A third of all Millennials express themselves as irreligious

Page 2 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,100
Location: Stendec

30 Jan 2015, 8:32 pm

Put in your HEARING AID and READ WHAT I say!

You can ALWAYS TELL that a THREAD HAS DIED when the WOOISTS TAKE OVER!

:lol:


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,628

30 Jan 2015, 11:20 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
aghogday wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
aghogday wrote:

DUDE, please!.. PUT on your reading glasses and Listen TO MY CLARIFICATION once again.

Classical pantheists are REAL THEISTS AND IT IS A REAL RELIGION AND they equate the Universe with GOD..

Do ya get it yet!..

I don't know how many more ways I can say THIS COMMON SENSE TRUTH.

GOD IS all NATURAL ALL THE TIME!

And that's the truth!


Disagreeing with your framing isn't the same as failure to understand your framing.


REALLY.

In what WAY is Mother Nature not REAL?

Explain please...

I'M ALL EARS.

I clearly stated that GOD is the same dam thing as Mother Nature.

And you turned around and clearly stated THAT GOD is NOT anymore real than the Abrahamic GOD.

What part of THAT did YOU NOT you get.

Seriously.

I'm ALL EARS.

IF ya wanna explain, CLARIFY, AND VALIDATE your idea to ME. :)

IF NOT.. THE RECORD STANDS AS is. :)


Nature is real.
The personification of nature you refer to as 'mother nature' is not.


NO, I do not personify the God THAT IS NATURE.

NOT my fault if you CANNOT understand a simple metaphor for the frigging BIG BANG.

EVEN Stephen Hawking can do that. ;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


RhodyStruggle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 508

31 Jan 2015, 12:57 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
RhodyStruggle wrote:
For some definition of religion, at least.

Personally I don't see any important difference between, for example, an atheist psychiatrist who espouses the chemical imbalance theory of mental illness (as such a person accepts on faith a set of received knowledge bearing at best incidental resemblance to truth, promulgated by those who stand to materially benefit from said knowledge being acted upon, and does so act upon it, authoritatively and at times coercively) and your typical priest. But the former would be counted as irreligious.


Considering brain chemistry plays a major role in feelings and behavior, makes more sense than not that chemical imbalance at the very least can play a role in mental illnesses. Of course much of the time they don't care to determine why the chemical imbalance may exist...might be having been stuck in a negative situation too long or still stuck in that situation, being sent on their way with medication isn't going to fix that. There is actually some basis to that, unlike 'The bible is truth' which is a reason I hear a lot of christians give for why they believe what they do...so not sure how a psychiatrist and priest would be similar at all.


The chemical imbalance theory of mental illness was a creation of the marketing departments of pharmaceutical companies. No doubt brain chemistry is a significant factor in mental illness, but that's a far cry from the causative hypothesis of "Your brain needs this medicine just like a diabetic's body needs insulin" which is more akin to the bodily humours of medieval medicine.

That's quackery practiced under color of authority, from which the authoritative practitioners derive personal benefit. Not unlike the preacher threatening eternal damnation if you're not listening to his sermons and tithing to his church, with respect to the way each interacts with their community - that being the dimension that I personally find to be important, hence the qualification with which my previous statement began.

Not saying that describes all psychiatrists of course. When I asked the doctor I'm currently seeing how the meds she might prescribe work, she said "We understand how these drugs affect brain chemistry, but figuring out which changes will help which people is art as well as science." To me, that humility is light-years away from the diabetic metaphor.

I used to know a Christian minister who didn't believe in God. Or more specifically he personally ascribed to what's called Death of God theology. The way he described it to me, just because we'd figured out that God isn't real doesn't mean some don't still need Him, and since He doesn't exist that means His servants just have all the more work cut out for them. But he wasn't pushing his beliefs on anyone, he wasn't trying to convince anyone that the Bible was the literal truth, and he wasn't trying to convince anyone that it isn't either. He was just so devoted to helping folks that shifting his own sense of Truth to accommodate their beliefs was just one more service, gladly undertaken.

It seems to me that the difference you point to between a psychiatrist and one who says "the bible is truth" is essentially correspondence vs. coherence theories of truth. I don't personally find that to be important but of course YMMV.


