God doesn't seem to exist!

Post Reply New Topic

Now I'm convinced, Wittgenstein was right.

God in a nut shell. The truth behind it all!

^^^

Ironically, Frank Braum, the story 'taler'; TRULY, behind the Wizard of OZ is associated with the Theosophic Esoteric Society of schooling in gaining paths to human enlightenment, wITh TRUE Freedom; far beyond a patriarchal commercial ideal of human freedoms, such as the American Dream; with a home; a car; a married couple; and a boy and girl to round out two children to making a family living the ideal in idol of American Dream.

The Wizard of OZ is but a kind old gentleman
helping folks gain a path to enLIGHTenment
in Wisdom and Kind enCouragement
AKA Unconditional Tough LOVE.

The Lion is for courage; the scarecrow for reason; and the Tin man for heart.

Dorothy fails to understand in Kansas that her true home is the GOD that lives and
breathes within her; instead of a lofty outer goal of imagination.

The True Yellow brick road is the golden path of wisdom back to
integration of human mind and body balance in ways of
emotional regulation; sensory integration;
greater focus in positive FEELING;
and working short-term
memory to make
the spread of
Wisdom
Efficient
as UNCONDITIONAL
TOUGH LOVE CAN BE..

Understanding human archetypes of unconscious
mind and using those human archetypes for one's
advantage is certainly not territory limited to
Frank Braum, or even Carl Jung;
Literature is full of these lessons;
historically, in mythological fairy tales;
to '50 Shades of Grey'; 'Harry Potter';
Star Trek; the list is beyond
limit as Truth takes
many faces
to spark a
a life
renewing for simplicity's
Joy and Bliss in this
thing cALLed truly;
with empowering
SKeyes of GOD
in Truest
HUMAN
FREEDOM1!..

Well, what else can I say? Yes, the members of I.S.I.S. who engage in head-chopping do believe that what they are doing is right, but that's not the point. The point is that what they are doing is not right; it is objectively wrong. At all times, forever, and regardless of excuses or circumstances.

'Subjective perspective'? So, since from their 'perspective' they consider what they are doing to be right, and since the moral relativist's position is that there are no absolute moral values, I cannot therefore judge their actions? Is that the message you are giving me here?

No wonder Western civilisation is collapsing. We no longer even have it within ourselves to even see the barbarians in our midst, never mind actually oppose them. How did we ever become so weak, so reluctant to stand up for what is right? Churchill must be spinning in his grave. He managed to stop the Nazis, but he didn't count on the rise of the moral relativists, spin doctors, Marxists, and politically-correct post-modernists (i.e. fifth columnists, traitors and useful idiots) who are doing their best to destroy all that is good and worth preserving.

Well, excuse me for not having read literally 'thousands of papers' on the subject, but I have both limited time and other priorities in life, so yes, you could argue that my comprehension of the subjects of psychology and sociology is not what it should be. That, however, does not mean that I actually am wrong, now does it? If I am wrong, then why has not the discovery that we don't need God (not religion - different claim) to ground morality been trumpeted far and wide by our secular, agenda-driven mainstream media? From them I have heard only silence thus far (although they do like to grab every opportunity they can to introduce 'experts' to tell us that God is a daft idea - ex. the physicist Lawrence Krauss has now appeared about ten times on the A.B.C. programme 'Q&A').

Exactly! We simply don't have the time to go through all the junk that is out there, to 'sift the wheat from the chaff' as J.C. once put it. Yes Oldavid, you are correct when you attribute such attitudes to ideology; what happens to be fashionable to believe in the current 'zeitgeist' is that material reality is all there is, morality is not absolute, and science as it is currently practiced will eventually be able to explain everything. Well, I've never been one to follow fashions, and I see no reason now to change that.

AspieOtaku, you just don't get it, do you? You still subscribe to this silly Dawkinoid strawman idea that God is an invisible, bearded sky-daddy, and that because our telescopes can now see to the most distant regions of our physical universe and have not (predictably) found within this universe your absurd caricature of God, that, by golly - there is no God!

Wow, such theological sophistication. For this lame 'effort' you get five eyerolls

Your god seems to have insecurity issues and have the need to have a man behind the curtain represent him,if he is real of course! God is the great and powerful oz only not so great or powerful otherwise he would not need to rest on the 7th day after creating the stars in one and taking 6 days creating one planet then having to rest lmao! Why did god have to rest? I thought he was supposed to be perfect,if he has to rest then it means he is not perfect and has a weakness and has limited power!

God and Oz are one in the same, a ploy to keep people in fear to do what he sais but nothing else than a man made concept of illusions and facades! The man who comes up with the idea of a god hides behind a curtain and projects his thoughts from a hologram to make it seem real and keep people in fear.

God: You dare question god?
Me: yes I do because you gave us free will, which is your mistake!
God: I don't make mistakes! I am perfect!
Me: But you gave us free will allowing me to question you!
God: gah....no!! I am perfect!! ! I know all!!
Me: If you know all then why did you give humans free will, let alone place the tree of knowledge and tell Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit but they did anyway? It is as if you wanted it to happen! If you wanted total obedience you would not have given us humans free will!
God: Gahhhhhhhh your right nooOOOOoooooo *fades away*
Me: I win!

Problem here is; you are confusing GOD for a human;
But you are truly no different than most so-called Christians
and Muslims who refer to GOD as a HE with a giant Penis!

God is much bigger, than a Penis!

