Your awareness is a ham sammich? You are further gone, than I thought. I don't 
want to play games, Curtis, so I'll let your ham sammich continue thinking 
about whatever a ham sammich thinks about.  

 "we didn't create the world". Sure about that, old bean? In that case, please 
pass the mayo, so I can have you for lunch... 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :

 
 

---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".

 



 
  
































Reply via email to