The death of God

[muir]

I really believe you give people WAY too much credit. Yes, some are crafty, manipulative and devious but people like that rarely last long around other people like that. For them to group and work together and pull off conspiracies as you suggest...well like I said, I think you give people in general far too much credit.

Its easy for people to group together when they have shared interests

Also people high on the pscyhopathy spectrum often surround themselves with others high on the spectrum

So in Europe we had a group of families that were all tied by blood that gained power through conquest...these were and are to this day called 'royal families'; these warlords set up states they ruled over as monarchies

They allied themselves to master magicians who were able to exercise influence over the minds of the people; these magicians were and are to this day called 'priests'

The royal families would give out grace and favours usually in the form of land and titles to those that supported them (who were also high on the psychopathy spectrum); these people became the landed aristocracy. They were knighted by the monarchy and supplied with the best weaponry and the land was divided up amongst them so that they could administer it on behalf of the royals

So three groups emerged who owned all the land in europe: the royals, the vatican, the aristocracy. the aristocracy which was most loyal to the roman catholic church is called the 'black nobility'

The money that these people raised from taxing the people on their land they banked with the goldsmiths who in time became bankers as they learned they could loan out more money then they had in deposit. These bankers were jews because in christendom christian were not supposed to engage in usury

Court jews like the rothschilds became the bankers of the royals, aristocrats and the emrging merchant class; the vatican was of course also involved in banking

The jewish banking families became increasingly rich and powerful by funding all sides in each war; they have grown so powerful that they now control governments

 

[Eventhorizon]

Its easy for people to group together when they have shared interests

Also people high on the pscyhopathy spectrum often surround themselves with others high on the spectrum

So in Europe we had a group of families that were all tied by blood that gained power through conquest...these were and are to this day called 'royal families'; these warlords set up states they ruled over as monarchies

They allied themselves to master magicians who were able to exercise influence over the minds of the people; these magicians were and are to this day called 'priests'

The royal families would give out grace and favours usually in the form of land and titles to those that supported them (who were also high on the psychopathy spectrum); these people became the landed aristocracy. They were knighted by the monarchy and supplied with the best weaponry and the land was divided up amongst them so that they could administer it on behalf of the royals

So three groups emerged who owned all the land in europe: the royals, the vatican, the aristocracy. the aristocracy which was most loyal to the roman catholic church is called the 'black nobility'

The money that these people raised from taxing the people on their land they banked with the goldsmiths who in time became bankers as they learned they could loan out more money then they had in deposit. These bankers were jews because in christendom christian were not supposed to engage in usury

Court jews like the rothschilds became the bankers of the royals, aristocrats and the emrging merchant class; the vatican was of course also involved in banking

The jewish banking families became increasingly rich and powerful by funding all sides in each war; they have grown so powerful that they now control governments

You may be right, you may be wrong. Either way I think you seem so fixated on this particular issue that if any new information were to come along and that seriously challenged what appears to be your final conclusion on the matter, you would over look it in favor of what you have already decided.

 

[muir]

The difference in what you believe and what I believe is that you seem to believe....wait... Let me start this way. You seem to believe that there are people on this planet who are in control of what they are doing and are keeping the larger mass from figuring it out. Well, yes obviously. Congress alone could be used for this example. Why is it that some of the most mentally challenged people are in control of people far more intelligent than they?

Ok so you have just yourself established that small groups do rule over large amounts of people, giving the congress as an example; ok well take that a step further and recognise that what funds the careers of people in congress is money and that the money is largely coming from the bankers and other corporate powers who have a shared interest in exploiting the many

They are not stupid people though; the people at the top...the people above the politicians who do their bidding are very clever in a cunning sort of way

However, what am getting at is a program that supersedes people on this earth, in this universe altogether. That though things are potentially being controlled at the level you suggest, it in turn is being controlled on a much larger scale. If we found out tomorrow that a computer programmer created our world, would be then call the programmer God" Or would we say that God created that programmer so that he could create us?

