Why I believe in God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by c4its

God does not want us to suffer, but he must let us have our own free agency (right to make independent choices) in order for us to become more perfect beings. All of the terrible things that have happened have happened because of human error, and that's okay. When we as humans go through things that are difficult, we have a responsibility to grow from those diversities. It is like a refining fire, we are tossed and turned and burned so that we can become more like God. When a couple goes through tough times, and they try to correct their mistakes and solve their problem, their relationship gets stronger. When natural disasters happen, others rush in and try to help and serve those who have been affected, those people involved can become more like Christ in his perfectness. When someone close to you dies, you have the chance to realize how precious life is. We are on Earth to learn and grow and to be tested. What determines our happiness is how we decide to respond to the trials that are put in our way, will you become bitter with hate or will you try to refine yourself?

---

So God allows terrible things to happen in order to give us the chance to improve ourselves? He came up with the fabulous idea of childhood leukaemia to make it easier for bereaved parents to aspire to a state of Christ-like grace?


It's becoming increasingly obvious to me during this discussion that if God exists then I don't like him much. I have serious reservations about his methods and I'm not prepared to adopt the attitudes and behaviours that are apparently necessary to gain his approval.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lynne Fees

...what would be the point of Earth at all, then?

---

Well, quite possibly none. Which seems to me much more likely to be true than any other suggested possibility.

And because there's no ultimate point, the way you live your life matters on a human scale - you have to exhibit kindness, companionship, fair dealing, charity, all that stuff.

Here's the scary part though. If you decide not to be humane, there's no ultimate punishment. There's no wait till your father gets home comeuppance. You have to be good simply because it seems the right thing to do. There's no payoff, no threat, no reckoning.

That's a much tougher requirement of human beings, in my opinion, than the God-led alternative where the good children get a long holiday in Paradise Resorts, and the bad children are locked in the cellar forever.

It's hard work being an atheist. It's not an easy path to follow- but I think it's a more responsible one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

So God allows terrible things to happen in order to give us the chance to improve ourselves? He came up with the fabulous idea of childhood leukaemia to make it easier for bereaved parents to aspire to a state of Christ-like grace?


It's becoming increasingly obvious to me during this discussion that if God exists then I don't like him much. I have serious reservations about his methods and I'm not prepared to adopt the attitudes and behaviours that are apparently necessary to gain his approval.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Well, quite possibly none. Which seems to me much more likely to be true than any other suggested possibility.

And because there's no ultimate point, the way you live your life matters on a human scale - you have to exhibit kindness, companionship, fair dealing, charity, all that stuff.

Here's the scary part though. If you decide not to be humane, there's no ultimate punishment. There's no wait till your father gets home comeuppance. You have to be good simply because it seems the right thing to do. There's no payoff, no threat, no reckoning.

That's a much tougher requirement of human beings, in my opinion, than the God-led alternative where the good children get a long holiday in Paradise Resorts, and the bad children are locked in the cellar forever.

It's hard work being an atheist. It's not an easy path to follow- but I think it's a more responsible one. .

---

Even if our final fate is just to be born, to procreate and die, with enjoyment or suffering thrown in in-between to varying degree for different persons, then also I agree with you that right way of living is with kindness, companionship, fair dealing and all such stuff. To understand this is very important.

All your ego trips, flaunting of power or money, physical attraction and charms, prizes, adulation, knowledge etc should not have much meaning, for ultimately like all others who have gone before us, each one of us alive here have to leave all this and die.

As for your doubt about connection between suffering and God do please read my post (#300) at last of page 20 of this thread.

May be, if you see the things from recarnation angle & everything-is-God's- play, you will be able to get at some answer.

All the way back to Epicurus and Lucretius ("On the Nature of Things"), the ancient Greeks found that disbelief in "god(s)" was a very liberating experience. Religion has always been "the opiate of the masses" long before Marx and Engels. I am today a non-theist (atheist) who has found that slavery to religion generally is the worst of slaveries. During these hard economic times, more and more people are lining up at the "churches" for comfort and salvation, but are finding that they "come out the same door as in [they] went" in the words of Omar Khayyam. The "God" of the Bible is a tyrant in every way; he is for fratricide, ethnic cleanising, and hatred of women. Read the books of Joshua and Judges and then tell me about the "love of God."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markengels2012

During these hard economic times, more and more people are lining up at the "churches" for comfort and salvation, but are finding that they "come out the same door as in [they] went" in the words of Omar Khayyam. The "God" of the Bible is a tyrant in every way; he is for fratricide, ethnic cleanising, and hatred of women. Read the books of Joshua and Judges and then tell me about the "love of God."

---

What about others few like Mother Teressa.

I once met her during her last years. As a young person, I stood in a que of teenagers for her autograph. As the person just ahead of me took her autogrph, the thought flashed through my mind, 'Let us see, what's so great about her?'

When my turn came, she looked at me with such compassionate eyes (as you can see in he so many photographs), the thought came unbidden in my mind, 'Well, she is different'.

