Is God a projection of our thoughts only?

Not that this anti-science rhetoric even makes any sense. Science is not an alternative to religion, science is a methodology used to understand the natural world, it is pragmatic and logical. Science has absolutely nothing to do with religion, except when religions make claims about how the natural world works (which invariably contradict scientific evidence). To present science and religion as opposites illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. You expect science to solve people's personal issues, or fix society's problems, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what science is or attempts to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Most of you do not agree. I often wonder how man can carve out a figure that he has never seen.

The Bible or the rest of theologies are man's projections and how can man project things he has never seen.

---

You should have specified which god you meant. Some Gods and Goddesses are seen regularly, while others have never been seen. It is possible that the Bible, the Koran, etc. were dreamed up by humans, but that doesn't mean that all Gods were devised in the minds on humans.

Ok, that's it.

OrphanPip and Mark Bastable, please take note:

I am officially sick and tired of the pair of you!

Thanks to stupid time differences, I come online yet again to find that some questions and assertions have already been dealt with while I've been asleep.

Now, there can be no crime greater tha stealing my bloody thunder, ok!

Brilliantly answered by the pair of you.



Chanpagne socialist!

:smilielol5:

You and me both, brother!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

You should have specified which god you meant. Some Gods and Goddesses are seen regularly, while others have never been seen. It is possible that the Bible, the Koran, etc. were dreamed up by humans, but that doesn't mean that all Gods were devised in the minds on humans.

---

You're right, it's not proof, but there's a whole lot more hay in god's stack than just that gods are drawn in man's image.

Besides that, I look at people who have a personal relationship with their imaginary friend Jesus. They truly believe they speak to him in a one-on-one situation. They see him and talk to him.

Doesn't it occur to any of them to tell their pastors and preachers that Jesus doesn't actually look like this?

http://www.google.co.nz/images?rlz=1...N&hl=en&tab=wi

We create the gods we want, and as history has shown us for at least 10,000 years, they've all been wrong - except of course, for whichever one, true god one happens to believe in at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You're right, it's not proof, but there's a whole lot more hay in god's stack than just that gods are drawn in man's image.

Besides that, I look at people who have a personal relationship with their imaginary friend Jesus. They truly believe they speak to him in a one-on-one situation. They see him and talk to him.

---

And who are you to say that they do not have that sort of relationship with Jesus?

Quote:

---

Doesn't it occur to any of them to tell their pastors and preachers that Jesus doesn't actually look like this?

http://www.google.co.nz/images?rlz=1...N&hl=en&tab=wi

---

The concept that people have of a God is of llittle or no consequence to anyone else.

Quote:

---

We create the gods we want, and as history has shown us for at least 10,000 years, they've all been wrong - except of course, for whichever one, true god one happens to believe in at the time.

---

You may been busily creating gods for the last 10,000 years, but that doesnt mean that all of them are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

And who are you to say that they do not have that sort of relationship with Jesus?

---

Oh, they may well do - my point is that Jesus appears to western christians as a white man, something which the bible specifically tells us he was not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

You may been busily creating gods for the last 10,000 years, but that doesnt mena that all of the a wrong.

---

That's exactly what I said!

The one, true god is true, but the other 999,999 are not.

I find it really easy to add that last one in, but some people struggle with the conept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

You're confusing technology with science, science as a methodology is useful for producing technology but is not the same thing.

---

I agree, and I hear what you’re saying but for sake of the current argument, semantics doesn’t do much. Science is not separate of technology in our current world, it creates the technology which also increases sciences ability to continually seek truth. Science does not exist alone in a lab and technology didn’t arise separately in a church. Science has breed technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I'm not a great fan of American Idol, and I hate Cheetos - but, frankly, I'd rather people had the opportunity to get fat watching TV and eating crap than were burned at the stake, or were shot at in muddy trenches, or were starved to death by their own corrupt and avaricious governments.

