The irrelevance of God

[(Q)]

That changes nothing for wicked people like yourself; you are still condemned.

Your childish threats are as irrelevant as they are laughable. LOL.

 

[Mazulu]

Your childish threats are as irrelevant as they are laughable. LOL.

It's not my childish threats you should fear; it's God's condemnation upon you. All you atheists have proven is that God is not necessarily benevolent. It is entirely possible that a vengeful and wrathful God still exists.

 

[(Q)]

It's not my childish threats you should fear; it's God's condemnation upon you.

Here's what I think of your childish threats and your imaginary God. :blbl: HAHAHAHAHA!

 

[(Q)]

It is entirely possible that a vengeful and wrathful God still exists.

Only in the empty space between your ears.

 

[Mazulu]

Here's what I think of your childish threats and your imaginary God. :blbl: HAHAHAHAHA!

Good luck in the afterlife.

 

[Dracs007]

God is worse than just non-existent. He is irrelevant. Inconsequential. Superfluous. An absolute triviality. Not only does his possible existence NOT explain anything, but it creates more problems than his nonexistence. Cuz if there IS a God then where the hell is he? Millenia of storybook accounts of God speaking to ancient prophets and gurus. Burning bushes. Quaking mountains. And starlit mangers. Yet never insomuch as one REAL public appearance of said being to the human race.

In the meantime we have a vast universe rolling right along with no apparent aim or purpose whatsoever. People now bravely living their lives in the light of what science has discovered. And still, not one peep from the proverbial golden throneroom. Isn't it nice that myths and delusions, instead of having to be disproven, just sort of fade away over time into an abyss of permanent obsolescence.

This is what i think. In ancient times when we still living in mud houses and wearing grass clothes, aliens would come down here and play Gods. They may have exposed us to a lot of technology as well. So all these stories of Gods and stuff could be of nothing but aliens who were very advanced. We were weak and stupid then so they used to come down here to help us or sometimes exploit us. But now if they come down here we'll recognize them for who they really are. Thats why the Gods that did miracles back then dont do it anymore.

If wanna talk the bible or any religious book literally, bible itself is full of stories that contradict themselves. And if u literally take the old testament word for word, God is nice only if u obey him, if u go against his will, he will burn u in hell. I refuse to belive in such God so that is why all religions are lies.

 

[Dracs007]

If u really look at religion closely, the very God they are describing sounds very Evil to me. What kind of God fries his own children in hot oil?? what kind of loving holy father burns us in hell for eternity because we disobeyed him without even knowing that we were supoosed to obey in the first place? This God sound more like a dictator, the mega powerful being who preys on the whole universe.

 

[(Q)]

Good luck in the afterlife.

That's me on the right holding onto your feet. LOL.

 

[Balerion]

So you don't believe the truth of what I saw. Well, you're not a truth seeker, and you're not a scientist. You're just some troll whose opinion doesn't matter.

You think a scientist would agree that you saw the angel of death?

 

[Seattle]

Answer to what?

How do you know what the "angel of death" looks like?

 

[wegs]

Mazulu -- I'm not seeking to disrespect your beliefs, but do you honestly think it's sensible to worship a Deity, because you fear condemnation? And frankly, should God exist, you have no earthly idea as to if or how he will judge mankind. If your faith means anything to you, then you should seek the best for those who disagree with you, not the worst. Food for thought.

 

[Mazulu]

You think a scientist would agree that you saw the angel of death?

I don't know what it was that I saw; other than it was some kind of entity. Maybe there are entities that exist that sometimes appear as the angel of death. I don't know. But I did witness something.

 

[Mazulu]

God is worse than just non-existent. He is irrelevant. Inconsequential. Superfluous. An absolute triviality. Not only does his possible existence NOT explain anything, but it creates more problems than his nonexistence. Cuz if there IS a God then where the hell is he? Millenia of storybook accounts of God speaking to ancient prophets and gurus. Burning bushes. Quaking mountains. And starlit mangers. Yet never insomuch as one REAL public appearance of said being to the human race.

In the meantime we have a vast universe rolling right along with no apparent aim or purpose whatsoever. People now bravely living their lives in the light of what science has discovered. And still, not one peep from the proverbial golden throneroom. Isn't it nice that myths and delusions, instead of having to be disproven, just sort of fade away over time into an abyss of permanent obsolescence.

