Topic: Belief for relief
no photo
Wed 01/11/12 11:04 AM







Why don't or why do you believe in god?


I neither believe nor disbelieve in most of the specific concepts of god that I've heard.


Is god a concept?


You have at least one concept of god.

Slowhand has a particular concept of god, which he explained, while recognizing that other concepts of god exist.


No I don't have any concept about god.
I'm not wise enough to build any concept about god,I haven't seen god,but I always feel that super power around me.




And right there is one of the concepts you have of god.

You 'feel a super power around you', and you connect this experience to 'god'. There you go.

A concept doesn't have to be sophisticated, or detailed, or involved, or specific.


No,I'm not foolish to consider it as a concept.



laugh This has all the makings of the endless debate with JR about whether or not he 'believes' things.

You are either completely not thinking this through, or you won't unwrap your fingers from a very narrow notion of what a 'concept' is.


prashant01's photo
Wed 01/11/12 11:15 AM

Still there are few societies who are not related by any means with other word but still they have their own god.There isn't any chance of propagation of any idea into these societies from other world,still they worship their god.


So we've gone from 'how strange it is that all human societies...' to 'still there are a few societies...'

huh as If I'm differing from my statement...

'Still there are' means 'yes those were there & still few are there'

I don't see any difference in my statements.


Over the last century, we've come to learn that early humans were more successful travelers and explorers than we'd previous allowed for. Primitive peoples have built boats and sailed much farther than we had believed.

I wouldn't be surprised if monotheism were re-invented a handful of times. So what? When you already have animism or polytheism, and when you already have tribes that have leaders, families that have mothers and fathers, its not a huge stretch of the imagination to invent a supernatural tribal leader, or a supernatural father.


So why everyone inventedthat supernaturalpower only?

Hope you won't claim now that you or your ancestors have invented god.

whoa


prashant01's photo
Wed 01/11/12 11:30 AM








Why don't or why do you believe in god?


I neither believe nor disbelieve in most of the specific concepts of god that I've heard.


Is god a concept?


You have at least one concept of god.

Slowhand has a particular concept of god, which he explained, while recognizing that other concepts of god exist.


No I don't have any concept about god.
I'm not wise enough to build any concept about god,I haven't seen god,but I always feel that super power around me.




And right there is one of the concepts you have of god.

You 'feel a super power around you', and you connect this experience to 'god'. There you go.

A concept doesn't have to be sophisticated, or detailed, or involved, or specific.


No,I'm not foolish to consider it as a concept.



laugh This has all the makings of the endless debate with JR about whether or not he 'believes' things.

You are either completely not thinking this through, or you won't unwrap your fingers from a very narrow notion of what a 'concept' is.

laugh
God can never be a concept dude,nor it can be described with a symbol.

Many religions,many wise people have tried their best for years to invent god,to describe god,to conceptualize god Whatever is the out come of their work is,I respect that work ,may be it is some holly book or something else,but I don't see god as bound by some concepts,symbols,religions.

So,sorry I'm literally unable to conceptualize that super power.It is beyond my imagination but I'm eager to devote my selfness into that highest spirit.

no photo
Wed 01/11/12 11:35 AM


So, because many people believe in god, you think that's proof of god? There are many people out there who don't believe in god. Of course, I'm not suggesting that because of that, there's proof there is no god.


Many people believing / not believing can't be a proof & I never said so.

I said,many human societies ( even those who were not communicating with each other)believed in god since ancient times,so it can't be a fluke.




I disagree for the same reason I said before - I've seen no proof.

prashant01's photo
Wed 01/11/12 11:40 AM




It is strange as well as satisfactory & happily believable evidence for me that soles at different part of the world too are feeling god as my sole did.



Of course. You are satisfied with the belief, you enjoy that line of thought, seeing this as evidence makes you happy. Good luck with that.


Yeah,really...I've great relief that I've a strong belief in god.
It's a great satisfaction indeed!!

That super soul always provides me a divine happinessas I never looked for any evidence of his existence & just had an unconditional belief in him.That happiness & satisfaction is obvious as I never considered my self superior than the supreme.
I know all the intellects (whatever I got) can never be sufficient enough to challenge or have doubts about the existence (as few ediotsdo) of those who gifted that to me.