Thing is - and I say this as a lifelong champagne socialist -modern Western culture might not be very edifying, but it's difficult to think of any other working arrangement that provides the choice - every single day - of whether to hang out at the gym and MOMA or to slump in front of the TV with a pizza on your lap, and in either case to do it without much real fear of ending up dead by dinnertime.

So - you you may not think that American Idol, Wal-Mart and Cheetos constitute progress, and no one would suggest that a life based around that is the highest form of individual achievement - but in order to convince anyone that it's a Bad Thing, I think you have to point to a working societal model - religious or secular - that's a demonstrable improvement on it.

---

You took the pun part and ran with it, no problem, and I do agree with you, but, I don’t feel that the current social system gives many choices to the masses, no different than the past social system under religious order. I was merely poking at the choice of poison, One dies at the stake, another on the couch. There isn’t much opportunity any more to be burned at a stake though, but being anesthetized in front of endless mind numbing gibberish has it’s own death sentence.


For sake of the original topic, I think man projects what he wants to see as his savior, whether that be a god, a science, a technology or an idiom. He wants to continue to do as he does with the hope that something or someone else will protect him. He looks else where for his personal meaning instead of finding it in himself and its far easier to create what you want then to see what it is you are and if you’re one who has no creative abilities, there certainly are a number to of gods to pick from. Just pick the one that gives you the least personal responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Oh, they may well do - my point is that Jesus appears to western christians as a white man, something which the bible specifically tells us he was not.

---

So do you have a disagreement with all those people? If so, then what is the exact disagreement?

Quote:

---

That's exactly what I said!

The one, true god is true, but the other 999,999 are not.

I find it really easy to add that last one in, but some people struggle with the conept.

---

And what would be making you think that there is "one, true god"? I think it is much more likely that there are hundreds of true Gods and Goddesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

And what would be making you think that there is "one, true god"? I think it is much more likely that there are hundreds of true Gods and Goddesses.

---

That's a silly conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

So do you have a disagreement with all those people? If so, then what is the exact disagreement?

---

There's no disagreement at all - I am simply pointing out how many of the people who claim to have seen a god are wrong. You know, 1+1=3 wrong?

I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately disingenuous here, but I'll explain it slowly anyway.

The question of the OP is "Is god a projection of our thoughts only?"

Part of the evidence for that is how god/s appear in human representation. They are usually drawn to specification by people who claim to have seen one or more of them.

In the case of Jesus Christ, if a human as described in the christian bible actually lived, he was not blond. Someone seeing him as a blond can be shown to be wrong.

It doesn't disprove his godliness, but it certainly proves that that person's projection of JC is indeed only thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

And what would be making you think that there is "one, true god"? I think it is much more likely that there are hundreds of true Gods and Goddesses.

---

Well, if I add up 2 billion christians, 2 billion muslims, a billion hindus and another billion or so people who all worship a single god or godhead, it's an assumption I'm prepared to hold.

That there are hundreds of gods is an extreme minority view. I'll give you that it's no less valid than any other god theory/ies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

That's a silly conclusion.

---

Why would you be thinking that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

There's no disagreement at all - I am simply pointing out how many of the people who claim to have seen a god are wrong. You know, 1+1=3 wrong?

---

Just because most are wrong doesn't mean that they are completely wrong. And just because you have not seen a god doesn't mean that gods do not exist.

I have never seen a Blue Whale, but many people claim to have seen them. What doe that say about the existence of Blue Whales?

Quote:

---

I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately disingenuous here, but I'll explain it slowly anyway.

The question of the OP is "Is god a projection of our thoughts only?"

Part of the evidence for that is how god/s appear in human representation. They are usually drawn to specification by people who claim to have seen one or more of them.

---

So what are you trying to say here?

Quote:

---

In the case of Jesus Christ, if a human as described in the christian bible actually lived, he was not blond. Someone seeing him as a blond can be shown to be wrong.

