Thread: Let's Pretend (an inspirational hymn)

Let's Pretend

Jesus doesn't love us
But let's pretend he does.
He wasn't resurrected
But let's pretend he was.


There is no hell below us
Nor above eternal bliss.
No life for us after our death
But let's pretend there is.


Oh let's pretend, yes let's pretend!
Don't sit upon the fence!
Come join us in our fantasy
Of glorious pretence.


Our sun is not the biggest
Nor brightest of all stars.
We're not the centre of the cosmos
But let's pretend we are.


Our faith's not based on reason
Nor founded upon rock.
It's just the fruit of self-deceit,
But let's pretend it's not.


Oh let's pretend, yes let's pretend!
Don't trust intelligence,
That's just a way they'll try to sway
You from your sweet pretence.


The Bible's not the word of God
Its authors had no clue,
About the world they lived in,
But let's pretend it's true.


Oh let's pretend, pretend, pretend!
Pretend once more for luck.
For on pretending we depend
- It sure beats growing up.

Now that's funny ! When I first read about the creation ( ha! ) of this forum I figured I'd
probably never set foot for fear of zealot stampede. Happily mistaken ! I've been
smirking at organized religion all by my lonesome for years , now I have a true
bretheren.
Curious,though,InTheMoment,what do you believe? I posed this ? to another member
and am now reading the links he responded with. Maybe I'll post it as a topic.
Thanks for the chuckle.RC.

Thanks big R, you do indeed have many bretheren on this forum.

I believe that no one knows where we come from and why we exists. Science has made the greatest leaps toward acquiring this knowledge, but until a solid theory can be proven unfalsifiable, I will remain content in just existing.

Great poem/song, ITM!

I believe that no one knows where we come from and why we exists. Science has made the greatest leaps toward acquiring this knowledge, but until a solid theory can be proven unfalsifiable, I will remain content in just existing.[/b]

You are unbelieving in general. Which does not help you.

You should consider that there have been many intelligent individuals that understand more that the average mainstream. And if you were to read their writings understand and learn from them the best way you can, if you were seriously trying to work out these questions for yourself. You would indeed begin to make alot of progress. But instead you are lazy and sit back and say that you will follow whatever mainstream science has to say. But collective progress is slow. You can progress of yourself much faster if you applied some effort. Once again if you are lazy and unbelieving about finding answers, and do not apply yourself. You will reap the rewards of that.

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
You are unbelieving in general. Which does not help you.

You should consider that there have been many intelligent individuals that understand more that the average mainstream. And if you were to read their writings understand and learn from them the best way you can, if you were seriously trying to work out these questions for yourself. You would indeed begin to make alot of progress. But instead you are lazy and sit back and say that you will follow whatever mainstream science has to say. But collective progress is slow. You can progress of yourself much faster if you applied some effort. Once again if you are lazy and unbelieving about finding answers, and do not apply yourself. You will reap the rewards of that.

Many other intelligent people realized that true wisdom is in knowing that nothing can be known.

true wisdom is in knowing that nothing can be known.[/b]

Not everything, but many things can be known. This statement is purely incorrect. And serves to suggest one need not bother to think about anything because 'nothing can be known'. If I was to listen to this statement I would truly become braindead. Because it is disabling the mind, and that is the first step in controlling it. No wise person has ever said this.

No, we do a lot of work in proving theorems. But science has limits. For one, you normally can't prove a negative. Because of this, we cannot prove that God DOESN'T exist. BUT that doesn't stop us from assuming he doesn't exist. Since we don't have any evidence supporting his existence, we don't bother going to worship said God. Occam's Razor and all that. Since God doesn't affect reality in any way that we know of at this point in time, there's no point adding a God into our current laws of nature. IF God all of a sudden burst out of the clouds, spewing lightning bolts and screaming in fury, we'd obviously have to alter our current views on the laws of nature to compensate for this new variable. We'd have to do the same if he manifested himself in some less dramatic fashion. But the likelyhood of a new variable all of a sudden appearing decreases as time proceeds. It will never be truly impossible for a God to appear, but it's more likely that if he was going to have an effect on our world, he'd have done so by now.

Basically, we'll work towards progress, but for the moment, God isn't affecting this world actively, so there's no point in seeking him out. Meanwhile, we cannot prove God doesn't exist, so burden of proof is on the accuser. You say there is a God, go proove it. We've been waiting for you to do so for quite a while now.

