Everything is God including us
 

We are God, the same way as everything around us is. This ideea did not come to me after reading only 1 book or 1 site, or the bible, but after reading many books - about everything, and learning about Zen, I can see the same things everywhere.
Everything is one. We are all God, in different forms, and the fact that we are separated is an illusion
The religion of christianity is taught the wrong way
I do not see myself as a christian, I am more into Zen, but here are some quotes they are similar to Zen teachings :

Here is a 14 page book called "We are god" : http://www.softpedia.com/get/Others/...-Are-God.shtml
From the book :


http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/zenindex.html

Sure, there are some similarities between Christianity and Buddhism. But there are differences too, and I tend to think the differences are more significant. But note that I don't know a whole lot about Buddhism, so feel free to correct me if I misunderstand it.

1. What is our goal?
In Buddhism, our goal is escape from all desire, to become united with the one/the all, and to, at the end of the day, cease to exist as ourselves. In Christianity, the goal is to become more fully ourselves. The denial of the self Christianity teaches is merely a means to an end. Compare Christian meditation with Zen meditation. In Zen, the goal of meditation is to empty oneself. In Christianity, the goal of meditation is to empty oneself so that you may be filled.

2. How is this goal reached?
In Christianity, salvation is by divine grace. Our own deeds do not earn us salvation. In Buddhism, salvation is by our own efforts.

3. Who do we become?
In Buddhism, we become Buddhas ourselves. In Christianity we become like Christ. But we don't actually become Christs ourselves -- he is the only begotten son of God, we are adopted sons of God.

4. What is the role of desire and the world?
Buddhism teaches that passion is suffering, and the way to perfection is by renouncing desire. Christianity teaches that desire is imperfect, and must be perfected if we are to be perfected. Buddhism teaches that the world is illusion; Christianity teaches that the world is made by God, and is good (albeit, ambiguously so).

I'm with pai mei, I'd rather concentrate on what the two have in common then their differences. Asaris' definitions of both are very general in nature anyway, and many of these could be disputed. The idea that all Christians must 'deny the self' is an out dated concept and most denominations don't concur with this belief. I could go on but I'd rather not get into another religious discussion that goes no where. Whatever you want to believe is your right & privilege, more power to ya.

Some might consider me a non-denominational Christian, but that really doesn't cover it. I also adhere to some Buddhist, and Native American beliefs, such as everything is sacred, the Earth, the sky, every rock and blade of grass. Some body must come up with a name for this besides, Multi- Religious. How about BuddChristNativeism??? Doesn't flow very well, and I'm sure someone would call me a blasphemer!!

Anything that helps bring people together, instead of concentrating on the differences, must be a good thing. Unfortunately there will always be the die hards who insist on their tiny interpretation of faith, and that it must be the correct one. The civil war in Iraq is between two Islamic sects that disagree about who should have been the rightful successor to lead Islam. To bad they cant concentrate on the fact that they're all Muslims.

It depends on the circumstances, Dave. In general, I try to recognize both the similarities and the differences. Otherwise, I'm just getting an inaccurate picture about people's beliefs. Sure there are similarities between Christianity and Islam, but if we ignore the differences, we're just not understanding Christianity and Islam. The same goes if we ignore the similarities. But when I see someone overemphasizing the similarities between, say, Buddhism and Christianity, especially on a message board dedicated to the discussion of ideas, I'm going to tend to emphasize the differences to provide a bit of a corrective.

I did not write here just to discuss, I write because I am searching for myself , and I think other people here are also searching for themselves.

Maybe we are not really God, but we are all the same thing under different forms, separation is an illusion.
Better write no more, just do. Writing or debating such a thing ussualy misses the essence of it.
Stories :) :
http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/zenindex.html
http://www.rider.edu/~suler/zenstory/zenstory.html

The problem I have with these sorts of "theories of everything" which attempt synthesize everything into a harmonious unity is the same as the objection I have towards solipsism: it's inherently non-falsifiable, and therefore an intellectual dead end. Sure it could be true, but only because it is so flexible as to be able to "account" for anything. A solipsist, for example, can simply argue that any counterargument, or logical refutation is but part and parcel of their own thought processes and that it thereby proves their theory. Such a hypothesis can't be refuted exactly because it cannot be proven.