It doesn't disprove his godliness, but it certainly proves that that person's projection of JC is indeed only thought.

---

How is that relevant?

Quote:

---

Well, if I add up 2 billion christians, 2 billion muslims, a billion hindus and another billion or so people who all worship a single god or godhead, it's an assumption I'm prepared to hold.

That there are hundreds of gods is an extreme minority view. I'll give you that it's no less valid than any other god theory/ies.

---

Apparently you are asserting that you do not believe that any gods or goddesses exist, but your reasoning is the same as the reasoning of a believing religionist: God doesn't exist because I say so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

your reasoning is the same as the reasoning of a believing religionist: God doesn't exist because I say so.

---

..no it's not. His reasoning is, "It seems highly unlikely God exists because there's no independent evidence for it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Just because most are wrong doesn't mean that they are completely wrong. And just because you have not seen a god doesn't mean that gods do not exist.

I have never seen a Blue Whale, but many people claim to have seen them. What doe that say about the existence of Blue Whales?

---

That's a bad way to decide to believe in things. Logically, things which don't exist can't be proven not to exist without omniscience. So, essentially your position is that we shouldn't not believe in anything which doesn't exist. We should shape our beliefs around positive evidence. From your position, it would be unreasonable to say that leprauchans don't exist, or elves, or rainbow unicorns on Mars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

..no it's not. His reasoning is, "It seems highly unlikely God exists because there's no independent evidence for it."

---

Is that all that different from: "It is highly likely that the Gods and Goddesses exist, because there have been many reports of them over a very long period of time?"

Actually, there is much more evidence for the existence of the Gods and Goddesses than that they do not exist. While not all of the evidence has been corroborated, there have been some corroborating experiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Actually, there is much more evidence for the existence of the Gods and Goddesses than that they do not exist.

---

Such as?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

That's a bad way to decide to believe in things. Logically, things which don't exist can't be proven not to exist without omniscience. So, essentially your position is that we shouldn't not believe in anything which doesn't exist. We should shape our beliefs around positive evidence. From your position, it would be unreasonable to say that leprauchans don't exist, or elves, or rainbow unicorns on Mars.

---

That was my point exactly. That I have never seen a Blue Whale means nothing as to whether Blue Whales exist. Similarly, just because you have never met any of the Gods and Goddesses, means nothing to the discussion of whether they exist.

I don't know anything about "rainbow unicorns on Mars", but it is very likely that leprechauns and elves existed in the past, and stories about them came through the millennia as folk tales. It is very illogical to think that something does not exist simply because one would prefer that it didn't exist.

When the discussion iis of Gods and Goddesses, then the rules of evidence should be regarded so they reflect the abilities and skills of the various Gods and Goddesses. Then there are the Gods and Godesses that clearly exist, Mother Earth for example, and Bacchus is wine. If you claim that those two deities do not exist, then I would wonder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Is that all that different from: "It is highly likely that the Gods and Goddesses exist, because there have been many reports of them over a very long period of time?"

Actually, there is much more evidence for the existence of the Gods and Goddesses than that they do not exist. While not all of the evidence has been corroborated, there have been some corroborating experiences.

---

Okay - I can't help myself. What's the documented corroboration?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Such as?

---

Do you doubt the existence of the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, or any of the other planets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Okay - I can't help myself. What's the documented corroboration?

---

Have you ever read the Bible or any other religious scripture? If not, then you should. I will not vouch for the accuracy of any of those, but they existand are widely accepted as truthful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Have you ever read the Bible or any other religious scripture? If not, then you should. I will not vouch for the accuracy of any of those, but they existand are widely accepted as truthful.

---

I have. A lot. I know the Bible - both Testaments - better than most Christians. But as the existence of God is the guiding premise of the work, it can hardly be taken as independent corroboration, can it?

Would you say that the proof of fairies existing was a book written by a man who believed fairies exist?

Actually, you probably would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I have. A lot. I know the Bible - both Testaments - better than most Christians. But as the existence of God is the guiding premise of the work, it can hardly be taken as independent corroboration, can it?