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>

we cannot prove that God DOESN'T exist. BUT that doesn't stop us from assuming he doesn't exist.[/b]

Really.....well that's very scientific of you...

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>

Since we don't have any evidence supporting his existence, we don't bother going to worship said God.[/b]

Depends what said god you are looking for exackly. If you are looking for a male with a beard up in the sky. And that is your only idea of god, it is no wonder you don't find evidence of him sitting on a cloud. If you are looking for life in the universe in general. You will find alot of that, and you could call everything that exists god. Since it is the universe and all that exists after all.

Originally posted by Tsen
God doesn't affect reality in any way that we know of at this point in time

1) Again depends on your idea of god doesn't it.

Originally posted by Tsen
It will never be truly impossible for a God to appear

See above statement 1

<!--QuoteBegin-Tsen@
Basically, we'll work towards progress, but for the moment, God isn't affecting this world actively, so there's no point in seeking him out.

Seeking who out? See above statement 1

<!--QuoteBegin-Tsen
we cannot prove God doesn't exist, so burden of proof is on the accuser. You say there is a God, go proove it. We've been waiting for you to do so for quite a while now.

Depends what your idea of god is. If it is something that does not exist. While another person believes in the universe as god. Than one person has proof of their idea of god, while another does not have proof of a totally different idea of god.

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>

God isn't affecting this world actively, so there's no point in seeking him out.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Tsen
we cannot prove God doesn't exist, so burden of proof is on the accuser. You say there is a God, go proove it. We've been waiting for you to do so for quite a while now.

Say you take the stance of not believing anything until it is proven to you. (Sometimes its better to believe something until it is proven not to work. Or proven false. Sometimes it can be a great loss not to believe something that is possibly true.) Well Here is an example of your logic here In practice. In very basic terms.

A person is about to drown because his boat is sinking and he can't swim.
Someone says to him that he should hold on to this plastic object he is going to throw over to him.

he yells back that he doesn't believe if he holds onto this plastic object it will save him, he's believes it could possibly not hold his weight and he will sink anyway. So he assumes he will sink because there is no evidence otherwise.

The person trying to save him yells back, you may as well try and grab on to it and see.

But he yells back the burden of proof is on him, and what is the point when there is no evidence. He doesn't grab onto the object and waits for the person to prove that it can hold his weight.

The guy yells back that he's an idiot for not trying, and that he cannot jump in and show him, and once more screams to grab on to the plastic object and save himself.

again he yells back that there is no point because he believes it does not hold his weight and so cannot save him, and there is not proof at this moment to suggest otherwise.

He drowns......It turns out the plastic object floating in the water would have saved him easily

In the same way, one with this attitude, will never discover god.

Originally posted by Nirvana+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nirvana)</div>

Not everything, but many things can be known. This statement is purely incorrect. And serves to suggest one need not bother to think about anything because 'nothing can be known'. If I was to listen to this statement I would truly become braindead. Because it is disabling the mind, and that is the first step in controlling it. No wise person has ever said this.[/b]

The truth is that you can't be 100% sure of anything except the fact that you exist. You can't be sure if you're awake or asleep, you can't be sure if you're dead or alive, you can't be sure if the wall behind you exists, or even the wall in front of you. Everything you've ever known could be a complex deception. Unlikely but not impossible. Once you accept this basic fact, you'll see much more clearly.

Originally posted by Nirvana@
you could call everything that exists god.

I could also call a jar of peanut butter God, doesn't make it so.

<!--QuoteBegin-Nirvana
A person is about to drown because his boat is sinking and he can't swim.
Someone says to him that he should hold on to this plastic boat he is going to throw over to him.

he yells back that he doesn't believe if he holds onto this plastic boat it will save him, he's not sure if it holds his weight or if it will sink.

The person trying to save him yells back, you may as well try and grab on to it and see.

But he yells back what is the point when there is no evidence.

The guy yells back that he's an idiot for not trying, and to grab on to the plastic boat and see if it will work.

again he yells back that there is no point because he believes it does not hold his weight and so cannot save him, and there is not proof at this moment to suggest otherwise.

He drowns......

There's one key flaw in this analogy. The floatation device theory is testable and falsifiable, God is not.

Originally posted by brady+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(brady)</div>

The truth is that you can't be 100% sure of anything except the fact that you exist [so there is an exception]. Once you accept this basic fact, you'll see much more clearly.[/b]

Your saying that once you accept this truth, you will understand that nothing can be known.
But how do I know what your saying can be known then? According to this logic, since nothing can be known, what you say, can also never be known to be true.....So you see you are directly contradicting yourself here. You have to in order to make what doesn't make sense logical. My above statement about this still stands true.


