Does it take an intellectual to knock God??

[SB_UK]

To Arthur -

this thread has put me in the unpleasant position of not being able to 'Thank' certain contributors -
- through fear that this'll elicit your 'survival' instinct -
and the thread'll disintegrate.

The problem is -
is that this might not happen -
and that you might now deeply resent the suggestion that 'Thanking' individuals who disagree with you -
might elicit an emotional backlash.

I tell ya' -
getting people to talk ain't easy.

~*~

~

In Hinduism -
the tendency is away from group and towards personal worship -
to know God for oneself -
without need to explain oneself to another.

This is the correct approach -
apart from the absence of catechism.

Funnily enough though - Hindu catechism does exist for this modern age -
and has been constructed
*real* intelligently -
- to 'avoid' words.

yo yo yo Rama -
you go kick Ravana's doity a55 dude!

I think that this is the series:


http://www.amarchitrakatha.com/

[greenbug]

Does it take an intellectual to knock God??

Is this a question to God? Then what are they knocking on? Heavens door? Or is 'knock' a word for disgracing?

After reading all the posts.. I answer this question..

No. But from a perspective Yes as it just depends on who is intelectual and who is not.

[SB_UK]

Does it take an intellectual to knock God??

In the last 3 posts we have

God exists beyond the human intellect -
and so
Is there meaning to this question?

I answer 'Yes' -
with so many provisos including
redefinition of 'intellectual'
and also
'knock' (I guess) -
since I use 'knock' to refer to an individual testing his/her faith through severe challenge (to strengthen that individual's faith).

This was God’s test of Abraham’s faith.

http://www.jesusanswers.com/christia.../sacrifice.htm

Greenbug answers with both 'Yes' and 'No' -

where we're *all* correct

- and where there might be multiple other different rationales which could yield either the replies of 'Yes' or 'No'

words uhhh ... ?

problems problems!

words -> symbols -> ideas

An alternative answer to this question:

It would take a fool to knock the real unknowable -
- better to define whether one can prove the existence of some aspect of reality which is very *real* -
- but which we cannot ever know -

and then to use this as our basis for defining God
(reference to Melanie's last post introducing 'real unknowable' to this thread).

[greenbug]

"It would take a fool to knock the real unknowable ."

My answer remains the same considering you might burn in hell forever. lol

Every one can have an opinion fool or intellectual the real question is would it make any difference to God or any one else?

Would you be mad that a fool or intellectual knocked God? Would God be Mad that a fool or intellectual knocked God?

If I were me or I were God and some one knocked.. I would consider what was said regarless of their intellectual standing or other wize. So why should this Question matter at all if the answer maybe the same for any and all?

[greenbug]

lol my daughter asked me what I was doing, told her and she said..

"I wouldn't because I dont remember God."

She is five. Out of the mouths of babes... You would have to know God to be able to knock him..

[SB_UK]

lYou would have to know God to be able to knock him..

Exactly.

That's exactly my point.

I've re-read my post and see that it might be read as
- 'you're a fool if you disagree'

- however -
that's not the intention.

Here's a re-wording:

To 'knock' (be rude about) a construct which has different meaning from one person to the next requires a fool -
because the fool is making the cardinal error of assuming that
(when communicating) -
- the individual with whom he's seeking to communicate understands his words.
With words like 'God' -
one knows that no two people have the same mental image for the construct -
- unlike dog (for instance) -

where a person can state that he likes or dislikes dogs -
(and we'll all know what he means)

- with all of this in mind -
I think (then) that the individual who seeks to 'knock God' -
must *first*
define the 'God' which he's choosing to knock before proceeding.

Until the term 'God' (like dog) has global context -
there's no point in making any local comment on the concept's utility.

So
- does that mean that we shouldn't discuss 'God'?
No

It means that we define our terms
(in cases such as these)
- (through desire to ensure effective communication)
*first*.

Here's an example -

How to knock God - I
I knock any God which'd decree that regardless of how well one behaves -

- "as long as one does not have
'Membership Card'
to its one specific faith" -

- "that one should be considered (accordingly and solely for this reason) bad" (a sinner) and attacks (conversion) encouraged (whether indirectly) by that God's card carrying ($fully$paid$up$) members.