_________________
From start to finish I've made you feel this
Uncomfort in turn with the world you've learned
To love through this hate to live with its weight
A burden discerned in the blood you taste


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,501
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

31 Jan 2015, 2:45 am

RhodyStruggle wrote:

The chemical imbalance theory of mental illness was a creation of the marketing departments of pharmaceutical companies. No doubt brain chemistry is a significant factor in mental illness, but that's a far cry from the causative hypothesis of "Your brain needs this medicine just like a diabetic's body needs insulin" which is more akin to the bodily humours of medieval medicine.

That's quackery practiced under color of authority, from which the authoritative practitioners derive personal benefit. Not unlike the preacher threatening eternal damnation if you're not listening to his sermons and tithing to his church, with respect to the way each interacts with their community - that being the dimension that I personally find to be important, hence the qualification with which my previous statement began.

Not saying that describes all psychiatrists of course. When I asked the doctor I'm currently seeing how the meds she might prescribe work, she said "We understand how these drugs affect brain chemistry, but figuring out which changes will help which people is art as well as science." To me, that humility is light-years away from the diabetic metaphor.

I used to know a Christian minister who didn't believe in God. Or more specifically he personally ascribed to what's called Death of God theology. The way he described it to me, just because we'd figured out that God isn't real doesn't mean some don't still need Him, and since He doesn't exist that means His servants just have all the more work cut out for them. But he wasn't pushing his beliefs on anyone, he wasn't trying to convince anyone that the Bible was the literal truth, and he wasn't trying to convince anyone that it isn't either. He was just so devoted to helping folks that shifting his own sense of Truth to accommodate their beliefs was just one more service, gladly undertaken.

It seems to me that the difference you point to between a psychiatrist and one who says "the bible is truth" is essentially correspondence vs. coherence theories of truth. I don't personally find that to be important but of course YMMV.


All I am saying is there is more reason to believe brain chemistry plays a role in mental illness, as in more evidence to back it up then that there's some Man in the sky watching everyone who will doom you to hell if you do not worship and love him....all there is for that is a book that has been translated over and over again. Pretty sure they have actually found brain chemicals and have proof they effect things not a book written thousands of years ago that simply says 'this exists' with a mythological story to back it up and people who claim its the 'truth' just because.

That said I am well aware of the big pharma influence when it comes to mental illness and mental health professionals as well as government regulations/policies related to it as well as the corruption. However that is hardly limited to mental illness alone, the most obvious example is we have commercials that advertise medications that should not be allowed. Either way more evidence for brain chemicals than an omnipresent narcissist in the sky.


_________________
We won't go back.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,628

31 Jan 2015, 9:21 am

Fnord wrote:
Put in your HEARING AID and READ WHAT I say!

You can ALWAYS TELL that a THREAD HAS DIED when the WOOISTS TAKE OVER!

:lol:


As far AS metaphors go, some folks could use a hearing aid to perceive more of GOD.

The fallacy is humans believing they see all of nature as is.

That is personifying nature.

To understand the limitations of humans to perceive all of nature is to have enough humility to understand that humans are only metaphorical fleas sucking on the blood of a dog that they label as the metaphor of blood.

Hopefully that makes sense but it probably does not for you and there is a typical but not universal reason for it.

The old metaphor of humans use 10% of their brain to perceive all of nature does apply.

And using 10% of one's brain has little to do with how an MRI or other brain scan lights up when a person is engaged in verbal thought.

There is much, much, much, more to a human's ability to perceive this Nature all around us, inside of us, above and below than meets the eye of a frigging Standard I.Q. test that only measures abstract abilities designed by culture.

Written language, collective intelligence, and complex cultures are all abstract constructs that humans have come together to manufacture through social cooperation aka reciprocal social communication, that thingy that folks on the spectrum have limits of brain function to more fully employ, according to science.

There are many more innate intelligences that are oppressed, and repressed by our ways of modern culture that literally limit 'our' potential fuller intelligence(S), to perceive GOD aka Nature per the REAL THEIST RELIGION OF PANTHEISM.

As science now shows it is likely that Autism is more of an environmental issue than innate one, and yes there are many ways to oppress or repress reciprocal social communication through the environment, as simple as Parents not nurturing their children in the first two year of life that science now shows stunts the wring of the brain that allows human beings to be rewarded by an all natural oxytocin warm and fuzzy good feeling from connecting to other flesh and blood human beings.

The metaphor of use it or lose does apply to almost every innate area of human being potential fuller intelligence(S).