I still carry that autograph with my I card as a good luck sign when I move out for town on offical tours.

Today I think of a single benevolent God for the entire humanity, and seperate religion and religions text and rituals from God. Still instead of basing your beliefs on fears, I think it is better not to believe. To each his own.

Mother Teresa and Pope John-Paul II are much over-rated in today's world. There are many others who are doing even more than they did. Why pick out one or two "saints" to emulate when history is full of them, both within and outside the Catholic Church. And why a "good luck charm" from an autograph? Many teenagers are carrying the autographs and pictures of "rock stars" as "good luck charms" and none of this means anything at all. When will humankind grow up? Even the ancient Greeks saw through this guise of "religion" (cf. Epicurus and Lucretius). Mother Teresa was "possessed" by an "evil spirit" at one time, was she not? Was she "possessed" when you saw her and got her autograph?

For all those conerned, I would like to quote a Sanskrit verse from the Vedas..


"Delight"

Anandadd hy eva khalv imani bhutani jayante,
Anandena jatani jivanti
Anandam prayantyabhisam visanti.


Translation

From Delight we came into existence.
In Delight we grow.
At the end of our journey’s close,
Into Delight we retire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

For all those conerned, I would like to quote a Sanskrit verse from the Vedas..

Translation

From Delight we came into existence.
In Delight we grow.
At the end of our journey’s close,
Into Delight we retire.

---

Mothers experience pain in pregnancy, children cry in fright in birth
many grow through society, collecting and attaching, paying money and living in the state, raising families
When we die - death - can vary in pain or ease. Such practices as bodhicitta automatically bring calm at the time of death.
Is the delight that you refer to something which is attained, or something that is there by default? I've read some of thoughts of the present Dalai Lama, and much work is to be had to attain goals and ease throughout life: "let us take a moment to review how progress toward a meaningful life unfolds: first comes morality, then concentrated meditation, then wisdom." (How to practise - Dalai Lama)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marxengels2012

Religion has always been "the opiate of the masses" long before Marx and Engels. I am today a non-theist (atheist) who has found that slavery to religion generally is the worst of slaveries.

---

Are you sure it is slavery? For if one does not wish to believe, then one will not. Do you not think instead that religion is an indulgent rather than a slavery? When you truly come to comprehend how little we are in relation to a universe of which we presently know little of, then such a thought that we are all alone in a great sea is a heartbreaking one. The thought that, even within our own galaxy, we cannot 'see' what is around us - indeed, what we 'see' is the history of our neighbouring stars, light years into the past - we can not know what the gallaxy, or the universe looks like - because all we see is it's history - thanks to the speed of light. To say "a galaxy is presently colliding' is wrong, for it collided perhaps 4 billion years ago. This is a further lonely idea to add to the arsenal of loneliness. Humans worship and have faith, we conclude and try to understand.

Yet to think of atheism as liberation is an idea I cannot personally understand. In recent years I have thought long and hard, and the path of atheism is a cold and distressing one for me to have indulged in, I am a less happy person - it is, after all, the process of stripping away an in-built cognitive mechanism that allows one to believe and have faith - when people pray for example, or meditate, their senses are heightened, more of the brain is used. Religion has it's corruption yet religion is a natural part of society, it is conformity, clumping of groups with similar concepts and ideals - so that they do not feel alone, so that they can share the things they need: purpose, goals, love, guidance, safety. Faith, however, is the personal belief that comes separate to Religion (which is the congregation of similar faiths). Faith is the true liberation in this lonely universe, while atheism and explicitly nihilism, is the indulgent in cold, purposeless, and spiritless existence - it is slavery to the void, to isolation. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judas130

Mothers experience pain in pregnancy, children cry in fright in birth
many grow through society, collecting and attaching, paying money and living in the state, raising families
When we die - death - can vary in pain or ease. Such practices as bodhicitta automatically bring calm at the time of death.
Is the delight that you refer to something which is attained, or something that is there by default? I've read some of thoughts of the present Dalai Lama, and much work is to be had to attain goals and ease throughout life: "let us take a moment to review how progress toward a meaningful life unfolds: first comes morality, then concentrated meditation, then wisdom." (How to practise - Dalai Lama)

---

This is just my interpretation, but I interpret the passage to be speaking about the soul. In Hinduism the soul is called Atman, its nature bliss and knowledge. This was my point. We come from the soul, actually we are the soul, not only the body. We are seeking for... what- peace? We are seeking for our source, and our source is Atman, the soul. And yet the soul is not somewhere apart from us or distant from us. The soul, the source, is the center from which we seek. We have gone however many twists and turns that we feel separate from ourselves, from the Universe, from Atman. Since we have encountered this ignorance of separation of Atman, we doubt it. I am saying, it is real.

