Society/Culture Nobody has anything new to say about God.

[ferball]

Gas and rock eventually turn into beings conscious of themselves. We’ve come a long way, with probably a long way to go.

Why would you assume they aren't already?

 

[ferball]

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it think.

Ftfy

 

[ferball]

This whole story is likely one big psychedelic trip.

https://www.livescience.com/42077-8-ways-mushrooms-explain-santa.html

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...oAhUHOSsKHdaNBSgQ7Al6BAgKEDg&biw=1280&bih=610

According to the theory, the legend of Santa derives from shamans in the Siberian and Arctic regions who dropped into locals' teepeelike homes with a bag full of hallucinogenic mushrooms as presents in late December, Rush said.

"As the story goes, up until a few hundred years ago, these practicing shamans or priests connected to the older traditions would collect Amanita muscaria (the Holy Mushroom), dry them and then give them as gifts on the winter solstice," Rush told LiveScience in an email. "Because snow is usually blocking doors, there was an opening in the roof through which people entered and exited, thus the chimney story."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/04/the-sacred-mushroom-and-cross-by-john.html


The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970) is a book by the British archaeologist John Marco Allegro. His early career focused on studying the earliest manuscripts of the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls. With this book, however, many say that it ruined his career, although others say it gave him the fame that he deserved.

The basic idea behind the book is that primitive religions were based on fertility rites (rituals that recreate the reproductive processes of nature either symbolically or through sex). Allegro believed that fertility cults like this used the hallucinogenic mushroom, Amanita muscaria (or fly agaric – the red mushroom with white spots). He also said that these mushrooms are at the root of many religions, including early Christianity. Christianity was essentially the product of a sex-and-mushroom cult, and the mushroom was seen as the gateway to understanding God. Through this understanding, it was believed that fertility would also be promoted.

Allegro draws on some interesting evidence to support his hypothesis. He argues that the fresco in the 13th century chapel of Plaincourault in France clearly shows Adam and Eve next to a tree made of large Amanita muscaria mushrooms. The serpent can be seen coiling around the tree. It seems strange that this mushroom would be depicted in arguably the most famous story in the Bible.

View attachment 834423

I thought Santa was a deliberate anagram of Satan.

All the evidence is there.

He was invented by Coca-Cola.

He stole Jesus birthday and turned it into a consumerist festival. (You can worship God or money but not both.)

He didn't bring me a bike. (The campaigner).

He's the devil.






Interestingly enough the Pre Colombian Mexicans called psilocibin mushrooms the Flesh of God, or something similar.

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Lsta062]

The SRP board these days is just one big anti-theist circlejerk. I remember back in the day we had more religious people posting their thoughts and opinions. A succession of atheist mods from 2009 or so onwards who were quick to hand out cards to those who went against the grain likely scared them off, or they too became atheist. Now this board is just a group of neck beards giving each other gobbies.

I believe in a Creator of this Universe but the SRP board is just full of atheists that like to mock and insult people. You cannot have a discussion here if you believe in God without someone mocking you.

Hence, it does not look like the atheists here are sincere in actually wanting to understand and discuss the perspective of someone who believes in God. They bring the topic up so they can mock them, so actual discussion around this has disappeared a while ago.

 

[Total Power]

Did anyone say 'scientific consensus' here?

 

[skilts]

I have always found there are seems to be only two sides of this argument but I am the grey area in between. Now I know atheists may claim you can only be one or the other, they will say an atheist doesn't necessarily disbelieve in an afterlife they just don't believe in an all creating god....I though have never met an atheist that believes in an afterlife....so this is how I define atheism.

I am someone that claims that I have travelled into the afterlife I think getting close to 200 out of body experiences, so I feel that I sit in this grey area between both sides of the argument. I did though spend most my life as an atheist believing 'religiously' in science, lol at religiously, but I always included something that most atheists don't and that is personal experience. So if someone argues something, it would be where is the proof to the claim or having my own personal experience to this claim. What are atheists so scared of by not including own personal experience to proof!!

Everything in this physical existence has come from spirit, including inventions, knowledge and yes human form. When you die you will go back to spirit body, your spirit body exists in human form. Think of when you dream, when you wake you snap back into this reality back into your body. When you die from this reality it will be like a dream and you will snap back to the spirit body back to who you were before you entered this existence. You physical brain blocks all this memory and it isn't until your physical brain dissolves away that you regain your real memory

Most biblical religious folk have been fooled by the bible and don't know the true definition of God. There is one quote that clearly highlights this, that Jesus will return and rapture is coming. This 'return' and 'coming' is not definitive and is a hypothetical belief of something that will never arrive. Their ideological belief of their definition of God is not definitive and is a hypothetical belief of something that does not exist. They will forever be searching for something that doesn't exist.......God is the King of the Kingdom of Heaven, Kingdom is domain of a King, we've had Kings throughout Earth's history do they resemble the biblical definition of God...no....God is human just not in physical form.

What is 'spirit'?

 

[Seeds]

What alternative explanation do you have to an all mighty Creator other than a un all mighty Creator?

who knows what Skilts thinks. but the answer science gives is:

gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces

 

[Boston tiger]

who knows what Skilts thinks. but the answer science gives is:

gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces

No it doesn’t

 

[Seeds]

No it doesn’t

Yep thats exactly how the earth and all the people on it were created.

