Disbelief Is Not A Choice

Originally posted by Dasher
I know.
Because spiritual understanding is not about reasoning.

Neither is our imagination. Should we just make stuff up and pretend it's "understanding"?

This is why baptism is given to us as a sign.

Baptism is not a sign

Breaking of bread is also another ritual given to us to understand that we are One in Life. Christ gave the bread and said, this is my body. The dust, which makes up all things. This is His body. It is also my body, and yours as well.

So he took the act of eating and declared it to be about him. Okay.

The sharing of the wine was also a similar type of declaration, however, this requires a bit more of a mature spiritual understanding and an understanding of grape wine processing/fermentation and the physical properties of plants/grapes to see it's spiritual correlation to communion, grace, order, etc.

I disagree that grapes have any correlation to what we would consider "spiritual", other than being drunk on wine.

There is a whole layer of spiritual understanding that escapes most people, and oddly, it seems to be honored more often by "scientists" than the "religious," but not often to the point of communion in either group.

Huh?

Look, I point out that your assertion was nonsensical. You declare it doesn't need reasoning (though you presented your case as "rational"). Then you segue into "spiritual understanding", presumably a blanket term to justify your own personal theism that others can't understand, and then begin talking about Jesus - another non-sequitur.

If there's a god, demonstrate it. If you can't, tell me why I should believe.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Look, I point out that your assertion was nonsensical. You declare it doesn't need reasoning (though you presented your case as "rational"). Then you segue into "spiritual understanding", presumably a blanket term to justify your own personal theism that others can't understand, and then begin talking about Jesus - another non-sequitur.

I did not once say it does not need reasoning. I certainly understand that spiritual reasoning is spiritually seen, so that those who do not have eyes to see cannot make a healthy judgment, but that does not mean reason does not exist in my declaration.

Life is life, therefore it is living. To say otherwise is nonsensical. Then again, I am certainly open to your own reasoning which might show that Life is not alive. I understand that the concept is somewhat "logically disorienting" since the words themselves seem to lock down the possible conclusions, but that only furthers my point of how it is not only reasonable, but that truth is ignored by the spiritually blind.

And while I know who you are referring to by the name of Jesus, His name was Joshua (this is another one of those oddities in which the common beliefs held are against reality). And to say He was non-sense is strange. Not so much in our current culture, but historically so. The Empire fought against His teachings in order to eradicate them. After a duration of it's uncontrolled growth, the Empire finally absorbed the teachings and made it the state religion. If such a thing was untrue, the government would have cleaned out the lie without much labor. The same is similar for Islam and Judaism. While I disagree with their tenets (in their current incarnations), they are never argued as true or untrue, even to the point of secular men adopting such belief systems in order to control/manipulate their course, and Jewish/secular historians never disputing such events.

Just as evolution will be worked out as true or false based upon facts uncovered and will, someday, blend solidly into the common belief system accordingly, the historicity of Joshua is something that is way, way, way past the point of being argued. To say that we can be further away from that time and come to a better conclusion than those living through it is plain illness.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If there's a god, demonstrate it. If you can't, tell me why I should believe.

Life is life, therefore it is alive. - That I know you cannot wrestle with victoriously, however, I am open to being wrong because I accept that I exist within decay/imperfection, and also it would be interesting to see you try anyway.
Living Life is God. - Well, that is a matter that is even more obfuscated by chaos/pride.
I understand why you deny the second concept, but to deny the first is a non-sequitur (as you like to say).

The only thing I can offer is that our bodies' cells operate according to a code, just as our bodies as a whole do, and just as our entire realm does (in the laws of physics/quantum physics, etc). So, while I cannot impart spiritual understanding directly into you, I can only offer the reflection of Life that is mimicked in our own bodies.