The thoughts you're having sound a lot like the sorts of things poeple think about after reading 'Stranger in a Strange Land' - a very good book, and has some ideas along the same lines as what you're saying.

"Thou art God." is a central phrase/idea in the book.

I kind-of agree with Halifax, though - similar to the idea of the Unitarians, it just strikes me as...wrong - there *has* to be 'truth' somewhere in there.

two characters

It's turtles all the way down!

Thank God for unprovable theories!!

Saying we are all one, everything is God, is the same as saying "we all exist in the same place, albeit a very big place".

Please tell me what you take "God" to mean. Then I'll tell you what I think.

All that Groks is God

It'd be nice...but there's no Porsche parked out front, sooo I'm thinking no. I'm just little old Willravel, and that's that.

[Futurama Quote] Sure a theory about God that doesn't require the use of a giant telescope. Get back to work. [/Futurama Quote]

Even if everything is the same, everything is not the same, for example hands and feet are the same because they work together and make up the same being, yet they are different. That is my perspective on this whole "We are one" idea, but thats simply my idea on the matter. I think everyone is different therefore everyone has their own beliefs that makes themselves happy, wheter or not they can be discussed is a whole different matter. In essence, what Pai Mei brought up as well as Dave, I totally agree with because i believe in a higher being, yet i don't quite believe in GOD or Alla or Yaweh or anything like that, my premise is that I believe "GOD" is in everything, in fact we are in "GOD" kind of like TAO which influenced Zen teachings.

...happy, sabu,
...plays with us.

So that's it then solved? Spastic kids. Explained. The creation of the universe, explained. Mattar/antimatter discrepancy, explained.

May as well go back to the TV then I guess. Nothing more to do here... I can help the world by scratching my own balls.

Seriously, I think I'd achieve just as much enlightenment from a few strong whiskey shots. Or something stronger.

Gahh... The problem with Buddhism/Taosim sometimes seems to be that they'd explain the operation of a car by turning it off and throwing away the key. Stop thinking - and there is no longer a question.

Does your brain ever surprise you with something you didn't expect?

TV is also god, as are cars and keys. And the quality of mercy, unstrained.

The theory that "We are God" is explained in a nice way in Jack London's "White Fang".

The theory "we are god" is nicely explained by the fact we made god up.

Toilet paper is my God.

Try to go a day without it.

God is the Enduring Rational Reality....You may be part of it, and again...you might not be a part of it. Some call it Being Saved, some call it Buddhahood, some call it Sainthood, some call it being Enlightened or being a Mensch, and so on...

- Bible

- Albert Einstein


- Bruce Lee

The nice thing and worst thing about religion is that you can believe however and in whatever you like and not a single person on this planet can prove you wrong.

I don't know what happens to my soul/spirit when I die. I have my opinions as does everyone else, but I won't know until I die.... hopefully in many decades from now.

It is my beliefs that help me to live my life because I want to advance my soul/spirit.

Oh...but you already started.

If we decided to really look at it everyone is actually on the fence in this, even the devout. Few in this life can say they "KNOW" god, and even fewer actually believe it when they say it. In my opinion, anyone seriously claiming they have the answer would make a good subject for a thesis for a Psyche PhD. Pans got it right...we are all on a quest to figure it all out, I doubt any of us will.

Someone actually agreed with something I said??? I know I'm in a parallel universe now.....:)

I have come to the conclusion, or rather what makes sense to me, is that everything is "god", or rather, part of the universe.

I think as soon as you use the name "god" people think of a superior being, which immediately separates them from it.

Why do we need a superior being, or rather, why do we need that being to have a concious mind like us?