The programmer would be the 'demiurge' and god would be the creative force behind the demiurge

But if this reality is the collective imaginings of our combined consciousness then we can collectively imagine and materialise a better reality...if we are all focussing enough attention on that: energy flows where attention goes

The rails of which I speak are more aligned with fate in that certain parameters have been put in place in our universe to gather data on how things would turn out when given certain circumstances. What would have happened if JFK have never been assassinated. What would have happen if this star in this galaxy had never exploded. What would have happen if this person had never lived or this person had? What would have happened if Abraham Lincoln lived in Europe rather than America?

Well there is the multiverse theory where all of these events did occur. All these different realities would be existing in the same space but on different frequencies

if we change the frequency then we change the trip

Imagine living your life over and over and over at the whim of someone running a program repeatedly changing minute details to see how things turn out. Never being able to get up and walk out. Sounds a bit like hell to me but maybe thats just me. Anyway, I think this is one of the reasons I am trying to figure out what is really going on.

Underneath all the societal conditioning that tells us we are: **insert** name, of such and such nationality, of **insert** religion, of **insert** race, of **insert culture** we are just i am awareness...thats whats underneath all the programming that tells us what we supposedly are....some people then go on to form attachments to those aspects of identity and that reinforces their ego

But underneath all that we are all just a stream of consciousness flowing into this reality

Btw the obvious answer to your question is that society would collapse. But I ask you if it does, do you honestly think that out of all the possibilities in that scenario something better than what we have now will take its place? Think about it. Do you think the reasonable, logical and intelligent people will be the ones who have a say on how everything is rebuilt? No. The crazy power hungry people who are willing to die to get what they want, to have control will. It is human nature and human nature will never change

Thats not human nature, thats only an aspect of human nature

Humans can be selfish and cruel but they can also be compassionate and kind

Thats the beauty of the game...we get to choose which side of our nature that we want to feed. So the dark forces want to get people to fear and hate to feed that side of human nature so that we collectively manifest a dark reality; this is why they push war and division and different forms of divisive identity

We have to counter that by feeding the other side and manifesting something else and there is a shift going on in human consciousness at the moment as more and more people become consciously aware of how the world works...or to put it another way: 'awake' from their previous unaware state

Most people are not psychopaths and most people spend most days running the system and all the machinery, technology and human affairs; we don't need the psychopaths to rule us

So the challenge now is to imagine the kind of world we want to live in and then to manifest that in our individual and collective lives

 

[muir]

You may be right, you may be wrong. Either way I think you seem so fixated on this particular issue that if any new information were to come along and that seriously challenged what appears to be your final conclusion on the matter, you would over look it in favor of what you have already decided.

lol

i came to that view by overturning what i believed; my perceptions aren't fixed, they are constantly evolving

But i do believe there are further dimensions to this reality see for example the 4 formative worlds of qabalah; but it becomes difficult to discuss things on the level of abstraction

If you want to know the history of banking as it occured on the material plane, in the US, this documentary is very good. its a bit grainy because it was made in 1996 but it correctly predicted the economic crisis of 2008:

[video=youtube;H56FUHgqRNE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H56FUHgqRNE[/video]

 

[Eventhorizon]

Most people are not psychopaths and most people spend most days running the system and all the machinery, technology and human affairs; we don;t need the psychopaths to rule us

So the challenge now is to imagine the kind of world we want toi live in and then to manifest that in our individual and collective lives

I recognize most of what you have said as being an opinion that cannot be dis-proven. However the fact that something can be thought of but not disproven does not make it real. The statement above fails to recognize that regardless of what humans may or may not want, we are bound by the rules of the universe that made us. As one example, we eat meat and we would not have gained the intelligence that we have unless we became meat eaters. Scientific studies have shown the human brain needs a certain amount of energy to operate at certain levels. We could never have achieved what we have by eating plants alone. Therefor not only is the ability to kill beneficial to us, it is necessary. This has nothing to do with the vegetarians who say you dont need meat to survive. This is about evolution and where all of the food sources available today were not always available in the far past and where trial and error along those lines had not built up. Our aggressive tendency's, our ability to kill, our NEED to kill has been bred into us from a very human hostile environment known as the universe.