<!--QuoteBegin-brady
There's one key flaw in this analogy. The floatation device theory is testable and falsifiable, God is not.

Understand the example. It was testable yes, in the same way knowing god is also testable. Which you will not admit. Just like the guy in the example will not admit the object floats. He believes it is not testable, thats why he doesn't try it and waits for someone to prove it. You understand it is testable because it is a very basic example. It's meant to be, to show you how you are doing the same thing with your beliefs.

The point is you refuse to search for what is testable because you think it isn't.(or do not know how) I say this in response to Tsen because he mentions he does not look for god because he believes "god" is nonexistent. Atleast his concept of what he imagines god to be. In the same way the guy imagined his concept of the plastic object, and how it would most likely sink if he held onto it. If he had a bit of faith and just held on to the object, he may have found out that it actually floats! In the same way you can have a little bit of faith in the real concept of god, instead of your concept of it, and realize who and what god really is.

try and concerntrate and understand what I am saying lol.

Originally posted by Nirvana+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nirvana)</div>

But how do I know what your saying can be known then? According to this logic, since nothing can be known, what you say, can also never be known to be true.....[/b]

You're finally starting to get it.

Originally posted by Nirvana@
So you see you are directly contradicting yourself here. You have to in order to make what doesn't make sense logical.

Please explain to me how anything (other than the fact that you exist) can be known. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

<!--QuoteBegin-Nirvana
god is also testable.

Um...what? You're going to have to explain that one too. While you're at it, please demonstrate how any theory of God is falsifiable. If you don't know what that word means, look it up.

You asking for my explaination or you just saying it in defense?

I will reply later, out of time.

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
You asking for my explaination or you just saying it in defense?

I will reply later, out of time.

Asking.

Nirvana, thank you for completely RAPING my original post.

I think you've missed the point entirely.

It is more or less impossible to prove a negative. No matter how hard people try, they cannot prove something DOESN'T exist without extra conditions being added. Now, if you asked somebody to prove that there wasn't a fairy in your left hand, that COULD be proved, but only because of the condition defining your left hand as the location. With no limits on timeframe or location, you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Therefore, you must prove that God DOES exist rather than the other way around. But since God (in any damn form you could think of) hasn't manifested himself in anyway that would even SLIGHTLY affect us, we have no reason to go creating an extra five million laws of nature (not to mention destroying all the old ones we used that wouldn't work any longer with a God thrown into the system) just to make room for a diety that has no reason to exist (since he/she/it isn't DOING anything for the moment.) Now, WHEN said diety DOES something, we'll have our reason, and science will move to compensate.

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>

just to make room for a diety that has no reason to exist (since he/she/it isn't DOING anything for the moment.) Now, WHEN said diety DOES something, we'll have our reason, and science will move to compensate.[/b]

Your idea of a sole diety as god only, is inaccurate. Proving it is therefore irrevelant. That's the main point of what I was saying.

Originally posted by brady+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(brady)</div>

Please explain to me how anything (other than the fact that you exist) can be known. I'd love to hear your thoughts.[/b]

I have a television. That is something that is known to me. I am sitting in front of a computer. Many other things are known to me. Those are a few very basic physical examples. If you say it could all be an illusion of perception. Well you can say life is an illusion, but you know we are living it now. Experiencing it. It is not really enlightening or useful to suggest everything is an illusion. When we experience things. Experience is real. Regardless if its a illusion

Why can only 1 thing be known. That I exist. This is the hole in your logic. You say nothing can be known. Yet I know this. If I know this. Why can I not know other things aswell. The main point here is I know this and things not simply by the mechanics of science. But through ones own mind and soul does one realize things. Such as I exist. I have experienced things, demonstrating truth. Saying nothing can be known and it is all an illusion. Doesn't mean anything useful, when the experience is lived.

<!--QuoteBegin-brady@
You're going to have to explain that one too. While you're at it, please demonstrate how any theory of God is falsifiable. If you don't know what that word means, look it up. Brady, asking how god is testably provable

Going with something that you understand, You exist. Now at the least. Since you know this much, you should be able to realize yourself as part of god. Since everything that exists is a part of it's consiousness and existence. Since you can do this from realizing yourself. God is falsifiable from what you cannot deny. [yourself, reality] You may not have obtained the degree of consiousness which another more evolved entity has obtained.
This does not mean that both entitys are not part of the same thing.
Nor does it mean you understand what the concept god implies. You think god is a seperate thing from yourself? It is simply stating that you cannot deny yourself and reality, and all that exists being god. It is obvious when you ask how god is falsifiable or to prove gods existence to you. That it is everything and everywhere. You being a part of it, within it, and connected to it. You need to understand the oneness princible.