PART OF LIMITED intelligence(S) is limiting the definition of GOD to the Abrahamic version, and not being able to move out of that little box of intelligence(S) in perceiving GOD as is and learning instinctual and intuitive intelligences that humans are built with THROUGH EVOLUTION to experience more of Mother Nature aka GOD through THESE built in Innate physical, emotional, and sensory POTENTIAL FULLER intelligences.

FACT, YES SCIENTIFIC FACT IS SOME folks ON THE AUTISM SPECTRUM as is, are deficient in brain function in these type of intelligences, and yeah, it's even in U.S. Code, per Autism as a deficit of BRAIN FUNCTION.

Look it up, if you do not believe it, if whomever is reading this doesn't believe it.

And nah, Fnord's comment is a springboard for my full comment here but as always I write for the entire thinking audience, NOT just one narrow view of GOD or Nature per REALITY THAT can be much greater for those who more fully employ more of potential human intelligences.

And just 'cause someone doesn't post here does not mean they are NOT READING what I write, as people private message me that they do, so I am not deterred at all by the nay sayers posting here.

The Rabbit hole, as metaphor, goes much much deeper for those who seek greater FULLER INTELLIGENCES in life.

Autism is an extremely wide spectrum of learning disabilities and potential causal factors.

Human kind is full of different brushes.. strokes.. and canvases of human intelligences...

There is verbal intelligence.. spatial intelligence.. musical intelligence.. poetry intelligence.. abstract intelligence.. concrete intelligence.. figurative intelligence.. existential intelligence.. proprioception intelligence.. visual intelligence.. smelling intelligence.. touch intelligence.. auditory intelligence.. sexual and sensual intelligence.. non verbal language intelligence.. physical intelligence.. emotional intelligence.. sensory integration intelligence.. focus intelligence.. executive functioning intelligence.. rote memory intelligence.. long term memory intelligence.. short term memory intelligence.. reading intelligence.. writing intelligence.. CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE.. AND OMG THE LIST GOES ON AND ON...

OH YEAH... THERE IS COGNITIVE EMPATHY INTELLIGENCE.. EMOTIONAL CONTAGION INTELLIGENCE.. MIRROR NEURON INTELLIGENCE.. AFFECTIVE EMPATHY INTELLIGENCE.. and yeah that list goes on too...

So the issue is GOD is REAL as Nature.

So the issue here is, some folks perceive a much bigger GOD per NATURE THAN others simply because they either are innately gifted for more of these potential human intelligences or they seek them, practice them, and perfect a practice with a higher and higher way of human intelligenceS MORE FULLY EMPLOYED IN LIFE TO EVEN see GOD as GOD is Nature.

To understand Nature and one's own Nature is to perfect the ability for animal homeostasis, joy, bliss, and all those flowered words that are REAL HUMAN EXPERIENCES THAT SOME folks rarely or NEVER EXPERIENCE IN LIFE, as they simply do not seek more of their innate human potential IN MUCH fuller human intelligence(S).

Science gives us a tool to see more of GOD AS NATURE but for those who truly listen to all of science and not just one specialized area of science it is MORE THAN CLEAR THROUGH QUANTUM PHYSICS, AND MANY OTHER specialities of science that we humans have not even touched the FULLER REALITY THAT IS NATURE AKA GOD.

I touch more of GOD as I Seek Nature, including my human nature that is GOD in totality AS IS.

To limit that potential is definitely to have LESS THAN A FULL HUMAN BEING LIFE.

AND THAT'S JUST PLAIN SAD.

IT'S AS SIMPLE AND AS COMPLEX AS THAT.

PERIOD AND EXCLAMATION POINT ONE.

YES ONE GOD OF NATURE AS IS AND MORE TO SOME THAN OTHERS fuller perceived as such.

Mindful Awareness is not a thought OR THOUGHTS.

Mindful Awareness is employing humans potential in experiencing more of NATURE aka GOD, as is, through senses, emotions and other human potentials that culture BLOCKS OUT THROUGH ALL ITS ABSTRACT CONSTRUCT NOISE.

THE HUMAN thought(S) is less that 10 percent of potential human intelligence.

Some HUMANS cannot fathom that for potential innate or environmental reasons but it is FACT, AS IS, FOR THOSE WHO SEE MUCH MORE OF NATURE AKA GOD THROUGH many more POTENTIAL FULLER HUMAN INTELLIGENCES.

