Home
Donate!
Articles
CHAT!
Shop
|
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.
We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.
|
06-05-2011, 11:23 PM
|
|
Master
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,734
|
|
|
 |
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TzuJanLi
Greetings..
No, two people minding their peaceful interaction can be incited to conflict by the catalyst of symbology, without which no conflict would have ensued.. do you choose your words mindfully in certain situations?
Be well..
|
i always choose my words carefully, however a catalyst of symbology is irrelevant to conflict, conflict still arises from at least one individual, not from any perceived catalyst or symbol, if one perceives a symbol as a catalyst, the conflict has already begun, and the symbol is not responsible for that...
__________________
"Not Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu, Buddhist, Sufi, or Zen. Not any religion or cultural system. I am not from the East or the West, not out of the ocean or up from the ground, not natural or ethereal, not composed of elements at all... I belong to the Beloved, have seen the two worlds as one and that one call to and know, first, last, outer, inner, only that breath breathing human being."
Rumi
|
06-05-2011, 11:24 PM
|
|
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,932
|
|
|
 |
|
|
The problem with declaring something does not exist is to be absolutely sure of this one must first have searched everywhere that exists.. absolutely everywhere. Once searched and found not there then it is safe to declare something does not exist. Even if not found you could not claim it had never existed without time travel. Then you must search everywhere in every moment of time that ever existed to rule it out.
Declaring something does not exist is a risky call. Declaring something may exist is a bit safer and wiser in my opinion considering our limitations with searching.
__________________
When it's raining look for rainbows and when it's dark look for stars.
Last edited by Lightspirit : 07-05-2011 at 01:06 AM.
|
07-05-2011, 12:53 AM
|
|
|
Greetings..
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shabda
i always choose my words carefully, however a catalyst of symbology is irrelevant to conflict, conflict still arises from at least one individual, not from any perceived catalyst or symbol, if one perceives a symbol as a catalyst, the conflict has already begun, and the symbol is not responsible for that...
|
Okay, you win.. i'll walk away from this one, my dad told me a story about these sorts of disputes..
Be well.. |
07-05-2011, 01:03 AM
|
|
Master
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,734
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TzuJanLi
Greetings..
Okay, you win.. i'll walk away from this one, my dad told me a story about these sorts of disputes..
Be well..
|
win?? there you go again, that is your own term, your own circumstance, no fault of mine, there was never a competition, nor an ability to win, just the simple fact that humans are responsible for the preconceived notions they place on terminology, the terms themselves have none, and therefore cannot have responsibility of cause, terms dont cause, consciousness does, i dont how anyone could dispute that...
__________________
"Not Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu, Buddhist, Sufi, or Zen. Not any religion or cultural system. I am not from the East or the West, not out of the ocean or up from the ground, not natural or ethereal, not composed of elements at all... I belong to the Beloved, have seen the two worlds as one and that one call to and know, first, last, outer, inner, only that breath breathing human being."
Rumi
|
07-05-2011, 01:04 AM
|
|
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,932
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TzuJanLi
Greetings..
Nothing is true because i say it.. it becomes true when you experience it as such..
Be well..
|
Is so right wise words
__________________
When it's raining look for rainbows and when it's dark look for stars.
|
07-05-2011, 01:55 AM
|
|
|
Greetings..
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shabda
win?? there you go again, that is your own term, your own circumstance, no fault of mine, there was never a competition, nor an ability to win, just the simple fact that humans are responsible for the preconceived notions they place on terminology, the terms themselves have none, and therefore cannot have responsibility of cause, terms dont cause, consciousness does, i dont how anyone could dispute that...
|
By your own admission, you choose your words carefully.. the reason is, they carry weight and meaning, in the same way symbols do.. of course people interpret them differently, and as you agree, they use them differently, too.. given a neutral situation that degrades with the introduction of a symbol or words, the variable is the symbology, pure and simple.. regardless of the people's inclinations, those inclinations were neutral without the variable of the symbol.. i get what you are trying to say, and i largely agree, but.. there is no doubt that the symbology plays a part in the equation.
Be well..
|
07-05-2011, 11:16 AM
|
|
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,932
|
|
|
|
|
have a look at this guys a friend told me about this guy today I never heard of before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1e4FUhfHiU
I sorta realized today sometimes questions from those that dont believe in god are not questions attacking belief in god but are questioning thoughts by people not able to decide one way or another. My friend said to me he used to have atheist views and it was a terrible time for him he much prefers belief in God now.
The guy in that video is the most prominent Atheist of the last 50 years, and he converted to theism. watch it if you like
__________________
When it's raining look for rainbows and when it's dark look for stars.
|
07-05-2011, 02:07 PM
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lightworkerAu
The guy in that video is the most prominent Atheist of the last 50 years, and he converted to theism. watch it if you like
|
Anthony Flew came to the conclusion that there must be some sort of intelligence behind the universe, because of the "enormous complexity...which looks like the work of intelligence."
It's interesting to note that whenever people see intelligence in the universe, they immediately see it divorced from themselves as a sort of cosmic other and project a duality that is unnecessary. There's "enormous complexity" so their must be some intelligence creating this complexity, according to Flew. And this intelligence becomes the creative other. Reality then becomes bifurcated into creator and creation, God and the universe, etc.
If "enormous complexity" implies a creator, then wouldn't that creator have to be even more "enormously complex" at least in terms of its intelligence?
So based upon that line of reasoning, there must be a creator of the creator and this could go on ad infinitum.
But creationists admit that the creator was uncreated. Thus, they concede that you can have complexity that is uncreated. I would urge these people to look again at this proposition, and remove the duality.
My question would be, why must we insist this intelligence is creating this complexity, rather than being this complexity?
Last edited by LIFE : 07-05-2011 at 03:16 PM.
|
07-05-2011, 02:31 PM
|
|
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,932
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LIFE
This is not really the place for an theism/atheism debate (could use its own thread) but I'll comment on the video.
Anthony Flew came to the conclusion that there must be some sort of intelligence behind the universe, because of the "enormous complexity...which looks like the work of intelligence."
It's interesting to note that whenever people see intelligence in the universe, they immediately see it divorced from themselves as a sort of cosmic other and project a duality that is unnecessary. There's "enormous complexity" so their must be some intelligence creating this complexity, according to Flew. And this intelligence becomes the creative other. Reality then becomes bifurcated into creator and creation, God and the universe, etc.
If "enormous complexity" implies a creator, then wouldn't that creator have to be even more "enormously complex" at least in terms of its intelligence?
So based upon that line of reasoning, there must be a creator of the creator and this could go on ad infinitum.
But creationists admit that the creator was uncreated. Thus, they concede that you can have complexity that is uncreated. I would urge these people to look again at this proposition, and remove the duality.
My question would be, why must we insist this intelligence is creating this complexity, rather than being this complexity?
|
to tel ou the truth I really dont like debating arguing is a big time waster. I put that video in here for anyone who is of 2 minds regarding god/no god I thought it might be helpful
LIGHT & LOVE
__________________
When it's raining look for rainbows and when it's dark look for stars.
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:29 PM.
|