I was raised strictly Catholic. Throughout my childhood, I believed it all, no question. I remember when I started to really doubt my faith. I was in 7th grade and I asked my religion teacher, "If God is supposed to be our Father who loves us, and we're his children, why are we supposed to fear him?" Her response: "I remember being about your age, asking my religion teacher the very same thing." and then she just walked away...no answer. That's when I started to realize that I needed something more tangible in which to believe. The more I examined my religion from a different perspective, the more it horrified me. I find a lot of the hypocrisy, idolatry (worship of the Virgin and saints etc), and suffering to be very distasteful. After years of angry, bitter old nuns and priests, I was done. The Christian/Judeo God reminds me far to much of a Greek god. The anger, the jealousy, the suffering...and then all of a sudden, in the new testament, he becomes like this whole different entity entirely. If he was always perfect, why the change?
That's not to say that I'm an athiest; I'm not. I find it just as hard to believe that there's absolutely NOTHING out there beyond us. Religion is a good thing for some people. Kudos to anyone who is secure in thier faith. The problem comes in when people can't graciously accept that others have different beliefs that they hold just as dear as the next person does thier own religion. The violence, hatred, and killing that is carried out in the name of religion is completely unconscionable. Anyone who is truely spiritual (and there is a definate distinction between being religious and being spiritual) would never engage or condone such violence. What happend to Love thy neighbor? and the Golden Rule? Religious or not, anyone can agree on these general principles of morality.

Nikolai, I've enjoyed reading your posts. More and more I'm gravitating towards the ideas of Hindu, Buddhism, and Shinto. The idea of a soul, morality, and working to attain a higher sense of peace and knowledge. Beautiful.

Sorry for my writing being so disjointed with the misspellings etc. I'm operating on no sleep in the past few days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laidbackperson

May be, if you see the things from recarnation angle & everything-is-God's- play, you will be able to get at some answer.

---

I already have an answer. That's what my post was - an answer. I was trying to help you get at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

So God allows terrible things to happen in order to give us the chance to improve ourselves? He came up with the fabulous idea of childhood leukaemia to make it easier for bereaved parents to aspire to a state of Christ-like grace?


It's becoming increasingly obvious to me during this discussion that if God exists then I don't like him much. I have serious reservations about his methods and I'm not prepared to adopt the attitudes and behaviours that are apparently necessary to gain his approval.



Well, quite possibly none. Which seems to me much more likely to be true than any other suggested possibility.

And because there's no ultimate point, the way you live your life matters on a human scale - you have to exhibit kindness, companionship, fair dealing, charity, all that stuff.

Here's the scary part though. If you decide not to be humane, there's no ultimate punishment. There's no wait till your father gets home comeuppance. You have to be good simply because it seems the right thing to do. There's no payoff, no threat, no reckoning.

That's a much tougher requirement of human beings, in my opinion, than the God-led alternative where the good children get a long holiday in Paradise Resorts, and the bad children are locked in the cellar forever.

It's hard work being an atheist. It's not an easy path to follow- but I think it's a more responsible one.

---

God did not come up with the "fabulous idea of childhood leukemia." When man/woman sinned, and chose to choose putting themselves above God, God gave Satan certain power on Earth. Hence, death, disease, etc.
As far as "why are we here," I think you have hit the nail on the head. Using "good" and "bad" to decide whether a person goes to heaven or hell does not work. Hence, Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lynne Fees

When man/woman sinned, and chose to choose putting themselves above God, God gave Satan certain power on Earth. Hence, death, disease, etc.

---

There was a time when Christians would have burned you at the stake for saying that - because the implication is that God is not all-powerful.

And it's a real paradox. Either God is not all-powerful, which means that he's not, actually, in charge of the Universe. Or he is all-powerful, which means he could stop suffering but he chooses to give Satan free rein to screw with us.

If it's the latter, then he is ultimately responsible for childhood leukaemia, although he lets Satan take the rap.

If it's the former, then he's not in any position to save us from anything, including death, disease, famine or Jeffery Archer - which renders prayer a bit of a lottery really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

It's not that they cannot explain god scientifically. It is that there is no proof of god, and plenty of proof against god. In other words, believers argue (and here I am talking specifically about the Judeo-Christian tradition note, not eastern or world religions) that their belief is a product of faith, which is virtuous. That's rhetoric for they are too afraid to change their minds, when faced with overwhelming evidence against god.

I can respect religion to an extent, but this "I believe because it makes me who I am, and makes me comfortable," is pure rhetoric. That isn't a reason to believe in something, it just shows the inner cowardice of the believer.

---

In the spirit of valuing everyone's views, let's not use "coward." This reminds me of the old "religion is a crutch" argument. Let's stick to the facts.
The proof of God is in creation. I believe it takes more faith to believe that the butterfly, the elephant, the frog and people are just random happenings. Look at the brain. Look at the eye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lynne Fees

God did not come up with the "fabulous idea of childhood leukemia." When man/woman sinned, and chose to choose putting themselves above God, God gave Satan certain power on Earth. Hence, death, disease, etc.

