matter came to be. We might find out in the future. But claiming that it was God before having proof is just lame.
No man is capable of "proving" anything, numb nuts. We can only crudely convey vague ideas using language to put forth theories we think are in the right based on our reason. Your sense of logic doesn't lead you to believe natural law is evidence for a Supreme Being? Cool, others disagree.
Answer the question or play somewhere else.
No one likes discussing these subjects because socrates is hated and envied?
What are physical properties of matter? How did those come about?
Do you have proof there was an early universe? Can you be sure? I think the universe is eternal and so far the big bang theory has too many holes and "we cant ever see the beginning but just trust me" isn't an argument.
i only hate leftypol mods
Honestly pretty sure ancient people just did a bunch of Mushrooms and Weed and explained the experiences through religion.
Some evidence for this as tribal shamanistic religions openly use psychedelics. So it's not hard to see how something started as Shamanistic tripping fucking balls, then those experiences got turned into actual religious doctrine as the religion grew into organized social structure. Suddenly Ezekiel or whatever is seeing god who's a giant fucking mass of eyes and a flaming foetus or whatever is a heavenly vision that god imposed on him, just ignore Ezekiel was probably on 5 grams of Shrooms and a fucktonne of Khat and Weed.
That was the entire point. You can't prove anything. So why bother believing in a God? No one has explained why they believe in a God.
Nonsense. I stuck with Gnosticism and dabble in Hellenism now.
Plenty to appreciate about Pan and Dionysus.
Whom wants a sermon?
Honestly, Satan was the good guy all along.
If it weren't for Satan, we would all be clueless plebs.
I'll stay, and answer my question
What does it have to do with anything?
It's a wild tangent.
You misunderstood me. I wasn't making any concession to your non-argument, I was pointing out the total inability of anyone to describe, understand, or explain anything at all objectively. Re-read my post.
Did you even read my last post at all?
To quote Ken Ham- there's a book!
In a lot of ways we owe weed to the Scythians, but intoxicants are older than cities, and were apart of all the first cities.
Ken Ham is retarded
You just insulted retards and the vary concept of backwards. Ken Ham is a subhuman contrarian fuck.
And if you press him on a question- he'll point to a book. And he gets away with it because it's the only book people are conditioned to be sad when they admit they'll never read it.
Humans interact with everything through light interactions. If we push something it is photon interactions created by the electromagnetic forces between our atoms, and those of the object we push. If we can see something, it is the photons send from the object which hit our eyes. When we think it is the electromagnetic impulses in our brain. Even how we perceive time is based on photons (special and general relativity) Our entire world is based on what we can feel and see through the fundamental forces. This is our reality. Which means that if we use equipment which measures these interactions of electrons and photons, while only looking at the numbers these machines give us. This should give an objective data of the reality we observe. The interpretation might be up for debate. If the data doesn't change and it is consistent for all humans it should be objective. The only argument which would disprove this is that all humans are fooled by illusions ala Descartes style. But if that is the case, that would still be our own reality. We just wouldn't be able to observe how the real reality is.
The entire point was that we can't interact with God, if it even exists. Which makes him absolutely pointless. The only reason you should believe in God is if it gives you leverage in life. But to force it upon others for no good reason is stupid.
We can observe the early universe with telescopes. Since light travels at a set speed, looking at an object will always show you what the object looked like in the past, because the light which traveled needed time to reach us. Which means we can see objects which are approximately 13 billion years old. Everything about star and galaxy formation is consistent with what we can see from 13 billion years ago, and with the big bang theory. Whether you want to accept what we can see with our own eyes is up to you.
I don't, but my (limited) understanding of god is vastly different from that of Abrahamics.
It's dissapointing when everyone arguing against a concept believes the other people arguing for a concept necessarily believe it. It is shameful when those people then ad hominem instead of extending the development of the discussion.
No. We literally can not.
This is an assumption.
You can't discern which light is 13 billion years old and which is 13 million years old.
Nor have you or any physicist shown how you could prove what interacted with that light in the many millions of years it has existed on its trajectory, assuming as well that you could prove little or nothing interacted with it. We know gravity bends even light.
What is consistent with what?
Everything is a strong word.
You assume 13 billion years ago, again.
Non sequitur, do you know what that is?
