Atheism meant the belief of no god

[sameandnot]

What is the God that you love with all your heart and soul? what do you love, is my question? something, and not other things, some people but not other people, some religion, but not other religions? do you love something called God, but is divided, and therefore limited? can God be anything less than everything? perhaps even everything puts a limit on God, for maybe He is greater than everything. What then is That? Rade, Arrow, group? please help dissolve these misunderstanding with me.

 

[sameandnot]

can God be defined by a name, a definition, a word, a form, an idea? is your love such that it transcends these definitions? anything less would surely limit God, would it not?

 

[Rade]

What is the God that you love with all your heart and soul? what do you love, is my question? something, and not other things, some people but not other people, some religion, but not other religions? do you love something called God, but is divided, and therefore limited? can God be anything less than everything? perhaps even everything puts a limit on God, for maybe He is greater than everything. What then is That? Rade, Arrow, group? please help dissolve these misunderstanding with me.

This is a good question, e.g., what is the "love of God" as understood by the "law" that Jesus mentions in my post above. Recall that when asked who it was, God said "just call me I AM". I hold this to mean that God = Existence. Thus to say one should love God, it is the same as saying one should love existence, and that you should love it with all your heart and soul for the simple reason that there is nothing else to love. But we can go further, we can also hold that there are only two ways to love any existent, (1) from inside the thing, and (2) from outside. And here we get to the point of the saying by Jesus, to love others (those outside self) as self (love of self); that is, in order to have comprehensive love, one must love all that exists, including one self (and note the difficult part of the philosophy, one also then must love those that hate them). Finally, as to your question, is God perhaps greater than everything (e.g., all that exists) ? Perhaps, but I do not see that it logically follows. Why must there be more than all that exists, limits as to alpha and omega ? --it is not clear to me in this philosophy of Jesus that anything is outside these limits or that such limits exist. Perhaps it is just that the purpose of existence is to continue to exist, and this then is the "concept" that humans "define" as being "God".

 

[sameandnot]

This is a good question, e.g., what is the "love of God" as understood by the "law" that Jesus mentions in my post above. Recall that when asked who it was, God said "just call me I AM". I hold this to mean that God = Existence. Thus to say one should love God, it is the same as saying one should love existence, and that you should love it with all your heart and soul for the simple reason that there is nothing else to love. But we can go further, we can also hold that there are only two ways to love any existent, (1) from inside the thing, and (2) from outside. And here we get to the point of the saying by Jesus, to love others (those outside self) as self (love of self); that is, in order to have comprehensive love, one must love all that exists, including one self (and note the difficult part of the philosophy, one also then must love those that hate them). Finally, as to your question, is God perhaps greater than everything (e.g., all that exists) ? Perhaps, but I do not see that it logically follows. Why must there be more than all that exists, limits as to alpha and omega ? --it is not clear to me in this philosophy of Jesus that anything is outside these limits or that such limits exist. Perhaps it is just that the purpose of existence is to continue to exist, and this then is the "concept" that humans "define" as being "God".

If God is, as was said, Existence... how can there be a distinction between inside and outside the self? is god inside or outside? this is not an "and/or" situation, i am suggesting. the distinction is an error of the mind... we agree? for if god is All then that which I refer to as "i" is also That. can "I" be both God and not God? It and not It. remember that we are talking about what "I" am, so we must acknowlege what "I" am not... namely a body/mind/ego.

interesting that whenever there is the identification with the body or the mind, the ego is there, permeating. so it is said that the body/mind is not Real, but then, that it is not really unreal. I may propose that the errors of the mind are the fruit of the seed of ignorance (ego), which is the identification of the "Self" with the body/mind. that is to say that it is the root of erroneous knowledge/belief. without Knowing the Self, how can any subsequent "knowledge" be credible?

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

We are all born atheist as are dogs and trees and rocks. Until we choose to believe in the existence of 'God', (whatever that is), we remain atheist.

