Welcome to the Growery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
" 'The entirety' has been called god a lot longer than 'man in the clouds' have been falsely called that.
'Universe' does not suggest creation or a creative 'spirit' but more just the current state of what is."
discuss. i see a juicy thread with a bunch of non-chalant jibberish about opinion on the shroomery, and i just MUST have YOUR opinion on the matter.
"ok but why call "everything that is" god? Can't we just label it existence, or reality, or the universe, and stamp out the confusion? "
but what came first though... people thought of God first, so if one wants to stamp out confusion, best to deal with God problem first... then the existence of such.
or one can work backwards... it really depends on your point of view, i'd suppose.
not sure what youre looking to discuss here, so im just gonna tell you what i think about god and stuff.
imo "god" isnt a traditional god. its more like karma, or an energy. everything has energy. good bad or neutral. the more you stay in the good, the better the universe will work with you in the long run.
prolly nonsense but it makes me feel better to think that way. idk.
-------------------- Of course it's happening inside your head.
Why should that mean it isn't real?
well, i'd agree with you. now if you visit the shroomery post your opinion in the thread linked in my post... and help have some more semantics pop-up to tell you that you're ideal of God doesn't count to what is out there, because it doesn't match the preferred nomenclature of their argument.
trust me, it'll be useful... uhhh, to some degree.
My belief is that the human mind and even the highest sense of cognizance is incapable of comprehending a "god, godhead, Tao," or what have you.
Though my beliefs usually root from Taoism, and an excerpt from the Tao Te Ching is: "the Tao that can be explained is not the eternal Tao."
The book The Quantum and the Lotus has good opposite spectral views. It's basically a convo between a former Buddhist turned physicist, and a physicist turned Buddhist going back and forth on different views. Good stuff.
I read a trip report on erowid where the guy took datura I think, or acid, and started thinking about the Tao, and flipped the fuck out. Apparently he had unraveled it so much in his mind that life didnt make sense anymore.
yeah, well, if you can be that intent on it then surely you can unravel... can probably be pretty painful later, when you can't see a good reason not to walk into oncoming traffic.
or it can pretty uninteresting...
lol, "its not this... but it's not that... and it's not that... and it's like this but then it contradicts itelf and NARF!1 then it goes like this and then it says holy toledo i can't explain shit to you i am dead fucking words for fuc sakes go read a book!1"
The Tao id imagine is a big mind fuck, just reading the ten rules or whatever. I believe in God fully, the Trinity is hard enough to wrap your mind around. I believe science is the human watered down version of Gods work so we can understand it and make it tangible and easily digested.
sure. science isn't that... special... i value logic over science... science sets things in stone, while things provided are finite... but still flexable; and not set in stone. so the whole science debate is moot to me, cause i find more than science or religion itself, logic prevails.
there is a reason... A DEFINITE REASON, why there are "religions"... and why there is "science".
agreed. i'd say, there is substantial evidence that all of religion, science, spirituality and logic are all essential in some format, and are all responsible for upholding the same key in understanding. it's like different characters in a play or a different arrangement of a orchestra... it's all playing fo the same tune.
not one is more important then the other, and no less. i think the separation is just misplaced aggression.
Well said lol ignorance comes into play too. Ignorancd is why so many are antidrug, and ignorance is why so many are anti religion or science or whatever. For example, when may 21 happened, everyone wrote off Christians as crazy fucks, and when the world didnt end, it made all of us look bad. Generalizing everyone into apocalyptic kooks is ignorant to the fact that we arent all psycho, and that generates hate.
Quote: eNtranceAsexit said: sure. science isn't that... special... i value logic over science... science sets things in stone, while things provided are finite... but still flexable; and not set in stone. so the whole science debate is moot to me, cause i find more than science or religion itself, logic prevails.
there is a reason... A DEFINITE REASON, why there are "religions"... and why there is "science".
Science uses logic to credit or discredit theories, i don't see how logic can prevail when its just a set of rules for an answer to be "set in stone".
Religion should not even be compared to science. A thread about god, religion, and science is supposed to go where exactly?
Quote: eNtranceAsexit said: " 'The entirety' has been called god a lot longer than 'man in the clouds' have been falsely called that.
'Universe' does not suggest creation or a creative 'spirit' but more just the current state of what is."
"ok but why call "everything that is" god? Can't we just label it existence, or reality, or the universe, and stamp out the confusion? "
but what came first though... people thought of God first, so if one wants to stamp out confusion, best to deal with God problem first... then the existence of such.
or one can work backwards... it really depends on your point of view, i'd suppose.
Life, universe, and everything in it? Call it what you want, but the name isn't going to give you any answers. Not about something we're only guessing about. I've known people to call "everything that is" god, but only a few. It probably makes sense to them, but to me it's just another viewpoint on a subject where, from here, anything is possible. Far fetched is far far fetched to a close-minded person
As to what came first, imo, humans before humans trying to make sense of it all would have to use very abstract theories to make sense of their world. You have to understand that critical thinking was a tool developed culturally through the years of developing as a species, so it makes perfect sense why religion/spirituality prevailed in the beginning.
brain farting
-------------------- Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.
The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for A.A. membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions. A.A. is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.
omfg, here i go again... with the last post i made being vanquished by mistake!1 fucking ... gr...
ok... major points...
1: it seems problematic for the some-odd scientists (mostly ones who are ill-regarded) that an assumption of hypothesis is some kind of sin, when it is a necessity in a scientific mind, to proclaim some sort of proposition that you can prove, whether it be read and dialed or not. your mind can't dial everything. it can provide scientific thought, very well though.
2: this absence of scientific moral is illogical and thus is a hypothesis of the fallibility of logic.
-------------------- Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.
The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for A.A. membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions. A.A. is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.
I typically lean to the science side because the evidence is there. You can read, interpret, disagree, and form a new, better conclusion through empirical evidence. It creates a vast network of knowledge that can't simply get blown through the wind, or gets changed by means of time. It's truth until someone else proves not.
Anything else is just a massive rambling. Conversation pieces. Religion could be paired in this group but people like to live their lives based on this "moral code" that's either written recently or still passed down through teachings. Easily changed by time and culturally shapen to whatever fits.
It's real easy to expect what god wants from "you" because anyone sane knows right from wrong. It's easy to hope and have faith in things that we can't really understand because we as humans know our boundaries. We know that we are just looking at the tip of the whole case.
Claiming there is a truth and whole truth is another conversation, imo. Religion can get it's mention there, but it will stop at the all knowing god, so let's just reserve 1 or 2 posts for it.
-------------------- Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.
The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for A.A. membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions. A.A. is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.
while i tend to try and get along with either or side... i find BOTH to be filled atrociously with ninny-bandwagoners and nun-chuck flailing warriors of fart-gas defending their own gravitional force from air.
i choose the middle path. not giving a fuck about politics, science, or religion, unless as a conversation peice.
otherwise, i just use my mind, thoughts and awareness.
awareness being my body... not some oogie hidden thing... just so you know.
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
ignorance comes into play too. Ignorancd is why so many are antidrug, and ignorance is why so many are anti religion or science or whatever. For example, when may 21 happened, everyone wrote off Christians as crazy fucks, and when the world didnt end, it made all of us look bad. Generalizing everyone into apocalyptic kooks is ignorant to the fact that we arent all psycho, and that generates hate.
anywhoo