Even more so, why do we need that being to govern what happens to us when we die, or even while we live?

I believe the universe created us, from the matter, from the energy, from itself.

When we die, we are still part of the universe, but we are no longer concious, as our brain is no longer in use.

I am, personally quite proud to be part of this absolutely beautiful universe, both in this life, and forever after I die.

In this philosophy, science and religion are the same, and nothing to prove.

I think our feelings and emotions are part of our makeup to ensure our survival.

Life, is something that has come about from the universe's constantant changes until it developed an algorithim (for lack of a better word) that keeps itself sustained.

It probably failed many times until it got this algorithim working independantly.
I believe many of the actions we do, we do to ensure our survival, because this is how life needed to exist.

Simply, it exists, because it exists, and we wonder why.
otherwise we wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't wonder why.

I don't accept different religions for different reasons, mainly because they take the power away from the individual.

Buddism, because I believe desire is a wonderful part of life, which we need to survive, simply put, our desire to procreate, to indulge, to believe, to have passion. Why take away what is wonderful?

Christianity for many reasons, mainly because I don't like the separation between god and ourselves.

I prefer the way of thinking that the universe in its completeness is one eg: "uni" "verse" the one thing everywhere.

"God" is what makes you, the individual, happy. God is not the fictional almighty creator depicted by the religions of the world, as previously stated on this thread. The search for that something that you can only describe in any language as being true fulfilment. Feeling 100% happy with every single aspect of what you do, what you are and what you stand for etc... No-one will ever find this. You can come close, but you will never truly break that barrier.

This is the key to our survival. So in essence you can say that God is a component of the survival and exponential growth of mankind. Fabricated within our pysche for the purpose of living and surviving. Without which, there is simply no real purpose other than the base instincts found elsewhere in the Animal Kingdom. Without veering off the topic too much, it does lean heavily towards the fact that we, as humans, have the self aware conscience that sets us apart from animals. Do Animals have such discussions? I think not. But some animals are indeed self aware to some degree, so it does beg the question.
There's a quote by Stephen Fry, which I've ironically seen on this board in someones signature which talks about the bear:

One of the nice things about looking at a bear is that you know it spends 100 per cent of every minute of every day being a bear. It doesn't strive to become a better bear. It doesn't go to sleep thinking, "I wasn't really a very good bear today". They are just 100 per cent bear, whereas human beings feel we're not 100 per cent human, that we're always letting ourselves down. We're constantly striving towards something, to some fulfilment--Stephen Fry

The bear certainly doesn't Ponder the notion of a God. Let alone the idea that said bear is part of the collective energy that could be what is known as God. Human advancement has gotten to the stage where we need to protect creatures like the Bear, and many others from ourselves or hazards due to the by-product of our living. We have such power of them, one could argue that its almost God like. We have the power to make extinct animals that have been around for thousands of years more than we have. Its not even a struggle of power either. It's our recognised advantage. If you stop and think as to how advanced we actually are over animals its almost jaw dropping to think that we have come so far in, most cases, less time than these creatures. Yet they are still at primitive, although highly refined stages of evolution. God is nothing to them. We are the most intelligent creatures on this planet, yet we cannot agree amongst ourselves on the rationale behind the concept of God. I think that speaks for itself.
Yeah I think I'm on the fence on this one....

Buddhism actually is a good example of "We are God." It states that inside us all is a buddha. We all have the potential to reach buddhahood, as it is a dormant state suppressed by ignorance and misery that has accumulated through numerous lifetimes (via karma).

Wanton desire, indulgence, and passion all contribute to misery because they allow us to cling to various things in our pursuit of them. Our "need" for physical things, even as our limited time ticks away, obstruct the path to authentic happiness. Buddhism isn't absolute. Even the first buddha was susceptible to passion, but being conscious of it allowed him to maintain enlightenment.