 

[Rade]

If God is, as was said, Existence... how can there be a distinction between inside and outside the self? is god inside or outside? this is not an "and/or" situation, i am suggesting. the distinction is an error of the mind... we agree? for if god is All then that which I refer to as "i" is also That. can "I" be both God and not God? It and not It. remember that we are talking about what "I" am, so we must acknowlege what "I" am not... namely a body/mind/ego.

You lost me. All I am saying is that any single existent [a], that is, a subset [a] of God {= a to infinity, e.g., existence}, can love in only two ways (1) internal to [a] and (2) external to [a]. There are no other logical possibilities. Thus, to answer your first question, God (existence) is both inside [a] and outside [a], but our "knowledge" of what is inside and outside differs, that is, each [a] knows that it exists via processes of the mind (ps, I happen to have an unconventional view that it is the existential moment that provides such knowledge to [a] that it exists), but has uncertaintain knowledge (e.g., < 100 %) that anything exists outside [a].
And yes, I agree that God must be both "i" and "I", however, clearly "I" cannot both be God (existence) and non-God (non-existence) at the same time--this conclusion leads to a logical contradiction and thus must be rejected. To attempt to answer your last question...what the "I" is, is a very small (think # 1) subset of God, a subset of a larger existence that some folks call "God" other folks (me for example) call "existence". As to "what you as [a] are not", you are not "non-existence", what more does any human need to know. For if [a] in fact exists, then must logically follow the axiom "existence exists".

 

[Orefa]

In place of a full definition of what God would be, I find it sufficient to pick a few pre-requisites without which no entity would qualify to use the title (in my book):

1. All-Powerful: if you can't do it all, you don't qualify. As tough as you may be, if your abilities are limited then you're not tough enough to bear the big title.

2. All-Knowing: if you don't know, you don't qualify. You might be a "Q" entity from Star Trek but not God. Come to think of it, onmiscience sort of follows from omnipotence: if you're all-powerful then you can just give yourself omniscience.

3. Willful: if you have no intent, you don't qualify. You might be a force of nature that guides everything in the Universe, but I won't worship you. Why would I if it cannot influence you will? I might study you, but I won't call you God.

Then to decide if such a being can exist, we need to determine what it takes in order to exist. No full definition is needed here either, only a basic characteristic. In my book (again) you don't exist unless you have some sort of effect on something. The invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist for this reason: it doesn't affect reality. Gravity exists because it made me fall once, it had an effect. What is real matters. What doesn't matter is not real, it is not worthy of any consideration.

So can an omniscient, omnipotent willful being have an effect on reality?

If a being is able to implement its will, as God would have to be, then the plan must already be in motion. If the being is all-knowing as well then the plan is not going to change either: what could possibly change the mind of an omniscient? Once the universe has been created and set in motion then no further action is required for eternity. From the postulate of a creator who knew (omniscient) what it wanted (willful) and was capable of it (omnipotent) it follows that no further intervention is needed. Without the need for any further intervention the being has no effect, does not matter and therefore does not exist, if it once did.

I see no need to study "all" evidence, just to look at the pre-requisites and see if the concept is possible. Your own definitions may vary, and you may require more strictly mathematical derivations than the above, so you will have to do your own proofs or existence or non-existence. This one is what works for me.

 

[sameandnot]

In place of a full definition of what God would be, I find it sufficient to pick a few pre-requisites without which no entity would qualify to use the title (in my book):

1. All-Powerful: if you can't do it all, you don't qualify. As tough as you may be, if your abilities are limited then you're not tough enough to bear the big title.

2. All-Knowing: if you don't know, you don't qualify. You might be a "Q" entity from Star Trek but not God. Come to think of it, onmiscience sort of follows from omnipotence: if you're all-powerful then you can just give yourself omniscience.

