How God could fail to convey His message?

[seeds]

I think that God’s implicit message to the world is quite clear:

Be fruitful and multiply and you will understand the reason for it all after you die.

Until then, religions are just the pacifying teats for the worldlings to suckle on.

Is there a critical amount required in the population before we get a revelation or do we just keep on multiplying in the meantime?

(I took the liberty of adding the third line to my post that you quoted. It seemed a bit naked without it.)

I’ll pretend that you’re not mocking me and answer the question like a friend talking to another friend (though I guess friends do mock each other, and that’s okay).

I think we get new revelations when it becomes clear that the old revelations have run their course (like now, as the old religions are quickly losing ground to our better understanding of the universe).

(See two fun cartoons I created just for discussions such as this...
here - http://www.theultimateseeds.com/Images/ ... %20189.jpg
and here - http://www.theultimateseeds.com/Images/ ... %20190.jpg)

However, as I have been asserting in other threads, I believe that we will never be allowed to understand the “ultimate truth” of reality (in any irrefutable way) while we still exist within the confines of the universe itself.

So my “be fruitful and multiply” line still stands as stated.

Now of course I would never suggest that you promote the silly mythological nonsense handed down to us from the past.

However, isn’t there any way you could use that beautiful, critically thinking mind of yours to come up with offerings of “hope” to the billions of humans on earth who so obviously and desperately need it?

I am talking about the “hope” that there might be more to our existence than this “life sucks and then you die” meme you seem to be supporting.
_______

[Lacewing]

I'm just trying to fit in with everyone else on this forum.

So, in keeping with the tradition of some theists who blame mankind instead of God, you blame this forum instead of yourself. Doesn't even matter how obviously senseless both of those are, as long as you can preserve your ego and keep pretending what you want to believe, yes?

[Dubious]

Thankyou, I will, I'm just trying to fit in with everyone else on this forum. BTW, can I put that on my resume?

Doesn't seem very ambitious to want to be like anyone else on this forum. I wouldn't put it on my résumé. Easier to get a job and a raise if you claim a relationship with God instead!

...just call me a flawed human being.

Theists and atheists have something in common after all...as expected! Happy New Year!

[thedoc]

I'm just trying to fit in with everyone else on this forum.

So, in keeping with the tradition of some theists who blame mankind instead of God, you blame this forum instead of yourself. Doesn't even matter how obviously senseless both of those are, as long as you can preserve your ego and keep pretending what you want to believe, yes?

You seem to be saying opposites, Theists blame mankind instead of God, so they are blaming themselves. And I am blaming the forum instead of myself, so I am blaming others. So which one is senseless, to blame someone else or to blame yourself? My ego would only come into it if I really cared what you think of me. So far you are only amusing to me, you have value only as you are entertaining to me.

[thedoc]

Doesn't seem very ambitious to want to be like anyone else on this forum. I wouldn't put it on my résumé. Easier to get a job and a raise if you claim a relationship with God instead!

...just call me a flawed human being.

Theists and atheists have something in common after all...as expected! Happy New Year!

Are you just now noticing that, theists and atheists have always had the commonality of being human beings, the differences are very shallow.

Happy New Year, everyone.

[Lacewing]

I'm just trying to fit in with everyone else on this forum.

So, in keeping with the tradition of some theists who blame mankind instead of God, you blame this forum instead of yourself. Doesn't even matter how obviously senseless both of those are, as long as you can preserve your ego and keep pretending what you want to believe, yes?

You seem to be saying opposites, Theists blame mankind instead of God, so they are blaming themselves.

No, I'm saying they blame that which they don't identify themselves with. They identify with God, so God can do no wrong, rather it's mankind to be blamed, up against an all-powerful god who could surely produce whatever results are needed, but doesn't.

My ego would only come into it if I really cared what you think of me.

Your ego speaks loud and clear, regardless of me.

So far you are only amusing to me, you have value only as you are entertaining to me.

That simply shows your limited scope of seeing value.

[thedoc]

My ego would only come into it if I really cared what you think of me.

Your ego speaks loud and clear, regardless of me.

So far you are only amusing to me, you have value only as you are entertaining to me.

That simply shows your limited scope of seeing value.

Project much.

Good for you, but I don't see much value in you.

[Lacewing]

I don't see much value in you.

Yes, clearly you don't see God in all.

[thedoc]

I don't see much value in you.

Yes, clearly you don't see God in all.

No, I do see a faint glimmer of God in you, but your denial is like putting a basket over your light, it tends to dim the light that should be shinning brightly from you.

[Lacewing]

I don't see much value in you.

Yes, clearly you don't see God in all.

No, I do see a faint glimmer of God in you, but your denial is like putting a basket over your light, it tends to dim the light that should be shinning brightly from you.

That's simply revealing the limitations of your view. It's not the divine view. Maybe when you figure out the discrepancy between your view and a much broader view, then you'll see what's beyond your own head. Please do let us know when that happens!

[thedoc]

Yes, clearly you don't see God in all.

No, I do see a faint glimmer of God in you, but your denial is like putting a basket over your light, it tends to dim the light that should be shinning brightly from you.

That's simply revealing the limitations of your view. It's not the divine view. Maybe when you figure out the discrepancy between your view and a much broader view, then you'll see what's beyond your own head. Please do let us know when that happens!

