I believe in God, and I believe the bible,
but i dont believe in the fundementalists or their representations of either .....
This poem sums my views up quite nicely
The Fundmentalist
You say it's this or that
That nothing lies between
Here is all black and foul:
There is all white and clean
Quick are your tongues decrees
Your judgments swiftly given
This unto outer darkness,
That unto inner heaven
Hail to you masters wise
who can so well adjust
The problems of the skies
With your amazing dust
You say its this or that
And measure by one rule
The pathway of the seer
The roadway of the fool
And while your holy host
a faultless record makes
The snail like Gods move on
through their divine mistakes! Wilson Mac Donald
Full Version: God
That's an awesome poem. Are you Wilson McDonald?
Although, I do not believe in God, I respect Christians, Muslims... and those who do. But I can't stand fundamentalists and their illigitimate exegesis (interpretation) of the Bible.
It's one thing to be raised in a tradition and to accept those beliefs as your own. It's a whole other ball game if you interpret the Bible as an individual, as if God would reveal truths to a single person for their personal benifit.
(Scripture > Tradition > History > Experience) This is the way my tradition has interpreted the Bible for many years before me.
Fundamentalists will say "(Experience > Scripture > Experience)" and throw out history and tradition altogether.
Without looking at where you have been (history and tradition) how do you know where you are going or where you are? You lose personal identity.
This rant is a little off topic from what you were saying. But I can't stand fundamentalist theology because of it's destructive patterns to the Life of the Church. And I rant and I rant.
Although, I do not believe in God, I respect Christians, Muslims... and those who do. But I can't stand fundamentalists and their illigitimate exegesis (interpretation) of the Bible.
It's one thing to be raised in a tradition and to accept those beliefs as your own. It's a whole other ball game if you interpret the Bible as an individual, as if God would reveal truths to a single person for their personal benifit.
(Scripture > Tradition > History > Experience) This is the way my tradition has interpreted the Bible for many years before me.
Fundamentalists will say "(Experience > Scripture > Experience)" and throw out history and tradition altogether.
Without looking at where you have been (history and tradition) how do you know where you are going or where you are? You lose personal identity.
This rant is a little off topic from what you were saying. But I can't stand fundamentalist theology because of it's destructive patterns to the Life of the Church. And I rant and I rant.
yes, I agree.. this is an excellent poem.
[quote author=AmbientSnowflake link=board=7;threadid=388;start=50#msg14316 date=1064966340]
Without looking at where you have been (history and tradition) how do you know where you are going or where you are? You lose personal identity.
[/quote]
Is this necessarily a bad thing? Of course, it's always desirable to view things from multiple perspectives.... interpreting one's present experiences within the context of one's history, past, and traditions can be useful, but it's also interesting and worthwhile to experience the 'here and now' without any regard (i.e., conscious recollection) of one's history, past, and traditions.... they're different states of mind. Without consciousness of one's past or future, one exists entirely within the infinite Present... perhaps you lose personal identity, but you can gain something far greater..... a vast, overflowing sense of identity that's not personal.
but then again, maybe I'm interpreting your post out of context.
[quote author=AmbientSnowflake link=board=7;threadid=388;start=50#msg14316 date=1064966340]
Without looking at where you have been (history and tradition) how do you know where you are going or where you are? You lose personal identity.
[/quote]
Is this necessarily a bad thing? Of course, it's always desirable to view things from multiple perspectives.... interpreting one's present experiences within the context of one's history, past, and traditions can be useful, but it's also interesting and worthwhile to experience the 'here and now' without any regard (i.e., conscious recollection) of one's history, past, and traditions.... they're different states of mind. Without consciousness of one's past or future, one exists entirely within the infinite Present... perhaps you lose personal identity, but you can gain something far greater..... a vast, overflowing sense of identity that's not personal.
but then again, maybe I'm interpreting your post out of context.
In myself history has helped form my identity. This is what I chose as one source of identity. I have many of these sources. These are the ones that I know of. 1. family and friends (a relational identity taking place in the infinite present) 2. history (an identity to answer the question "who am I?" or "what is the meaning of life?") 3. professional identity (basically what I study or do at work, and perhaps some of the people I meet there, and perhaps at times this can leak into the relational aspect of my identity.)
To have the first, identity solely in the infinite present, is meaningless except within the infinite present. In my opinion that identity never answers every deep questions that human urges are forcing humanity to ask. By deep questions I mean history in terms of "who am I in retrospect of those whose actions have now shape the world I live in.
Essentially no one has a solid grasp on the answers concerning the history of humanity. (You can't unless you experienced them.) And so this species is here in the infinite present trying to search for who we once were. It's more of a communal identity than a personal identity.
