Conversations with God

Phat writes: You may think that a guy who claims to hear wisdom in his mind is delusional, but I would say that a guy who simply listens to a character in a book and does not believe that the character is actually real is just as delusional.

Yes Phat, the Vedas were not authored by man but revealed by God to the enlightened ones they are authoritative and only the delusional can doubt or not believe the characters are real.

It is possible that out of many religions only one is correct. When you consider everything as relative you are simply taking the spot in your mind and heart that a God would belong in and forming your own conclusion based on logic, reason, and reality. The question then would become whether the GOD Who is would want you to endlessly ask questions instead of accepting Her as the answer. You obviously belittle me for accepting God. And I wonder why you feel led to ask questions for eternity instead of choosing which answers to accept.

It is possible that out of many religions only one is correct.

No, it isn't. It's religion. By definition it's not correct. It's sham.

When you consider everything as relative you are simply taking the spot in your mind and heart that a God would belong in and forming your own conclusion based on logic, reason, and reality.

Yes! Well said.

Except there's no such reserved spot. It's all just kinda a mish-mash in there.

And I wonder why you feel led to ask questions for eternity instead of choosing which answers to accept.

Oh Phat, you miss the very essence of humanity. Even the poets and scientists of millennia ago knew the more answers you get the more questions come into existence. It's like majik but it's only intellect not spooks.

Way back then, just as today, it was the priests that objected to knowledge.

Phat writes: It is possible that out of many religions only one is correct.

While it is highly unlikely it is possible that one or more religions MIGHT be correct.

But there is no possible way to determine such things and all the evidence is that ALL religions are simply the creation of humans.

Of the world's religions the Vedic ones do seem to the the most likely and so far longest lasting.

Phat writes: You obviously belittle me for accepting God.

No Phat, I do not belittle you but rather I belittle the god you create and market.

Phat writes: It is possible that out of many religions only one is correct. While it is highly unlikely it is possible that one or more religions MIGHT be correct.

Well, that depends entirely on how you score a religion on correctness, doesn't it?

Correctness would of course depend on getting things right, so being false would be the opposite, namely getting things wrong. I would think that we can all agree to that.

But are we requiring (or trying to claim) that a religion get absolutely everything right in order to qualify as "correct"? Or can it get some things right and also some things wrong and still qualify as "correct"?

By the same token, are we requiring (or trying to claim) that a religion get absolutely everything wrong in order to qualify as "false"? Or can it get some things wrong but still get some things right (however few) and still qualify as "false"?

Until we can agree on some kind of standards to proper rate religions, then Phat's claim (or hypothetical scenario) of "out of many religions only one is correct" is so meaningless as to not even come within sight of becoming an assertion.

 
If we go by the standard that a religion must get absolutely everything right and get absolutely nothing wrong in order to qualify as being correct, that would mean that the presence of even one single error would disqualify the entire religion. Given that every single religion has been created, operated, maintained, and taught by Man, who has a distinct talent to make mistakes (which is even part of Christian doctrine, especially fundamentalist doctrine), then it would be impossible for such a perfect religion to exist.

Ergo (∴), there does not exist any religion which is correct.

Applying similarly strict qualifications for a "false" religion, namely that it must get absolutely nothing right, would similarly yield an extreme paucity of candidates -- it might be possible to find one, but still very difficult and one would be very rare.

The most likely and obvious situation is that all religions are both correct and false in various degrees (ie, some are less false than others).

So trying to argue for only one religion being correct is just simply nonsense by any definition of "correct religion".

I think i will go with Albert Einstein on this. He said, “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

Phat writes: When is the last time you talked(prayed communed with) God?

Nobody ever did. People can talk at whatever god they believe in and they can believe that they hear it talking to them - but there is no more reality in you "communing" with God than there is in somebody else communing with Quetzalcoatl.

Phat writes: How can you be so sure that I am disconnected with reality...

From your posts.

Phat writes: ... while you guys are rational and logically sane?

The fact that it's "us guys" and not just me. Collective reality is usually more reliable than individual reality.

Also the fact that you scoff at rationality and logic. The guy who thinks everybody is crazy but him is usually the crazy one.

Phat writes: How do you know that you are not deceived?

You said it yourself: rationality and logic.

Phat writes: ... I would say that a guy who simply listens to a character in a book and does not believe that the character is actually real is just as delusional.

Read that again. Does it make sense to you?

I don't believe that Long John Silver is real. How does that make me delusional?

Phat writes: And by the way....all this advice you give....do you yourself follow it?

What advice do I give? All I advise you to do is use your head. And yes, I do follow that advice. And since my head is not infallible, I look for logical, rational agreement from other heads.

Phat writes: When is the last time you talked(prayed communed with) God?

ringo writes: Nobody ever did. People can talk at whatever god they believe in and they can believe that they hear it talking to them - but there is no more reality in you "communing" with God than there is in somebody else communing with Quetzalcoatl.

And

jar writes: and all the evidence is that ALL religions are simply the creation of humans.

Which equates to "all Gods are simply the creation of humans."[/qs] And I totally, emphatically, and passionately disagree with your assessments. I would bet my life that you "guys" are incorrect and unable...never mind unwilling...to see it or understand it from my perspective.

jar writes: I do not belittle you but rather I belittle the god you create and market.

To the best of my awareness and knowledge I swear on a stack of Bibles that this "God" I market is the One who created both you and I. I did NOT create Him, though I am only starting to really understand His character.

Phat writes: IF God exists He exists regardless of what our science and evidence can or cannot prove

AZPaul3 writes: No. He can't. If he exists in this universe we would have evidence. Can't be helped.