---

ummmmmm??? you're attributing the ebb and flow, death and life, disease and health of mankind to sin or piety. do you know how out of touch with reality that is?... to actually think that a mental phenomenon, such as the choice between putting yourself above or below god, could affect even the tiniest atom on this planet.

i know you're not saying that our mentalities affect minor physical phenomenon. you're saying that they affect the most important, large scale physical phenomenon in terms of our human value systems. making your stance that much more baffling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

It's not that they cannot explain god scientifically.

---

What you mean to say...or what you should be saying...is that God cannot be explained empirically, which is to say that He cannot be explained by the experience of the five senses. He is not of a physical nature, so He cannot be measured by the scientific standards that man understands. That is why He gave us revelation, so that we could know more about Him. If there are those who choose to reject His message...well that is to their own detriment.

Quote:

---

It is that there is no proof of god, and plenty of proof against god.

---

There is no proof that God does not exist. However, there are many proofs that the existence of the universe could only be by an Intelligent Creator.

Quote:

---

In other words, believers argue (and here I am talking specifically about the Judeo-Christian tradition note, not eastern or world religions) that their belief is a product of faith, which is virtuous.

---

Many Christians argue the existence of God from a "scientific" stand point. Just because there have been some that have used such arguments, does not mean that all or even most use such arguments. If you want to look into the Christian Evidences that some use to establish their beliefs check out such websites as...http://www.apologeticspress.org/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

ummmmmm??? you're attributing the ebb and flow, death and life, disease and health of mankind to sin or piety. do you know how out of touch with reality that is?... to actually think that a mental phenomenon, such as the choice between putting yourself above or below god, could affect even the tiniest atom on this planet.

i know you're not saying that our mentalities affect minor physical phenomenon. you're saying that they affect the most important, large scale physical phenomenon in terms of our human value systems. making your stance that much more baffling.

---

I think you've misunderstood what Lynne means. She's employing the 'original sin' argument - which goes like this: God made the world perfect for mankind, and all he asked in return was that mankind should stick to a few simple rules. Mankind didn't (in the metaphor, Adam and Eve ate of the fruit) and so God said, "Right - just for that, I'm going to let Satan take a shot at you, and then you'll have to make decisions about where your loyalties lie."

So she's not saying that each individual's mentality affects stuff like leukaemia. She's saying it's inherent to the human condition that God allows Satan to impose suffering on us, and that's no fault but our own.

All that's not, though, an argument for the existence of God, because the situation as stated requires the pre-existence of God in order to be possible.

Me, I think that a God who gives people curiosity and then puts them in a garden that contains a tree they can't touch is just asking to be disobeyed, so if that's how it happened, I'd say God was as much to blame as Adam and Eve. If it were a court case, he'd be charged with contributory negligence.

even worse then. an old analogy that doesn't coincide with reality as we know it is being used to blame bad stuff on people.

at least my favorable take on lyne's stance gave her an out, telekinesis.

Debate about Satan and Adam and Even and so on is really all off-topic to this thread. The original post of this thread said nothing about any of those, nor did the creator of this thread ever mention them. The thread is about God, not Christianity or Christian theology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

And it's a real paradox. Either God is not all-powerful, which means that he's not, actually, in charge of the Universe. Or he is all-powerful, which means he could stop suffering but he chooses to give Satan free rein to screw with us.

---

This is exactly what I'd rather be discussiong, rather than Christian theology. :thumbs_up

Mark, let me reply to your position; first, I understand the reasons for atheism as I was an atheist for most of my young life. I studied philosophy and then Eastern philosophy and then some religions, mainly Buddhism and now Hinduism.

It seems like atheism is very far away from theism, but it isn't quite as far removed as one might think. When I shifted my views from atheism, I did not become a theist straightaway. As far as I can tell, although by some definitions there are more, there are three main types of perspectives. Atheism, impersonalism, and personalism (theism).

Personalism worships God as Lord, as the Personality of Godhead. In theism, though, God also has impersonal attributes. Such as an impersonal spiritual effulgence. Impersonalists see God to be impersonal, just this impersonal spiritual effulgence. This is referred to as brahmajyoti. In this philosophy (Mayavadin) the question of how could an all-powerful God allow suffering doesn't come up, or it isn't answered. It's answered honestly, "I don't know."

Atheism is not so much different from impersonalism, because neither concludes the existence of a Personality of Godhead.

Impersonalism is different from atheism because impersonalism does think there is some spiritual path.

Eastern philosophy generally has the idea that the material universe is Maya, or Samsara. The question mainly is, what is reality, and what are we? Why is there suffering? What is our true nature?

Atheism or skepticism is good so far as it goes. It's certainly necessary to protect against dogma. But it can, and I have seen it do so, become a dogma in itself. Your statement, "I already have the answer, I am just trying to get you to see it," is an indication of this.

Why is it mystics of all religions, cultures, nations, and times, say such similar things? Why do they say there is a truth which is the only thing which is important, but yet equally inexpressible in its vastness? What they say is that this truth is basically one of peace, bliss, saying... "Do not worry, and be happy," and as much as they can, they describe this infinite bliss which is what really is.