For metaphor some folks have battery powered hearing aids.

My hearing aid is nuclear powered. ;)

And perhaps there is literal truth to THAT AS WELL......

Perhaps one day science will shed light on THAT as well. :)

But meanwhile, I have FAITH in my Nature and the Nature that is all around me, inside, above and below aka GOD, as I simply seek it, more fully employ potential human intelligences, and FIND IT EVERY NOW, INSIDE OF ME, OUTSIDE OF ME, ABOVE SO BELOW.

AND MY TOOLS ARE RELATIVE FREE WILL, BELIEF, HOPE, AND YES TRUST, in what I find as TRUTH IN GOD AKA NATURE.

ALL FLOWERED WORDS BUT REAL TOOLS FOR THOSE WHO EXPERIENCE THEM AND EMPLOY them as such.

And this is pretty much what the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, and many other religions and philosophies are truly talking to at core, considering a more limited viewing audience, HERE, in attempting to provide a more comprehensive look, for those who are interested and for those who are not, I suggest just shut me out, like all the other potential intelligences in life that folks do shut out either by innate nature or environmental nurture, including abstract language, collective intelligence, AND COMPLEX CULTURE AS DEVICES to truly limit potential human being, instead of expanding it to what it CAN BE, in moving out of Plato's cave.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


emax10000
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2015
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 180

31 Jan 2015, 8:49 pm

trollcatman wrote:
emax10000 wrote:
I think you have to factor in the fact that there seems to be a natural progression towards being more religious as we get older. I mean, looking at the 15-30 crowd int he 60s and 70s, I highly, highly doubt they are as religious and observant as they are now they they have gotten several decades older. At this age millennials are still trying to determine what their identity actually is. And of course there is also the fact that irreligious and atheist are definitely not synonyms in any way, shape or form. So I think this has to be factored in, much as I understand why some Aspies here might feel hopeful that this is a sign of religion and spirituality disappearing.


The non-religious are a larger part of the population than before. The population is also older than before. Your theory that people become religious when older doesn't seem to be true. If it were true, religion would be on the rise because of rising age. Also, a lot of the least religious countries are in Europe, and have aging populations.


This does not make much sense to me. The population is more irreligious largely because Millenials are disproportionally becoming more irreligious. At least that is what this post is suggesting, since I would highly doubt that a third of the over 60 crowd would describe themselves as irreligious. It is true that it is probably a higher portion of the younger generation being irreligious than we have seen in decades past but historical patterns show we cannot assume they will remain that way at all.

And also one should note that the growing atheist movement could still find plenty to fight with when it comes to these irreligious people for multiple reasons. For one, the growing atheist movement is often hostile to any kind of belief in a higher power, intelligent design or afterlife. For them, it is often not enough for others to reject organized religion, they will often be dissatisfied unless all of us completely abandon any idea of a divine power of a life that exists outside the one on earth. And that is a complete pipe dream for more than one reason.



fifthgear
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2015
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 28
Location: Rhode Island

31 Jan 2015, 10:23 pm

aghogday wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
aghogday wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
aghogday wrote:

DUDE, please!.. PUT on your reading glasses and Listen TO MY CLARIFICATION once again.

Classical pantheists are REAL THEISTS AND IT IS A REAL RELIGION AND they equate the Universe with GOD..

Do ya get it yet!..

I don't know how many more ways I can say THIS COMMON SENSE TRUTH.

GOD IS all NATURAL ALL THE TIME!

And that's the truth!


Disagreeing with your framing isn't the same as failure to understand your framing.


REALLY.

In what WAY is Mother Nature not REAL?

Explain please...

I'M ALL EARS.

I clearly stated that GOD is the same dam thing as Mother Nature.

And you turned around and clearly stated THAT GOD is NOT anymore real than the Abrahamic GOD.

What part of THAT did YOU NOT you get.

Seriously.

I'm ALL EARS.

IF ya wanna explain, CLARIFY, AND VALIDATE your idea to ME. :)

IF NOT.. THE RECORD STANDS AS is. :)


Nature is real.
The personification of nature you refer to as 'mother nature' is not.


NO, I do not personify the God THAT IS NATURE.

NOT my fault if you CANNOT understand a simple metaphor for the frigging BIG BANG.

