Do you sometimes toss your best thoughts into the void of some obscure comment section? I know I do.

in Deep Dives3 months ago (edited)

image.png

Deva Winblood
16 hours ago
The term is Deism. Believing a God without needing revelation, or writings from other humans to tell you what you should think God is. Observe and use reason.

REPLY I RECEIVED:

Dustin
Dustin
11 hours ago
If u observed and used reason it would logically lead u to the conclusion that there is zero evidence for a deity or god. Bc there isn’t.

MY RESPONSE:

@Dustin - Research Simulation Hypothesis. Also realize because we have not observed a thing is NOT evidence for its non-existence. We can only reason properly about things we CAN observe. There are many things we know exist today that we cannot OBSERVE with our naked senses. Does that mean they just popped into existence when we developed tools to measure them? I'll tell you now that ABSOLUTES and DOGMA of which you are also pushing just like those that push the dogma of various religions is a narrow minded thing. One is not better than the other. I am a Deist though I used to call myself an Atheist/Deist being well aware of the contradiction. In thinking long and hard about the Simulation Hypothesis I decided it is probable in my mind. That implies a creator. It doesn't mean the creator is a supreme being and it doesn't mean I endorse any of the books written by other humans telling me what the creator is. Yet unlike most people I don't hold onto my views as an absolute. I change my mind as I encounter new ideas, new information, and new perceptions. I am aware there are things I cannot nakedly observe that exist.

ANOTHER REPLY I RECEIVED:

Another Cat
16 hours ago
I observe that you're telling us a revelation about God and who you think God is to other humans.
The earliest Christian Tradition emphasizes that God is immeasurable. Our thoughts about what God is is always a compromise and is always incorrect.

MY FIRST RESPONSE:

Deva Winblood
1 second ago
@Another Cat - Nope I didn't tell you ANYTHING about God. I didn't tell you one single trait. Try again...

I felt compelled to give a longer response:

Deva Winblood
Deva Winblood
1 second ago
@Another Cat - Which tradition? The ones compiled in the Bible by the Council of Nicea at the behest of Roman Emperor Constantine over 300 years after the time of Christ? Or do you mean some of those that have been found in things like the Dead Sea Scrolls? Perhaps you are referring to Judaism which is where most of the old Testament comes from, I mean after all Jesus was a devout and practicing Jew. That is not said as a bad thing just to offer a perspective people may not be aware of. I actually collect bibles and religious texts. I have a lot of them. I give them a lot of thought. They have been edited too many times and often compiled and edited by groups I do not see reason to trust. I still value the texts. To me they simply are not the word of God, but the word of man/humans. They are quick to change them when they don't like something. This is not unique to Christianity by the way. I've seen this in all religions that push a dogma or a "way". I am a Deist. I believe in a creator. My bible is what I can observe. i see the wonders in biology, geology, physics, etc. I don't try to define that creator and I am also not so arrogant to say the creator is something and try to force other people to agree with me.


EDIT: Interesting thing about being a Deist...

We get attacked by the atheists and the devout religious...

Yet most people don't know that

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson was a Deist.

THOMAS-JEFFERSON8-1600.webp

Founding Father Thomas Paine was a Deist.

thomas_paine_cc_img.webp


Jefferson wrote the Jefferson Bible which is the Christian Bible with Revelations, Miracles, etc. removed. He did the same for the Qur'an I believe. I do not go that far. I don't feel the need to rewrite anyone's texts. I can read a thing without requiring the entire thing to be true to me. I can still find value, moral teaching, history, and philosophy. Yet some people DO think they must agree with everything in a text. Perhaps this is why Jefferson chose to write his edited versions.

Thomas Paine wrote "Common Sense" which arguably was the brushfire that lead to the Revolutionary War. It has been stated that without that publication there very likely would be no United States of America. After the war he went on to write the text "Age of Reason" which was a very Deist text and he was attacked and angered a lot of people for writing it. Unlike Jefferson, Paine did show his anger at organized religions within his later writing. This tends to happen when people have been on the receiving end of discrimination or persecution due to beliefs.