I might be a skin cell, and you might be a brain cell, but to deny the greater body of Life is to deny your own life (again, this is not to imply any source of "will").

reply to post by Dasher



Just to be clear

There are theist (usual members of the Abrahamic religions) that are very ‘binary’ in their way of thinking

when you find statements such as

If you don’t believe in (my) god then you must be following Satan or that you must be evil ect

Or

If you are an atheist you must also believe in evolution/the big bang ect (as if atheism is some kind of religion with its own dogmas – because the theist cannot understand a life without some kind of external dogma to define and keep it under control)

These are all symptoms of this ‘binary’ black/white, good/bad - style of thinking

now I don't know if there are many people effected like this in the world but there does seem to be a lot of them posting on internet forums

Originally posted by Dasher

Life is life, therefore it is alive. - That I know you cannot wrestle with.
Living Life is God. - Well, that is a bit more of a matter of chaos/pride.

First you said that Life is God. Now you say that LIVING life is God. Which is it?

understand why you deny the second concept, but the deny the first is a non-sequitur (as you like to say).

Non sequitur basically means "does not follow". If I did deny your first premise it would not be a non-sequitur.

The only thing I can offer is that our bodies' cells operate according to a code, just as our bodies as a whole do, and just as our entire realm does (in the laws of physics/quantum physics, etc). So, while I cannot impart spiritual understanding directly into you, I can only offer the reflection of Life that is mimicked in our own bodies.

What code do cells and bodies operate in accordance with? What do you mean by 'reflection of life mimicked by our bodies'? Our bodies don't reflect or mimic life.

I might be a skin cell, and you might be a brain cell, but to deny the greater body of Life is to deny your own life.

So you can neither demonstrate the god you claim exists, nor give me reason why I should believe. I almost need an interpreter from Guruland to discern half of your claims.

The best I can understand, you're trying to redefine what we know as life and simply claiming it to be "god". If faced with difficult questions about this stance you refer to an esoteric "spiritual understanding" that you admittedly claim you cannot convey. Your opening salvo included some relegating ad hominem. It's not as if I've never experienced this before. So I have this tiny challenge I present whenever I encounter this and I've already presented it, but here it is again. If you claim there's a god, please demonstrate its existence. If you can't, please tell me why I should believe. Want to try again?

reply to post by racasan


Dualism is not inherently corrupt. Nor is it necessarily flatly binary. The usual culprit which makes dualism appear corrupt is an improper understanding of it's depth, and therefore misrepresentation, and also an improper set of observations to form one's judgment.

The concept to understand in this concept is recursion. For instance (I will use Abrahamic religion as a context, but not common doctrinal beliefs).
There is the unknowable and unfathomable Eternal Life.
This is in contrast to the knowable and fathomable Eternal Life. Within this, there is the "Word" and the "Spirit if the Word."
There is also a dualism existing catercorner to this idea. There is the "Word and Spirit of the Word" and the "Created Word (reality as we know it)."

Within the Created Word, there are the Animal-Minded, and the Spiritual-Minded.

The body also reflects these concepts. My finger has DNA and Life. Cut off the life, and the DNA remains. Cut off the DNA and the growth is detrimental. DNA is akin to Order, and Life to Charity.

High order mammalian mating is similar to this also. Often the male/testosterone based creature represents Order, and the female/estrogen based creature represents Charity.

This can also be seen in time/motion and gravity.

So then, the point I am trying to hover around and now finally point out is that Abrahamic duality is certainly spiritually discerned, and confuses those who do not see spiritually, but it exemplifies Communion and unity in it's dualism rather than separation.

Here it is another and more complex way.
Order without Charity is Pride.
Charity without Order is Chaos.

Therefore, the dualistic Order/Charity are actually One.
It is Pride and Chaos which are binary/causing division, etc.

reply to post by Dasher


I have no idea what you are saying here – please try again

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by Dasher

 

I have no idea what you are saying here – please try again

Me either.

This guy is simply makin' stuff up.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
First you said that Life is God. Now you say that LIVING life is God. Which is it?