~*~

Richard Dawkins objects to these kinda' aspects of faith -
his argument
(though) -
- when carried through

will serve to provide us with an accurate workable definition for God which all of us can ~enjoy~

God not as a large chappy with a beard -
---instead---
as a real unknowable force which guides evolution.

Evolution is sculpted by rule of geometric expansion -
and so as such
may be considered to be intelligently constructed -

where *however* our own mind (intelligence) is child -
to mathematical progression (God).

All we need do, to clarify the debate between Dawkins, the Church, the Creationists and Science
- is to state that all of their arguments can be rationalised under the notion of
verb - 'to create'
which occurs (creation) (the process of self-assembly) spontaneously and which drives evolution with cyclical regularity -
- creation delivering unknowable treasures post-speciation in context of the mindset of the 'thing' (through the eyes of the mind of the 'thing') undergoing speciation (prior to the event).

The 'thing' is anything of structure and need not be a living entity.

~*~

God, geometry, unknowable real, intelligent design without intelligent designer, majesty of nature, the religious prophet and frailty of man -
are all predicted under ToE -
a geometric (better logical (so I've been taught)) model of 'Everyblessedthing' -
which describes nothing more than one simple, repeating (recursive) pattern.

[greenbug]

Well, my perspective on defineing 'God'..

It almost seems to me that God depends on the group who worships him. It is the group that defines God, so technicaly God is the group.

Like wise to know God is to know the individual whos perspective defines God for them.

At that who would want to knock some one elses perspective of God? Perhaps because of the actions of the indivisual or group?

So in knocking God are you really knocking God or the some ones idea of God? This is what makes it justifyable to people.

[SB_UK]

Yes -
divisiveness (an aspect of human nature which we're about to eradicate) -
- sporting two sides -
carrying two banners -
sporting two differently coloured images of one

of course of the same God

God.

[labelwench]

Earlier in the thread, Arthur made the point that what one believes is not the issue. The fact that we have our Western society of today, and the ordered structure that most of us have been raised in has evolved from the tenets of Christianity.

Without actually debating the existence of god and what we perceive same to be, it is interesting to question when and how the concept of religion arose.

What purpose does it serve our species?

Are we at a point in our evolution that we are seeking to move beyond this framework as we question and seek proof of the existence of god?

If so, what are the dangers of such an endeavour?

The glue of our somewhat orderly system of existence is founded on such a belief system.

Before we rush blindly forward, perhaps we should give some thought to what we intend to replace this system with?

Maybe that is the purpose of this exercise, at least in part.

Regards,

Labelwench

[greenbug]

Earlier in the thread, Arthur made the point that what one believes is not the issue. The fact that we have our Western society of today, and the ordered structure that most of us have been raised in has evolved from the tenets of Christianity.

Without actually debating the existence of god and what we perceive same to be, it is interesting to question when and how the concept of religion arose.

What purpose does it serve our species?

Are we at a point in our evolution that we are seeking to move beyond this framework as we question and seek proof of the existence of god?

If so, what are the dangers of such an endeavor?

The glue of our somewhat orderly system of existence is founded on such a belief system.

Before we rush blindly forward, perhaps we should give some thought to what we intend to replace this system with?

Maybe that is the purpose of this exercise, at least in part.

Regards,

Labelwench

Or perhaps he has fear of losing his faith. Perhaps he doesn't think intellectuals are fit to carry on into the future. I don't know he isn't saying.

Childish things. If we tell our children that Santa doesn't exist will they not know how to give out of the kindness of their hearts? If we tell them tooth fairies don't exist will they stop taking care of their teeth?

Did we stop calling the days of the weeks by the names of Greek Gods? Did we stop practicing pagan holidays?

Like I said before our society has never stopped changing and neither has our religions. If I started building a house 30k years ago and put another piece on today, when do I call it a house? When it is finished? Perhaps it will burn down before its finished, was it ever a house? Religion is the same, we use it, add to it and some day it may burn down but perhaps by then we may find something better.

Religion isn't the glue that binds us. Its the nature of man to compromise.