---

Did I say anything about independent corroboration? If that's what you want, then you might consider the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. His opinion would be considered independent, if he had not become a Christian.

[/QUOTE]Would you say that the proof of fairies existing was a book written by a man who believed fairies exist?

Actually, you probably would.[/QUOTE]

No, I would not, at least not by itself. Elves and faeries have been features of literature for a few millenia, and it appers that they were a part of pre-literate story telling. I don't know when they originated, but the wide distribution of stories about them suggests that they may have originated from pygmies, either the ones in Africa or others pygmy peoples around the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Just because most are wrong doesn't mean that they are completely wrong. And just because you have not seen a god doesn't mean that gods do not exist.

---

I did say just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

I have never seen a Blue Whale, but many people claim to have seen them. What doe that say about the existence of Blue Whales?

---

Excellent analogy, thanks; I've never seen a blue whale either!

I have pictures of blue whales. I have also been to the museum and seen the skeleton of one. I have seen videos of them and I know that Whalewatch in Kaikoura runs boats out to see them when they pass NZ.

When the same level of evidence is presented for god/s, I'll start believing they exist as well.

I love that analogy - it's pretty common, but as you see, it places the onus of evidence onto theists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Apparently you are asserting that you do not believe that any gods or goddesses exist, but your reasoning is the same as the reasoning of a believing religionist: God doesn't exist because I say so.

---

Exactly this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

..no it's not. His reasoning is, "It seems highly unlikely God exists because there's no independent evidence for it."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Is that all that different from: "It is highly likely that the Gods and Goddesses exist, because there have been many reports of them over a very long period of time?"

---

This is when we start applying a little intelligence to the situation and goes back to why I have stressed the "one, true god" point.

If I believe all of the people who claim to have a relationship with this one god chappie, I find a terrible conundrum - there is more than one god! Which group do I believe?

When anecdotal evidence conflicts, you ignore it. Have you ever studied eyewitness testimony? I used to run security courses for bank staff at risk of armed robbery. They were told that they would be tested on their observation skills. An armed robber would then burst in and spend 4-5 minutes in full view of the audience.

Each staff member then went away and filled in a form describing this person they had been watching for several minutes.

There was no consistency at all, and even things like the colour of his clothing was never better then a 40% success rate.

We don't covict people of crime on hearsay evidence, and I'm certainly most uncomfortable with it when it pertains to something I cannot see, hear or touch and for which not one single piece of physical evidence has ever been presented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Actually, there is much more evidence for the existence of the Gods and Goddesses than that they do not exist. While not all of the evidence has been corroborated, there have been some corroborating experiences.

---

This I disagree with completely.

As above, if anecdotal evidence is removed, there is none at all.

Theists cannot even agree on where their sky-daddy chap was buried! The event of his resurrection is the single defining moment of christianity, yet nobody can say with certainty where it happened. The shroud from Turin has been proven fake and it's known that many alleged miracles - holy fire, levitating host and the like, are actually simple parlour tricks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Then there are the Gods and Godesses that clearly exist, Mother Earth for example, and Bacchus is wine. If you claim that those two deities do not exist, then I would wonder.

---

Nobody claims they don't exist. What's in doubt is their godliness. Do some people really believe wine is a god?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Did I say anything about independent corroboration?

---

Yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Actually, there is much more evidence for the existence of the Gods and Goddesses than that they do not exist. While not all of the evidence has been corroborated, there have been some corroborating experiences.

---

bolding mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Excellent analogy, thanks; I've never seen a blue whale either!

I have pictures of blue whales. I have also been to the museum and seen the skeleton of one. I have seen videos of them and I know that Whalewatch in Kaikoura runs boats out to see them when they pass NZ.

When the same level of evidence is presented for god/s, I'll start believing they exist as well.

I love that analogy - it's pretty common, but as you see, it places the onus of evidence onto theists.