Same thing. Or is there such a thing as dead life? I should clarify, there actually is, but by it's nature, it is temporal (this a more complex concept and deals more with the "dance" than it does with the after dance party, to use a fun allegory).

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
What code do cells and bodies operate in accordance with? What do you mean by 'reflection of life mimicked by our bodies'? Our bodies don't reflect or mimic life.

To the first question; Really? I am surprised you asked that question. I am confident that this is obvious. But to answer; Genetics.
The second question; Order/Charity - Our bodies follow instructions and grow/heal. When instructions are not followed, we end up with disease. If we do not grow or heal, well, that's a bad sign.
Well, your last statement in this paragraph is certainly your view of things since you do not correlate Order and Charity with Life, but Life is OrderCharity whereas decay is Pride and Chaos which do lead to death.
Order without Charity is Pride. Charity without Order is Chaos. If you body rejects it's instructions (order), it ends in cancers, etc. (chaos). If your body attacks itself without wisdom (charity), it ends in auto-immune disease, etc (pride).

This can also be seen in human government. Without Order, things fall into Chaos. Without Charity, things fall into Pride. The biggest complaints people have are an ignorant sheeple and arrogant "shepherds."

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
So you can neither demonstrate the god you claim exists, nor give me reason why I should believe. I almost need an interpreter from Guruland to discern half of your claims.

Well, technically, because I understand that Life is God, I can easily demonstrate that God exists because Life exists. However, I understand that you do not believe that Life is alive.
And I am "toning down" my comments in many ways in order to offer point of connection to you. If I was to speak spiritually without consideration of you, I acknowledge that it would look like blather to most people. Often times, concepts I take for granted are extremely hard to share with those who are not "spiritually connected."

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
The best I can understand, you're trying to redefine what we know as life and simply claiming it to be "god". If faced with difficult questions about this stance you refer to an esoteric "spiritual understanding" that you admittedly claim you cannot convey. Your opening salvo included some relegating ad hominem. It's not as if I've never experienced this before. So I have this tiny challenge I present whenever I encounter this and I've already presented it, but here it is again. If you claim there's a god, please demonstrate its existence. If you can't, please tell me why I should believe. Want to try again?

I am not redefining anything. By basic definition, life is alive. Just as by basic definition, humans are animals. But both of those things seem hard for most people to receive into themselves. The first idea is hard for the unbeliever, and the second for the false-believer.

YOU demonstrate the existence of Life. Whether or not you are in communion with Life is the greater issue. Who argues whether life is real? Rather, it is the animal-men who argue that they are independent of it.

Why should you believe? On a basic level, we are all one in our physical makeup, so then why should we not be one spiritually if we all are setting our eyes on eternal things? And if you dispute whether truth, life, laws, philosophy are eternal, well, that's your knotted rope to untangle. Good luck and try being confident in your beliefs if you are so happy and quick to reject illuminated ideas.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


With this mentality, why have you continued to respond to me? I extended you my time, which is very valuable to me, and it is returned with disfavor and thanklessness.

I appreciate your partial listening, but I am done here.

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

With this mentality, why have you continued to respond to me? I extended you my time, which is very valuable to me, and it is returned with disfavor and thanklessness.

I appreciate your partial listening, but I am done here.

I am genuinely interested in your opinion.

But if you make nonsensical statements or unsupported assertions they must be addressed. Futhermore, you initially addressed me by stating I was ignorant and narrow minded and I still talked to you. Dish it out, take it. Grow some skin.

Originally posted by Dasher
Well, technically, because I understand that Life is God, I can easily demonstrate that God exists because Life exists. However, I understand that you do not believe that Life is alive.

Firstly, I do believe life is alive. I don't know where you assumed otherwise.
Secondly, you're taking something already known to exist and redefining it as "god" and claiming you've proved god. Could I not also declare a pencil to be god? What's the difference in that and your argument?