 

[Boston tiger]

Yep thats exactly how the earth and all the people on it were created.

Talking creation .. not change. You need to go a bit deeper.
How about the origin of the weak nuclear force ?

 

[Seeds]

Talking creation .. not change. You need to go a bit deeper.
How about the origin of the weak nuclear force ?

How about the origin of an all mighty creator? Dont see why we have to explain the origin of forces but religious people dont need to explain the origins of their gods.

 

[chelseacarlton]

I believe in a Creator of this Universe but the SRP board is just full of atheists that like to mock and insult people. You cannot have a discussion here if you believe in God without someone mocking you.

Hence, it does not look like the atheists here are sincere in actually wanting to understand and discuss the perspective of someone who believes in God. They bring the topic up so they can mock them, so actual discussion around this has disappeared a while ago.

Dragon in the garage, you’re dismissed.

 

[Boston tiger]

How about the origin of an all mighty creator? Dont see why we have to explain the origin of forces but religious people dont need to explain the origins of their gods.

Call it a draw

 

[FredLeDeux]

Call it a draw

It's a draw up until the start of the game.
But when the siren sounds, only one team appears.

 

[Seeds]

It's a draw up until the start of the game.
But when the siren sounds, only one team appears.

Thats an awesome analogy. Im going to have to steal that.

 

[Boston tiger]

It's a draw up until the start of the game.
But when the siren sounds, only one team appears.

That's an awesome anology . I'm going to have to steal that.

 

[JayJ20]

How about the origin of an all mighty creator? Dont see why we have to explain the origin of forces but religious people dont need to explain the origins of their gods.

That's because it's impossible for the Creator of everything to have a creator.

If you say that the Creator has a creator, then it leads to a series of events called infinite regress. I'll use this term in the following context:

If I tell you that I'll give you a million dollars, but I make giving you 1 dollar a condition before I give you that million, and I make giving you another dollar a condition before giving you that dollar, and I make giving you another dollar a condition before giving you that dollar and so on. Will you actually ever receive even a cent from me? No, because there is no original dollar to start the series of events that leads to the million dollar promise.

Likewise, saying "what's the origin of the Creator?" leads to the same invalid outcome. If you'd keep going with that question, that means there'd be no stopping to that chain infinitely. This means that according to this logic, the creations wouldn't have come into existence to begin with. Remember, you didn't get that million dollars.

Since the creations exist, it is therefore impossible for there to be an infinite chain of creators. There has to be a Creator that isn't created. And since the Creator isn't created, it means that the Creator's existence doesn't have a beginning by necessity. Islamically, we view this as an intellectual necessity for this very reason.

 

[Seeds]

That's because it's impossible for the Creator of everything to have a creator.

If you say that the Creator has a creator, then it leads to a series of events called infinite regress. I'll use this term in the following context:

If I tell you that I'll give you a million dollars, but I make giving you 1 dollar a condition before I give you that million, and I make giving you another dollar a condition before giving you that dollar, and I make giving you another dollar a condition before giving you that dollar and so on. Will you actually ever receive even a cent from me? No, because there is no original dollar to start the series of events that leads to the million dollar promise.

Likewise, saying "what's the origin of the Creator?" leads to the same invalid outcome. If you'd keep going with that question, that means there'd be no stopping to that chain infinitely. This means that according to this logic, the creations wouldn't have come into existence to begin with. Remember, you didn't get that million dollars.

Since the creations exist, it is therefore impossible for there to be an infinite chain of creators. There has to be a Creator that isn't created. And since the Creator isn't created, it means that the Creator's existence doesn't have a beginning by necessity. Islamically, we view this as an intellectual necessity for this very reason.

Thats not an argument for a universal creator. Its just an argument about the origin of everything. a creator is not needed to explain the beginning.

 

[Seeds]

That's an awesome anology . I'm going to have to steal that.

If you knew what was said why did you add in extra bits? That would make them redundant. The whole point of effective communication is to pass on information with as little as effort as possible.

you must really suck at text messaging.

 

[Boston tiger]

If you knew what was said why did you add in extra bits? That would make them redundant. The whole point of effective communication is to pass on information with as little as effort as possible.

you must really suck at text messaging.

It's the futility of arguing science v God. It's all apples and pears . If you have any genetic predisposition to the God concept you would see the uselessness in bringing science anywhere near the same conversation.
Have a look at the Christian thread at the moment . The atheists on there see God as some sort of government official that needs to be impeached.

What ever science comes up with .. will always end with .. and God saw that it was good.

 

[Lsta062]

Thats not an argument for a universal creator. Its just an argument about the origin of everything. a creator is not needed to explain the beginning.

That poster is actually directly discussing your viewpoint. They are saying that God does not have an origin and does not need to be created to exist. They did not bring up the origins of the universe and what is in it.

 

[JayJ20]

Thats not an argument for a universal creator. Its just an argument about the origin of everything. a creator is not needed to explain the beginning.

I was addressing your statement. You spoke about the "origin" of the Creator and I explained why it isn't possible for the Creator of everything to have a creator. We're not talking about the origin of the universe.

 

[Seeds]

I was addressing your statement. You spoke about the "origin" of the Creator and I explained why it isn't possible for the Creator of everything to have a creator. We're not talking about the origin of the universe.

No i was talking about why creators and forces are no different in terms of their origins. They suffer the same problem.