 

[muir]

I recognize most of what you have said as being an opinion that cannot be dis-proven. However the fact that something can be thought of but not disproven does not make it real. The statement above fails to recognize that regardless of what humans may or may not want, we are bound by the rules of the universe that made us. As one example, we eat meat and we would not have gained the intelligence that we have unless we became meat eaters. Scientific studies have shown the human brain needs a certain amount of energy to operate at certain levels. We could never have achieved what we have by eating plants alone. Therefor not only is the ability to kill beneficial to us, it is necessary. This has nothing to do with the vegetarians who say you dont need meat to survive. This is about evolution and where all of the food sources available today were not always available in the far past and where trial and error along those lines had not built up. Our aggressive tendency's, our ability to kill, our NEED to kill has been bred into us from a very human hostile environment known as the universe.

The current paradigm of physics only works on the world of the large but it doesn't work on the world of the very small

We can't currently agree on the physical laws that bind our reality

We can't even be sure at the moment if our current perceptions of mans evolution are correct; for example there are question marks around the missing link and then there is the discovery of the worlds oldest gem i posted above which suggests life is much older than we thought

There may have been advanced civilisations on earth already; we may need to re-write our entire perception of history

Some beleive that mankind was genetically altered by an outside agency. if you're ridley scott that agency would be a race of aliens travelling in spaceships, if you're terrence mckenna you would say that evolutionary launch pad was the magic mushroom and that it arrived on our planet in spores and if you're david ike you would say that interdimensional entities are manipulating humans and if you're jim marrs you would say its the annunaki

There are contradictions and anomalies in the current perceptions and i think that as part of the wider awakening going on i think we will see our perceptions of the nature of reality change and our perceptions of the 'past' change as well....and whatever happens i'm just going to flow with it...like the water

 

[Eventhorizon]

I agree that most of the questions you raise here are valid.

 

[Kanamori]

I recognize most of what you have said as being an opinion that cannot be dis-proven. However the fact that something can be thought of but not disproven does not make it real. The statement above fails to recognize that regardless of what humans may or may not want, we are bound by the rules of the universe that made us. As one example, we eat meat and we would not have gained the intelligence that we have unless we became meat eaters. Scientific studies have shown the human brain needs a certain amount of energy to operate at certain levels. We could never have achieved what we have by eating plants alone. Therefor not only is the ability to kill beneficial to us, it is necessary. This has nothing to do with the vegetarians who say you dont need meat to survive. This is about evolution and where all of the food sources available today were not always available in the far past and where trial and error along those lines had not built up. Our aggressive tendency's, our ability to kill, our NEED to kill has been bred into us from a very human hostile environment known as the universe.

What was necessary for the past is necessary for the future? If we have the ability to engineer other food or now to grow enough plants to eat? Capitalism is a system based on very finite, and it served its purpose to get us to where we are at now. Now, in it its current form it is manifesting pressure against things like cold fusion which will, in the not too distant future, obliterate the need for capitalism. Human nature is the force which will propel us over the roadblocks. Short of a nuclear holocaust fueled by greed, power-hunger, and paranoia, it's too late to stop. It's very much a matter of how peacefully TPTB will 'let go', and if instead of fighting it will lift themselves up and spend their energy trying to make the transition as peaceful as possible instead of as bloody as possible. I'm going to go ahead and get on my high-horse and say it was no accident that this started in America where the Bill of Rights, and the ethos of the revolution, has fought the corrupting influence of essentially, to varying degrees, being given advanced technology, ie power, to pass along. Whatever's going on, it's probably happened before here, elsewhere or both. This is why I want to find all of the hard evidence, before I jump to any other conclusions.