EVEN Stephen Hawking can do that. ;)


I would like to understand you position of pantheism. As I read back in the thread I think I understand that your position is that the universe itself is a god-like-being. Also, please correct me, you also assert that the terms 'universe', 'nature' and 'god' are interchangeable (because you hold that these three terms all refer to precisely the same thing; namely the god-like-being that is the universe).

I'm not terrible well versed in pantheism. So can I ask a few questions?
- Is the pantheistic god conscious (a friend of mine who is pantheistic asserts that his universe-god is not conscious. I'm not really even sure how to begin to understand what that statement means)?
- I may have missed it in my reading this thread. I couldn't find the answer looking back in the thread. Does pantheism assert that the big bang is only a metaphor for nature? Could you expand upon this? I don't really understand what this assertion means.
- That leads to my last question for now. In Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design, Hawking states that no process other than the natural processes uncovered by physics is necessary for the big bang, the universe as it exists today, or as an explanation of how the universe progresses through time. Hawking is an atheist. Would you mind expanding upon your assertion that even Hawking can do that (understand a metaphor for the big bang).

Sorry for the questions. I'm just attempting to understand the concept; not attempting to apply any judgment to it.



RhodyStruggle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 508

31 Jan 2015, 10:47 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
RhodyStruggle wrote:

The chemical imbalance theory of mental illness was a creation of the marketing departments of pharmaceutical companies. No doubt brain chemistry is a significant factor in mental illness, but that's a far cry from the causative hypothesis of "Your brain needs this medicine just like a diabetic's body needs insulin" which is more akin to the bodily humours of medieval medicine.

That's quackery practiced under color of authority, from which the authoritative practitioners derive personal benefit. Not unlike the preacher threatening eternal damnation if you're not listening to his sermons and tithing to his church, with respect to the way each interacts with their community - that being the dimension that I personally find to be important, hence the qualification with which my previous statement began.

Not saying that describes all psychiatrists of course. When I asked the doctor I'm currently seeing how the meds she might prescribe work, she said "We understand how these drugs affect brain chemistry, but figuring out which changes will help which people is art as well as science." To me, that humility is light-years away from the diabetic metaphor.

I used to know a Christian minister who didn't believe in God. Or more specifically he personally ascribed to what's called Death of God theology. The way he described it to me, just because we'd figured out that God isn't real doesn't mean some don't still need Him, and since He doesn't exist that means His servants just have all the more work cut out for them. But he wasn't pushing his beliefs on anyone, he wasn't trying to convince anyone that the Bible was the literal truth, and he wasn't trying to convince anyone that it isn't either. He was just so devoted to helping folks that shifting his own sense of Truth to accommodate their beliefs was just one more service, gladly undertaken.

It seems to me that the difference you point to between a psychiatrist and one who says "the bible is truth" is essentially correspondence vs. coherence theories of truth. I don't personally find that to be important but of course YMMV.


All I am saying is there is more reason to believe brain chemistry plays a role in mental illness, as in more evidence to back it up then that there's some Man in the sky watching everyone who will doom you to hell if you do not worship and love him....all there is for that is a book that has been translated over and over again. Pretty sure they have actually found brain chemicals and have proof they effect things not a book written thousands of years ago that simply says 'this exists' with a mythological story to back it up and people who claim its the 'truth' just because.

That said I am well aware of the big pharma influence when it comes to mental illness and mental health professionals as well as government regulations/policies related to it as well as the corruption. However that is hardly limited to mental illness alone, the most obvious example is we have commercials that advertise medications that should not be allowed. Either way more evidence for brain chemicals than an omnipresent narcissist in the sky.


Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you're saying that a proposition which is not proven, but is nonetheless supported by some quantity of evidence deemed sufficient, can be treated as though it is proven.

My contention is that that belief is itself a religious belief. Or to put it another way, one might not go to church or believe in a deity, but one who isn't down with Karl Popper still believes in fairy tales.


_________________
From start to finish I've made you feel this
Uncomfort in turn with the world you've learned
To love through this hate to live with its weight
A burden discerned in the blood you taste


trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

01 Feb 2015, 1:26 am

emax10000 wrote:
trollcatman wrote:
emax10000 wrote:
I think you have to factor in the fact that there seems to be a natural progression towards being more religious as we get older. I mean, looking at the 15-30 crowd int he 60s and 70s, I highly, highly doubt they are as religious and observant as they are now they they have gotten several decades older. At this age millennials are still trying to determine what their identity actually is. And of course there is also the fact that irreligious and atheist are definitely not synonyms in any way, shape or form. So I think this has to be factored in, much as I understand why some Aspies here might feel hopeful that this is a sign of religion and spirituality disappearing.