And I am "toning down" my comments in many ways in order to offer point of connection to you. If I was to speak spiritually without consideration of you, I acknowledge that it would look like blather to most people. Often times, concepts I take for granted are extremely hard to share with those who are not "spiritually connected."

It's difficult tolerating this kind of condescension. If you're unable to explain yourself it's not due to a fault of mine. You've confused others here as well. It's not their fault either. So try to find a way to communicate with those you only see as below you. We can't understand you.

Originally posted by Dasher

And I am "toning down" my comments in many ways in order to offer point of connection to you. If I was to speak spiritually without consideration of you, I acknowledge that it would look like blather to most people. Often times, concepts I take for granted are extremely hard to share with those who are not "spiritually connected."

You do realise comments like this just ping off sceptics in the same way peanuts do when they are thrown at battleships

Here you might enjoy this
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by TheFlash
Let's eliminate the grammar and language issues and be clear about what you are saying.

Are you saying that It is impossible for you, personally to believe in any god? Based on information you have your deductive powers are so good ( a regular Sherlock Holmes) that you have concluded without any shadow of a doubt that God does NOT exist? ... even though you have no proof to support your belief?

Is that what you mean?

I am saying no such thing. I do not have a belief that gods do not exist. I have no belief that they do exist. There is a significant difference.

We don't disbelieve in unicorns because we have proof that they don't exist. We disbelieve it because nobody has met the burden of proof to establish that they do exist. I have not chosen to disbelieve in unicorns. Unless the burden of proof is met, belief in unicorns is not an option available for choice.

Well then let me ask you this... Based on your study of the available data, what is your personal estimation of the odds (expressed as a percent will do) that a God might exist?

The things that people don't say, or questions they won't answer, are often more revealing than anything they do say...

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Yes, many are ignorant of the "pieces to deal with," because their minds only extend to material things and spiritually infantile concepts (no, I am not making fun of you - there is a general progression to spiritual growth as there is with physical growth. the infantile concepts are people's unction for liberty, peace, truth, etc.).

Much of spiritual logic is like taking apart an engine. There are pieces involved that can be inspected, broken apart into smaller pieces again, exchanged for other pieces, etc. However, in our existence, when we form a judgment without properly observing the pieces, we are placing a part, either, where it does not belong, or that is not functional. So, I was not name calling, I was stating a fair conclusion that is specifically demonstrated by your need to ask about spiritual things.

Saying that I am making up the parts to be dealt with is disingenuous as you could only say that if you had a better understanding of the parts and could demonstrably examine them or "remove" them from the greater concepts that I have broken down. At this point, while you have a good understanding of non-spiritual logic, your acknowledgment of not understanding/seeing spiritual things should leave you only listening and asking questions to expand your observations. From there you should reason within yourself further before coming to a judgment. Dismissing a concept because you do not understand will simply keep you tied down in the same spot as you were when your soul asked the first question of "ungh?" If we dismissed things as such in science, we would never see what was once unseen, like black holes, quasars, atoms, etc. But we all know that it is those who "see" concepts with their mind's eye before we can actually see it "provably" are the ones who bring progress to our species. The same goes for spiritual things/places.

Likewise, if something I said is worthy of rebuke, do so for my sake, but do not throw aside my words as "made up." That is simply a careless judgment of my expression. I did not make up that DNA echos Order, it is what it is. I did not make up that females of mammalian species are normally more Charitable (life giving) than their testosterone driven counterparts, they are what they are. Of course both of those concepts are enjoined together, always, in differing amounts, but to deny their duality and communion is to deny truth.

I did not make up that without Order, Charity becomes Chaos. That is simply the way things are.
I did not make up that without Charity, Order becomes Pride. That is simply the way things are.
Where there is no Order, there is decay, and where there is no Charity, there is decay.
Where Order and Charity are expressed in the image of Life, life is expressed as movements against the decay.

