|
 OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor
|
 We are God? 
#8500280 - 06/08/08 01:29 PM (3 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
This lame expression is tossed about all the time here as if it is some deep truth.
Let's examine two possibilities:
1. We are not God, therefore we cannot create planets.
2. We are God, therefore we cannot create planets.
Big fucking difference.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
 WScott
⍾ (´▽｀) ⍾
Registered: 07/31/05
Posts: 3,201
Last seen: 20 hours, 23 minutes
|
|
You've never made a planet? lol noob
--------------------
 
|
JoseLibrado
return
Registered: 04/21/07
Posts: 569
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
 Re: We are God? [Re: WScott]
#8500329 - 06/08/08 01:48 PM (3 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I dont believe you understand the expression perfectly.
We believe we are god when we create.
Because god is a creator...however, if you take it in the religious context it makes no sense.
And i think this is where the problem arises...the difficulty is that if we are god, what is god? Any different than life?
What alot of people seem to now believe is that we are god, in the way that a child is an adult, because in it lies the potential which at some point will become existent...dont take my metaphor seriously and say "What if the child dies before 26?" The metaphor is meant for a child who will be an adult, and has the potential to be.
--------------------
The mind is a creative tool. It searches to protect you, through message sensations(feelings). It is no different than a computer, you need to make sure its anti-virus program is in check and that it doesnt have a script that limits your experience, because of to much precaution.
And remember the computer does not appear to respond to words of anger and frustration - just give it input, in the form of new meanings that you know to be true and its messages to you and the limits it lays out for you, will change.
Guilt is an outcome of believing you are the cause of the problems.
Yet, we are not a cause to something, we see is negative or bad - Unless you believe your intentions are directed towards a bad outcome....
|
ohmyradical
Stranger
Registered: 03/20/07
Posts: 71
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
|
I say we are God because we are all part of the same energy or source and we all come from same light. Call it God, call it Love, call it energy, call it music, call it life, call it light.
But we are all one.
And that is the thought.
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/sammyvmusic
this is music i made.
|
bradley
Stranger
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 6,646
Last seen: 5 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Quote:
1. We are not God, therefore we cannot create planets.
2. We are God, therefore we cannot create planets.
Big fucking difference.
I can see you're prepared to participate in some pretty heavy logical discourse. 
|
burgatory
Outlander
Registered: 02/15/08
Posts: 641
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: We are God? [Re: bradley]
#8500817 - 06/08/08 04:38 PM (3 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I keep saying God because it's a term that isn't conceptual - it has an emotional weight we all understand. I'd like to see it understood less as a theistic term
--------------------
Wherever the hero may wander, whatever he may do, he is ever in the presence of his own essence — for he has the perfected eye to see. There is no separateness. Thus, just as the way of social participation may lead in the end to a realization of the All in the individual, so that of exile brings the hero to the Self in all.
joseph campbell
For, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
jesus
|
backfromthedead
Activated
Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 3,592
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
|
You can't let somebody define it for you first... Such as, GOD: the Creator of Planets... That shit is hopeless, man. Unless yer Mormon, or something.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
|
Yeah it's all in the definition of god.
Quote:
Let's examine two possibilities:
1. We are not God, therefore we cannot create planets.
2. We are God, therefore we cannot create planets.
Big fucking difference.
There's no difference from a planet-creating perspective. But if you don't believe that god created the planets you can ignore that perspective and look at other aspects of what people call "god".
I see what you're saying though, "We are God" is a pretty meaningless statement. It's the sort of thing teenagers discuss when they think they're being "deep".
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
backfromthedead
Activated
Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 3,592
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: We are God? [Re: zouden]
#8501130 - 06/08/08 06:06 PM (3 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It's the sort of thing teenagers discuss when they think they're being "deep".
As a 'Neuroscientist' do you know anything about neurotheology??
