Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

The split between religion and science does not exist

Give me an honest answer as to what differentiates pixie dust (or lunar beams and invisible tarantulas) from God.

Pixie dust hasn't been the cultural norm for understanding the Universe, neither invisible tarantulas. Why? Because they don't have the same purpose and function. God has an unique function which is not the same of a flying spaghetti monster or whatever reductio ad absurdum specification you will.

What is this difference exactly?

God has a social functionality that a magical ninja chicken-hippopotamus doesn't. At a functional level, God is the sublimation of ethos and the teleological crystallization of individual and communal destiny... I'd like examples of pixie dust doing that. Of course, God can derive in bad results, as every high concept does (heroism, love... black metal).

Now, the metaphysical level is even better. As Schuon said: "The Absolute is not the Absolute inasmuch as it contains aspects, but inasmuch as It transcends them." Does pixie dust serve as concept to contain that which is beyond the multiplicity? Does pixie dust seeks to solve the duality between subject and object?
Pixie dust could do all of those things if it was the cultural norm (who knows, maybe in some cultures a pixie dust like concept has the same transcendental qualities that God does in Western cultures). Pixie dust could have "the sublimation of ethos and the teleological crysallisation of individual and communal destiny", could "serve as a concept to contain that which is beyond multiplicity" and "solve the duality between subject and object". Hell, invisible tarantulas could be the ones spreading the invisible pixie dust, in conjunction with the invisible goatlord who fires lunar beams from his giant horns. This transcendental, invisible goat of course, is an essence of a further supertranscendental pattern in the transcendental plane, the mighty five eyed snake Colololuu, who in turn is controlled by an infinite regression of supersuper....transcendental patterns/beings/entities. How is this ridiculous account of metaphysics any less likely than God doing everything you said? I've asked this question several times and all I'm getting is "it's a historical artifact".  Moreover, prove my theory is absurd or wrong. You can't, because I hide behind the bulwark of "It's transcendental so you can't experience or understand it!". Alternatively, I can hide behind global skepticism like esoteric "Anything is possible!". I'd rather take the Nietzschean approach and philosophise with the hammer; and all I'm getting are hollow, empty arguments.

Edit: I think this thread title would be more appropriately titled "The split between religion and garbage does not exist".

I find it sad that people have managed to argue over the term God, without even realizing that their argument has nothing to do with the OP.

What exactly are you expecting to be posted?

"Oh wow Conservationist, your post is such a powerful, simple account of nature and the applicability of science/religion/philosophy. The only other place I could gain such clarity and insight is at my local Scientology church".

Pass, if you're going to live your life with voluntary personal delusions, keep them to yourself. Posting them on a message board is just asking for criticism.

I think what set Stars... off was the usage of the term "God". Dead_Soul and Conservationist explained it most succinctly. I get it but still, it is a human conception and for human use with possible flaws. While Dead_Soul and Conservationist are visualizing this in terms of meaning in human life and betterment of same through the best possible methods, I suspect Stars is speaking in more absolute terms. If reality is indeed the higher order Reality envisioned in the ancient Hindu texts, nothing Stars says is going to change that. If it isn't, Dead_Soul and Conservationist can do nothing about it except still pattern their lives around it which may help them fulfill themselves and be their best and influence the world around them for the better.

Maybe it's all down to semantics and we can settle on a word for this apart from "god"...? Not pixie dust, please.

Even if we were the reduce the term of God to a purely abstract/non-transcendental concept (think Eternal Recurrence), these questions still remain

- Why do I need this concept?
- Under this concept, is my future determined by God?
- Is free will non-existent?
- Is anyone responsible for anything?
- Do I exist as an individual?

Eternal recurrence I see as an empowering exercise of individual free will, God as an underlying essence of reality is both deterministic and prohibitive.

I would say, borrowing a little from Hindu teachings:

- Why do I need this concept?
It doesn't matter if you think you need it or you want to need it or you don't want to need it. It simply is.

- Under this concept, is my future determined by God?
That's not easy, I can't give an exact answer. Suffice to say any of the infinite paths you may take based on your actions every moment all fit into the paradigm.

- Is free will non-existent?
No, not how I think you think. It exists in you but you are part of a greater web. Your actions are responses to other actions and will determine some future actions. All is.

- Is anyone responsible for anything?
Yes, everyone is responsible for what they do. But see again question 2.

- Do I exist as an individual?
At a lower order of reality, within your own life, yes. But with the realization of higher order Reality, you won't consider yourself your self.

I'm sorry if I can't put it any better at the moment.

If we take Reality as being "God", then yes, your future is determined by God (thank you, B-series time).

Free will of the individual is non-existent (thank you, Nietzsche).

Everyone (or, rather, everything) is responsible for everything (this is "God").

In the end, this is just the other extreme from saying that nothing has meaning/purpose - everything has meaning and purpose, and everything is meaning and purpose.  These two perspectives come to the same point, which we seem to be calling Nihilism.

What exactly are you expecting to be posted?