3. Willful: if you have no intent, you don't qualify. You might be a force of nature that guides everything in the Universe, but I won't worship you. Why would I if it cannot influence you will? I might study you, but I won't call you God.

man! this is difficult! Orefa, what do you mean when you say "if you don't know, you don't qualify"? are you implying that god is some finite/bodily form that can know and do anything/everything? who is this "you" that you talk about? are you referring to some "human-like" being? some person, perhaps? do you see what i am saying? i think not but i will try to show you nonetheless.

it is apparent that you have anthropomorhised this "god-person". but when we talk about "god" are we talking about some "thing" inside the universe that, say, "throw the moon out to into space, and thereby play catch with Sirius?" do you see what i mean? is it some huge, brute, intellectual with infinite strength and knowledge?? someone whom you can walk up to and say, "hello, god... you sure are big and smart... do you think that you can take your big hand and cover the sun for a moment so that i may get some cool rest below this tree?" this is obviously rediculous, but the rediculousness only reflects the rediculousness of talking about and omnipotent "thing", without considering it first. i am not saying that you are rediculous, please do not think me rude, i am simply trying to reveal the abdurdity of the commonly held notion that god is some human with a grey beard sitting on cloud 9 (where ever that is) and controling everything, as a common human might. where is that "person"? do you see? what are we talking about when we say that it is "all power", "all knowing", "all goodness".

ALL POWER. all that is power... is the definition of "omnipotence" (by wikipedia)

how can we say that some human-like thing is, at the same time "a thing" and the power of gravity that allows fusion to occur, or the power of the sun to heat the planets?

ok i am finished.

 

[sameandnot]

i mean: we cannot say that god is an entity whom is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. all we can say is: what we are referring to when we say "god", is simple omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence. in other words, what we refer to as being god is: all-power, all-knowing (or all-knowledge), and all-goodness. (period) ;)

 

[sameandnot]

to say that god is some entity, is to limit god, to being not some other entity... no? therefore we cannot say that god is some "thing". but rather examine if there is all-power, and what is all-power? if there is all-knowing, and what is it? etc. still, even though we have labeled "god" as being such characteristics, we must also know that, what "god" really is, is also not limited by our definitions, and is thereby infinitely more than we can ever say He is.

 

[Orefa]

man! this is difficult!

It's only difficult if you try to grasp too much. Maybe you are reading more into it that what is there. I never spoke of a big bearded guy or a sexy gal either. This is why my little "proof" works for me, I don't try to over-analyze the concept of God, just to state what it would take for me to start worshipping. (By the way, I think She would also have to be hot. )

A willful, all-powerful and all-knowing reality is what it would take. This reality does not have to be tangible, but it does need to be real otherwise what's the point? That's all.

 

[sameandnot]

good!* the point is to talk about this as well as think about it in ways that are coherent, and continue to shed light on the Reality. many do not even know what it is they say, and it is quite silly.

check it: so long as you have a concept of what you are, you are limiting yourSelf and pretending to be something that you ARE not. When you impose your will, you are projecing it from an idea of what you are, which is, in Reality, false to begin with. this may be too much, for right now, but it must be "put it out there", as it might be "seen". when you have no self- or otherwise-imposed idea of self, then you are. and what's more: you are equivalent with "That," which, in itself, Is, and also cannot be named. do you see that, the limiting of one's Self, by defining it as being some particular thing, is the seed of the separation from That unnamable Source, which is actually only (and all of) That/This? it's only logic. pure rationality has derived all of this explanation.

*a message for: orefa!

amazing how the ego fights for its survival in the face That... just doesn't want to let go.

 

[mugsby]

sameandnot so far you've talked a lot but havin't made one point (to me at least), :zzz:

 

[sameandnot]

sameandnot so far you've talked a lot but havin't made one point (to me at least), :zzz:

who am i to think that i can make knowledge claims, such as what you want to hear? i can, however, identify where we have our ignorances, and therefore help to unfold the mind to greater and greater self-awareness, by exposing ignorance and assumptions. your comment was not unforeseen, mugsby. it was known that it would come at some point, and perhaps even today! lo and behold, you have done it! really... with our finite minds (as in our limited means to "know" every"thing"), how can i make claims that suggest i know everything.

here is a point, just for you, since the previous post was not enough, apparently: we can not say what it is, but only negate that which it is not. suggestion: begin by examing what you are... rather, determine if you have long believed yourself to be something you are not. after you have seen what you are not, or what is not, what you are left with is what is, and what you ARE. no?