What I am trying to say is, not everything which exists can be measured with a ruler. Not everything which is of value can be put into words. Not everything which is true can be expressed in thought. There is truth, reality, beyond words, thought, and measurement. I guess that is my main point.

And about God; God is one of these which can't be understood by thought, words, or measurement. God is infinite bliss, truth, and existence. God is the source of everything which exists. Everything in this world, when we are thinking, "I am this body," is illusion. This may conflict with what you believe, and you may think whatever you wish in response. Please understand I am not justifying moral relativity. Actually I think we should be very moral, and not waste time on nonsense. But - what I am saying is, what happens to the body does not affect the soul. We are all the soul, and the soul actually cannot be hurt, cut, burned, or dried by air. It is eternal. What is temporary does not exist in relation to what is eternal.

Someone else mentioned revelation...I too speak of revelation. One must know that everything related to the ego is illusion. What is reality is a deeper peace, truth and bliss. Awakening is realizing one's nature - not simply understanding intellectually, but realizing, on all levels of being - one's Buddha-nature, or one's divine nature. This is what is true, that every living being's true nature is that.

I am not here to argue but merely discuss, as arguing is a waste of everyone's time.

I have believed since I was a baby and noone in my house believed or gave Him the time of day. I have always been aware of HIm , his love and a sense of destiny from Him.
My family always talks of when I was not yet three and suddenly hurried to the coat rack, taking down from the low peg my dress coat.
'where do you think you are going?' father asked in surprise.
'I am going to find God" I answered and went to the door."
They stared at one anothe and were silent as they took my coat off and tried to find some way to stop my tears of protesttion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

I am not here to argue but merely discuss, as arguing is a waste of everyone's time.

---

Thank you, NikolaiI. That was a very informative and well thought out response. Although we may not see all things together, I think that there are some basic rudimentary thoughts that no doubt we will agree on. In fact, I think that your information given may even have helped me to understand my own beliefs better.

I do have a question for you, having studied many religions, it seems that you are currently holding to aspects of Hinduism (if I referred that properly). Do you hold fast to Hinduism, or have you blended aspects of several?

There is also the considerations of Theism vs. Deism. I've heard this in respects to Christianity, but I'm sure it applies across the board. If the existence of all things come from an intelligent powerful God...or a cooperative effort of Spiritual Persons, is He/They still involved with the creation? Obviously this begins to imply the area of Personalism vs Impersonalism...possibly? Please forgive me if I speak in terms of Christianity in this thread, I will try my best to comment, question, or explain in broader terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

ummmmmm??? you're attributing the ebb and flow, death and life, disease and health of mankind to sin or piety. do you know how out of touch with reality that is?... to actually think that a mental phenomenon, such as the choice between putting yourself above or below god, could affect even the tiniest atom on this planet.

i know you're not saying that our mentalities affect minor physical phenomenon. you're saying that they affect the most important, large scale physical phenomenon in terms of our human value systems. making your stance that much more baffling.

---

Think of it this way. The Lord's prayer says, "Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven." Due to sin, Earth is not heaven. In heaven, God's will is done in a complete way. On Earth, it is done in a more roundabout way. Once Adam & Eve (and every other human on Earth, past, present & future other than Jesus) sinned, the rules changed. We all bring disease and death upon the world in our own way, by our sin. (Not a tit-for-tat kind of disease and death for sin, but in a general sense.) God can pre-empt Satan and evil when He decides to - look at Job. When God does not pre-empt Satan, He does promise that He can help us make good out of any situation, however terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Thank you, NikolaiI. That was a very informative and well thought out response. Although we may not see all things together, I think that there are some basic rudimentary thoughts that no doubt we will agree on. In fact, I think that your information given may even have helped me to understand my own beliefs better.

I do have a question for you, having studied many religions, it seems that you are currently holding to aspects of Hinduism (if I referred that properly). Do you hold fast to Hinduism, or have you blended aspects of several?

There is also the considerations of Theism vs. Deism. I've heard this in respects to Christianity, but I'm sure it applies across the board. If the existence of all things come from an intelligent powerful God...or a cooperative effort of Spiritual Persons, is He/They still involved with the creation? Obviously this begins to imply the area of Personalism vs Impersonalism...possibly? Please forgive me if I speak in terms of Christianity in this thread, I will try my best to comment, question, or explain in broader terms.

---

No, that seems right. It does seem to imply the area of Personalism vs. Impersonalism. I wasn't thinking about Deism vs. Theism when I wrote my post.

I would agree that you and I have many similar fundamental beliefs. Our differences are... I don't know if you are, but I am assuming, you are not a vegetarian. For me it is absolutely essential. But besides that difference, assuming it is one, there probably are many similarities. For instance neither you or I take any intoxication. That is probably second to vegetarianism (or rather non-injuring, of which vegetarianism is part) to me.