---

Then you should start believing that the Gods and the Goddesses exist, because the evidence is on the same level as the evidence for te existence of Blue Whales.

Quote:

---

This is when we start applying a little intelligence to the situation and goes back to why I have stressed the "one, true god" point.

If I believe all of the people who claim to have a relationship with this one god chappie, I find a terrible conundrum - there is more than one god! Which group do I believe?

---

The matter of "the one true god" is very different from the matter of actual Gods and Goddesses. I was raised to believe in that one true god, but now I believe in a large number of Gods and Goddesses. Remember that the chief god of the Hebrews was just one of the gods of the Canaanites.

Quote:

---

When anecdotal evidence conflicts, you ignore it. Have you ever studied eyewitness testimony? I used to run security courses for bank staff at risk of armed robbery. They were told that they would be tested on their observation skills. An armed robber would then burst in and spend 4-5 minutes in full view of the audience.

Each staff member then went away and filled in a form describing this person they had been watching for several minutes.

There was no consistency at all, and even things like the colour of his clothing was never better then a 40% success rate.

We don't covict people of crime on hearsay evidence, and I'm certainly most uncomfortable with it when it pertains to something I cannot see, hear or touch and for which not one single piece of physical evidence has ever been presented.

---

WHen evidence is incnsistant, we weigh the sources. People are regularly convicted on hearsay evidence. Such evidence is ofte given as part of a larger case. There are some people who can look at a scene for a fw seconds and describe everything there in detail, while other people wouldn't recognise anything.

Quote:

---

This I disagree with completely.

As above, if anecdotal evidence is removed, there is none at all.

Theists cannot even agree on where their sky-daddy chap was buried! The event of his resurrection is the single defining moment of christianity, yet nobody can say with certainty where it happened. The shroud from Turin has been proven fake and it's known that many alleged miracles - holy fire, levitating host and the like, are actually simple parlour tricks.

---

You can believe whatever you want to, but please keep in mind that different people place different weights on different kinds of evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Nobody claims they don't exist. What's in doubt is their godliness. Do some people really believe wine is a god?

---

If you don't believe that the Earth is a Goddess, that's your business. It's a matter of definitions, and similarly with Bacchus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Then you should start believing that the Gods and the Goddesses exist, because the evidence is on the same level as the evidence for te existence of Blue Whales.

---

Oh. Can you please direct me to the skeleton of Jesus or other physical evidence which is the standard of that for blue whales? DNA would be helpful as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

The matter of "the one true god" is very different from the matter of actual Gods and Goddesses. I was raised to believe in that one true god, but now I believe in a large number of Gods and Goddesses. Remember that the chief god of the Hebrews was just one of the gods of the Canaanites.

---

Each to their own - I'm quite happy for you to have that belief. What the Canaanites are alleged to have believed has no more relevance than Australian Aborigines believing the earth is actually a rainbow serpent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

WHen evidence is incnsistant, we weigh the sources. People are regularly convicted on hearsay evidence.

---

That is incorrect.

Anecdotal evidence may be used to add to other evidence, but convictions on anecdotal/hearsay evidence alone are unknown in modern western justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

It's a matter of definitions, and similarly with Bacchus.

---

That's why I asked.

You appeared to be stating that wine is a god. Is that correct? I'm not arguing whether you're right or not, just seeking clarification of your views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Oh. Can you please direct me to the skeleton of Jesus or other physical evidence which is the standard of that for blue whales? DNA would be helpful as well.

---

Jesus is completely irrelevant, unless you are interested in prophets. The Goddess is right under your feet.

Quote:

---

That is incorrect.

Anecdotal evidence may be used to add to other evidence, but convictions on anecdotal/hearsay evidence alone are unknown in modern western justice.

---

You are mistaken. When the evidence, bith documentary and anecdotal, is inconsistent, one weighs the evidence. If you personally do otherwise, that's your business. Judicial actions are another matter, but people are convicted every day based on lies, anecdotes, etc., but that is not what the present discussion is about.

