To know there is no god?

[SnakeLord]

You are in a position to concede you are wrong. Then and only then can any converstion move forward. You have no wiggle room. If you fail to concede you are wrong here you are either too stupid to debate this topic or lack the integrity to admit when you are wrong.

Is this a new debate tactic? Repeat the same shit over and over in the hope that the other person will state he's wrong, even when he isn't, just to shut you up?

For now let's go along with your silly little claim that I am stupid. In order to help the stupid, it would be appropriate to actually answer their questions - this helps them to learn. As such, kindly scroll up and answer the questions I have posed.

"Show to me how the claim from a christian mystic that everything is god is actually true and/or of any relevance to say a buddhist that does not concur with those claims made by christian mystics. Why are christian mystics/pantheists deemed by you to be the ultimate authority? Again, if I regard myself as a penisist and claim my penis is "everything", does that make it so?"

 

[grover]

Your entire premise is flawed due to your inability to see where you are wrong on a fundamental point(see below):
--------------------------------------------
You are not in a position to offer deals. You are in a position to concede you are wrong. Then and only then can any conversation move forward. You have no wiggle room. If you fail to concede you are wrong here you are either too stupid to debate this topic or lack the integrity to admit when you are wrong. Again, here is where you are wrong:

Snakelord, you said:
"This inevitably causes a problem though. From what I have gathered from both you and the quotes you used, a person can't even describe the experience. Given that this is the case there can be no valid claim stating they're all identical. They can have a similar process, (forgetting/losing oneself), but it is the actual outcome of that experience that I am focusing on. if a person attains "oneness" with [a] god, and another attains "oneness" with nature, it has to be said that they are different things, not the same thing with different terminology. Nature and god are vastly different. ”

To which I replied:
I already said the Christian mystics are pantheistic. Here is the definition of pantheism from wiki:
Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.

 

[Godless]

Tactic not working? Repeat, repeat, same shit over and over again till opponent concedes a rhetorical point! Which most obviously perhaps will come down to mere semantics, and apposing views of the subject at hand.

So we understand that grover claims Christian mystics are pantheists, does this mean that all Christian mystics are pantheist. Quite a claim is it not? Considering that there are apx. 34000 different sects of Christianity which of these are the True Christian Mystics? Ah! the pantheists, I see the ones who believe that that my vowel movement makes my excrement god! Thus if everything is god, so is my crap then, is it not?

 

[SnakeLord]

Your entire premise is flawed due to your inability to see where you are wrong on a fundamental point(see below):

Fine, I'll give it another shot..

I said: "if a person attains "oneness" with [a] god, and another attains "oneness" with nature, it has to be said that they are different things, not the same thing with different terminology. Nature and god are vastly different. "

I arrive at this conclusion based upon given definitions of what god is and what nature is. In this instance, as these are christians we are talking about, god is an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity that created the universe and everything in it. Needless to say, nature is not these things. Nature is not omniscient, omnipotent etc etc. Given definitions of nature would be:

- the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities

- the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.

Now.. These christian mystics claim that "god" is everything, and thus would argue that anything anyone else sees or experiences is god. This claim is completely pointless to someone that does not belief in their claim that god is everything. When they are one with nature, they are not one with god, they are one with the natural world. If we are to accept your claim that they are both identical things then let's do the decent thing and just label it as nature - something that we know exists, instead of labelling it god - something with no evidence for its existence. To bring god into the equation is to claim existence of a specific omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being.

So, having said all this I still maintain that nature and gods are largely different things. Even zeus and yhwh differ, so which god do they feel one with?

You then said: "christian mystics are pantheistic".

Ok.. So what? No offence but where is it's relevance? Where is the value in their specific claim that 'god' is everything? You go on to state that the pantheistic view is that " the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent", which only applies to a pantheist. Of what relevance or value is it to anyone else? What you are actually saying here is:

"nature and god are the exact same thing because a christian happens to claim it to be so".

You think that is a valid argument? Sort it out.

Now, can you please stop quoting the same shit over and over. *copycat mode* You're wrong, plain and simple.. and this discussion wont proceed until you admit it. If you don't it's because you're stupid.

If you for some idiotic reason think that you're right, kindly explain to me how the opinion of a pantheist is of any value to anything. Answer the earlier questions I posed regarding that.

 

[grover]

Fine, I'll give it another shot..

I said: "if a person attains "oneness" with [a] god, and another attains "oneness" with nature, it has to be said that they are different things, not the same thing with different terminology. Nature and god are vastly different.