"Oh wow Conservationist, your post is such a powerful, simple account of nature and the applicability of science/religion/philosophy. The only other place I could gain such clarity and insight is at my local Scientology church".

Pass, if you're going to live your life with voluntary personal delusions, keep them to yourself. Posting them on a message board is just asking for criticism.

You completely missed the point of the original post and have since wasted everyones time with triviality and the obvious.  Kindly remove yourself from this thread.

NHA

i cant beelieve no one has mentined that god is dog spelled backwords.

adn my dog should take orders from me not the other way round Lol amirite.


pwned...

sorry, couldn't help myself
You're right, clever comments like that are much more worthy of our time. I think what is more worrying is the blind devotion that many of the posters here have towards the in-crowd. As soon as Conservationist/Prozak/etc etc post something, people aptly jump on the bandwagon without thinking critically about what is being said. The only lucid responses in this thread thus far have been from myself, jewbob and grim morrison.

Conservationist has made several threads filled with idiotic content, distortions of the truth and personal interpretation of news articles/event to mean more than they actually do (see: recent thread on statistics where he obviously has no clue as to even elementary statistics and then uses it to propagate his disapproval of science). In this thread he made the bold claim that there's a magical force (God) behind the Universe, without stating what the purpose or context of this belief was. As far as I could initially tell, the original post is proposing that it actually exists as a transcendental force, yet it has been painfully clarified by other posters as to the purpose. Similarly, he makes claims that are immune to criticism "We will never understand God" and uses loaded terminology. I would think he is trolling if it wasn't for the consistency of his posts.

It's a horrible contradiction that the ethos of ANUS is against the masses; yet at the same time people here as just as susceptible to the voice of authority and group think. It's like escaping one hell only to enter another. I used to criticise an individual on another board for slavishly copying and pasting anus articles without offering any further analysis or criticism. In the end, it became increasingly evident that the individual had 1. No idea what they were quoting and 2. were unable to provide their own perspective.

By the way, for those mentioning atheism, I'm not an atheist, being an atheist implies believing in a negation (there is no God), I simply argue an indifference to God concepts, since they are equally as plausible as other absurdities, flying spaghetti monsters, pixie dusts, lunar beams and so on. I'm perfectly functional and content existing in a state of unknowing.
Same here.

In this thread he made the bold claim that there's a magical force (God) behind the Universe

This is exactly my point, if you'd actually bothered to read his later post he clearly explained that this is not what he meant.

Interesting how you choose to ignore the following sentence, since it completely negates any point you're trying to make. What I find even more interesting is that you're unable to converse yourself, instead relying on the referencing of others. Even still, that later post of his is contradictory and idiotic. An essence which isn't really an essence but is because it's non-existence justifies it's existence exists and is the cause of all action in the Universe while at the same time is the cause of nothing and is merely a transcendental ideal even though we're rejecting dualism...What? This almost makes my pixie dust theory seem plausible...

The notion of an ANUSian God is laughable too, we've thrown out our slavery towards a Judeo-Christian God only to be reined in by one developed by the Cult figures on ANUS. Let me take your ideals and adopt them as my own, because I am surely lost without you Prozak!

Give me an honest answer as to what differentiates pixie dust (or lunar beams and invisible tarantulas) from God.

Pixie dust hasn't been the cultural norm for understanding the Universe, neither invisible tarantulas. Why? Because they don't have the same purpose and function. God has an unique function which is not the same of a flying spaghetti monster or whatever reductio ad absurdum specification you will.

What is this difference exactly?

God has a social functionality that a magical ninja chicken-hippopotamus doesn't. At a functional level, God is the sublimation of ethos and the teleological crystallization of individual and communal destiny... I'd like examples of pixie dust doing that. Of course, God can derive in bad results, as every high concept does (heroism, love... black metal).

Now, the metaphysical level is even better. As Schuon said: "The Absolute is not the Absolute inasmuch as it contains aspects, but inasmuch as It transcends them." Does pixie dust serve as concept to contain that which is beyond the multiplicity? Does pixie dust seeks to solve the duality between subject and object?
Pixie dust could do all of those things if it was the cultural norm (who knows, maybe in some cultures a pixie dust like concept has the same transcendental qualities that God does in Western cultures). Pixie dust could have "the sublimation of ethos and the teleological crysallisation of individual and communal destiny", could "serve as a concept to contain that which is beyond multiplicity" and "solve the duality between subject and object". Hell, invisible tarantulas could be the ones spreading the invisible pixie dust, in conjunction with the invisible goatlord who fires lunar beams from his giant horns. This transcendental, invisible goat of course, is an essence of a further supertranscendental pattern in the transcendental plane, the mighty five eyed snake Colololuu, who in turn is controlled by an infinite regression of supersuper....transcendental patterns/beings/entities. How is this ridiculous account of metaphysics any less likely than God doing everything you said?

Do you write for South Park?
I follow my course with the precision and security of a sleepwalker

No, but I think Conservationists' world view of a corporeally confused God deserves mockery equal to Scientology, Super Adventurer's Club, etc. Of course, on this forum it's only hip and fashionable to apply that to Judeo-Christianity.