I know that went off topic a little... to answer your question yes, Hinduism is mainly my religion but I think it incorporates other religions. My only desire is to understand what is true, what is real. I believe God is the source of everything. My experiences led me to this conclusion. I've had experiences of the soul and of God. Basically these led me to understand that God's reality is peace, bliss, power, and knowledge. That is what is true, what is real. The rest is illusion.

Basically I believe God is infinite. All the rest is ignorance, Maya, or illusion; it is imagination. The central question is why is there suffering? But to me more central is, what is true/ what is real? I believe eventually, we will all wake up, to the infinite nature of God. Until that happens I will continue to live a simple life and try to increase happiness, knowledge, peace, and love. I basically believe in simplicity as well. I try to be undivided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Atheism or skepticism is good so far as it goes. It's certainly necessary to protect against dogma. But it can, and I have seen it do so, become a dogma in itself. Your statement, "I already have the answer, I am just trying to get you to see it," is an indication of this.

---

Actually, that was a deliberately and facetiously provocative response to the suggestion that I might need to read previous posts in order to find an answer. You would think that I'd've learned by now that it's futile to attempt to make a serious point by the application of fatuous logic.

Quote:

---

Why is it mystics of all religions, cultures, nations, and times, say such similar things? Why do they say there is a truth which is the only thing which is important, but yet equally inexpressible in its vastness?

---

Well, not because there's a God, if you ask me. I think that they say such similar things because people are led astray by the very attributes that make us human beings - to wit, the talents for language and symbolic thought. We construct a metaphor for Big Cosmic Stuff, and we choose to personify it. We need to refer to it in conversation, so we give it a name. Because it has a name, we start to think of it as a Real Thing. Next thing you know, we can't separate the metaphorical construct from our own perception of reality, and before long we're building cathedrals and intercontinental missiles.

Quote:

---

What I am trying to say is, not everything which exists can be measured with a ruler. Not everything which is of value can be put into words. Not everything which is true can be expressed in thought. There is truth, reality, beyond words, thought, and measurement. I guess that is my main point.

---

Unfortunately a ruler and some words are all I have, because that's all God gave me. And if God decides to create children who are incapable of comprehending him, he has no one to blame but himself. If I were a bright orange god who smelled strongly of celery, it'd be pretty unsporting of me to create blind creatures with no noses, and then to blame them for not being able to find me.

Quote:

---

I am not here to argue...as arguing is a waste of everyone's time.

---

Oh I am. I don't think it's a waste of time at all.

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments during discussions.

Posts containing such remarks will be removed immediately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Well, not because there's a God, if you ask me. I think that they say such similar things because people are led astray by the very attributes that make us human beings - to wit, the talents for language and symbolic thought. We construct a metaphor for Big Cosmic Stuff, and we choose to personify it. We need to refer to it in conversation, so we give it a name. Because it has a name, we start to think of it as a Real Thing. Next thing you know, we can't separate the metaphorical construct from our own perception of reality, and before long we're building cathedrals and intercontinental missiles.



Unfortunately a ruler and some words are all I have, because that's all God gave me. And if God decides to create children who are incapable of comprehending him, he has no one to blame but himself. If I were a bright orange god who smelled strongly of celery, it'd be pretty unsporting of me to create blind creatures with no noses, and then to blame them for not being able to find me.

---

Paul says in Romans God gave us creation to show He exists. So now people have managed to take God out of that, even, by espousing the theory of Darwinism to explain how we got here. Who or what put the "survival" instinct into plants and animals, by the way? That it all happened by chance it harder to believe than to believe in God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lynne Fees

That it all happened by chance it harder to believe than to believe in God.

---

It is if you believe in God. But, believe me, if you don't take God as read, chance is a much more believable explanation than anything else. In fact, it's so believable, I'm always a bit surprised that anyone bothers to find another explanation.

However, believability is no argument in support of truth.

For instance - because of the way in which the human mind interprets the world, it's much easier to believe the Earth is a plate than to believe it's a ball. But, despite the fact that the plate is more believable, the world is in fact a ball.

What's easy to believe is not necessarily true. I find chance easy to believe. You find God easy to believe. But neither my predisposition nor yours is in the least useful as an argument in support of either belief.

Im only 12 and to most people im still a kid. But i have my own opinionson things. like thewhole god aspect. I still quiestion my true faith simply because the bible confuses me, not in a way as though to make me fell stupid bbut challenges my brain and tests my beleifs. my family is religious(very) so i suppose i should be aswell, but i still think there is something out there. We had learned about the ancient greeks in school the other day, and it clearly stated that they also had simular religions as welll as us here in the present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BooK WorM 13

Im only 12 and to most people im still a kid. But i have my own opinionson things. like thewhole god aspect. I still quiestion my true faith simply because the bible confuses me, not in a way as though to make me fell stupid bbut challenges my brain and tests my beleifs.

---

How so?

Quote:

---

my family is religious(very) so i suppose i should be aswell

---

There's no reason to believe in something just because your family does.