I arrive at this conclusion based upon given definitions of what god is and what nature is. In this instance, as these are christians we are talking about, god is an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity that created the universe and everything in it. Needless to say, nature is not these things. Nature is not omniscient, omnipotent etc etc. Given definitions of nature would be:

- the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities

- the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.

Now.. These christian mystics claim that "god" is everything, and thus would argue that anything anyone else sees or experiences is god. This claim is completely pointless to someone that does not belief in their claim that god is everything. When they are one with nature, they are not one with god, they are one with the natural world. If we are to accept your claim that they are both identical things then let's do the decent thing and just label it as nature - something that we know exists, instead of labelling it god - something with no evidence for its existence. To bring god into the equation is to claim existence of a specific omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being.

So, having said all this I still maintain that nature and gods are largely different things. Even zeus and yhwh differ, so which god do they feel one with?

Yes. Definitely. But my point has never been to show that Zeus and Yahweh exist. I have been tying to show that:
1) There is a direct experience (called mystical experience in the west which is equivalent to enlightenment in the east).
2) Their views based upon their direct experience are exactly the same.

You then said: "christian mystics are pantheistic".

Ok.. So what? No offence but where is it's relevance?

It has total relevance since I was showing that thier views are the same as buddhists.

Where is the value in their specific claim that 'god' is everything? You go on to state that the pantheistic view is that " the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent", which only applies to a pantheist. Of what relevance or value is it to anyone else? What you are actually saying here is:

"nature and god are the exact same thing because a christian happens to claim it to be so".

No, my point all along has been to show that Christian mystic views and Budhist views are the same. Which I have done (don't force me to post where you are wrong again).

Now, can you please stop quoting the same shit over and over. *copycat mode* You're wrong, plain and simple.. and this discussion wont proceed until you admit it. If you don't it's because you're stupid.

If you continue to insist that the CHristian mystic view and the Buddhist view are different I will be forced to post it again. I'm not gonna let you off the hook and distort the point that is trying to be demonstrated.

If you for some idiotic reason think that you're right, kindly explain to me how the opinion of a pantheist is of any value to anything. Answer the earlier questions I posed regarding that.

I have been trying to demonstrate this entire time that the Christian Mystic view and the Buddhist view are the same which you have fought against the entire time. When I finally show that you try and shift what is actually being argued.

Here is your question:"Show to me how the claim from a christian mystic that everything is god is actually true and/or of any relevance to say a buddhist that does not concur with those claims made by christian mystics. Why are christian mystics/pantheists deemed by you to be the ultimate authority? Again, if I regard myself as a penisist and claim my penis is "everything", does that make it so?"

I put in bold where you are wrong. The Buddhists and Christian mystics do concur. I put in bold below showing that they concur.

Snakelord, you said:
"This inevitably causes a problem though. From what I have gathered from both you and the quotes you used, a person can't even describe the experience. Given that this is the case there can be no valid claim stating they're all identical. They can have a similar process, (forgetting/losing oneself), but it is the actual outcome of that experience that I am focusing on. if a person attains "oneness" with [a] god, and another attains "oneness" with nature, it has to be said that they are different things, not the same thing with different terminology. Nature and god are vastly different. ”

To which I replied:
I already said the Christian mystics are pantheistic. Here is the definition of pantheism from wiki:
Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.

 

[grover]

Tactic not working? Repeat, repeat, same shit over and over again till opponent concedes a rhetorical point!

No, it was the point I was arguing the entire time. When I demonstrated it, he tried to say that I had a different point. And I'm not letting him off the hook.

Which most obviously perhaps will come down to mere semantics, and apposing views of the subject at hand.

Bullshit assumption

So we understand that grover claims Christian mystics are pantheists, does this mean that all Christian mystics are pantheist.

Yes, all Christian mystics are pantheists.

Quite a claim is it not? Considering that there are apx. 34000 different sects of Christianity which of these are the True Christian Mystics?

We're not talking about all the different sects of Christianity. We are talking about the views of Christian mystics who arrive at their views by direct experience. Their views agree with buddhists.

Ah! the pantheists, I see the ones who believe that that my vowel movement makes my excrement god! Thus if everything is god, so is my crap then, is it not?

Yes, if you weren't totally ignorant on this subject then you would know a well known zen saying is:
A monk asked Ummon, "What is Buddha?" Ummon answered, "A dried stick of shit."

 

[SnakeLord]

1) There is a direct experience (called mystical experience in the west which is equivalent to enlightenment in the east).

