romansh

Then in that case Dawkins does not know there is not a god either.

OK I will iterate … you know panentheism is true.

So where do we go now? The bits of rewritten Jesus? How about for something really novel, learning from our contemporary experience and applying a little bit of rigour to that learning?

Nope; 1.1 is close enough to 1 … You can define the space between 1 and 2 however you want. But 1.1 is close enough. A quote from Bertrand Russell on what is an agnostic? His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

So you know panentheism is true. 1 - I know panentheism is true. as 1.1 is close enough 1 for most people?

Can I have a reference for Dawkins saying I know god does not exist. I have seen him speak, read some of his books. I have never got the sense he is a 7. And to my knowledge he has never claimed to be a 7. Regarding Abrahamic god; no doubt with creative apologetics we can make a case for the first group of gods as well. And out of curiosity … are you a 1, 2 or a 3 on panentheism?

I get what you mean Joseph, while I don't claim to be in this Kingdom or Heaven, just understanding the lack of separation in existence allows me not to worry about being (or not) in this Kingdom or Heaven. Which I can't help but think is the point. In some ways it is not relevant Paul. (Divine and Campbell), The point I am trying to make is … an atom might "be" and that it is affected by the universe (and vice versa). Does that one atom have a purpose? If the answer is yes then the concept of purpose is muddled, and in the same way if all is divine then that concept becomes meaningless. And at the point … your mind has gone beyond all concepts ...

I am trying to get you to understand 6.9 is not the same as 7. For the following gods (literal versions) I am a good old 7. Norse, Roman, Greek, Abrahamic (and similar) For deistic type gods I would be a good old 6.99, they don't make sense to me. But I don't not how to test for these. For panentheism I would be a 6.999 … I find the apologetics for this type of god so convoluted and bordering on mumbo jumbo. And for pantheism … a good ol'4 will do. But effectively I live my life as godless.

No he is not. You are claiming he is claiming there is no god. Are you intentionally misrepresenting Dawkins?

How many atoms does it take to be a part of what simply is? It's like divine (on the other thread} … if everything is divine, then there is no separation. again Campbell's quote" ... But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one's god. With that, duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts, has dissolved in identification with ground of your own being, because that to which the metaphorical image of your god refers to the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well.

I think you are likely misunderstanding your atheist friends. So which atheists have you read that claim there is not a god? While I reject the vast majority of concepts of god … including panentheism (which I find incoherent and irreconcilable with my experience of the world). I don't reject pantheism … it is where theism and atheism meet. The differences just sublime into semantics. For example everything is divine … well then it sort of does not matter. Dawkins called pantheism sexed up atheism. And speaking of Dawkins … briefly on his agnosticism.

I must admit I struggle with this. I try and work out from first principles how to develop my behaviour. That Jesus or Buddha or whoever reflect my interpretation of their behaviour in me (or not) is simply a confirmation bias on my part. It is only interesting (from my point of view) that so many people put stock in some supposed and irrelevant ideality of Jesus.

This is not a purpose: This just is. We dress ourselves in the illusion pf purpose. The human mind is determined by its environment … past and present.

Must be true … in that it is contradictory to the fattened calf and prodigal son story. I am sure the will be some apologist along in a minute or two to explain the contradiction and how we are interpreting these incorrectly.

There are those that believe quite the opposite. From the Jesus Sayings

I thought Jesus also suggested the kingdom is all around us?

I am the roast lamb of God Now we are talking 👍

Nah! He would have been nowhere as popular if he was a vegan. Maybe it is written in some as yet undiscovered apocryphal gospel somewhere? And how long did people adhere to transubstantiation?

Body of Christ? Reverting to ancient texts? Not for me. Luckily my early childhood did not have a zeal for evangelism. Either way it is likely our teens is where we found our zeal.

I think we are nearing the end. Eating a healthy diet will minimize the health costs on society. I can buy into that. Meat can be part of that healthy diet. How much is up for some debate, but there seems to be no difference between say a vegetarian and a more typical diet; at least based on longevity. There are other costs on society as well which we have not touched on as of yet.

This is how I might have worded your post. Perhaps we can all agree that humans have evolved and adapted to be omnivores and that they can choose many diets and can thrive on a variety of these diets?

I question that logic - just because we can survive as omnivores (perhaps as carnivore like a dog can on high protein, vegetable dog biscuits) does that mean that is the diet we are best off following? Is it the penultimate diet our stomachs evolved for? Firstly … dogs by definition are not carnivores, they are omnivores. Over time their close coevolution has turned them into omnivores, at least by definition. Of course we would have to either get rid of our pet dogs and cats to minimize if we want minimize meat eating. A classic omnivore is a pig, their digestive system is used as a proxy for that of humans. When you say 'best' … what do you mean by 'best'? Meat is easier to digest and richer in protein than most of common foodstuffs. If you mean how little it can probably be then I would agree with you. In evolution there is no should. I quoted the wiki article contrasting vegetarians with comparable practicing meat eaters. There is little 'benefit' one way or the other in terms of longevity. Also from an evolutionary point of view to be 'successful' we don't care if we see our grand children, only that we have them. So I don't buy the argument that evolution has done something therefore we should comply with that something. Fair enough. I am not arguing that we should eat meat. I am arguing that humans are classic omnivores and the argument that humans are not omnivores is at best specious. Also I am not enamoured by argument by herbivores came before omnivores, therefore [insert any 'should type' argument here]. Also be careful of the term adaption when talking about evolution. As an example if we move to a higher altitude our bodies will acclimatize to the higher altitude. The acclimatization is not an adaption; but the ability acclimatize is. Similarly our bodies can get used a high meat diet, this is not an adaptation, but the ability is an adaptation. And if we were Inuit, we moved to herbivorous culture, we too would get used to the little meat diet. An acclimatization.

That's the plan in this part of Canada too.

It's funny, I always thought of dogs as carnivores … but the omnivore wiki page identifies them as omnivores. Having said that there are dissenting arguments on this. This link gives an interesting point of view on the subject. Now if dogs have changed that much over the tens of thousand of years from being wolves that the prevailing view is that they are omnivores rather than carnivores then what could primates adapt/evolve into over a million or so years? Just doing a quick review on the contents of dog food (dry) while mostly meat in some form … the second ingredient seems to be starch in the form of potato, rice or corn. (this was a quick skim). Interesting.