 

[Eventhorizon]

What was necessary for the past is necessary for the future? If we have the ability to engineer other food or now to grow enough plants to eat? Capitalism is a system based on very finite, and it served its purpose to get us to where we are at now. Now, in it its current form it is manifesting pressure against things like cold fusion which will, in the not too distant future, obliterate the need for capitalism. Human nature is the force which will propel us over the roadblocks. Short of a nuclear holocaust fueled by greed, power-hunger, and paranoia, it's too late to stop. It's very much a matter of how peacefully TPTB will 'let go', and if instead of fighting it will lift themselves up and spend their energy trying to make the transition as peaceful as possible instead of as bloody as possible. I'm going to go ahead and get on my high-horse and say it was no accident that this started in America where the Bill of Rights, and the ethos of the revolution, has fought the corrupting influence of essentially, to varying degrees, being given advanced technology, ie power, to pass along. Whatever's going on, it's probably happened before here, elsewhere or both. This is why I want to find all of the hard evidence, before I jump to any other conclusions.

I have hope for unlimited cheap energy as well. However, people will always want what someone else has.

 

[Kanamori]

I have hope for unlimited cheap energy as well. However, people will always want what someone else has.

I'd sell the White House to call the Thomas Jefferson has Tea With Aliens painting Mine Own. Or just go see it in the gallery.

 

[LucyJr]

I kind of read it in an anthropological and psychological sense.

God is not patterned on the human brain today as he could have been considered to have been in, say, the era of the crusades or even earlier, the contemporaneous search for God or philosophical considerations of God are a little different, more intellectual or academic (I dont mean that in any prejorative or minimising sense of either word) than my meaning.

I think this video puts it well:

[video=youtube;l7AWnfFRc7g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g[/video]

Nietzche is probably best remembered for it but there were a lot of thinkers, artists and poets reaching the same conclusions around about that time, and in the first world war and its aftermath too.

There's been some good writing about how "God" in this sense, as a patterning of the brain, could be considered the "superego" and there is a sort of death of the "superego" taking place now too, bringing about greater cultural and ethical confusion and crisis of conscience or declines in conscience per se.

I disagree with what they say in the video.
Firstly, they make the assumptions that life is precious. Well so than death, if evolution is true. So is vanilla, and so is some pies. Evolution doesn't make any sense, only if one would pretend that evolution makes any sense. But if one should be honest, the only hope is a nihilistic hope, the power of the will.

I kind of read it in an anthropological and psychological sense.

God is not patterned on the human brain today as he could have been considered to have been in, say, the era of the crusades or even earlier, the contemporaneous search for God or philosophical considerations of God are a little different, more intellectual or academic (I dont mean that in any prejorative or minimising sense of either word) than my meaning.

Yes, but this is actually happening more in the Western culture. In the Eastern block, religion is still very active and powerful.

Nietzche is probably best remembered for it but there were a lot of thinkers, artists and poets reaching the same conclusions around about that time, and in the first world war and its aftermath too.

There's been some good writing about how "God" in this sense, as a patterning of the brain, could be considered the "superego" and there is a sort of death of the "superego" taking place now too, bringing about greater cultural and ethical confusion and crisis of conscience or declines in conscience per se.

Yes, I agree. But the very death of this "super-ego" brings the superego back, even so with much more power.
And this is happening because the superego is not merely psychological. Thats a very obtuse way to diminish it.

If you see God just as a patterning of the brain, than His 'death' should be very simple and freeing. Yet it isn't. Never in history has been so much confusion on the humans as a race, our existence, our values, our future, our Universe. Why? Because of God and its supposed 'death'. We are at the beginning of a new age, in my opinion. Some important and radical things are about to happen.

