View Full Version : Thoughts on God and why we are the way we are.

09-24-2012, 05:24 PM
After much consideration, I no longer feel God can really be described as a delusion.
If there is a delusion, it is the individual. Self is a delusion, that we are all cursed with.
We as 3 dimensional entities can only experience time and space as fixed coordinates, we are in fact the combination of many microbial organisms and are more related to bacteria, than we are uniquely human or primate.
Science relies on the idea, of cause and effect. If our understanding and experience is simply a cursory illusion, brought on by our physiological limitations though and the effect is but a mere by product, does such a dogma really have any power? In fact, doesn't that make the human endeavor a giant waste of time? If so, how stupid are we to take ourselves seriously?

That brings me to the ethical implications of faith.
Faith has a certain deal of humility to it. It is not the faithful we should be scared of, it is the certain. When our over-zealous Muhammadan friends attacks people over a green screen film or when their atheist, marxist, counter parts cleanse a foreign territory, what doubt have they in what they are doing? We are told that when Jesus walked on water and told Peter to step out, he doubted him. Even looking at a miracle, faith is subject to our critical nature and yet, the above examples show no questioning, no deliberation and unshakable resolve.

We are the most noble and the most evil organisms on this earth. Perhaps in the universe.
To the early Jews, God was in everything. The best example of God they thought though, was the will of one another to do great things. There is indeed power, in our collective will. One need only look to his wallet to see that. Monetary value is nothing but trust, somehow our trust makes these little compressed pieces of moss and leafs very powerful. No one can say "it's just in our head", if you think it's only in your head, go to some shitty country like Somalia or the Moldova and then visit beautiful San Diego California.
I think God is much more than that though. We are the most obvious example of God showing it's colors, yes....
Unfortunately for our humanist friends, we are something else also.

People like two things, they like being helped and they like their autonomy.
The folly of movements such as secular humanism and Muhammadan islam is made obvious.
No one unity will ever rule this world. We by our very nature will always fight and must fight. When we fail to be able to challenge the state or the church or whoever wishes to claim dominion over us all, we can no longer grow and evolve. We are not as the humanist believes, purely empathetic. We are also sentimental, selfish... We value certain lives more than others and if you didn't, you'd be an unloving sociopath. If you have someone beating your child to a pulp, you do not have a moral quandry, you have a man to kill. That's not your fault, that's not anyone's fault but his. Yet, under the belief, that all lives are equally valuable and all of us are endowed with the same morality, this should not be the case.
In this regard, humanism is logically incoherent.
On the opposite end, our Muhammadan friends, believe that we are all evil. That we are all lost without that which is divinely revealed. That nothing noble or good comes from humanity and that Allah alone knows the hidden secrets of the creation. They believe one day, that we will all be united under the Sharia. Unfortunately for them, their own faith produces nothing but darkness and ignorance. Because they have stopped questioning, they lag behind in creative military technologies, as well as civil industries.

There is strength in numbers but an agency made up of losers is nothing to behold.
The humanist is weak, the religious fanatic is a dope and both dream of things they can never have. The thing that disgusts me most, is oneness. It is inescapable, we are the same human family and even so, we are not. I will always rise to kill those who hamper my way of life, I will sacrifice my life to maintain that which is more important to me and those who I cannot stand to see perish. Our tribalism is both a handicap and a strength. We must have the ability to question doctrine and at the same time, we as people have to have a foundation in some ethos/ideology. We're a mess. A beautiful, overly complicated, yet still remarkably well organized, clusterfuck. There must always be someone to serve toward the creative end and someone to serve toward the destructive end. Devil's advocate is not just an expression, just as prophets, symbols and scripture are held sacred, so too war lords, mad men and despots are important.

We will always suffer, there are no final solutions.

09-29-2012, 08:23 AM
hmm..interesting shit

cj wisty
10-01-2012, 04:33 PM
the problem is that theres no objective morality. and there is no objective material world. we live in a nihilistic world and the problem is how do we deal with that. people like siddhartha are passive nihilists and they believe that the answer is to accept that the world isnt real and that neither are you and as such u should 4get urself and no longer exist. they cant handle this nihilistic world and they seek to end themselves. to fall asleep in nirvana.

however i prefer the ideas of someone like Nietzsche who is an active nihilist and when we looks into this abyss of nothingness he instead bravely says if theres no real world or no real morals then someone must create his own world and morals. such a person is beyond ordinary men and is called the ubermensch. he has the ability to break outta the herd mentality and create his own morals however he sees fit. it then becomes obvious that the most important task is art. art being the creative expression of an ubermenschs ideals rules and morals. the creative driving force of life. there i no solid objective foundation 4 these morals but that doesnt matter cuz the ubermenschs will is so strong that he makes this things so real like a true artist.

10-02-2012, 03:22 AM
God is nature and nothing.

Face of the Golden Falcon
10-18-2012, 01:46 AM
the problem is that theres no objective morality. and there is no objective material world.

can you prove these statements?

10-18-2012, 12:07 PM
I think with the lack of the objective material world statement, he's coming from the quantum physics point of view. In which case, I'd have to agree. No pbjective morality though, yo no se.

cj wisty
10-18-2012, 03:03 PM
can you prove these statements?

what is morality. it is what is good and what is bad. but look at a buddhist. he thinks eating anmals is wrong cuz all animals and people are equal plus its cruel. look at a lion. he thinks eating animals is good cuz it stops the lion from being hungry. both two different moralities and u cant say one is more correct than the other so its subjective.

and even if there is a god who has his own morality its not an objective morality cuz its only his personal view and not every1 will share it.

as for an objective reality beinmg false well each and every person has their own subjective reality.

well thats quite hard 2 explain. as urban journals said u can look at it from the quantum mechanics perspective which is a particular object doesnt have a length until it is observed and also that an atom exists in several places until it is observed. also look at schrodingers cat.

i think that everyones subjective reality contradicts with eachother and that means there cant b an objective reality.

also immanuel kant also came up with the conception of "thing in itself" which is an object is truly known without the use of senses. the appearance of the object itself is false cuz we know a things appearance by our senses and our senses are false and unreliable. the reason why is cuz senses are subjective.

kant also said there could b a whole other world of thing in itself but it is unknowable to humans cuz they cant experience it. however this world of thing in itself would be a true and objective world cuz it isnt experienced through subjective means(senses).

however nietzsche later criticized this model for an objective world. nietzsche said the thing in itself isnt able to interact with the world and cant be part of the casual chain. if it did interact with other things it would have to have properties similiar to those things and could therefore be experienced through the senses.

therefore this objective world that can be experienced without the senses isnt possible.

i think the only objective world that could exist is an absolute vacuum which is basicly nothingness.