These are the sorts of things that must be consumed and digested. To respond so quickly and do so based upon your confusion, without progressing in your digestion of these spiritual things first, it is the same as spitting up your dinner right after eating it and claiming that the dinner had been "make believe" when your body groans in hunger.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Firstly, I do believe life is alive. I don't know where you assumed otherwise.
Secondly, you're taking something already known to exist and redefining it as "god" and claiming you've proved god. Could I not also declare a pencil to be god? What's the difference in that and your argument?

I assumed otherwise because, if you understood that Life is alive, you would also understand that Life can be communed with. If it cannot be communed with, it is not alive. You do not believe that Life can be communed with, right? Otherwise, you would know that Life is our "deity" (as yucky as that term has come to make us feel). A pencil cannot be communed with because it has no life, although, in a spiritual sense, it can be given life by it's use. This is similar to how the dirt was made into us, but we are exalted more than we can exalt a pencil. This is also similar to how Life "consumes" us like wine after our process of becoming good fruit, and then "fermenting" is completed. I did not "pull that out of my butt," it is a very specific concept echoed by many spiritual concepts in many forms ("the end is near," nirvana [in a perpendicular fashion]).

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
It's difficult tolerating this kind of condescension. If you're unable to explain yourself it's not due to a fault of mine. You've confused others here as well. It's not their fault either. So try to find a way to communicate with those you only see as below you. We can't understand you.

I am not being condescending, I am sorry that you receive it that way. I have said from the beginning that I would tell you plainly. I have done so. It is not my limitation causing the "blockage." It is the impasse created by decay. Again, I suggest that you simply digest what I am communicating. Read it later on and digest it again. If it's false, you'll have no problem "pooping" it out later as waste, but as it is, you spit it out before you can draw any nourishment. And that's fine too, but don't say something is not nourishing simply because you cannot palette it. Nor should you call someone "condescending" because they enjoy the flavor you keep spitting out.

If I thought poorly of you, why would I take my time to calmly try and commune/connect with you? I wish to share Life. And Life, on most levels, is OrderlyChartiy/CharitableOrder. So I strive to make chaos and pride the least of my expressions because they are contrary to Life.

reply to post by racasan


Yes, I am an animal, and I would stand before you naked if you would then understand that I have no pride in my words. Within the concepts I am sharing, there is an impasse of decay. I cannot overcome that impasse, it was overcome for me. The same must happen for you, or else it will lead to spiritual death.

Take it for what it's worth. It could be truth, and it could be the ramblings of some guy on the internet. And the possibility that it's both should lead you to consider "sleeping on the concepts" for more than a mere moment of your lifetime. Reason with the concepts of OrderlyCharity/CharitableOrder and how they "break up" into Pride and Chaos. Just with that alone you can draw correlations to most concepts under the sun.

If you have any patience, reserve some for these things, work them out over the next few years and draw final conclusions when you have developed some wisdom regarding the involved concepts. But to reject it without "taking it in" is entirely useless for all involved.

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by TheFlash
Let's eliminate the grammar and language issues and be clear about what you are saying.

Are you saying that It is impossible for you, personally to believe in any god? Based on information you have your deductive powers are so good ( a regular Sherlock Holmes) that you have concluded without any shadow of a doubt that God does NOT exist? ... even though you have no proof to support your belief?

Is that what you mean?

I am saying no such thing. I do not have a belief that gods do not exist. I have no belief that they do exist. There is a significant difference.

We don't disbelieve in unicorns because we have proof that they don't exist. We disbelieve it because nobody has met the burden of proof to establish that they do exist. I have not chosen to disbelieve in unicorns. Unless the burden of proof is met, belief in unicorns is not an option available for choice.

Well then let me ask you this... Based on your study of the available data, what is your personal estimation of the odds (expressed as a percent will do) that a God might exist?

The things that people don't say, or questions they won't answer, are often more revealing than anything they do say...

I'm sorry, Flash. I was not avoiding anything, just focused on different areas.