I always thank that oversoul for not making me a stupidsoul to lose peace of mind by foolishlyignoring his existence.

Thanks for good luck,but it's not really needed.I'm blessed.happy


Either you are completely changing your topic, making statements completely unrelated to my words (which you quote), or you have confused 'your belief in god' with the notion that 'the beliefs of others provides evidence'.

Look at what you actually said:

It is strange as well as satisfactory & happily believable evidence for me that soles at different part of the world too are feeling god as my sole did



I think this statement is very telling about what you actually believe:

I always thank that oversoul for not making me a stupidsoul to lose peace of mind by foolishlyignoring his existence.


(And thats the version you left after editing your words.)



I again don't see any difference in my statements.

In both statements I'm believing in god.

So what made u feel that I'm differing??

Do u mean to say that I edited & U turned???

prashant01's photo
Wed 01/11/12 11:48 AM



So, because many people believe in god, you think that's proof of god? There are many people out there who don't believe in god. Of course, I'm not suggesting that because of that, there's proof there is no god.


Many people believing / not believing can't be a proof & I never said so.

I said,many human societies ( even those who were not communicating with each other)believed in god since ancient times,so it can't be a fluke.




I disagree for the same reason I said before - I've seen no proof.


Actually everything that u r able to see around you is a proof of his existence but he has programmed u so that u won't believe him till he wish.

no photo
Wed 01/11/12 05:29 PM


Still there are few societies who are not related by any means with other word but still they have their own god.There isn't any chance of propagation of any idea into these societies from other world,still they worship their god.


So we've gone from 'how strange it is that all human societies...' to 'still there are a few societies...'

huh as If I'm differing from my statement...

'Still there are' means 'yes those were there & still few are there'

I don't see any difference in my statements.


I'm not saying that they are incompatible, I'm making note of the fact that you have to dramatically narrow down the set of societies to talk about them arriving at them independently. Since you'd earlier made that sweeping statement about 'all' societies, noting that narrowing of focus is important.



Over the last century, we've come to learn that early humans were more successful travelers and explorers than we'd previous allowed for. Primitive peoples have built boats and sailed much farther than we had believed.

I wouldn't be surprised if monotheism were re-invented a handful of times. So what? When you already have animism or polytheism, and when you already have tribes that have leaders, families that have mothers and fathers, its not a huge stretch of the imagination to invent a supernatural tribal leader, or a supernatural father.


So why everyone inventedthat supernaturalpower only?


I'm vaguely interested in having a serious conversation with you, but it would be helpful if you explained your meaning more thoroughly. Proper grammar can be very helpful.


God can never be a concept dude,nor it can be described with a symbol.

Many religions,many wise people have tried their best for years to invent god,to describe god,to conceptualize god Whatever is the out come of their work is,I respect that work ,may be it is some holly book or something else,but I don't see god as bound by some concepts,symbols,religions.

So,sorry I'm literally unable to conceptualize that super power.It is beyond my imagination but I'm eager to devote my selfness into that highest spirit.



You appear to continue to confuse two completely different lines of thought, here.

Also, you are continuing to elaborate on your concept of god. Its very clear that you have some very definite concepts about god. The fact that you seem to consider the true nature of god to be beyond concepts is simply one of the concepts you have about god.

There is a difference between seeing god as a concept, and recognizing that you have a concept about god.

This difference has caused the entire exchange you and I have had about 'concepts' and 'god' to be completely lost. I'm giving up.


I again don't see any difference in my statements.

In both statements I'm believing in god.

So what made u feel that I'm differing??


Since you don't use specific phrasings, I'm left assuming that you think that I've just accused you of being inconsistent with your earlier statements. I did not accuse you of this.

I was trying to make a point about how your response, several quotes above, was not related to what I had just previously said.


Do u mean to say that I edited & U turned???


No, that is not what I mean.




no photo
Wed 01/11/12 05:57 PM



Still there are few societies who are not related by any means with other word but still they have their own god.There isn't any chance of propagation of any idea into these societies from other world,still they worship their god.


