Ustwo

I support this idea of a personal deification, but only because someone who thinks you find god inside you is less likely to try to tell me how to live or blow me up with a suicide bomb.

The concept itself is hubris. Its putting yourself as the center of your own personal universe. It answers nothing fundamental, has no basis beyond a good vibe, and praying to oneself must be ultimately unsatisfying.

Personally I think the secret to spiritual peace is isn't in thinking we are Gods, but knowing we are animals.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Sultana

USTWO! How grand to see you again!

__________________
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
At night, the ice weasels come." -

Matt Groening

My goal? To fulfill my potential.

abaya

I agree with you, roachboy... at least, for my own life. But then you have so many cases of people who engage in repetitions without any aesthetic pleasure. Perhaps it is even ugly for them to do so. But they continue. Where does their belief come from?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

roachboy

abaya:

i dunno--i cant really fill in that blank for other folk.
christianity has this whole self-mortification option for example.
why people indulge it is kind of mysterious to me---all the more so because i find that i still do it myself sometimes (as a function of my residual good little catholic boy, which hasnt existed in any other way for many many years).

i assume that the investments are multiple--one set (not a good word here) would obtain in relation to the structure itself (or would have obtained before it was integrated into a psychological repertoire), and a whole riot of others would obtain for how you use it once it's in place.

the way the thread has gone shaped alot of the post above: most of it is about ways of parsing levels of activity that cannot be jammed back into linguistic-based patterns. there is a pretty wide range of these ways of parsing---so i read off the basis for my argument from that.

which happened to cross with stuff i have been thinking about, which is also motivated by the same kind of aesthetic considerations.

side note: alot of this comes from conversations i have had over a long period with folk about collective improvisation: why it happens to work so often, how it is possible that a group of people who do not know each other can sometimes stop and start and change direction (often quite radically) as a unit (at the same time). alot of folk (including my younger self) try to understand this via the language of mysticism.

i think that is a default language: we operate in a cultural space that does not value the capabilities that i think we all have (and use all the time in communicative situations) and which therefore has no coherent way to talk about what i see as a basic human capability--so mysticism is the space where it is confined.

i think we that we are basically oscillators and that collective improvisation works because it repeats the nature and operation of coupled oscillators. if you put two oscillators near each other and just let them run, they'll couple. when they couple, they'll generate a new wave form that is not the sum of the parts and which is remarkably stable. i think this explains what happens in a collective improvisation--particularly the strange sense that i at least often get that what i am playing is in some ways not my choice so much as what is required situationally. so practicing the piano is simply making the widest range of options available technically. and going blank is just a device for being open.

the biological systems account i have been working with is complex dynamical systems. if you know that stuff, you'll see how it dovetails with the above. if not, check out some of fransisco varela's work, like 'the embodied mind'....except for the tibetan buddhist elements (these worked for varela as a function of his personal predelections and so you dont have to follow him in that direction--you can adapt it to other purposes)...beyond varela, there is a ton of material out there about this way of understanding embodied cognition (and its neurological substructures). its very interesting stuff.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

abaya

Fascinating. This reminds me of the behavior of large groups of animals in the wild... watching a massive flock of birds whirl and twirl simultaneously above me, their silent communication completely beyond my perception/understanding. I am sure they don't even know how they do it... it just happens. Same with schools of fish and other groups of organisms that signal each other instantaneously, and the whole group is able to change direction quickly. I don't know if that's what you were referring to, but it came to mind.

As for oscillators... heh, funny you mention that word. On the thread "Pick a word," I lingered on that one (oscillator) to describe myself. Moving back and forth between two (or more) points, never stopping, but always on the same track. Maybe that explains some of the stability between me and ktspktsp.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

roachboy

it is interesting. i suspect that there are other explanations for this from other schools of biology/zoology that focus more on the object aspects of bio-systems--but these approaches seem partial in that they are about a particular time-frame. the cds approach is more about biological systems as they unfold temporally and the older approaches about the physical (the simultaneously present)--they're both interesting, but one shouldnt exclude the other. but it is strange what happens to how you think about the world, about people and other such, when you start incorporating process or time into it. its not that the physical dissolves--not at all--but it spreads out in a curious way. so you get bumped into problems of language as a way of representing the world performing operations that are not symmetrical with what you are trying to represent. and its not a mystical thing: its about goofy basic stuff like:

if you say:

"i think x"

it implies a process, but doesnt stage a process. it stages the i as discrete, as reduced to its physical mode of being alone (or its "spirit" double, which is really just an inversion of the physical mode of being)---the action of thinking, which is an action in the way that putting on a coat is--and an object or predicate that is outside the i, and which gives direction to the action (the verb).

well, if the "i" is more accurately understood as a phase-state--as a phase-state processed through grammar....and if you want to capture something of the "i" as an element that emerges and collapses back into process (well, processes)..then how do you go about it?

this is the pathway to madness i play around with in my 3-d life.
it gets complicated really quick.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

bermuDa

I would say that the first step to understanding our relationship with god is to obliterate the word altogether. It is antiquated and diseased.

If you meet the buddha on the road, kill him.

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

Plan9

I wanna audit several individuals and their concept of god to figure effectiveness based on my superficial point system of life satisfaction.

What's that old quote from STP?

"I'm not dead and I'm not for sale."

Maybe that is what God is all about.

Not being dead. Not being for sale.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

DaveOrion

We've done the audit Crompsin, no one can agree. Every persons perception of God is different, if they believe in God at all. Thank God For Individuality.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Plan9

Aaah, but that was the point, was it not?

Use the title in the summary for extra effect!

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Ustwo

Yes, thank 'God' we have people thinking their 'God' is the correct 'God' and it is acceptable to kill people who think differently or at best treat them differently.

When was the last war in the name of atheism anyways?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

You're an atheist?

Plan9

I think there SHOULD be an atheist war. That'd kick ass.

No more "Little Baby Jesus" or "Bushy Bearded M-Had" warcries and flaming followers!

I'm with the Church of MacGyver, myself.

"In the name of the Angus, and the duct tape, and the Holy Swiss Army Knife... now and forever... improvise broken shit."

Islam as practiced in rural Afghanistan called:

"Sorry, Dave... we all believe in beating our wives and having 19 children. Its the Muslim way."

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

DaveOrion

I hate to break it to you guys, but everyone that believes in God is not a religious extremist. In fact they are a very minor percentage of all believers. Unfortunately the extremists get all the press, whether its neocons or islamic terrorists. Just thought I'd put this into the proper perspective.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Plan9

JOKE, JOKE. Jesus Disclaimer Christ.

And then the zombie said: "Religion is for people who are still alive."

Only the dead have seen the end of [religion].

...

Oh, I propose: There should be less doing-of-God and more doing-of-life.

Life is too short to consult the immortal equiv of Dr. Phil every [Sun]day.

We ARE god. We're all little bits of skin.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Ustwo

Since I was 8. You need to follow my postings more, I've stated it many many times

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

DaveOrion

Muslim Women Don't See Themselves as Oppressed, Survey Finds

By HELENA ANDREWS
Published: June 8, 2006
WASHINGTON, June 7 — Muslim women do not think they are conditioned to accept second-class status or view themselves as oppressed, according to a survey released Tuesday by The Gallup Organization.

According to the poll, conducted in 2005, a strong majority of Muslim women believe they should have the right to vote without influence, work outside the home and serve in the highest levels of government. In more than 8,000 face-to-face interviews conducted in eight predominantly Muslim countries, the survey found that many women in the Muslim world did not see sex issues as a priority because other issues were more pressing.

When asked what they resented most about their own societies, a majority of Muslim women polled said that a lack of unity among Muslim nations, violent extremism, and political and economic corruption were their main concerns. The hijab, or head scarf, and burqa, the garment covering face and body, seen by some Westerners as tools of oppression, were never mentioned in the women's answers to the open-ended questions, the poll analysts said.

Concerning women's rights in general, most Muslim women polled associated sex equality with the West. Seventy-eight percent of Moroccan women, 71 percent of Lebanese women and 48 percent of Saudi women polled linked legal equality with the West. Still, a majority of the respondents did not think adopting Western values would help the Muslim world's political and economic progress.