"the mind is a labyrinth", was once said. you find your way through the labyrinth, by negating the possible ways you might go, (those which you have found to not be the way) and then by actualizing the only path that remains.

my previous post, told you in plain words the seed of Ignorance, itself being Ignorance, yet you want me to make claims, that are some how greater than that! i know, i am not saying things that You want to hear. sorry.

 

[mugsby]

it's not that your saying things i don't want to hear, your just rambling. you can form you opinions based on what you have personaly experienced and learned in your limited time on Earth or live in speculation. whatever works for you.

 

[sameandnot]

it's not that your saying things i don't want to hear, your just rambling. you can form you opinions based on what you have personaly experienced and learned in your limited time on Earth or live in speculation. whatever works for you.

opinions are heavy. if i carry them i must also carry beliefs. no? and if i am carrying those two, i must already be carrying lots of "knowledge". ugh! how could i get any where with all that baggage?!

plus, it's all based on the idea that i can "know", or that humanity can "know", but this is not so. all knowledge is self-referencing and therefore the extant of "knowledge" is endless and doomed to be incomplete.

oh well... i see no point in living in Ignorance, of the facts.

i guess, maybe, just maybe, i am kinda like a mental trainer, to helps the obese shed the harmful and burdensome, extra weight.

maybe all that weight is what keeps the halo down...

 

[sameandnot]

i try to stick with the "philosophy people", as living philosophically is the only way that "philosophy" has any meaning... otherwise it's just rhetoric and empty words. so, for the philosopher, i am... i guess...

..
~

 

[mugsby]

to me being a philosopher means lacking the ability to form an opinion. let's face it you'll never know everything, so why not take what you do know and use that?

 

[sameandnot]

what do you Know?

 

[mugsby]

enough to find a path that I'm happy with and for making the complex simple.

 

[sameandnot]

the only "thing" you can Know, is yourself. Further, the only thing you need to know is what you can know. The rest of your "knowledge" is really Ignorance. isn't it? at least you can agree, that without knowing yourself, all subsequent knowledge will be grown from the ignorance of the truth of yourself. that is, You are the one who seeks, but who is the seeker? if you do not know the seeker, how can you validate any subsequent "knowledge", that the seek has created, or as we like to say: "Discovered"?

 

[sameandnot]

how is the complex made simple, sir?

 

[mugsby]

well i could be like you and say that i can't 'know' because you can never 'know' to actually 'know' and then provide my own rebuttals to every question that i come up with. or i can just realize that my life is finite and their will never be a solution to a question that has no answer. therefore the only answer that the individual can come up with is based on how he/she perceives the question and what biases that person may have.

simple

 

[sameandnot]

"provide my own rebuttals to every question that i come up with."? there is only one question. that is simplicity, mugsby, and you don't know, so i am here.

i am telling you that you can Know, but not unless you first know the question, and therefore, the Problem. you do not want to see this. perhaps it is terrifying... the unknown often is.

You don't know that you don't Know, because you think that you do. that is an assumption, which, essentially, is Ignorance. You think that you know what You are, and that causes a Problem with seeing what the "You" is.

I am trying to spell this out very clearly, do you follow? vaguely? If you are now saying, to yourself, that you Know, tell me what You are. But if you accept that you don't know This is much less difficult... but I have Eternal time, so time is not a factor.

It is great because this ties directly into this original post, though, maybe you do not see the connection. Everything is connected, mugsby.

to live simply is to See simplicity. Even the complexity, is simplicity; This is simple. But first you must, dive, as a diver for a pearl (to borrow an analogy), in search of the Self. These are directions. you see? after this, I will have to go, which i guess might be perceived as unfortunate... Really, though, where can any'thing' ever be, but Here. You might say that It's All relative, or not. maybe better to not confine it to a label.

All of my posts could be considered meaningless or pointless, but they are certainly none of that... then again maybe they are... well, one thing's for sure: they have all pointed directly at the Source, but many have "taken the Moon for the finger" that points to it. "Nonsense," you say. Whatever. If you want to Know any'thing', know first the source of the perceiver. From whence to I perceive. What is the "I" that I know to be constant, through all of my mental and physical changes, and I that also conceive to be the same in all "I's"? Ever consider, what You are? That Knowledge is the Base, mugs; like the trunk of the Tree, or better: the roots.

