---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote :
Curtis, as jr. says, you guys say there is no God. Its not like it is ambiguous. M: But I don't say this. I say I see no reason to believe in one. There is a huge difference between these statements. I am amazed that I cannot communicate this difference effectively because it keeps coming back misstated. I see the God stories as mythology. Valuable as literature. I see the experiences of God as an interesting thing our brains can do without it meaning anything about the actual existence of God. I will keep trying. But I am not saying there is no God, how could I know such a thing if I am denying that you could know there is one? It would require the exact same thinking flaw IMO. F: I like what Edg had to say about it - God equals awareness. I'd go along with that definition, completely. So, can you say you have no awareness, or is this a big bluster, of being an atheist, against the bankrupt cultural God we all dismissed in 4th grade, or so, the old guy with the beard who sits in judgment - That guy. Forget about him - what do you say about Edg's simple association, that God is awareness? M:We can redefine God as a ham sandwich if we want, but that has nothing to do with the definitions within and without of mystical traditions. My awareness (yours also) did not create the world so it seems like a pretty big demotion of the concept. Redefining it as awareness and reducing it to that function simple does away with the essential concept that makes the word God separate from the term awareness. I don't find it helpful or descriptive. F: That is my God too, 24x7. As for assumptions, I don't make them about God - it is more like a reporting of instantaneous experience. The nervous system changes, as enlightenment progresses. There are no longer previous deep and unknown impressions, to fuel the "subconscious", as it is known in waking state. M: You seem unaware of all the assumptive statements in those sentences. Certainly your right, but I would not see this as a case for extra awareness, I see it as you having less. And it falls far short of the superlatives that the term God has been associated with in mystical traditions including my own experiences in one. F: Everything is as fresh as a daisy, rejuvenating itself, moment by moment. There is no need for undue doubt or speculation, or fantasy, or imagination, regarding God. Nothing to hold onto, at all - In fact what could be more absurd than trying to hold onto God?? I give prayers for thanks, when necessary, or seek comfort directly, or am struck with awe, at the wonder of God's creation, but, I don't think about God abstractly, much at all. It just doesn't come up. M: I am not sure what you are saying here. Not being reflective about your subjective experience is not making a good case for having more awareness, it seems like less. If you are saying that you aren't able to question your own experience, or see no need to, then we are not on the same page about this at all. It sounds like unreflective intellectual over confidence. Not a virtue in my book. F: PS Here's a picture of God. Just caught her in the yard, as the sun was setting. :-) M: If you want to reduce the concept of God to nature then I think we already have a word for that and don't need another one with so much weird baggage. But I would like to end with an expression of appreciation for how you embrace life with or without the extra beliefs and interpretations of your experience that I don't buy Jim. As far as I can tell you are going for the gusto of interests in life in a way that I do respect. You seem to have inexhaustible curiosity about the world, and your interests in art and even cars. I don't reduce you to the areas where we don't see eye to eye. Whatever your beliefs are they seem to be working for you. I don't need to share them to appreciate many of your contributions here ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : I don't believe in the God, that the atheists don't believe in, either. Who the fuck would want to? Theirs is a cultural God, or philosophical God, or logical God. The atheists must define, that which they do not believe in, and I agree, I do not believe in any of the Gods or gods, that they do not believe in, too. The God I know, is unknown to them, they cannot define the God I know, and wouldn't have a clue where to begin. Now, THAT'S funny. M: That seems a bit assumptive. How could you know if the God you claim to experience is unknown to them. Perhaps they had similar experiences and have come to different conclusions about the meaning of them? You are perhaps giving your subjective experience undue epistemological weight, a condition that some cognitive psychologists would argue is one of our most glaring cognitive gaps. Atheists do not have to define what they do not believe in. They take the definitions from the believers and find them wanting. Yours included, to the degree that you have spelled out what it is. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : As it is with most of us Ann. Even when there is a scientific explanation behind it. And there is a sliding scale among everyone here of the belief in God. Barry, of course believes in most of the tenants of theism, but just doesn't use the word "God" He prefers the word "Intelligence" so he can get a card that states, "I am a Atheist" He treasures that card, because it goes along with his self proclaimed label as, "rebel". But scratch beneath the surface, and he'd have some explaining to do. But don't expect him to be pressed by anyone in his clique. Oh, gawd, no. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote : Everything is a mystery. What people think and why they think it is mysterious. How I can put one foot in front of the other is a mystery, even if someone thinks they can explain the mechanics of it there remain at least 50 mysteries within that act alone. The biggest mystery being what is motivating the desire to put one foot in front of the other. My life is nothing but mystery, I have enough mystery to keep me busy for 1000 lifetimes so don't start claiming that those who have opinions about something lack the capacity to embrace mystery because to do so is to fall into the very trap you are claiming others are already floundering in. I mean, you're the guy who requires the rigid scientific methods to strip down every mystery. You're the one who can't seem to abide something if it isn't clearly documented and disassembled right down to the boring nitty gritty. So don't talk to me about "mystery".