You are taking this way too serious. You keep dancing around the point and keep insisting that what I mentioned is incongruent with my point. Yes, only the last second of the early universe can be observed as the cosmic microwave background. But that gives scientists enough information on how conditions were back then. Everything is an assumption based on what we can see and measure. That was my entire point. Not that something is 100% truth for beings which perceive higher than us, however, if something is the truth from a human perspective. And if you don't think you can approximate the universe to be 13 billion years old. Then could you at least give a reason to why you think so.
You're assuming that the cosmic microwave background is actually "the early universe".
Are you sure it is?
I don't adhere to religion. Were we havng a pretend non serious discussion?
No actually. All things we measure need some assumptions first so we can go and measure what we assume.
When we assume as the a priori and then have no proof for assuming this and no way to prove the assumption - we can't get truth from that.
Then you will need to reaxamine your beliefs. That is what you called them right? Because you are just trusting what others tell you to be true. You may even rationalize that they study it and there are smarter people than you trying to help you and giving you truth. Those are numerous assumptions. That smart people must be right perhaps? That "smart" people can find objective truths better than you? Have you done the studying yourself to any degree to even be sure that they do approach truth and not that some science is instead suffering from dogmatic beliefs based on magical thinking?
It seems much more plausible to be eternal. This obsession with everything having a beginning and end and a defined timeline is a sickness. I offer you the cure, many have cured themselves without help.
Wait, Minh is a girl? Nice, now I can be sexist to a girl guilt-free.
Hey Hoochie, I want to lick you
It was an unavoidable lesser evil of the time AT BEST. And as soon as the "liberation theologists" got into power after the fall of the roman empire, they made the most oppressive and violently expansive religions the world has ever seen, and that laid the foundations for the development of capitalism.
We still struggle with undoing the shit that resulted from 'liberation theology'.
How are you so sure that god didn't make you want free will?
because i dont have free will to begin with
the idea of free will is theological
Actually I want a world where I can eat a chocolate bar every once in a while and not feel like a piece of shit because everyone else that wants it can also eat a chocolate bar every once in a while.
God is too vague, paradoxical, and poorly defined concept to even understand. I can't even get to atheism, because I don't know what it is to be a theist
I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors
But I think that God's got a sick sense of humor
What about accidental observations made during experiments?
That is why you make assumptions which can be proven. The rest is speculation and can be proven to be false.
I get that you like to LARP as a free-spirited thinker, however, there is no benefit in creating dogmatic beliefs in the field of cosmology. There are also scientists who share the belief that the universe is eternal based on the same data. Does that mean you have dogmatic beliefs as well? At college, we had to do the calculation, so maybe that isn't undogmatic enough for you. The calculation is based on the Friedman equation which is derived from Einstein's general relativity. The estimation holds if laws of nature weren't different before the Planck time. If the laws worked differently before the Planck time and entropi isn't valid then the universe might be eternal. Yet you make it sound like time is eternal based on your feelings.
Why do you hate the boogyman? oh wait, you dont because he doesnt exist. Same bro.
Were there assumptions made to calibrate those instruments?
WELCOME TO THE WHACK A SPOOK CHALLENGE!
IF YOU WHACK ENOUGH SPOOKS YOU WILL CONSUME THE UNIVERSE TRHOUGH YOUR EGO
What a meme artist you are. Can't even make an argument against my thoughts so you try to ad hominem.
You'll have to try harder than repeating dogmatic beliefs
weak/no father figure causes rejection of all masculine authority, including God
No, I am serious. I have difficulty telling if half of what you typing is bait or not. Especially since you don't actually back up your own points. Not only that, but you keep on harping about minor things which no one cares to address when trying to have a focused discussion on an imageboard.
If I hypothetically had to write a paper on cosmology, then I could draw one or more conclusions based on the assumptions I made. If the assumption is wrong, then my conclusion is obviously wrong. However, I would argue why I made the assumptions in the first place. Someone else could argue for a different set of assumptions and arrive at a different conclusion. The only way this premise would be wrong. Is if the assumptions are based on faulty logic.
This can only occur if our current models are wrong. I am aware that it is a possibility. Especially when making claims regarding cosmology. Claiming otherwise is dogmatic. However, as I mentioned writing something in the line of: (this claim is only right if our current understanding is right, and if it isn't then I am sorry and please don't think that I don't know that it might be wrong, but this is what I believe) every time you make a statement on an imageboard, which isn't even science related is annoying.
Because I am God.