The problem with the things you describe as wonderful is that we constantly pursue those states, and when they end, as they inevitably do, we accumulate more misery and feel the need to continue the pursuit. If you can break this cycle, your life will have more meaning, which is truly wonderful. To be free of these things is true liberation.

There is nothing new about this conclusion. Many ancient cultures have come to this very conclusion. Some anthropologists say it's the default conclusion, as far as religions go.

If it's not a supernaturally superior being and an infinitely higher power, then it's not, by definition, "God". (Note, capital "G" – we're not really talking about the gods and demi-gods of Egyptian or Greek mythology, here.)

If a God-being is not conscious and self-aware, then we as human beings really can't relate to it, just as we can't relate to a rock or a tree. Or to a moon or a star.

Because, the human race is fundamentally flawed, and it has neither the power to raise the dead, nor the ability to make us immortal. And no matter how advanced our science might get, it looks like we never will have that power or ability. And despite our thousands of years of progress in technology and society, we are still making the same mistakes and suffering from most if not all of the same shortcomings (biological, psychological, and societal) that our ancient ancestors did.

If, when we die, we forever lose consciousness, not even having any dreamstate, and all our memories and everything that made us what we were, as an individual, is snuffed out irrevocably, then it is without worth to us, as individuals, that we are "still part of the universe".

This universe of ours is indeed awesomely beautiful, but it's also incredibly and almost entirely hazardous and destructive toward human life. I think our existence in this universe, if not purposely created within it, is more of an anomaly and a defiance against the norms of this universe, than our existence is harmonious with the universe or typical of it.

Well, of course, a philosophy that offers no real hope for humanity nor offers anything for an individual to gain, has nothing to prove.

That is definitely the case, whether there is a God and a afterlife, or not.

So, basically, your view of how the universe works and how intelligent life exists, can be summed up (IMHO) with the phrase, "Shit happens".

We Are God / Sanity / Richard Bachman
 

Here's how I look at the whole "We Are God" concept:

I'd suggest that god is our little secret.

I'd suggest that god is in the custard.

I'd suggest that the totality being god is most palatable and that Stephen King is part of the darker side though very, very good.

It IS good to be the (Stephen) King.

Guy has more followers than most.

The point is that the ultimate Reality can not be understood using mind. It is beyond mind.

If mind would be the highest possible means for us to use we would have to stop at agnosticism.

However, as mytics have described for thousands of years mind is not our ultimate instrument. Not only do they say there is a greater consciousness than mind, this consciousness is accessible to us.

Speculating and reasoning about such a higher consciousness does not take us anywhere, we need to enter it and live in it.

In the East this is normal knowledge, but in the West (as can also be seen in this thread) reason reigns; going even so far as to test spiritual experience using reason to test its validity.

We can not think out reality. The intellect can only show us at best partial and conflicting aspects of the manifestation we see around us. It will never give us the whole.
Mere attraction to some religious of spiritual ideas also will not give us knowledge of the Reality Beyond.

(Dabbling in) reasoning we can all do from our easy chairs, but to reach this greater consciousness requires long hard work.
Many have tried and attained. Lets not ignore them, but listen to what they have to say and not dismiss their experiences a priori because they overreach reason.

If mind is not our greatest instrument for discovering truth, what is our greatest instrument?

I'd suggest: The body moved by the mind.

To speak poetry, create art, club seals, eat porkrinds.

All this free-floating soul crap is straight silly.

We are goofy ghosts in meat machines.

We are what we do.

Since there are many mystics there are many different terms for these states of consciousness due to locality and such.

I'll use the terms Sri Aurobindo used, because they are in English. Pretty much all of his works are in English as well so it is easy for you to peruse.

The reasoning mind, as I called it above, he calls Mental Mind. Below it are the Vital Mind and Physical Mind.
Above it, as concerns us, are the Higher Mind, Illumined Mind, Intuitive Mind (has nothing to do with the normal definition of intuition), Overmind and Supermind.

I quote from his work "The Life Divine" as to an explanation of how the Higher Mind cognizes.