So we've gone from 'how strange it is that all human societies...' to 'still there are a few societies...'

huh as If I'm differing from my statement...

'Still there are' means 'yes those were there & still few are there'

I don't see any difference in my statements.


I'm not saying that they are incompatible, I'm making note of the fact that you have to dramatically narrow down the set of societies to talk about them arriving at them independently. Since you'd earlier made that sweeping statement about 'all' societies, noting that narrowing of focus is important.



I'd like to point out that I do not see any change in his stance.

Yes, he did say all societies... But he also pinpointed that a "few societies who are not related by any means with other word but still they have their own god..."

I took that to mean those societies who didn't have contact with other societies.


I also give him the benefit of the doubt as I don't think English is his primary language. But even if it is, I still understand what he's saying...




no photo
Wed 01/11/12 06:46 PM
Edited by massagetrade on Wed 01/11/12 07:01 PM
Crap. I hit edit instead of quote and obliterated my last post.

I'd like to point out that I do not see any change in his stance.


I didn't say he did. He said two different things about two different sets. The fact that he had to restrict the domain to make the stronger claim is important.


I also give him the benefit of the doubt as I don't think English is his primary language.



I also suspect that, plus he is likely either (a) using a mobile device, or (b) not good with the keyboard or (c) lazy. Whatever the cause(s), it makes i difficult to have a conversation.

But even if it is, I still understand what he's saying...


Maybe you can help me with this one, then:

So why everyone inventedthat supernaturalpower only?


I thought he might mean: "why did everyone separately invent a supernatural power?", but I'm confused by his tacking the word 'only' on to the end.

no photo
Wed 01/11/12 07:02 PM

Crap. I hit edit instead of quote and obliterated my last post.

I'd like to point out that I do not see any change in his stance.


I didn't say he did. He said two different things about two different sets. The fact that he had to restrict the domain to make the stronger claim is important.


I also give him the benefit of the doubt as I don't think English is his primary language.



I also suspect that, plus he is likely either (a) using a mobile device, or (b) not good with the keyboard or (c) lazy. Whatever the cause(s), it makes i difficult to have a conversation.

But even if it is, I still understand what he's saying...


Maybe you can help me with this one, then:

So why everyone inventedthat supernaturalpower only?


I thought he might mean: "why did everyone separately invent a supernatural power?", but I'm confused by his tacking the word 'only' on to the end.




Maybe you should ask the source... After all, that's what he did when he wasn't clear what your meaning was...



no photo
Wed 01/11/12 07:07 PM



Maybe you should ask the source... After all, that's what he did when he wasn't clear what your meaning was...





Is that one tough for you, also? I did 'ask' in the sense of encouraging him to elaborate. But here you are, offering a paraphrase for one part, I thought you might like to offer another.


The other thing that's confusing, at least about my initial interpretation ""why did everyone separately invent a supernatural power?"" is that we had already established that not everyone did.





no photo
Wed 01/11/12 07:30 PM




Maybe you should ask the source... After all, that's what he did when he wasn't clear what your meaning was...





Is that one tough for you, also? I did 'ask' in the sense of encouraging him to elaborate. But here you are, offering a paraphrase for one part, I thought you might like to offer another.


The other thing that's confusing, at least about my initial interpretation ""why did everyone separately invent a supernatural power?"" is that we had already established that not everyone did.








Not tough at all. I just think others should come to their own conclusions.

If you need some help, here's a hint of what I thought he meant...


Find a place in his statement for two spaces and one word... (has)



no photo
Wed 01/11/12 07:55 PM

The other thing that's confusing, at least about my initial interpretation ""why did everyone separately invent a supernatural power?"" is that we had already established that not everyone did.



Not tough at all. I just think others should come to their own conclusions.

If you need some help, here's a hint of what I thought he meant...


Find a place in his statement for two spaces and one word... (has)



laugh PP, you like games. Inserting "has" as the 3rd word doesn't get me much more than 'did', doesn't explain why he ended with 'only', and doesn't clarify if using 'everyone' instead of 'a few societies' was just a slip up. Yes, I was hoping you could speculate about his meaning in a way that would address all of those questions.