This is what i think. In ancient times when we still living in mud houses and wearing grass clothes, aliens would come down here and play Gods. They may have exposed us to a lot of technology as well. So all these stories of Gods and stuff could be of nothing but aliens who were very advanced. We were weak and stupid then so they used to come down here to help us or sometimes exploit us. But now if they come down here we'll recognize them for who they really are. Thats why the Gods that did miracles back then dont do it anymore.

If wanna talk the bible or any religious book literally, bible itself is full of stories that contradict themselves. And if u literally take the old testament word for word, God is nice only if u obey him, if u go against his will, he will burn u in hell. I refuse to belive in such God so that is why all religions are lies.

I disagree. The Higgs field is completely irrelevant and has no bearing on anything; not technology, not the economy, nothing. In contrast, God, our souls and an afterlife are of significant importance to billions of human beings. All those atheists who deny the importance of God are not being honest.

 

[Balerion]

I don't know what it was that I saw; other than it was some kind of entity. Maybe there are entities that exist that sometimes appear as the angel of death. I don't know. But I did witness something.

Maybe you were all in the heat of the moment (it was a seance, after all) and merely thought you experienced something. Tricks of light and shadow that have become more substantial in your memory. Just a thought.

 

[Hapsburg]

Maybe you were all in the heat of the moment (it was a seance, after all) and merely thought you experienced something. Tricks of light and shadow that have become more substantial in your memory. Just a thought.

That is possible. But neither of us were there. Neither of us saw what he saw, just as he hasn't seen what we've seen. I don't think that we are in any position to tell him that his experiences are not valid, even if we do disagree with his conclusions. By the same token, neither is he. Personal experiences are, by definition, subjective.

 

[Mazulu]

Maybe you were all in the heat of the moment (it was a seance, after all) and merely thought you experienced something. Tricks of light and shadow that have become more substantial in your memory. Just a thought.

No, it was the middle of the night. I woke up and there it was about 10' away. It was a black cloaked figure with a veltet mask. It was standing at the door. Not a shadow, not a dream, not a trick of light, not a human dressed in a cloak. It was an entity.

 

[Balerion]

That is possible. But neither of us were there. Neither of us saw what he saw, just as he hasn't seen what we've seen. I don't think that we are in any position to tell him that his experiences are not valid, even if we do disagree with his conclusions. By the same token, neither is he. Personal experiences are, by definition, subjective.

If he describes his experience as "I saw a ghost," then yes, we are in a position to tell him it was not valid. You'll notice, however, I'm not telling him that he didn't see anything; I'm asking him what happened, and if he has explored any reasonable explanations.

No, it was the middle of the night. I woke up and there it was about 10' away. It was a black cloaked figure with a veltet mask. It was standing at the door. Not a shadow, not a dream, not a trick of light, not a human dressed in a cloak. It was an entity.

So how do you know it wasn't just a human dressed in a cloak? Did you get up to investigate?

 

[cole grey]

It just seems very odd to use the word 'forced' because it automatically asserts a negative connotation. But, I do get what you're saying.

I was trying to make a distinction between types of ideas, because many people seem to think they will find some philosophical data that will make their choices perfectly clear, so they can say, "this is the only way to go".

That's why philosophical ideas are entirely subjective and often can't be distinguished from fantasy or delusion.

well, i do think criteria can be applied, but not in a way that will allow us to have perfectly ironclad statements like, "if I drop this it will fall."

 

[wynn]

and people not on the path of devotion see problems with that path anyway, whether they are worldly or less worldly. I know that is not my path, so I have issues imagining myself in the situation of a pure devotee. I think the yogic paths are a good example for different types of people to go along their way without being confused that they won't fit in on someone else's path. Some of us are better suited to the jnana path (for example) then the Bhakti path, although it does seem to be good to borrow from the less prominent abilities as well, and not just say, "I'm THIS, so I don't have to do any of THAT."

I'm just trying to make you understand what "spiritual (or transcedental) envy" is.

You often claim that people are just irrational and such, and I'm pointing out that there is some method to that madness, namely, envy.

 

[wynn]

I was trying to make a distinction between types of ideas, because many people seem to think they will find some philosophical data that will make their choices perfectly clear, so they can say, "this is the only way to go".
well, i do think criteria can be applied, but not in a way that will allow us to have perfectly ironclad statements like, "if I drop this it will fall."

Ah. Why lower the standard of analysis?
What's wrong with looking for the perfect formulation?

In one sense, this is precisely what Buddhism is about - looking for that one way to explain things that will make one's choice perfectly clear, so that one has a clear sense of "This should be done, that shouldn't be done."