Quote:

---

You appeared to be stating that wine is a god. Is that correct? I'm not arguing whether you're right or not, just seeking clarification of your views.

---

Yes, Bacchus is wine, and Bacchus is a God. Do you have a problem with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Yes, Bacchus is wine, and Bacchus is a God. Do you have a problem with that?

---

Hands up anyone here who doesn't have a problem with that, except as a literary conceit. So - to be clear - please say 'hic' if you think that Bacchus is a god. (That's a very satisfying two-language pun, by the way.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Hands up anyone here who doesn't have a problem with that, except as a literary conceit. So - to be clear - please say 'hic' if you think that Bacchus is a god. (That's a very satisfying two-language pun, by the way.)

---

Bacchus is a God - note the initial capital. Small 'g' gods are a dime a hundred, but there are only some dozens of capital 'g' Gods.

Very few hands up so far.

Perhaps it would help if we had some context. What are some of the other capital-G Gods?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Very few hands up so far.

Perhaps it would help if we had some context. What are some of the other capital-G Gods?

---

Godzilla?

http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/...20503_460b.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Very few hands up so far.

Perhaps it would help if we had some context. What are some of the other capital-G Gods?

---

Dyeus Pater (AKA Zeus, AKA Jupiter), Poseidon, Aphrodite, Dhergom Mater (AKA Demeter), Aries, Yemos, Mannus, Perkwúno, Gouwinda, Ekwamedha, Pauson, Ba'al, Moloch, El, Ishtar, and so on.

There will now be a period of silence while we all contemplate how to respond to that.

It's the "and so on" that bothers me. I believe the Hindu faith has millions of gods/Gods. Do they get a capital? And what about in Hebrew, which has no capitals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dafydd manton

It's the "and so on" that bothers me. I believe the Hindu faith has millions of gods/Gods. Do they get a capital? And what about in Hebrew, which has no capitals?

---

Some of the Hindu Gods are proper ones, but most re alternative terms or just stories. I gave up trying to figure them out pretty quickly, because many of the so-called gods were warriors from the period when the Hindus were invading India.

The Hebrews were Canaanites, so you will find their Gods listed with the other Canaanite gods and Goddesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Some of the Hindu Gods are proper ones, but most re alternative terms or just stories. I gave up trying to figure them out pretty quickly, because many of the so-called gods were warriors from the period when the Hindus were invading India.

The Hebrews were Canaanites, so you will find their Gods listed with the other Canaanite gods and Goddesses.

---

Not quite. The faithful Hebrews were NOT Canaanites, far from it. They were exclusively monotheistic, and the name of their God was well recorded. Admittedly, many turned away from him, and followed gods such as Chemosh, Malcam, Baal and so forth, all of which only get a capital in English because they are proper nouns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

There will now be a period of silence while we all contemplate how to respond to that.

---

If you are interested, I convey blessings, carry messages, perform weddings, funerals, and other such events in the nameof whichever God of Goddess you prefer. I do common worship services if asked politely and paid liberally, but I prefer to avoid such things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Jesus is completely irrelevant, unless you are interested in prophets. The Goddess is right under your feet.

---

There's a planet under my feet. I have severe doubts as to its godliness, however, although it may depend on how you measure what is a god. Your interpretation seems to be pretty loose:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Yes, Bacchus is wine, and Bacchus is a God. Do you have a problem with that?

---

A problem with you believing it? Not at all.

A problem with believing it myself? Yes indeed; I think it's sillier than the Cottingley Fairies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

There's a planet under my feet. I have severe doubts as to its godliness, however, although it may depend on how you measure what is a god. Your interpretation seems to be pretty loose:

---

My interpretation isn't as loose as the definition of people who say that someone who claimed to be a seeker of divine truth was actually a gos, even after he denied it.

Quote:

---

A problem with you believing it? Not at all.