You assume that we would have evidence. Some of us claim to have it....in the form of an inner awareness and realization. The rest of you either don't care to pay much mind or call us batshit crazy for imagining that we are enlightened. IF God exists and is desiring communion with humans, it cant be helped. Throughout History we have made these claims, been persecuted, and were willing to die for our beliefs rather than renounce them.

AZPaul3 writes: Nothing exempts Christians from the requirement of providing evidence. Majik is not acceptable. The standard priest's response of "Because we say so" is not acceptable.

Sez you. This is why society is split. You guys claim that the default standards are defined by you. We claim that our belief is and always will be our default and in fact should be yours. Or is yours without your knowledge.

We have entire societies with this disease.

We too have entire societys of people who willfully deny God and claim that they simply see no evidence. Y'all know darn well what it is you are denying(Absolute Authority) and will be judged accordingly. Fair warning. And no, it wont be us who fight you. It will be the Spirit that you deny exists. He wont have a mountain range of relative deities. We have graduated beyond polytheism and the subtle lie of pantheism, which is actually monism.

You assume that we would have evidence.

Yes, I assume there would be evidence because anything and everything we have ever seen in this universe that moves matter/energy leaves a trail. According to our understanding of reality, with 10s of millions of hard science facts, real evidence, in support, this must be so. Physical systems preserve all information. The universe seems to allow for nothing else.

If your invasive destructive god did as you say he did it would be written on the heavens. It isn't.

You offer nothing to challenge this other than your heartfelt insistence.

Throughout History we have made these claims, been persecuted, and were willing to die for our beliefs rather than renounce them.

Throughout history you have made these claims and persecuted anyone who did not bend, got persecuted right back, made war on humanity and got made war on right back. Don't try to hold your bloody religious history as some shield against your own evil.

We know you will never submit. Well, we do hold some hope.

But that's not the point. The point is the violent insistence you people have that everyone else submit.

Nothing exempts Christians from the requirement of providing evidence. Sez you.

No. Sez reality. Phat you keep trying to make this a matter of emotion. It's a matter of physics. If you want to say reality is "this" way then show us.

We did it. Why can't you?

We say reality is this way. And we back it up with evidence observed from reality. You can see it. You can watch it work and know why it works.

You give us tall tales of impossible majik impossible to verify impossible to perform and just insist on its veracity.

No.

The standards of evidence are set. Either meet them or leave the field.

And, no, not sez me but sez the consensus of rational humanity. That's what the last 300 years of human enlightenment, fought against by your church, has been all about.

The chains have been thrown off. We paid a heavy bloody price to win the right to that standard and it will be the centerpiece of rational human thought from now on.

And no, it wont be us who fight you. It will be the Spirit that you deny exists.

Ahh, yes, the ghost monkey. The evolved simian from Earth that made the universe, all that is, seen and unseen.

Phat writes: And I totally, emphatically, and passionately disagree with your assessments.

Your disagreement has no value unless you have an argument to back it up.

Phat writes: I would bet my life that you "guys" are incorrect...

Oh, come on, you won't even bet your spare change on your "faith", much less your life.

Phat writes: ... and unable...never mind unwilling...to see it or understand it from my perspective.

That's because your perspective is wrong. We know that because you draw your conclusions in defiance of the evidence.

Oh, come on, you won't even bet your spare change on your "faith", much less your life.

Im no fool. Im not rich...im poorer than most of my high school class. I cant afford to give all that I have and throw myself on the altar of socialism. You wouldnt want to be homeless either so you have no room to talk.

That's because your perspective is wrong. We know that because you draw your conclusions in defiance of the evidence.

Nonsense. At worst, there is no evidence possible to disprove what I believe. You guys simply want evidence and critical thinking to be the default method of determining reality when, in fact, reality itself says that you can have no proof. Where we differ after that is that I believe and you dont. You with hold belief pending evidence. I felt that I had enough subjective experience to take a leap of faith...and it paid off in that I met God.(or something I thought was and is God. I could never be as coldly rational as you.

AZ Deity writes: The universe seems to allow for nothing else.

In other words, the universe seems to provide no evidence, right? Well did it ever occur to you that a supernatural Being would in fact not need to leave evidence apart from changed earts and minds? But that fact never seems convincing enough.

No, what that means is that everything that moves in this universe affects lots of other things and leaves a trail.

If you want to say your gods left no evidence at all despite the ham-handed treatment your stories relate then you're back to invoking impossible irrational majik to cover up the damage done.

Evidence of the flud was covered up when the devil went around burying dino bones.

I know that doesn't bother you but it should bother everyone else. You people also invoke impossible irrational majik to justify all the crimes you commit against humanity. Your excuses above are just more of the same.

Based on our experiences with you, your majik is no longer allowed to be used as excuse for anything. Your gods left no mark on this universe because they do not exist. They are bogus apparitions. Conjures of the primitive human mind.

Can you show otherwise without the majik?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You people also invoke impossible irrational majik to justify all the crimes you commit against humanity.

Thats not true for most of us. I have committed no crimes against humanity and neither have most Christians that I know personally.. You seemingly equate us with Christian Nationalists or Jim Jones.

You seemingly equate us with Christian Nationalists or Jim Jones.

... and the high priests of the tabernacle, any and all the various popes, shamans, Christian warriors all.

I am sorry to burden you in this way (... well ... not ...) but in many of these conversations you are, for me, all the crazies in one embodiment.

You're a Christian. You're a polytheist. You can understand the groupings of many into the one.

So, yah, I do so often address you as the broader demons in my mind.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.