This higher consciousness is a Knowledge formulating itself on a basis of self-existent all-awareness and manifesting some part of its integrality, a harmony of its significances put Into thought-form. It can freely express itself in single ideas, but its most characteristic movement is a mass ideation, a system or totality of truth-seeing at a single view; the relations of idea with idea, of truth with truth are not established by logic but pre-exist and emerge already self-seen in the integral whole. There is an initiation into forms of an ever-present but till now inactive knowledge, not a system of conclusions from premisses or data; this thought is a self-revelation of eternal Wisdom, not an acquired knowledge. Large aspects of truth come into view in which the ascending Mind, if it chooses, can dwell with satisfaction and, after its former manner, live in them as in a structure; but if progress is to be made, these structures can constantly expand into a larger structure or several of them combine themselves into a provisional greater whole on the way to a yet unachieved integrality. In the end there is a great totality of truth known and experienced but still a totality capable of infinite enlargement because there is no end to the aspects of knowledge, nastyanto vistarasya me.

This is possible because the divine (i.e. the One, God, &c), which is Knowledge, is in direct contact with these higher levels of consciousness.

This connection does not directly stop at "regular" mind, it is however very seldom, short and much more obscured that such connections occur in that state.

I wish to reiterate that this is not the experience of one person. Whether you read the great mystics like Plotinus or the smaller ones like Gopi Krishna they describe the same state(s). There are also non-mystics who have had the experiences for very short durations (Dostoyevsky comes to mind).

The keyword in your question is "discover". There need not be any discovering for we are Truth. Unfortunately it is not present all the way down to the physical consciousness; we need to reach up for it.
The Yoga practised by Sri Aurobindo tried to bring Truth all the way down, but if you are interested in that I'm sure you will find and read about it.

Since you quote Nietsche you most likely are familiar with Schopenhauer who was in turn inspired by the Vedanta. You could peruse that path as well.

The Sanskrit at the end of the quote is from the Bhagavad Gita and can be translated as "My self-extension is endless". "My" being Krishna.


If you admit the little that is written above (if only hypothetically) it would mean that our everyday actions are not guided by the divine, because our everyday consciousness is not in contact with it.

Is it not undeniable that the people that are in touch with it are exemplary and are absolutely fitted to learn from?

Why not go to some center where you can meditate for one or two weeks? What do you have to lose, maybe you'll find it interesting; if only to dismiss it.

"Tilted Forum Project; The Evolution of Humanity, Sexuality and Philosophy."

I believe that greatness is in how you change the world through your actions, not how you change yourself (faith).

So much of religion is make-believe. We make-believe it matters.

I like to make things to believe in...

here's a quote from edmond jabès "the book of questions" that i have been thinking about alot lately. it isnt a new idea--neither in general nor to me--but i really like it:

all letters give form to absence
hence, god is the child of his name.

forms, levels, hierarchies of them: all are the products of a type of doing routed through the characteristics of words mapped onto what is said to lay beyond them. a very very basic confusion. same confusion that enables you to imagine yourself as a type of object (an "i")--same confusion that enables you to imagine that action is a discrete mode that this i-thing enters into--and the reverse (that absent this mode, the "i" is at rest, static, itself).
if you dont model the "i" as an object, then there's no need to posit an essence. if there's no need to posit an essence, there's no need to talk about a soul. the word soul refers to nothing. people are afraid of nothing, so they fill it in. there are obviously modes of being that are you cannot jam into categories. strictly speaking, then, all of these are nothing. but nothing is not homogenous. it simply denotes all types of activity that escape representation. most everything we are escapes representation.

but i am typing this, so there must be something.
yes.
no.
maybe.
sometimes.


what matters is that you find these ideas to be pretty.
because that is all that is at stake.

we are words <---this is the baseline.<---this is wrong. more exactly:
we are syntax. we are a mode of ordering phenomena based on modes of linguistic ordering.<---but linguistic ordering are not self-contained. what meaing is ascribed to verb tenses is not a function of verbs alone.