I do see the difference, and that difference is between the theists view of the brightness possible and the atheists dimness of view that nothing is possible.

[Dubious]

I’ll pretend that you’re not mocking me and answer the question like a friend talking to another friend (though I guess friends do mock each other, and that’s okay).

I was mocking the way it was expressed. No need to pretend! I can’t help asserting some of these unkind proclivities in my responses. I respect much of what you say though I may often disagree as is common on philosophy forums. It’s not a difference of opinion but the way they are argued which causes me to see red.

I think we get new revelations when it becomes clear that the old revelations have run their course (like now, as the old religions are quickly losing ground to our better understanding of the universe).

I agree. Revelations are not usually instantly understood and when they are they cease to be revelations. In its “slow-motion progress”, one gets adjusted to all the details that summarize it into one final overwhelming insight.

(See two fun cartoons I created just for discussions such as this...
here - http://www.theultimateseeds.com/Images/ ... %20189.jpg
and here – http://www.theultimateseeds.com/Images/ ... %20190.jpg)

Instead of cartoons, I think of them more as picturesque metaphors. The second one was especially humorous...noticing to start from the bottom in both cases. The text blends perfectly with the graphics which to me, comes across as hieroglyphs (very imaginative!) with commentary. No question, you have talent!

However, as I have been asserting in other threads, I believe that we will never be allowed to understand the “ultimate truth” of reality (in any irrefutable way) while we still exist within the confines of the universe itself.

An "Ultimate Truth" by its very nature is of no importance to the existence of any living creature in the universe. We shouldn’t concern ourselves at all with these over inflated phrases which merely amount to hubristic over-the-top inventions of our own. The true significance of “ultimate reality” - a phrase used so often as if it meant something - is its reduction to zero.

However, isn’t there any way you could use that beautiful, critically thinking mind of yours to come up with offerings of “hope” to the billions of humans on earth who so obviously and desperately need it?

No need to be sarcastic though I can’t blame you for doing unto me what I often do unto others! If hope is meant to recompense suffering by envisioning an afterlife, those made miserable by existence deserve the amelioration provided by that belief and would never argue against it. This, however, is a Philosophy Forum where such inhibitions are not likely to prevail.

I am talking about the “hope” that there might be more to our existence than this “life sucks and then you die” meme you seem to be supporting.

Life is a preview of hell for billions a majority of them children. But life is also very pleasant for many others though neither of these instances negates the fact that when you die, you’re dead. Hope serves only the living. Whatever those hopes may be, there is no such imprint in nature’s manual to conform. Why should it grant more than what is given? They belong to us only but knowing of nature’s indifference, we call on God instead…an entity as tenuous as the previsions of an afterlife endorsed by our all-too-human wishful thinking.

Hope only makes sense to me in a here and now that we’re certain of and not some imagined hypothetical existence in a hereafter where hope is conveniently transferred having achieved a deficit where it was really meant to apply. What you’re espousing in your quote, to me, is a mythology of hope devoid of actuality.

[Dubious]

No, I do see a faint glimmer of God in you, but your denial is like putting a basket over your light, it tends to dim the light that should be shinning brightly from you.

That's simply revealing the limitations of your view. It's not the divine view. Maybe when you figure out the discrepancy between your view and a much broader view, then you'll see what's beyond your own head. Please do let us know when that happens!

I do see the difference, and that difference is between the theists view of the brightness possible and the atheists dimness of view that nothing is possible.

Now THAT is a truly weird statement. In contrasting brightness with dimness as regards possibility what is this incongruous metaphor supposed to mean? Have atheists ever asserted that nothing is possible? Nothing here makes sense!

[BradburyPound]

That's simply revealing the limitations of your view. It's not the divine view. Maybe when you figure out the discrepancy between your view and a much broader view, then you'll see what's beyond your own head. Please do let us know when that happens!

I do see the difference, and that difference is between the theists view of the brightness possible and the atheists dimness of view that nothing is possible.

Now THAT is a truly weird statement. In contrasting brightness with dimness as regards possibility what is this incongruous metaphor supposed to mean? Have atheists ever asserted that nothing is possible? Nothing here makes sense!

I agree; its seems an odd thing to say. Not just inaccurate but confused.
Dostoyevski is famous for the saying with atheism anything is possible. It has been taken up by atheists as a positive rallying call, but probably meant ambiguously by Dostoyevski, and taked negatively by Theism.
From the Theist it means that atheism can unleash an amoral nightmare of permissiveness; for the atheist the death of god opens up the possibility that we can be free of the priesthood and their death grip on human behaviour, opening up the possibility of self expression and free love.

I simply can't see how atheism makes "nothing possible". Just does not add up.

[Lacewing]

That's simply revealing the limitations of your view. It's not the divine view. Maybe when you figure out the discrepancy between your view and a much broader view, then you'll see what's beyond your own head. Please do let us know when that happens!

I do see the difference, and that difference is between the theists view of the brightness possible and the atheists dimness of view that nothing is possible.

Nope, still just your own head. Made-up limitation and nonsense to sustain the fantasy that suits your ego. Look at your view truthfully... and ask yourself why God would manifest in the way you claim, and why God would not be ALL of it... then maybe you'll see how much of it is your own creation, and how your ego is actually the driving force that divides God up in order to cast blame and assign glory as YOU see fit.