When a tree grows of ignorance, chop that thing down. it's like when we chop down a scientific theory due to inconstancy. Make room for the healthier tree, which will sprout some real fruits. It's simple really... What are you? "Where you're at": is instantly answered, "what You're doing Here": as well, "what's up?", "Where you're going": at the same time. there is no more disturbance of these things... can't be, cause you See and Know. From that, every "fruit" follows naturally.

While typing this i see you yelling from your post... does that mean that your momentary smiley face is really a mask. a mask hiding some crazy, inhibited frustration? frustrated from all the complexity?

ok. I'm done. check it out mugsy, and who ever else is ripe. I am not here to sell you an ideology. I am giving you nothing, as well, nor do i want anything from you. But like I said, "Every"thing's" Connected". See? Check it out. (inside) see what you find. (that you are) don't stop, or fall asleep, until you know the truth of It. That is what I'm saying, have been saying and will always be saying... right Now.

To get you started... "Am I this body?" check it out. "Am I this mind?" check it out. pick up the scent and never lose it, till you've found It's Source, k?

God speed.

peas.

 

[mugsby]

clearly i have found 'self' or at least a place where I'm content and have provided myself answers to questions that apparently your still looking for. you claim 'ignorance' and to that i say your deluding yourself about the realities of the situation, life is only as hard as you make it when your dealing with abstractions in your mind. don't pass yourself off as a sage when you can't come to a conclusion with the tools provided to you by the real, tangible world.

ps: you read WAY to much into an emoticon i'd say application of thought is as important as the thought itself! *hint* *hint* how you like me now.

 

[sameandnot]

oh, no mugsby! you are cynical and are in comtempt! clearly you have not found Self, because You are not Seeing. you say that i am "dealing with abstractions in my mind" good point! i am. but only in so far as to point you to the meaning of the abstractions.

you are so deep in ignorance that you do not see that your value in "the application of thought and of thought itself" is only the dwelling in a world of abstractions! you do realize that names, words, symbols are abstractions... right? please try not to be ignorant of this fact.

come on, musgby! you can not even tell me what the Real world is. you tell me it is tangible. what do you mean?

Here's a question: is your awareness, consciousness, tangible? i mean, after you have defined tangible, does "awareness" fit with your description. perhaps you will see that, in order for you to perceive the world as tangible, there must be a reality that endows you with the ability to use your senses, and determine "tangability", of said world. don't overlook the most Simple knowledge of all. you didn't "dive" into this simplicity, (and by doing so, actully look at the reality, upon which your "reality" is based) but rather, you are satisfied with living the lie, only so that you don't need to make yourself vulnerable, to actually have been mis-taken. i am no pawn. i am not "taken". no one can cause Me; control me. i know what I am, where It's at, What It is. By Love I am here, but you are rebelling... it is not different than you thinking that "you" "know" what's best. you rebel against what is, by seeking/desiring what isn't. do you feel that you are constantly trying to "be better" or "have it easier"? If so, see that you are trying to be something that you are not, by "becoming". but you only do this because you don't know what You are. do you see? i am like a tool, a signpost, a compass, but no. you demand to insist that yo already know the way. you will not listen because you are rebelling, in order to assert your own will. pride is silly, and harmful... it is an obstruction rather than a virtue. please do not be mad. because it is not You that is mad, but the idea of you, which you have imposed, that is offended and is in fear of being ousted.

It is like a liar, a sitter, who has deceived You into believing that the house is really his. he has been claiming ownership, and has used fine trickery to fool You. he knows it is a lie, and will fight, tooth and nail to stay in this nice home, using cunning and cleverness. but the home is yours. once you know what You are and are no longer deceived, you will know that the house is truly yours, and not his. You are the power and he can not stay in the house once you have taken to regain the throne... his tricks do not work and the king is reinstated. the joker is banished. but the joker is very afraid of this happening and will continue to try tricking and deceiving you, so that you never know the truth. that is why you must go inward, away from the distractions he imposes, with full-determination, to see what is what.