The most frequent response to the question, "What do you admire least about the West?" was the general perception of moral decay, promiscuity and pornography that pollsters called the "Hollywood image" that is regarded as degrading to women.

An overwhelming majority of the women polled in each country cited "attachment to moral and spiritual values" as the best aspect of their own societies. In Pakistan, 53 percent of the women polled said attachment to their religious beliefs was their country's most admirable trait. Similarly, in Egypt, 59 percent of the women surveyed cited love of their religion as the best aspect.

At 97 percent, Lebanon had the highest percentage of women who said they believed they should be able to make their own voting decisions, followed by Egypt and Morocco at 95 percent. Pakistan was lowest, at 68 percent.

The survey, "What Women Want: Listening to the Voices of Muslim Women," is a part of The Gallup World Poll, which plans to survey 95 percent of the earth's population over the next century.

Dalia Mogahed, the strategic analyst of Muslim studies at The Gallup World Poll, said the new data provide fresh insight into the Muslim world, where Western perceptions generally cast women as victims. "Women's empowerment has been identified as a key goal of U.S. policy in the region," said Ms. Mogahed, adding that Muslim women's rights have generated a lot of interest without much empirical information on "what Muslim women want."

Ms. Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and wears a Islamic head scarf, rejected the idea that Muslim women had been brainwashed by the dominant male culture, citing as proof the fact that women freely stated that they deserved certain rights.

"In every culture there is a dominant narrative, and in many cases it is constructed by people in power who happen to be men," Ms. Mogahed said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/wo...snyt%26emc=rss

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Willravel

We agree on something.

Wow. I... I don't know what to say.

Plan9

Yeah, what he said. It was a lame attempt at stereotypical Muslim-bashing humor.

...

I believe in bashing all religions and supporting the Church of MacGyver... the only church where tube socks and gum are holy relics.

...

Although, if we wanna play the who's-got-the-bigger-wang game... I've actually been there and actually seen Afghan men beating Afghan women in living color. I've seen butt-naked children left in the streets alone in 120 degree heat.

Ghazni to Gardez to Sharana to Wazikwa. The place is a time machine.

What do I know?

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

DaveOrion

As far as I know there has been no war fought in the name of atheism, yet.

South Park did do a very good episode on just this theme. While it was hilarious, and some may see it as a dig against wars fought in the name of religion, it also brings up the possibility of this actually happening. I can see it, Dawkins leads the charge with Mrs. Garrison by his side! If atheism gains enough acceptance, and becomes mainstream, they'll almost certainly need someone to kill.

If L. Ron Hubbard can start a religion based on a sci-fi story, and said religion can spread faster than any in history, then anything can happen.

And I've seen American men beating American women, neglected American children , and so on. Just watch the news, or turn on your police scanner any night of the week.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Willravel

SOme idiots tagged a local church just the other day with words like "Atheism" and "This place is evil".

If you're an atheist, you' can't be evangelical. It's stupid, and you're stupid. Act like an adult and don't misrepresent atheists as fundys. That's not how we roll.

bermuDa

This thread is not about religion vs atheism, or the virtues of one religion over another. Shall we return to the topic at hand?

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

Borgs

We are not god.

I am god.

DaveOrion

Hey god, whats up............Careful will, I think I spy an emotion.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Ustwo

Actually it is.

Saying something like 'You are god, I am god, we are god.' Is pretty much sexy atheism. It also invalidates any major religion, who all say 'This is god, you are not god'.

So any real discussion of this is around atheism and other religions.

But lets examine the OP.

If everything is god, then the concept of God has become meaningless. It’s a sort of pantheism taken to its extreme. It dilutes god to nothing but a feel good vibe, it is atheism without conviction.

Again, same as before.

Obviously the original post had no problem comparing religions. His system/belief is superior to the way Christianity is taught.

So really I can’t think of a way to discuss it without bringing up atheism, or the virtues of one religion over another.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Plan9

Hmmm... does the concept of "choice" have anything to do with being god?

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

ottopilot

I'd say that the concept of god has everything to do with choice ...if it hasn't been said already.