 

[Eventhorizon]

In my discussion with my cousin, he asked if he could go over the bible with me. I told him that I already knew enough of the bible to know it wasnt for me. I told him I had spent the better part of 25+ years researching religious information to include the bible. That had I been in college do the same, I would have a doctorate on my knowledge of religion. (no not really because I was not following any set learning plan but its the idea of how much time I spent) He assured me all he had to do was show me the passages and explain what they meant and asked if he could do that. I asked him if I could have him watch a single 10 minute long video of how I saw things to which he responded, "Why would I do that?" I explained, "You are trying to teach me of your belief, I would like for you to understand mine and it will not last nearly as long as yours."

This is the presence of mine I find I run into with most people of faith regardless of the religion they follow. Its like the Mormons when they come to your door and ask if they can give you some reading material. If you say yes but only so long as they take yours, they will not accept it.

This post is here because I was thinking about it at the present moment. I have not heard from my cousin in almost 2 years now.

It was after this I got a page and a half long email from him where he was clearly upset with my attitude. He fully believes I am going to hell. What he doesn't realize though is that for me, even if his God did turn out to be real, living someone else's idea of heaven would be partly hell for me. I mean...what if they have rap music in heaven and you cant ever turn it off or down?

 

[Lark]

You might already know the video then. Its called, "Dear believer why do you believe." From my perspective when I first saw it I thought it was the most amazing attempt I had ever seen to get people who seem inextricably bound to their one religion to understand the perspective of someone who does not share their faith. It was done in a highly respectful way etc.. So if you have not seen it I would ask you to watch it. Not because I am trying to convince you of anything one way or the other, just interested in knowing how a religious person would see it.

I am on the fence about religions. On the one hand I understand why people adopt religion into their lives. I understand what need it fills. On the other hand I chose at some point to live my life attempting to see nothing but the absolute truth in things. It is from this perspective religion greatly worries me, that I question if it s not ultimately a determent to humanity.

I'm with Francis Bacon in believing that a little philosophy inclines people towards athiesm but a depth of understanding in philosophy does not. While not wishing to be disrespectful that final paragraph conveys something which I've encountered a lot among athiests, the sort of "elder statesman" sort of thinking, that religion DOES fufil a need but its something which people concerned with truth should out grow and its really immature and an obsticle to humanity. I'll be honest that I find that personally condescending and respectfully disagree with it.

I've read some of the greatest athiests, such as Erich Fromm, and they havent had this view, while, like I'm sure I've said before, not shrinking from what is their view.

Fromm's suggestions that the taboos within the Jewish community about using the scriptural names of God, or even mentioning God per se, including Maimonides discussion of the non-coporeal nature of God or Isahia's attacks upon idolitry, carved idols or depictions of deities may have been, pratically if not metaphysically moves amounting to agnosticism or atheism are interesting. I do agree with a lot of his analysis which suggests the elevation of ethics and how to live is the point of main importance.

For me personally there's major problems with atheism as I have encountered it in this age, for me it reflects maturational crisis and conceit from the micro to macro levels of sociology, psychology and development but I understand that there are going to be people who believe exactly the converse and arent going to be persuaded by anything I have to say.

Like I've said before bad religion is too often compared with good secularism, its part of what I think has happened in your post, without you even realising it perhaps. For instance why would anyone inextricably bound to their one religion not understand the perspective of someone who does not share their faith to begin with? Why wouldnt they have given any thought to that? I mean its clear that there are people like that out there and its why someone has created this video and why other people such as yourself are impressed by it because you've met them or treat them as standard.

Anyway, thanks for posting.

 

[Lark]

Minds are shaped by environment as well

Motivation can be very fickle. A person like hawkings bound to a wheel chair might have a higher degree of motivation to ponder on these issues than others

Maybe but I'm not sure its necessarily so, its a little like the ideas, still popular, that people who suffer some sort of sensory impairment develop accuteness of other senses when that's not necessarily so at all. The blind dont necessarily possess more developed hearing, smell or other senses for instance. You know?