Quote:

---

i still think there is something out there. We had learned about the ancient greeks in school the other day, and it clearly stated that they also had simular religions as welll as us here in the present.

---

Most religions come from the early days of man when we were incredibly primitive and knew nothing about the world. The human brain has a habit of looking for patterns and meaning, and finding them even where they don't exist. So early men searched for a meaning of how human beings were created and most decided that we were created by an all powerful celestial being. Not a bad guess at the time. The key thing to remember is that these guesses which quickly became dogma remain nothing more than guesses trying to explain the world. Back then they were decent guesses but they couldn't and still can't be backed up with reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichtrausch

Most religions come from the early days of man when we were incredibly primitive and knew nothing about the world. The human brain has a habit of looking for patterns and meaning, and finding them even where they don't exist. So early men searched for a meaning of how human beings were created and most decided that we were created by an all powerful celestial being. Not a bad guess at the time. The key thing to remember is that these guesses which quickly became dogma remain nothing more than guesses trying to explain the world. Back then they were decent guesses but they couldn't and still can't be backed up with reason.

---

Oh - because all those who believe in God are the same, equally inept and inferior to the atheist, who knows the truth by reason? I am being a little blunt, but I don't mean to be harsh. I was an atheist until I was 17, and I understand the position well. Still, just believe me that there is more out there. I would suggest reading some of Emerson's essays. And a book on Buddhism, which doesn't teach about God, but is a wonderful first step begin to be free from Western materialism, I also suggest, which is called Entering the Stream.

Anyway, I would take Emerson's intellect, personality, mind and ideas over any atheist's writings I have ever read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Oh - because all those who believe in God are the same, equally inept and inferior to the atheist, who knows the truth by reason?

---

An atheist doesn't know "the truth". He admits ignorance at the point where others, who can't possibly know "the truth", claim to know "the truth".

Quote:

---

Still, just believe me that there is more out there.

---

I believe you. After all the universe is a big place, ain't it?

Quote:

---

I would suggest reading some of Emerson's essays. And a book on Buddhism, which doesn't teach about God, but is a wonderful first step begin to be free from Western materialism, I also suggest, which is called Entering the Stream.

---

I'll check it out when I get the chance.

Quote:

---

Anyway, I would take Emerson's intellect, personality, mind and ideas over any atheist's writings I have ever read.

---

That's nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichtrausch

An atheist doesn't know "the truth". He admits ignorance at the point where others, who can't possibly know "the truth", claim to know "the truth".

I believe you. After all the universe is a big place, ain't it?

---

Yes.. and yet you just say that others cannot possibly know the truth. Can you see the error in this? What if I said you could not possibly know the truth? I wouldn't say that, though.

It's just, that's one thing which is amazing to me, when people say, "others, who can't possible know the truth"...

Quite the contrary, anyone can attain self-knowledge, self-truth, self-realization. Not no one, but anyone and everyone. It is possible for anyone to attain peace and enlightenment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Yes.. and yet you just say that others cannot possibly know the truth. Can you see the error in this? What if I said you could not possibly know the truth? I wouldn't say that, though.

It's just, that's one thing which is amazing to me, when people say, "others, who can't possible know the truth"...

Quite the contrary, anyone can attain self-knowledge, self-truth, self-realization. Not no one, but anyone and everyone. It is possible for anyone to attain peace and enlightenment.

---

When you said "the truth", I was assuming you meant the dogmas common to our world which ask for blind faith in exchange for "the truth". Terms like the truth, self-knowledge and self-truth are vague and not conducive to a rational discussion.

To attain peace and enlightenment is to become a secular humanist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichtrausch

When you said "the truth", I was assuming you meant the dogmas common to our world which ask for blind faith in exchange for "the truth". Terms like the truth, self-knowledge and self-truth are vague and not conducive to a rational discussion.

---

You forgot to reply to my criticism. You said in your last post that there are some who cannot know the truth. You didn't specify who, so I might ask - who is it that cannot know the truth?

Perhaps anyone who says something which isn't materialist? Or anyone who believes in anything mysticial or spiritual?

Or is it anyone who speaks of peace, or ineffable peace beyond normal thought? Or worse, the worst crime in a rationalist's mind, speaks of mysticism?

There do exists states of mind, and states of reality, beyond anything you know, or also beyond anything I know. When I experienced one of those, it was like a revelation.

Just as in the spectrum of light there are light which we cannot see, so in the spectrum of consciousness is there consciousness which we are not aware of - spiritual, or divine consciousness is not perceptible to mental thought, just as mental thought is not perceptible to lower forms of consciousness (animal thought/behavior).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

You forgot to reply to my criticism. You said in your last post that there are some who cannot know the truth. You didn't specify who, so I might ask - who is it that cannot know the truth?

Perhaps anyone who says something which isn't materialist? Or anyone who believes in anything mysticial or spiritual?

Or is it anyone who speaks of peace, or ineffable peace beyond normal thought? Or worse, the worst crime in a rationalist's mind, speaks of mysticism?