The non-religious are a larger part of the population than before. The population is also older than before. Your theory that people become religious when older doesn't seem to be true. If it were true, religion would be on the rise because of rising age. Also, a lot of the least religious countries are in Europe, and have aging populations.


This does not make much sense to me. The population is more irreligious largely because Millenials are disproportionally becoming more irreligious. At least that is what this post is suggesting, since I would highly doubt that a third of the over 60 crowd would describe themselves as irreligious. It is true that it is probably a higher portion of the younger generation being irreligious than we have seen in decades past but historical patterns show we cannot assume they will remain that way at all.

And also one should note that the growing atheist movement could still find plenty to fight with when it comes to these irreligious people for multiple reasons. For one, the growing atheist movement is often hostile to any kind of belief in a higher power, intelligent design or afterlife. For them, it is often not enough for others to reject organized religion, they will often be dissatisfied unless all of us completely abandon any idea of a divine power of a life that exists outside the one on earth. And that is a complete pipe dream for more than one reason.


But the proportion of old people is larger than ever, while the amount of non-religious is now larger than ever. I think that just like in Europe, every next generation in the US will be a little bit less relgious. The US just got started later with this trend. The US is the exception, most other wealthy developed nations are much less religious.
And I don't think Americans need to fear discrimination by atheists when over 99% of their politicians are religious. When atheism becomes more mainstream, people won't talk about so much anymore.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,628

01 Feb 2015, 10:48 pm

fifthgear wrote:
aghogday wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
aghogday wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
aghogday wrote:

DUDE, please!.. PUT on your reading glasses and Listen TO MY CLARIFICATION once again.

Classical pantheists are REAL THEISTS AND IT IS A REAL RELIGION AND they equate the Universe with GOD..

Do ya get it yet!..

I don't know how many more ways I can say THIS COMMON SENSE TRUTH.

GOD IS all NATURAL ALL THE TIME!

And that's the truth!


Disagreeing with your framing isn't the same as failure to understand your framing.


REALLY.

In what WAY is Mother Nature not REAL?

Explain please...

I'M ALL EARS.

I clearly stated that GOD is the same dam thing as Mother Nature.

And you turned around and clearly stated THAT GOD is NOT anymore real than the Abrahamic GOD.

What part of THAT did YOU NOT you get.

Seriously.

I'm ALL EARS.

IF ya wanna explain, CLARIFY, AND VALIDATE your idea to ME. :)

IF NOT.. THE RECORD STANDS AS is. :)


Nature is real.
The personification of nature you refer to as 'mother nature' is not.


NO, I do not personify the God THAT IS NATURE.

NOT my fault if you CANNOT understand a simple metaphor for the frigging BIG BANG.

EVEN Stephen Hawking can do that. ;)


I would like to understand you position of pantheism. As I read back in the thread I think I understand that your position is that the universe itself is a god-like-being. Also, please correct me, you also assert that the terms 'universe', 'nature' and 'god' are interchangeable (because you hold that these three terms all refer to precisely the same thing; namely the god-like-being that is the universe).

I'm not terrible well versed in pantheism. So can I ask a few questions?
- Is the pantheistic god conscious (a friend of mine who is pantheistic asserts that his universe-god is not conscious. I'm not really even sure how to begin to understand what that statement means)?
- I may have missed it in my reading this thread. I couldn't find the answer looking back in the thread. Does pantheism assert that the big bang is only a metaphor for nature? Could you expand upon this? I don't really understand what this assertion means.
- That leads to my last question for now. In Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design, Hawking states that no process other than the natural processes uncovered by physics is necessary for the big bang, the universe as it exists today, or as an explanation of how the universe progresses through time. Hawking is an atheist. Would you mind expanding upon your assertion that even Hawking can do that (understand a metaphor for the big bang).

Sorry for the questions. I'm just attempting to understand the concept; not attempting to apply any judgment to it.


No problem, thanks for asking the questionS, and I am always open to questions no matter who they come from or what they are.

First of all, I do not technically consider myself a classical pantheist, although I do lean toward it, as well as many metaphorical truths, and even so-called myths that house elements of truth in vehicles and vessels of words, in many religions and philosophies that are truly only human abstract constructs to attempt to describe and work with reality as is.