A problem with believing it myself? Yes indeed; I think it's sillier than the Cottingley Fairies.

---

Everyone believes what he, or she, wants to believe. Wine is a better god than most. At least wine will do something for you, even if you are not a believer.

From one perspective, there is no infinite.
From the other perspective, there is no finite.

God is the infinite - there is only one God, one reality. God is reality. People from different religions fight with each other only if they don't understand this. If they don't, then Buddhists will say that Hinduism is wrong because of some way they describe reality, and actually Buddhism is correct. But they will only say this if they have no real understanding of that reality - that it is infinite peace, bliss, knowledge, and existence.

There is no way to prove to an atheist that God, that the Absolute, exists. It took me most of my life to break free of my strongly held atheist views. The first time I did was when I realized that all this had a source, that the universe had a source. I was quite happy because there was absolutely nothing illogical about this, and I thought I could share it with other atheists. At the moment I realized that, I stepped from being as absolutely an atheist as Mark, The Atheist, or anyone else, to realizing that there was more to it than I thought.

A couple years later I had a direct experience of reality. I experienced what Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, and Sufi mystics have once in a while seen throughout time. I cannot explain it any better than Alduous Huxley, whose seemingly simple statement contains an unknown and yet absolutely essential truth. "When the doors of perception are cleansed, all will appear to man as it is, infinite." Everything that is, is infinite. It seems like nonsense to those who say there is no infinite. From the other side, however, it's seen that there is only Reality, and nothing more. This existence is something like a dream. We think we are limited, we think we are separate from reality. When we realize that we are connected to the Source of Being, we experience that all we had thought before is nothing. It seems so far away because we feel so limited - we are ingrained with ideas that we are inherently flawed, incomplete, lacking, imperfect. There is no greater affront than to say one is perfect. When we experience our Source for the very first time it is like awakening a thousand times, like an evolution of sorts, a thousand times. A thousand times all of our doubts, fears, misconceptions are stripped away, our karma is burst open to reveal something new.

The idea we are imperfect, incomplete and lacking is so ingrained into us, and yet it is wholly false. In this realm of subjectivity we have a great control over our lives and our reality. Our physical body alone is subject to interpretation. For some it is weak and impish; and for others it is a veritable universe of immense harmony and beauty. Taoism and Buddhism and Hinduism all revealed this truth in a surprising way.

When I experienced my connection to the Source of Being for the first time, it was like waking up from a dream, literally and absolutely. Knowing that I came from the Source, was like feeling my feet on the ground for the very first time - although this simpler analogy doesn't capture the encompassing feeling of suddenly every level of my being knowing absolutely that I was whole and complete. My range of being - and your range of being - is not what you and I have been deluded into thinking: my physical body, ending at my skin, the sum of my conscious actions. It also includes my subconscious actions, such as growing my hair, growing my bones and the rest.

The truth I am expressing is the unity of all opposites. It's the answer to every desire, every question, every need, every pain. The answer to every question we, as a race, ever wondered is there within every one of us. Consider a somewhat hapless humanity, wondering, wondering. The answer is there within, and a necessary component is non-duality. When you realize what you really are, the universe, you no longer have any doubt or question unanswered. It's not a piece of knowledge that can be spoken, and heard and simply known. It's an individual, personal experience which is also universal. It's found in Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Native American spirituality - these that I know of. As Black Elk said, Only when men know they are one with the universe will they know peace in their souls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

The idea we are imperfect, incomplete and lacking is so ingrained into us...

---

Speak for yourself, bub.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Speak for yourself, bub.

---

Are you completely blind to context? I'm sorry it's just your posts always show this!!! I don't know how to say it otherwise - are you completely blind to it? The very. next. words. were. it is wholly false.

Thanks for shedding your brilliant personality all over the place.

Ooo-er!

God is real. God is infinite. The alpha and omega.

He made us in his image. And he loves us ^^

just thought I'd throw that out there