The psychology of rejecting God

[Pangloss]

Can any ego have a piece of this pie?

A few brief observations:

1. Shouldn't the issue be about the 'psychology of submission to an illusion'?

2. My observation of philosophies that purport to teach the dissolution of the ego, is that they tend to reinforce selfish arrogance in proportion to the strength of the purportment.

3. Lifegazer says God is everything. Presumably, that is meant to mean that everything is no more than a concept in a mind. Well, that's nice, but there's probably no way of proving it, so let's just forget the pie in the sky, and concentrate on what we can taste.

 

[Upchurch]

Besides which, Upchurch, earlier this thread you comited a horific speling eror, so you're one to talk. Plus I always see existence spelled with an "a" in it on this board. Ugh.

I'll admit: I'm a hypocrite. That is why I rely heavily on spell check, which, also being a human construct, is far from perfect.

 

[ReFLeX]

Heh.

 

[Atlas]

Can any ego have a piece of this pie?

A few brief observations:

1. Shouldn't the issue be about the 'psychology of submission to an illusion'?

I think it's different.

Pangloss and Atlas don't exist except as experiences of God.

Lg is saying that the individual ego of the experience of God prevents the experiences from accepting the reality of God.

If he believed in the physical world he would be arguing something like this.

"Hey all you RED experiences - why do you have such big egos. Don't you know that in reality you are human. Stop rejecting you non-existence and live in harmony with all the other colors in your human identity."

I don't think he's really explained the whole concept of the "ego of an experience" but he's a genius and probably doesn't have to.

[Edit] My parphrase of Lg might have read better if I had shouted "Reject your REDness and live in harmony..."[/EDIT]

 

[Robin]

2. My observation of philosophies that purport to teach the dissolution of the ego, is that they tend to reinforce selfish arrogance in proportion to the strength of the purportment.

So true.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
BS. Philosophy cannot assume anything.
... And there's ZERO evidence for the existence of a "real world" - so stop telling lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only religions are free (apparently) to assume the existence of [whatever].
This is the 21st century. THERE IS NO RATIONAL PROOF FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A 'REAL WORLD'. And there NEVER will be.

And as I have pointed out elsewhere no-one has rational proof of the existence of any experience beyond his or her own. You cannot sense or percieve another person's thought. So that remains an assumption.

And of course the biggest assumption you make is the 'universal mind'.

Love all as you would love yourself (since they are yourself).

Unlike you I don't peddle certainties, but I do know one thing of an absolute certainty - self-love is not real love, it is just vanity. The absolute requirement for real love to exist is that there is more than one self.

Love cannot possibly exist if there is only one Self

And that is something that beyond all possible dispute is a FACT!.

 

[Upchurch]

And as I have pointed out elsewhere no-one has rational proof of the existence of any experience beyond his or her own. You cannot sense or percieve another person's thought. So that remains an assumption.

Perhaps a point of semantics, I contend that you can have rational proof (or at least evidence) of experiences beyond his or her own. What you cannot have is absolute (i.e. 100% certain) proof of such a thing.

We have a theory of a materialistic world (a.k.a. science) and a set of experiences that quite closely correlates to that theory. Yes, it is based on an assumption, therefore it cannot be proven 100%, however, it is a rational theory/evidence chain and, thus, a rational proof.

Now you may or may not agree with the base assumptions, but you cannot argue that theory does not fit the experiences.

 

[P.S.A.]

Unlike you I don't peddle certainties, but I do know one thing of an absolute certainty - self-love is not real love, it is just vanity. The absolute requirement for real love to exist is that there is more than one self.

Love cannot possibly exist if there is only one Self

And that is something that beyond all possible dispute is a FACT!. [/B]

INDEED.

Whenever Lifegazer get's really angry/emotional, he let's the mask slip, and starts acting in the role of the God he wants us all to worship; Just one quote from the many, many you could find showing this...

"I look around this crumbling and decrepit world, within me,"

Yet, as I have said, when it comes to loving the other parts of God, oh no, that's beyond him. He cannot bring himself to even admit others exist independently, let alone show any feelings for them... In fact, at times I think Lifegazer is verging upon the psychopathic:

Psychopath: A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

And when was the last time Lifegazer showed any ability to understand the feelings of others, or showed any acknowledgement he'd ever done anything wrong? No, when Lifegazer is trying to be a "philosopher", the core reason behind his actions is that he wants you to love him, admire him. And when he says how none of you do so, he's not really arguing that because this disproves his need for worship... he's saying that because that justifies his hatred of you. He of course, remains God... but you are now labelled evil. He could try and save us. With a miracle. Or being a better, more honest, more prepared to learn person (a miracle in of itself)... but Lifegazer really, truly doesn't want to save God. He doesn't believe his own arguments for how God is saved. He's brilliant, and we are maggots. The only love which exists in his world is love for himself.

 

[lifegazer]

Actually gents, my philosophy is not dependent upon the actual occurance of any other experiences (apart from my own).
I have mentioned this several times before.

My philosophy relates to: ~Something is having the experience of...

... So, the conclusion of my philosophy holds, regardless of whether there is only the experience of being lifegazer, or whether there are countless other experiences.

 

[lifegazer]

Unlike you I don't peddle certainties, but I do know one thing of an absolute certainty

So you do peddle certainties. LOL

- self-love is not real love, it is just vanity. The absolute requirement for real love to exist is that there is more than one self.

Love cannot possibly exist if there is only one Self

And that is something that beyond all possible dispute is a FACT!.

That's nonsense. Where do you think such 'virtues' as pride and confidence emanate from? Do you really think that the individual is emotionally-neutral regarding itself?
The desire to maintain/sustain ones ego (life) - even through dire circumstances - is reflective of a love for what one is.
We lead our lives for ourselves. Very few purpose to serve all them but themselves. The irony is that such people are best serving the Self.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Isn't Google wonderful?