Debate has long raged between atheists and the faithful about whether God is all in our heads, and the discovery of a so-called “God module” in the brain has only fanned the flames. While a group of neuroscientists at the University of San Diego were studying the brain patterns of epileptics, they stumbled across something they weren’t expecting: that epileptics who suffer a certain kind of seizure are often intensely religious, reporting an unusual number of visions, communications with God and even paranormal experiences. Further tests revealed that there’s a specific place in the temporal lobe (the aforementioned “module”) which flares up when faithful subjects are asked questions about their faith, and that this spot was a common focal point for electrical discharges during epileptic seizures. Those San Diego neuroscientists quickly issued forth a theory: that “there may be dedicated neural machinery in the temporal lobes concerned with religion, which may have evolved to impose order and stability on society.” So did our brains create God — or did God create our brains?
Another fascinating neuro-religious study hit the news in 2006, concerning evangelical Christians who “speak in tongues” during church services. Tongues-speakers have long claimed that their glossolalia is something greater than themselves speaking through them; that they give themselves up to the sacred during services and are in a state of benevolent possession (also known as being “baptized in the Holy Spirit,” “getting the ghost,” and so on). University of Pennsylvania researchers decided to see what was really going on in the evangelicals’ heads, so they took brain images of five women while they spoke in tongues at church and found that, much to their surprise, the results did little to cast doubt on the womens’ own descriptions of their state. While speaking in tongues, the language centers as well as the frontal lobes — the thinking, willful part of their brain that controls most behavior — were quiet. While these women were dancing and shouting, speaking in a gibberish that would take more concentration to invent on the spot than normal speech, their speech and behavior centers weren’t doing much. Which is to say, the images supported the women’s interpretation of what was happening to them; it was as if they were under the control of something else, in a state of mental possession.
We’re hearing more all the time about religion through the lens of neuroscience, and much of what’s come out has been like the two examples above — a fascinating mixed bag. What do you think? Do these studies prove or disprove anything? Can science and religion be friends and play nice?
From: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15279
--------------------
|
Lion
Decadent Flower Magnate
Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 7,357
Last seen: 14 hours, 33 minutes
|
|
A lot of people (like Hindus) think that we are God and we are dreaming that we are not God (Unity, Awareness of Awareness, what have you) - so it seems we're stuck without awesome powers (though we can still create!  ) We are dreaming that we are not omnipotent and eternal, that we are actually multiple beings, because....I don't know...Boredom? Played too many holes of golf on a hot day, got tired, took a nap and.......
So in that scenario, "we" did "create" the "planets" and all the other "stuff", but we "just can't quite......!" (to quote Be Here Now) - Heck, we don't even want to know about it! ...Or do we?
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
|
That's quite a separate thing to the statement that "we are god". What you've linked to is one of the studies of the proposed 'religious centre of the brain', a far more interesting topic of conversation. It ties in with questions like "is religion an evolutionary trait?" - I think it is, and there's evidence that religiosity is inherited genetically! I'll find the paper if I get time.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
backfromthedead
Activated
Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 3,592
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: We are God? [Re: zouden]
#8501226 - 06/08/08 06:31 PM (3 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
"we are god"
Well... Back to definitions... Right?? God?? What is it??
I'll find the paper if I get time.
I'd be interested, for sure.
--------------------
|
ohmyradical
Stranger
Registered: 03/20/07
Posts: 71
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
|
I agree with backfromthedead.
For me "we are god" are just words used to communicate a broader and more complicated understanding.
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/sammyvmusic
this is music i made.
Edited by ohmyradical (06/08/08 06:52 PM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
|
Log in to view attachment
Genetic and Environmental Influences on Religiousness: Findings for Retrospective and Current Religiousness Ratings
Journal of Personality
Volume 73 Issue 2 Page 471-488, April 2005
Quote:
Abstract
Estimates of the degree of genetic and environmental influences on religiousness have varied widely. This variation may, in part, be due to age differences in the samples under study. To investigate the heritability of religiousness and possible age changes in this estimate, both current and retrospective religiousness were assessed by self-report in a sample of adult male twins (169 MZ pairs and 104 DZ pairs, mean age of 33 years). Retrospective reports of religiousness showed little correlation difference between MZ (r=.69) and DZ (r=.59) twins. Reports of current religiousness, however, did show larger MZ (r=.62) than DZ (r=.42) similarity. Biometric analysis of the two religiousness ratings revealed that genetic factors were significantly weaker (12% vs. 44%) and shared environmental factors were significantly stronger (56% vs. 18%) in adolescence compared to adulthood. Analysis of internal and external religiousness subscales of the total score revealed similar results. These findings support the hypothesis that the heritability of religiousness increases from adolescence to adulthood.