Even science and fact can be rationalized as unprovable if we accept a spiritual non-physical existence. We can pound any idea into minutia. Some folks need everything defined. Some don't. Some need to seek knowledge and quote things. Some need reaffirmation with others... some need to know that they have purpose.

We choose to ease our fear of uncertainty. That's a very simplistic view... absolutely not intended to cut on any religion, but that's usually at the core. Religions are usually dependent on some concept of a god or gods, spiritualism, traditions, rituals and dogma. I don't believe religion is a requirement for spiritual existence or knowing god. But structure (good or bad) can be very reassuring.

Religious evangelism annoys me at any level. I can't prove they are wrong, but I can choose to tell them to get the hell off my front porch.

God's name used to be Steve when he lived in an A-Frame, wore an ascot, and listened to the mambo on his hi-fi. Now he lives in my aunt Marilyn's cracked bicuspid and answers to just about anything. Give him a shout sometime.

Plan9

Eddie Izzard might be god.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

Actually, not necessarily....

Both of these ideas can be discussed entirely in a theological capacity. It was theologists who came up with them, not atheists. Christian thinkers specifically have written about these ideas for hundreds of years. If you want to argue against this, then I suggest pointing out some arguments you have problems with. Maybe start with Descartes, or, at least, expand on what you mean exactly; otherwise, your "'everything' = meaninglessness" argument means little.

Christianity can be compared internally as well. Of course Christianity is taught wrong; it is taught in a multitude of ways. Not all of them are palatable.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Infinite_Loser

Well, I'm pretty sure that if the USSR under Stalin's rule, the People's Republic of Albania and the People's Republic of China had their way that wouldn't have been far off (Seeing as how they officially banned religion, usually persecuted those who practiced religion and, often times, tried to proprogate atheism through media and school).

...But, really, who the hell cares about history anyway?

And, as a side topic, when was the last war fought over religion?

Edit: Off-topic, but how can an atheist be God? Since God, by his very nature, is an unprovable unknown, stating that you're God would mean God is no longer unprovable and therefore no longer God, which would mean that you couldn't be God to begin with

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Ustwo

I got a better idea, you explain to me the difference between saying everything is god and atheism.

But was the rally cry around atheism? No it was socialism. You can't incite a people to murder around atheism. Atheism by nature doesn't create the same sort of out groups that religion does.

As for a current war using religion as a rally point...you aren't seriously asking this question right?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

tecoyah

Infinite_Loser

Then, following your logic, war in the past was caused not by religion, but by despots and monarchies. I'm sure you'd agree with that statement.

...Yeah. I didn't think so.

Sorry, but the idea of a society in the absence of religion existed long before socialism. To claim that religion creates the sort of groups that atheism cannot would not only be inane but it would involve ignoring years of history which would prove otherwise. Look at the countries/regions which have actively pursued state atheism. Many times they often engaged in those things which most atheists seem to love criticizing theists-- Erm... Christians-- Of doing; Supressing 'non-compatible' ideas and indoctrinating the populace to think a certain way. Why, exactly, do you think ther phrase "In God We Trust" is printed on all US currency?

Oh, and for the record, Albania WAS an atheist state; It called itself as such (FYI).

...But I digress.

Yes, I'm seriously asking this question (If you're going to mention the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, don't bother as there is about sixty'ish years of history to show that any and all repercussions the United States is facing is due to horrible foreign policy towards the Middle East since the end of WWII). Whereas such a statement might have been true towards the end of the 18th century, it isn't anymore. The overwhelming majority of wars fought today are caused either due to a lack of resources and/or conflicts between two or more political systems.

You believe God doesn't exist because He can't exist, therefore you couldn't claim be God without contradicting your own beliefs. That's YOUR argument at work, not MINE

~ Edit ~

Tecoyah said: There (in my opinion) is quite a large difference between removing Theism, and forwarding Atheism. A proactive state sponsored policy of systematically removing religion from the population does not automatically entail a teaching of Atheist Practice, more it attempts to stop the spread of religious Dogma.

