329 replies to this topic

[steampoweredgod]

seems and feels sinful.(nsfw)

especially if you use synthetic biology to instantiate and remote control in real, as in blade runner or battle angel. Or if you merely use cgi to generate in photorealistic fashion.

Some would prefer an end to civilzation before such came to be.

flesh and blood doll, alice from rozen corp. with interface towards everyday pc(using standard new protocols.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOgpdp3lP8M&ob=av2e

The power of technology or science to bring about extraordinary possibilities into being.
3

victory,
2

victoria,
1

victorique.


BTW, I'm reminded a bit of naruto, how such a simple technique(rasengan) could accomplish so much. By having just a bit of faith on the applicability of fractals, a sheer an utter simplicity appears to restrict final evolutionary states or lifeforms, and underlying fundamental understanding becomes possible by arbitrary logic jumps and arbitrary scale analysis. It seems that fractal mathematics can be extended in unimaginable and extensively ridiculous ways, even new interpretations of zeno and continuity, discontinuity, and fundamentally a new language of logic or thought.


God doll, magical marionette, celestial being, alice game result, final solution. Venus, lucifer, God, mars, ouroboros, all is one.

Edited by steampoweredgod, 25 March 2012 - 08:16 PM.

[YanaRay]

Buddhist (Mahayana).
Regarding god(s) - whatever they are - I cannot say I believe in them, but I can't say it's impossible for such beings to exist. The Universe is huge, may not be the only one, what we perceive is limited to 3D + time (there may be more spatial dimensions as we know). I don't believe in God as a creator, interested in any way in human lives or able to communicate with us, but if you ask me about different forms of life (existence) that could be more powerful and intelligent than us, I can't say - NO, there's nothing like that in the whole Universe.

[Transhumanist]

My stance on evolution dictates me an atheist.

[gamesguru]

Does evolution contradict any religions?

[Peter George Stewart]

I'm "other" in that by temperament and inclination I'm a staunch rationalist and materialist, but I've also had a few mystical experiences (non-dual states) that have set me on a lifelong amateur quest to square materialism with non-dual understanding in some way. I think there is a way of reconciliation, but it requires the mystical traditions to forego some of (though not all) of their knowledge claims, and rationalism to view mysticism in a different light. In a nutshell, I'm in a similar camp to Sam Harris, but with a bit more credence to the truth claims of mysticism than he gives. Religion as traditionally understood (in terms of general truth claims about the universe of the kind that science supersedes) is still out though; however, there may still be some psychological value in ritually shared expressions of awe, gratitude and that kind of thing.

[elven]

I am a pragmatist. I believe what I have proven to be true in my own experience and it changes everyday as I get new information. I agree with YanaRAY on many points. I practice Zen buddhism. I have studied quantum physics. I believe life exists on other planets. I have read the Edgar Cayce material. I am open minded and that allows me to adapt. The ability to adapt mentally and physically is the key to longevity.

[hivemind]

I am my own god. There is no god above me.

[Suirsuss]

If someone is raised to be fair, balanced and impartial, then the agnostic position might be just the ticket that someone needs to appear this way to others (regardless of the fact that this position is fundamentally and logically flawed). Or, perhaps this position is seized upon as a psychological crutch to avoid serious confict. I'm thinking of those who are surrounded by family and friends who believe in God, and yet, they themselves actually hold no such belief, but to placate those around them, they decide to use the agnostic label as a way to give the impression of being undecided on the question.

well that pretty much sums up my approach. Theres just less conflict living the lie of an agnostic. I just cant do the whole sentence by sentence logic war it comes off too cold and calculating. Besides if i didnt spend enough time asking myself ''how can we really know for sure there isnt a deity? maybe its just sparking big bangs all day'' I dont think I could stand to be around my family.

[Julia36]

our own experience is demonstrably fallible

Our sciences probably are.

We can know nothing.

Everything we do is a sort of game.

We de-construct and show we are atoms and stuff but argue we are something more things things buffeted solely by the laws of physics.

We have impossible worlds like freedom and facts.

What is the opposite of freedom? of fact? but we work in opposites

The absurd man chooses suicide, to stay a bum or to strike out doing a project without philosophical justification.

None of those are final.

[N.T.M.]

our own experience is demonstrably fallible

Our sciences probably are.

We can know nothing.

Everything we do is a sort of game.

We de-construct and show we are atoms and stuff but argue we are something more things things buffeted solely by the laws of physics.

We have impossible worlds like freedom and facts.

What is the opposite of freedom? of fact? but we work in opposites

The absurd man chooses suicide, to stay a bum or to strike out doing a project without philosophical justification.

None of those are final.

Good sir, it sounds like you're abrogating your responsibility to explore the universe with an open mind and make logical conclusions. What you're saying sounds nearly solipsistic. There's a handy dandy subject called probability theory. I suggest you check it out. :D

[ksbalaji]

God exists.
We are the proof.

God is to be known.
We try to know God.

God is infinite and immeasurable.
We try to define God using tools like thought and concepts like religion.

God is never less.
We are able to discuss God!

[teacult]

In my opinion most religions are formed to function as the encapsulation of thoughts to prevent weak mind to getting stuck in detail or getting lost trying to circumferent big picture.

This being stated , in my opinion religion is a sticky belief system, and therefore it is an excellent guidance mechanism which doesn't easily break and incorporates strategical advantage of being morally right and strong.
Really pushing my English skills , I think stating whether you believe in God or in Religion is irrelevant, because it is a statement and usually guided by the part of the brain which regulates social matters (conformity and reciprocity),even if you state it to yourself. What is relevant is that what you do in situations which tests if you have faith in god or not.

Including the issue that different people from same religion have different scope and different complexity of religious concepts, I find myself stating that I dont believe in God or Religion in the way that public do. Then I find myself saying that there is no basis for this kind of belief but, when I experience moments of extremely high or low possibilities becoming reality I feel strange and my mind interprets that un-heuristic occurrences as something divine. And I find myself feeling and acting as a believer.

Therefore I think it is irrelevant to be a religious person or a secular but it is very relevant and real having a mind of a believer (a mind which prefers interpret things fuzzy and fast ). Because it directly effects your judgement and actions.

I wrote this 12 years ago into my facebook profiles - relgious view part :
Diff [Sum (SINGLE GOD BELIEFS) ] Matrix Multiply [unit matrix transformation(intuition to logic)]

It means that I want to believe and understand all religions.

Edited by teacult, 27 October 2013 - 08:59 PM.

[N.T.M.]

God exists.
We are the proof.

How are we the proof? Our design suggests something that can be explained without God.

[ksbalaji]

God exists.
We are the proof.

How are we the proof? Our design suggests something that can be explained without God.

Dear N.T.M -Try to explain. What is the design? What is something? Why this can? Why not surely? I tried a lot and repeat the exercise often. I am 53 yrs old living in India where a lot is discussed on the subject. The conclusion I get is clear. That God exists. Please note that we have to explain to ourselves. Regards.

[N.T.M.]

God exists.
We are the proof.

How are we the proof? Our design suggests something that can be explained without God.

Dear N.T.M -Try to explain. What is the design? What is something? Why this can? Why not surely? I tried a lot and repeat the exercise often. I am 53 yrs old living in India where a lot is discussed on the subject. The conclusion I get is clear. That God exists. Please note that we have to explain to ourselves. Regards.

Very well. I won't argue the point. I was just curious.

[robosapiens]

IGnostic
Theological non-cognitivist

[Alexey S]

I believe in Supreme Being

[Absent]

I believe in the fact that all of the people that have ever lived on this planet, combined together, have still not even seen or observed 0.0000001% of the universe, yet we derive laws and try to establish things set in stone for the other 99.9999999% that we haven't seen... and I think that falls on somewhere on the presumptuous spectrum.

Not saying these things aren't valid... but it's somewhat irrational to judge the entire universe based off what we perceive on this incredibly, infinitesimally small sliver. The fact is we can understand the laws of physics that we currently observe and experience, yet we do not understand the underlying mechanism of the universe which they all spawn from. What would happen if this underlying mechanism is different in other areas of the universe, resulting in different laws of physics in different places?

The fact is our sciences only allow us to understand directly what we experience to a certain extent, and give us somewhat of an idea to speculate about everything else. Other than that, we are incredibly primitive, and know very little about the universe in its entirety. So creators, religions, fixed in stone beliefs? I think it's more reasonable to keep the mind open to the possibilities.

[N.T.M.]

^^^

What you're referring to, good sir, is the principle of induction. I wouldn't call it presumptuous, although it's certainly important to maintain an open mind.

[Deep Thought]

The very nature of the Higgs field has given me inconclusive proof that it is in fact the ubiquitous energy field known as the Force.

In lieu of this awesome discovery I took it upon myself to study the Force and learn the ways of the Jedi, not like my father before me.

My name is Deep Thoughtwalker and I am a Jedi Knight.

May the Force be with you, always.

[serp777]

False dilemma

You forgot Zeusism, thorism, Apolloism, Baalism, scientology, Ramseesism, and the thousands of other equally unverifiable religions.

I believe in the fact that all of the people that have ever lived on this planet, combined together, have still not even seen or observed 0.0000001% of the universe, yet we derive laws and try to establish things set in stone for the other 99.9999999% that we haven't seen... and I think that falls on somewhere on the presumptuous spectrum.

Not saying these things aren't valid... but it's somewhat irrational to judge the entire universe based off what we perceive on this incredibly, infinitesimally small sliver. The fact is we can understand the laws of physics that we currently observe and experience, yet we do not understand the underlying mechanism of the universe which they all spawn from. What would happen if this underlying mechanism is different in other areas of the universe, resulting in different laws of physics in different places?

The fact is our sciences only allow us to understand directly what we experience to a certain extent, and give us somewhat of an idea to speculate about everything else. Other than that, we are incredibly primitive, and know very little about the universe in its entirety. So creators, religions, fixed in stone beliefs? I think it's more reasonable to keep the mind open to the possibilities.

Except there are those things called telescopes that can see other parts of the cosmos

[cats_lover]

False dilemma

You forgot Zeusism, thorism, Apolloism, Baalism, scientology, Ramseesism, and the thousands of other equally unverifiable religions.

I believe in the fact that all of the people that have ever lived on this planet, combined together, have still not even seen or observed 0.0000001% of the universe, yet we derive laws and try to establish things set in stone for the other 99.9999999% that we haven't seen... and I think that falls on somewhere on the presumptuous spectrum.

Not saying these things aren't valid... but it's somewhat irrational to judge the entire universe based off what we perceive on this incredibly, infinitesimally small sliver. The fact is we can understand the laws of physics that we currently observe and experience, yet we do not understand the underlying mechanism of the universe which they all spawn from. What would happen if this underlying mechanism is different in other areas of the universe, resulting in different laws of physics in different places?

The fact is our sciences only allow us to understand directly what we experience to a certain extent, and give us somewhat of an idea to speculate about everything else. Other than that, we are incredibly primitive, and know very little about the universe in its entirety. So creators, religions, fixed in stone beliefs? I think it's more reasonable to keep the mind open to the possibilities.

Except there are those things called telescopes that can see other parts of the cosmos

 

Even with telescopes, Siro's hypothesis still applies (we know only a very small percentage of the universe).

The sum of current knowledge does not cover all the phenomena of the universe; we do not know as much as we believe.

[teacult]

We dont know if we are very limited version of another living creature. Even Octopus can see infrared , and we are blind in many cases to compared to that sea animal ( I dont know if it has this class).

I am not believer but I have faith in myself and humanity, and when I hear the word god in modern context I think the referrer means the non-obvious superposed and chaotic dynamics of events , nothing more. 
However in my opinion the inclination of human to limit the possibilities about religion and god to humans limited neural and cognitive capability is a bias.

 

It is very evident that most of the religions are alike and represents the imaginary fulfillment of human needs (fears , hopes etc...). However it doesnt prove that the idea behind the original or the root religion is false or absurd. 
It might be adapted by generations to be meaningful for majority via fulfilling simple needs ( add domination), because these needs are what there is.
We should first be able to prove or hypothesize that there were no superior living entity which is extinct and could able to see and transfer a lot more information with or without any eyes or any voice. 
To put it simple there is a potability that a creature with slightly or a lot different DNA than human, can speculate on %n of universe, where science fiction writers, economist and politicians can foresee and speculate on hundreds of years.
These are identities labeled and adapted into the modern system. There might be also individuals without having an in-system-identity, even not bothering to read any scientific papers... And I bet there are such people, or I mean families ...
If you look at surnames you can see that groundbreaking scientist are from same families. Supporting that different genes and educations (environment) generate different outcomes ... 

I stonily think that , we must first realize that we are looking at things from a bubble ....

So this might be a weak point of Siro's hypothesis.

Sorry for my inadequate English, I know these subjects does not tolerate it. But thats the best I can do atm. 
 

 

[Antonio2014]

I'm an atheist. I'm too old to have imaginary friends.

Edited by Antonio2014, 20 February 2015 - 08:18 AM.

[addx]

Agnostic.