I thought I'd go get a picture of a club-waving neanderthal in order to express my thoughts, and so I typed "neanderthal club" into googles image search. There are only 15 results, and only one of those features a caveman with a club. This one:

 

[Piscivore]

Psychopath: A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

I'm sorry, but do you have evidence of either "criminal" or "amoral" behaviour from our Mr. Lifegazer? And what the hell is the standard for "amoral" anyway? Don't even get me started on "perverted."

Yes, he's aggressive, but if that's enough to declare him "psychopathic," I've got a whole state ful of drivers out here that want locking up.

If Lifegazer were antisocial, would he be here online, begging for attention?

I like you, PSA, but this is a bad call from where I stand.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm sorry, but do you have evidence of either "criminal" or "amoral" behaviour from our Mr. Lifegazer? And what the hell is the standard for "amoral" anyway? Don't even get me started on "perverted."

Yes, he's aggressive, but if that's enough to declare him "psychopathic," I've got a whole state ful of drivers out here that want locking up.

If Lifegazer were antisocial, would he be here online, begging for attention?

I like you, PSA, but this is a bad call from where I stand.

I suspect if he presented himself to the men-in-white-coats and showed them some of his handiwork he would probably be sent for psychotherapy, but not actually be locked up.

 

[Piscivore]

I suspect if he presented himself to the men-in-white-coats and showed them some of his handiwork he would probably be sent for psychotherapy, but not actually be locked up.

Oh, no question he needs help- but there's a huge gap from that to "psychopathic."

 

[lifegazer]

So you believe in Communism ('material trappings of wealth')?

You're a million miles from what I believe.
Communism would be brilliant if 100% of the whole world's population worked to serve the whole population (as a singular).
However, that aint ever going to happen... unless the whole population loved each other as themselves. In that case, the whole population would know that only God exists and that God is the essence of each of them.
... In which case, there would be no need for government.

Do you think that God needs any help?

I foresee three possibilities:
(1) Enforced end: war, comet; climate calamity; or whatever.
(2) Profound revolution: philosophical/scientific (and hence, religious). Imagine that scientists & philosophers agree that an omnipresent God does exist. Now imagine the consequences to mankind. We would see the onset of a spiritual revolution unequalled in all history. Such a movement would [slowly] lead to some sort of world communist state.
(3) The Second coming of God, in man. That is to say, the second time that a man KNEW he was God. The next time, he won't come to cruxify himself. If he comes again, he will cruxify all that reject him for the final time.

Will you give up all of your belongings (computer, house, car, tv, blanket, clothes) and go naked into the wilderness?

That's a good question. I would give my life for God, yes. Whether I would waste it, is another question. In other words, I don't think I'm ready for the 40 days in the desert experience. When I am, I will go.

For what sins did Jesus die?

The errs of man.

What responsibility has God taken?

All of it. There is no man. I explained this.

How has this act changed the world in any way whatsoever?

*Laugh*
Read your history books.

Why is this act any different than the other similar (sometimes nearly identical - Apollonius of Tyana) acts?

I don't know the geezer. Provide a link, please.
Did he KNOW that he was God?

 

[Piscivore]

(3) The Second coming of God, in man. That is to say, the second time that a man KNEW he was God. The next time, he won't come to cruxify himself. If he comes again, he will cruxify all that reject him for the final time.

All of it. There is no man. I explained this.

Maybe I spoke too soon.

As you say, LG: *Laugh*

"1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat... Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow."

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Actually gents, my philosophy is not dependent upon the actual occurance of any other experiences (apart from my own).
I have mentioned this several times before.

My philosophy relates to: ~Something is having the experience of...

... So, the conclusion of my philosophy holds, regardless of whether there is only the experience of being lifegazer, or whether there are countless other experiences.

No it doesnt hold, you cant go that way because we all know that your reasoning and your premises are wrong.

Whats next?

 

[lifegazer]

Maybe I spoke too soon.

As you say, LG: *Laugh*

"1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat... Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow."

Tomorrow is here. You are the center of every 'thing' that happens to you. This fact will never ever be negated.
It's the truth, Pesky. Your whole experience of everything, including 'Pesky' himself, is occuring within/upon You.

What bugs me here is the possibility that people won't acknowledge the sense in my ideas save making me (lifegazer, who they abhor) look good, or save making themselves look bad in the presence of a skeptical community. So rather than stroking my ego or alienating their pals, people mock my ideas as though there were nothing interesting about them - thus evading stroking Lg's ego and thus evading the wrath of their pals.

I don't give a monkey's uncle about lifegazer. And if he should ever glow in the light of any praise that he might ever get for his ideas, then kill the bas***d. Really.

 

[lifegazer]

Whats next?

Your death is next. Nothing significant will happen to you until you die. Nothing at all.

 

[billydkid]

My question for LG

Ok, I'm assuming this question will not fully register in as much as LG has already decided what it is that makes unbelievers tick. What I want to know is this: What is one to do about the the problem of choosing to believe in a God (or that God is everything - which is meaningless incidentally - or whatever) if one is fully unconvinced that such an entity exists? Does one simply choose to believe in something he knows has no basis in reality? I can only think of that Mark Twain line describing faith as believing in what you know ain't so. It seems to me LG's argument for those of us who know that no God with any particular attributes exists is to believe in him anyway. It also reminds me of that famous theologian who was said that if he had to choose between God and the truth he would choose God. LG will always choose God over the truth and think himself noble and heroic for it. I think those of us who are willing to face the wilderness without blinders are the brave ones.