I say: There's a slight-- Just a small one-- Difference in forwarding an atheist state and the removal of Church and state. Where as one attempts to ensure that the government can't institute a state religion or dictate what religion someone can and can't follow (Within reasons), the other attempts to ban religion all together, destroy religious places of worship and persecutes those who choose to follow a certain religion. Care to guess which is which?

Anyway, I kinda' chuckled to myself after re-reading your response. If you have no problem with a state trying to proactively remove religious dogma from the populace, then you should have no problem with a state trying to proactively convert it's populace to a certain religion. It'd seem slightly hypocritical to advocate one and not the other, ya' know?

Tecoyah said: Iraqi Civil War

I say: It wouldn't be occurring if the United States hadn't invaded Iraq to protect it's overseas interests, therefore destabilizing the region. But that doesn't matter. It's easier to diagnose a sympton rather than the cause.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Ustwo

Using the socialist genocides as an indictment of atheism is weak at best, most weren't even atheists. The atheism in socialism was more an attack on existing power structures and had little to do with philosophy. When the Church is a direct part of the states power, and you are attacking that power, it follows you will attack the church as well.

As for the somewhat non-sequitur of 'In God We Trust', that is a good question, mostly because the founding fathers were not a religious lot and based on their writ tings mostly theists. Theists are for all intents and purposes atheistic in nature, and while these days the religious fervent attempt to claim theists as their own, in their days theists were viewed by the religious much as atheists are today. Sadly, I do have a number of books with references that covered this very issue but I have loaned them to my father inlaw who surprised me by being a deeper thinker than I had previously thought.


Again you miss the crux of the argument. Its not that the ultimate motivation for war was religion, it was that the religious differences become the excuse for immortality and murder. It doesn't seem to take that much to get someone to kill for you, but religion is very good at getting someone to die for you. To deny that religion is being used as the main fuel to incite conflict is to ignore the obvious.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Baraka_Guru

Actually, this wouldn't be a good idea. It would make us both look bad. You, for not being clear on your argument nor outlining any argument with which you disagree. And me, for potentially putting forth a counterargument on something of which I am uncertain.

This would be indulgent of us both.

Now, what was it you were saying?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Plan9

Baraka:

Hey, Johnny Cochran called for ya. Yes, I know... collect from heaven. Said:

"DAMN, son. You's a litigatin' fool."

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Ourcrazymodern?

We made a mistake, many centuries ago (in the case of US currency less than 1-and-a-half) and we seen to continue to fly with it.

YOU are the center of your own personal universe and your own fundament.

We are all GOD.

(Though I agree with ustwo about the animal thing)

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

DaveOrion

I disagree, it seems that today in the US, you're told to die for your country. Our service men don't wear crosses on their uniforms, its the American flag. Governments have almost always been the cause of war, and while religion does play a part, that part is usually praying to God you wont get blown to pieces during a battle.

Most of the other countries in the world do the same, so its nationalism thats used to incite war.

The Islamic fundamentalists undoubtedly use religion to their benefit, but I wouldn't say that world wide its the main fuel. That would be a major exaggeration.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Plan9

So, greenbacks should read:

In Self We trust.

How about this, Dave? I think it was Napoleon (not sure) that said it best:

"[I needn't remind you men that purpose of being in the military service of this great nation isn't to die for your country; it is to make the other guy die for his!]"

POINT: The aim of war isn't for anybody to die. That's the sad byproduct.

(looks at the dirty Velcro flag on his faded ACUs)

I don't think I'd die for that, really. Not in the end. Not in this dumbass "war" on terrorism. Seems like you'd die protecting your yourself or your brothers.

American soldiers aren't some god's warriors.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

DaveOrion

Whether men die in combat or not, really wasn't my point. I didnt say that American soldiers were God's warriors either, I said just the opposite. UsTwo seems to think that religion is used to incite war, I feel that nationalism or patriotism is used, with the exception of Muslim extremists.

I do agree that you should make the other guy die for his country, but the sad truth is that men die on both sides of a war. I was taught that a dead medic cant treat anyone, which makes sense in a logical way, yet...... Ironically the hospital I worked at on Bragg was named after a medic, Pvt. Womack, who was injured and refused treatment so that he could continue to administer first aid to the men in his company. He then died protecting the lives of his brothers in arms.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...