To answer your questions about Classical Pantheism, it does not anthropomorphize GOD with a human like consciousness.

However, it does not limit any other potentials that may be unknown to the scribe of human science as is.

It is a completely open system OF GOD that includes all of reality from atoms to human imagination and creativity.

So yes, in the world of Classical Pantheism, even a Stephen King movie is part of the GOD OF MOTHER NATURE TRUE. :)

CLASSICAL PANTHEISM IS OPEN TO THE IDEA of Stephen Hawking's theory that the Universe needed no external cause to create itself.

And Classical Pantheism equates the Universe and potential Multi-Universes AS GOD in this TOTALLY open minded WAY OF SEEING GOD.

SO IF THERE IS ONLY THE UNIVERSE, PERHAPS GOD AS UNIVERSE CREATED GOD AS UNIVERSE, AS IS AND BEFORE.

However, again, Classical Pantheism keeps the question open, as science does too. :)

Hawking's ideas DO NOT refute the ideology of Classical Pantheism at all, no matter if he is correct or not correct OR even IN ADDITIONAL METAPHOR, just another Stephen King like Science Fiction writer, PER all OF CREATION AND CREATIVITY, HUMAN OR NOT, 'speak' as equal partners of ALL THAT IS, NEVER SEPARATED FROM THE PANTHEIST GOD.

IN MY OPINON, the metaphors expressed in the Gospel of Thomas equate Jesus to a classical leaning YOGI-like Pantheist thinking dude, too.

But no doubt there is emotional bias in these words by me, as emotions are WHAT driveS human rationality, in almost every case.

AS yes, emotions are part of THE CLASSICAL PANTHEIST GOD, AS ALL THAT IS, TOO. :)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

Modern religions are coming around to these truths, as even in the Catholic Church I attend NOW to connect to other human begins in the human emotion and greatest pro-social emoting power that CAN be LOVE AMONG human beings FOR greater social cooperation, describes spirit in the 'good' sense as pro-social emotions and spirit in the un-clean sense as con-social emotions.

Spirit is emotions and human senses working in balance.

The devil is in the details of human emotions and senses gone awry.

Physical Intelligence, as science now shows, drives emotional regulation, per POTENTIALLY keeping those con-social emotions away through cognitive effort; Sensory Integration, per being comfortable in one's own skin, and Cognitive Executive Functioning in short term working memory and focus.

Martial Artists and Yoga PRACTICERS HAVE UNDERSTOOD THIS TRUTH FOR LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF YEARS AND YEARS BEFORE 2K AGO....AND EMPLOYED IT IN A PERFECTION OF PRACTICE FOR SUCCESSFUL HUMAN MIND AND BODY BALANCE.

Science is just now coming around to these Truths.

I discern Truth and GO WITH IT, no matter what the source is, or whomever POOH POOHS OR WOO WOOS IT. :)

AND TRULY IT SAVES ME, as one person, from 19 medically document disorders and death.

I did it by connecting the TRUE EMOTING POWER OF EMOTIONS THROUGH ABSTRACT CONCEPTS ASSOCIATED WITH EMOTIONS IN free verse poetry.

And I found mind and body balance in physical intelligence driving emotional regulation, sensory integration, and cognitive functioning per a trinity of mind and body balance for metaphor in practiced mind and body balance.

My way is martial arts, and ballet like dance walking everywhere I go to connect to other human beings non-verbally and in practice continue to refine human mind and balance through this FULL ART OF MOVEMENT that is NOT guided by other human instruction or guidelines.

My body moves like galaxies and forms like the Nautilus shell that creates itself, as same, in the Golden Mean SPIRAL OF GOD PER 1.618.

THE SECRETS to human bliss are inside us, outside us, above and so below for those who seek them, find them and employ them every now of every now.

And obviously science and/or THE SYSTEMIZING MIND ALONE is NOT enough to understand human being, as science cannot come close to understanding the non-repeatable experiment that CAN BE THE HUMAN EMOTING POWER OF EMOTION, IMAGINATION, AND CREATIVITY.

YES, Stephen King's work is not much different, in this sense, than the so-called words of Jesus.

'We' have the potential power to imagine great dreams and employ them to make reality.

'We' have the potential power to imagine great nightmares and employe them to make reality.