I'm starting to think that identity is always based in community. What's the point of being identifiable if you're alone?
To have the first, identity solely in the infinite present, is meaningless except within the infinite present. In my opinion that identity never answers every deep questions that human urges are forcing humanity to ask. By deep questions I mean history in terms of "who am I in retrospect of those whose actions have now shape the world I live in.
Essentially no one has a solid grasp on the answers concerning the history of humanity. (You can't unless you experienced them.) And so this species is here in the infinite present trying to search for who we once were. It's more of a communal identity than a personal identity.
I'm starting to think that identity is always based in community. What's the point of being identifiable if you're alone?
I beleive in God, but christianity is a stupid thing to hail too
| QUOTE |
| I beleive in God, but christianity is a stupid thing to hail too |
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Einstein
I can't believe I actually took the time to read two pages worth of posts. In the end I'll have to agree with Steve.
At any rate. I'll move right to where you people left off. I don't think anything plays a major role on an individual's identity but the individual's choices. For example I derive my identity from an idealistic 'greater good,' I'm an atheist and I'm not spiritual at all, so this is just what my choice of 'good' is, and the what I believe to be the greater potential of this 'good.' This is what I boiled my identity down to and it was indeed my choice. I could have taken it easy and follow that which my parents built for me, or I could have put my life in perspective to, say, history, and add up from there. Either way it was a choice.
AmbientSnowflake with all your respect I believe what you are doing is not living in the infinite present. You, in my humble opinion, are taking still frames of past and present and pasting them in your future. I by no means discourage your ideals, I'm just asking you to reconsider the way and manner in which time appears to flow. It doesn't flow at all. Time -and by time I don't mean that ethereal 4th dimension, rather I mean percieved time- is complately fixated on the individual. This gives you the greatest ammount of choices for your future and allows you to reflect on the past without having to abandon that which is ultimately most important, present and future.
Please explain if this is not what you meant by history. Thanks. -Eduardo
At any rate. I'll move right to where you people left off. I don't think anything plays a major role on an individual's identity but the individual's choices. For example I derive my identity from an idealistic 'greater good,' I'm an atheist and I'm not spiritual at all, so this is just what my choice of 'good' is, and the what I believe to be the greater potential of this 'good.' This is what I boiled my identity down to and it was indeed my choice. I could have taken it easy and follow that which my parents built for me, or I could have put my life in perspective to, say, history, and add up from there. Either way it was a choice.
AmbientSnowflake with all your respect I believe what you are doing is not living in the infinite present. You, in my humble opinion, are taking still frames of past and present and pasting them in your future. I by no means discourage your ideals, I'm just asking you to reconsider the way and manner in which time appears to flow. It doesn't flow at all. Time -and by time I don't mean that ethereal 4th dimension, rather I mean percieved time- is complately fixated on the individual. This gives you the greatest ammount of choices for your future and allows you to reflect on the past without having to abandon that which is ultimately most important, present and future.
Please explain if this is not what you meant by history. Thanks. -Eduardo
god isnt there
and if he is then he dosent care
people kill them selfs sometimes just for him just to see him
and he dose nothing
just
nothing
name one thing that he has ever done! children are starveing DIEING and he has not lift a finger to help
what is god for?
y (if hes real) is he even around?
to give people hope???
few
very few get hope
and if he is then he dosent care
people kill them selfs sometimes just for him just to see him
and he dose nothing
just
nothing
name one thing that he has ever done! children are starveing DIEING and he has not lift a finger to help
what is god for?
y (if hes real) is he even around?
to give people hope???
few
very few get hope
People believe in god because they need a spiritual support. When you take that god into real life you run into problems though. And people DO get hope, those who truly believe do. Maybe the number 1 reason I don't believe.
I've been reading through this entire thread too, and have some questions from page one.
Dan, you said the following:
Dan, you said the following:
| QUOTE |
| I believe there is only one 'dude', and that 'dude' is 'time-division multiplexed' into all us 'separate' folks. We think we have 'others', but all we have is phantoms. |
How is this 'dude' who is 'time-division multiplexed' any different from saying all people have the same 'I' but are deluded into believing they're different? If you assume your 'dude' can only be in one place at one time, then your time-division multiplexing seems a reasonable solution. But if you don't make this assumption, and instead assume your 'dude' can be many places at once, then you don't have to assume time-division multiplexing. Or maybe we're talking about the same thing, just using different language?