<!--QuoteBegin-god
I am who I am

When people talk about "god" and worshipping god. What is mainly suppose to be involved is "the light and power of the soul" which is the wisdom and truth,that is god-consiousness perception. That is the life, way, truth, and eternal glory of god.

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
Your idea of a sole diety as god only, is inaccurate. Proving it is therefore irrevelant. That's the main point of what I was saying.

No, it's irrelevant whether there's one God, two Gods, fifteen million Gods, or one omnipresent God that makes up everything we see/are/whatever.

ANY WAY YOU FREAKIN' PUT IT, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT SAID DIETY DOESN'T PRESENT ITSELF IN A WAY THAT WOULD VOID OUR PRESENT LAWS OF NATURE.

You can dodge the point all you want, but it doesn't change anything. No matter HOW God exists, or even IF he exists, God isn't DOING anything that isn't explained by our current laws of nature. Therefore we don't need to go out of our way to find and define said God, because it's irrelevant to our current situation. If you feel so inclined, feel free to seek out God and talk to him all you want. When you've got conclusive proof, come along and tell us and we'll start caring about it.

What you're doing is comparable to hampering a mechanic fixing a car. The mechanic is busy looking for any problems by investigating the car as it runs, observing any errors or flaws, then seeking the causes and fixing them. Meanwhile, you run into the room, yelling that the car is yellow, but you want it to be green. Now, the mechanic's been at work for years, and he knows quite a bit about how cars work, but he also knows that he isn't perfect and there's still more to learn. He asks you why the color matters, since as far as the mechanic knows, a green car won't run any better than a yellow car. Rather than respond to the question, you go off spouting about how the grass and the trees and your t-shirt are all green, and how stupid the mechanic is because he doesn't acknowledge the universal importance of the color green.

Now answer the damn question or get out of the garage.

Originally posted by Nirvana
I have a television. That is something that is known to me. I am sitting in front of a computer. Many other things are known to me.

Those are things you can be pretty sure of. But they can't be \"known\". Knowing something and being reasonably sure are two very different things. Your senses cannot be trusted as a reliable source of information.

Well you can say life is an illusion, but you know we are living it now.[/b]

Exactly, you know that you exist. Nothing more. Existence and experience is one in the same, to exist is to experience...what and when you experience is another can or worms. Just because you are experiencing something does not mean you can \"know\" what that is with any degree of certainty.

It is not really enlightening or useful to suggest everything is an illusion.[/b]

Agreed, but tht doesn't mean that that's not the way it is.

You say nothing can be known. Yet I know this. If I know this. Why can I not know other things aswell. The main point here is I know this and things not simply by the mechanics of science. But through ones own mind and soul does one realize things. Such as I exist. I have experienced things, demonstrating truth.[/b]

Everything you think you know is nothing more than a pattern of neurons firing in your brain. At least that's what experience tells us. It's equally possible that there's a pink elephant floating inside our head, but to our eyes, it just looks like slimy mush that we call a \"brain\".

Since everything that exists is a part of it's consiousness and existence.[/b]

That's an assumption (and a fairly poor one at that), not a fact.

God is falsifiable from what you cannot deny. [yourself, reality] You may not have obtained the degree of consiousness which another more evolved entity has obtained.[/b]

You clearly have no idea what falsifiable means. Don't respond until you can demonstrate that you do.

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>

ANY WAY YOU FREAKIN' PUT IT, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT SAID DIETY DOESN'T PRESENT ITSELF IN A WAY THAT WOULD VOID OUR PRESENT LAWS OF NATURE.[/b]

Whoa! Déjà vu! Bears a striking resemblance to a post of my own to Nitpick Starburst regarding a suspiciously similar issue...

<!--QuoteBegin-Mark75


REALLY?! HOLY CRAP, STOP THE PRESSES!

Again, you demonstrate your lack of basic reading comprehension skills. I was answering the question by speaking hypothetically that if god did indeed exist, and that it was indeed all-powerful, that yes, of course he could create such a universe. It was the only answer that made sense under THAT DEFINITION OF GOD. I will write it very clearly for you: I DID NOT COME UP WITH THIS DEFINITION OF GOD. IT IS NOT MY PERSONAL DEFINITION. THIS IS A DEFINITION THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO HIM BY OTHERS. NOT ME.