But thanks for the help. Maybe Prashan can address those.

prashant01's photo
Wed 01/11/12 09:09 PM

I'm vaguely interested in having a serious conversation with you, but it would be helpful if you explained your meaning more thoroughly. Proper grammar can be very helpful.

sad2
Hell with my english....sorry,I'm very poor at it & u will have to get the work done with my broken english & expressions only

no photo
Wed 01/11/12 09:16 PM




So, because many people believe in god, you think that's proof of god? There are many people out there who don't believe in god. Of course, I'm not suggesting that because of that, there's proof there is no god.


Many people believing / not believing can't be a proof & I never said so.

I said,many human societies ( even those who were not communicating with each other)believed in god since ancient times,so it can't be a fluke.




I disagree for the same reason I said before - I've seen no proof.


Actually everything that u r able to see around you is a proof of his existence but he has programmed u so that u won't believe him till he wish.


You can certainly try to talk people into believing that way, but for me that doesn't work.

prashant01's photo
Wed 01/11/12 10:10 PM

God can never be a concept dude,nor it can be described with a symbol.

Many religions,many wise people have tried their best for years to invent god,to describe god,to conceptualize god Whatever is the out come of their work is,I respect that work ,may be it is some holly book or something else,but I don't see god as bound by some concepts,symbols,religions.

So,sorry I'm literally unable to conceptualize that super power.It is beyond my imagination but I'm eager to devote my selfness into that highest spirit.



You appear to continue to confuse two completely different lines of thought, here.

Also, you are continuing to elaborate on your concept of god. Its very clear that you have some very definite concepts about god. The fact that you seem to consider the true nature of god to be beyond concepts is simply one of the concepts you have about god.

There is a difference between seeing god as a concept, and recognizing that you have a concept about god.

This difference has caused the entire exchange you and I have had about 'concepts' and 'god' to be completely lost. I'm giving up.


I'll again say 'neither god is a concept nor can be conceptualized'.

God is beyond mine,yours & everyone's imagination.

I seriously believe that who ever has tried to conceptualize god has failed to do so.They made religions,they made prayers,they gathered followers but no one conceptualized god at actual.

If I'm trying to say something about god,attempting to describe god then again I believe it is a failure as a concept.

you had a strong objection about feeling god as an air,but I feel god as wind too,I feel presence of god in water,soil,rocks,fire in myself & in yourself too.He is creator of this universe & he is everywhere.

God is everywhere & don't have any specific shape,size,color,appearance.

God can be a action too.

When it comes to debate about god,confusion is but natural.Someone who wish to find god has to first believe in god,Each soul has to take great efforts to mix itself with that super soul where it can experience & feel god.

Again,whatever I said isn't a concept about god & I don't consider myself capable enough to have definite concept about god,but I have my ways to believe in god.

God can't be captured & put inside a temple,church,mosque or holly books but it can be in the soul of that person who is praying anywhere for selfless reason.

I don't believe in any specific concept about god nor any religion because that way somehow I'm insulting the god & dignity of his lovers.

prashant01's photo
Wed 01/11/12 10:22 PM





So, because many people believe in god, you think that's proof of god? There are many people out there who don't believe in god. Of course, I'm not suggesting that because of that, there's proof there is no god.


Many people believing / not believing can't be a proof & I never said so.

I said,many human societies ( even those who were not communicating with each other)believed in god since ancient times,so it can't be a fluke.




I disagree for the same reason I said before - I've seen no proof.


Actually everything that u r able to see around you is a proof of his existence but he has programmed u so that u won't believe him till he wish.


You can certainly try to talk people into believing that way, but for me that doesn't work.


Well,I'm not trying to make u or anyone else believing in god.

As I already said, u hv been programmed to not believe,so it won't work for u untill he wish.

no photo
Wed 01/11/12 10:24 PM


I'm vaguely interested in having a serious conversation with you, but it would be helpful if you explained your meaning more thoroughly. Proper grammar can be very helpful.

sad2
Hell with my english....sorry,I'm very poor at it & u will have to get the work done with my broken english & expressions only


Well at this point I don't really care much either way, but going back to the point in the conversation where you said this:

So why everyone inventedthat supernaturalpower only?