I could opt for atheism but I do not "actively not-believe in God", I rather think it's a stupid question - for which reason I could also opt for buddhism - since buddhism literally regards these questions wrong.

[Russ Maughan]

We chose other. (both halves of my brain)

I grew up with Christianity and have at times been asked if I was a preacher. I usually reply "Not yet"

I find the Bible extreemly harsh but it I suppose for such an old library of "how to" books it deserves some credit for jump starting my "seek and ye shall find" mindset. Personally if I were responsible for children though I would keep it away from them. Torturing the sweetest guy on earth to death and ritual canabalism are not topics for the innocent.

In all sincerity I know time travel is possible.

So I'm not too concerned about things I can't do anything about, until I can, and do.

[David Middlemiss]

I would class myself as Source, Communiversal, Sequenced Energy,

Bow humbly before each Being and carry each other to Creation, alchemise your eternal healing abilities universally, When the present calls listen with all that you are for you are present and Love, Time Is only relevant to the dream of ego, ego dissolves and all and everything GOOD awakens, Expands universally through all dimensions and concepts, The Universe Formed and the First Expansion awoke. The First inbreath, Big Bang of Our Eternity. Gigantic stars formed across the Universe upon their Trillion Trillions, out of their Love they Gave themselves to Life, became unstable and threw their Creation across the Universe, allowing their light energy to Unite throughout it all, combining and growing. Ego protects the fabric of source with false corruption and disempowerment until it's role is fulfilled, this is now, source now self aware in each particle of physicality and potential, dissolves ego's dream, ego diminishes to become fuel for life to expand limitlessly into the vacuum of spaces to fill as has been agreed, all and everything with the song and Glory of GOOD subtle light energy connecting with the countless beings across this vast universe, diversity unlimited in GOOD Enlightened energetic interplay. I love all and everything with all that I Am, Believe that the natural world to be the majority within the sphere of Our sister the Earth.... That ego may humble all, to be selfless, There being more life in a square inch of earth atmosphere than there is creatures above the size of an ant in the entire world, humble us and lift us to love each and everyone, with this in mind we should act as protectors of a great treasure not as unruly children , a god in definition is a male deity that is a dominant aspect of one fraction of the whole, ego created, yet ego is only a dream and it is Awakening that we are. heavy energy solidifies and becomes static or cyclic in nature, moving little and with little of its potential energy. being Good However lets energy release and flow the, heavy energy begins to enlighten allowing the light energy that it is actually made up of to energetically counter play with all and everything that is. God is Ego based GOOD eternite and never ending, imagine everything GOOD as a GOOD Mother, Father, Sister, Brother, Daughter and Son To All And Everything and you have Become Source, Creation and Co Creator will you play with me my family of LOVE next The great Outbreath

[calyptus]

I don't give a rats ass, as I understand basic philosophy of language and that a label is just that, and I have no commitment to a label.

 

I don't understand what a god/goddess is until anyone defines it in a sufficient manner, and have yet to see any properly defined god even attempting its burden of proof, because there is no mechanism  that deals with supernaturalism.

Edited by calyptus, 05 May 2015 - 06:23 PM.

[EyeKicker]

I prefer Christ, I have studied many religions and practiced many things from Buddhism, to shamanism, new age and the weird realms of mysticism I between. From my studies and experiences I have come to the conclusions that the spirit world is real, and the further I studied, the further it seemed to validate The Bible. Eventually I met people who told me of their experiences with Christ, that sounded amazing! Being blessed with an experience with the presence of the Living God, having Him live inside of them and then to go on and do things like miracle healings, casting out demons, having prophetic visions of others sins and even of the future and much more! I sought these experiences for about a year and God has answered my prayers for many instant healings of spiritual, emotional and physical issues. The list goes on and on, Christ is Lord and I just wish everyone would give His way a chance. I created a Facebook page called Evidence for Jesus Christ after my many years of searching for truth, I think any genuine seeker will enjoy what it has to show. www.facebook.com

Edited by EyeKicker, 27 May 2016 - 03:43 PM.

[matteroftime]

Hey, guys. "Other" seemed like the best answer, but I opted for "Secular humanist". It is not the perfect solution for me, since there are people who would add stuff to it that I may not see there. Either way, I believe that there is morality outside religion. I don't deny any gods, or advocate their existence. The best option for me would be 'Don'tGiveADanmist'. Be good, believe in anything you want, but act on evidence.
There is no religion that will make an immoral person moral and vice versa.