 

[Eventhorizon]

I'm with Francis Bacon in believing that a little philosophy inclines people towards athiesm but a depth of understanding in philosophy does not. While not wishing to be disrespectful that final paragraph conveys something which I've encountered a lot among athiests, the sort of "elder statesman" sort of thinking, that religion DOES fufil a need but its something which people concerned with truth should out grow and its really immature and an obsticle to humanity. I'll be honest that I find that personally condescending and respectfully disagree with it.

I've read some of the greatest athiests, such as Erich Fromm, and they havent had this view, while, like I'm sure I've said before, not shrinking from what is their view.

Fromm's suggestions that the taboos within the Jewish community about using the scriptural names of God, or even mentioning God per se, including Maimonides discussion of the non-coporeal nature of God or Isahia's attacks upon idolitry, carved idols or depictions of deities may have been, pratically if not metaphysically moves amounting to agnosticism or atheism are interesting. I do agree with a lot of his analysis which suggests the elevation of ethics and how to live is the point of main importance.

For me personally there's major problems with atheism as I have encountered it in this age, for me it reflects maturational crisis and conceit from the micro to macro levels of sociology, psychology and development but I understand that there are going to be people who believe exactly the converse and arent going to be persuaded by anything I have to say.

Like I've said before bad religion is too often compared with good secularism, its part of what I think has happened in your post, without you even realising it perhaps. For instance why would anyone inextricably bound to their one religion not understand the perspective of someone who does not share their faith to begin with? Why wouldnt they have given any thought to that? I mean its clear that there are people like that out there and its why someone has created this video and why other people such as yourself are impressed by it because you've met them or treat them as standard.

Anyway, thanks for posting.

Very cool that you watched the video. I have asked others of faith to do the same in the past, most refuse without a second thought. I am not sure I understand all of what you are saying but I think I have the answer I was looking for. The video did not give you any reason to question how you see your own religion as compared to others.

Anyway, I have a large amount of respect for you now. I know, that you care right? The simple fact you were willing to keep your mind open and consider another view point is immense. It really is.

Thank you for your time and your input.

 

[Lark]

I disagree with what they say in the video.
Firstly, they make the assumptions that life is precious. Well so than death, if evolution is true. So is vanilla, and so is some pies. Evolution doesn't make any sense, only if one would pretend that evolution makes any sense. But if one should be honest, the only hope is a nihilistic hope, the power of the will.

I hear you but I dont that you live that out in person, nihilism seems to be popular in online discussion groups, especially among a particular profile of people with a little learning or who've given over a little time to thinking and reached, what I consider to be, pretty muddled conclusions. Although whatever people state in discussions like this their lives tell a different story, their practical reason tells them otherwise and they are guided by it.

Yes, but this is actually happening more in the Western culture. In the Eastern block, religion is still very active and powerful.

I dont know what you mean, this sounds like your opinion, which is fine but we do live in an increasingly globalised culture, so what happens in the west or has happened will shape other cultures, perhaps there are isolated parts of the world in which the population still has God patterned on their brain, I've read about isolated tribes being discovered firing arrows at overflying planes, as the clip describes but I'd expect it to be less and less the case the more and more interdependence, culture and contact there is among people.

Yes, I agree. But the very death of this "super-ego" brings the superego back, even so with much more power.
And this is happening because the superego is not merely psychological. Thats a very obtuse way to diminish it.

An obtuse way to diminish it? I'm sure you're going to elaborate and make your point a little clearer. Tell me what you mean by its returning with more power because at this point I think you're just trying to channel a little of what you know about Nietzche, possibly his eternal recurrence idea, or a smattering of philosophy you picked up, maybe in a discussion just like this one, and its just a muddle.

If you see God just as a patterning of the brain, than His 'death' should be very simple and freeing. Yet it isn't. Never in history has been so much confusion on the humans as a race, our existence, our values, our future, our Universe. Why? Because of God and its supposed 'death'. We are at the beginning of a new age, in my opinion. Some important and radical things are about to happen.

And I'm sure every single generation has thought they were at the beginning of a new age and that something important or radical was about to happen, the followers of Christ thought he would return to them in their life time and they still wait, Marx thought that capitalism would implode from its own internal contradictions in his life time and his followers have pronounced it doomed and collapsing ever since, the Mayan apocalypse came and went, 2012 came and went, and so it goes.

 

[Lark]

Very cool that you watched the video. I have asked others of faith to do the same in the past, most refuse without a second thought. I am not sure I understand all of what you are saying but I think I have the answer I was looking for. The video did not give you any reason to question how you see your own religion as compared to others.

Anyway, I have a large amount of respect for you now. I know, that you care right? The simple fact you were willing to keep your mind open and consider another view point is immense. It really is.

Thank you for your time and your input.

Hmm, you're still operating with this bad religious type as your standard religious type, which I think is a generalisation and mistaken.

There's nothing about religion which makes someone closed minded, it shouldnt be any surprise that someone who is religious is not, it also is mistaken to assume that someone who is irreligious, atheist or secularist is automatically open minded, they might bluff themselves that they are and a lot of them do and pride themselves upon it while being the most narrow minded, closed minded and ignorant of ignorance there are.

Anyone who's truly religious has to question their faith, beliefs and knowledge, otherwise they've failed to live up to the standards set by everyone who features in their scriptures, that counts for many of the worlds religions and religious traditions up to and including the present. If that causes someones faith to falter, if a youtube causes a change of heart and mind, then their faith lacked any sort of depth to begin with.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Hmm, you're still operating with this bad religious type as your standard religious type, which I think is a generalisation and mistaken.

There's nothing about religion which makes someone closed minded, it shouldnt be any surprise that someone who is religious is not, it also is mistaken to assume that someone who is irreligious, atheist or secularist is automatically open minded, they might bluff themselves that they are and a lot of them do and pride themselves upon it while being the most narrow minded, closed minded and ignorant of ignorance there are.

Anyone who's truly religious has to question their faith, beliefs and knowledge, otherwise they've failed to live up to the standards set by everyone who features in their scriptures, that counts for many of the worlds religions and religious traditions up to and including the present. If that causes someones faith to falter, if a youtube causes a change of heart and mind, then their faith lacked any sort of depth to begin with.

I have formed an opinion of religious people yes.

 

[LucyJr]

I hear you but I dont that you live that out in person, nihilism seems to be popular in online discussion groups, especially among a particular profile of people with a little learning or who've given over a little time to thinking and reached, what I consider to be, pretty muddled conclusions. Although whatever people state in discussions like this their lives tell a different story, their practical reason tells them otherwise and they are guided by it.

Yes, exactly my point. The idea was that atheists never live their philosophies outside their classrooms. How could they? They live by the practical reason, which completely contradicts their philosophy.

I dont know what you mean, this sounds like your opinion, which is fine but we do live in an increasingly globalised culture, so what happens in the west or has happened will shape other cultures, perhaps there are isolated parts of the world in which the population still has God patterned on their brain, I've read about isolated tribes being discovered firing arrows at overflying planes, as the clip describes but I'd expect it to be less and less the case the more and more interdependence, culture and contact there is among people.

There are still many parts of Asia, Muslim countries, Russia, Israel, India where religion is very powerful. Its not only powerful for the usual or lay man, but in academic circles too. In most of the muslim countries and Israel there is theocracy. Its not my opinion, its facts.

An obtuse way to diminish it? I'm sure you're going to elaborate and make your point a little clearer.

The death of God is not a brain patterning, or something merely psychological. It has much more profound implications. You see it just in a humanistic perspective, but I think pretty much everything will be affected if the process of 'death of God' would be finish.
Just think about the concept of law, the theory of law, the ethics or morals, the preservation of society, ideals, meaning and so on.

Tell me what you mean by its returning with more power because at this point I think you're just trying to channel a little of what you know about Nietzche, possibly his eternal recurrence idea, or a smattering of philosophy you picked up, maybe in a discussion just like this one, and its just a muddle.