I choose dreams and literally am considered a dance legend in my metro area, as I pursue those dreams and make them reality, after living as close to an invalid shut-in for five long years, Just a year and a half ago.

There is NOTHING GREATER IN THE POTENTIAL OF HUMAN BEING THAN WHAT DREAMS, emotion, IMAGINATION, AND CREATIVITY CAN FRUIT IN HUMAN REALITY.

GOD IS GREAT, MUCH GREATER THAN i but GOD leaves the path open for i to be greater than i before COULD EVER IMAGINE, as metaphor.

THE DIFFERENCE NOW IS..

I IMAGINE NOW..

AND NOW BECOMES REALITY..

AND YES.. I DO HAVE THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THAT TO PROVE IT IS TRUE.

SO IF NOTHING ELSE, I CAN PROVE THIS REAL HIGHER POWER OF GOD THAT SOME MATERIAL REDUCTIONIST, SYSTEMIZING, SCIENCE-LIKE FOLKS POOH POOH AND WOO WOO is TRUTH. :)

BUT NO MATTER WHAT I REAP THE REWARDS THAT ARE THE EMPIRICAL RESULTS AND EVIDENCE OF THIS POTENTIAL PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL, SENSORY, COGNITIVE EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING, DREAMING, IMAGINING, CREATING HUMAN HIGHER POWER OF GOD that is Mother Nature True aka All That IS.

And there is so much more of this that my words cannot yet scribe.

But I continue to work on it, as is. :)

And these words can even potentially save A LIFE for 'those' who find a way to employ these potential higher HUMAN BEING powers, as described, within human being, per much fuller human potential..

AT LEAST FOR ME, FOR SURE, IRREFUTABLY DOCUMENTED AND EVIDENCED AS SUCH. :)

The movie 'Contact' inspired by the writing of Carl Sagan, in Theatrical arts, tells the same story that has been told so many other ways through the metaphors of human beings.

Philosophies, Religions, and Theatrical ARTS AND ALL ARTS, IN GENERAL, CAN and DO METAPHOR TRUTH in these housings of vehicles and vessels of metaphor that carry truth through the AGE of human beings.



The Truth remains....

Words are empty shells without IT.



_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


emax10000
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2015
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 180

03 Feb 2015, 4:06 am

So what is the take home message here? Do we feel that belief in God is on the outs or do we just feel that belief in organized religion may decrease? What do you think is the fundamental issues here? Do you think belief in God has no future?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,100
Location: Stendec

03 Feb 2015, 7:18 am

The take-home is that about a third of millennials either hate religion in general or are indifferent to any sort of religion - they feel no desire or need to occupy their time with engaging in meaningless rituals and memorizing arbitrary doctrines.

As I said before, I understand the situation, but I do not see it as a problem.

However, some people could perceive it as a problem if they are in charge of managing the monies of a religious institution as expenses begin to exceed the income from offerings and tithes - fewer religious people translates into less money in the treasury, after all. If it continues long enough, you'll be seeing churches, temples, mosques, et cetera start closing down or limiting their activities.

But is having fewer religious institutions really a problem? If it means having less religion-based hatred and discrimination, then the answer is a resounding 'No'.

There will always be people who believe in God, a god, or any number of gods, but if the love of their god can't be turned into hatred for people who believe differently, then that's a Very Good Thing.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,628

03 Feb 2015, 9:31 am

Fnord wrote:
The take-home is that about a third of millennials either hate religion in general or are indifferent to any sort of religion - they feel no desire or need to occupy their time with engaging in meaningless rituals and memorizing arbitrary doctrines.

As I said before, I understand the situation, but I do not see it as a problem.

However, some people could perceive it as a problem if they are in charge of managing the monies of a religious institution as expenses begin to exceed the income from offerings and tithes - fewer religious people translates into less money in the treasury, after all. If it continues long enough, you'll be seeing churches, temples, mosques, et cetera start closing down or limiting their activities.

But is having fewer religious institutions really a problem? If it means having less religion-based hatred and discrimination, then the answer is a resounding 'No'.

There will always be people who believe in God, a god, or any number of gods, but if the love of their god can't be turned into hatred for people who believe differently, then that's a Very Good Thing.


I TotAlly Agree.

The majority of religion's EFFECT AND AFFECT in the Real world is to divide and conquer, still.

That will NOT work for a ONE World Tribe, as InfoTech IS making oneTRIBE more DAY by Day.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick