Even if you choose not to believe in god, you’re actually believing in god

[quip]

There's no such thing as a 'wrong belief' because the universe is not objective, only collective based on the contribution of subjective experience. So what ever you do in life whether it's intimate such as how you conduct yourself towards others in a loving relationship, or how you simply treat yourself, there is no 'wrong' approach, just different ones, because no matter what, you had to go through that experience to learn something from it. There was something to gain by going through it. So everything has value. Everything no matter what has substance depending on the individual.

quip wrote: The collective might and quite often does, disagree with the subjective. As such, there can be a 'wrong belief' ...take 'witch hunts', 'inquisitions' and ISIS as collectively contributed examples.

That's very misunderstood in your explanation. In fact, every single person will in most cases disagree with everyone and anyone else on most things - you see one shade of grey, someone else sees a slightly different shade. You can never see the variation anybody else sees because everyone has a different subjective perspective. Otherwise according to you everyone's wrong against everyone else? No body can speak for another persons experience. What is much more logical, is what is right and wrong is entirely up to you and no one else. The function of society is based on a misplaced presumption that if we allow each other to create an authority over another, this then gives us some sort of power to know whats what collectively, that somehow the amalgamation of many perspectives can have the slightest insight on yours, even though they never experienced yours. All this does is, this gives your own power of your own experience over to another. By living under the rule of anyone else, judging any single one of your actions, is to give up your ability to judge for yourself. You're essentially giving up your power of who you are to another.

Figure that one out

Mankind simply suffers with the knowledge that objectivity marginalizes subjectivity...as humans we seek and desire external affirmation, as a consequent we suffer with the understanding (and perhaps the avidity) that -  justly or unjustly - in many instances, might makes for right...or rather the illusory intimation thereof.

[ignoramus]

And now for the half time entertainment with a plastic spider...

[Blueyedlion]

Because, god is omni-present, and omni-being and omni-everywhere, so even in absence it’s there for there is no such thing as true absence.

So i heard that recently and i would like to hear from atheists here what you all think of this statement.

Thanks

Isnt Hell a seperation from god?

In my position towards god in this thread, im not applying religion to it. There is no hell. For some reason, a lot of you have a great deal of trouble separating god from religion. I'm not religious nor have ever been. I simply believe that god exists, but not in the way most people think. We ourselves are god, in the sense that god exists in multiplicity as each of every individual grain of sand, planet, atom and human etc etc and in singular oneness as all that collectively is, being what we generally call the universe.

Think water - is both a drop and an ocean. Now imagine every drop has consciousness, and every drop symbolically represents every bit of everything throughout the universe. That's god.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well for starters, you need to prove that god is Omnipresent.  Without that, your statement is quite meaningless.  You've attributed something to this god in order to prove that he exists.  You can't do that.  You must first prove that this attribute exists.  I don't believe the bible states God is omnipresent, but even if it did -- you'd still have to prove that the bible is a reliable source.  And then you'd have to prove that it's a reliable source about that piece of information as well.  Without that, anyone could attribute anything to anything so long as they had a book backing them up.

Actually, since i'm of the opinion god is what atheists recognize as simply the universe but with an extra feature of a collective mind of all that is.

"You must first prove that this attribute exists" What is always present, the universe. tick.

Except that you haven't shown the Universe = God. Untick that box and get back to work, this time without using unfounded claims.

[Pat Mustard]

"You must first prove that this attribute exists" What is always present, the universe. tick.

The existence of the universe proves god in the same fashion it proves invisible pink unicorns. It doesn't prove either.

If you believe god is the universe you need to provide compelling, independent, verifialbe and falsifiable evidece supoorting your case. Pointing at the universe and shouting "there's god!" is as useful as me pointing at a bowl of icecream as evidence for Jack Frost.

[Cyberman]

Think water - is both a drop and an ocean. Now imagine every drop has consciousness, and every drop symbolically represents every bit of everything throughout the universe. That's god.

[Cyberman]

Actually, since i'm of the opinion god is what atheists recognize as simply the universe but with an extra feature of a collective mind of all that is.

"You must first prove that this attribute exists" What is always present, the universe. tick.

Except that you haven't shown the Universe = God. Untick that box and get back to work, this time without using unfounded claims.

He's asserted that the Universe exists, which is the bit on which most would agree. What he hasn't yet shown is this "extra feature of a collective mind of all that is".

[robvalue]

So...

All he's saying is that the universe has some extra attribute(s). Best get to demonstrating that then. What is or isn't labelled "God" is irrelevant to this. You don't get to bypass the hard work by marvelling at what a magical word "God" is.

[Blueyedlion]

[Whateverist]

.

If that is supposed to be an objective fact, you've just contradicted yourself.

It's not supposed to be an objective fact, i never once said or implied it was, that was you assuming. There is no such thing as an objective fact, objectivity doesn't exist. All facts are based on purely subjective experiences. When i say, there is no right or wrong, you are then interpreting that is some universal truth. A truth has ot be a positive claim. I'm simply showing what doesn't exist, revealing what's left. The concept that everything universally is subjective is still not an objective truth.

Well then why are you trumpeting all these eccentric 'facts' when they are only such to you? It surely seems you're not finding much agreement here and, in my case, even less understanding of what any of it means. Why, for example, assert that the universe = god? I don't agree with you. My subjective 'facts' don't align with yours and frankly your's seem a bit whack.

I assume all these revelations of yours are newish (for you), yes? You seem rather overwhelmed by it all. My recommendation is that you just let go of this stuff. If it means anything at all, it doesn't need you to promote it. Were these revelations drug induced? If so, you've got to let go and quit identifying with all this shit so closely. Or, sincerely, if you normally take meds for the sake of your psychiatric health and haven't been keeping up: do so. It can help you to let the ideas flow and not get bogged down in the specialness of each one. Right now its like you're just grabbing each idea and clutching hard to it and letting it take over. You're not the idea. You're supposed to be the place where ideas pass through. They can't do that if you get all grabby about them. Peace.