I've attached the PDF.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder
Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 8,634
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 2 days, 4 hours
|
|
Obviously there is always neural phenomenon accompanying ANY human experiences. The problem is with nothing-buttery - materialistic reductionism. Religious experiences are 'nothing but' this or that, reduced to neural causality. With insightful quantum physicists and equally insightful Jungian psychologists, not to mention the wise people of history in their Taoistic, alchemical, gnostic, Sufi or whatever cosmic consciousness, the physical coincides with the psychical. They are two sides of the same coin and materialists seem to be brain dead in their right hemispheres, since they can appreciate 'physical' sounding answers to the Mystery which is consciousness. Rational materialists are like the machine mind in The Matrix - so one-sided and limited in their very scope of Mind.
--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Sauton - Know Thyself
|
backfromthedead
Activated
Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 3,592
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
|
I feel a literal, physical, material 'agent' of spirit is almost essential NOW for the mind that you describe.
Something about pills and waking up...
But today the medical community, that I experienced, absolutely convincingly leads you to believe that these experiences aren't real, and are to be disregarded as mere hallucinations at all cost. For the sake of your SANITY.
Problem. 
--------------------
|
BlindSophist
drunken preacher
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 20,221
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
The idea always seemed rather simple to me, and is summed up rather well by Alan Watts. There is a conscious dimension to the universe, tied into our brains. The firing of our neurons causes us to experience things that do not exist in verifiable, three-dimensional, timed reality. This is, ironically, the very basis of our perception of reality. Are these things an illusion? If so, who or what is being deceived by the illusion?
Can it really be Nothing?
Does anything really exist if everything we experience is an illusion? The experience itself is no illusion. I think, therefore I am. So while I will admit that the phrase "I am God" is quite vulnerable to fluffy tripe, it's something I understand and agree with, generally.
--------------------
Love of one is a barbarism; for it is exercised at the expense of all others. The love of God, too.
--Friedrich Nietzsche
  
Edited by Tchan909 (06/08/08 10:06 PM)
|
Ginseng1
Elegant Universe
Registered: 09/02/04
Posts: 3,307
Last seen: 3 days, 5 hours
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
This lame expression is tossed about all the time here as if it is some deep truth.
Let's examine two possibilities:
1. We are not God, therefore we cannot create planets.
2. We are God, therefore we cannot create planets.
Big fucking difference.
Well, we wouldn't create things that we can now at certain points in history.
Who's to say that we won't be able to create planets in the future?
--------------------
Flowing through beginningless time since time without beginning...
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 67,518
Loc: underbelly
|
|
I don't believe in a personal god but I think it would be more relevant to say that I am a part of god rather than I am god.
--------------------
“What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself.”
― Ernest Becker
"Beneath the civilized veneer, man remains the supreme predator. Cursed with what he believes is understanding, his true soul blossoms godlike in the heart of the nuclear inferno."
|
backfromthedead
Activated
Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 3,592
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: We are God? [Re: Icelander]
#8503818 - 06/09/08 01:42 PM (3 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
I don't believe in a personal god but I think it would be more relevant to say that I am a part of god rather than I am god.
"We are God."
I don't think we are all there is... When it comes down to it. So the word 'God'... Big mix up. I feel the word was an attempt to explain a certain experience. Shit is out of hand, if you ask me.
The word came from a time where 'we are told' little was known about the greater ORDER of the Universe. Despite evidence of obvious extensive KNOWLEDGE approached by the ancients.
I feel its an Earth bound word and points to an Earth bound phenomena that possibly has little to do with CREATION in a scientific sense, other than 'it' was, imo, possibly inherent in the formation as a form of Primary Consciousness.
In this way the 'word', and instituted beliefs, serve to create a social class of ignorance. Top down, on purpose. Eyes closed. "Don't. That is not for you to SEE."
--------------------
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