If you have a real question that you want to ask me, I'm willing to bite, but you'd have to elaborate on what you really mean first.

no photo
Wed 01/11/12 10:36 PM


God can never be a concept dude,nor it can be described with a symbol.

Many religions,many wise people have tried their best for years to invent god,to describe god,to conceptualize god Whatever is the out come of their work is,I respect that work ,may be it is some holly book or something else,but I don't see god as bound by some concepts,symbols,religions.

So,sorry I'm literally unable to conceptualize that super power.It is beyond my imagination but I'm eager to devote my selfness into that highest spirit.



You appear to continue to confuse two completely different lines of thought, here.

Also, you are continuing to elaborate on your concept of god. Its very clear that you have some very definite concepts about god. The fact that you seem to consider the true nature of god to be beyond concepts is simply one of the concepts you have about god.

There is a difference between seeing god as a concept, and recognizing that you have a concept about god.

This difference has caused the entire exchange you and I have had about 'concepts' and 'god' to be completely lost. I'm giving up.


I'll again say 'neither god is a concept nor can be conceptualized'.

God is beyond mine,yours & everyone's imagination.

I seriously believe that who ever has tried to conceptualize god has failed to do so.They made religions,they made prayers,they gathered followers but no one conceptualized god at actual.

If I'm trying to say something about god,attempting to describe god then again I believe it is a failure as a concept.


Yes, yes, yes, we've gone on and on discussing two different topics as if it were the same topic.


you had a strong objection about feeling god as an air,


Not quite, but whatever.



but I feel god as wind too,I feel presence of god in water,soil,rocks,fire in myself & in yourself too.He is creator of this universe & he is everywhere.

God is everywhere & don't have any specific shape,size,color,appearance.

God can be a action too.


Thats all fine.



When it comes to debate about god,confusion is but natural.Someone who wish to find god has to first believe in god,Each soul has to take great efforts to mix itself with that super soul where it can experience & feel god.


Okay.



Again,whatever I said isn't a concept
about god & I don't consider myself capable enough to have definite concept about god,but I have my ways to believe in god.


For the part in italics, yes, okay, whatever, I got the gist of this part of your point the first time you said it.

For the part in bold...well thats just wrong. You can make sounds without having a concept behind the sounds, but you cannot even attempt to actually use language for its intended purpose without having concepts behind your attempts at using language.



God can't be captured & put inside a temple,church,mosque or holly books but it can be in the soul of that person who is praying anywhere for selfless reason.

I don't believe in any specific concept about god nor any religion because that way somehow I'm insulting the god & dignity of his lovers.


None of this at all changes the point that I was trying to make earlier, but its far past the point where I should have acted on my realization that the effort would far exceeded what is to be gained, and dropped it.

prashant01's photo
Wed 01/11/12 10:44 PM




Still there are few societies who are not related by any means with other word but still they have their own god.There isn't any chance of propagation of any idea into these societies from other world,still they worship their god.


So we've gone from 'how strange it is that all human societies...' to 'still there are a few societies...'

huh as If I'm differing from my statement...

'Still there are' means 'yes those were there & still few are there'

I don't see any difference in my statements.


I'm not saying that they are incompatible, I'm making note of the fact that you have to dramatically narrow down the set of societies to talk about them arriving at them independently. Since you'd earlier made that sweeping statement about 'all' societies, noting that narrowing of focus is important.



I'd like to point out that I do not see any change in his stance.

Yes, he did say all societies... But he also pinpointed that a "few societies who are not related by any means with other word but still they have their own god..."

I took that to mean those societies who didn't have contact with other societies.


I also give him the benefit of the doubt as I don't think English is his primary language. But even if it is, I still understand what he's saying...

Thanks peter,

Yeah,English is not my mother tongue but I'm trying my best to learn english & I already apologized for my poor english.

Massagetrade & yourself are expert in english still u understood what I'm upto & he did not.In my opinion this difference between u two is due to difference in state of realization of god.

I guess u have already realized presence of god & ur sole is having strong willingness to get homogeneous with that super soul(same as mine sole)

No one can sense & feel god by blindly following some concepts,one has to have an inner urge & willingness by soul.

everyone has to find his own god,who is always there.