do this just to prove me wrong at least. if you know beyond a shadow of a doubt, you are Free, and if You already Know, as you claim to, show Me that it is You. You will know how to show Me, and I will recognize My brother, my Self, with no doubt, when he has returned home, and has informed me of his presence on the throne. You, must see the truth of yourSelf, otherwise, You remain the servant of some thief (who has been claiming to be king) when in actuality, You are the king and he just a con-man. he controls You, but You may use mind-control, to subdue his influence, for as long as it takes to regain consciousness and the throne which is rightfully yours and which has been awaiting your return for what seems to be eons.

see if there is a con-man in your house. do this by seeing what you really are. are you the slave of your mind or are you the king? no ego-tripping! the king has no need for the ego. the ego once reigned, but has since been banished, for the criminal activity he has committed, in the name of the Almighty. see?

 

[mugsby]

besides using bad analogys your consistanly telling other people what they don't know, you also can't read minds so your pointless attempts at imposing a 'self proclaimed' greater knowledge based on subverting reasoning doesn't work. my reasoning comes from empirical evidence while yours is based on illogical assumptions born in myth and fear of the unknown. you are the perpetuator of fruadulant reasoning, peddling misinformation to detract from your inability resolve the open ended questions presented by your pseudo-philosophical belief system. ROFL your just a charlitan who want's to be heralded as a prophet.

 

[sameandnot]

i never claimed to "know" such as yourself. you are aware that you don't know, because that is reason, and you even go so far as to say that you can't know. finally, though, you have accepted the apparent "easiness" of going about it as though you do know. you are only making hard on yourself. you are hypocritical, mugsby. no hypocrite can tell someone else he is mistaken.

that is not the king who writes, that is the fool. your pleasure at having continued to decieve yourself makes you ecstatic with pleasure.

why do you trust your "empirical beliefs"? you must prove that they are trust-worthy. to believe in them without proof, is not only foolish and unwise, but also is the anti-thesis of philosophy. what you spout now is rhetoric, for the fool is a sophist, and you, my friend, have been taken.

you know not Love, because you Hate Me. You can not Love and Hate, simultaneously, can you?

your reason to believe in your "empiricism" is a belief system, whose basis is one of habit and familiarity, rather than reason. you can prove me wrong, by proving that your empiricism is trust-worthy and rational. rational, logical arguments.

perhaps you think that an emotion can be considered a reason!

finally, there is no logical or rational grounds to believe in emprircism, or to have beliefs at all!

one cannot be absorbed by a belief and at the same time call oneself rational! lol

for Heaven's sake, mugsby, don't fight It!
(no matter how strong you think that you are, or your beliefs are, you are always hanging on by a thread.) Your whole dream will be swept away in an instant and no amount of kicking or screaming will shield you from the Reality of waking up.

p.s. i never claimed to be a "prophet" or a "sage", but since you think of/label me as such, perhaps you see that I am That. but you can fight it. i mean, you fight to the end it seems. usually that's a good thing, but in your case you aren't fighting the Fight, you are fighting your Self. You will beat your Self to a pulp and claim yourself victor! lol congratulations. that is what ignorance does. ignorance of the fact that you can't "know" in the same old way that you insist on "knowing". good luck syssiphus.

 

[mugsby]

"i never claimed to be a "prophet" or a "sage", but since you think of/label me as such, perhaps you see that I am That." <--- are you serious

"you know not Love, because you Hate Me. You can not Love and Hate, simultaneously, can you?" :!)

"why do you trust your "empirical beliefs"? you must prove that they are trust-worthy."

what can be measured (matter) is real and verifiable. you see a object, touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it then try to disprove that it exists.

"finally, there is no logical or rational grounds to believe in emprircism, or to have beliefs at all! "

not only have you revealed yourself, your back at square one. i'd even say you've gone a step back in reading your emotion based responce.

looks to me someone has fallen from grace, from me of course i hope you are learning about your true self here.

 

[loseyourname]

Straying from a discussion of atheism just a tad, fellas?

Epistemological arguments are welcome and encouraged. Feel free to start a thread in the Metaphysics and Epistemology forum.