Also, you said the following:
| QUOTE |
| The quantization of space is a result of the intrinsic quantization of reality |
and later say:
| QUOTE |
| the continuum is a mathematical construct born of a perceptual 'intuition' of space (we call this 'geometry). Physics, on the other hand, always finds a granularity at the smallest scales (planck length, time) that suggests a breakdown of this concept as a correct ontology. |
But I would like to point out that there's no evidence for the quantization of space. Certainly not from quantum mechanics or quantum field theory, which both deal with quantization of particle states but not with quantization of space. Even if some form of granularity exists at the smallest scales, this doesn't imply space isn't continuous. It seems like you're trying to use science to back up your claim that space is not continuous, but science does not support this claim. Where did you read that space is not continuous? I don't believe you got it out of any physics textbook or from talking to a physicist because according to most physicists, space is continuous. There are many 'popular science' books out there that blatantly misinterpret physics, and particularly quantum mechanics, and which just act to deceive and misinform the lay public. You have to be careful about that sort of thing. So what is your evidence for quantization of space? Why does planck length suggest to you that space is quantized? Perhaps more importantly, what is your reason or motive for even desiring such a quantization?
On a final note, though I pointed out that there's no compelling evidence for the quantization of space, there is also no compelling evidence against it.
Hey Shawn
I see you've dug up some of my old stuff, so let's see if I can explain myself
I see you've dug up some of my old stuff, so let's see if I can explain myself
| QUOTE |
| How is this 'dude' who is 'time-division multiplexed' any different from saying all people have the same 'I' but are deluded into believing they're different? |
I would say all people are the same I. What's different are the various 'perspectives' (embodied in 'bodies')
| QUOTE |
| If you assume your 'dude' can only be in one place at one time, then your time-division multiplexing seems a reasonable solution. But if you don't make this assumption, and instead assume your 'dude' can be many places at once, then you don't have to assume time-division multiplexing. |
I find consciousness to be a unitary experience, synthesizing all 'parts' of experience into a single state of perception. To conceive of dividing this single state of perception into many simultaneous individual states of perception appears to be an absurdity in my opinion, but to conceive of dividing it in time does not. Particular 'minds' (as embodied in 'bodies', and accessible to perception) need only generate the perception of temporal continuity rather than actually possess it.
as for my claim of the granularity of space, this is based partially on my interpretation of certain physical evidence and also on my various drug/mystically induced philosophical meanderings. I hope to eventually try to formalize these ideas in order to clarify their reasonableness, if not to introduce a unique and viable hypothesis to the scientific arena then at least to clear myself of the nagging question.
hi Dan,
| QUOTE |
| I would say all people are the same I. What's different are the various 'perspectives' (embodied in 'bodies') |
what would you say about dogs and cats? Do they possess the same I?
| QUOTE |
| To conceive of dividing this single state of perception into many simultaneous individual states of perception appears to be an absurdity in my opinion |
yes, it does appear absurd, but there appears no way to strictly rule it out. For example, it's possible that in addition to the unitary consciousness we experience, that each hemisphere of our brains possesses a separate sphere of consciousness that we are not conscious of.
| QUOTE |
| Particular 'minds' (as embodied in 'bodies', and accessible to perception) need only generate the perception of temporal continuity rather than actually possess it. |
so you're saying that temporal continuity is an illusion, or rather, that it's just a perception? But if time is not continuous, then why does it flow? and why would we wish to perceive it as continuous?
| QUOTE |
| as for my claim of the granularity of space, this is based partially on my interpretation of certain physical evidence and also on my various drug/mystically induced philosophical meanderings. |
I understand.
| QUOTE |
| I hope to eventually try to formalize these ideas |
as Master Yoda might say, "There is no try, only do."
| QUOTE |
| what would you say about dogs and cats? Do they possess the same I? |
there is only one I, the sole experiencer.
| QUOTE |
| it's possible that in addition to the unitary consciousness we experience, that each hemisphere of our brains possesses a separate sphere of consciousness that we are not conscious of. |
I say that the elements of consciousness are unified in the awareness of the perceiver, and that there are no other 'perceivers'. If there can be associated with the brain disjoint experiences of consciousness, then the time-division notion can be applied as an explanation rather than multiple perceivers.
| QUOTE |
| so you're saying that temporal continuity is an illusion, or rather, that it's just a perception? |
I'm saying that the sense of continuously being a particular person (or dog, or cat) is illusory. However, continuously being certainly seems sensible
| QUOTE |
| as Master Yoda might say, "There is no try, only do." |
then I shall 'do' my best
| QUOTE |
| then I shall 'do' my best |
I would expect no less from you, Dan, if you don't mind me saying so. To the New Year!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.