You follow?

It seems our good friend Mr.Starface has a tendency to inspire such responses, what with the yelling in caps and all.

EDIT

I see Starman had the good taste to remove the words "King Logic" from below his name.

Originally posted by Mark
I see Starman had the good taste to remove the words \"King Logic\" from below his name.

I think it was originally supposed to be LacKing Logic.

Nice lyrics.

Christianity is basically the escapists dream. One can avoid reality and act as if one were all-knowing. One can live to die instead of living to live, and this makes the world a lot more acceptable.

Saying that humanity was born sinful is a lot easier than trying to perfect oneself.

In the moment where am I lacking logic, and why havn't you mentioned the reason.

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>

ANY WAY YOU FREAKIN' PUT IT, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT SAID DIETY DOESN'T PRESENT ITSELF IN A WAY THAT WOULD VOID OUR PRESENT LAWS OF NATURE.[/b]

What exackly are you trying to say here, that god does not present itself? God is obviously present considering the existence of everything as a whole being god.

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>

You can dodge the point all you want, but it doesn't change anything.[/b]

First do you understand what I am saying, if so, what is your point?

Originally posted by Tsen
No matter HOW God exists, or even IF he exists, God isn't DOING anything that isn't explained by our current laws of nature

why is does this god not doing anything against the laws of nature statement, have anything to do with gods existence?

Originally posted by Tsen
anything that isn't explained by our current laws of nature.

laws of nature are part of truth. What is your point here?

Originally posted by Tsen
Therefore we don't need to go out of our way to find and define said God

If you don't define what you mean when you say 'god' to me, how can you even know what your talking about, or what I am talking about? We must define what we mean when we say god, or the conversation is pointless.

<!--QuoteBegin-Tsen@
If you feel so inclined, feel free to seek out God and talk to him all you want. When you've got conclusive proof, come along and tell us and we'll start caring about it.

conclusive proof to you would be what?

<!--QuoteBegin-tsen
What you're doing is comparable to hampering a mechanic fixing a car. The mechanic is busy looking for any problems by investigating the car as it runs, observing any errors or flaws, then seeking the causes and fixing them. Meanwhile, you run into the room, yelling that the car is yellow, but you want it to be green. Now, the mechanic's been at work for years, and he knows quite a bit about how cars work, but he also knows that he isn't perfect and there's still more to learn. He asks you why the color matters, since as far as the mechanic knows, a green car won't run any better than a yellow car. Rather than respond to the question, you go off spouting about how the grass and the trees and your t-shirt are all green, and how stupid the mechanic is because he doesn't acknowledge the universal importance of the color green.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you explain this analogy? Why do I want the mechanic to have a green car and what does this have to do with anything?

What you're doing is comparable to hampering a mechanic fixing a car. The mechanic is busy looking for any problems by investigating the car as it runs, observing any errors or flaws, then seeking the causes and fixing them. Meanwhile, you run into the room, yelling that the car is yellow, but you want it to be green. Now, the mechanic's been at work for years, and he knows quite a bit about how cars work, but he also knows that he isn't perfect and there's still more to learn. He asks you why the color matters, since as far as the mechanic knows, a green car won't run any better than a yellow car. Rather than respond to the question, you go off spouting about how the grass and the trees and your t-shirt are all green, and how stupid the mechanic is because he doesn't acknowledge the universal importance of the color green.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you explain this analogy? Why do I want the mechanic to have a green car and what does this have to do with anything?

[/quote]
I thought the analogy was quite fitting. If you didn't understand it, then perhaps you should reevaluate every post in this thread and try to determine whether or not you grasp what others have been, blatantly, pointing out.

God is obviously present considering the existence of everything as a whole being god.

From what source are you gathering evidence from, to make such a bold assertion?

InTheMoment if you understand the analogy feel free to explain it to me.

First so we do not watse any time. What is your idea of god? Then I will tell you if it exists.

God is obviously present considering the existence of everything as a whole being god.

]From what source are you gathering evidence from, to make such a bold assertion?

[/quote]

This statement involves an entire princible, How is it a bold assertion to aknowledge this princible, Are you asking for evidence of it? What is evidence to you and what kind of evidence are you looking for in regards to this statement? I need you to be more precise if you have a problem with anything I am saying.