And these same folks cannot look at the
Statue of David, overall, without getting
locked in on his tiny penis; that is
such narrow minded penis thinking;
but truly a symptom of GOD fearing
groups of conservative thinking minds
that see GOD as a HE penis; instead
of
ALLTHATIS;
MY GOD is much
bigger than a FRIGGING PENIS;
big or small; GOD is not
a frigging HUMAN, ALONE!
GOD IS
ALLONE!

I AM FREE to do all Nude male NEW AGE
Renaissance artisTRY, as my penis
is no 'big' deal to me; MY PEN
IS MUCH BIGGER, ANYWAY;
with more than 10 million
words in the last 4 years
and 4 months shy of 5.

Some people spend all
their life worrying about
their penises; the penises
of other folks, and THE
penis of HE GOD;
THAT'S beyond insanity
to me; as my biggest
sexual organ is between
my ears; in my gigantic
FRED HEAD; that outmeasures
the heads of women and men; ALIKE!

Albiet, with few Facebook likes and followers but; with
OMG 1.2 million views; just on Google PLUS!

Some folks are a little shy around me; but OH MY GOD; DO THEY GAWK!

IN FACT, I'm all over Facebook and YouTube in voyeur videos by
mostly shy females; I will and do add; for the muse of dance I bring
to them, all around my metro area; now, at 3820 miles in
just 22 months, measured by GPS NIKE Sports watch for
empirical minded naysayers! as well, or not so well.

BUT YES! GOD IS MUCH MORE
THAN A FRED HEAD! TOO!
but yes, I am still,
HEMAN!
PER
general
SIZE OF
HUMAN HEADS!

FootNOTE:

Per empirical measure, my head is also
reAlly long from top to bottom
as peaceful ruler ON foot;
AKA 12 inches LONG!
And amazingly, my name
FREDERICK means
PEACEFUL RULER;
now isn't that
JUST
coincidence
or
Synchronicity!
Smiles..
or BS..
It matter not;
as it is the
FEELING
THAT COUNTS!

Your argument is basically "I believe my subjective moral position is objectively right". What is the source of this supposed objective moral position?



If you consider me to be a moral relativist, why would you assume that any "message" I had would be absolute? You should feel free to decide for yourself what is right and wrong, just as everyone else does.



Define what you mean by the underlined phrase.



On whose behalf do you claim to speak in the above emotional plea?



Wherein Godwin's law is satisfied, as moral relativists, Marxists and spin doctors are compared unfavourably to the Nazis.

What explanation do you offer as to why the people within the groups you listed don't recognise your "objective" moral position? By what moral standard do you dismiss them all as traitors and idiots?



Which is the very definition of ignorance - as I suggested. I'm failing to see how your wilful decision to pretend information does not exist is justification for the claim that it does not exist.



If I were a subscriber to the 'zeitgeist', I'd simply dismiss your position as blind traditionalism and label you a hate-filled patriarchal dinosaur. I find it ironic (and frankly hilarious) that you're resorting to identity politics in order to denigrate modern society (along with myself).



Said a follower of the Abrahamic god.

I agree that what they are doing is wrong. I am an atheist and have a set of morals that probably strongly overlap with yours. The difference is that I don't think these morals came from God. They came from the time and place in which I was born. They are subjective since they arise from culture but they sure feel[/] objective and absolute and so I judge certain things (like the murders they did) as objectively wrong. But that's a feeling. It's handed down from the society I am embedded in, not from God.

So go ahead and judge them. I don't think the relativism of morals (relative to the culture one is in) means you can't judge. I think this is the terrible mistake that people who see morals coming from God not from us make: that if morals come from us, not God then anything goes. But anything [i]doesn't go. Morals come from us. They are how we live with ourselves and with each other. Morals are how we watch each other's backs in a world that is harsh by nature and requires that we get along with each other to some extent to survive. To say that morals come from us, not God, is not to throw them out the window. It is taking responsibility for the morals.

The catch with the "morals are absolute and come from God" is that the slightests examination shows they are just as subjective and culture-bound as morals not tied to religion. ISIS beheadings are a perfect example. How could God have told them it was objectively right but told you it is objectively wrong? The morals of different religions are different. The morals of the same religion but of different denominations or times are different. Morals are incredinly culture-bound and change in response to culture. But that doesn't mean you can't judge their action wrong. It just means you can't claim the wrongness of it came from God, because murder has been religiously sanctioned many times over.


I see no such collapse. I see crime,despair, suffering, but not in greater measure than at other points in Western civilization. Possibly less so, since a good many causes of despair and suffering (ex. religiously sanctioned murder of witches and gay people,slavery) have been recently declared immoral. Yay relativism! If the morals really were objective we'd still be stuck with 'never suffer a witch to live'. (My cultural milieau is Judeo-Christian so I can't whip out any examples of cruelty from Islam or Hinduism or a zillion other religions simply because I'm not familiar with them.)

We see them jut fine. There is plenty of outrage. That the perpetrators are still alive is a matter of not being able to get at them, not lack of outrage.


Hmm. I thought you were talking about ISIS but maybe not. What exactly does this last bit refer to? Is it still ISIS or somethinmg else? Or is there some sort of post-modern support for ISIS that I don't know about?

I think it is better to get your morals from your own personal judgment than from an ancient, barbaric book. For instance, it's probably best to not honor your father and mother if your parents are killers... A prisoner of war should probably feel it's okay to lie. There are even instances in which I would say that murder is okay.

However, I can't think of an instance in which rape would be a good moral judgment, and that isn't even important enough to list in the top 10.

It is not THE definition of a First Cause but it is a necessary attribute of a First Cause.
Oh! Now why is that? Logic is a very precise science... as such it is not just a "yes-man" for fantastic fancies.