This is a rather clever question, isn't it? If I give any value, including zero, I'll be cornered. I'll have to be both slightly evasive and intellectually honest and say I don't know. There are as many definitions for god(s) as there are people. Though I'm unwilling to calculate any value I can say I'm open to any new evidence.

Originally posted by Dasher
These are the sorts of things that must be consumed and digested. To respond so quickly and do so based upon your confusion, without progressing in your digestion of these spiritual things first, it is the same as spitting up your dinner right after eating it and claiming that the dinner had been "make believe" when your body groans in hunger.

Look, my declaration that things were made up is simply as matter of fact to me as is that I am narrow minded to you is matter of fact. Without presenting substance or even agreed upon axioms it has all the appearance to me of making things up. That I can't discern your meaning has all the appearance to you that I'm narrow minded. I'll attempt to limit any such future provocation should you do likewise. My apologies, and hopefully we can move on amicably.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by TheFlash
Let's eliminate the grammar and language issues and be clear about what you are saying.

Are you saying that It is impossible for you, personally to believe in any god? Based on information you have your deductive powers are so good ( a regular Sherlock Holmes) that you have concluded without any shadow of a doubt that God does NOT exist? ... even though you have no proof to support your belief?

Is that what you mean?

I am saying no such thing. I do not have a belief that gods do not exist. I have no belief that they do exist. There is a significant difference.

We don't disbelieve in unicorns because we have proof that they don't exist. We disbelieve it because nobody has met the burden of proof to establish that they do exist. I have not chosen to disbelieve in unicorns. Unless the burden of proof is met, belief in unicorns is not an option available for choice.

Well then let me ask you this... Based on your study of the available data, what is your personal estimation of the odds (expressed as a percent will do) that a God might exist?

The things that people don't say, or questions they won't answer, are often more revealing than anything they do say...

I'm sorry, Flash. I was not avoiding anything, just focused on different areas.

This is a rather clever question, isn't it? If I give any value, including zero, I'll be cornered. I'll have to be both slightly evasive and intellectually honest and say I don't know. There are as many definitions for god(s) as there are people. Though I'm unwilling to calculate any value I can say I'm open to any new evidence.

Once again, you make me laugh. What is the difficulty? Are you more concerned with Truth, or your own ego? Here is another analogy for you. Like any analogy it is not perfect but it serves to illustrate the point I wish to make.

Let's say you were alive during WW II and one of the millions of unfortunate people who were interred in a Nazi concentration camp. Of course you think often of escape as does everyone else. The fact is that you are unable to believe, based on available evidence that you have any chance of successfully escaping. Then again you think back to stories you have heard before being captured and imprisoned about a fortunate few who did escape successfully! So with the information you have you are able to at the very least make a guess as to what your odds might be of escape, small though they may be. Is it possible for you to believe that you still might escape one day despite the miniscule odds?

So come on drummy - you are a sharp and informed guy. Let's have a ballpark estimate as to what you figure the odds of God existing are. Unless this is all just a mental masturbation game you play because you have nothing better to do. What do you do for a living anyway? Do you even have a job?

As for your claim that you are "not avoiding anything", you are most certainly avoiding answering my question. The Truth shall set you free my friend. Don't be afraid of it...

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by sensibleSenseless
But a belief is not the same - since you do not have to purchase it - it is something in your head - it is written there by choice...

I see one's beliefs arising from a matter of reasoning, not by deciding upon available options. Disbelief in particular seems to be unrelated to choices. We may say that we 'choose not to believe' though this is figurative speech and not a literal descriptor. Disbelief is the elimination of choices.

I see what you mean - you have no use for either and so you haven't chosen either.

Not sure whether the definition of atheist includes those who haven't chosen to "not believe in God" - There is by way of your argument, still room for those who have chosen "not to believe".

Similarly, I'm not a non-unicorn believer or disbeliever - just someone who has no use for either choice.

Fine by me