Direct experience of what? And what evidence exactly supports the claim that there is direct experience of whatever it is you are claiming they have direct experience of?

2) Their views based upon their direct experience are exactly the same.

So.. they have the exact same direct experience of.. what? The italicised part is of utmost importance if you are to claim their experiences are identical. If one attains oneness but oneness with nature and the other attains oneness but oneness with something entirely different, then there can be no claim to the experience being identical, just the base of that experience, (again like I analogied with those that hear voices. They all hear voices but the actual experience and perception differs).

It has total relevance since I was showing that thier views are the same as buddhists.

Their views at the basics, (i.e they can attain oneness/they can hear voices). At the actual experience level they differ completely, (one gains direct perception of a god being the other does not). I have already stated several times that I do not have quarrel with the first part, (otherwise I would never have given an equal analogy). Seemingly you haven't picked up on this yet and are becoming confused over basic process and actual experience.

No, my point all along has been to show that Christian mystic views and Budhist views are the same. Which I have done (don't force me to post where you are wrong again).

Once again, a christian lunatic and a buddhist lunatic both have the exact same basis in that they hear voices. The actual experience differs, (one kills, one jumps off the roof). There is no difference here - they gain oneness but the actual experience is vastly different, (oneness with a space dwelling entity, oneness with nature).

If you continue to insist that the CHristian mystic view and the Buddhist view are different I will be forced to post it again. I'm not gonna let you off the hook and distort the point that is trying to be demonstrated.

You're getting confused. Once again I have no quarrel with you saying that they share a similar basis, (they both attain oneness), but that the actual experience differs. I haven't distorted anything, you've just become lost in the conversation.

I have been trying to demonstrate this entire time that the Christian Mystic view and the Buddhist view are the same which you have fought against the entire time. When I finally show that you try and shift what is actually being argued.

Did you perhaps miss the several times I stated that I have no quarrel with the claim that at it's base the process is similar/the same? It's doubtful considering you responded to it, but you seem to miss the very point of this part of the discussion is about the actual experience/direct perception, (ergo one sees a space dwelling entity the other does not).

I put in bold where you are wrong. The Buddhists and Christian mystics do concur. I put in bold below showing that they concur.

Strange, considering what you've quoted was said by me, not by them. You really have become confused haven't you? Now, the last bit from wiki is concerned only with christians, not buddhists and thus is bias in this instance.

However I shall still give you the chance.. I see nothing in your quotes, (or what I said), that shows christians and buddhists both concur that they attain oneness with god. So.. where do they concur?

 

[grover]

Once again, a christian lunatic and a buddhist lunatic both have the exact same basis in that they hear voices. The actual experience differs, (one kills, one jumps off the roof). There is no difference here - they gain oneness but the actual experience is vastly different, (oneness with a space dwelling entity, oneness with nature).

No you fucking moron, this is where you are wrong. It's plain and simply not true. Quit repeating this. All it is is evidence that you can't break out of your preconceived conceptions. Christian Mystics do not believe God is a space dwelling entity. You have forced me to re-post where you are wrong:

Snakelord, you said:
"This inevitably causes a problem though. From what I have gathered from both you and the quotes you used, a person can't even describe the experience. Given that this is the case there can be no valid claim stating they're all identical. They can have a similar process, (forgetting/losing oneself), but it is the actual outcome of that experience that I am focusing on. if a person attains "oneness" with [a] god, and another attains "oneness" with nature, it has to be said that they are different things, not the same thing with different terminology. Nature and god are vastly different. ”

To which I replied:
I already said the Christian mystics are pantheistic. Here is the definition of pantheism from wiki:
Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.

----------------------
As long as you keep repeating that Christian mystics believe that god is a "space dwelling being" I will be forced to re-post this. It's just plain and simply untrue. As long as you continue to insist that the Christian Mystic's view differs from Buddhists I will be forced to re-post this. It's just plain and simply not true.

 

[Sarkus]

Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.

If this is truly what you are, why bother renaming "nature" and "the universe" as something as emotionally charged as "God"?

Why not just revel in the mysteries of the Universe - all that is, all that has yet to be discovered etc?
Why bring into the melting pot some word that brings with it who-knows how many preconceptions that can only confuse the situation and cloudy peoples' understanding of what you are talking about.

Further, if "God is the Universe / Nature", why worship it?
Why not just be happy that you are part of it and live it, without the need for the religious elements?

 

[SkinWalker]

No you fucking moron,

And, with that, I see no reason to let this thread go on. Should anyone disagree, send me a PM appealing to re-open.