« What's churchlessly cool about Judaism (and, not) | Main | Jon Stewart sucks up to religion, sadly »

July 07, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Just a thought: World is full of real complex phenomena’s around us, and our mind may not have all the capabilities to understand them. To suppress ourselves our mind may have created this belief that there is somebody who knows and does everything and that is GOD.

There is no god and there is god. Both statements are true and false. There is no reasoning this out.

What you are trying to see is what is looking. What else could there be for you to see? What else could you never see?

We all miss it because we are there to miss it. If we were not present who would there be to miss it since it is what we are?

The sense of "I" drops all the time throughout the day when we are engaged in various activities. We are just doing them. They are just happening, appearing, automatically.

Somehow there comes a moment when the "I" drops away in such a way that one just wakes up.

Maybe like this: The hand rises to pick a peach...aha!

Trite, yes. I appologize.

Very well stated Tucson !!
We use science as some sort of verification of our experience of existence, as if we have lost confidence in our senses. Science is a group phenomena, it requires peer review for formal acceptance.
If I wake up one day and dreamt I saw a pink elephant on my drive, I do not need anyone to tell me they do not exist. I know what I experienced, and it was a dream. On the other hand, if I wake up and look out the window and see a pink elephant on my drive, and I know I am awake, I do not need a scientist or someone on this blog, or anyone else to tell me they dont exist. For me, I saw it, I had the experience as strongly as any other experience in what we call reality, and so any amount of argument and blogging discussion, ain't going to change my experience. nor would I care how lengthy a response Brian or tAo write about how subjective and therefore valueless an experience I had. Perhaps there are some who simply cannot see, just as there are those who are simply unable to see an image in a random dot picture. What I do not understand, and perhaps someone from this blog could explain, why the endless discussions and posts and comments about a topic and its followers, that is not believed and is generally agreed does not exist. If raking pine needles is more real and more rewarding, then go rake, Publicly discussing a topic that is considered valueless seems most contradictory

wrong. it is better to be able to discern between reality and illusion. if you see a pink elephant in your driveway, and can prove that it was there, then we can say that was real. however, you have not seen or proven that a pink elephant was in your driveway. so at this point, it is not real. its not about what i say or you say, or about anyn loss of confidence. its about what is real, and what is not. so your comment is but meaningless conjecture. and i think you misunderstood tucson, as well as Brian and myself. better luck next time.

Rabid thinker, so you are saying that a fantasy or hallucination is real if someone sees something that no one else does? Good luck explaining to the police why you went through a red light when you were dead drunk, believing that it was green. Maybe your philosophical explanations will be persuasive to the judge, but I doubt it.

Also, if you find discussions on this blog to be useless, why are you contributing to them? I enjoy raking pine needles, and I also enjoy blogging. I guess you do also. Glad I'm able to provide you with some pleasure.

Also, also, have I ever said that subjective experiences are valueless? No, just the opposite. Subjectivity and objectivity are both essential sides of our human nature. Most of us simply prefer to live in a shared world of human experience, not in our own purely personal worlds.

Verification of a pink elephant may require the use of a Color standard. Your pink may actually be a light red color. In addition, what you may consider an elephant, may actually be a cow. So, to verify an observation, one would want to look up in some reference manual on animals to confirm. In addition, once all the data is confirmed by an expert in Zoology, then an observation could become real. I know, this sounds rather silly, however there is a Method being followed here.

Maybe you are seeking the answer from the wrong source.

Ask God if He really exists. Be open to Him answering. Wait and listen. Have faith that He will answer.

If He says "yes," then you will have your answer.

If He says "no," you know it's not God.

If He doesn't answer, then you can continue to believe that most of humanity are idiots for believing in God, and you are superior in your wisdom and insight than most of humanity.

Or maybe, the millions of people who believe in God aren't as stupid as you thought. Maybe they are on to something, or Someone, as it were.

Here's the good news, you will dictate your own findings. Since you are the one who is deciding what is "evidence" and what is not, you will find what you want to find. So far, I guess you aren't interested in finding God.

From your post, it looks like your current god of choice is empiricism. Not sure why you chose this worldview but it is just as subjective as theism. This myth of pure objective knowledge comes from the 18th Century and modernity. Knowing the true God requires a different method in your pursuit of truth.

"Proving" God is like "proving" someone is in love. There is ample evidence, but no "hard empirical data." And love is all the better for it. You don't want a God you can empircally prove. A God like that would be too small and is more likely a god of our own making.

Evidence for God is more akin to "correlation" than "cause-and-effect." It is a softer kind of evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

Mark, I've been meditating every day since 1970. Each of those days I have been open to God in whatever form he/she/it might take on, and in whatever manner he/she/it might want to communicate with me.

So I have no idea what you're talking about. What you said makes no sense. Lots of people believe God talks to them. Lots of other people get a message from the cosmos, "there is no God." Others get no message at all.

Different messages, or the lack thereof, for different folks. Christians, Jews, HIndus ,Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists -- all look upon "God" (or the lack thereof) in a different way. If you've communicated with God, great. Just don't claim that your experience is anything other than your own.


Why do you think Brian has come to the conclusion that people who believe in God are "idiots" or "stupid"? I never got that impression at all. Rather I have observed Brian walking around with his own thoughts on various ideas, then sharing those here.


How does God, in your experience, say "yes" or "no"? Do you hear a voice? See an image? Get a feeling? How do you know it is not a projection of your own mind? What does God look like? Surely he must have more substance than a mere voice? I don't know. Maybe God is just a voice or a feeling, but I'm not sure that would convince me it is God. Why are you convinced?

Even more interesting is your concept of "finding God". What is it that you found? Is it that you simply found faith in God? What is it about it that convinces you it is God?

I actually think absolute subjectivity is a perfect way to describe God. We do not know anything about ourselves, nor about God; but we know more FROM ourselves than we do from God. If God is somehow omnipresent, clearly he must be a part of us too; but if God is greater than everything that exists, he must also somehow be the greater part within ourselves. Our only possible conclusion is that God is a more or less SYMBOLIC notion within the soul of the whole universe, that can only be understood as a limit to everything we can 'see' of our soul (through conceptualization). The mistake, however, as you are completely justified in stating, is that people would say that they KNOW God exists, which is impossible. For if God is absolute subjectivity, clearly the knowing faculties of our MIND are a subset of this symbolic unity that we would call God.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.