There do exists states of mind, and states of reality, beyond anything you know, or also beyond anything I know. When I experienced one of those, it was like a revelation.

Just as in the spectrum of light there are light which we cannot see, so in the spectrum of consciousness is there consciousness which we are not aware of - spiritual, or divine consciousness is not perceptible to mental thought, just as mental thought is not perceptible to lower forms of consciousness (animal thought/behavior).

---

To make sure we're on the same page, can you define what you mean by "the truth"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lich

Back then they were decent guesses but they couldn't and still can't be backed up with reason.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nikolai

Oh - because all those who believe in God are the same, equally inept and inferior to the atheist, who knows the truth by reason?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lich

An atheist doesn't know "the truth". He admits ignorance at the point where others, who can't possibly know "the truth", claim to know "the truth".

---

This is the line of conversation... I am not even sure what all you are claiming. Obviously you are against God and religion. I can only assume you are also saying, Daoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Wiccan, and all other types of religion or spirituality are all dogma and opposite to reason...? You might like to read the Tao Te Ching, read a good book on Buddhism or the Dhammapada, read the Bhagavad-Gita, before you obliquely criticize the first three, anyway...

I am not a big fan of religions which think they are exclusively true, that is worse than anything. But also it is a big, wild, and totally unreasoned leap to say that all those who say anything about spirituality or spirit or soul are wrong. Do you know really, very much about Hinduism, Buddhism or Taoism, to say that they aren't supported by reason? Or even Christianity or Islam or Judaism for that matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

This is the line of conversation... I am not even sure what all you are claiming. Obviously you are against God and religion. I can only assume you are also saying, Daoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Wiccan, and all other types of religion or spirituality are all dogma and opposite to reason...? You might like to read the Tao Te Ching, read a good book on Buddhism or the Dhammapada, read the Bhagavad-Gita, before you obliquely criticize the first three, anyway...

I am not a big fan of religions which think they are exclusively true, that is worse than anything. But also it is a big, wild, and totally unreasoned leap to say that all those who say anything about spirituality or spirit or soul are wrong. Do you know really, very much about Hinduism, Buddhism or Taoism, to say that they aren't supported by reason? Or even Christianity or Islam or Judaism for that matter?

---

I have nothing against spirituality. It's monotheistic religions and their believers who indoctrinate their children with dogmas which encourage blind faith and discourage questioning, curiosity, and rational thinking that I am against.

When I said no one knows "the truth", I was referring to the claim by most religions that they have the absolute truth. That is to say, they know the answer to why the universe was created, who created it, what the meaning of mankind's existence is and similar questions.

In short, spirituality and thinking are good, indoctrination and blind faith are bad. I think we can agree on that, no?

When studying all the theodicies for the problem of evil, or reasoning behind God's existence, be it a priori or a posteroiri, and understanding that all fail or prove ineffectual with modern understandings...what proof can one bring to the table to suggest the existence of a deity? True empirical reasoning will suggest no proofs for God at the end of the day, and no one philosopher has before managed to prove a deity's existence without contradiction, or without corrupt or bias premises. To say you can disprove a God is probably wrong, there is no way of knowing, yet the same is applied to believing - there is no way of knowing.
No one can fully agree on what a God is - as we all have varying ideas upon the subject. Anselm would claim that even the atheist understands God (or 'that than which nothing greater can be perceived') and thus proves the existence through disbelief, because the Atheist understands God to disprove it (as existence, to Anselm, is necessary to 'that than which nothing greater can be perceived', as existence is a characteristic of perfection). However, you can't take one idea from the mind and just bullet it with pure logic, and being a priori, it relies wholly on definition, not physicality. All Anselm proves is that God is purely conceptual, and exists only in the mind as fabrication - Kant and Hume made sure to bring that argument to its knees.
Essentially, my question to believers, is that, with the knowledge that God cannot be disproved by sciences and such, nor proved, only traditional ideas challenged, why still believe without the proof, without any empirical evidence? Polkinghorn challenged Dawkins by saying that dawkins forgets about the Human longing for a deity, that humans strive for divinity - but Polkinhorn does not prove a God here, he only proves that there is a longing, nothing more is said.
peace

I don't believe because I don't feel the need, I have great believe but also great doubt in humanity, And that keeps me going also when I think of the war and death religion has caused that makes me uncomfortable,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichtrausch

I have nothing against spirituality. It's monotheistic religions and their believers who indoctrinate their children with dogmas which encourage blind faith and discourage questioning, curiosity, and rational thinking that I am against.

When I said no one knows "the truth", I was referring to the claim by most religions that they have the absolute truth. That is to say, they know the answer to why the universe was created, who created it, what the meaning of mankind's existence is and similar questions.

In short, spirituality and thinking are good, indoctrination and blind faith are bad. I think we can agree on that, no?

---

Yes, absolutely. We agree on it very much. I am sorry I didn't reply sooner but I've been traveling. I'll reply in more length soon, hopefully.