Because if the death of God it would become a absolute reality, than the very lack of this "God thinking" would lead to a massive revision of anything what was in link with the idea of God. And pretty much everythink is linked to God.

And I'm sure every single generation has thought they were at the beginning of a new age and that something important or radical was about to happen, the followers of Christ thought he would return to them in their life time and they still wait, Marx thought that capitalism would implode from its own internal contradictions in his life time and his followers have pronounced it doomed and collapsing ever since, the Mayan apocalypse came and went, 2012 came and went, and so it goes.

So did Nietzche believed, and many other philosophers that had prophecied in some ways or anothers the profound implications for a devaluation of God as the basis of our society. So in my opinion, yes, I think some important things are about to happen.
And I also believe this based on Bible. Bible predicts the comming of a godless culture.

 

[Lark]

Yes, exactly my point. The idea was that atheists never live their philosophies outside their classrooms. How could they? They live by the practical reason, which completely contradicts their philosophy.

Well, I think its more nihilism which isnt practical than atheism, most atheism in practice looks like people not caring to think too deeply about things, being annoyed by those that do and challenging ethics or norms in so far as they may interfer with their personal goals in a pretty selfish fashion. I think there's a reason that most people dont trust atheists, including other atheists. Its also, in and of itself, not a coda of any sort, not believing in God or religion of any description doesnt mean or obligate anything at all, no matter how many people I've met who subscribe to that label think it means they simply must let you know about their private opinions and possible objections to yours. There also isnt any community, institutions or shared practices for atheism, its easy and its whatever you care do decide it is, heard the one about the athiests who want to tax churches? Yeah, well how do you tax atheism? You cant.

There are still many parts of Asia, Muslim countries, Russia, Israel, India where religion is very powerful. Its not only powerful for the usual or lay man, but in academic circles too. In most of the muslim countries and Israel there is theocracy. Its not my opinion, its facts.

That's not what I'm getting at, hmm, if you consider medieval christendom in contrast to the present day there was no police force, there was no recourse to law, there was some but limited recourse to revenge perhaps but most of the time if your conscience did not prevent you committing crime then nothing else was going to prevent you, for a time at least, given that society lasted as long as it did without the sorts of institutional response which is commonplace today I'd imagine that the super ego, "God", was a massive determining factor in peoples psychology.

The death of God is not a brain patterning, or something merely psychological. It has much more profound implications. You see it just in a humanistic perspective, but I think pretty much everything will be affected if the process of 'death of God' would be finish.
Just think about the concept of law, the theory of law, the ethics or morals, the preservation of society, ideals, meaning and so on.

Of course I see it in a humanistic sense, you cant help but do that if you're a human, its not a matter of individual psychology either, that is why I posted about it being a sociological or anthoprological fact when it was pronounced, I was thinking precisely of the law, ethics, morals etc.

Because if the death of God it would become a absolute reality, than the very lack of this "God thinking" would lead to a massive revision of anything what was in link with the idea of God. And pretty much everythink is linked to God.

I dont really think so, not unless you are talking as a stage in thinking and consequently everything else which has passed and has left legacies. Unfortunately for most people, particularly the powerful, God doesnt enter into things, how could God enter into their thinking and actions and those same thinking and actions be what they are.

So did Nietzche believed, and many other philosophers that had prophecied in some ways or anothers the profound implications for a devaluation of God as the basis of our society. So in my opinion, yes, I think some important things are about to happen.
And I also believe this based on Bible. Bible predicts the comming of a godless culture.

Yeah but the prophets of the bible attacked the periods they were living in as godless and that was long ago, I think every age has been more or less godless by the marker of those who are godly instead, I'm neither hopeful not pessismistic about anything emerging or arising in world events and I pretty much carry on believing, barring the Russians starting world war three, that there's going to be no cataclysm, just another day.