but just as the process of signification (the process of bringing phenomena into relation with each other) cannot be accounted for on the basis of the results of that process (signifier-->signified or more naively signifier--->referent) so the processes that we are cannot be accounted for in terms of the logic that we use to order the results of those processes.

so all the posts above are true.
none of the posts above are true.

what is consistent above is the conflation of conclusions motivated by aesthetic preferences with other types of claims.

none of this is about the nature of anything beyond what mode of conceptualizing the world yourself and the relations that can obtain between them is most pleasing to you aesthetically.
belief follows pleasure.
belief is the enactment--the spreading out in time, the repetition--of aesthetic dispositions.
without the pleasure, there'd be no repetition.
without repetition, there'd be no belief.

but to repeat something is not to say the same thing over and over: repetition is generative of phenomena that run way beyond what you're repeating.

we are processes: lots of them running on different scales simultaneously. any process is repetition.
any process goes beyond repetition.
repetition is a limiting idea.
repetition is a necessary idea.
limitation is necessary.
but which limitation?
which do you find pretty?
that is what you find necessary.

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.

USTWO! How grand to see you again!

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?

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.

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. :)

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.

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 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.

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.

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

Use the title in the summary for extra effect!

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?

You're an atheist?

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."

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.

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.

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

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

We agree on something.

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

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?

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. :orly:

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. :eek:

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.

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.

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

We are not god.

I am god.

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

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.

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

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.

Eddie Izzard might be god.

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.

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 :D

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?

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 :D

~ 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.

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.

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?

Baraka:

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

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

You know, as I teach my son right now that if he blows himself up in the name of Democracy there will be 70 virgins waiting for him, I can only concede your point.

As the great Patton said,

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. "

I'd also add that their nationalism is tied directly into their religion. So you can claim is nationalism that makes someone drive a car full of explosives into a town square and blow himself up killing 100's of innocents if you like.

Edit: Though to put this in the light of the topic at hand, those murders were the act of God, as those who were murdered was God, as was the car for that matter. So its a cosmic wash.

Your sarcasm only speaks to the Muslim extremists, and since that seems to be your only argument I can only assume you're ignoring the rest of the world.

You misunderstood my post.

They aren't alone.

I Pledge Allegiance To The Flag,
Of the United States of America,
And To the Republic For Which It Stands,
One Nation, Under God, Indivisible,
With Liberty And Justice For All

"We take the stars from Heaven, the red from our mother country, separating it by white stripes, thus showing that we have separated from her, and the white stripes shall go down to posterity representing Liberty." -George Washington


God bless the land that gave us birth!
No pray'r but this know we.
God bless the land, of all the earth,
The happy and the free.
And where's the land like ours can brave
The splendor of the day.
And find no son of hers a slave?
God bless America!
God bless the land, the land beloved
Forever and for aye!
God bless the land that gave us birth.
God bless America!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation,
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our Trust"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

What about Canada's "theme song"?

(looks this up)

Yeah, they're like 85% less god-oriented than the US.

Seems the use of "god"... the name is often taken in vain.

God is whatever you think, and is as real as you are.

I already pointed out that we use religion in the US as well as a tool of violence, but the difference is that we have at least attempted to keep it out of the laws directly. Something that is not done in most Islamic countries.

God is whatever we don't think, as fake as we are.

When I think about god... "...I think about a little girl in a pink dress... sticking a hotdog through a donut." - Creighton Duke, fictional bountyhunter

Now THAT has to be proof of god being us.

So then, the concensus seems to be that we ARE god!

THANK YOU, GOD!!!!!!!!!

Thank God, Amen. Good to have that settled.

Try this:


1) Close your eyes





2) imagine in your mind, what you see as God






3) focus on that image...see it






































You are right, that is god

Still saw the pink dress, chief.

Uh-oh!

Our evolution doesn't involve pink dresses, though they are stimulating.