I think this explanation is only part of it. Religion and spirituality seem to be something inherent in someone. Plenty of people are raised in an ultra-religious setting and it just never sticks, while others are raised with no religion and end up an insane cultist. Every atheist I've talked to (including me) seems to just not "feel" religion, they don't "get" belief or faith, like being born color blind or something. Religious people who will let me question them in depth believe no matter what. Even if they fully admit the bible is bullshit and accept all of modern science, they can't quite stop the feeling of something "greater" out there. It wouldn't surprise me if spirituality was a consequence of nature selecting humans for abstract problem solving and imagination, and experiences like drugs and bizarre natural phenomena (quakes, volcanoes, ball lightning, weird rare animals, etc.) were just compound the natural feelings.
The Kybalion is probably a good place to start. It starts with the explanation that the all is one and lays out some implications of that.
One major hurdle i guess is the meme classificstion words of philosophy, like "monotheism"and or this definition of God as "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent" which is like the featherless biped of theology. Philosophy cant seem to agree on anything except that everything should be subordinate to philosophy. Understanding that everything is subordinate to the all is the beginning of religion.
It is quite annoying in fact when people claim that we know 100% that the big bang theory must be true because we have no 100% true alternative. Isn't it? And that is what every pro big bang theory argument boils down to.
Now correct me if I am wrong.
Assuming something is 100% true because it is the best explanation you have right now is a very deadly philosophy to actually figuring out trueness and reality.
Very good perspective, I would reiterate that point about something like color blindness. I've thought about that many times like do people really "feel" a God presence. Most intelligent and not insane theists will tell me indeed they can't say that they "feel" a creator with any special certainty. They believe there must be something more and they choose to accept a particular theology because it makes sense to them.
They almost sound like atheists when they speak so rationally. There is no extra bond they feel as if it was something that is just there. They perceive God through nature and the theology and of course they attribute the warmth of human compassion to God somehow.
If there was such a feeling, compared to color blindness, where people could perceive God, then there would be better words to describe what it is the rest of us are missing.
Going from one topic to another, is a wild tangent.
But I love God.
Why should he? Do you have any idea how utterly insignificant Earth is in the universe?
Something creating the universe is neither "wild" whatever that means (elitist who considers themselves "civilized" detected) nor is it a tangent to religion.
I agree on both your statements.
Thanks user. It feels good to be home.
I don't. I'm a vaishnav. Not pajeet tho. It's a very leftist, if conservative, philosophy.
This is dumb. God could have created a human race that would have been tremendously more inclined towards peace and love than violence. Compare bonobos and chimpanzees. Altering the way hormones and your brain works does not remove your free will. Regardless, diseases and other natural suffering has nothing to do with humans at all and is just random cruelty.
No, religion has never really played a part in my life so I have no emotional attatchment to it, and after my edgy 13 yr old atheist phase I just dont think about god unless it's bought up.
Having a close friend who is religiois but not religous (you know the type) and hearing their experiances with it though, I totally get why a lot of people bought up with it dont completely abandon the faith, even though they might live as if there were atheists barring church every Sunday, which they mainly enjoy for the community rather than anything else.
If you're here to convince us though, it's quite simple - why should we believe?
I can't bring myself to believe the Christian thing. Probably if there is a God he is nothing we can imagine.
These are galaxies, we can see 2000 billion plus.
Dear lord, he doesn't know what a "wild tangent" is.
Even if something created the universe, there's no reason to worship it or even proclaim it as God. If unicorns created the universe, would you call them God just because they were able to do it?
Why do you think knowing a God exists requires worship?
good for you for applying Hindu metaphysics rigamarole to christian doctrine
I also know plenty of imaginary friends
hinduism is buddhism without the gayness.
Still shit though
If there was no scripture of any kind, and you couldn't tell the person about God, how would you recommend they discover that a person, loving God exists?
There is no way to learn anything about any aspect of God without relying on second-hand sources. This makes the entire foundation that faith is built upon pretty shaky.
This means trying to understand anything about God is actually pointless and will ultimately lead nowhere. And some of the claims were true, there would be no way to verify it and no actually results to be gained from knowing.
I will not bow for any supposed "god".
I can't watch that show because of that cunt's fucking face
Fucking chuuni bullshit
It turned me off too for a bit, but I sort of get used to it after a little bit.
Don't be ridiculous. I am god. In fact, you don't even exist.
why would i waste time hateing something that does not exist