Sort:  

If u observed and used reason it would logically lead u to the conclusion that there is zero evidence for a deity or god. Bc there isn’t.

A truly brilliant and dizzying intellect.... not

There is zero evidence of God, because we (humanity) were given free will.
Free will in the sense that we could choose if we wanted to search for God.
Thus, there is zero direct evidence of God.

(One of the things we will find when we start communicating with alien races is "What? You do not know God exists?")

However, you can search for God, and when you do there is evidence everywhere.
A delve into real science shows "the fingerprints of God everywhere".
A delve into real spirituality and meditation and you start to feel a presence that you can get to know.

That said, Christianity is really shtupid in their own text!
Like, they just change all the words into "god". Elohim... just another word for "god".
When, we will probably find out that the Elo (an alien race) came and fucked with us and our DNA.
Then the Bible makes a lot more sense, but a lot less sense that we would call it a holy book.

I prefer Buddhism. As it is a collection of pathways to god(hood), or Yogas.

I prefer Buddhism. As it is a collection of pathways to god(hood), or Yogas.

Buddhism has its denominations as well. They are not always as benevolent.

I myself am not a fan of organized religion.

I do not have a problem with the moral teachings in "The Bible" in particular the New Testament, yet there is a lot of baggage that goes along with it that I have problems with.

Yes, there are a dizzying amount of contradictions in the bible. Some of them have been edited in newer texts to make it NOT as obvious.

Yet that doesn't mean I do not see value there.

I simply do not view it as the word of God. I view it as the word of Man.

As such I do not think I must believe every single thing that is in the text. This is especially true because I own so many different bibles and firsthand know they are often quite different from each other.

I prefer a Bible thumper over an Atheism thumper.

I'd prefer to not have people forcefully trying to say "I am right, and you are wrong" regardless of their ideology...

Yet if I had to choose I'd take the Bible thumper.

Yes.

Most atheist i encounter are actually anti-Christian, and not really atheists.
In so doing, they throw out all the moral stories (and thus morals)

Maybe they should just be called Hedonists

Then they start things like atheism plus... which is supposed to be about following science, but they lack the key ingredient of science, which is truth. Being truthful in all things.

So, as you, i prefer a Bible thumper over an Atheism thumper.

I feel I should clarify. I have met Christians that know as much as I do and MORE about their religion. Yet none of them have been Bible Thumpers. They had to think and research a lot to get where they are. Most Bible Thumpers don't put forth that much effort. They just repeat what they have been conditioned to repeat.

I agree 100%.

Most Bible Thumpers don't even know that the Bible is edited and abridged, then translated and edited again.

It also doesn't hurt that I've never met a Bible Thumper that actually knew as much about their religion and the Bible as I do. LOL.

Ah, man, if you're one who makes use of their brains and reason a lot you'd find yourself doing this so often. You'd find yourself putting great thoughts into some obscure comment on some obscure conversation somewhere obscure 😅.

Your reasoning is very good, my stand on this matter is quite similar to yours. On the question of whether there is a God who created the world my stand is simply that we don't know. All the religions are clearly man made speculations, lies, attempts at truths, opinions, propaganda, etc. I'm not an atheist who says there is no God and I'm not a theist who says there is a God because we all don't know whether there is or there isn't. The only thing I'm sure of or anyone can be sure of for now is simply that religions are false and man made.

I think, having myself been involved for a long time with this question of a deity or a cosmic intelligence, that it is actually irrelevant.
A bit like when you eventually become a relativist because at some point you have understood that it is possible to take numerous perspectives, to practise that too, to realise that almost everything can be put in relation to each other. Once there, however, one does not have to stop there, but in the awareness that "the world can be viewed relativistically", still feel and express clarity in one's own decisions.

Only after reflecting can I say that such questions about a creator are irrelevant. Before that, it would be presumption and an imposition on the one to whom I say such things.

It's disagreement in theory, if I should put it that way. Whether or not a creator can be assumed need not change spiritual practice (though it did).

The practice can work without being too dogmatically attached to questions of belief.
A human who gives compassion to another, I don't even need to know about him whether he believes in God or not. It is enough if, in the face of a milestone event, such as the death of a relative, he takes the necessary steps to create a sense of helpfulness and togetherness. Whether believing Christians are actually better able to deal with dying and death compared to non-Christians, I don't know, but I wouldn't want to generalise.

The practice of assistance in dying, persevering with the dying, traditional acts such as laying out the deceased at home or in the chapel, where it can be taken as an occasion for relatives and friends to say their last goodbyes, the funeral feast, the open house of the family, singing and praying together are, in my view, welcome rituals and traditions that are fed by Christianity. Atheists and those who have no faith run the risk of being clumsy and awkward with such things.

Where there is a gap caused by a lack of faith or Christian (or other religious) cohesion, atheists or those who see death as an enemy are left with no answers as to what alternatives and ideas are supposed to fill the hole that apostate Christians create.

But even though I say and know all this, the fact is that I have left my own Christian tradition, cannot sing any songs melodically (which makes singing in church a poor event), nor do I remember any comforting prayers. ... I have almost completely forgotten or neglected the practice when it comes to singing and prayer, from my point of view very important aspects of Christian culture. As long as those who first dignify a service and have their recitations ready still provide their voices, they carry people like me who have forgotten and neglected such things and sit in church with embarrassed hearts, ashamed that they can no longer do it.

At the same time, I can say that the polyphony with which chants carry the congregation have been infinitely more valuable to me than any theoretical or theological conversation on the subject.
The old who could do this are increasingly dying out and the young are falling silent. I can literally watch it, every funeral shows how the rituals and traditions continue to dissolve into meaninglessness.

People don't seem to realise what a loss this actually is. It is clear to me, and my pitiful attempts to maintain meaning and ritual, for example, have shown me that no individual could revive an abandoned space, for example, because their actions and speech do not have the effect that the practice of the many has.

Can you recall or tell from the practical point of your life, if cultural aspects like I mentioned above, are still alive where you came from or where you live now?

Only after reflecting can I say that such questions about a creator are irrelevant.

Only because whether there is or is not likely won't change how we act in our life. If you follow one of the human written texts then it likely would change the way you act. Whether that is good or bad is a subjective thing and also can depend a great deal on how you are convinced to act by whatever text you choose to follow.

Yet, that does not stop it from being an interesting thought experiment.

It could also be argued that there is one reason it may not be irrelevant. So many people believe it is relevant and they make decisions based upon it. It could remain irrelevant IF those decisions only impacted themselves. Once they start impacting other people who did not choose to have such impact then it becomes a relevant discussion as far as I am concerned.

I personally have no problem with people voluntarily pursuing to believe or follow such things. I only see it as an issue when they think they must push it upon other people and in some cases make laws and take actions that remove voluntary choice from other people.

I think people should lead by example not by force.

Can you recall or tell from the practical point of your life, if cultural aspects like I mentioned above, are still alive where you came from or where you live now?

The aspects of it that have been present in my life (I am 52) are still around as much as they ever were with the exception of being excised from marketing, and other institutions via force. Which I am opposed to.

It also depends a great deal where you live. Some places have removed it a great deal. Other places it remains as it was. Some places it has strengthened.

I do personally think there is a power in belief. Yet I think it is not so much due to what you choose to believe in but rather is part of the belief itself. It may be something measureable some day. That is partially why I think the healing value of prayer has been found to have some impact REGARDLESS of whom or what is being prayed to.

It to me explains why so many remotely removed religions have similar stories of "miraculous" things yet they certainly are not all practicing the same religion or praying to the same deity. That seems indicate to me that the deity does not matter so much when it comes to prayer. It is something about the act itself.

Then the thought experiment might arise. If millions of people believe in a thing and belief has some kind of energy. Where does that energy go, and what might come of it?

 3 months ago Reveal Comment

Nope... Though you have me curious.

EDIT: As a side note I wouldn't read much into Google Earth unless you verify it with multiple other satellites. It wouldn't be incredibly difficult for Google Engineers to have some fun with Google Earth. Same with other satellites. I'd want to see multiple different sources.

 3 months ago Reveal Comment